Collection Library of Congress Maintainer Richard Salomon
Contents Bbs Parallels Scribes LCS1
Frame Fragment Other ID
Type Date -206‒59 Basis for date radiocarbon dating
Medium Birch bark Findspot Unknown Last known location
Dimensions (cm) Lines (r) Lines (v)
Editions Salomon+ 2007 Other refs. Strauch 2008.2, 264; Krueger 2008; Drewes 2010, 60; Allon+ 2010, 10–1; Neelis 2011, 242; Cox 2013, 38; Falk+ 2014, 55; Salomon 2014.2, 8–9; Baums 2014.4, 185, 193–5, 197, 200, 205–6; Harrison+ 2014, viii; Tournier 2017, 131–201; Salomon 2018, xviii–xix, xxiv
Comments Transcribed in EBMP meetings (2006–07). Edition in progress by Richard Salomon.

Sanskrit Ikṣvāku, Pali Okkāka, and Gāndhārī Iṣmaho
Buddhistische Handschriften aus Gandhara
Conservation of the Library of Congress’ Gandhara Scroll: A Collaborative Process
Early Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism, I: Recent Scholarship
New Evidence for Mahayana in Early Gandhāra
Early Buddhist Transmission and Trade Networks: Mobility and Exchange within and beyond the Northwestern Borderlands of South Asia
Yogācāra Prehistory: The Interpretation of bhāva, svabhāva, abhiniṣpanna and pariniṣpanna in a Gāndhārī Scholastic Text
The Bajaur and Split Collections of Kharoṣṭhī Manuscripts within the Context of Buddhist Gāndhārī Literature
Gāndhārī Manuscripts in the British Library, Schøyen and Other Collections
Gandhāran Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type
Introduction
La formation du Mahāvastu et la mise en place des conceptions relatives à la carrière du bodhisattva
The Buddhist Literature of Ancient Gandhāra: An Introduction with Selected Translations
Recto

2. . . . + + + (*ka)///[p]‍(*e) ido asakhae · Iṣmahovatsaṇaraśakasiho · tariśasi devamaṇu[śa] ? /// + . . .

