Did the Buddha permit grape wine?

In an earlier post “Why did the Buddha prohibit alcohol?” we reviewed the Vinaya literature (Buddhist monastic codes) that discuss why the Buddha laid down a precept against the consumption of alcohol. 

There are different versions of this account, but generally they all agree that a bhikṣu named Svāgata passed out from drinking too much after celebrating his defeat of a Nāga that had been terrorizing a region. Whether this really happened or not aside, the early Buddhist community, like other śramaṇa traditions, looked down on alcohol consumption and thus it sobriety was highly valued from early on.

However, Buddhists in at least one part of India were involved in wine production not so long after the Buddha died. It also seems probable that many of them consumed alcohol as well, and that it might have become not so unusual in later centuries.

Harry Falk in his paper “Making Wine in Gandhāra Under Buddhist Monastic Supervision” outlines the archaeological discoveries indicating that in Gandhāra the Buddhist monks possessed equipment for making wine, which was a prominent feature of the local culture. He also discusses how wine drinking was depicted on stūpa panels and stair raisers. He notes that "it seems that neither non-Buddhist visitors nor the heads of the monasteries were passionately opposed to the production, distribution and consumption of wine in connection with religious festivals."

Wine making had been a long-standing practice prior to the introduction of Buddhism. Falk asserts that the "age-old and non-Buddhist wine-cum-merry-making festival was so attractive that its organisation was hijacked by the Buddhist monasteries. It was also adopted by Buddhist communities further east, in Sanghol and Mathura." While he acknowledges the Vinaya strictly forbids monks from consuming any alcohol, his final assertion is that monks eventually legitimized their own participation in such activities, the monks "finding an excuse for drinking and erotic encounters by creating religious constructions which we today subsume under the label of Tantric Buddhism."

Gandhāra one will recall is in the northwest of the Indosphere, which is now Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is well-known for its Hellenistic style of Buddhist art, though the western influences run very deep and I would recommend anyone interested to read "When the Greeks Converted the Buddha: Asymmetrical Transfers of Knowledge in Indo-Greek Cultures" by Georgios T. Halkias (see here).

This culture of wine consumption on the part of monks possibly became prominent enough to be mentioned in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. The Vinaya is a section of the Buddhist canon which details the rules and administrative procedures Buddhist monks and nuns are to follow. Early Buddhist schools each developed their own editions, so the Vinaya that a Theravādin monk would follow would be different from this Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, which was incidentally probably used at the prominent monastery of Nālandā. It is also the monastic code used by Tibetan monks (see Berzin here).

The version of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya I'm familiar with is the Classical Chinese translation done by Yijing (635-713) 義淨 in 703. It has an account of the Buddha apparently instructing the disciples how prepare grape juice in a way that could easily produce wine.

As the story goes, a yakṣa offered grapes to the bhikṣus on the outskirts of a monastery. The bhikṣus did not recognize what they grapes were, so they asked the Buddha. He explains that grapes are a fruit of the north and are to be “made pure” through fire. This is a formal gesture that Buddhist monastics are supposed to do with food where it is disfigured or made imperfect before being consumed. The following in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya Bhaiṣajya-vastu relates what happened afterward:

《根本說一切有部毘奈耶藥事》卷9:「于時葡萄食訖。由尚多殘。佛言。應可押取葡萄汁。煎汁不熟。遂便抒出。佛言。應可熟煎盛貯。供僧伽等非時漿飲。」(CBETA, T24, no. 1448, p. 39, c17-19)

At that time, the grapes had been consumed and because there were still many leftover the Buddha said, “The grape juice is to be pressed out of them. Heat the juice but not thoroughly cooking it, and then strain it.” The Buddha said, “It is to be heated and stored away, to be offered to the sangha as a beverage when it is untimely [past noon].”

A similar story is related in the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya (a different Vinaya from the Mūlasarvāstivāda), but it says nothing about heating the juice and storing it.1 However, a similar story is found in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya Nidāna-mātṛkā, also translated by Yijing. The sangha is offered a basket of fruits from a yakṣa, which includes grapes. After the Buddha explains to the bhikṣus what the fruits are and how to purify them, he says that the leftovers are to be mashed into a beverage which may be consumed at will. There were further leftovers and the Buddha states, “Having boiled it store it in a jar. It shall be consumed on another day.”2

This could actually just be referring to the production of unfermented grape syrup, which was common in the Near East. However, this is not entirely certain. Ronald Jackson mentions an ancient technique of wine making that “entails concentrating the juice or semisweet wine by gentle heating or boiling. The treatment results in a loss of varietal character, but generates a caramelized or baked odor."3 Unless the juice has been boiled down to a syrup, it will certainly naturally ferment if stored in jars.

In light of Falk's discussion about wine production in Gandhāra, I am inclined to think this is tacitly referring to actual wine production. If there was a concern that the grape juice could ferment – and they would have been aware of this – then I imagine it ought to state that if fermentation occurs it is not to be consumed.

