Guṇaprabha's Vinayasūtra Corpus: Texts and Contexts

Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra Corpus: Texts and Contexts
Paul K. Nietupski
John Carroll University
Abstract: This essay is a study of the corpus of texts associated with the
Vinayasūtra, written by ninth-century Indian scholar Guṇaprabha, and included
in the Tibetan Bstan ’gyur. The essay begins with consideration of the sūtra format
of the texts, the myths associated with the author, and continues to examine the
Indian and Chinese Vinayas available to the Tibetans and their choice of the
Mūlasarvāstivāda and Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra corpus. These are followed with
a brief discussion of the problems of manuscript availability and translation into
Tibetan. The essay concludes with a brief review of the texts and their translators.
The Tibetans’ choice of these texts as core documents for Tibetan Buddhism is
relevant to the study of canon formation, to the institutionalization of monasticism,
the place of monastic life in Tibetan Buddhism in relation to philosophical inquiry
and tantric ritual, and to the Tibetans’ preference for Indian sources.
Introduction
This essay introduces Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra and the corpus of derived Indian
texts in Sanskrit fragments and in Tibetan translations, a total of six scriptures.
The entire corpus is included in the Tibetan Bstan ’gyur, a sūtra corpus among the
śāstras. 1 That is, the lexical format of his work is modeled on ancient Indian texts
written in short aphorisms or sūtras, likely for ease of memorization and for
pedagogical purposes. The text is nonetheless included in the commentarial section
of the Tibetan canon, or the śāstras. This apparently innocuous detail raises
questions about canon classification in India and Tibet. How was this text regarded
1 For this study I compared versions of Guṇaprabha’s works in the Sde dge, Peking, and Co ne Bstan
’gyurs and in the existing Sanskrit versions and fragments. I have not compared the Mongolian versions
of Guṇaprabha’s works. In addition, I have not been able to gain access (not for lack of trying) to the
Sanskrit edition in Tibetan script of the Vinayasūtra and Autocommentary from Zha lu Monastery in
western Tibet, the original currently in the possession of the China Tibetology Research Institute in
Beijing, and studied and issued in facsimile by Taisho University in Japan. The incomplete reference
data I have for the latter text, studies, and facsimile are: Annual of the Institute for Comprehensive
Studies of Buddhism, Taisho University, 25 (2003); 26 (2004); and 27 (2005). The facsimile edition
was published by Taisho University in 2001.
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009): 1-19.
http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5698.
1550-6363/2009/5/T5698.
© 2009 by Paul K. Nietupski, Tibetan and Himalayan Library, and International Association of Tibetan Studies.
Distributed under the THL Digital Text License.

Nietupski: Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra Corpus
in India? How was it presented to the Tibetans, and why did they choose to include
it in the Bstan ’gyur?
Guṇaprabha’s text seems to imitate the style of many Indian non-Buddhist sūtra
texts. Pāṇini’s (ca. fourth century BCE) Aṣṭādhyāyī begins with the statement atha
śabdānuśasanam, Patañjali’s (ca. 200) Yogadarśanam begins with atha
yogānuśasanam, Bādarāyana’s (ca. second century BCE) Brahmasūtra and
Śaṅkara’s (788-820) Bhāṣya begin with atha brahmānuśasanam. These begin with
a uniform lexical convention, atha, followed by a short statement of the contents
of the work, and continue with the body of the text in short aphorisms. Guṇaprabha
likewise begins the Vinayasūtra with atha niryāṇavṛttam, which all commentators
explain in great detail, and goes on to compose the text in the Indian sūtra style.
This may be because he was educated in that tradition, perhaps because he felt that
his subject matter was of the same order of importance as the other great Indian
works, or he may have felt that his Vinayasūtra was more properly regarded as a
Buddhist sūtra, not at all a commentarial work. Regardless of Guṇaprabha’s
intentions, priorities, and the Indian canonical classifications, the Tibetans
understood Guṇaprabha’s text corpus as a commentarial work, a śāstra, and
included it in the Bstan ’gyur.
Indian and Tibetan styles and canonical formulations aside, the Vinayasūtra
texts were eventually selected to serve as the core Tibetan monastic documents.
This was a late choice; the verifiable early ninth-century translation of one of
Guṇaprabha’s texts came near the end of the Tibetan Imperial period, so it is not
likely that Guṇaprabha’s texts were circulated in A mdo’s eastern Vinaya, which
played an important role in the late tenth-century re-establishment of monasticism
in central Tibet. Even so, A mdo Vinaya was in the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition,
likely based on the only Vinaya in Tibetan language. This made the canonization
of Guṇaprabha’s Mūlasarvāstivāda-derived corpus an acceptable choice.
Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra with its Autocommentary was named as one of the
“Five Scriptures” (Po ti lnga) and was the subject of detailed commentaries by
Kun mkhyen mtsho sna ba (ca. thirteenth century), Dge ’dun grub pa, and Bu ston
rin chen grub. The importance of the text and tradition were maintained in the
Tibetan grouping, but the importance of the texts in India, even if marked by the
use of the sūtra style, remains unclear.
Who Was Guṇaprabha?
Guṇaprabha, like many Indian Buddhist authors, is a mysterious figure. It is difficult
to assess what of Guṇaprabha’s biographical data is factual and what is
embellishment invented to endow him with a high level Buddhist pedigree. The
inherited tradition describes him as an erudite monk and later an abbot from a
brahmin family, who lived and worked in Mathurā. 2 He is called a student of
2 See L. Chimpa and A. Chattopadhyaya, trans., Taranatha’s History of Buddhism in India (Simla:
Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1970), 176; S. A. Banerji, Traces of Buddhism in South India:
2

