Traditional Commentaries on the Larger Prajñāpāramitā

1 Traditional Commentaries on the Larger Prajñāpāramitā

Youngjin LEE

Accurately defining the “Larger Prajñāpāramitā” is still open to discussion and several interpreta- tions have been offered. Conze (1978: 10) states that the “Large Prajñāpāramitā” is represented by three different texts—the Prajñāpāramitā in 100,000 lines (Śatasāhasrikā), the Prajñāpāramitā in 25,000 lines (Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā), and the Prajñāpāramitā in 18,000 lines (Aṣṭādaśasāhasrikā). According to Zac- cheti (2005:40, 2015:185), it is not until around the time of Bodhiruci (active at the beginning of the 6th century) that we find explicit mention of, among other Prajñāpāramitā texts, all three “canonical” Larger Prajñāpāramitā versions in 100,000, 25,000, and 18,000 lines respectively. Early Chinese historical, exegeti- cal and bibliographical sources tell us that the “Larger version [of the Prajñāpāramitā]” (da pin []) re- ferred to texts of varying sizes, ranging from about 17,000 to 22,000 lines. Shoji (2015: 59-62) points out that the “Large Prajñāpāramitā” comprises first five sections (~) of the Da banruoboluomiduo jing ( T. 220) by Xuanzang (). He places not only the aforementioned three texts but also the Prajñāpāramitās in 10,000 (Daśasāharikā) and 8,000 lines (Aṣṭasāhasrikā) under this category. In this section, a distinction will be made between the term “Larger Prajñāpāramitā” and “Tradi- tional commentaries on the Larger Prajñāpāramitā”. Based on Zaccheti’s classification, the “Larger Prajñāpāramitā” essentially comprises two versions, namely, the Prajñāpāramitā in 18,000 and the Prajñāpāramitā in 25,000 lines. Whereas, the “Traditional commentaries on the Larger Prajñāpāramitā”, ba- sically means refer to commentaries on the Prajñāpāramitā in 25,000 lines or Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā. (It is important to note that according to the information at the end of the Da zhidu lun ( T. 1509, 756a27–b4), the Indic manuscript, on which Kumārajīva's translation of the Prajñāpāramitā in 25,000 lines is based, consists of 22,000 lines or ślokas (Zaccheti 2005, 40). With regard to traditional commentaries on the Larger Prajñāpāramitā, we can see a clear-cut distinction between Indo-Tibetan and East Asian traditions. In the former tradition, the Abhisamayālaṅkāra, which was not introduced into China, Korea, or Japan, played a key role. Whereas in the latter tradition, the Da zhidu lun,—which is unknown to Indian and Tibetan Buddhism and is preserved only in Chinese translation—, had great influence on the interpretation of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā. Moreover, the Abhisama- yālaṅkāra, as well as most of its subsequent commentaries, is inseparably related to the revised recension of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā (Nakamura 2014, 30). While the Da zhidu lun, as well as its subsequent commentaries, is a commentary on the unrevised recension of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā, namely, the Mohebanru- oboluomi jing ( T.223).

Ⅰ Indian Commentaries

We can verify that at least four [existing] commentaries have been composed with regard to the Larger Prajñāpāramitā in India: the Abhisamayālaṅkāra by Maitreyanātha(?), the Abhisamayālaṅkāravṛtti

2 by Ārya Vimuktisena ([the early] 6th century CE), the Abhisamayālaṅkāravārttika by Bhadanta Vimuk- tisena (6th or 7th century CE), and the Śuddhamatī by Ratnākaraśānti (ca. 1000 CE). (cf. Obermiller 1933, 9- 10; Conze 1978, 39-40 and 112; 101, Ruegg 1981, 101-104 and 122-124; Brunnhuölzl 2010, 65; Suzuki 2015, 158-160 ; Zaccheti 2015, 190-191)

