EVA ALLINGER AND GUDRUN MELZER 1 A PAÑCARAK§Â MANUSCRIPT FROM YEAR 39 OF THE REIGN OF RÂMAPÂLA his article was occasioned by the rare event of the reunion of two parts of a manuscript that had previously been dispersed between two locations. This is principally due to the efforts of Catherine Glynn Benkaim, the owner of eleven leaves who acquired the part held by Sam Fogg in 2009. The electronic reunion of the two parts was achieved by Jerry Losty and Eva Allinger, with support from Karen Weissenborn and Jinah Kim. A part of the manuscript was first published by Shirley M. Black, who acquired eleven leaves (ten with illustrations and one without) of a Pañcarakßâ manuscript in Nepal in the 1960s. In her article she advanced the opinion that it was a Nepalese manuscript dating from the tenth century. Pratapaditya Pal informed her in a personal communication which she also published that the manuscript contained a colophon and dated from year 39 of the reign of Râmapâla.2 These leaves were later acquired by Catherine Glynn and Ralph Benkaim. The remaining leaves from the same manuscript were purchased on the London art market by Sam Fogg around 1996 and twice offered for sale in catalogues3 before they were eventually acquired by Catherine Glynn Benkaim. T CODICOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION In its complete state, the manuscript (hereafter referred to as the reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms) comprises eighty-nine leaves, of which twelve are illuminated (figs. 1–6). The base material is leaves from the talipot palm, each measuring approximately 6 ⫻54 centimeters. The text begins on folio 1 verso and is written in Gau∂îya. Each page has five lines of text, which are interrupted in the area surrounding the string holes. The margins have two black vertical lines each. The same lines border the text at the string holes. The foliation occurs on the verso in the margins – on the left in letter numerals and on the right in figure numerals. Nepalese numbers were added on the left at a later date. The illuminated leaves have one pictorial field each, in the central block of text; that is, in the center of the folio, the illustration interrupts the lines of script. The margins and the areas around the string holes are ornamentally decorated on these pages. The five texts contained in this manuscript are written in the following order: (1) Mahâsâhasrapramardanî, (2) Mahâmâyûrî, (3) Mahâªîtavatî, (4) Mahâpratisarâ, and (5) Mahâmantrânusâri∑î. At the beginning of the first, second, and third texts the corresponding Rakßâ and Tathâgata are depicted on two facing pages. At the beginning of the fourth text two krodhas are depicted, with the Rakßâ and the Tathâgata placed at the end of the text. The Rakßâ and the Tathâgata are also depicted at the end of the fifth text. 1 2 3 The section dealing with the colophon and Appendix I were written by Gudrun Melzer. Shirley M. Black, “An Early Nepalese Palm-Leaf Manuscript,” Oriental Art 13, 2 (1967): 107–12; and “Correspondence,” Oriental Art 14, 2 (1968): 124. Sam Fogg, Indian Paintings and Manuscripts, Catalogue 21 (London, 1999), 6–7; Sam Fogg, Tibetan Manuscripts, Catalogue 22 (London, 2001), 22, 23; and Sam Fogg, Dreams, Devotion, Romance, Catalogue 31 (London, 2006), 42. 387 COLOPHON The reassembled Pañcarakßâ manuscript ends with the title of the last of the five Rakßâ texts (Mahârakßâ-mahâmantrânusâri∑î-mahâyânasûtraµ rakßâkalpa˙),4 followed by the indispensable ye dharmâ verse5 and the donation formula with the name of the donor, the date, and the name of the scribe (figs. 6–9). Two different Nepalese post-colophons have been added more recently. They can be regarded as inventory and donation records, many of which were added to Indian manuscripts that were transferred to Nepal when the Buddhist monasteries in India were gradually (or suddenly) deserted during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The last of these additions consists of five lines in Newari on folio 89 verso in a more recent script that is now partly illegible and for this reason has not been included in this study.6 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For the term rakßâ and protective texts (rakßâ) in general, see Peter Skilling, “The Rakßâ Literature of the ·râvakayâna,” Journal of the Pali Text Society 16 (1992): 110–16. For the different variants of the text title and an edition, see Peter Skilling, Mahâsûtras: Great Discourses of the Buddha (Oxford: Pali Text Society, 1994–97), 159–82. The ye dharmâ verse, or Pratîtyasamutpâdagâthâ, concludes almost all Buddhist manuscripts at least from the tenth century onwards, and it is also found frequently on northern Indian Buddhist stone sculptures and many bronzes from the eighth century onwards. In this period the verse already has the status of a mantra, and it serves consecretional purposes since it is regarded as containing the essence of the Buddhist doctrine. See Daniel Boucher, “The Pratîtyasamutpâdagâthâ and Its Role in the Medieval Cult of the Relics,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 14, 1 (1991): 1–27. These lines contain a date and the names of several monasteries. I thank Gergely Hidas und Toru Tomabechi for the first preliminary transliterations. The following conventions are used: restorations in a gap: ( ); omission of (part of) an akßara without gap in the manuscript: ‹ ›; one illegible akßara:..; virâma: *; da∑∂a: |. Between names and titles hyphens have been added. The translation of the famous ye dharmâ verse is cited from Lore Sander, “An Unusual ye dharmâ Formula,” in Buddhist Manuscripts of the Schøyen Collection II (Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection III ), ed. J. Braarvig, P. Harrison, J.-U. Hartmann, K. Matsuda, and L. Sander (Oslo: Hermes Publishing, 2002), 338. Ms. sâdhukai. Traces of the two akßaras are still visible, but they cannot be securely identified. Ms. -râser. Ms. titiyâyâµ. Another possibility would be the correction to dvitîyâyâµ. Since the day was already mentioned as the sixth, the specification of the lunar day (tithi) as the second or the third does not make sense. Uttaraphâlgunînakßatre has been added above the line. Ms. sutnarme. The correction to sukarme is only tentative. Sukarman is the seventh of the twenty-seven astronomical yogas. In Pâla colophons specifications of yogas are rare. Another example with the yoga ·ubha is found in the colophon of the A߆asâhasrikâ Prajñâpâramitâ from year 17 of the reign of Madanapâla, now in the Detroit Institute of Arts (27.586), folio 249v4. The folio was published in Jinah Kim, “Emptiness on Palm Leaf: A Twelfth-Century Illustrated Manuscript of the A߆asâhasrikâ Prajñâpâramitâ,” Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts 82, 1/2 (2008): fig. 3. This second pronoun iyaµ is unnecessary. Presumably to be corrected to pañcarakßâ. The Pañcarakßâ texts are not the only texts that were personified as individual deities. The most famous example is the Prajñâpâramitâ literature. Written with the Bengali type of the anusvâra, in contrast to the following word, saµkhara. Possibly to be corrected to ‹saµ›kârita. ·rî added above the line. 388 Edition7 Translation (89r3) mahârakß(â)-(r4) mahâmantrânusâri∑îmahâyânasûtraµ rakßâkalpa˙ samâpta˙ || || The Mahâyânasûtra [called] great protective charm [or Great Protectoress] Mahâmantrânusâri∑î, the ritual manual (kalpa) of the protective charm, is completed. ye dharmâ hetuprabhavâ hetuµ teßâµ tathâgato hy avadat teßâµ ca yo nirodha evaµvâdî mahâªrama∑a˙ || “Those phenomena which arise from a cause, the Tathâgata declared what is their cause and what is their cessation. Thus the great ·rama∑a has spoken.”8 deyadharmo ‹‘›yaµ pravaramahâyânayâyina˙ paramopâsaka-sâdhuka9-ªrî-.. ..10 (su?)