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
fourth-century Vasubandhu, mentor to seventh-century King Harṣa, and a
contemporary of one Ratnasiṃha (ca. 649). 3 His sectarian affiliations are likewise
expansive, as he writes of Vinaya, is associated with Vaibhāṣikas, is called a
bodhisattva, 4 is credited with authorship of commentaries on two Mahāyāna sūtras, 5
his monastic texts and commentaries include language suggestive of Mahāyāna
concerns, 6 and he is said to have had audiences with the Buddha Maitreya in the
course of his many sojourns to Tuṣita, Maitreya’s heaven.
The biographical details are uncertain, and beyond the suggestions in his writings
it may well be that the authorities sought to authenticate Guṇaprabha by associating
him with pre-eminent Buddhist figures and circumstances. The Tibetans heard
these messages and revered Guṇaprabha in the list of the famous masters of Indian
Buddhism, the “Six Ornaments and Two Superiors.” 7 If Guṇaprabha’s pedigree is
a matter of embellishment for religious ends, one might well also ask if, instead
of his reputation, were the Indian Guṇaprabha’s compositions and the Tibetans’
adoption of the Vinayasūtra corpus expressive of a modified, reduced size of
700-1600 A. D. (Calcutta: Scientific Book Agency, 1970), 95; D. K. Barua, Vihāras in Ancient India:
A Survey of Buddhist Monasteries (Calcutta: Indian Publications, 1969), 89.
3 Guṇaprabha, Vinayasūtra and Autocommentary on the Same by Guṇaprabha, ed. P. V. Bapat and
V. V. Gokhale (Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1982), xxii states that this mention of
Ratnasiṃha “…may be a marginal remark of some later reader of the text.” The Vinayasūtra and
Autocommentary, xxii, quotes J. Takakusu, A Record of Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and
the Malay Archipelago, AD 671-695. 2nd Edition (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1982), LVIII,
184: “I-tsing mentions one Ratnasiṃha as living then at Nālandā at about 649 A.D.”
4 In the opening of the Vinayasūtra Autocommentary.
5 Guṇaprabha, Byang chub sems pa’i sa’i ’grel pa [*Bodhisattvabhūmivṛtti] and Byang chub sems
pa’i tshul khrims kyi leu’i bshad pa [*Bodhisattvaśīlaparivartabhāṣya], in The Tibetan Tripiṭaka: Peking
Edition, Vol. 112, ed. D. T. Suzuki (Tokyo: Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute, 1955).
6 Guṇaprabha, Vinayasūtra, xliv remarks: “There is a reference to vajropamāsamāpatti (sūtra 1)
before attaining sopadhiśeṣanirvāṇa. This may well indicate the author’s Mahāyānism.” See the passage
“…even those endowed with compassion amongst those in this world with human bodies in fortunate
circumstances have many numbers of impurities, obstacles, and ugliness”: anukampakaiḥ dṛṣṭi [T.
kṣāṇa] saṃpanne ca manuṣyatve bahavo ’tra, Guṇaprabha, *Vinayasūtravṛttyabhidhānasvavyākhyānam
(Guṇaprabha, Vinayasūtra and Autocommentary, 13.3); thugs brtse ba dang ldan pa rnams kyis dal
’byor phun sum tshogs pa’i mi’i lus nyid ’di la/, Guṇaprabha, ’Dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa mngon par brjod
pa rang gi rnam par bshad pa, in the Sde dge Bstan ’gyur Series, vol. 161, no. 12, zhu (New Delhi:
Delhi Karmapae Chodhey, 1986), 12b.6. See references to various types of bodhi in the closing pages
of the *Vinayasūtravṛtti attributed to Guṇaprabha. See Guṇaprabha, ’Dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa, in the
Sde dge Bstan ’gyur Series, volume 165, no. 16, lu (New Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey, 1986),
343a.3 ff: “sangs rgyas kyi sku/”; see the discussions of śīla and samādhi (Guṇaprabha, ’Dul ba’i mdo’i
’grel pa, 21); see Guṇaprabha, ’Dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa, 16b.5: dgra bcom pa dang rang sangs rgyas
la mi byao bla la med pa’i sangs rgyas pas na yang dag rab mkhyen [ce]s so/; see The First Dalai
Lama, Dge ’dun grub pa, Legs par gsungs pa’i dam pa’i chos ’dul ba mtha’ dag gi snying po’i don
legs par bshad pa rin po che ’phreng ba, in The Collected Works of the First Dalai Lama dge ’dun
grub pa, vol. 1 (Gangtok: Dodrup Lama Sangye, Deorali Chorten, 1981), 55b.6: brtul zhugs can gyis
bla ma bas/; see Shes rab bzang po, Kun mkhyen mtsho sna ba, ’Dul ba mdo rtsa’i rnam bshad nyi
ma’i ’od zer legs bshad lung gi rgya mtsho (Karnataka: Drepung Losel Ling, n.d.), 62a.3: brtul gshug
can/. See Shes rab bzang po, ’Dul ba mdo rtsa’i rnam bshad for extensive comments on Mahāyāna
themes, for example ’phags pa’i tshul khrims (Shes rab bzang po, ’Dul ba mdo rtsa’i rnam bshad nyi
ma’i ’od zer legs bshad lung gi rgya mtsho, 73b.1 ff). See Guṇaprabha, ’Dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa, 9a.4:
snying rje che ba/.
7 Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, Dignāga, and Dharmakīrti (fl. ca. seventh century) are
the Six Ornaments. Śākyaprabha and Guṇaprabha are the Two Superiors.
3