Source: Salomon+ 2007
SB; EBMP: kṣatriyakulado
(a strip with four – or fewer – verses seems to be missing here)
(several lines, probably two, containing Padumutara and Acucagami, seem to be
hidden here in a folded‐up portion of the manuscript)
(about 25 akṣaras)
(probably another missing line with concluding verse)
prārthaka?
Should be bhaviṣyāmi, ‐asi, or ‐ati. Is the horizontal line after vi ink or not? We expect śa, and it certainly does not look like that.
Mahārha ‘expensive’? This word is frequently used of gifts to the buddhas in the Mvu (e.g. III.248 f.).
Any chance this is ajina? [CHECK FIRST AKṢARA ON ORIGINAL] FBXJJ 667b27–28 attributes an ajina to the bodhisattva Meghakumāra (= Sumedha, previous incarnation of our Śākyamuni, in the time of Dīpaṃkara). That would seem to mean that our manuscript has two verses on Dīpaṃkara, which is problematic seeing that the last verse has the number 15, and the total number of buddhas is 15, so there should be one verse per buddha. (Then again, maybe some buddhas share a verse?) – Note also Mvu III.249.1–2, where the bodhisattva offers an ajina to Vipaśyin.
‘Having put in front of the teacher an oïṇa (*adorned with) expensive (*something) ... .’ Or is ṭ́haïta a past participle, not a gerund?
Probably a from of prārthayati. See Mvu verse in the next note.
Or is this [4 1] or [4 2] or [4 3]? – Is this about Vipaśyin? Cf. the similar Mvu III.249 vipaśyiṃ dṛṣṭvā āgataṃ pūrṇamāsī va candramaṃ | ajinaṃ prastare mārge bodhiṃ prārthayatā (Senart ex conj.: prārthento) ’nuttarāṃ ||.
Cf. maybe purado in l. r 3.
Cf. ṭ́haïta in l. r. 3.
FBXJJ 669b20 f. has a cakravartin king called ‘Uṣṇīṣa‐born’; for seven days it rains golden grains, during Atyuccagāmin’s buddhahood.
Maybe ṇa cira?
Physically, we expect a narrow strip like the one at the bottom of the next fragment to be missing here, and that fits only two lines. Cf. also the footnote above on the verse number read 4, but which conceivably could also have been 4 1, 4 2 or 4 3.
Maybe (teṇa) prato.
Is this ‘I saw’ (original idea) or – more likely – ‘I gave’? In FBXJJ 670b17–20, Śākyamuni gives hundreds of tastes (or hundred‐flavored?) food to Viśvabhū and his śrāvaka saṃgha, and generates a vow. Cf. dase ‘I gave’ in AG‐GL (see Dictionary s.v.).
Compare the footmark on da at the beginning of l. r.11. This footmark seems to be characteristic of da in this scribe’s hand.
In FBXJJ, food is offered to Viśvabhū, but in Mvu III.249.3–4 to Śikhin.
The rest of this and the following line are left empty, apparently because of a disturbance in the bark.
Or is this [○ 10 3]?
Compare P samudāneti ‘to collect, procure, attain, get,’ and apparently an optative of that. Or P samudānaya ‘to be procured or attained’? See BHSD s.v. samudānayati: especially used with religious attainments, and in particular enlightenment.
Should this have been bosisatvasa?
[OLD: There is not enough missing before this to fit the end of the Sarvābhibhū section (sixteen akṣaras missing / illegible, twenty‐six needed). Also, the last three akṣaras in l. 2 do not look like expected aṇada. Therefore it seems possible that for this (first? should be second) Buddha in the list, the text had a fuller form of the formula.]
Maybe a dittography. [OLD: Former Śākyamuni, not our one. Is there a line or more missing between this line and the next (looks like separate subfragments)? 21 akṣaras are needed for the formula between (former) Śakamuṇisa and (*aho)ṣ̱i, but there only seem to be four akṣaras missing. On the other hand, the average complete line seems to have contained ca. 43 akṣaras, which is too much. So maybe more than one line is missing here containing additional Buddhas between former Śākyamuni and Atyuccagāmin.]
Maybe eva vistareṇa?
Confirmed. [OLD: The flipped over chip in the middle of line r.18, showing part of the verso (? [ḍi] ca śravag.), would seem to go in the gap in the middle of line r.17. Check on verso. The feet below the flipped-over chip maybe also fit in the gap (? ? ? aṇada bha). In other words, are lines r. 17 and r. 18 parts of the same line? Check with better images what exactly is going on here.]
Next caryā after pragidicaria, maybe called (*praṇisicaria).
Maybe a cursive a or ṇa? Check on original.
(*Praṇisicaria) or vivaṭaṇacaria. – There should be more text missing here, more like 18 akṣaras. Maybe part of this line was left blank, or maybe he made another mistake and crossed something out before the beginning of the extant line.
Empty space in beginning of line, maybe rubbed off. The faint letter does note really look like the expected ṣ̱i of ahoṣ̱i.
(*Praṇisicaria) or vivaṭaṇacaria. [OLD: Either prag̱idicaria or vivaṭaṇacari(a), maybe the latter, as the eva vistareṇa in l. 6 may have signalled the transition between the two sections.]
The Fo benxing ji jing (T 190 656c16 ff.) lists four bodhisattvacaryās, the fourth being 轉性行 (‘varta’ + ‘caryā’), which seems to agree with our text as opposed to Mahāvastu I 63 which has the negative. See also BHSD s.v. avivarta-caryā with reference to Senart’s notes.
Has the a of ahoṣ̱i been changed to ha or something similar?
Sic.
[OLD: Śākyamuni?]
Cf. Fo benxing ji jing 664a4–5.
Maybe, cf. Fo benxing ji jing 671b5 ff. Or akapo (cf. MPS). Or some number But there seems to be room for only 15 akṣaras, so any of these would be a squeeze.
Empty space around what looks like a barkknothole.
Maybe aṭ́hasi.
Cf. the phrase tathāgatā parinibbāyanti, once in DN‐a and twice in Vin (SB).