Ⅰ -1 Abhisamayālaṅkāra

The Abhisamayālaṅkāra or Abhisamayālaṅkāraṃ nāma Prajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstram (hereafter AA) is, as its title shows, an Instructional Treatise on the Larger Prajñāpāramitā. This treatise, consisting of nine chapters or abhisamayas,— eight subject matters (padārthāḥ) with a brief synopsis of them—, divides the Larger Prajñāpāramitā into eight chapters. Theses are divided in turn into 70 subcategories, which are further divided into 1,200 items (Conze 1978, 104-106; Brunnhuölzl 2010, 49-62). As Makransky (1997:110) very aptly states, “AA served as a table of contents for the entire Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, as a condensed summary of all the practices, paths and stages of realization to Buddhahood understood to be implicit in that Sūtra (Makransky 1997, 110).” An edition of the Sanskrit text, which is based on three fairly late—17th~18th century CE at the earliest— manuscripts, together with an edition of Tibetan translation was published by T. Stcherbatsky and E. Obermiller in 1929. Recently, one Nepalese manuscript scattered into two sets was identified as the Ab- hisamayālaṅkāra, which was written in the early twelfth century (LEE 2015, 18-19). Earlier witnesses of this text are reported to be preserved in Tibet or Tibetan Autonomous Region. This versified commentary is traditionally ascribed to Maitreyanātha, though this is doubtful from the perspective of modern scholarship. This is due to the fact that the first figure who ascribed authorship to Maitreyanātha, namely the famous Haribhadra (ca. 770-810 CE), did so only in the eighth century (AAA 1.13-18, 75.17-22; AAV 1.07-14). Ascribing authorship at such a late stage suggests that attribution may well have been used just as a means to lend greater authority to the text (Makransky 1997, 111). Moreover, the existence of two commentaries by Asaṅga and Vasubandhu, which is first stated by Haribhadra as well, is also questionable, because their works were not quoted by other AA commentaries, and were classified into commentaries unrelated to AA by a Tibetan historian, bCom ldan rig ral. (For more details, see Naka- mura 2011 and Kano and Nakamura 2009, 129-130.) The following three commentaries not only provide comments on the Larger Prajñāpāramitā, but also correlate it to, or comment on the Abhisamayālaṅkāra.

Ⅰ -2 Abhisamayālaṅkāravṛtti

The Abhisamayālaṅkāravṛtti is not only the oldest available commentary on AA but also possibly the first commentary (Makransky 1997, 187). The author, Ārya Vimuktisena quoted from the revised or the Eight Chaptered (Nyi khri le brgyad ma) Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, provided glosses to explain its difficult words or concepts, and aligned each verse of the Abhisamayālaṅkāra with the corresponding section of the

3 Prajñāpāramitā (Makransky 1997, 112; Zaccheti 2005, 191). Although Ārya Vimuktisena's doctrinal position has been defined by Haribhadra as that of a Mādhyamika (AAV 3.18-19= NGMPP A 35/12 1v2: (Vimu)ktyākhyena vivṛtam āryānāṃ madhyava[r]tt[i]nā), traces of Yogācāra’s influence can also be ob- served (Conze, 1978, 102–103; Makransky, 1997, 110–111). The whole Sanskrit text, based on one Nepalese manuscript in the early twelfth century with its modern apograph, was edited by three scholars: 1st Abhisamaya by Pensa (1967), 2nd to 4th Abhisamayas by Cicuzza (2001), and 5th to 8th Abhisamayas by Nakamura (2014). The whole commentary was translated into English by Sparham (2006, 2008, 2009, 2012). In 2013, another manuscript of Ārya Vimuktisena’s commentary was identified. This manuscript, which is now preserved in Tibet, probably dates back to the early twelfth century, about the same time period as the Nepalese manuscript. (LEE 2015, 17-18 and 35-36: A re-edition of the first Abhisamaya, based on these two manuscripts, is being prepared by LEE) Ārya Vimuktisena—Vimuktiṣeṇa in both manuscripts— is one of the most important and influen- tial commentators in the AA commentary tradition in India and Tibet (Makransky 1997, 112). Moreover, he might have been the one who revised the Many Chaptered Larger Prajñāpāramitā into the Eight Chaptered recension, as was stated by bCom ldan rig ral (Nakamura 2014, 31-32). Ārya Vimuktisena may also have composed AA, as is suggested by a supplementary title on the first folio recto of the newly identified manuscript of AA (LEE 2015, 38-40; cf. Makransky 1997, 187). In fact the title, Abhisamayālaṅkāravṛtti, did not come from the Sanskrit text, but from the Tibetan translation, 'phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag nyi shu lnga pa'i tshul gyi mngon par rtogs pa'i rgyan gyi mngon par rtogs pa'i rgyan gyi man ngag gi bstan bcos kyi 'grel pa. In the Nepalese manuscript, the title is written as “Pañca- viṃśatisāhasrikāyaprajñāpāramitopadeśaṃ Abhisamayālaṃkāraśāstram”, which appears to be the same title as AA.

