Collection Senior Maintainer Mark Allon
Contents Śrphs Parallels Scribes RSS1
Frame 2 Fragment 2 Other ID
Type Date 140 Basis for date C14, inscription
Medium Birch bark Findspot Haḍḍa, Afghanistan ? Last known location University of Washington, Seattle, USA
Dimensions (cm) Lines (r) 36 Lines (v) 37
Editions Allon 2009, 16 Other refs. Salomon 2003.1, 388; Allon 2007.3, 8; Skilling 2010.2, 18–9; Neelis 2011, 72; Lǐ 2012, 49–50
Comments Transcribed in EBMP meetings (Richard Salomon, Mark Allon, Collett Cox, Timothy Lenz, Jason Neelis, Andrew Glass, Shi Tianchang 釋天常, Stefan Baums; 2001). Updated for Allon 2009 (SB, 2014-01-08).

Manuscrits bouddhiques du Gandhāra
The Senior Manuscripts
A Gāndhārī Version of the Story of the Merchants Tapussa and Bhallika
Scriptural Authority and the Śrāvaka Schools: An Essay towards an Indian Perspective
Early Buddhist Transmission and Trade Networks: Mobility and Exchange within and beyond the Northwestern Borderlands of South Asia
Further Inquiries into the Four Gāndhārī Samyuktāgama Sūtras (in the Senior Collection): Discussion Based on Four Gāndhārī Samyuktāgama Sūtras: Senior Kharoṣṭhī Fragment 5 by Andrew Glass
Verso

58. . . . drekṣas̱i ta bhagavata raha s̱ama‐​

59. (*s̱abudha pras̱aḏio pras̱a)ḏaṇio śatidrio śatamaṇas̱e utamadamas̱aśamas̱aprate paramadama‐​

60. (*s̱aśamas̱aprate) drispaṇa . . .

67. . . . pras̱aḏio pras̱aḏaṇio śatihio

68. (*śatamaṇase u)t[a]m[a]damas̱aśamas̱aprate paramadamas̱aśamas̱aprate guta jiḏidrio

69. /// .[u] ḏa acha vipras̱aṇa aṇavilo . . .

