Collection British Library Maintainer Stefan Baums
Contents SaṅgCm Parallels Scribes BLS15
Frame 29–32 Fragment 15 Other ID J7
Type Composite Date 1‒100 Basis for date internal, paleography
Medium Birch bark Findspot Haḍḍa, Afghanistan ? Last known location British Library, London, United Kingdom
Dimensions (cm) 17.5 × 115 Lines (r) 180 Lines (v) 185
Editions Salomon 1999, 138; Baums 2009, 21, 52–3; Baums 2014, 26–8 Other refs. Salomon 1997, 355; Nattier 2003, 129; Skilling 2010.2, 18–9; Lin 2011, 154–6, 165, 178; Baums 2012, 214, 229; Anālayo 2013, 2; Salomon 2013.2, 13–6; Baums 2014.4, 197; Baums 2015.2, 411–3; Stuart 2015, 250, 303, 441; Schlosser+ 2016, 53, 55–8, 65–6, 69–73
Comments Half of this text (frame 30 recto, ll. 2–6, 14–16, 18–40; frame 31 recto, ll. 1, 8–27, 34–57; frame 32 recto, ll. 1–7; frame 31 verso, ll. 4–61a; frame 30 verso) was transcribed in meetings of the Early Buddhist Manuscripts Project between February 2006 and June 2008. The other half (frame 29 recto; frame 30 recto, ll. 1, 7–13, 17; frame 31 recto, ll. 2–7a, 28–33; frame 32 recto, ll. 8–68; frame 32 verso; frame 31 verso, ll. 1–3; frame 29 verso) was transcribed by Stefan Baums and Andrew Glass in a series of Seattle coffee‐shop sessions in November and December 2008. – Lexical markup by Stefan Baums (2010-08-20). – Edition in progress by Stefan Baums (sections two to four) and Collett Cox, Timothy Lenz and Richard Salomon (sections five to eight).

A Preliminary Survey of Some Early Buddhist Manuscripts Recently Acquired by the British Library
Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhāra: The British Library Kharoṣṭhī Fragments
A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path according to The Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā)
A Gāndhārī Commentary on Early Buddhist Verses: British Library Kharoṣṭhī Fragments 7, 9, 13 and 18
Scriptural Authority and the Śrāvaka Schools: An Essay towards an Indian Perspective
The antarābhava Dispute among Abhidharma Traditions and the List of anāgāmins
Catalog and Revised Texts and Translations of Gandharan Reliquary Inscriptions
Summaries of the Dharma: A Translation of Dīrgha‐āgama Discourse No. 12
The Discovery of Early Buddhist Manuscripts and Their Significance for the History of Indian Buddhism
Truth and Scripture in Early Buddhism: Categorial Reduction as Exegetical Method in Ancient Gandhāra and Beyond
Gandhāran Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type
Commentary: Overview
A Less Traveled Path: Saddharmasmṛtyupasthānasūtra Chapter 2: Critically Edited with a Study on Its Structure and Significance for the Development of Buddhist Meditation
Abhidharmic Elements in Gandhāran Mahāyāna Buddhism: Groups of Four and the abhedyaprasādas in the Bajaur Mahāyāna Sūtra
31R

40. . . . trae kas̱avastue · aḏiḏaṃ ba arabha kas̱e[t]i aṇaḵaḏaṃ ba pracupaṃṇa · acaüṭ́haapaṃcama · kas̱a · kas̱ikavaḏe . . .

47. . . . vistaro trihi vijahi . . .

32R

25. . . . (U) [saṃ]kṣitama[ṃtr]o ducari[ḏehi] aṇariehi voharehi ahare[hi] · d[uehi sama]ḏaṇehi · grathehi · śalehi uvaḏaṇehi · samu[ḏao] /// (*vuto · yoṇihi duho vuto)

26. (*su)///[ca]riḏ[e]h[i] duehi [ca] samaḏaṇehi mago v[u]to · caḏuhi ariehi voharehi ṇiros̱o vuto ◦ . . .

32V

15. . . . ariha ḏ[i] vimutiḏa saṃmasaṃbudho ḏi ñaṇiḏa puruṣ̱adaṃmasaras̱i ḏi dhaṃmeṇa ⟪vi⟫ uṭ́hav[i]ḏa [sa]ras̱iṇa praḏiṭhaveḏ[i] budho bhaḵa///(*va śasta devamaṇuṣaṇa ḏi)

16. (*viṣ̱avi)///[ḏa] . . .

50. . . . [a]varo payao śilaviś̱udhi daśaṇabhu[mi] soḏavatiḏa cita⟪viś̱udhi⟫ [ta]ṇuabhumi sayiḏaḵamiḏa /// (*driṭhiviś̱udhi)

51. (*bha)///vaṇabhumi aṇaḵamiḏa aṇavhiṇiveś̱e kaṃkṣavi[va]ra[ṇa]viś̱u[dhi k]i(*ḏav)‍[iḏa ara]hapo savakaṃkṣaṇa samaḏikramo . . .