The reality is that wine consumption in the northwest of the Indosphere was quite prevalent and predated the introduction of Buddhism. Xuanzang's 玄奘 (602-664) translation of the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra states, “In the north poor men drink grape wine while in other places even the rich cannot obtain it.”4 

Xuanzang in his travelogue of India also explains the sorts of alcohol available in India when he visited in the seventh century. He states something to the effect that “śramaṇa-s and Brahmins drink grape and sugar cane beverages, but they are not called liquors.”5 The grammatical structure of the last part of the sentence is unusual (非 … 之謂也), and seems to be saying “it is not considered” or “not called” liquor. Unless the text is corrupted (and it is quoted elsewhere identically in a premodern source),6 then given that he is describing the sorts of liquors available in India, he is basically explaining that wine (and rum apparently) is consumed by śramaṇa-s (i.e., Buddhist monks), but simply called otherwise to avoid the taboo against alcohol. This brings to mind the custom in Japan, which comes from China originally, where liquor is comically referred to as “prajñā soup” (hannya-tō 般若湯).

Although the Vinaya forbids alcohol quite clearly, this does not mean this prohibition was universally upheld or even valued so highly in India. The Vinaya literature was basically in the care of a minority of literate Buddhist clerics, who clearly updated the materials when it suited them. It would be unwise to think their rules and regulations actually reflected the reality of Buddhism on the ground in ancient India.



1《十誦律》卷26:「彼頻闍山中有一夜叉鬼。字優耽摩。舊在彼山中住。此鬼信佛言心淨。思惟。我當何物上佛。此中唯有葡萄。即取上佛。佛言。與僧作分。彼即與比丘。比丘不受言。佛未聽我曹噉葡萄。以是事白佛。佛言。從今日聽噉葡萄。時大有葡萄食飽多殘。諸比丘不知當云何。白佛。佛言。壓汁飲。若葡萄不作淨。若汁中不以水作淨。不應飲。若葡萄作淨。汁中不作淨。若汁作淨。葡萄不作淨。不應飲。葡萄淨汁亦淨應飲。」(CBETA, T23, no. 1435, p. 192, c9-19)

2《根本說一切有部尼陀那目得迦》卷10:「時彼藥叉既承信已。即送葡萄石榴甘橘甘蔗胡挑渴樹羅等成滿筐籠。命餘藥叉送彼庭中令持供養。諸苾芻見而白佛言。此北方果不知如何。佛言。以火作淨然後應食。時諸苾芻一一別淨。佛言。應為一聚但三四處以火淨之。食皆無犯。行與眾已仍有餘長。佛言。應可捼碎作非時漿隨意而飲。復更有餘。佛言。煮已瓨盛餘日當飲。」(CBETA, T24, no. 1452, p. 454, b30-c8)

3 Ronald S. Jackson, Wine Science: Principles, Practice, Perception (Academic Press, 2000), 400.

4《阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論》卷12:「北方貧人飲葡萄酒餘方富者亦不能得。」(CBETA, T27, no. 1545, p. 60, c4-5)

5《大唐西域記》卷2:「沙門、婆羅門飲蒲萄、甘蔗漿,非酒醴之謂也。」(CBETA, T51, no. 2087, p. 878, b5-6)

6《四分律名義標釋》卷14:「沙門。婆羅門。飲蒲萄甘蔗漿。非酒醴之謂也」(CBETA, X44, no. 744, p. 512, c11-12 // Z 1:70, p. 309, b1-2 // R70, p. 617, b1-2)

7 Gregory Schopen, “The Good Monk and His Money in Monasticism of 'the Mahāyāna Period'” in Indian Monastic Buddhism Collected Papers on Textual, Inscriptional and Archaelogical Evidence (New Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited), 1-2.

8 Quoted in Johannes Bronkhorst, Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism Handbook of Oriental Studies (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 18-19.

Amoghavajra and the Indian Calendar in Chinese

The zodiac Cancer.
It was in the year 764 as part of his compilation of the Xiuyao jing 宿曜經 (T 1299) that the Vajrayāna master and translator Amoghavajra 不空 (705-774) translated the Indian lunar calendar into Chinese with with his assistant Yang Jingfeng 楊景風, a Chinese court official who later was involved in official calendar reforms. The latter added notes to explain the differences between the two systems. While both are lunar rather than solar, they still differ considerably.

Unlike the numbered system of months and days in Chinese, the Indian lunar calendar uses a sequence of 27 (or 28) constellation (nakṣatra) names, which represent the zones the moon travels in a month before returning to its original place. In ancient China they likewise had a similar system of 28 constellations (the xiu 宿), though those stars do not really match the ancient Vedic model, if it is even possible to reliably compare them since the Vedic literature doesn't provide accurate coordinates and later Indian star catalogs are inconsistent (see David Pingree's article "Identification of the Yogatārās of the Indian Nakṣatras" here). Nevertheless, it seems the inspiration for such models had a common source, which was probably Babylon though there is no such evidence proving this to my knowledge. This remains a significant mystery in Asian history.