Source: Allon 2009
[26 or 27 + ? = ?]
Frag. 3e.
[15 + 11 = 26]
[19 + 13 or 14 = 32 or 33]
dameśa/yameṇa has been added above the line. The word could be dama‐yama or dama‐śama.
Perhaps jivae. Ji may be the last akṣaras on the line (based on no. of akṣaras).
There could be more remnants of akṣaras before this. The tops of raha sa appear on frag. 13f. (?).
Cf. l. 71.
Probably [ji].
A thin, straight vertical line appears between ku and ma. The scribe may have accidentally started to write ra before realizing his mistake.
Could be a cursive ja.
Does not appear to be ra.
? ? + + ? might by transfer ink, with ma then being the first akṣara of the line.
The following could be ea=aya. If so, the word order is incorrect, with veiśaputre following it. Otherwise it could be eaiśa “of such a kind” (?).
Space of two or three akṣaras left to avoid knot in bark.
There is an ink mark to the right of pu.
The line finishes early, as with the last two lines.
No. of akṣaras missing uncertain.
The bottoms of ṇiṣa[ṇe] are covered by a fold of bark.
End of writing due to lack of further space.
ra and much of the right tip of this section have broken up since the first photo.
The line of writing stops here due to the lack of remaining bark.
[28 + 8/9 = 36/37]
[28 + 7/8 = 35/36]
[28 + 7 = 35]
[28 + 5 = 33]
[27 + 9 = 36]
[23 + 9 = 32]
[21 (incl. punct.) + 11 = 32]
[20 + 21/22/23 = 41+ too many]
[25 + 9 = 34]
[26 + 7 = 33]
[26 (+ 6 above line) + 14/15/16 = 30/31/32]
[22 + ? = ?]
[22 + 6 = 28]
[23 + 10 = 33]
[21 + 10/11 = 31/32]
[22 + 8 = 30]
[29 + 4 = 33]
[23 + ? = ?]
[24 + ? = ?]
[25 + ? = ?]
[24 + 7 = 31]
[22 + 6 or 7 = 28 or 29]
[6 + 26 = 32]
[6 + 27 = 33]
[? + 33 = ?]
[8 + 24 = 32]
[2/? + 36 = ?]
[? + 26 = ?]
Cf. kiyatparivāraḥ of Skt. p. 218.
This is the same character written on l. 19 (cf. l. 20). It may merely be a variant way of writing śpa with the full p written.
Frags. 9d and 9c.
A loose chip containing with the reading /// ? [de g.] /// (see drawing in London) sits over this area.
The next two akṣaras have been erased or smudged. ASG thinks that the scribe wrote amatre of amatredi, then crossed it out.
Cf. the first word on l. 25.
KK reads ko. Note the early form of k.
The reading may be r[i] or r[e].
The bottoms of paca and perhaps a appear on frag. 13f.
See note above to ll. 19, 20, 22
There appears to be a horizontal understroke under ma.
What follows is a mass of fragments with remnants of akṣaras.
A space of four akṣaras has been left to avoid an inperfection in bark (cf. the line above).
There is a small almost horizontal mark to the left of the upper hook of e giving the akṣara an unusual form. This may have been produced by the ink running.
There may be remnants of two akṣaras here.
The surface appears to have peeled.
The line ends before the end of the bark.
Perhaps the bottom of [s.] = P so.
Could be .i or .e on the upper section. But this may be transfer ink.
No. of missing akṣaras uncertain.
Cf. line 2.
No. of missing akṣaras uncertain.
No. of missing akṣaras uncertain.
Or [p. r.]: cannot now understand London notes.
The number of visible akṣaras is unclear. The bottoms of some of these akṣaras are on frag. 3c.
Edit as jiv(*e)a (?).
No. of visible akṣaras uncertain.
No. of visible akṣaras uncertain
The first line of writing on frag. 4b probably represents a continuation of this line.
No. of akṣaras uncertain. For the following, cf. l. 39 [=v3].
Note tail on ca.
Second line on frag. 4b.
The preceding may be the equivalent of P yassa dāni kālaṃ maññasī ti
First of three lines on frag. 4a. It may have to be shifted down one line in each case.
Or rśa. Note r on left leg.
Frag. 4a, second line.
Cf. P (p. 49.31) ukkāsu dhāriyamāsu.
The akṣara is written in a confused manner. Sa has been written over ta.
Frag. 4a., third line
The P has ahud eva bhayaṃ ahu chambhitattaṃ ahu lomahaṅso.
The last line of frag. 4a (above) could belong here.
It does not really look like a ho, being quite high and at an angle.
Part of the split ms. overlays the bottom of this akṣara (move).
Frag. 5d.
The u appears on frag. 5d.
No. of akṣaras remaining uncertain. Their tops (and perhaps also part of the preceding ṇe) appear on frag. 5c. Their bottoms are on frag. 6a+b. The reading appears to be ṇi/ṇekhami sa (need to reassemble). But cf. ll. 52, 53.
Need to reassemble; does not quite match the expected ṇa ṇu vo ṇikhami.
The bark is scrunched up.
The reading could be st[u], or the mark may belong to the line below.
Probably the u of stu in the line above.
Line ends one akṣara short to avoid a knot in the bark.
The vowel mark crosses the v, making the reading vi rather than the expected vo (?).
[ga] is distorted.
The first a added above the line.
The u vowel is small.
Could be a/sa/i.
Seems to be an overlaying chip. Looks like a squashed up ahuyi lo.
Or vi/yi/śi.
Or yi/śi.
Appears to be the right margin.
Could be maḍalavaṇe.
Cf. tailapradyotanābhā of Skt. p. 219.
The stroke for the u vowel crosses the vertical of the r making it appear like a preconsonantal r. Cf the u vowel in pu (l. 69).
The reading could be a e sta (? can’t understand London notes!).
Has an extra turn to the right on head, which makes it look like e.
Could be le, or this may be only an upturning stroke.
There could be a horizontal line above this akṣara. Reading could include .
Could be original margin. Prob. not if śa/yame‐ is missing.
The e vowel is high over the previous va.
An e vowel belonging to the dh (though unexpected) may be on the small frag., or this may be the top of the preceding sa (try fitting frags.).
The horizontal stroke of i is very faint, occurring over a lenticel
There may be the remnant of an e/i vowel belonging to either v or  on the bark above.
The number of visible akṣaras is unclear. There are many blemishes on the bark which confuse the issue.
Frag. 2e. Placement uncertain.
A space has been left, probably to avoid an imperfection in the bark.
There is a small stroke on the lower left side of the upper part of the d (where an i would normally cross) which makes it look like the scribe began to write an i vowel.
If it is there, the o vowel is not very pronounced. The reading could be komaha‐.
Or a.
Frag. 2e. Placement uncertain.
No. of akṣaras unclear.
No. of missing akṣaras uncertain.
Could be sa or a as the bottom is missing.
KK reads: [de]vi itaa ṣaraṇo [o] a/e va/ra ru[tu]rieṇa.
Space for only one or two akṣaras.
Perhaps the bottom of an a.
Frag. 3d.
There may be another akṣara here, or it may be the tip of the following ra.
Only tops remaining. KK reads [ki a.] + + + + ? ? ///.
No of akṣaras present and spacing uncertain.
This could also be transcribed as ‐vaa; cf. rayabhadre (l. 28).
This ko is of the old type; also on l. 14 (cf. l. 11 for regular type).
The apparent e on the m is merely a backstroke.
Reconstruction based on l. 16.
The reading could be dho.
KK [a a]sa /// here.
The following akṣaras are overlaid with a chip of blank bark.
There appear to be remnants of ink following this. Read ? ? ?.
This mo almost looks like a mu.
Part of po is covered by a loose chip containing the remnants of two akṣaras (see London notes for drawing).
There could be the faint trace of the crossbar of an i; i.e., read [i].
o has been added above the line.
Frag. 8c.
Frag. 8b.
The akṣara appears to have been corrected, over an akṣara with an i vowel. Or is the reading śpi/śpe? Cf. l. 22 and note there.
Could be e.
magasamahama added above the line, beginning over bra. Note that tra has been omitted.
Probably the tip of ṇa.


Off
busy