Sources: Salomon 1999, Baums 2014, Baums 2009
Three Samādhis
(apparently chips or flipovers)
Three Eṣaṇās
Three Ādhipateyas
Three Dhātus (1)
Three Dhātus (3)
(Between these two lines, a delaminated and apparently dislocated strip. Judging from the verso, it attaches two major strips down (recto) / up (verso).)
Three Skandhas
Four Ārakṣyas of the Tathāgata
Five Kāmaguṇas
Five Nīvaraṇas
Five (Upādāna)skandhas
Five Avarabhāgīya‐Saṃyojanas
Five Ūrdhvabhāgīya‐Saṃyojanas
Five Indriyas
Five Balas
Five Adhārmika‐Codanās
Five Dhārmika‐Codanās
Five Mātsaryas
Five Vimuktiparipācana‐Saṃjñās
Five Niḥsaraṇīya‐Dhātus
Five Vimuktyāyatanas
Six Adhyātmikāyatanas + Six Bāhyāyatanas + Six Dhātus
Six Tṛṣṇākāyas
Six Dhātus
Six Upavicāras
Six Anuttaryas
Seven Asaddharmas
Seven Saddharmas
Seven Vijñanasthitis
Atra pi or atra va or ātāpin?
E mistake for a, or maybe ha corrected to a.
Parallels: S‐s. (P) III 219 (no. l), S‐s. (Turfan) p. 88 (no. 44), S‐s. (T 1) 50b1 (no. 23), S.‐s. (T 12) 228a, S‐p. 389b (no. 44). Turfan (and S‐p.?) have a different set of three samādhis in place of this. G and T 1 have this set (in two different orders). P and T 12 have both sets, one following the other
Matam?
The meaning of avaḏara is unclear, but it is apparently contrasted with *nirupalabdhitā. [OLD: Mistake for anyatara?]
*Nirupalabdhitā ‘nonapprehensionness’.
Mistake for nirovaladhiḏa?
This is a glueline with fancy stitching visible on the outer side. The 1–6 bit needs to be turned 180 degrees and connects with the 14 ff. bit. [OLD: Is this a glueline? But why then does the first line after it seem to be cut off in the middle?]
Parallels: S‐s. (P) III 216 (no. xxii), S‐s. (Turfan) p. 68 f. (no. 14), S‐s. (T 1) 50a24 (no. 16), S.‐s. (T 12) 227c22, S‐p. 383a (no. 24).
Parallels: S‐s. (P) III 220 (no. lvi), S‐s. (Turfan) p. 90 (no. 48), S‐s. (T 1) 50a24 (no. 17), S.‐s. (T 12) 228a24–25, S‐p. 390b (no. 48).
Chin. S.‐pary. 390b6.
Idri = indriya as synonym of ādhipateya (see also the indriya section below).
Dṛṣṭi?
Looks like correction, maybe ma over tva.
P hiri‐ottappa ‘shame & fear of sin.’
Probably haritavya.
Four fears (of jāti, jarā, vyādhi, maraṇa)?
Parallels: S‐s. (P) III 215 (no. xi), S‐s. (Turfan) p. 66 (no. 7), S‐s. (T 1) 50a25 (no. 18), S.‐s. (T 12) 227c26–27, S‐p. 378b24 (no. 7) (on p. 378b the commentary refers to the Dharmaskandha).
Cf. l. 31.48 for ṇekhama, and ponder the naiṣkramya/ṇaiṣkāmya question.
Parallels: S‐s. (P) III 215 (no. xiv), S‐s. (Turfan) p. 66 (no. 9), S‐s. (T 1) 50a27–28 (no. 20), S.‐s. (T 12) — (?), S‐p. 378c2 (no. 8)
Might be the same line as l. 30.26.
Vimokṣa? (Cf. Senavarma [CKI 249] l. 5b vaṇavala‐vimoha‐samasi‐samavati‐sapratipurasa).
Cf. line ED4. [OLD: Even though the second akṣara does not look like it, could this be saṃñavaṇa as in the following line?]
Is this maybe maṇeṇa = Skt. manasā? (The thing in the middle is faint and conceivably pen drag rather than an e mātrā.)
Is this for bhedā (abl.)?
[OLD: Is this P saññāpana ‘convincing’?]
The following appears to be a summary (and/or commentary on an uddāna) of the second group of ten sets in the section of Threes. (Roman numerals refer to the order of items in the Chin. DĀ section – and presumably also in the G, with the occasional possible exception.) It presents the ten sets pretty much in the order that they occur in the sūtra, groups them, and assigns each of the resulting groups to one of the Four Noble Truths in the order maga, dukha, samudaya and ṇiros̱a. SB: This is very similar to what the verse commentary in BL 7, 9, 13, 18 does throughout. – The Turfan S‐s. has antaroddānas after each group of ten. Is it possible that the commentary is here commenting on an uddāna? CHECK also the uddānas in S.‐p. (Chin.) 376b9–11, 378c10–11, etc. Other Chinese Abhidharma texts (TC: and the Yogācārabhūmi) also have commentary on uddānas. – Cf. the corresponding summary section for I to X of the Section of Fives in ll. 31.39.
Ādhipateyebhiḥ.