The 27 nakṣatra-s paired with the Chinese constellations are as follows:

1.  婁宿 Aśvinī
2.  胃宿 Bharaṇī
3.  昴宿 Kṛttikā
4.  畢宿 Rohiṇī
5.  觜宿 Mṛgaśīrṣa
6.  參宿 Ārdrā
7.  井宿 Punarvasū
8.  鬼宿 Puṣya
9.  柳宿 Aślesā
10. 星宿 Maghā
11. 張宿 Pūrvaphālgunī
12. 翼宿 Uttaraphālgunī
13. 軫宿 Hasta
14. 角宿 Citrā
15. 亢宿 Svāti
16. 氐宿 Viśākhā
17. 房宿 Anurādhā
18. 心宿 Jyeṣṭha
19. 尾宿 Mūla
20. 箕宿 Pūrvāṣāḍhā
21. 斗宿 Uttarāṣāḍhā
22. 女宿 Śravaṇa
23. 虚宿 Dhaniṣṭhā
24. 危宿 Śatabhiṣaj
25. 室宿 Pūrvabhādrapadā
26. 壁宿 Uttarabhādrapadā
27. 奎宿 Revatī

In the 28 nakṣatra model, before Śravaṇā is one more constellation: 牛宿 Abhijit. The 27 model was initially used in Amoghavajra's work, though later editors of his work in China added the extra constellation, presumably because it suits the Chinese model which is strictly 28 constellations. The Indians could use either, though the 27 model allows for an equal division into 3 parts of 9, which is perhaps astrologically significant.

In the Indian model the month commences from the full moon, unlike with the Chinese lunar calendar where it starts from a new moon. Also, as Yang Jingfeng states in India "the month is always named based on which constellation (nakṣatra) the moon is in on the night of the fifteenth day of the śukla-pakṣa" (i.e., the last day of waxing or the full moon), hence the months are called Citrā, Viśākhā, Jyeṣṭha, Pūrvāṣāḍhā and so on (see below). In Chinese reckoning, this would be the 15th day of the month (wang 望), since the 1st is the new moon (shuo 朔). The waning period would run from the 16th-30th, which is the kṛṣṇa-pakṣa. In the Indian calendar the 30 day month is divided into the two pakṣa-s, which are also astrologically significant according to Buddhist scripture.

For instance, the Chinese translation of the Four Deva Kings Sūtra 四天王經 (*Catur Devarāja Sūtra) – which is also quoted in Nāgārjuna's (c. 2nd-3rd cent.) Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa – details how the Four Mahārāja under Indra's direction descend with their entourages to inspect the world and its inhabitants:

The devas on the fasting days examine the good deeds and misdeeds of people. Atop Mount Sumeru there is the second [desire realm heaven] of Trāyastriṃśa where there is the celestial sovereign named Indra whose virtues are lofty. The chief four devas, the four deva kings, are Indra's four guardian kings, each managing one direction. On the eighth day of the month envoys are always dispatched who descend on an inspection tour of the whole world. They investigate the sovereigns, kings, officials, citizens, nāgas, spirits, fliers, crawlers and wrigglers – the good deeds and misdeeds in the thoughts of their minds, the speech of their mouths and the actions of their bodies. On the fourteenth day he dispatches the princes who descend. On the fifteenth day the four kings themselves descend. On twenty-third day the envoys again descend. On the twenty-ninth the princes again descend. On the thirtieth day the four kings again personally descend.
The text was translated into Chinese by Zhiyan 智嚴 and Baoyun 寶雲 in 427. It is clear here that they converted the Indian two 15 day pakṣa model into the Chinese 30 day model. In any case, this belief in various gods descending into the world or inspecting it on specified days of the month is found in other Indian Buddhist texts as well, which should be noted are not Mahāyāna like the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra, attributed to Kātyāyanīputra. This work is generally held to have been composed sometime around the 2nd century CE in northwest India, and moreover was a key treatise of the Sarvāstivāda school in Kashmir. See the following:

Question – Why only speak of thirty-three devas? Answer – The devas frequently gather to discuss good deeds and misdeeds. Hence the partial discussion of them. The devas during the waxing and waning periods, on every eighth, fourteenth and fifteenth, always gather in the Hall of Saddharma to weigh the amount of good deeds and misdeeds in the world. Furthermore, the thirty-three devas constantly together inspect the creators of good deeds and misdeeds. Seeing one who has created good deeds, they then protect them. Seeing one who has created misdeeds, they then together resent and ruin them.

This system was understood easily enough for the Chinese who had a lunar calendar of their own, but the more advanced model provided by Amoghavajra with specific month and day names was more complex. The first draft of this manual in 759 wasn't readily understood by Amoghavajra's Chinese colleagues, so they revised it using a table, which I've reproduced using the original Sanskrit nakṣatra names (click here for full image file):

This is a brilliant example of cross-cultural intellectual exchange between the Indosphere and Sinosphere in pre-modern times. Amoghavajra took the time with his colleagues to carefully translate the Indian calendar into Chinese terms. The text also introduces the concept of weekdays, which was alien to the Chinese but important for esoteric Buddhism as well as Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, which is why the names for weekdays in Persian and Sogdian are provided in transliterated Chinese so people could ask a foreigner what day of the week it was. For instance, Venus for Friday in Sogdian: na xie 那頡 = n'xyẟ ).

This is one part of my present research, which is exploring how occidental astrology was introduced and employed in China in the Tang dynasty (618-907). I am also in the process of translating this Xiuyao jing into English. While this should be of interest to Sinologists, the work is actually an important period specimen detailing Indian astrology from the eighth century. Only a fraction of such classical Indian literature is available in Sanskrit, which highlights the importance of Indian literature preserved in other languages like Chinese and Tibetan.

Ptolemy in Heian Japan?