Ⅰ -3 Abhisamayālaṅkāravārttika

The Abhisamayālaṅkāravārttika was composed by another Vimuktisena with the different title, “Bhadanta”. He is believed to have been either a pupil of Ārya Vimuktisena, or a contemporary of Can- drakīrti (7th century). (Ruegg 1968, 307-308; Recently, Isoda(2014) raised the following question: Aren’t the Vṛtti and the Vārttika are different translations of the same original text?) To date, this commentary has been accessible only through the Tibetan translation, 'phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag nyi shu lnga pa'i man ngag gi bstan bcos mngon par rtogs pa'i rgyan gyi tshig le'ur byas pa'i rnam par 'grel pa (P. No. 5186; D. No. 3788), since the Sanskrit manuscript(s) had not yet surfaced. Haribhadra stated that Bhadanta composed the Vārttika without obtaining the entire AA (aprāpya sakalaṃ śāstraṃ: AAV 3. 21-22). In reality, the Abhisamayālaṅkāra on which he commented should be seen as “another recension”, rather than an “incomplete version” inasmuch as it not only lacks 23 verses (kārikās) but it also includes one verse that cannot be found in other commentaries (Nakamura 2014, 43-44; Isoda 2014, 679-680). In addition, it has been pointed out that the Larger Prajñāpāramitā that Bhadanta consulted

4 was the Many Chaptered or unrevised recension, which belongs to the same group of the extant unrevised recension. The Many Chaptered Prajñāpāramitā also had a large influence on the arising of the another recension of AA. (Nakamura 2014, 37-39: 48; The another recension of AA might have been used by his successive commentators, such as Ratnākaraśānti and others. See Sakuma 1994, 282-286 and Kobayashi 1981, 133.)

Ⅰ -4 Śuddhamatī

The Śuddhamatī or *Abhisamayālaṅkārakārikāvṛtti Śuddhamatī nāma (Tib. mngon par rtogs pa'i rgyan gyi tshig le'ur byas pa dag ldan zhes bya ba) was composed by Ratnākaraśānti, also known as Śānti- pa. He is reported to have been the “Guardian of the Eastern Gate” or one of the chief debate-masters at the Vikramaśīla temple (Yiannopoulos 2012, 2-3). Ratnākaraśānti composed another AA commentary on the Smaller Prajñāpāramitā (Aṣṭasāhasrikā), namely the Śāratamā, which reflects the Yogācāra idea. (Jaini 1979, 13-21; With regard to different opinions about the doctrinal position or affiliation of the author, refer to McNamara 2014, Isaacson 2007, 291-292, Ruegg 1981,122-124, Katsura 1976, 484.) While the Sanskrit edition of the Śāratamā based on two manuscripts was edited and published by Jaini (1979), the Śuddhamatī has only been available through the Tibetan translation (P. No. 5199, D. No. 3801; cf. Isoda 1991 and 1992). However, it was reported that according to the “General Catalogue of Palm-leaf Scripture Manuscripts Pre- served in the Tibetan Autonomous Region ()” of the China Tibetology Re- search Centre, one Sanskrit manuscript of this text, titled Abhisamayālaṃkāravṛtti(?), is now preserved in the Potala Palace in Tibet (Tsai 2015, 6). So a Sanskrit edition of this text, as well as that of the Prajñāpāramito- padeśa— another important work by the same author— based on two manuscripts that are preserved in Ti- bet, is expected to be available in the near future.