(r5) ta-cintokasya ‹|› yad atra pu∑yaµ tad bhavatv âcâryopâdhyâyamâtâpit®pûrvaµgamaµ k®tvâ sakalasatvarâªer11 anuttarajñânaphalâvâpta‹ya› iti || || This is the religious gift of the follower of the excellent Mahâyâna, the best lay devotee Cintoka, the son [?] of the sâdhuka ªrî... The merit [that arises] on this occasion may serve to the gain of the fruit of highest wisdom for the whole mass of beings, having placed first the teacher (âcârya), preceptor (upâdhyâya), mother, and father. parameªvara-paramabha††âraka-paramasaugatamahârâjâdhirâja-ªrîmad-râmapâlade(va-pravardhamâna)(v1) vijaya‹râ›jye samvat* 39 bhâdradine 6 b®haspativâre t®tîyâyâµ12 tithau uttaraphâlgunînakßatre13 sukarme14 likhiteyaµ bha††ârikâ pañcarakßeyaµ15 lekhaka-ªrî-vibhûtideveneti || This [text called] goddess16 Pañcarakßâ was written by the scribe ªrî Vibhûtideva during the flourishing victorious reign of king ªrîmad Râmapâla, the Supreme Lord, the Supreme Master, the Supreme Buddhist, the best King of Great Kings; in the year 39 [of his reign], at the sixth day of [the month of ] Bhâdra, on Thursday, during the third [or second] tithi [?] in the lunar mansion Uttaraphâlgunî, during [the yoga] Sukarman [?]. First Nepalese post-colophon ªrî-nîlîsâlâyâµ17 || ªrî-saµkharadevakârita,18-ªrîsîhadevamahâvihâre vâstavya˙ pa∑∂ita-ªrî 19-padmasenasy(a) ‹|› In ªrî Nîlîsâlâ. [In the possession] of the scholar ªrî Padmasena, a resident of the great monastery of ªrî Sîhadeva, that has been [re?]built by ªrî Saµkharadeva. 389 The first of the Nepalese post-colophons deserves a closer look since it reveals a little-known ancient place name and the name of a monastery that cannot be found in modern sources on Nepal. A thorough examination of the first line on folio 89 verso shows a change of script in the second half of the line, although it clearly imitates the calligraphic eastern Indian script otherwise used in the manuscript. The difference becomes obvious when compared to single akßaras. For example, following the double da∑∂a after -deveneti, the akßara ªrî resembles the form in the Nepalese Bhujimol (Bhujiµmola) script (fig. 9). The Bengali type for the anusvâra is not usual in Eastern Indian manuscripts of the eleventh and twelfth centuries that are written in the calligraphic variety of the script; however, it is frequently encountered in manuscripts written in Bhujimol. Another typical characteristic of medieval Nepalese writing is a sign resembling a modern virâma, but applied like a comma in other languages in order to divide words or short textual segments. According to the contents, shortly or some time after the manuscript was completed, it must have been taken to Nepal and eventually came into the hands of pa∑∂ita Padmasena, who seems to be otherwise unknown. The names of the place and of the monastery are discussed in Appendix 1 of this article. The palaeography of this sentence does not allow a precise conclusion as to when the manuscript came to Nepal. DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUMINATED PAGES The depiction of the Rakßâs in illustrated Pañcarakßâ manuscripts essentially follows two pictorial traditions:20 in the Nepalese tradition they are depicted according to Sâdhanamâlâ 21 (abbreviated hereafter as SM ) 206, in which all Rakßâs are described, while the Indian tradition adheres to SM 194–200, in which they are described individually. When Shirley Black published her new acquisition she was evidently only familiar with the Nepalese tradition, although it is not applicable to the illuminations on the leaves in her possession. It was Gerd Mevissen who first correctly identified them according to the Indian pictorial tradition. Based on this identification, the images of the Rakßâs correspond to the texts.22 Text 1: Mahâsâhasrapramardanî Folio 1v Vairocana (fig. 10) He has a white complexion, three faces, and six arms. The central face is white, the right face blue, and the left face red. The main pair of hands is crossed at the breast in vajrahûµkâramudrâ. The other right hands hold kha∂ga and ratna, the left hands padma and cakra. Although the attributes are almost indiscernible because of the poor state of preservation of this leaf, they are repeated with the four other Tathâgatas so it may be assumed that Vairocana also displays them. The pose of the central pair of hands also remains constant. The only elements that change are the complexion of the body and the faces. 20 Gerd J.R. Mevissen, “Studies in Pañcarakßâ Manuscript Painting” Berliner Indologische Studien 4/5 (1989): 352–54. 21 Benoytosh Bhattacharyya, ed., Sâdhanamâla, 2 vols., Gaekwad’s Oriental Series 26 (Baroda: Central Library, 1925). 22 Mevissen “Studies in Pañcarakßâ Manuscript Painting,” 366–67. 390 Folio 2r Mahâsâhasrapramardanî (fig. 10) She is depicted according to SM 198, with a white complexion, one head, and six arms. In her right hands she holds kha∂ga and bâ∑a (an arrow, identifiable from the typical pose of the hand but in itself hardly discernible) and displays varadamudrâ. In her left hands she holds paraªu – although it is a triªûla that is depicted23 – dhanus, and pâªa (only the open palm can be seen; the noose itself can hardly be made out). Although the pose she is seated in cannot be identified due to damage, as is the case with Mahâmantrânusari∑î (final leaf), both these figures probably sit in lalitâsana, like the other three Rakßâs. Text 2: Mahâmâyûrî Folio 24v Amoghasiddhi (fig. 11) He has a green complexion; of his three faces the central one is green, the right one white, and the left one blue. Folio 25r Mahâmâyûrî (fig. 11) She is depicted according to SM 197, with a green complexion, three faces, and six arms. The central face is green, the right one white, and the left one blue. In her right hands