As part of my ongoing PhD research here in Japan I picked up a copy of Mikkyō Senseijutsu – Sukuyō-dō to Indo Senseijutsu 密教占星術ー宿曜道とインド占星術 [Esoteric Buddhist Astrology – Sukuyō-dō and Indian Astrology] by scholar Yano Michio 矢野道雄 (1944-). It is essentially an introduction and analysis of the history behind Indian astrology in the East Asian cultural sphere, specifically with respect to the Xiuyao-jing 宿曜經 (in Japanese Sukuyō-kyō), which was used in esoteric Buddhism in China and Japan.

As I introduced in an earlier post (see here), the text was translated by the eminent Vajra Master Amoghavajra 不空 in 759 and then later revised in 764 by his lay disciple Yang Jingfeng 楊景風 under his master's guidance. This laid the groundwork for the later astrological tradition of Sukuyō-dō 宿曜道 in Japan, which emerged around the middle of the eleventh century and flourished for a few centuries, perhaps until the Muromachi period (1337-1573). The tradition never died out, though it appears it was often kept secret, at least judging from one twentieth century Japanese account I've surveyed. The Kōyasan scholar Morita Ryūsen 森田龍僊 inherited such a living tradition and wrote, from his emic perspective, a work entitled Mikkyō Sensei Hō 密教占星法 [Esoteric Buddhist Astrology Methods] in 1941.1 While such a work is useful in many respects, it was not written from a scientific perspective. Aside from his work there was not a great deal of concentrated academic work done on the subject until Yano's research, which is objective and critical (there are many modern popular works on Sukuyō-dō).

One very interesting theory put forth by Yano is that, quite possibly, the Sukuyō-dō tradition was early on in possession of a Classical Chinese translation of the Tetrabiblos by Greco-Egyptian astrologer Ptolemy (90-168).2 To begin with, he points out that in 865 the Japanese monk Shū'ei 宗叡 (809-884) brought back with him, among other texts, the following title:


Tori-isshi-kyō, One Part, Five Scrolls

The title here is provided in the Sino-Japanese (on-yomi) reading. In modern Mandarin it would be Duli-yusi-jing. The Sino-Japanese readings, originally preserved from Chinese pronunciations from the Tang period (618-907), better reflect the original title name than Mandarin, so I will use the former here.

Yano proposes that the title here actually stands for Ptolemy's name and presumably would be his work the Tetrabiblos (the Four Books). It is not impossible to imagine that the work could have been translated into Chinese, especially considering the flow of Hellenic sciences eastward through the efforts of Nestorianism. It was translated into Syrian in the seventh century and Persian in the late eighth century.

Ptolemy in Greek is Ptolemaios. In languages like Syrian, however, the vowels are not represented, hence it would be rendered something like this if it were in Roman:


The P could easily be dropped, likewise for some reason the M. The result would be:


Compare this with the Chinese:


To-Ri-Itsu-Shi (Sino-Japanese)
Du-Li-Yu-Si (Mandarin)

This argument is further advanced by texts listed in later catalogs The New Book of Tang 新唐書 (a revised history of the Tang, compiled in 1060) lists this work with the following remark:


In the Zhenyuan period (785-805) transmitted from western India by To-ri adept Li Miqian and translated by Qu Gong.

Following this another work is listed:


Chen Fu, Isshi Shi-mon Kyō, One Scroll

Chen Fu here appears to be a personal name, either the compiler or translator. The title literally reads Isshi Four Gates Classic. One will note the Isshi here is the same as the Tori-isshi-kyō above. The “four gates” here could possibly be a predictable Chinese rendering of Tetrabiblos (Four Books). If Yano is correct, then the Chinese is supposed to say the Tetrabiblos of Ptolemaios. However, Yano is only cautiously stating this as a tentative theory.

This text or some version of it was in fact brought to Japan in 865 and readily utilized by astrologers of the later Sukuyō tradition. We know this because in extant horoscopes (Jpn. Sukuyō Kanmon 宿曜勘文) there are citations of the text. The text itself, however, is no longer extant. However, the fragments that do exist clearly demonstrate a Hellenic model of horoscopes. For instance, consider the following citations from a horoscope from the year 1152:

Saturn is in Jupiter's palace [Pisces] 
Jupiter is in the Moon's palace [Cancer]  
Saturn and Jupiter are 120 degrees apart [trine]. 
Mars and the Sun are 120 degrees apart [trine]. 
Venus and Mercury are in the same zodiac mansion [Aquarius].

These are concepts stemming from Hellenic astrology (Ptolemy's or otherwise), especially the concept of aspect (here trine or in Chinese san he 三合). However, they are not mentioned in the horoscope methods provided by Amoghavajra, who was versed in Indian models of astrology. It is unclear whether he was aware of such concepts, but nevertheless the main text in question was evidently Hellenic in origin and did have an impact in both China and Japan, though it is almost entirely forgotten aside from a few scholars today.

The aforementioned New Book of Tang does state it came from western India, though it has been long known that there was a great deal of Hellenic influence in Indian astral sciences from early on. The scholar David Edwin Pingree (1933-2005) after a lifetime of study divided Indian astrology into four categories based on the origins of the material:

I. Vedic (c.1000-400 BCE). II. Babylonian (400 BCE-200 CE): VedāṅgajyotiṣaIII. Greco-Babylonian (c200-400): YavanajātakaIV. Greek (c400-1600): ĀryabhaṭīyaV. Islamic (c1600-1800).