Although no indigenous Tibetan commentary relating AA to the Larger Prajñāpāramitā has not been mentioned by Conze and others, it is obvious that hundreds of commentaries on AA, incorporating its successive commentaries in India and Tibet, were written for many centuries (Conze, 1978, 113–120). Some of them refer also, to varying degrees, to the Prajñāpāramitā text on which AA itself is based, and to that extent they perform also the role of commentaries to the Larger Prajñāpāramitā. (Zaccheti 2015, 919; For more details, see Brunnhuölzl 2010, 67-80.)

Ⅱ East Asian Commentaries

Ⅱ-1 Da zhidu lun ()

The Da zhidu lun ( T. 1509; hereafter DZDL), an extended commentary on the Larger Prajñāpāramitā, is in fact the Chinese translation of an Indic text by Kumārajīva (). The title was

5 reconstructed as Prajñāpāramitopadeśa by Demiéville (1950, 375n1) and the text was traditionally ascribed to Nagārjuna. According to a first-hand source, the Indic text, unknown to Indo-Tibetan Buddhist tradition, consisted of 100,000 gāthās (lines), or 3,200,000 Sanskrit syllables. Kumārajīva condensed it by two-thirds and thus obtained these 100 scrolls () of the Chinese translation. Up to the 34th scroll, which completes the exposition of the first chapter () of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā, Kumārajīva translated the Indic commentary in full. From the 35th scroll, he abridged the rest of the chapters, focusing more on its structure. Had he translated the entire text, it would have amounted to at least 1,000 scrolls. (T 1509, 57b08-11= T. 2145, 75a15-17 and T. 1509 756c13-18=T. 2145, 75b14-18; Lamotte, 1970 [vol. III], xlviii–xlix) In addition to the translation, the DZDL includes glosses on Indic words and customs, and some interpolations for Chinese readers (Hikata 1958, LIII-LXIII). In some cases, these explanations are difficult to distinguish from the translation itself (Conze 1978, 94; Ruegg 1981,32-33). Modern scholars have debated its authorship for more than sixty years and this debate seems to be ongoing. Among them, Lamotte’s theory which ascribes its authorship to a Sarvāstivādin, or Sarvāstivādins (Conze 1978, 94), who was or were converted to Mahāyāna Buddhism in Kashmir in the early fourth century (Lamotte 1970, v- lxviii), is widely accepted. However, we should note that parts of this text, such as the glosses on Indic words and so on, were composed in China for Chinese readers, regardless of whether they were done by Kumārajīva or by his collaborators such as Sengrui (). (With regard to other theories, see Hikata (1958: LII-LXXV), Tucci (1972: 367), Yishun (1991: 9-67) ), and Chou (2004): Among them, the latest Chou’s theory is unusual in that authorship of the whole text is ascribed to Sengrui’s editorship, which reflects the intellectual situation of Chinese Buddhism in the early fifth century.) Translation of the DZDL went hand in hand with that of the unrevised recension of Larger Prajñāpāramitā in 22,000 lines, namely, Mohebanruoboluomi jing ( T.223, hereafter MHBRJ): ⅰ. Translation of the DZDL started in the summer of 402 CE. ⅱ. In need of re-translation of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā, the translation of the MHBRJ started in April 23, 403 CE and ended in December 15, 403 CE. During this period, the translation of the DZDL was temporarily stopped. ⅲ. After finishing the first proofreading of the MHBRJ in April 23, 404 CE, the translation of the DZDL was resumed. ⅳ. Translation of the DZDL, as well as the final proofreading of the MHBRJ, finished in December 27, 405 CE. (Chou 2004, 300-301)