The scribe seems to have made a mistake in originally putting mago after puña‐kria‐vastuhi. He subsequently corrected this by inserting mago interlinearly in this spot (after the terms that actually make sense as part of the Path, but not as part of Suffering). He did not, however, bother to cross out the original mago in its wrong position. Also, visually the mago insertion appears to precede ya, but surely it is meant to come after ya. (SB: This procedure may also indicate that the mistake was not one of copying, but of composition, i.e., that the scribe/author of the commentary realized he had incorrectly grouped his items, then corrected himself. CC/TL: Or maybe he did just skip a line when copying the mago bit.)
How many akṣaras are missing between lines here? It is tempting to see ? ? ṇa ya in the beginning of the next line as continuation of this, but the ? ? does not really look like dhaḏu.
Like with the preceding line, it is tempting to see ? ca vuta in the next line as the continuation of this line, with very little or no akṣaras missing between these two lines.
Or is this nirodhaś ca mārgaś coktāḥ? – Note how this summary (and/or commentary on a hypothetical uddāna) follows the grouping of the Chin. DĀ version, and apparently even its order. This suggests that the strips with the Three Śikṣās and the Three Samādhis are in fact not in their proper place in the frame (see above and CHECK further). – Three items are apparently not recapitulated separately: «XVIIIb» vyāpādadhātu, «XIXb» avyāpādadhātu, «XIXc» vihimṣādhātu, XXb ārūpyadhātu.
Definition of kadha as group of things (RS)?
P āhaṭa ‘brought, carried’ as explanation of (sam)āhita (SB)?
Possibly śegaḏa = śaikṣatā?
Ṇirosa?
This could be XXVII ([kāma]upapatti[mūla]), XXXI (vihāra), XXXII (codanā), or XXXV (soceyya).
Is this for sort‐of‐inspected sukhupapattiyo?
Additional punctuation dot lower in the line?
Is this somehow a mistake for aññātāvindriya, one of the indriyas.
Parallels: Turfan p. 78 (Section Three, no. 30), P Ss D III 217 (Section Three, no. 30), Chin. DĀ 51b2 (no. 36), Chin. Ss 229c, Chin. Sp ?? [COMPLETE].
What does this mean? Cf. DN‐a III 992 on this.
Maybe arakkhiya ‘unnecessary to be guarded ... (Tathāgata)’ (PTSD). Cf. also PTSD arakkheyya. And note in particular the tīṇi tathāgatassa ārakkheyyāni (earlier in S‐s., DN III 217).
Compare maybe aparamoṣado in BL 13·34., and cf. BHSD s.v. asaṃmoṣa.
End‐of‐word flourish?
Kho?
Corrected from something, maybe from ra.
CHECK: vistareṇa or something maybe?
Super‐short version of Noble‐Truth summary section?
The Chin. DĀ version has Five Āyatanas here. P has Five Kāmaguṇas, but for each gives a formula relating them to the Āyatanas, and this formula (cakkhu‐viññeya‐rūpa etc.) is apparently what constitutes this group in the G. [RECHECK: G order: kāmaguṇa, nīvaraṇa, upādānaskandha, avarabhāgīyasaṃyojana, ?, indriya, bala; DĀ order: āyatana, upādānaskandha, nīvaraṇa, avarabhāgīyasaṃyojana, ūrdhvabhāgīyasaṃyojana, indriya, bala, nirodha (?).]
The second akṣara looks like a ḵa corrected to a bha. CHECK S‐p. (Chin.) 415a20–21, which may have an equivalent of this word.
Parallels: DN III 234 no. iii, Turfan V 3 (p. 133).
Parallels(?): DN III 234 no. vi, Turfan V 6 (p. 135).
= P asanniṭṭhānalakkhana (see PTSD s.v. sanniṭṭhāna; TL).
Expected reading raḵo.
Parallels: DN III 233f. no. i or ii, Turfan V 1 or 2 (p. 130 or 133).
Interlinear addition at end of lines, probably referring to following line rather than preceding.
Parallel: DN III 234 no. vii, Turfan V 9 (p. 141).
= Kaṇṭhakāpāśraya `(ascetics) who lie on beds of thorns’ (BHSD s.v.)?
*Bilāpāśraya ‘living in holes’?
O corrected from u?
Skt. nirukti or *nairukti?
Or vudha?
Parallel: DN III 234 no. viii, Turfan V 10 (p. 142).
Skt. nirukti or *nairukti?, see l. 31.16 above.
Parallel: DN III 239 no. xxiii, Turfan V 20 (p. 153), Saṅgīti abhidharmaśāstra (Chin.) 435c. This is the second of three sets of indriyas in Pali, and the first of two in the Turfan Saṅgīti. Cf. BL 2 ll. 18 f.: palaïdrigo viridrigo śpavi[dr.] ? ... spadi[idrigo].
Skt. ādhipatya as explanation of indriya. See BHSD s.v. ādhipateya with reference to Śikṣ 117.3: cakṣurindriyādhipateyā rūpāraṃbaṇaprativijñaptiḥ ‘recognition of the sense‐object form, which (recognition) is controlled by (= dependent on) the sense of sight’.