she holds mayûrapiccha and bâ∑a and displays varadamudrâ. In her left hands she holds ratna (ratnaccha†â), câpa, and kalaªa (utsaπgasthakalaªa, a vase in her lap). Text 3: Mahâªîtavatî Folio 61v Amitâbha (fig. 12) He has a red complexion; of his three faces the central one is red, the right one white, and the left one blue. Folio 62r Mahâªîtavatî (fig. 12) According to the description in SM 200 she has a red complexion, one head, and four arms (one right hand holds an akßasûtra, a rosary of elaeocarpus seeds; the other displays varadamudrâ; her left hands hold pustaka and vajrâπkuªa). According to the description in SM 206 she has a green complexion, three faces (the central face is green, the right face white, and the left face red), and six arms (the right ones holding ªara and vajra and displaying abhayamudrâ, the left ones holding ratnadhvaja, dhanus, and tarjanîmudrâ with pâªa). In the reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms she has a red complexion, three faces (the central face is red, the right face white, and the left face blue), and six arms. The central pair of hands display vajrahûµkâramudrâ. The lower right hand displays varadamudrâ, and the attribute in the upper left hand could be a vajra or an aπkuªa, here depicted as a triªûla! The attributes in the upper right and 23 Mahâpratisarâ (fol. 86r) also holds a triªûla instead of the paraªu. Paraªu and aπkuªa can also be replaced by the triªûla in other Pañcarakßâ manuscripts, for example the one in the Cambridge University Library (Add. 1688). Mahâªîtavatî is depicted with a triªûla instead of the aπkuªa on folio 64. Saraswati notes, “vajrâπkuªa of text is given as triªûla-aπkuªa”. S.K. Saraswati, Tantrayâna Art: An Album (Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, 1977), LXXVI and pl. 203. 391 lower left hands cannot be identified. Mevissen conjectures that this depiction might be a hybrid form from both traditions, that is, the attributes might have been adopted from the four-armed form and the two additional central hands display vajrahûµkâramudrâ.24 Text 4: Mahâpratisarâ Folios 64v and 65r (fig. 13) Each leaf bears an image of a krodha. The two figures are very similar: both have a blue complexion, one head, two arms, and two legs. The terrifying faces have three wide-open eyes, powerful teeth, and hair standing on end. Both wear a jewel on their brows, earrings, and necklaces. They are unclothed except for scarves and a garland of human heads. Folio 64v: Coming from the right, the krodha stands over a Ga∑eªa-like figure lying beneath him. He displays tarjanîmudrâ with his left hand, at the same time holding a pâªa; in his right hand he holds a staff behind his head, the point of which is directed towards the Ga∑eªa-like figure. Folio 65r: Coming from the left, the krodha stands over a human figure with a blue complexion lying beneath him, his upper body raised, his right hand turned as if in supplication to the krodha. The latter displays tarjanîmudrâ with his right hand, at the same time holding a pâªa; in his left hand he holds a staff behind his head, the point of which is directed towards the human. The two images are thus drawn as virtual mirror images. Folio 85v Ratnasambhava (fig. 14) He has a yellow complexion. Of his three faces the central one is yellow, the right one red, and the left one white. Folio 86r Mahâpratisarâ (fig. 14) By and large, she is depicted according to SM 194: she has a yellow complexion, four faces, and eight arms. The central face is yellow, the right face white, the left face blue, and the rearmost face red. According to SM 194 her right hands should hold triªûla, ªara, cakra, and vajra, and her left hands dhanus, vajra, pâªa, and paraªu. Kha∂ga, ªara, cakra, and vajra can be identified in her right hands, while the left hands hold dhanus and triªula, and possibly a pâªa, to judge by the pose of the hand. The fourth hand lies in her lap with no discernible attribute. Text 5: Mahâmantrânusâri∑î Folio 88v Akßobhya (fig. 15) He has a blue complexion. The central of his three faces is blue, the right face white, and the left face red. 24 Mevissen, “Studies in Pañcarakßâ Manuscript Painting,” 367. 392 Fig. 1 The reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, folios 1v and 2r: Vairocana and Mahâsâhasrapramardanî. © C.G. Benkaim. Fig. 2 The reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, folios 24v and 25r: Amoghasiddhi and Mahâmâyûrî. © C.G. Benkaim. Fig. 3 The reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, folios 61v and 62r: Amitâbha and Mahâªîtavatî. © C.G. Benkaim. Fig. 4 The reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, folios 64v and 65r: Krodha. © C.G. Benkaim. Fig. 5 The reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, folios 85v and 86r: Ratnasambhava and Mahâpratisarâ. © C.G. Benkaim. Fig. 6 The reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, folios 88v and 89r: Akßobhya and Mahâmantrânusâri∑î. © C.G. Benkaim. Fig. 8 The reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, folio 89v. © C.G. Benkaim. Fig. 7 The reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, folio 89r, details. © C.G. Benkaim. Fig. 9 The reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, folio 89v, details. © C.G. Benkaim. Fig. 10 The reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, folios 1v and 2r center: Vairocana and Mahâsâhasrapramardanî. © C.G. Benkaim. Fig. 11 The reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, folios 24v and 25r center: Amoghasiddhi and Mahâmâyûrî. © C.G. Benkaim. Fig. 12 The reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, folios 61v and 62r center: Amitâbha and Mahâªîtavatî. © C.G. Benkaim. Fig. 13 The reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, folios 64v and 65r center: Krodha. © C.G. Benkaim. Fig. 14 The reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, folios 85v and 86r center: Ratnasambhava and Mahâpratisarâ. © C.G. Benkaim. Fig. 15 The reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, folios 88v and 89r center: Akßobhya and Mahâmantrânusâri∑î. © C.G. Benkaim. Fig. 16 Pañcaviµªatisâhasrikâ Prâjñâparamitâ Manuscript, folio 20v center: Amitâbha. Private European collection. © Private collector. Fig. 17 A߆asâhasrikâ Prâjñâparamitâ Manuscript, folio 337r center: Târâ. The British Library (Or. 6902). © The British Library. Fig. 18 Manuscript in five collections, folio 159r center: Pâ∑∂arâ. Private European collection. © Private collector. Fig. 19 Pañcarakßâ Manuscript, folio 19r center: Mahâmâyûrî. Museum Rietberg Zürich ( RVI 69). © Museum Rietberg Zürich. Fig. 20 A߆asâhasrikâ Prâjñâparamitâ Manuscript, folio 262r center: Târâ. The British Library (Or. 12461). © The British Library. Folio 89r Mahâmantrânusâri∑i (fig. 15) She is