The third text on the list the Yavanajātaka is literally the Jātaka of the Greeks. Modern scholarship has furthermore traced Hellenic influences in chronologically dated Indian materials related to astral science. Hence, while the Chinese might have understood the text in question above as having come from western India, in reality it might have been just as well an import there from further west originally.

It should come as no surprise that such a Hellenic model was introduced in the Tang dynasty, which has been understood as a “cosmopolitan empire”.3 Buddhists especially made great efforts to adapt imported Indian models to native Chinese models, though as Pankenier remarks it did not have a lasting effect in China:

On the whole, however, these syncretic efforts had almost no influence on long-established Chinese astrological theory, especially given the drastic decline of Buddhism following the Tang Dynasty suppression in the mid ninth century and the subsequent resurgence of Neo-Confucianism. Assimilation was also hindered by the difficulty of rendering foreign concepts and terminology into Chinese, which was often accomplished by means of bizarre or idiosyncratic transliterations.4

Still, in conclusion we might say that it is remarkable should Yano be correct and Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos was in fact translated into Chinese around the year 800, later influencing the development of Sukuyō astrology in Japan starting from the Heian period in the eleventh century. If anything, it just demonstrates how much hybridization occurred in this period: Vedic, Buddhist, Hellenic and Chinese models were brought together and even in the furthest frontier of East Asia – Japan – one can see elements of Hellenic astrology active in the same aristocratic world which gave birth to literature like the Tale of Genji.5

It is always interesting uncovering these subtle strands of history which span great time and space.



1 Morita Ryūsen 森田龍僊. Mikkyō Sensei Hō 密教占星法. Kōyasan: Kōyasan Daigaku Shuppan-bu, 1941.

2 See Yano Michio 矢野道雄, Mikkyō Senseijutsu – Sukuyō-dō to Indo Senseijutsu 密教占星術ー宿曜道とインド占星術 (Tokyo, Japan: Tōyō Shoin, 2013), 160-164.

3 For example, Mark Edward Lewis, China's Cosmopolitan Empire The Tang Dynasty (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009).

4 David Pankenier, Astrology and Cosmology in Early China Conforming Earth to Heaven (Cambridge University Press, 2013), 9-10.

5 There are also a lot of Buddhist elements in the work. See the following by me: Buddhism and the Tale of Genji.

Reconstructing Sanskrit Mantras from Chinese

Between 633-645 the famous pilgrim monk and scholar Xuanzang (602-664) 玄奘 visited around India, becoming an adept scholar and user of the Sanskrit language. He sincerely believed Sanskrit was the language of the gods, and readily pointed out “accented” forms of the language. The character é (meaning "accented") appears 93 times in his travel account the Great Tang Record of Travels to Western Lands 大唐西域記. He also describes the languages of India as follows:

《大唐西域記》卷2:「詳其文字,梵天所製,原始垂則,四十七言也。寓物合成,隨事轉用。流演枝派,其源浸廣,因地隨人,微有改變,語其大較,未異本源。而中印度特為詳正,辭調和雅,與天同音,氣韻清亮,為人軌則。隣境異國,習謬成訓,競趨澆俗,莫守淳風。」(CBETA, T51, no. 2087, p. 876, c9-14) 

Their letters were created by Brahma and have been passed down from their beginnings until now, being forty-seven in number. They combine to form words according to the object [declension?] and shift in use according to the action [inflection?]. It has spread around and branched off, its source being deep and broad. Due to regions and peoples there have been some changes, though the words are generally not different from the original source. Central India is especially proper, their diction being elegant and the same sound as devas with a character sharp and clear, which is a model for people. The neighboring countries have become accustomed to erroneous pronunciation. In their chaotic ways and base nature they do not maintain genuineness.

Such a stated belief on Xuanzang's part however did not encourage many Chinese clerics and scribes to learn Sanskrit in China. While indeed in the time of Xuanzang it was possible to learn Sanskrit to some degree in China, this was not so widespread or alluring it seems throughout the Tang dynasty (618-907) when many texts containing mantras and dhāraṇīs were translated into Chinese from Sanskrit. Although the language might have been divine in Indian Buddhist minds, this did not merit precise use of it on the part of Chinese Buddhist clerics.

Sanskrit and Chinese are fundamentally very different languages. Unlike the former, the latter lacks gender, declension, conjugation and any number of other features common to most Indo-European languages. This was as much the case fifteen centuries ago as it is now.

Unlike the Tibetans, the Chinese never attempted to produce a standardized phonetic script to preserve Sanskrit pronunciation. While indeed some texts employed Indian siddhaṃ script for preserving the proper pronunciation of Sanskrit mantras, the general preference in both ancient and modern times has been to use Chinese characters (hanzi 漢字) for their phonetic values in transcribing mantras and dhāraṇīs.

This leads to distortion of the original sounds because even Middle Chinese (used in the Tang period) – to say nothing of modern Mandarin – was phonetically quite different from Sanskrit. Additionally, the pronunciation of characters differed from region to region (the speech of the capital was considered standard), and moreover changed throughout time. Such developments are actually reflected in the Japanese language. The Japanese imported Chinese characters over the course of several centuries and attempted to preserve the different pronunciations from each period. The system in Japan is as follows:

Go 吳 – Readings from before the 7th / 8th centuries. Possibly from the Korean peninsula or southern China. Often used in Buddhist texts. 