Are these forms for ‐as̱ivaḏeeṇa, in an effort to evoid the sequence of similar vowels (cf. maybe Brough on such a principle; RS).
Present participle of śrad‐dhā‐.
Oblique case of mātṛ?
Karma‐kāra.
Senā‐upamā? Are these two comparisons, first with members of a household, then with the parts of an army? But why do the five indriyas seem to be split up two‐three between the two similes, even though the text says senaüama katava paṃcaṃṇa iṃdriaṇaṃ.
Interlinear addition above uama. Read senaüama katava paṃcaṃṇa iṃdriaṇaṃ.
On these similes, cf. maybe Atthasālinī, Milindapañha (p. 37) passages on sati, apilāpana (CC).
What looks like an o mātrā seems to be on a chip. This may be āhāraka ‘bringer, conveyor’, and the following āhāra ‘conveyor belt’. There also seems to be a word family derived from ā‐hṛ revolving around tow‐boats. Or maybe more likely, this may all be about āhāra food (CC).
Is ya miswritten for expected ṇa?
Samyaksaṃkalpa etc.
La corrected to ba? (Also in the preceding word.)
Parallel: Turfan V 21 (p. 153).
This is probably an etymology; the author of our commentary always seems to give the quote first, then an etymology, then further discussion.
Nānākaraṇa? (Old idea: nānākaraṇīya with īya > i.)
Yāvad arhattvam.
The five pradhānas / prahānas. Parallels: DN III 237 no. xvi, Turfan V 17 (p. 145), DĀ (Chin.) 51b14 (no. 8).
Rather than nidarśayitavya (SB)
Probably part of the root text. Pali has appātaṅko in this position, and the Chinese Saṅgītiparyāya has shaobing shaonao, probably corresponding to the G, and Skt. has arogajātīyaḥ.
Deleted letter before le, maybe unsuccessful attempt to write le.
Both the Chinese DĀ and Saṅgītiparyāya have zhizhi, but in the DĀ it is the first term, whereas in the latter it is the third, so our text seems to correspond more closely to the DĀ (CC). Why is akuḍena ‘not crooked’ in the instrumental though?
Amāyāvant.
[OLD: Two akṣaras seem to be covered by a chip containing: ? [ḏi/tri]o. – Read this forward as an adjective referring to mārga, cf. DĀ 51b17 jing (CC)? Or ujuama- (SB)?]
[OLD: Somewhat unexpected, as this is not in the parallels of the root text. Dittography instead of expected vīrya?] But on the other hand, in the next line śraddhā does occur in a line before prajñā. And in the Chin. DĀ, the fourth element does correspond to smṛti, thus confirming our manuscript.
That means: !1! ṣadha corresponds to the śīlaskandha, !2! apavas̱a and !3! akuḍa correspond to the samādhiskandha, and !4! śpaḏi and !5! paṃña correspond to the prajñāskandha.
Is the ṇa (here and in the precding) really missing, or was it squeezed in and we do not see it? – Parallels: DN III 236 no. xv, Skt. and Chin. Saṅgītiparyāya no. 15, DĀ (Chin.) nos. 9–10. Pali, Saṅgītiparyāya (Skt. and Chin.) combines the dharmika‐ and adharmika‐codanās, the Chin. DĀ version has them separated the same way as our text.
Pañca?
[OLD: We expect anarthasaṃhita to be explained here, so does sandhi maybe explain saṃhita?]
Pali pisuṇa, Vedic piśuṇa.
Very strange letter, looks almost like a combination of bha with ti or ri. Maybe a mistake or a correction.
Cf. the corresponding summary section in ll. 30.30 ff., covering XI to XX of the Section of Threes. [OLD: Is this summary section metrical? We tried, and it sort of worked for the first half (3 times 11 eleven syllables plus 10), but not for the second. Also, does ḵas̱a actually mean gāthā? Maybe pādas of 8 syllables work better?]
Could this be gāthā (maybe even for, or related to, udānagāthā)? CHECK whether ḵa is in fact also used initially for ga in this text (as it clearly is medially, cf. raḵa etc.).
The i of iehi is not very clear at all.
Parallels: DN III 234 (no. 5), Chin. DĀ 51b22, Skt. Saṅgītisūtra p. 133 (no. 4), Chin. Saṅgītiparyāya 415b.
Chin. DĀ has tan yue ‘donor’ instead of kula.
Order same as Pali and Chin. DĀ, but different from Skt. Saṅgītisūtra and Chin. Saṅgītiparyāya (which reverse lābha and varṇa).
Or is this kho?
LQ: All five mātsaryas can be summarized under lābhamātsarya and dharmamātsarya according to Chin. Dharmaskandha (T 1537 ch. 9 p. 495c) [CHECK Dietz, Fragmente des Dharmaskandha] and Chin. Abhidharmakośa [CHECK Skt.].
Is this really a whole lost line, or do the visible feet belong to one of the preserved lines or to an interlinear correction?
Parallels: DN III 243 (no. 26), Chin. DĀ 51b24–27 (no. 12), Skt. Saṅgītisūtra p. 148 (no. 18), Chin. Saṅgītiparyāya 423c3.