Nietupski: Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra Corpus
medieval Indian Buddhist monasticism, perhaps the unappealing and cumbersome
detail of the older and larger Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, and even a reduced concern
with classical Vinaya and monastic concerns? 8 If this was the case in India, were
the Tibetan motives for adopting the corpus as Davidson suggests, namely that
monastic concerns were less of a priority in Tibet? The study of Guṇaprabha and
his texts along with the recent studies on early Tibetan Buddhism can shed some
light on the nature of Indian and Tibetan religions and institutional development.
What Vinayas Were Available to the Tibetans?
The Chinese translations show that there were a number of Indian Vinaya collections
available in the fifth century, some of which were also later available to the Tibetans
(remembering for example that Atiśa [980-1054] was in the Mahāsāṅghika system).
The Tibetans had contacts with the Chinese Buddhists in the seventh to eleventh
centuries, and they did indeed translate a number of Chinese Buddhist texts, but
they did not in general consider Chinese translations as sources for the Tibetan
Buddhist canon, disregarding the extensive corpus of Vinaya materials in Chinese. 9
This is made evident by the fact that the Chinese translated at least five Vinayas,
four in the early fifth century, 10 and a number of texts of Mūlasarvāstivādin in the
late seventh or very early eighth century, by Yijing (ca. 635-713), all of which
went unrecognized by the Tibetans.
There is also no evidence that Guṇaprabha’s texts were translated into Chinese.
Given their importance in Tibet, and presumably in India, the absence of
Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra texts, like some philosophical texts (of Candrakīrti [fl.
600-650], Dharmakīrti, and others, for example) is odd, but might be merely a
matter of timing. Davidson suggests that the majority of Chinese pilgrims visited
India before the development of those religious movements and that the
philosophical and monastic texts not included in the Chinese canons had not yet
been composed or at least not widely circulated. 11 Otherwise, if there was a later
stream of Chinese pilgrims, the lack of these materials in Chinese was a matter of
8 See Georges Dreyfus, The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a Tibetan Buddhist
Monk (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), where the author describes the relative
marginalization of the Vinaya documents in modern Tibetan Buddhism; Vinaya texts do not represent
modern Tibetan monastic practice. Davidson makes a similar assessment of Tibetan priorities and
behavior in the ninth century and later, suggesting at times rather little concern for strict monastic
discipline (Ronald M. Davidson, Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan
Culture [New York: Columbia University Press, 2004], 120-122). Perhaps a similar scenario served
as a motive for Guṇaprabha’s abbreviated composition, and for its adoption by the Tibetans.
9 See the early lists of Chinese texts translated into Tibetan in Georgios Halkias, “Tibetan Buddhism
Registered: A Catalogue from the Imperial Court of ’phang thang,” The Eastern Buddhist 36, nos. 1-2
(2004): 66, 99-100.
10 E. Frauwallner, The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature (Rome: Serie
Orientale Roma, 1956), 1-2 lists the Vinayas in Chinese translations: “the Sarvāstivādin, Dharmaguptaka,
Mahīśāsaka, Mahāsāṅghika, [and the] …Mūlasarvāstivādin.” See Jan Nattier, A Guide to the Earliest
Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han and Three Kingdoms Periods (Tokyo: The
International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008), 3.
11 Davidson, Tibetan Renaissance, 125.
4

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
accessibility, or because they were overlooked or ignored by the Chinese pilgrims
and translators.
The Tibetans only translated the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, the longest Vinaya,
in the eighth century, and Guṇaprabha’s summary texts later. The early translation
signals the Imperial adoption and later eastern Tibetan monastic preservation of
the Mūlasarvāstivāda system. The subsequent Tibetan choice of the
Mūlasarvāstivāda and later works by Guṇaprabha may have been a matter of
sectarian popularity of that system in eastern Tibet and in India, to the intentional
exclusion of other Indian systems and of the extensive Vinaya collections in
Chinese. If so, the Tibetan exclusive translation and adoption of Mūlasarvāstivāda
and derived texts makes sense, and marks a consensus among Tibetan religious
authorities.
Alternatively, was the Tibetan adoption of Mūlasarvāstivāda-derived texts more
by circumstance, merely a matter of availability of canonical texts made popular
in the places where they acquired their materials, less a matter of sectarian consensus
among Tibetans? Frauwallner speculated that different Vinaya systems were based
on the realities of distance between Buddhist missions, which may have had earlier
common sources but over time developed monastic and doctrinal differences. 12 If
this was the case, the Tibetan selection of the Mūlasarvāstivāda and later
Guṇaprabha’s corpus was not at all a conscious religious or doctrinal choice, but
merely a matter of regional availability. The source places for early Tibetan
Buddhist materials are generally known, for example, Nepal, Kashmir, and Bengal,
but if regional availability was a determining factor, it indicates that Tibetan
Buddhists were adopting a specific regional system or systems piecemeal, and not
at all comparing, collating, or fully editing materials from a pan-Indian Buddhist
tradition. This means that the choice of Mūlasarvāstivāda was not as much of a
choice as a matter of chance.
In support of this, regional Vinaya traditions in India are noted by Frauwallner,
who wrote that in addition to the Pāli Vinaya in Śrī Laṅkā, “[t]he Vinaya of the
Mūlasarvāstivādin would be the Vinaya of Mathurā, and that of the Sarvāstivādin
the Vinaya of Kaśmīr …and Gandhāra.” He further notes that “the earliest
translators of Vinaya texts of the Dharmaguptaka into Chinese were the Sogdian
K’ang Seng-k’ai and the Parthian T’an-ti,” 13 and Dutt speculates that the
Mahāsāṅghika were based in Mathurā or Kaśmīr. 14 These scholars make a case for
the Mūlasarvāstivāda and possibly the Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya being current in the
places Tibetan translators searched for canonical documents. This argument is
further corroborated somewhat by the facts that Guṇaprabha’s legendary home
was Mathurā, and his important Autocommentary is also known as the “Mathurā
12 Frauwallner, Earliest Vinaya, 12. See Nalinaksha Dutt, The Early History of the Spread of Buddhism
and the Buddhist Schools (New Delhi: Rajesh Publications, 1980), 110-123.
13 Frauwallner, Earliest Vinaya, 1-23, 37 ff.
14 Dutt, The Early History, 132-136.
5