Not only did the DZDL being a commentary on the Larger Prajñāpāramitā exert huge influence on the interpretation of the Prajñāpāramitā in East Asia, but also it played an important role in East Asian Buddhist thought and exegesis because it was a kind of Mahāyāna encyclopedia. In this respect, it would be safe to say that the DZDL held the same position as AA did in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. Finally, mention should also be made of Lamotte's excellent and heavily annotated French translation of the DZDL. It took him over thirty five years to translate the first part, namely, the part of full

6 translation, which is divided into 52 subchapters ending with the 34th scroll (57c07-314b19: Lamotte 1944- 1980, 1-2371), as well as the 20th subchapter of the second part (=the part of abridged translation) (217a04- 221a20: Lamotte 1944-1980, 2373-2445).

Ⅱ-2 Other commentaries

Although composition of the indigenous Chinese exegesis on the Prajñāpāramitā texts is said to have culminated in the 4th and 5th centuries, only fragments of these survive (Zaccheti 2015, 171). Among them, the following three texts can be categorized as East Asian commentaries on the Larger Prajñāpāramitā (Conze 1978, 36; Suzuki 2015, 160-161; Yoshizu 1967, 135):

1. Dapinjing youyi ( T. 1696) 2. Dapinjing yishu (. 451) 3. Daehyedogyeong jongyo (or Dahuidujing zongyao T. 1697)

The first two commentaries were composed by Jizang (: 549–623 CE), who was the key philo- sophical exponent of the Sanlun ( ) school of Chinese Buddhism. His philosophy was largely based on Nāgārjuna’s works. The third text was composed by Wonhyo ( : 617–686 CE), a Korean monk who was greatly influenced by the thought of Yogācāra school. All three texts consitute the commentary on the MHBRJ by Kumārajīva. However, the texts do not contain interlinear textual exposition (suiwen jieshi I) or exegesis of the main text of the MHBRJ. As the titles, such as “youyi (wandering thoughts)” and “jongyo (doctrinal essentials)” imply, they are to be re- garded as independent “Introductions”, which is why the interlinear textual expositions could be left out (Jin 2009, 41). For example, Wonhyo’s jongyo consists of six sections: (1) conveyance of the overall sense [of the scripture] (), (2) revelation of its doctrinal themes (), (3) explication of its title (), (4) reasons for writing (), (5) classification of its teachings (), and (6) exegesis of the main text (I) (T. 1697 68b22-23; “” of Digital Dictionary of Buddhism). And the last sentences clearly show that he did not include the final section intentionally: “The fifth section, the classification of teachings, has been briefly explained in this way. The sixth section, the exegesis of the main text, is to explain scripture in an extensive manner. Here ends the Doctrinal essentials on the Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra” ( I74a02-04)” This type of commentary, which focuses on uncover- ing the central tenet of its source text by explaining the key words in the title and so on, was widely prevalent in the 6th and 7th centuries (Jin 2009, 41-45).

ABBREVIATIONS AA = Abhisamayālankāra-prajñāparāmitā-upadeša-šāstra: The Work of Maitreya, ed. T. Stcherbatsky & E. Obermiller, Leningrad 1929. AAA = Abhisasamayālaṃkār’ālokā Prajñāpāramitāvyākhyā: the Work of Haribhadra, together with the text commented on, ed. U. Wogihara, Tokyo 1932–1935: The Toyo Bunko. AAV = Abhisasamayālaṃkāra-kārikā-śāstra-vivṛti: Haribhadra’s commentary on the Abhisasa- mayālaṃkāra-kārikā-śāstra, ed. Koei H. Amano, Kyoto 2000. DZDL = T.25, No.1509, Da zhidu lun , translated by Kumārajīva (402- 405 C.E.) MHBRJ = T.8, No.223, Mohebanruoboluomi jing , translated by Kumārajīva (403-405 C.E.)