It looks like first the scribe wrote aṇava, then wrote ḏi on top of ṇa, crossed out va, and added ṇava sa‐ above the line (sa‐ maybe for saṃña, but then he wrote, or had written already, another sa in the line). [OLD: Apparently (mis)corrected from aṇica. The ṇi is visible clearly under the fat ḏi.]
Va corrected to ra?
This sentence occurs almost verbatim in Peṭ 10: dve ’mā vimuttiyo, rāgavirāgā ca cetovimutti avijjāvirāgā ca paññāvimutti; cf. Peṭ 13, 17, 68, also 123, 237, and Nett 43, 81f. (Lance Cousins, letter to RS, 2 February 2007).
Here and in the following: is this a(śaikṣa)?
Śaikṣā.
Cf. Peṭ 235: kusalo ca jahāti pāpakan ti ti sekkhavimutti; rāgadosamohakkhayā sa nibbuto ti asekkhavimutti (Lance Cousins, letter to RS, 2 February 2007).
Is this a genitive teṣām?
Paripākāya?
Saṃvartante?
Ta and the following remains of letters may be on a separate chip.
Cf. Peṭ 174: tattha katamo āvaṭṭo hāro? idaṃ pi cattāro dhammā saddhā ca paññā ca assaddhiyañ ca avijjañ ca hananti. sīlañ ca cāgo ca taṇhā ca dosañ ca hananti. tassa dve mūlāni pahīyanti. dukkhaṃ nivatteti appahīnabhūmiyañ ca dvimūlāni pañcakkhandā. dve ariyasaccāni; samatho ca vipassanā ca. dvinnaṃ mūlānaṃ pahānaṃ. imāni dve saccāni nirodho ca maggo ca. ayaṃ āvaṭṭo hāro. (Lance Cousins, letter to RS, 2 February 2007.)
Parallels: DN III 239f. (no. 24), Chin. DĀ 51b27–51c3, Skt. Saṅgītisūtra p. 157 (no. 24; note that this is almost entirely reconstructed on the basis of the Skt. Daśottara, see Stache‐Rosen’s footnote 169, which is therefore cited in the following), Chin. Saṅgītiparyāya 427b21–428b28(?). – 大集法門經 Dàjí fǎmén jing (T. 12, vol. 2, p. 230b ff., later translation) has a different beginning: ‘If a monk is attached to kāmas etc., and if he then engages in attentiveness to kāma ...’. – Looks like the DĀ also does not have positive and negative contrasting formulations. That would make the Pali the only version that has positives and negatives. – In P, the five ṇiḥsaraṇīya dhātus are: kāma, vyāpāda, vihesā, rūpa and sakkāya. There is also a list of six ṇiḥsaraṇīya dhātus (later in the Saṅgīti, and thus maybe coming up in our manuscript): vyāpāda, vihesā, arati, rāga, sabba‐nimitta and vicikicchā‐kathaṃkathā‐salla.
Does not look like the āryaśrāvaka of Daśottara, which was reconstructed on the basis of an AN passage (ed. Mittal p. 68 fn. 1). – On the basis of Saṅgīti‐paryāya and DĀ Saṅgīti, we expect a word for ‘noble disciple.’
This reading is uncertain. The visible ink does not actually extend above the main part of the presumed va, but there is a break where the upper part of an i mātrā would have been. Contextually, we probably expect something like a verbal prefix vi‐ or vi = api?
Is this a part of the root text that is neither in P nor in Daśottara (check the various Chin. texts for this word), or is it maybe a one‐word gloss? – Cf. maybe saṃbhoḏi later in this line.
Compare P samanussarati. Skt. Daśottara: kāmān anusmarataḥ (but apparently, maybe partially, reconstructed – check). Positionally and semantically, this also corresponds to P kāme manasikaroto.
P has kāmesu here, and Daśottara also has kāmeṣu, so we really expect kamehi, and it seems very likely that ṇamehi is a scribal mistake.
Daśottara cittaṃ na praskandati, P cittaṃ na pakkhandati. The first letter actually looks more like a ṇa, which would presumably be a mistake for pra under influence of the preceding ṇa.
Daśottara na prasīdati, P na ppasīdati.
Daśottara na santiṣṭhate, P na santiṭṭhati. Is this a miscopying of tiṭ́haḏi, or a phonetic development ti > ci (cf. Prakrit ciṭṭhadi, check in OvH Mittelindisch).
Daśottara na vimucyate, P na vimuccati.
[OLD: This seems to be an additional verb, but different from the additional verbs in the Daśottara (and maybe Chin. Saṅgīti‐paryāya, check). Sambhavati does not seem to be a good fit semantically. P has the words tassa taṃ (cittaṃ) in this position. – Is this somehow related to [vi] sa bh[u]ḏ[o/i] in the beginning of this line?]
Maybe ṇisaro, and somehow related to ṇiḥsaraṇa (the topic of this section)?
These three words correspond positionally to P suvuṭṭhitaṃ suvimuttaṃ.
‘With burning’? (Cf. the similarly problematic Senavarma 12a advarasa and the translation note on that in Salomon 1986.)
Mistake for ta = tad?
Looks more like si.