depicted according to SM 199: she has a blue complexion, one head, and four arms. In her upper right hand she holds a vajra, while the lower hand displays varadamudrâ. Her left hands hold pâªa and paraªu, although this can only be deduced from the pose of the hands. REMARKS ON THE ICONOGRAPHY Sâdhanas 198–200 describe Mahâsâhasrapramardanî as bearing an effigy of Vairocana, Mahâmantrânusâri∑î as bearing an effigy of Akßobhya, and Mahâªîtavatî as bearing an effigy of Amitâbha in their crowns. From this it can be inferred that Mahâpratisarâ is to be assigned to Ratnasambhava and Mahâmâyûrî to Amoghasiddhi. In the extant Pañcarakßâ manuscripts dating from before the reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms (Cambridge University Library manuscript Add. 1688 from year 14 of the reign of Nayapâla and the manuscript in the Bhârat Kalâ Bhavan, Varanasi, from year 4 of the reign of Râmapâla), the Tathâgatas are not depicted. They are first adopted into Pañcarakßâ iconography in the reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, but they are not depicted in the crown of the Rakßâ goddess; rather, they appear in the later, more frequent form in which Tathâgata and Rakßâ are counterposed on two facing leaves, the Tathâgata having two arms and being identified by his complexion and the typical mudrâ. In the reassembled Ms the Rakßâs and the Tathâgatas are counterposed, but the latter are depicted in their three-headed and six-armed form. It would seem an obvious step to associate them in this form with the Tathâgatas of the first circle of the Pi∑∂îkramoktâkßobhyama∑∂ala as described in chapter 2 of the Nißpannayogâvalî,25 as they certainly share the same basic form. However, the attributes and their order do not correspond with the Pi∑∂îkramoktâkßobhyama∑∂ala. Each Tathâgata should hold his family symbol in his main (middle) right hand so that the attributes appear in a different order in each case. This is entirely lacking here. The Tathâgatas differ only with respect to their complexions, which are thus their only defining characteristic. The depiction of the two krodhas is as singular as that of the Tathâgatas. As they are almost mirror images of each other, it should be assumed that they were conceived as a pair. There can be no question of any association with the Pi∑∂îkramoktâkßobhyama∑∂ala, as in the latter the deities all have three heads and six arms. On the contrary, in the case of the rites described in the Kriyâsaµgraha, groups of two-armed krodhas are mentioned.26 Chapter 5 describes how the teacher recites mantras while wooden doors and wooden columns are put in place: In the northeastern direction the teacher generates twenty-four wrathful deities from the syllable hûµ, recites their mantras, and dissolves them into their corresponding twenty-four portals positioned in the northeastern and other quarters. The twenty-four wrathful deities have two hands. With their left hands they hold a pâªa in a threatening manner. 25 Benoytosh Bhattacharyya, ed., Nißpannayogâvalî of Mahâpa∑∂ita Abhayâkaragupta, Gaekwad’s Oriental Series 109 (1949; reprint, Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1972). 26 Tadeusz Skorupski, Kriyâsaµgraha: Compendium of Buddhist Rituals (abridged), Buddhica Britannica, Series Continua 10 (Tring, U.K. : Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2002), 68. 405 Their complexions and the attributes in their right hands vary. Seven of them have blue complexions, and of these Nîlada∑∂a and Mahâbala hold a club and a triªûla, respectively. This might have provided a formal impulse for the artist who conceived the figures of the reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms. The counterposing of a pair of krodhas that use their staves to threaten a human and Ga∑eªa respectively are likely a new creation in this combination. The postion of the krodhas in the middle of the manuscript is also unusual, at least with respect to other extant Pañcarakßâ manuscripts. In A߆asâhasrikâ Prajñâpâramitâ (hereafter AsP) manuscripts they are frequently depicted in earlier chapters and not at the end of the manuscript. These examples date almost exclusively from the twelfth century. Dating from year 32 of an era for which no other details are given, the AsP manuscript in the Lionel Fournier Collection has only six illustrations, of which four, depicted in the middle and at the end of the text, are krodhas.27 Further examples are found in AsP manuscripts lacking colophons and with illustrations at the beginning of the text and the end of each chapter.28 There is no plausible explanation for the position of the krodhas in the middle of the text in the reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, but at the same time nothing that militates against it, in particular as the extant manuscripts display quite varied structures. MOTIFS AND STYLE We know of three manuscripts that were written around the same time during the reign of Râmapâla: an A߆asâhasrikâ Prajñâpâramitâ manuscript in the Victoria & Albert Museum, London ( I.S. 4–10, 1958, known as the Vredenburg manuscript) from year 36,29 an A߆asâhasrikâ Prajñâpâramitâ manuscript in the Tibet Museum in Lhasa from year 37,30 and the reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms from year 39. While it is known from the colophon that the manuscript in Lhasa was written in Nâlandâ, the colophons of the two other manuscripts contain no mention of where they were written. All three are so different in terms of style and motif that we must assume they were created at three different scriptoria. Only a few pages from the Lhasa manuscript have been published so far, and they display few points for comparison with the two other manuscripts. In the Lhasa manuscript the seated Buddha 27 Gilles Béguin, Art ésotérique de l’Him√laya:. La donation Lionel Fournier (Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1990), 18–20. 28 Examples include: the AsP manuscript in five collections, which contains a first pair of krodhas at the end of chapter 3 (Eva Allinger, “A Pâla-Period A߆asâhasrikâ Prajñâpâramitâ Manuscript Distributed Between Five Collections,” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 51 [2007–08]: 77–121); the AsP manuscript in the British Library (Or. 12461), the second half of which contains numerous depictions of krodhas; and an only fragmentarily preserved AsP manuscript in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (1985.400.1–14 and 1986.25.1–6) containing depictions of krodhas at the ends of chapters 17, 20, and 22. No complete publications are available for the cited manuscripts in the British Library and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. 