PACIFIC WORLD - The Institute of Buddhist Studies

Davidson: Hidden Realms and Pure Abodes 175Study in the Archaeology of Religions,” Religion 17 (1987): pp. 193–225;“On the Buddha and His Bones: The Concept of Relic in the Inscriptions ofNågårjuniko√∂a,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 108 (1988): pp.527–537; and “The Buddha as an Owner of Property and PermanentResident in Medieval Indian Monasteries,” Journal of Indian Philosophy18 (1990): pp. 181–217. One could certainly argue that, because the statementis used to refer to both the st¥pa and to an arhat, this indicates theliving quality of the st¥pa. Be that as it may, its similarity to Upagupta ispredicated on, first, its real difference from the Buddha (as Upagupta was),and on the ideology of the survival of the Buddha’s message conveyedthrough different personalities, as Upagupta’s position in the lineage ofKashmiri-Gandhåran patriarchs clearly represented.15. Martha L. Carter (“Petroglyphs at Chilas II: Evidence for a Pre-IconicPhase of Buddhist Art in Gandhara,” in South Asian Archaeology 1991,Adalbert J. Gail and Gerd J. R. Mevissen, eds. [Stuttgart: Franz SteinerVerlag, 1993], pp. 349–366) illustrates pre-KuΩåna st¥pa-s, very differentfrom the plaques illustrated in Ram Chandra Kak (Ancient Monuments ofKashmir [London: The India Society, 1933], pl. XVIII), which show startlingsimilarities to the small st¥pa-s of Turfan and Gansu discussed by HubertDurt, et al. (“A propos de ‘st¥pa minatures’ votifs du Ve siècle découvertsà Tourfan et au Gansu,” Arts Asiatiques 40 [1985]: pp. 92–106).16. Strong, The Legend and Cult of Upagupta, pp. 28–32.17. P’ou sou p’an tou fa shih chuan, in Taishø, vol. 50, no. 2049, pp.190c15–16; Takakusu Junjirø, “The Life of Vasu-Bandhu by Paramartha (A.D. 499–569),” T’oung Pao, ser 2, vol. 5 (1904): p. 290.18. This point is on the issue of the nature of the “roots of goodness” (threeor four), and the nature of the fourth of them. AbhidharmakoΩabhå≈ya-Vyåkhyå, ascribed to YaΩomitra, Swami Dwarikadas Shastri, ed., inAbhidharmakoΩa and Bhå≈ya of Aòchaµrya Vasubandhu with SphutårthåCommentary of Åchårya YaΩomitra, Bauddha Bharati Series, no. 5 (Varanasi:Bauddha Bharati, 1970), pp. 429.23, and 795.25; Abhidharma-Mahåvibhå≈a-Ωåstra, in Taishø, vol. 27, no. 1545, pp. 795c9–21.19. Dobbins, The Stupa and Vihara of Kanishka I, p. 54.20. Ta t’ang hsi yü chi, in Taishø, .vol. 51, pp. 896b20–896c19; Beal, Si-yu-ki:Buddhist Records of the Western World, vol. 1, pp. 226–228.21. For a full translation and discussion of the value of this section, seeRonald M. Davidson, “Mahåyåna in Gandhåra: The Problem of ArtisticRepresentations, Textual Sources and the Public Intellectual,” in Proceedingof the International Conference on Gandharan Buddhism: An InterdisciplinaryApproach, Kurt Behrendt and Pia Brancaccio, eds. (Toronto:University of Toronto Press [forthcoming]). The section is found inBodhisattvabh¥mi, Woghihara Unrai, ed. (1930–36, Tokyo: Sankibø