Crossed‐out letter?
Is this [r/b]itraṇa?
The beginning of the vimuktyāyatana section would be right about here, and we expect it to have the text paṃca vimuti‐ayaḏaṇaṇi iśa bhikṣuṇo or something very much like it. The first visible akṣara bits in this this line do, however, not look very much like any of these words. [RECHECK] – Parallels: DN III 241 (no. 25), Chin. DĀ 51c3 (no. 14), Skt. Saṅgītisūtra p. 149 (no. 19; reference to Daśottarasūtra V 9; Chin. Daśottarasūtra: DĀ 53c15), Chin. Saṅgītiparyāya 424a4. Also quoted in Abhk‐vy. 54.1 ff. – General picture: Skt. and Chin. have two additions over P: samāhita‐citto ... virakto vimucyate and yatra sthitasya ... nirvāṇam anuprāpnoti. G, interestingly, shares the first addition with the Skt., but apparently not the second.
Reconstructed single anyatara instead of double following the P (because it seems to be the closest parallel in other places), but we cannot rule out double anyatarānyatara (CHECK which works out better spacewise).
There would seem to be room for another 10 akṣaras at the end of this line, but it is not clear whta text could have filled it. We very much need to RECHECK the amount of missing space in the beginnings and ends of lines for all of this part of the manuscript, once we have a better overview.
Word order here like in P vs. Turfan Skt. and Abhk‐vy.
Singular here like P vs. Turfan Skt. and Abhk‐vy.
Ca in common with P vs. Turfan Skt. and Abhk‐vy
Reconstructed without ca following P and Turfan Skt. vs. Abhk‐vy.
Reconstructed with jāyate instead of utpadyate following P vs. Skt.
Reconstructed with prīti vs. prīta following P vs. Skt.
See here Stache‐Rosen’s endnote 116. In the Skt. Daśottara (and by implication Saṅgīti), the first āyatana ends here. Also in the Pali. But Abhk‐vy continues(!), and so do Chin. DĀ Saṅgītisūtra, Chin. DĀ Daśottarasūtra [CHECK], Chin. Saṅgītiparyāya, and the late Saṅgīti translation (T 12).
Pen drag marks between ci and te.
Abhk‐vy has prajānāti here followed by yathābhūtaṃ paśyati yathābhūtaṃ prajānan.
Abhk‐vy in addition has yathābhūtaṃ paśyan here.
Abhk‐vy virakto.
Did our manuscript also have a concluding phrase idaṃ prathamaṃ vimuktyāyatanam (like P and Skt.)?
MA: Cf. P khīṇā jāti vusitaṃ brahmacariyaṃ kataṃ karaṇīyaṃ nāparaṃ itthattāyā ti pajānāti; e.g., DN I 84, MN III 244 (MA). The version at the end of the P Dārukkhandhasutta reads nāparaṃ itthattāyā ti abbhaññāsi where the G (RS 19) has ṇavara tatva ? payaṇami
Is this maybe priya, but for some reason without the r?
Or maybe śi with omission of left leg?
Hāna‐bhāgīya, cf. VI 9 in S.‐s. Turfan. – Cf. particularly DN III 277 katame cattāro dhammā duppaṭivijjhā? cattāro samādhī hānabhāgiyo samādhi, ṭhitibhāgiyo samādhi, visesabhāgiyo samādhi, nibbedhabhāgiyo samādhi; ime cattāro dhammā duppaṭivijjhā, and several other P passages.
Viśeṣa‐bhāgīya, cf. VI 10 in S.‐s. Turfan.
(*Viś̱e)[ṣ̱a]‐bhaïo?
*Nirvedha‐bhāgīya? – Very unclear what is going with the last akṣara, maybe some sort of correction or erasure?
Parallels: D III 237 (no. xviii), Chin. DĀ 51c12 (no. 15), Skt. Saṅgītisūtra p. 153 (no. 22), S.‐s. (T 12) 231b14 (no. 22), Chin. Saṅgītiparyāya 425c28.
Pariṇivaṇa = nirvāṇa here?
So ṇa iṃci (cf. below)?
Na kiṃcid (SB)?
Vyāyāma (RS)?
SB (2011-04-23); EBMP: śamas̱aṃ[mi]
SB (2011-04-23); EBMP: ṣa viñaṇa(*kaa) ? a
Viñaṇa or maybe rather añaṇa (which occurs in BL 7, 9, 13, 18)? And if the latter, does raḵa then correspond to tṛṣṇā (and ajñāna to avidyā)? Or a form of anya?
P upanāhi ‘one who bears ill‐will, grudging, grumbling.’
P makkhi ‘concealing, hypocritical, merciless.’
P paḷāsī, Skt. pradāśī.
P saṭho māyāvī, Skt. śaṭho māyāvi.
P ādhānagāhī, Skt. a(*sama)ñjasagrāhī.
CC: On the basis of the P, it seems possible that all of [śpadriṭhi]‐paramoṣ̱o as̱ajagra[h]i [do]paḍi[ṇi]saga formed one group (no. 5) and michadriṭhi alone another (no. 6). At first glance, the DĀ Chin. version is not very clear on this point either (cf. the table in Behrsing’s fn. 306). – SB: The separate listing of the individual items in ll. 30.8–9 does not help decide the issue as a line appears to have been skipped there between items no. 5 and 6. But if we group terms as we currently do, then we have a very neat arrangement of six sets of two terms each.