29 J.P. Losty, “The ‘Vredenburg Manuscript’ in the Victoria and Albert Museum,” in Makaranda: Felicitation Volume for James Harle, ed. Claudine Bautze-Picron (New Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1990), 189–99. 30 Partially published in Precious Deposits: Historical Relics of Tibet, China, vol. 1, Prehistoric Age and the Tubo Period (Beijing: Morning Glory, 2000), 118–12; and Jinah Kim, “Unorthodox Practice: Rethinking the Cult of Illustrated Books in South Asia” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, 2006), 94–97. This manuscript is in a very good state of preservation, its colours retaining an unusual radiance, perhaps originally possessed by all these manuscripts. 406 and Prajñâparamitâ are depicted against simple body aureoles similar to those of the seated deities facing one another in the Vredenburg manuscript. Only in the reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms are all the figures placed in an arched architectural frame. Slight similarities in the pictorial composition and the way the figures are depicted can be detected in the manuscripts in Lhasa and the Victoria & Albert Museum, but there are none in the case of the reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms. Although there are sporadic occurrences of figures in arched architectural frames in manuscripts earlier than the reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms, they are never used for all the figures depicted in a manuscript. Comparing the arch forms in the reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms with those in other manuscripts, it is evident that they share a strong similarity with forms in the Baroda manuscript,31 the Kâra∑∂avyûhasûtra manuscript (British Library, Or. 13940),32 and the AsP manuscript in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (No. 20.589, Harriet Otis Croft Fund, no complete publication available). However, in these manuscripts the arches are never used for all the images: krodhas (with an aureole of flames) and narrative scenes are excluded. The arches themselves are rendered in imitation of built architecture (fig. 16). The reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms is the first extant manuscript in which all the figures are framed by arches. This constitutes the first inclination toward a trend that was later to become definitive. Another stage of development can be seen in an AsP manuscript from year 15 of the reign of Gopâla IV, which according to its colophon was written in Vikramaªîla (British Library, Or. 6902).33 It contains six depictions of deities, of which only Siµhanâda Avalokiteªvara on folio 164 recto is surrounded by an aureole of flames rather than an arch. The arches of the other deities are richly decorated with precious jewels, already hinting at the further development away from real architectural arches and towards a sacred frame (fig. 17). In the second part of the manuscript in five collections all the figures are surrounded by an archlike frame resembling gold filigree work (fig. 18).34 The same frames can be found in narrative images, for example in the AsP manuscript in the Asiatic Society in Mumbai ( BI 210), which according to its colophon was written in year 32 of the reign of Govindapâla.35 31 The ‘Baroda manuscript’ is part of a Pañcaviµªatisâhasrikâ Prajñâpâramitâ manuscript, leaves from which ended up in various American and European collections (e.g. the Metropolitan Museum of Art [1952.121.36.1.26], the Brooklyn Museum [39.539], and a private European collection). In 1944 B . Bhattacharya published twenty-two leaves in the Baroda State Museum and Picture Gallery ( EG 112– EG 133), as a consequence of which all parts of the manuscript have been referred to collectively as the ‘Baroda manuscript’. According to its colophon, it was copied in year 8 of the reign of Harivarman. B. Bhattacharya, “Twenty-two Buddhist Miniatures from Bengal (11th century A.D. ),” Bulletin of the Baroda Museum and Picture Gallery 1, 1 (1944): 17–36. For a detailed analysis, see Claudine Bautze-Picron, “Buddhist Painting during the Reign of Harivarmadeva (End of the 11th C.) in Southeast Bangladesh,” Journal of Bengal Art 4 (Gouriswar Bhattacharya Volume, ed. Enamul Haque) (1999): 159–97. 32 Jeremiah P. Losty, “An Early Indian Manuscript of the Kâra∑∂avyûhasûtra,” in Nalinîkânta ·atavârßikî: Dr. N. K. Bhattasali Centenary Volume (1888 –1988), Studies in Art and Archaeology of Bihar-Bengal, ed. Debala Mitra and Gouriswar Bhattcharya (New Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1989), 1–21. 33 Wladimir Zwalf, ed., Buddhism: Art and Faith (London: British Museum Publications, 1985) 58. 34 Allinger, “A Manuscript in Five Collections,” figs. 25–48. 35 H.D. Velankar, comp., V. M. Kulkarni and Devangana Desai, eds., A Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit and Prakrit Manuscripts in the Collection of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, 2nd ed. (Mumbai: Asiatic Society of Bombay, 1998), pls. 8–10. 407 The figures in the reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms exhibit vital and powerful modelling. The faces are a broad oval shape, and the eyes regard the onlooker directly. The figures in the Vredenburg manuscript are quite different and make a very delicate impression, the slight colour modelling hardly imbuing them with plasticity. The eyes are hooded, giving the impression of deep contemplation. A comparison between the Mahâpratisarâ (fol. 86r) (fig. 14) of the reassembled Pañcarakßâ and the Vasudhârâ (fol. 179, center)36 of the Vredenburg manuscript serves to highlight the wholly different style of the paintings in the two manuscripts. Vasudhârâ is seated against a red aureole surrounding her whole body, her light-coloured form standing out clearly against this background. With her pointed oval face, she seems very delicate. Her skirt, resting on her hips, is made of a transparent fabric, of which one can only see the pattern. Even her jewellery is drawn relatively delicately. By contrast, the Mahâpratisarâ makes a far more powerful impression, almost seeming to brace herself against the arch that surrounds her. Her clothing is colourfully patterned and gives no indication of the body beneath it. The fluttering ribbons and scarves create the impression of a horror vacui. Her crown is an elaborate, towered structure. The figurative style of the reassembled Pañcarakßâ cannot be compared with extant contemporaneous manuscripts, and especially not with manuscripts originating from the scriptorium at Nâlandâ. Here a new style announces itself, a style that had certainly originated in other scriptoria. Unfortunately, there is to date little material evidence of the latter. However, the political and historical context might provide a few pointers: after recapturing Varendrî, Râmapâla founded his new capital in Râmavatî, in Bengal. It can be assumed that new scriptoria were founded in this region and that preexisting scriptoria in Bengal and Bihar were given intensive support too, in particular the one at Nâlandâ. The greatest similarities in the figurative style (the powerful bodies, open gaze, and robes of heavy, patterned fabrics) are to be found in two manuscripts from the reign of Madanapâla: a Pañcarakßâ manuscript in the Museum Rietberg Zurich ( RVI 69)37 (fig. 19) and two leaves from a Pañcarakßâ manuscript in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (M.79.9.9a,b).38 Further examples for comparison can be found in two manuscripts without colophons dating from around the second half of the twelfth century, mentioned in note 28: in the second style within the manuscript in five collections (fig. 18) and in the second part of manuscript Or. 12461 in the British Library (fols. 192, 246, 262, 287, and 288) (fig. 20). 