Nietupski: Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra Corpus
Commentary.” 15 The choice or rather chance adoption of Mūlasarvāstivāda and
Guṇaprabha might indicate the prominence of Mathurā over Kaśmīr and Bengal
as a primary source place for the Tibetan Vinaya, even in light of the well known
importance of these latter sites in Tibetan Buddhist history.
Translations
The difficulties in terminology in the translated texts and the source manuscripts
in Indian languages signal the fact that the texts are likely descriptive of an Indian
monasticism of a past time, realities unfamiliar to the Tibetan translators, even
their Indian mentors, and sometimes difficult to express in Tibetan language.
Moreover, the then current Indian monasteries and their supporting communities
were under increasing social, economic, and political pressure from the eighth to
twelfth centuries and as a result the Buddhist monastic systems often fragmented
or inconsistent. Finding a single, consistent, pan-Indian Buddhist monastic system
in Mathurā, Nepal, Kaśmīr, and Bengal was likely impossible. 16
Another difficulty was the availability of reliable texts. Many Indian manuscripts
of the day were negatively impacted by scribal and copyist error, imperfect memory,
poor editing of fragments, lack of sponsorship, and others. Further, the fact that
the script of the available Sanskrit manuscript is not standard devanagari, difficult
for modern scholars and as Davidson points out, likely difficult for early Tibetans
faced with a large variety of texts in different scripts and even different languages. 17
The language of the Vinayasūtra verses and the Autocommentary (the former
complete in Sanskrit and Tibetan translations, the latter in Sanskrit fragments and
complete Tibetan translation), the two texts considered the most important in the
Tibetan Vinaya, are not in perfect grammatical Sanskrit. The unedited Sanskrit of
the Autocommentary is anomalous, since the compositions are based on solid
knowledge of ancient Vinaya documents, and the legends of Guṇaprabha refer to
him as a brahmin, a master of Indian religion, philosophy, secular sciences, and
likely Sanskrit language. His command of Buddhist and Indian literature is evident
in the Autocommentary, as is his awareness of Indian Buddhist history. On many
occasions he refers to other Buddhist texts, Brahmanical theories, technicalities of
Sanskrit grammar, and different practices and procedures in the history of
Buddhism.
The anomalies in the language of the Autocommentary are a product of the
chaotic trans-Himālayan translation environment. In addition to the difficulties of
the classical sūtra and commentary style the Autocommentary shows problems of
human error, perhaps different languages, scripts, and grammatical conventions.
15
’Dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa bcom brlag ma zhes bya ba [Mathurā Commentary] (Guṇaprabha, ’Dul
ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa mngon par brjod pa rang gi rnam par bshad pa, 273b.5).
16
Davidson has discussed the state of manuscripts and translations in detail. See Davidson, Tibetan
Renaissance, 84-128.
17
The editors Bapat and Gokhale do not identify the script of the Autocommentary, perhaps a śarada
script. See Davidson, Tibetan Renaissance, 127-128.
6

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
For example the Autocommentary overuses the Sanskrit convention for quotations
(iti). Does this indicate an oral commentary, or is the text complied from other
sources, from versions of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya? Oral recitation might be
marked by occasionally rough syntax, the overuse of the Sanskrit substantive
suffixes -tā and -tva, numerous references to what “the Master said” throughout
the text, and prominently, the expression “oral commentary” at the beginning of
the Vinayasūtra. If orally circulated, there may have been a small number of copies
of his works, and a possible reason for the less than eloquent style and syntax, not
to mention inaccurate classical saṃdhi rules. There are variant readings, and
different passages in the versions of the Vinayasūtra and Autocommentary quoted
in the Vṛtti that indicate that there may have been different versions of the
Vinayasūtra available to different translators at different times and in different
places, not a surprising scenario. 18
In sum, it appears that the problems of language, manuscript availability, memory
and others applied in the case of the Autocommentary, but less in the case of the
Ṭīka. It seems however that the problems were more a case of Indian manuscripts
and not the fault of the translators or other factors faced by ninth-century Jinamitra
(fl. ca. 824) and Cog ro klu’i rgyal mtshan (ninth century; Vinayasūtra and Ṭīka)
or of twelfth-century Alaṃkāradeva and Tshul khrims ’byung gnas sbas pa (ca.
1107-1190; Autocommentary), who are widely known for their accurate translations.
We can see that they were faithful to the Sanskrit versions of the Vinayasūtra and
Autocommentary, and by their reputations and readability of the texts, we can
assume that their sources for the Ṭīka were in relatively better shape. The translators,
source texts, translations and thus the degrees of accuracy of the Vṛtti and the
Vyākhyāna are unknown.
Texts
Guṇaprabha’s root text, the Vinayasūtra, is composed in sūtras or “aphorisms,”
terse statements possibly designed to function as mnemonic devices; they are not
written in any regular meter. The text is based on the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya,
and includes many references to the specifics of the Prātimokṣa, Sūtravibhaṅga,
Karmavācanā, and Skandhaka from that system. The seventeen chapters of
Guṇaprabha’s work correspond to the seventeen topics of the Skandhaka. Bapat
pointed out that Guṇaprabha chose the Vinayavastu as the framework for his
Vinayasūtra, but his Vinayasūtra “…covers the whole field of Vinaya–the
18 For example, in the first sūtra: atha niryāṇavṛttam (Guṇaprabha, Vinayasūtra and Autocommentary,
3.6, 3.7, 3.19-20); de nas nges bar ’byung ba’i tshul ’khrims kyi dbang du byas te/ (Guṇaprabha, ’Dul
ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa mngon par brjod pa rang gi rnam par bshad pa, 1a.3). Guṇaprabha,
*Vinayasūtravṛtti, 1a.1: gtogs pa nges par theg pa’i tshul te/ for atha niryāṇavṛttam in the Vinayasūtra
and Autocommentary Sanskrit edition. In Prajñākara, ’Dul ba mdo’i rnam par bshad pa, in the Sde dge
Bstan ’gyur Series, volume 164, #15, ru (New Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey, 1986): nges par theg
pa’i tshul du gtogs pa ste/. These latter two texts use nges par theg pa for niryāṇa, instead of the more
common nges bar ’byung ba. There are also terms in the texts that do not appear in the Mahāvyutpatti
lexicon. See for example Guṇaprabha, ’Dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa, 12a.2, 12a.5, 12b.5: mur ’dug pa here
and throughout for mu stegs pa; not in Mahāvyutpatti.
7