Skt. duṣpratiniḥsarga.
Cf. PTSD s.v. anta‐gāhikā: “viz. diṭṭhi, is an attribute of micchādiṭṭhi, i. e. heretical doctrine. The meaning of anta in this combn. is not quite clear: either “holding (wrong) principles (goals, Morris)”, viz. the 3 as specified above 4 under tayo antā (thus Morris J P T S. 1884, 70), or “taking extreme sides, i. e. extremist”, or “wrong, opposite (= antya, see anta2)” (thus Kern, Toev. s. v.).” – Is this somehow the same word as P ādhānagāhī, Skt. a(*sama)ñjasagrāhī?
SB: Looks like the scribe skipped a line in his exemplar here, his eye jumping from the driṭhi of antogahadriṭhio to the driṭhi of michadriṭhi in the next line. This would explain the otherwise strange collocation of these two words as well as the absence of dopaḍiṇisaga and micha(driṭhi) in our manuscript. The supralinear insertion of ya after śpadriṭhi‐paramoṣ̱o may also be a consequence of this confusion. The amount of missing text is moderate, indicating that the lines of the exemplar were probably shorter than those of this manuscript.
Cf. 30.3.
Cf. Peṭ 113 evaṃ pañcasu dhātūsu puna rāgavavacchedattho dhātuattho.
Looks like he didn’t write in this spot.
Maybe [prakaśśadi] < OIA *prakarṣyate? Cf. CPD s.v. ākāsa for etymologies from kṛṣ as ‘unscratchable’ (e.g. Sadd).
Maybe asakhaḏa?
Maybe ba? But broken‐up spot.
Big loop under this. Maybe insertion marker?
Or dukha‐kṣao aya (SB)?
Abhijñā (RS)?
Maybe aïm=aho (P ayam aham)?
Upekṣā.
Note footmark, like on coins (SB).
Śa (but small)? Mistake for sta?
Mistake for vistareṇa?
P uttaritara?
P sappurisa‐saṃseva ‘associating with good people’ (PTSD s.v. saṃseva) (SB).
Cf. sappurisa ‐‐ saŋsevā, saddhammasavana, yonisomanasikāra, and dhammânudhammapaṭipatti S v. 347, 404 (from PTSD s.v. sotaāpatti).
Phalo? Or reference to the person?
Possibly dhamo?
The strip with lines 31.61b–71 is not in its right place. It contains the summary section for the Sixes and the beginning of the Sevens and should thus go further down in the manuscript, probably with the fragments preserved in frame 30.
Is this maybe tādṛśa?
What is the difference between keyi aha and avaro payao alternatives?
The summary section for the Sixes possibly begins here, with the introductory words sakṣito matro. Parts of what may be the tro akṣara appear, however, to be on loose chips.
Is this somehow related to the syllables va ḵas̱a following sakṣita maṃtro in one of the other summary sections? Or is this ṣa kaa, summarizing items III to VIII (which do seem to form a thematic and formal group)? (But what to make of the rest of the line, then? Also, at least the taṇhakaa is clearly listed as a separate item.)
Maybe bahira?
Maybe (wild speculation) aïdaṇa?
Is this maybe a ca? Or rather bha?
Is this vivāda‐mūla (coming up as no. IX in the Sixes)? But the le looks more like a ja.
Probably sata.
Probably kvacit.
*Samutthīyate.
The mi looks like it also is a mo.
Some shadowy lettery things below this. May or may not be another line on this surface.
AG: li maybe?
RS: sandhi for pratie eva?
On P pātimokkha from mukha (earlier) and muc‐ (later) see von Hinüber 1985–87 (Schulzugehörigkeit): 60 ff.
Line seems to be on a separate piece of bark. Not clear how that it attached to the main fragment.
P paṭisallāna ‘retirement for purposes of meditation, seclusion’?
High. Kh?
Chip after this covering rest of line.
Sata?
Barky thing after aṇa.
B?
Driṭhiṭ́haṇaṇa?
Does this line exist?
Quotation from the Dharmacakrapravartanasūtra (CC) (P: SN V 421)
Du corrected from ña
Dot probably belongs after ca. Idea: are this above‐the‐line dots added subsequently to originally unpunctuated text?
As̱a va (SB)?
Three Vihāras. – Cf. Peṭ 138 (MA): tayo vihārā dibbavihāro brahmavihāro ariyavihāro. dibbavihāro cattāri jhānāni, brahmavihāro cattāri appamāṇāni, ariyavihāro sattatiṃsa bodhipakkhiyā dhammā. tattha kāmacchando uddhaccaṃ kukkuccañ ca dibbavihāraṃ nivārayati, byāpādo brahmavihāraṃ nivārayati, thinamiddhaṃ vicikicchā ca ariyavihāraṃ nivārayati
Āhārādhivacana?