Kan 漢 – Readings from the mid Tang Dynasty (618-907). Generally reflect the pronunciation of Chang'an 長安. 

唐 – Readings from the Song Dynasty (960-1279). Often used in the Zen school. Here refers to China rather than the Tang Dynasty.

This is why a single Chinese loanword in Japan can have multiple pronunciations. For instance, 和尚 (preceptor or priest) is pronounced oshō in Zen, kashō in Tendai, and washō in Shingon. In modern Mandarin in would be héshàng.

The pronunciation of Chinese loanwords in Japanese is actually closer to Middle Chinese than modern Mandarin (this is not necessarily the case with other Chinese dialects however). For example, the character (“to eat”) is pronounced shoku in Japanese and shí in Mandarin. The consonant ending from earlier Chinese has been preserved in the Japanese importation of Chinese. The Japanese language was thus better able to retain approximate pronunciations of Sanskrit mantras and dhāraṇīs. They also continued regularly using the phonetic siddhaṃ script, though not without problems.

For example, the mantra of the Heart Sūtra (gate gate pāragate pārasaṃgate bodhi svāhā) reads as follows in modern Mandarin:

羯諦羯諦 波羅羯諦 波羅僧羯諦 菩提薩婆訶 

jiēdì jiēdì bōluó jiēdì bōluósēng jiēdì pútí sàpóhē

According to the Heart Sūtra as printed by Eihei-ji 永平寺 (Sōtō Zen) which I picked up at the Japanese temple in Bodhgaya last year, it reads as follows in the Sino-Japanese rendering:

gyātei gyātei hārā gyātei harasō gyātei bōjii sowakā

It is clear that the Japanese pronunciation, which has attempted to preserve Middle Chinese pronunciation, better reflects the Sanskrit.

This is why in my attempts to reconstruct certain mantras' pronunciations from Classical Chinese texts I have to consider the Sino-Japanese readings of characters. The modern Mandarin is just too far divorced from Middle Chinese, which was the form of Chinese used when the mantras in question were transliterated.

This is perhaps one of the most difficult parts of translating Classical Chinese Buddhist texts. In some cases there are siddhaṃ renderings which while often containing inaccuracies are still much easier to decode than ancient Chinese transliterations. Today we have the Chinese Buddhist canon digitalized. The software, like CBETA, fortunately now provides the Chinese and siddhaṃ as it appears in the printed Taishō canon with added romanization:

However, not all mantras will have the siddhaṃ in the primary text. In the absence of it, one has to attempt to reconstruct the Sanskrit using a variety of means.

Later Japanese texts will sometimes provide the siddhaṃ. For example, the Betsu Gyō 別行 (T2476) by Kanjo 寛助 (1057-1125) and the Gyōrin Shō 行林抄 (T2409) by Jōnen 靜然 (12th century). These texts will often, though not always, provide the Chinese characters and a siddhaṃ reading, though this is not always accurate and has to be assessed cautiously. For example, the latter text provides the following rendering for the mantra of Ākāśagarbha Bodhisattva:

namo akaśagarbhaya oṃ ari kamari mori svāhā

Based on the definitions of the terms used in the mantra, my understanding of this mantra would render it as follows:

namo ākāśagarbhāya oṃ ārya kamala mauli svāhā

Bear in mind the pronunciation of a mantra can differ also according to the lineage (in Japanese: ryū ), so traditions will have their own inherited pronunciations.

These last few months I have attempted to reconstruct the mantras for planets as given by Yixing (684–727) in his works. These are found in only a few texts in the Chinese canon. Fortunately, the aforementioned Betsu Gyō does provide siddhaṃ for them, though it is still problematic. For instance, the following is given for the mantra of Mercury:


oṃ vudha nakṣatra svāmina kheduma svāhā

Since the text expressly states this is the mantra for Mercury, we can assume Sanskrit terms for Mercury are likely to appear in the mantra. So, if we do a search for “Mercury” in the Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary (http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/mwquery/), we find similar sounding terms like budha and induja. It then makes logical sense to read the mantra as follows:

oṃ budha nakṣatra svāmin induja svāhā

Here kheduma / induja would be read in Sino-Japanese (again remember this is reflecting Middle Chinese pronunciation) as keidoma 契弩摩. I would assume this reflects either a mistransliteration of heard Sanskrit, or the speaker was in fact speaking an Indian dialect rather than standard Sanskrit (or it was not their native language and they mispronounced the word). In any case, it simply seems logical to read induja (“son of the moon”) here and not kheduma.

It should be clear then that East Asia – neither China nor Japan – did not attempt to preserve precise transliterations of mantras and dhāraṇīs. This is understandable given that intensive Sanskrit studies with complete grammars were seldom undertaken or available. This stands in contrast to SE Asia where the study of Pāḷi was diligently undertaken and preserved until the present day.

In the absence of any siddhaṃ for a mantra in transliterated Chinese, the scholar is left to start a long process of guesswork. In some cases, there are parts of the mantra which are identical to other parts of known mantras. However, this will not always be the case as I've discovered.