Nietupski: Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra Corpus
Prātimokṣa, along with its commentary, Vibhaṅga, and the Khandakas.” 19 For
example, in the Renunciation Section (pravrajyāvastu) of the Vinayasūtra, sūtra
76, Guṇaprabha included the penalties for violations of Community Meeting rules
from the Mūlasarvāstivāda Prātimokṣa/sūtravibhaṅga. 20 The extent and sources
of numerous inclusions are discussed in the Introduction to Bapat and Gokhale’s
edition of the Vinayasūtra and the Autocommentary. 21 This shows that Guṇaprabha’s
texts can be understood as an abbreviated version of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya,
reflecting what were considered essential elements of the earlier text. There is a
complete Sanskrit version of this text, identical or at least very close to the versions
embedded in the extant Sanskrit fragments and translated Tibetan commentaries. 22
Guṇaprabha’s own commentary on his Vinayasūtra is the Autocommentary
(Vinayasūtravṛttyabhidhānasvavyākhyāna). The colophon of the Autocommentary
records that the text was translated into Tibetan by the twelfth-century translators
Alaṃkāradeva and Tshul khrims ’byung gnas sbas pa. It was composed in the Dpal
sa nyi Palace, 23 and translated in Dben tsha Temple 24 in a dharma center 25 at the
base of Dpal sgye’u Mountain. The Autocommentary is often terse, but can often
be clarified by reference to Dharmamitra’s Ṭīka.
The Vinayasūtra and the Autocommentary are similar in style. The two texts
flow together well, the commentary following the sequence of the sūtras. The
Autocommentary is however a difficult text. The author’s mastery of the language
and concepts are evident throughout, but the comments are sometimes terse, and
editing of the available manuscript is poor.
The third text in the Vinayasūtra series, *Vinayasūtravṛtti, is attributed to
Guṇaprabha, though the colophon suggests that it was a compilation of several
scholars. 26 It is interesting to speculate what this means and how the composition
19 P. V. Bapat, “Discovery of a Sanskrit Text: Vinaya Sūtra,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth
International Congress of Orientalists, New Delhi, January 4-10, Vol. 3, Part 1 (Poona: Bhandarkar
Oriental Research Institute, 1969), 343.
20 Guṇaprabha, Vinayasūtra and Autocommentary, 14.15-17; Guṇaprabha, ’Dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa
mngon par brjod pa rang gi rnam par bshad pa, 14a.5.
21 Guṇaprabha, Vinayasūtra and Autocommentary, xxiii-xxv.
22 Guṇaprabha, Vinayasūtra of Bhadanta Guṇaprabha, ed. Rahul Sankrityayana (Bombay: Bharatiya
Vidya Bhavan, 1981).
23 Dpal sa nyi’i gtsug lag khang chen por/ (Guṇaprabha, ’Dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa mngon par brjod
pa rang gi rnam par bshad pa, 273b.6-7). The next passage has a long epithet, not uncommon among
Indian kings: rje btsun dam pa rgyal po chen po’i yang chen po dbang phyug dam pa dpal tshul khrims
nyi ma’i lha rab tu rgyas par gyur pa rnam par rgyal ba’i rgyal srid kyi lo la bris pa yin no/
(Guṇaprabha, ’Dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa mngon par brjod pa rang gi rnam par bshad pa, 273b.7).
24 Dben tsha’i gtsug lag khang / (Guṇaprabha, ’Dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa mngon par brjod pa rang gi
rnam par bshad pa, 274a.7).
25 Chos skor/ (Guṇaprabha, ’Dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa mngon par brjod pa rang gi rnam par bshad
pa, 274a.7).
26 Also called the ’Grel chung in Tibetan. The translators of this commentary, the *Vinayasūtravṛtti,
are not specified in the colophon of the text. See Guṇaprabha, ’Dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa, 344a.7: ’dul
ba’i mdo’i rtsa ba’i ’grel pa chung ba slob dpon mang du thos shing yon tan dang ldan pa yon tan gyi
’od thams cad yod par smra ba pas byas pao/.
8

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
of the text took place. The Vṛtti is very different in style than the above two texts,
the Vinayasūtra and the Autocommentary. It is wordy and explicit, unlike the terse
and sometimes technical language of Guṇaprabha’s other texts. In addition, the
general vocabulary of the Vṛtti is different from that in Guṇaprabha’s other texts
and Dharmamitra’s Ṭīka. For example, it contains Buddhist terms not found in
Guṇaprabha’s other works or in Dharmamitra’s Ṭīka. 27 My conclusion is that this
text, while attributed to him, and definitely unpacking the subtleties of the
Vinayasūtra, is probably a compilation of teachings on the Vinayasūtra, and
prepared by disciples or translators.
The Vṛtti is stylistically different from the other two Vinayasūtra texts attributed
to Guṇaprabha, but is stylistically similar to Prajñākara’s Vinayasūtravyākhyāna. 28
Both of these commentaries are in straightforward prose, clear and concise, and
easy in style, giving insightful interpretations of Guṇaprabha’s works. The
Vyākhyāna is a valuable commentary in its own right, though little is known of
Prajñākara or his text. Both of these texts, the Vṛtti and the Vyākhyāna do not
reproduce the Vinayasūtra and Autocommentary in their entirety, but follow the
line of reasoning closely, giving paraphrases of the original.
Of all the commentaries, Dharmamitra’s Ṭīka 29 follows the Vinayasūtra and
Autocommentary the closest. Dharmamitra was possibly a Tokhārian scholar and
reputedly a student of Guṇaprabha, though there is no corroborating evidence for
this claim. He is identified in the colophon as a Vaibhāṣika Master of a place called
Tho gar. The colophon goes on to state that his Ṭīka was translated into Tibetan
at the request of Dpal lha btsan po, as noted above, by the Ācārya, Jinamitra, and
the Tibetan translator, Cog ro klu’i rgyal mtshan.
Though the Ṭīka omits passages from time to time, it follows the Vinayasūtra
and Autocommentary closely, offering in-depth explanations of key points. The
version of the sūtras in the earlier (ninth century) translated Ṭīka is identical to the
later-translated (twelfth century) Vinayasūtra and Autocommentary. The language
of the Ṭīka is very refined, with accurate grammar and correct usage of semantic
devices. It contains a wealth of information. Its style resembles that of the
Vinayasūtra and Autocommentary, unlike that of the Vṛtti and the Vyākhyāna.
The translation sequence of these texts is itself odd. Even though the
Autocommentary is regarded as the core document for Tibetan Buddhist
monasticism, as is shown in the native Tibetan commentaries, Guṇaprabha’s
Vinayasūtra and Dharmamitra’s Ṭīka were translated into Tibetan first by
Jinamitra, 30 a Kaśmīri expert in Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, and Cog ro klu’i rgyal
27 See above and also Guṇaprabha, ’Dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa, 342b.1-344a.7.
28 The colophon in this text makes no mention of its translators from Sanskrit to Tibetan.
29 ’Phags pa gzhi thams cad yod par smra ba’i ’dul ba kun las btus pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa/,
Dharmamitra, ’Dul ba’i mdo’i rgya cher ’grel pa, in the Sde dge Bstan ’gyur Series, 162, 13, ’u (New
Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey, 1986), 390a.5.
30 See A. Kaul, Buddhist Savants of Kashmir: Their Contributions Abroad (Srinagar: Utpal
Publications, 1987), 33-5, 69-70. For Cog ro klu’i rgyal mtshan, see David S. Ruegg, The Literature
9