Or yy, cf. bharyya in some inscription
Three Codanās
Dot under tra, while a footmark and therefore not transcribed, does serve to distinguish tra from both dra and ḏa
Ubhayagata vel. sim. somehow?
Three Rāśis
Two dots on chip(?) under ma
Three Śauceyas
The prathama word (RS)?
Postpositional gerund from upa‐sthā‐ (RS) or noun upasthā (SB)?
Catuṣka‐ or catuṣkāya‐?
Three Sthaviras
Three Cakṣuṣes
Four Vāgduścaritas
Four Vāksucaritas
Skt. ślakṣṇa‐, P saṇha‐ ‘slick’ (cf. iṣmaho)
P mantabhāsā, but here evidently OIA mand(r)abhāṣyatā (SB). [OLD: Maybe related to OIA mantu ‘intelligence’ (SB), or that conflated with mantra?]
Cf. inscription somewhere kimatrae ‘for what purpose,’ or maybe kim atra
Etymology: anārya from the fact of not being arāga (SB)
Line indicates where this goes
Avijñapte (RS)?
Avisabhuḏa‐ or ariavohara‐ or aviñaḏa‐?
R̥ddhi (SB)?
Four Āryavyavahāras
Four Āhāras. – The commentary really seems to be on the Āhārasutta (SN II 11): evaṃ me sutaṃ --- ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā sāvatthiyaṃ viharati jetavane anāthapiṇḍikassa ārāme ... pe ... etadavoca --- ``cattārome, bhikkhave, āhārā bhūtānaṃ vā sattānaṃ ṭhitiyā sambhavesīnaṃ vā anuggahāya. katame cattāro? kabaḷīkāro āhāro --- oḷāriko vā sukhumo vā, phasso dutiyo, manosañcetanā tatiyā, viññāṇaṃ catutthaṃ. ime kho, bhikkhave, cattāro āhārā bhūtānaṃ vā sattānaṃ ṭhitiyā sambhavesīnaṃ vā anuggahāya’’. The Pali aṭṭhakathā also sounds somewhat similar to our commentary
Sean Kerr (2010‐11‐24); EBMP: ṣa [ṭ́ha] aḏaṇasamaṃgiṇa
SB (2010‐11‐24); EBMP: g[ra] ?
Ālopa‐ (SB)
Or another oḍ̱ario?
Sūkṣmāhāra with G development of kṣm > ṣm (SB)?
Viparyāsaiḥ
Niṣyanda + taḥ ?? “as” or “from the standpoint of”also nisyanda LV 280.22 Edg. 310
Āvāraṇa?
Dot underneath
Ābhāsvara: BHSD, one of the classes of the rūpāvacara gods in the 2nd dhyāna-bhūmi. desirable place of rebirth. (Mmk 19.9 mahābrahmābhāsvvaraḥ prabhāsvaraḥ śuddhābhaḥ … .)
Looks like danda
623. Cattāri jhānāni– paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ, dutiyaṃ jhānaṃ, tatiyaṃ jhānaṃ, catutthaṃ jhānaṃ. 624. Tattha katamaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ? Idha bhikkhu yasmiṃ samaye rūpūpapattiyā maggaṃ bhāveti vivicceva kāmehi …pe… paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati pathavīkasiṇaṃ, tasmiṃ samaye pañcaṅgikaṃ jhānaṃ hoti– vitakko, vicāro, pīti, sukhaṃ, cittassekaggatā. Idaṃ vuccati “paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ”. Avasesā dhammā jhānasampayuttā. (Jhānavibhaṇga)
Pañcavidhena vedanākkhandho– atthi sukhindriyaṃ, atthi dukkhindriyaṃ, atthi somanassindriyaṃ, atthi domanassindriyaṃ, atthi upekkhindriyaṃ. Evaṃ pañcavidhena vedanākkhandho. (Vibhaṇga § 34)
Samatikrānta
Duḥkhendriya
Līnasa cittasa ? so līnacitto samāno abhabbo sakkāyadiṭṭhiṃ pahātuṃ vicikicchaṃ pahātuṃ sīlabbataparāmāsaṃ pahātuṃ (AN, Dasakanipāta: Tayodhammasutta)
P paggaha
P dhura, dhuratā, dhuravant?
Bojjhanga: sati, dhamma-vicaya, viriya, pīti, passaddhi, samādhi, upekhā
Could this be a negative statement: bojaṃgie [vi] akara ṇa vatavo?
Corrected akṣara?
Punar?
See BHSD, s.v. abhinirharati, produces, accomplishes, effects, realizes.”
Puveṇivas̱a?
Sa-parihāreṇa
Kevaddha (D 11th sutta)–person from Gandhāra; see D-aI: 213. Discussion of prātihārya. Check verso
Fifth heaven from bottom; BHSD: “enjoying magical creations;” class of kāmāvacara gods. The gods fall into three grand divisions: kāmāvacara living in kāmadhātu (usually six in number: cāturmahārājika, trāyastriṃśa, yāma, tuṣita, nirmāṇarati, paranirmitavaśavartin), rūpāvacara living in the rūpadhātu, ārūpyāvacara living in the ārūpyadhātu
6th, can create anything they want


Off
busy