This is a glue‐line juncture. It seems fairly clear that the missing lines (probably two) are folded up in the portion just above (so not actually lost, just hidden). Also note the lighter‐colored shadow of the folded‐up part where it was pasted onto the glue space below. – Suggested reconstruction of the hypothetical hidden lines (SB):

r 28a (* + + + + + + + + + + + • + + + + + + + + + + + • padumutaro aṇada bhagava tas̱agado araha samasabudho + +)

r 28b (*+ varṣasahasa aṭ́hasi sadha bhikhusagheṇa loaṇuapae • acucagami aṇada bhagava tas̱agado araha samasabudho)

Klub generally agreed that there is a verse missing here, but later TC remarked that the Sarvaviho sentence (l. 26) is out of pattern in having atidakale prorima, so the missing material may have been further prose continuing this out‐of‐patternness. – To complicate matters further, Mark Barnard in discussion with SB (24 August 2006) remarked that when the scroll was being unrolled, the section ending with line r.

Smudged‐out letter?
No loaṇuapa here.
Parallels to this verse in Mvu and FBXJJ.
Not certain whether idi (or iti) should be reconstructed before aṇada; amount of missing space suggests that it might have been there, but text sequence suggests not. The it/dis at the beginning of each of the following sentences seem to be continuatives, according to the parallel text in Fo benxing ji jing (p.670c16 etc.), where the second and the following paragraphs all begin with ru shi ci di “and thus, according to the order...”
The vowel sign looks somewhat like i, but was probably intended to be e; compare the e in the following word kape, where again it protrudes a little below the horizontal of p, but less than in this case.
The expected ending is ‐e, assuming the word is in the locative. But the top of the letter doesn’t look like a vowel sign. What is it?
Not clear what was at end of line 40; some dark spots which may or may not be ink [check on original]. But maybe they aren’t, and the scribe left this part of the bark empty because it was defective. This seems a bit more likely because we would need the va of bhagava to fill the expected lacuna of at least 2 or 3 syllables at the beginning of line 41, as indicated by the reconstruction of missing text in adjacent lines.
The first two akṣaras look like vita, but if the lower section is shifted a bit to the left, pu becomes fairly clear. Still, though, the ra is peculiarly shaped, and looks rather like ta.
After this word there is a space of about 5 or 6 akṣaras where it seems that something had been written and then rubbed out; perhaps the scribe wrote the wrong number and erased it. However, at the end of the line, there is a fairly clear pe which, however, seems to be in a different hand, or at least to have a different pen quality. It is not at all clear what this means, perhaps the erased phrase ending in kape, which was not completely erased. (The large diagonal line before the pe is the i vowel in asi at the end of the line below.)
Note that here the numbers shift from cardinal to ordinal. There is a corresponding shift at the same point in FBXJJ; up to Śākyamuni Sr. it has guò before each eon period, but not with Puṣya and thereafter
The letter read here as tr is quite different from dr in bhadragape (TL). But usually in Kharoṣṭhī tra and dra are more or less identical. So, is this letter not really tra? Maybe some sort of footmarked r? – But it is quite similar to tr in e.g. tatreda in l. 23.
This seems to be a busted‐up punctuation mark. But some doubt about this was expressed. Could it possibly be a letter, maybe ta or da? Some locative particle or pronoun might be expected to go with the following ya/eva (see following note) ekatriśame kape, but we don’t seem to actually have it here. One would expect two syllables, e.g. taspi.
Not certain whether the bit of ink over y is an e diacritic or just an incidental blob; it is much shorter than other es in this text. If we read ya, we would have yava = yāvat as abbreviator; if ye, we have yeva = caiva; the latter seems to be supported by both Mvu III 243.15 triṃśe ca kalpe śikhī viśvabhūś caiva utpadye, and FBXJJ 671a7, tong shi jie zhong “in this same kalpa.”