Nietupski: Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra Corpus
Mtshan, in the early ninth century. The more important – to the Tibetans –
Autocommentary was translated later, in the twelfth century, by Alaṃkāradeva
and Tshul khrims ’byung gnas sbas pa. 31 The sequence of translation as we have
it before us does not correspond to the prominence given to the Autocommentary
by the Tibetans, or it may signal the evolution of monasticism in Tibet, as the more
important text was not translated until the twelfth century.
The last known 32 commentarial text on the Vinayasūtra is the Vinayakārikā
(also known as Āryamūlasarvāstivādavinayakārikā Puṣpamālānāma) by
Viśākhadeva, a disciple of Saṃghadāsa, who was said to be a contemporary of
Vasubandhu. 33 This association with Vasubandhu creates the same problem as for
Guṇaprabha. If Guṇaprabha lived in the Post Gupta Dynasty Viśākhadeva could
hardly have written about his text. There is little data for the precise dating of
Viśākhadeva.
This text, the Puṣpamālā, is included in the list of commentaries on the
Vinayasūtra, but is in fact not a commentary but a kārikā summary of the contents
of the Vinayasūtra. Though useful in its own right as an independent treatise, the
Puṣpamālā is of little use for understanding the Vinayasūtra texts and
commentaries. 34
Conclusion
Guṇaprabha’s three texts, Dharmamitra’s Ṭīka and Prajñākara’s
Vinayasūtravyākhyāna make up the core of the Vinayasūtra corpus. They were
evidently translated at different times and places, suggesting that not all of these
texts were available to the Tibetans at the same time. The texts are nonetheless a
coherent collection and represent a collective attempt to define Tibetan monasticism.
of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981), 69n, 85n,
86n.
31 These dates are tentative, though the translators were most likely active in the twelfth century. See
Grags pa ’byung gnas, Gangs can mkhas grub rim byon ming mdzod (Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe
skrun khang, 1992), 767-769.
32 Priya S. Singh, “The Vinayasūtra of Guṇaprabha: A Historical Note,” in Buddhist Studies: The
Journal of the Department of Buddhist Studies 10 (New Delhi: University of Delhi, March, 1986).
33 Chimpa and Chattopadhyaya, Taranatha’s History, 150; it was translated into Tibetan by Jayakara,
Prajñākīrti (Taranatha says that Prajñākīrti was from Snyel tsor, 197, n.10-12), Vānaratna, and Rong
ston.
34 The modern Tibetan tradition describes the Vinayasūtra text history, with comments on other
Vinaya materials: “The Master Guṇaprabha composed the actual nine-sectioned Vinayasūtra, and
second, the nine-sectioned Karmaśataṃ. His disciple was the Master Dharmamitra, who composed the
*Vinayasūtraṭīka in seventy sections. Furthermore, Guṇaprabha is credited with the Vṛtti of that very
sūtra, the Short Commentary. There are [also] the Indian texts composed by Prajñākara, the short
commentary composed by Vimalamitra, and one composed by Śākyaprabha… Kalyāṇamitra composed
a commentary on the vastus (lung gzhi) and points of inquiry (zhu ba’i ’grel pa). Vimalamitra [composed]
a commentary on the Prātimokṣasūtra in fifty sections, [and] in particular, Mitra [composed] the So
sor bsdus ’grel. Vinitadeva composed a commentary on the Vibhaṅga, and Śīlapālita composed a
commentary on the Kṣudraka.” Bsod nams grags pa, ’Dul ba’i chos ’byung [History of Vinaya]
(Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1975), 18.4-24.4.
10

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
The answers the texts provide are intriguing, and yet the texts raise further
interesting questions. Monasticism was a part of Buddhism in Tibet, but it was
only gradually institutionalized, signaled by the adoption of Guṇaprabha’s
summaries, and their gradual rise in importance. The exact nature and extent of
ninth to twelfth-century Indian and Tibetan Buddhist monasticism remain topics
for further research. There are reports of monastic ordinations and evidence of
monks and monasteries in Tibet, but routine rituals were likely not exactly similar
to those described in Guṇaprabha’s texts, suggesting that Indian monasticism as
represented in the literature only gradually evolved into a distinctively Tibetan
institution.
11

Nietupski: Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra Corpus
Glossary
Note: these glossary entries are organized in Tibetan alphabetical order. All entries
list the following information in this order: THL Extended Wylie transliteration
of the term, THL Phonetic rendering of the term, the English translation, the
Sanskrit equivalent, the Chinese equivalent, other equivalents such as Mongolian
or Latin, associated dates, and the type of term.
Ka
Wylie
kan su’u mi rigs dpe
skrun
khang
kun mkhyen mtsho sna
ba
Ga
Wylie
Phonetics
Kensu Mirik
Petrünkhang
Künkhyen Tsonawa
Phonetics
gangs can mkhas grub Gangchen Khedrup
rim byon
ming mdzod
Rimjön Mingdzö
grags pa ’byung gnas Drakpa Jungné
dge ’dun grup pa
dge ’dun grub pa
’grel chung
Ca
Wylie
co ne
cog ro klu’i rgyal
mtshan
Nya
Wylie
snyel tsor
Ta
Wylie
bstan ’gyur
Tha
Wylie
tho gar
Da
Wylie
’dul ba
mdo rtsa’i rnam
bshad nyi ma’i ’od zer
legs bshad lung gi
rgya mtsho
’dul ba mdo’i rnam
par bshad pa
Gendün Druppa
Gendün Druppa
Drelchung
Phonetics
Choné
Chokro Lü Gyentsen
Phonetics
Nyeltsor
Phonetics
Tengyur
Phonetics
Togar
Phonetics
Dülwa Do Tsé
Namshé Nyimé Özer
Lekshé Lunggi
Gyamtso
Dülwa Dö Nampar
Shepa
English
English
The First Dalai
Lama
English
English
English
English
English
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
San. *Vinayasūtravyākhyāna
Dates
ca. 13th
century
Dates
Type
Publisher
Person
Type
Text
Author
1391-1475 Person
Dates
ninth
century
Dates
Dates
Dates
Dates
Author
Text
Type
Place
Person
Type
Place
Type
Title collection
Type
Place
Type
Text
Text
12