36 Zwalf, Buddhism: Art and Faith, 110. 37 Eberhard Fischer, Asiatische Malerei (Zurich: Museum Rietberg Zürich, 1994), 12–13. According to its colophon it was written in year 13 of the reign of Madanapâla (= 1156/57 CE ) and donated by Sarânanda, son of Vârayicintâma∑i, from Va∂ahara country, living in Pañcako†igrâma. 38 Pratapaditya Pal, Indian Painting, Volume I (1000–1700): A Catalogue of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art Collection, with an appendix by Gouriswar Bhattacharya (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1993), 66–67 and 264. According to its colophon, the manuscript was written in year 17 of the reign of Madanapâla (= 1160/61 CE ) and donated by Prince Vikramamâna, son of Rudramâna, supreme feudal lord, provincial governor and king of kings. Pratapaditya Pal surmises that Rudramâna was King of Magadha. 408 The illustrations in the reassembled Pañcarakßâ Ms surely constitute one of the earliest examples – if not the earliest – of a new style in Indian book illumination, a style that is characterised by ornate and powerful forms and which probably developed separately in Bihar and northern Bengal during the twelfth century.39 The use of rich framing architectural elements for all figures and scenes – latterly of precious materials – indicates a new attitude: in the case of the deities depicted, contemplation has been replaced by a presence and dominance that projects outwards towards the viewer. Thus, the reuniting of this Pañcarakßâ manuscript is not just a fortunate occurrence in itself but also presents an opportunity to make known to the research community a major work of Indian Buddhist book illumination, of which so few copies have been preserved.40 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Catherine Glynn Benkaim, Jerry P. Losty, and Sam Fogg for supporting our study of the manuscript and for providing us with photographic material. 39 Bautze-Picron, “Buddhist Painting,” 160. Bautze-Picron has already pointed out this development and emphasises that the style of the illuminations from south-eastern Bengal – e.g. in the Baroda manuscript and the Kâra∑∂avyûhasûtra manuscript – resembles that of the Pañcarakßâ from the reign of Nayapâla far more closely than that of contemporaneous works from Bihar and northern Bengal. 40 Recently, the manuscript was also briefly described in Nancy Tingley, Buddhas (Petaluma, California: Pomegranate, 2009) 62-63, pl. 12. We are grateful to Christian Luczanits for drawing our attention to this publication. 409 APPENDIX I NAMES AND TITLES IN THE COLOPHON ªrî and ªrîmat (“illustrious,” “glorious”) The words ªrî and ªrîmat precede proper names and express respect for a person as well as for monasteries (Nâlandâ, etc.) and towns. In later Nepalese manuscripts the word ªrî may be repeated two or three times. In the majority of Pâla manuscripts, ªrîmat is only used for kings and very famous places and monasteries. Only in exceptional cases, metri causa, does it refer to ordinary donors or scribes in verses. The question of why some donors are referred to as ªrî while many others are not remains open. Cintoka, the name of the donor The name does not sound Sanskrit. Personal names from eastern Indian inscriptions and manuscripts have not yet become a subject of interest to scholars, and since they were often read incorrectly, present statements about them can only be highly provisional. It seems that names ending in -oka were not uncommon in eastern India for either men or women. Examples from colophons of about the same period include Ajhi(n)toka*,41 Câ∑∂oka,42 Risoka*,43 (Sâdhu-)Rîyoka*,44 and another name that has been deliberately erased by a later user of the manuscript.45 Amongst the names for women, Lâ∂okâ46 41 Pañcarakßâ from regnal year 26 of Vigrahapâla in the British Library (Or. 3346); reading by Kim, Unorthodox Practice, 67, and n. 44–45. See also Cecil Bendall, Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1902), 233. The asterisk denotes that I was unable to verify the reading of the name because the manuscript was not accessible. 42 Vimalakîrtinirdeªa and (Sarvabuddhavißayâvatâra-)Jñânâlokâlaµkâra from regnal year 12 of Gopâla, written in ProtoBengali-cum-Proto-Maithilî. See Yoshiyasu Yonezawa in The Study Group on Buddhist Sanskrit Literature, Introduction to Vimalakîrtinirdeªa and Jñânâlokâlaµkâra (The Institute for Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism, Taisho University, 2004), 74–75, and frontispiece; Yoshiyasu Yonezawa, “The Vimalakîrtinirdeªa and the (Sarvabuddhavißayâvatâra-)Jñânâlokâlaµkâra,” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 55, 3 (2007): 1086–87. 43 AsP from regnal year 8 of Râmapâla, in Ngor monastery in Central Tibet at the time of Sâπkriyâyana; reading by Râhula Sâπk®ityâyana, “Sanskrit Palm-leaf Mss. in Tibet,” Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society 21, 1 (1935): 32, n. 8, no. V. 59. 44 Pañcarakßâ of the ·aka year 1211 during the reign of Madhusena, in the Asiatic Society Kolkata (G. 4078). For the colophon, see Hara Prasad Shâstri, A Descriptive Catalogue of Sanscrit Manuscripts in the Government Collection, under the care of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. 1 (Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press, 1917), 117. 45 Pañcarakßâ from regnal year 22 of Govindapâla, in the Indian Museum, Kolkata (At/68/29). The last part of the name can be read as .i .oka in the photograph published by A.K. Bhattacharyya, “A Dated Pañcarakshâ Ms. of the Reign of Govindapâladeva,” Indian Museum Bulletin 4, 1 (1969): upper figure opposite p. 116. 