BIBLIOGRAPH Brunnhölzl, Karl 2010 Gone Beyond: The Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, the Ornament of Clear Realization, and its Com- mentaries in the Tibetan Kagyü Tradition, vol. I, Ithaca New York: Snow Lion Publications. Chou, Po-kan 2004 “The Problem of the Authorship of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa: A Re-examination,” in: Historical Inquiry 34 (2004), pp. 281-327. Cicuzza, Claudio 2001 “L’Abhisamayālaṃkāra di Ārya Vimuktisena (2.–4. Abhisamaya): dottorato di ricerca in studi indologici,” PhD diss., Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza. Conze, Edward 1978 The Prajñāpāramitā Literature: Second Edition, Tokyo: The Reiyukai. Demiéville, Paul 1950 “Review of É. Lamotte, Le Traité de la Grande Vertu de Sagesse de Nāgārjuna, vol. 1 (1944),” in: Jounal Asiatique 238.3(1950), pp. 375–395. Hikata, Ryusho 1958 Suvikrāntavikrāmi-paripṛcchā Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra Edited with an Introductory Essay, Fu- kuoka. Isaacson, Harunaga 2007 “First Yoga: commentary on the ādiyoga section of Ratnākaraśānti’s Bhramahara,” in: Pramāṇakīrtiḥ: Papers dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the occasion of his 70th birthday, ed. B. Kellner, H. Krasser, H. Lasic, M.T. Much, H. Tauscher. Vienna: Wie- ner Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 70.1, pp. 285–314. Isoda, Hirofumi I 1991 “Ratnākaraśānti, 『Śuddhamatī』 (1) " (Ratnākaraśānti, Śuddhamatī, Chapter II, (1)), in: I (Essays in Honor of Dr.Shoren Ihara on his Seventieth Birthday), pp. 69-88. 1992 “Ratnākaraśānti, 『Śuddhamatī』 (2) " (Ratnākaraśānti, Śuddhamatī, Chapter II, (2)), in: 15(Journal of Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies 15), pp. 24-45. 2014 “Vimuktisena (Rnam sgrol sde)について”( On Vimuktisena (Rnam sgrol sde)), in: On Vimuktisena (Rnam sgrol sde) 奥田聖應先生頌寿記念インド学仏教学論集 (Indian and Buddhist Studies in Honor of President DR. Shouou (Kiyoaki) Okuda in Recognition of His Lifelong Scholarship), pp. 678-684. Jaini, P.S

8 1979 Sāratamā: A Pañjikā on the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra by Ratnākaraśānti, Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute. Jin, Tao 2007 “The formulation of introductory topics and the writing of exegesis in Chinese Buddhism,” in Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 30.1-2 (2009), pp. 33-79. Kano, Kazuo and Nakamura, Hōdō 加納和雄•中村法道 2009 “チョムデンリクレル著『弥勒法の歴史』--テクストと和訳,” (Japanese translation and critical editin of bCom ldan rig ral's Byams pa dang 'brel ba'i chos kyi byung tshul), Acta Tibetica et Buddhica 2, pp. 117-139. Katsura, Shoryu 1976 “A Synopsis of the Prajñāpāramitopadeśa of Ratnākaraśānti” in: 印度学仏教学研究 (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 25.1 (1976), pp. 487-484. Kobayashi, Mamoru 小林守

1981 “Ratnākaraśānti の『アビサマヤ』注解書” (Abhisamaya commentaries of Ratnākaraśānti) in: 印度学仏教学研究 30.1 (1981), pp. 132-133. Lee, Youngjin 2015 “On Two Sanskrit Manuscripts of Ārya Vimuktiṣeṇa's Commentary on the Ab- hisamayālaṅkāra,” in: Critical Review for Buddhist Studies 18 (2015), pp. 15-48. Makransky, John. J 1997 Buddhahood Embodied: Sources of Controversy in India and Tibet, State University of New York Press SUNY Press. McNamara, Daniel 2014 “Ratnākaraśānti’s Middle Way: The Uses of “Madhyamaka” and “Yogācāra” in Selected Passages,” in: IABS presentation (unpublished). Lamotte, Étienne 1944-1980 Le Traité de la Grande Vertu de Sagesse de Nāgārjuna (Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra), 5 vols., Louvain. Nakamura, Hōdō 2011 “Traditions of the Commentaries Ascribed to Asaṅga and Vasubandhu on the Abhisama- yālaṃkāra: Relationship with the Commentaries ascribed to Daṃṣṭrasena on the Prajñāpāramitā-literature,” in: 印度学仏教学研究 (Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies) 59.3 (2011), pp. 188-192. 2014 “Ārya-Vimuktisena’s Abhisamayālaṃkāravṛtti The Earliest Commentary on the Ab- hisamayālaṃkāra: A Critical Edition and a Translation of the Chapters Five to Eight with an Introduction and Critical Notes,” PhD diss., Universität Hamburg. Obermiller, E 1933 “The Doctrine of Prajñā-pāramitā as Exposed in the Abhisamayālaṃkāra of Maitreya” in: Acta Orientalia 11, pp.1-132. Pensa, Corrado 1967 L’Abhisamayālaṃkāravṛtti di Ārya-Vimuktisena: Primo Abhisamaya Serie, Rome: In- stituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente (IsMEO) Ruegg, David Seyfort