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
’dul ba’i chos ’byung
’dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel
pa
’dul ba’i
mdo’i ’grel pa mngon
par brjod pa rang gi
rnam par bshad pa
’dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel
pa
bcom brlag ma zhes
bya ba
’dul ba’i mdo’i rgya
cher ’grel
pa
sde dge
sde dge bstan ’gyur
Pa
Wylie
po ti lnga
dpal sgye’u
dpal sa nyi
dpal lha btsan po
Pha
Wylie
’phags pa’i tshul
khrims
Ba
Wylie
bu ston rin chen grub
Dülwé Chönjung
Dülwé Dö Drelpa
Dülwé Dö Drelpa
Ngönpar Jöpa Ranggi
Nampar Shepa
Dülwé Dö Drelpa
Chomlakma Zhejawa
Dülwé Dö Gyacher
Drelpa
Degé
Degé Tengyur
Phonetics
Poti Nga
Pel Gyeu
Pel Sanyi
Pellha Tsenpo
Phonetics
pakpé tsültrim
Phonetics
Butön Rinchen Drup
byang chub sems pa’i Jangchup Sempé
Tsültrimkyi Leü Shepa
tshul khrims kyi leu’i
bshad pa
byang chub sems pa’i Jangchup Sempé Sé
sa’i ’grel
pa
Drelpa
dben tsha
Tsha
Wylie
tshul khrims ’byung
gnas sbas pa
Zha
Wylie
zha lu
zhu ba’i ’grel pa
Ra
Wylie
rong ston
Wentsa
Phonetics
Tsültrim Jungné Bepa
Phonetics
Zhalu
zhuwé drelpa
Phonetics
Rongtön
History of Vinaya
Mathurā
Commentary
English
Five Scriptures
English
English
English
English
point of inquiry
English
San.
*Vinayasūtravṛtti
San. *Vinayasūtravṛttyabhidhānasvavyākhyānam
San.
*Vinayasūtraṭīka
Other
Other
Other
San.
*Bodhisattvaśīlaparivartabhāṣya
San.
*Bodhisattvabhūmivṛtti
Other
Other
Other
Dates
Dates
Dates
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Place
Collection
Type
Textual Group
Mountain
Building
Person
Type
Term
Type
1290-1364 Person
Dates
ca.
1107-1190
Dates
Dates
Text
Text
Building
Type
Person
Type
Monastery
Term
Type
Person
13

Nietupski: Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra Corpus
La
Wylie
lung gzhi
legs par gsungs pa’i
dam pa’i chos ’dul ba
mtha’ dag gi snying
po’i don legs par
bshad pa rin po che
’phreng ba
Sha
Wylie
shes rab bzang po
Sa
Wylie
so sor bsdus ’grel
bsod nams grags pa
A
Wylie
a mdo
Sanskrit
Wylie
Phonetics
lungzhi
Lekpar Sungpé
Dampé Chö Dülwa
Tadakgi Nyingpö Dön
Lekpar Shepa
Rinpoché Trengwa
Phonetics
Sherap Zangpo
Phonetics
Sosor Dündrel
Sönam Drakpa
Phonetics
Amdo
Phonetics
English
English
English
English
English
Other
San. vastu
Other
Other
Other
Sanskrit
ācārya
Alaṃkāradeva
anuśasanam
Āryadeva
Āryamūlasarvāstivādavinayakārikā
puṣpamālānāma
Asaṅga
Aṣṭādhyāyī
atha
Atiśa
Bādarāyana
Bhāṣya
bodhi
bodhisattva
Brahma
brahmānuśasanam
Brahmasūtra
brahmin
Candrakīrti
devanagari
Dates
Dates
Dates
Dates
Dates
twelfth
century
980-1054
ca. second
century
BCE
fl.
600-650
Type
Term
Text
Type
Author
Type
Text
Author
Type
Place
Type
Term
Person
Term
Person
Text
Person
Text
Term
Person
Person
Text
Term
Term
Non-buddhist
deity
Term
Text
Term
Person
Term
14

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
Miscellaneous
Topics
Dharmaguptaka
Dharmakīrti
Dharmamitra
Dignāga
Gandhāra
Guṇaprabha
Harṣa
iti
Jayakara
Jinamitra
Kalyāṇamitra
kārikā
Karmaśataṃ
Karmavācanā
Kaśmīr
Khandaka
Kṣudraka
Mahāsāṅghika
Mahāvyutpatti
Mahāyāna
Mahīśāsaka
Maitreya
Mathurā
Mitra
Mūlasarvāstivāda
Mūlasarvāstivādin
Nāgārjuna
Nālandā
niryāṇa
niryāṇavṛttam
Pāli
Pāṇini
Patañjali
Prajñākara
Prātimokṣa
fl. ca. 7th
century
ca.
seventh
century
fl. ca. 824
ca. fourth
century
BCE
ca. 200
Doxographical
Category
Person
Author
Person
Place
Person
Person
Term
Person
Person
Person
Term
Text
Text
Place
Text
Text
Doxographical
Category
Text
Doxographical
Category
Doxographical
Category
Buddhist deity
Place
Person
Doxographical
Category
Doxographical
Category
Person
Monastery
Term
Term
Ethnicity
Person
Person
Author
Text
15