46 AsP from regnal year 5 of Mahîpâla, Cambridge University Library (Add. 1464); the reading of the name as Lâ∂âkâ by Cecile Bendall, Catalogue of the Buddhist Sanskrit Manuscripts in the University Library Cambridge (Cambridge: University Press, 1883), 100, has already been corrected by Kim, Unorthodox Practice, 57, n. 23. The colophon page is partly published in R. D. Banerji, “The Pâlas of Bengal,” Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 5, 3 (Calcutta, 1915): pl. 37(d). 410 and Tejokâ47 are attested, as well as names ending in -âkâ such as Hîrâkâ*,48 Mâryurâkâ,49 and Uddâkâ.50 It appears likely that -ka represents a suffix added to names ending in -o or other vowels, in order to make them easier to decline in the genitive.51 The linguistic background of these names may largely be sought in later middle Indian dialects of eastern India (Apabhraµªa). However, the social and ethnic origin of most of the donors is entirely unknown. Finally, scribal errors must also be taken into consideration. sâdhu(ka) Several colophons of the same period also mention the title, profession, or caste of the donor or of his father. In this case, the word sâdhukai should be corrected to sâdhuka or sâdhu. It refers most probably to the father, but the exact connotation is not clear. The word sâdhu (“good”) can be a part of the name;52 however, there are at least two instances where it is not clear whether the word is part of the name or a title. In one colophon, mention is made of a Sâdhu-Gañjaka who is on his pilgrimage to Bodhgayâ and who is the son of the goldsmith Sâdhu-Sevadhara.53 The second example is the above-mentioned Sâdhu-Rîyoka. Finally, a much later manuscript was donated by sâdhu-ªrî-Mûrtidhara*, son of sâdhuªrî-Paradhara*.54 Here, as well as in our colophon, sâdhu unambiguously represents a kind of title. The title sâdhu along with the female form sâdhunî is also known from eastern Indian inscriptions and has been translated as “merchant” by Gouriswar Bhattacharya.55 47 AsP from regnal year 27 of Mahîpâla, in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (M. 86.185a–d). The colophon page was published in Pal, Indian Painting, 50–53 and 363 (cat. 1). See also Kim, Unorthodox Practice, 61, n. 31. 48 Pañcarakßâ from regnal year 16 of Govindapâla, in the National Archives, Kathmandu (5.83); reading by Kim, Unorthodox Practice, 117–18, n. 146. 49 AsP from regnal year 2 of Sûrapâla, in the Yarlung Museum, Tsethang, Lhoka District, Autonomous Region Tibet, China. For the colophon, see Eva Allinger, “A߆asâhasrikâ Prajñâpâramitâ,” in Tibet: Klöster öffnen ihre Schatzkammern (Essen and Munich: Kulturstiftung Ruhr, and Hirmer Verlag, 2006), 597, n. 57, cat. 26. 50 Pañcarakßâ from regnal year 14 of Nayapâla, in the Cambridge University Library (Add. 1688); colophon read by Bendall, Catalogue, 175. For the colophon page, see Banerji, “The Pâlas of Bengal,” pl. 37(c). 51 Further examples of names ending in -o are those of the two famous Mahâsiddhas Nâro(-pa) and Tilo(-pa). 52 For example, the ªâkyâcâryya-sthavira Sâdhugupta in the AsP from regnal year 6 of Mahîpâla, in the Asiatic Society, Kolkata (G. 4713); colophon read by Shâstri, Descriptive Catalogue, 2. 53 Pravaramahâyânayâyina˙ ªrîman-mahâbodho‹t›thita-paramopâsaka-suvar∑∑akâra-sâdhusevadharasuta-sâdhugañjakasya (fol. 273r4–5): AsP from year 32, in the Fournier collection, donated to the Musée Guimet, Paris ( MA 5161). A good photograph is published in Béguin, Arts ésotérique de l’Him√laya, 19, cat. 1; the interpretation offered by I. Alsopp and cited by Béguin differs. The name Mahâbodha for Bodhgayâ is interesting, since the term bodha denoting the tree sanctuary is already attested in the Bharhut inscriptions, while medieval inscriptions usually have mahâbodhi. 54 AsP from year 1334 of an unspecified era, during the reign of Vanarâja, in Ngor monastery in Central Tibet at the time of Râhula Sâπkrityâyana; reading by Sâπk®ityâyana, “Palm-leaf Mss.,” 33, n. 1, no. VI . 60. 55 Claudine Bautze-Picron, The Art of Eastern India in the Collection of the Museum für Indische Kunst, Berlin: Stone and Terracotta Sculptures, Inscriptions read by Gouriswar Bhattacharya (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1998), 75, cat. 196. Sâdhu as well as sâdhunî precede the word ªrî before the name. For an inscription from Cha∑∂imau and another from Giriyek (Bihar) mentioning merchants (va∑ij) who also bear the epithet sâdhu, see Banerji, “The Pâlas of Bengal,” 93–94, pl. 37(a), and Priyatosh Banerjee, “Two Mediaeval Inscriptions,” Journal of the Asiatic Society, Letters 19, 1 (1953): 106–7. 411 Nîlîsâlâ (Nîlîªâlâ) The place name is mentioned in a much older Licchavi inscription and in at least two other colophons where it appears with the spellings ªrî-Nînîsâlâ* and ªrî-Nîlîsolâ*, respectively.56 The inscription on a stone slab was found in front of a water-conduit known as Bhansâr Hi†î or Gaihrîdhârâ in Naksâl, a north-eastern suburb of Kathmandu.57 It was issued by order of mahâsâmanta Aµªuvarman in or around the first half of the seventh century. The ruler was pleased with the work on a canal or conduit called Nîlîªâlâ-pra∑âlî dug by the inhabitants of Joñjondiπ-grâma. It seems that the settlement became known by the name of Nîlîsâlâ, which was in use at least until the thirteenth century. The name of the monastery: ªrî-Saµkharadevakârita-ªrî-Sîhadevamahâvihâra If both names included in the designation, Saµkharadeva (·aπkaradeva) and Sîhadeva, are regarded as belonging to rulers, the question arises as to how both relate to the monastery. There are at least three rulers by the name of ·aπkaradeva in early medieval Nepalese history. One of them is a ruler from the Licchavi period;58 the second is virtually unknown and has been dated with caution by Petech to around 905–930.59 The third ·aπkaradeva (c. 1069–1082) 60 is quite famous, and many documents from his reign are extant. The latter king is also associated with a place referred to as Naµdîªâlâ in the Gopâlarâjavaµªâvalî, where he is said to have established the “Saπkareªvara” (·aπkareªvara liπga).61 A Sîhadeva/Siµhadeva is also well known from various sources. He ruled after ·aπkaradeva, from circa 1100 to 1122, and partly at the same time as ·ivadeva (c. 1098–1126).62 However, the names Sîha/ Siµha and ·iva seem to have been confused at times. In the Gopâlarâjavaµªâvalî we read that a ·ivadeva 56 Saurasaµhitâ (Nepal Samvat 61) in the Durbar Library and a Devîmahâtmyam (Nepal Samvat 365). See Hari Ram Joshi, Mediaeval Colophons (Lalitpur: Joshi Research Institute, 1991), 14–15, 159, nos. 6 and 204. 57 Cf., for example: Raniero Gnoli, Nepalese Inscriptions in Gupta Characters, Part I: Texts, Serie Orientale Roma 10, Materials for the Study of Nepalese History and Culture 2 (Rome: Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1956), 57, no. 42; D. R. Regmi, Inscriptions of Ancient Nepal (New Delhi: Abhinav Publications, 1983), 1:81–82, no. 79, and 2:50; and Dhanavajra Vajrâcârya, ed., Licchavikâlakâ Abhikekha, 2nd ed. (Kathmandu: Nepâl ra Eªiâlî, Anusandhâna Kendra, Tribhuvana Viªvavidyâlaya, 1996 [Vikramasaµvat 2053]), 354–56, no. 84. The exact date is illegible. 