Sometimes it is quite easy to figure it out, such as this mantra for Indra:


oṃ indrāya svāhā

Sometimes much of the mantra is simply unclear despite some parts being discernible (the underlined words indicate a guess on my part as to the possible pronunciation):


namo ratna trayāya namo suma sarva nakṣatra rājāya saḥ tu dhi pa āḥ lakaraya tad yathā dumati padumati sa piṅ ni kha se svāhā

Sometimes just looking at the Chinese I have been able to decode the Sanskrit without any major issues:


oṃ sarva nakṣatra samaye śrī ye śāntika kru svāhā

As noted above, this is one of the most challenging aspects of translating Classical Chinese Buddhist texts. There are fortunately some scholarly volumes available today which provide decoded mantras, though again these have to be approached with caution. Nevertheless, as a translator when I have to translate these mantras I do appreciate seeing what others have produced. I am neither a Sanskritist nor Vajrayāna specialist, so I would hopefully have experts to defer to, though in many cases I am left to figure things out alone.

Anachronisms in Buddhist Śrāvakayāna Literature

In the Classical Chinese Buddhist canon there are four Āgamas 四阿含 which correspond, albeit not entirely, to the Pāḷi Nikāyas. They constitute Śrāvakayāna (otherwise called Hināyāna) literature in contrast to Mahāyāna developments. The four Āgamas and their translation details into Chinese are as follows:

Dīrghāgama 長阿含經 – Buddhayaśas 佛陀耶舍 and Zhu Fonian 竺佛念. 412-13.
Madhyamāgama 中阿含經 – Gautama Saṃghadeva 瞿曇僧伽提婆. 397-398.
Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿含經 – Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀. Between 435-443.
Ekōttarāgama 增一阿含經 – Gautama Saṃghadeva. 397.

For the historian, the Āgamas are a useful parallel to the Pāḷi Nikāyas and aid in understanding the textual development of the early Buddhist canon. Explaining such evolution requires securely dated sources and it is actually only from this period – around the late fourth century – that we can begin to definitively determine the content of the early canon. Gregory Schopen explains as follows:

We know too that the earliest source we have in an Indian language other than Pāḷi – and this, according to Norman, is a translation – appears to be the Gāndhārī Dharmapada, the manuscript of which may date to the second century C.E. Of our Sanskrit sources, almost all from Central Asia, probably none is earlier than the fifth century, and the Gilgit Manuscripts, which appear to contain fragments of an Ekottarāgama, are still later. Our Chinese sources do not really begin until the second half of the second century, and it is, in fact, probably not until we arrive at the translations of the Madhyamāgama and the Ekōttarāgama by Dharmanandin1 in the last quarter of the fourth century that we have the first datable sources which allow us to know – however imperfectly – the actual doctrinal content of at least some of the major divisions of the nikāya/āgama literature. It is from this period, then, from the end of the fourth century, that some of the doctrinal content of the Hināyāna canonical literature can finally be definitely dated and actually verified. Not before.2

This effectively means that the Āgamas at best represent how Buddhism was understood in said period. It would be naïve to assume Śrāvakayāna texts would remain internally free of tampering and creative content development, or even accurately record the full sayings of the historical Śākyamuni Buddha.

The Āgamas, like the Pāḷi Nikāyas, are not historical documents detailing his actual words. They are bardic texts meant for edification – full of sacred narratives, myths and ideas which only loosely reflect an earlier historical reality. This means they were based on earlier developments, which in turn were ostensibly based on the inherited teachings and sayings of the Buddha. The Āgamas incidentally also entail an additional obstacle in that they are extant only in Chinese translation.

It can further be demonstrated that Śrāvakayāna literature is in fact problematic if read as historical records. One element that identifies a text as ahistorical is the presence of anachronistic elements, and we find such things in the Ekōttarikāgama where Ānanda and Mahākāśyapa are gathered together with various gods and Maitreya Bodhisattva. Ānanda tells Uttara, “I now entrust this Ekōttarāgama to you. Fully memorize and recite it well. Do not lose any of it!" (我今以此增一阿含囑累於汝,善諷誦讀,莫令漏減 ). There is further reference to the canonical division of the four Āgamas. See the following:

《增壹阿含經》卷11 序品〉:「迦葉問言:「何等偈中出生三十七品及諸法?」時,尊者阿難便說此偈:「諸惡莫作,諸善奉行,自淨其意,是諸佛教。所以然者,諸惡莫作,是諸法本,便出生一切善法;以生善法,心意清淨。是故,迦葉!諸佛世尊身、口、意行,常修清淨。」迦葉問曰:「云何,阿難!增壹阿含獨出生三十七品及諸法,餘四阿含亦復出生乎。」阿難報言:「且置。迦葉!四阿含義,一偈之中,盡具足諸佛之教,及辟支佛、聲聞之教。」(CBETA, T02, no. 125, p. 551, a10-21)

When Mahākāśyapa asked, “In which verses are the thirty-seven factors of awakening and Dharmas produced?” the Venerable Ānanda then stated this verse: “Do no evils. Carry out virtues. Purify one's mind. These are the teachings of the buddhas. Why is this so? To do no evils is the root of Dharmas, which then produces all saddharma. As saddharma is produced, the mind is purified. Therefore, Mahākāśyapa, the activities of body, speech and mind of the buddhas the World Honored Ones are constantly cultivated as pure.” Mahākāśyapa asked, “How, Ānanda, does the Ekōttarāgama alone produce the thirty-seven factors of awakening and Dharmas? Do the others of the four Āgamas also produce them?” Ānanda replied, “Mahākāśyapa! As to the meaning of the four Āgamas, the teachings of the buddhas and those of the pratyekabuddhas and śrāvakas are completely endowed within the single verse. ...”