The śa appears to have been rewritten or corrected.
Space for about 3 aksaras is left blank at end of line, presumably because scribe didn’t want to begin new sentence near end of line.
This is what the pattern leads us to expect. But there is a remnant of the top of about the ??th syllable which seems not to accord with this reconstruction. This remains to be explained. Also, we would expect to see the tops of pe at the end of the covered section, but we don‘t. Was the formulation somehow different here? But this would be odd, as it is the same for the preceding and following (Metrao) Buddhas. TL: Could we have here iśa bhadragape aṇada instead of the usual iśa aṇada bhadragape. Another possibility is that we have an etarahi here, as in the corresponding l.37; this would correspond to jin in this passage in FBXJJ.
The tops are consistent with this reading; but see the preceding note. Note that in l. 37 Śākyamuni referred to himself as aha alone; here, though, he seems to refer to himself as aha Śakamuṇi. This agrees with FBXJJ, where in the corresponding section (on kalpas; 671a13) he refers to himself as “I Śākyamuni“ (wo shen shijiamouni), but in the other sections, such as “lifetime“ (671b20); also 671b1 (on kula); he calls himself just wo “I.”
Here the syllable looks more like da than dra; there seems to be some vacillation in the writing of this syllable in this word; CHECK AND COMPARE EACH OF THESE.
= Asaṅgajñānaḥ? Compare ṣaga etc. in KDhp. RS: Or rather āśrayajñāna in the meaning of āśaya by conflation? SB: But then, why the rightward foot on ṣa that may or may not indicate voicing? Also, a bahuvrīhi āśraya‐jñāna seems less idiomatic than āśraya‐jña.
Yathā? Yaś ca?
See BHSD s.v. abhyudgacchati and CPD s.v. abbhuggato for clauses with yaśas (also kīrti) and abhyudgata.
Brahma‐svara‐upama? Paleographically, is this sva or s̱a? TC: FBXJJ may have etymological legend about his name.
‘Who spoke loudly to (i.e., taught) gods and men’?
Compare maybe viñaṇas̱a ablative(?) in Senior 5 (Andrew’s dissertation).
V to b due to preceding nasal?
Varalakṣaṇa? Dvas‐ by analogy with trayastriṃśat (TC)?
Is this ligature maybe sma instead of a reduced form of spa (TL)?
This might be some sandhi form of ‐śikha‐ āsīd. H[a] is written on top (corrected from) another letter that seems to have had (pseudo‐)anusvāra.
Anaṅgana ‘spotless’ (BHSD).
Tatraiva kalpe?
Imasmin?
Cf. e.g. Bv 53.
This could be a d (dudigo?) or an a (ago?).
CHECK LOCATION OF CHIPS ON ORIGINAL.
Suvarṇitaḥ, with play on suvarṇa = kanaka? But the letter does not look like s, it is too straight.
Saṃkhyāta or samākhyāta?
TC: (*The Bhagavant Dīpaṃkara, Ānanda,) went forth from a brahman family.
Reconstructed after FBXJJ.
The o is lower, probably in order to avoid the needle hole without having to break the word across lines. Expected: kṣatria(kulado). Or is this also pseudo‐compounding (RS)?
Vhi corrected from something. (Maybe from tri?)
Mi is in the margin because he really does not like to split words.
How are we to understand the physical disposition of the manuscript at this juncture? On the recto, we seemed to be missing two lines contextually and were thinking of the edge of the upper sheet being flipped upwards, but this would not seem to be supported by the verso. CHECK ON ORIGINAL and review the situation on the recto.
Big hole after this, but no text missing, which implies that the hole was there before writing. That was also our impression on the recto.
Tentative. Check first‐person past tense verb endings in other texts.
Ta seems to be written over original punctuation mark, in order to be able to squeeze the whole phrase in.
The little horizontal line across the foot of what we think might be pa may have been put there to optically separate it from the letters of the next line with which it overlaps.
Are we up to Vipaśyin here? Or Tiṣya?
CHECK thing under ga ON ORIGINAL.
Pacaśada? (Chinese has 500, but differs often in other places.)


Off
busy