58 See, for example, Luciano Petech, Mediaeval History of Nepal (c. 750–1482), 2nd ed. (Rome: Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1984), 23, no. 16. 59 Ibid., 31–32. 60 Ibid., 46–47. 61 Folio 24 recto, line 1. See Dhanavajra Vajrâcârya and Kamal P. Malla, The Gopâlarâjavaµªâvalî (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1985), 4 (facsimile), 32, 127; and the fragment from the Kaisher Library (no. 171, page 4, lines 2–5); edited by Petech, Mediaeval History, 226; and Vajrâcârya and Malla, Gopâlarâjavaµªâvalî, 207 (facsimile), 216. Cf. also Petech, Mediaeval History, 47 (read “north-eastern” for “south-eastern”). The identification of Nandîªâlâ with Naksâl is taken for granted by the historians of Nepal. The details of this text frequently do not correspond precisely with the data of inscriptions, colophons, or palm-leaf deeds. In this case, the association of a ·aπkaradeva with Naksâl is interesting, although the text does not refer to a Buddhist monastery. 62 D. R. Regmi, Medieval Nepal, Part 1, Early Medieval Period, 750–1530 AD (Calcutta: Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay, 1965), 158–66; Petech, Mediaeval History, 51–57. 412 ruled for sixteen years and that he established the “Nandisâlâvihâra”,63 which may perhaps be the Sîhadeva-mahâvihâra of our colophon. This ·ivadeva, however, lived far earlier than the well-known king Sîhadeva, namely in the late Licchavi period. The tradition of including old and new names in a single designation for a monastery is well attested in other early documents. Nepalese monasteries have many names, at least one in Newari and one in Sanskrit. These names may have changed during the long history of Nepal. According to Bernhard Kölver and Hemrâj ·âkya, from the third century of the Nepal era onwards, the names of monasteries deriving from their donors became less subject to change. “This is when we begin to find a new style: the benefactor’s name was prefixed to the old designation, by means of -saµskârita-.”64 The case presented by both scholars may well be compared to our colophon. It concerns the monastery with the Newari name Vaµkuli, Vaµku vâhâra, Oµkuli, or Uku bâhâ˙ (“South-eastern Monastery”) in Patan, which in palm-leaf documents is called ªrî-·ivadevasaµskârita-ªrî-Rudravarma-mahâvihâra, “the Ven. Rudravarma Grand Monastery, embellished/renovated by the Ven. ·ivadeva.”65 There are also other examples of similar names found in old documents, inscriptions, or colophons, for example the Bhâskaradevasaµskârita-ªrî-Keªavacandrak®ta-Pârâvata-mahâvihâra (Ituµ Bâhâ)66 and the ·ivadevasaµskâritaªrî-Tedo-mahâvihâra (Te Bâhâ)67 in Kathmandu, or the Bhâskaradevasaµskârita-Hira∑yavar∑a-mahâvihâra (Kwâ Bâhâ)68 and the Indradevasaµskârita-Jayamanoharavarma-mahâvihâra (Su Bâhâ or Suku Bâhâ)69 in Patan. These examples differ from our colophon in the reading of kârita, “[caused to be] built by”, instead of saµskârita, “embellished/renovated by”. It is possible that our scribe omitted the prefix saµs-. According to the available historical information, a well-known Sîhadeva ruled after the three ·aπkaradevas; however, the evidence of the Gopâlarâjavaµªâvalî points in another direction. The name may belong to a ruler earlier than all known ·aπkaradevas, and thus the full designation of the monastery would tally with the observation made by Kölver and ·âkya.70 63 Folio 22 verso, line 5. See Vajrâcârya and Malla, Gopâlarâjavaµªâvalî, 3 (facsimile), 30, 126. 64 See Bernhard Kölver and Hemrâj ·âkya, Documents from the Rudravar∑a-Mahâvihâra, Pâ†an. 1. Sales and Mortages (Sankt Augustin: VGH -Wissenschaftsverlag, 1985), 99; for the naming of monasteries in general, see 13–14, 98–99. By contrast, John K. Locke, Buddhist Monasteries of Nepal: A Survey of the Bâhâs and Bahîs of the Kathmandu Valley (Kathmandu: Sahayogi Press Pvt. Ltd., 1985) generally understands the word saµskârita as referring to the founder of the monastery. 65 Kölver and ·âkya, Documents, 13. There are also later documents in which both names are exchanged. For the monastery, see also Locke, Buddhist Monasteries, 90–95. 66 Locke, Buddhist Monasteries, 284–90; on the name especially see 287–88. 67 Ibid., 304–8. 68 Ibid., 31–40 69 In a colophon dated NS 391 it is called ªrîmad-indriyasaµskârita-ªrî-jayamanoharavarma∑amahâvihâra. See ibid., 79–80. 70 In Naksâl there is an old vihâra still standing, the history of which is obscure. It is called “Naksal-bahal” and “Bhagwan-bahal” in Mary Shepherd Slusser, Nepal Mandala: A Cultural Study of the Kathmandu Valley (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982), vol. 1, 297, and vol. 2, map 4. 413 APPENDIX II ON PÂLA CHRONOLOGY For the most part only relative data are available on the chronology of the Pâla rulers, and these change each time new discoveries come to light. At the present time there are very few dates known that are convertible to Common Era dates. Mahîpâla (I) reigned in the year 1083 Vikramasaµvat = 1026 CE (inscription on a pedestal from Sârnâth, Sârnâth Museum).71 Madanapâla’s regnal year 18 is equivalent to the year 1083 of the ·aka era = 1161 CE (inscription on a pedestal of a Nârâya∑a image from Valgûdar).72 Another pedestal inscription from the reign of Madanapâla from Nongarh dates to Vikramasaµvat 1201 = 1144 CE . This would correspond to the regnal year 1 or 2 according to the date of the Valgûdar image inscription.73 Susan Huntington lists all the chronologies attempted up to 1984.74 Gouriswar Bhattacharya prefers a chronology without concrete dates, giving only the dates of the rulers’ reigns known so far.75 In order to provide an approximate point of reference for the dates given in the colophons, one may cautiously use Mukherji’s chronology:76 Nayapâla Vigrahapâla III Râmapâla Kumarapâla Gopâla IV Madanapâla c. 1034–1051 CE c. 1051–1075 CE c. 1075–1128 CE c. 1129 CE c. 1129–1143 CE c. 1143–1175 CE Before Ramapâla, his two brothers Mahîpâla II and Sûrapâla II reigned briefly; Mukherji does not include them. In the meantime it has been established that Sûrapâla reigned for at least two years.77 71 Susan L. Huntington, The “Pâla-Sena” Schools of Sculpture (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984) 30, 223–25, fig. 58. 72 Ibid., 30, 237. 73 S. C. Mukherji, “The Royal Charters of King Madanapâla and the Chronology of the Pâla Kings of Bengal and Bihar,” Journal of Bengal Art 4 (1999): 62. 74 Huntington, The “Pâla-Sena” Schools, 32–37 75 Bautze-Picron, The Art of Eastern India, 123. 76 Mukherji, “The Royal Charters,” 61–65. 77 Allinger “A߆asâhasrikâ Prajñâpâramitâ,” 220. 414