9 1968 “Ārya and Bhadanta Vimuktisena on the Gotra-Theory of the Prajñāpāramitā,” in: Wie- ner Zeitschrift fur Kunde Sudasiens und Archiv fur Indische Philosophie 12, pp. 303- 317. 1981 The literature of the Madhyamaka school of philosophy in India, Otto Harrassowitz• Wiesbaden Verlag. Sakuma, Hidenori S 1994 “The classification of the Dharmakāya chapter of the Abhisamayāla kāra by Indian commentators: The threefold and the fourfold Buddhakāya theories,” in: Journal of Indian philosophy 22.3 (1994), pp. 259-297. Shoji, Fumio 庄司史生 2015 “現存梵本『八千頌般若』はいかに形成されたか,” (A Study on the compilation process of the Aṣṭasāhasrikaprajñāpāramitā), 中央学術研究所紀要 (Memoirs of the Chūō Academic Re- search Institute) 44, pp. 57-78. Sparham, Gareth 2006–2012 Abhisamayālaṃkāra with Vṛtti and Āloka:Vṛtti by Ārya Vimuktisena, Ālokā by Haribhadra, English translation by Gareth Sparham, 4 vols., Fremont: Jain Publishing Com- pany. Suzuki, Kentaro 鈴木健太郎 2015 “般若経の注釈文献,” in: 般若経大全, ed. 小峰彌彦( Komine, Michihiko), 勝崎裕彦 ( Katsuzaki, Yugen), and 渡辺章悟(Watanabe, Shogo), 東京：春秋社, pp. 153-178. Tucci, Giuseppe 1972 “Review of Le Traité de la Grande Vertu de Sagesse, by E. Lamotte,” East and West 22. 3-4, p. 367 Tsai, Yao-ming 2015 “現觀莊嚴論典之梵文文獻:初步的反思,” (Sanskrit Texts Related to the Abhisamayâlaṅ- kāra: Some Preliminary Reflections), Unpublished (http://homeage.ntu.edu.tw/~tsaiyt/htm/pdf/f-2015-1.pdf). Yiannopoulos, Alexander 2012 “Luminosity, Reﬂexive Awareness in Ratnākaraśānti's Pith Instructions for the Ornament of the Middle Way,” MA thesis (unpublished). Yinshun 印順 1991 “Dazhidulun Zhi Fanyi Jiqi Zuozhe (大智度論之翻譯及其作者)”, Dongfang Zongjiao Yanjio 2, pp. 9-67. Zacchetti, Stefano 2005 In Praise of the Light: A Critical Synoptic Edition with an Annotated Translation of Chapters 1–3 of Dharmarakṣa’s Guang zan jing 光讚經, Being the Earliest Chinese Translation of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā, Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica 8, Tokyo: The In- ternational Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University. 2015 “Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras,” in: Brill's Encyclopedia of Buddhism Volume One: Literature and Languages, ed. Jonathan A. Silk, Oskar von Hinüber, and Vincent Eltschinger, Leiden: Brill pp. 171-209.