PACIFIC WORLD - The Institute of Buddhist Studies

178Pacific World39. A Sanskrit fragment of this section from the MahåyånaMahåparinirvå√as¥tra is found in A. F. R. Hoernle, Manuscript Remains ofBuddhist Literature Found in Eastern Turkestan (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1916), pp. 93–97.40. Ta t’ang hsi yü chi, Taishø, vol. 51, p. 880b12; Beal, Si-yu-ki: BuddhistRecords of the Western World, vol. 1, p. 103.41. Jan Nattier, Once Upon a Future Time: Studies in a Buddhist Prophecyof Decline (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1991), pp. 178 and 226.42. Two Saµghavardhana-vyåkara√a versions survive in Tibetan, onecanonical and one from Tun Huang, and are edited by Patrizia Cannata(“La Profezia dell’Arhat della Terra di li Riguardante il Declino della Fedenella Vera Legge,” in Paolo Daffinà, ed., Indo-Sino-Tibetica: Studi in Onoredi Luciano Petech, Università di Roma, La Sapienza, Studi Orientali, vol. 9[(Rome: Bardi Editore, 1990], pp. 43–79) who also provides references to themanuscript of a Chinese translation found in Tun Huang. F. W. Thomas(Tibetan Literary Texts and Documents Concerning Chinese Turkestan,Oriental Translation Fund, N.S. vols. XXXII, XXXVII, XL, [London: Luzac& Company, Ltd, 1935–55], vol. 1, pp. 41–69 and 307) discusses andtranslates the canonical version, and believed that it, as well as otherscriptures describing Khotan, were not written there but in Tun Huang,Sha-chou or Tibet. Jan Nattier (Once Upon a Future Time, pp. 189 n. 98, and194 n. 121) disputes this, maintaining their composition in Khotan, and thepresence of two Tibetan and one Chinese version of the Saµghavardhanavyåkara√awould seem to support her position on at least this text. Forother Khotanese scriptures in Tibetan translation, see R. E. Emmerick,Tibetan Texts Concerning Khotan, London Oriental Series, vol. 19 (London:Oxford University Press, 1967).43. Nattier, Once Upon a Future Time, p. 228.44. mKhas pa lde’us mdzad pa’i rgya bod kyi chos ‘byung rgyas pa, Chabspeltshe-brtan phun-tshogs and Nor-brang o-rgyan, eds. (Lhasa: Bodljongs mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1987), pp. 398–407. The chronology for thistext has been proposed by Leonard van der Kuijp (“On Dating the twol’De’u Chronicles,” Asiatische Studien 46 [1992]: pp. 468–491) to be in themid to late thirteenth century.45. Dan Martin (Tibetan Histories: A Bibliography of Tibetan-LanguageHistorical Works (London: Serindia Publications, 1997), p. 39) indicatesthat ÛåkyaΩr∆ is credited with three chronological calculations, 1204, 1207,and 1210. The common era equivalents for these calculations have beenconsidered by Ariane MacDonald (“Préambule à la Lecture d’un Rgya-bodYig-chanç,” Journal Asiatique 251 [1963]: p. 97); Yamaguchi Zuihø (“Methodsof Chronological Calculation in Tibetan Historical Sources,” in LouisLigeti, ed., Tibetan and Buddhist Studies Commemorating the 200th Anni-