Text
Prātimokṣasūtra
Text
Pravrajyāvastu
Renunciation
Section
Text
Puṣpamālā
Person
ca. 649
Ratnasiṃha
Term
śabda
Person
Śākyaprabha
Term
samādhi
Term
saṃdhi
Person
Saṃghadāsa
Person
788-820
Śaṅkara
Term
śarada
Doxographical
Category
Sarvāstivādin
Term
śāstra
Term
śīla
Person
Śīlapālita
Text
Skandhaka
Term
sopadhiśeṣanirvāṇa
Place
Śrī Laṅkā
Term
sūtra
Text
Sūtravibhaṅga
Person
Taranatha
Text
Ṭīka
Place
Tuṣita
Doxographical
Category
Vaibhāṣika
Term
vajropamāsamāpatti
Person
Vānaratna
Person
ca. fourth
century
Vasubandhu
Text
Vibhaṅga
Person
Vimalamitra
Collection
Vinaya
Text
Vinayakārikā
Text
Vinayasūtra
Text
Vinayasūtra-
vṛttyabhidhāna-
svavyākhyāna
Autocommentary
Text
Vinayasūtra-
vyākhyāna
Person
Vinitadeva
Person
Viśākhadeva
Term
vṛttam
Text
Vṛtti
16
Nietupski: Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra Corpus

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
Chinese
Wylie
Phonetics
English
Vyākhyāna
yoga
Yogadarśanam
yogānuśasanam
Chinese
K’ang Seng-k’ai
Lanzhou
T’an-ti
Yijing
Dates
ca.
635-713
Text
Term
Text
Term
Type
Person
Publication
Place
Person
Person
17

Nietupski: Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra Corpus
Bibliography
Sources in Tibetan and Sanskrit
Bsod nams grags pa. ’Dul ba’i chos ’byung [History of Vinaya]. Dharmasala:
Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1975.
Dge ’dun grub pa, The First Dalai Lama. Legs par gsungs pa’i dam pa’i chos ’dul
ba mtha’ dag gi snying po’i don legs par bshad pa rin po che ’phreng ba. In
The Collected Works of the First Dalai Lama Dge ’dun grub pa. Vol. 1.
Gangtok: Dodrup Lama Sangye, Deorali Chorten, 1981.
Dharmamitra. ’Dul ba’i mdo’i rgya cher ’grel pa [*Vinayasūtraṭīka]. In the Sde
dge Bstan ’gyur Series, 162, 13, ’u. New Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey,
1986.
Grags pa ’byung gnas. Gangs can mkhas grub rim byon ming mdzod. Lanzhou:
Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1992.
Guṇaprabha. Byang chub sems pa’i sa’i ’grel pa [*Bodhisattvabhūmivṛtti]. In
The Tibetan Tripiṭaka: Peking Edition, volume 112, edited by D. T. Suzuki.
Tokyo: Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute, 1955.
———. Byang chub sems pa’i tshul khrims kyi leu’i bshad pa
[*Bodhisattvaśīlaparivartabhāṣya]. In The Tibetan Tripiṭaka: Peking Edition,
volume 112, edited by D. T. Suzuki. Tokyo: Tibetan Tripitaka Research
Institute, 1955.
———. ’Dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa mngon par brjod pa rang gi rnam par bshad
pa [*Vinayasūtravṛttyabhidhānasvavyākhyānam]. In the Sde dge Bstan ’gyur
Series, volume 161, no. 12, zhu. New Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey, 1986.
———. Vinayasūtra and Autocommentary on the Same by Guṇaprabha. Edited
by P. V. Bapat and V. V. Gokhale. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute,
1982.
———. Vinayasūtra of Bhadanta Guṇaprabha. Edited by Rahul Sankrityayana.
Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1981.
———. ’Dul ba’i mdo’i ’grel pa [*Vinayasūtravṛtti]. In the Sde dge Bstan ’gyur
Series, volume 165, no. 16, lu. New Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey, 1986.
Prajñākara. ’Dul ba mdo’i rnam par bshad pa [*Vinayasūtravyākhyāna]. In the
Sde dge Bstan ’gyur Series, volume 164, #15, ru. New Delhi: Delhi Karmapae
Chodhey, 1986.
Shes rab bzang po, Kun mkhyen mtsho sna ba. ’Dul ba mdo rtsa’i rnam bshad
nyi ma’i ’od zer legs bshad lung gi rgya mtsho. Karnataka: Drepung Losel
Ling, n.d.
18

Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
Secondary Sources
Banerji, S. A. Traces of Buddhism in South India: 700-1600 A. D. Calcutta:
Scientific Book Agency, 1970.
Bapat, P. V. “Discovery of a Sanskrit Text: Vinaya Sūtra,” in the Proceedings of
the Twenty-Sixth International Congress of Orientalists, New Delhi, January
4-10, Volume 3, Part 1, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1969,
343.
Barua, D. K. Vihāras in Ancient India: A Survey of Buddhist Monasteries. Calcutta:
Indian Publications, 1969.
Chimpa, L. and A. Chattopadhyaya, trans. Taranatha’s History of Buddhism in
India. Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1970.
Davidson, Ronald M. Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of
Tibetan Culture. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004.
Dreyfus, Georges B. J. The Sound of Two Hands Clapping: The Education of a
Tibetan Buddhist Monk. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.
Dutt, Nalinaksha. The Early History of the Spread of Buddhism and the Buddhist
Schools. New Delhi: Rajesh Publications, 1980.
Frauwallner, E. The Earliest Vinaya and the Beginnings of Buddhist Literature.
Rome: Serie Orientale Roma, 1956.
Halkias, Georgios. “Tibetan Buddhism Registered: A Catalogue from the Imperial
Court of ’phang thang.” The Eastern Buddhist 36, nos. 1-2 (2004): 46-105.
Kaul, A. Buddhist Savants of Kashmir: Their Contributions Abroad. Srinagar:
Utpal Publications, 1987.
Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from
the Eastern Han and Three Kingdoms Periods. Tokyo: The International
Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008.
Ruegg, David S. The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in
India. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981.
Singh, Priya S. “The Vinayasūtra of Guṇaprabha: A Historical Note.” Buddhist
Studies: The Journal of the Department of Buddhist Studies, no. 10 (1986).
Takakusu, J. A Record of Buddhist Religion as Practised in India and the Malay
Archipelago, AD 671-695. 2nd Edition. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal,
1982.
19