Here we see a Śrāvakayāna text referencing and justifying itself while mentioning other divisions of a canon that came to exist long after the Buddha passed away. One might argue that the divisions (Āgamas and/or Nikāyas) were established at the first council where the sūtras and vinaya were compiled, but as far as I know there is no evidence for this. In fact it is unclear how far even the Pāḷi canon be traced back as Schopen explains:

We know, and have known for some time that the Pāḷi canon as we have it – and it is generally conceded to be our oldest source – cannot be taken back further than the last quarter of the first century B.C.E., the date of the Alu-vihāra redaction, the earliest redaction that we can have some knowledge of, and that – for a critical history – it can serve, at the very most, only as a source for Buddhism of this period. But we also know that even this is problematic since, as Malalasekera has pointed out: “ … how far the Tipiṭaka and its commentary reduced to writing at Alu-vihāra resembled them as they have come down to us now, no one can say.” In fact, it is not until the time of the commentaries of Buddhaghosa, Dhammapāla, and others – that is to say, the fifth to sixth centuries C.E. – that we can know anything definite about the actual contents of this canon. We also know that there is no evidence to indicate that a canon existed prior to the Alu-vihāra redaction.3

The authors of the Ekōttarikāgama, like authors of Mahāyāna scriptures, were interested in justifying and moreover propagating their texts, and such a strategy as employed above is but one example of such efforts. Nevertheless, such remarks immediately identify the text as having been composed numerous centuries after the Buddha's death when Buddhist canons had come to exist. These are not the words of Ānanda and Mahākāśyapa, but rather the ideas of Buddhist bards recast in the two men who now act effectively as literary figures.

Mahāyāna literature, which has long been identified as having emerged many generations after the Buddha, also often refers to itself. One famous example would be the Kumārajīva (344-413) translation of the Lotus Sūtra in Chinese where the merits of copying the sūtra are often proclaimed. However, it is also true that at least some Śrāvakayāna literature does this as well (see below), which, setting aside the other issues, leads one to wonder if such literature is any more historically credible. This incidentally has real life implications today as the Theravāda school often prides itself on being the true and perhaps sole representative of the historical Buddha and his teachings, even though the chronological development of their canon brings many questions. Nevertheless, such beliefs are easily undermined by critical secular scholarship.

The Ekōttarikāgama also mentions the merit of copying out the sūtra.4 Maitreya himself also mentions in verse form the act of writing.5 Assuming these references to writing were not inserted during the Chinese translation, we see an Indic text with figures from the Buddha's age speaking about writing, which in actuality did not exist in the Buddha's age. Contemporary scholarship generally agrees that Magadha in the Buddha's time did not have writing. The early sangha was illiterate and memorized the teachings of the Buddha until they were written down perhaps around or after the time of Aśoka (reigned c.269-232 BCE) when the first actual evidence of writing in India appears in the archaeological record.

One noteworthy figure in this respect is Megasthenes (c.350-290 BCE), ambassador of Seleucus I of the Seleucid dynasty to Candragupta of the Maurya Dynasty, who is said to have visited India, though his account is somewhat questionable. The Greek author Strabo (64/63 BCE - c.24 CE) preserved the following statement of Megasthenes (Strabo XV 1.53): “…, and this notwithstanding the fact that they use unwritten laws. For they do not know the script, but they administer everything from memory.” This is understood to mean that people in India at the time at least did not employ writing. However, it seems probable they would have been aware of it given their contact with Persian culture and, after Alexander (356-323) Hellenic culture. Regardless of the criticism against Megasthenes, his statement is supported by the earliest extant samples of securely dated writing in India after the end of the Indus Valley civilization (3300–1300 BCE): the edicts of Aśoka (see here for Dhammika Bhante's translation). Other specimens proposed to be pre-Aśoka are of uncertain dating, though Nearchus (c.360-300 BCE) attests to the existence of writing in India before Alexander, though this might have been Aramaic whose use was monopolized by guilds.6

It is therefore unlikely that any writing actually existed in the Buddha's age (fifth century BCE). Consequently, the Buddha's disciples mentioning the act of writing would constitute an anachronism, i.e., “ the representation of an event, person, or thing in a historical context in which it could not have occurred or existed.” The presence of such an anachronism clearly means the text in question, or at least this part, cannot be considered a historical document or even an accurate record of anything from the Buddha's age.

One also encounters such anachronisms in other Śrāvakayāna texts from later periods. For example, the Vinayavibhaṅga (Derge, 'dul ba Cha 154b.3-155b.2) of the Mūlasarvāstivāda school has the following procedure for bhikṣus wanting to draw up commercial contracts:

The Blessed One said: “Taking a pledge (ādhi/bhandhaka) of twice the value (dviguṇa), and writing out a contract (likhita) that has a seal and is witnessed (sākṣimat), the perpetuity is to be placed. In the contract the year, the month, the day, the name of the Elder of the Community (saṃghasthavira), the Provost of the monastery (upadhivārika), the borrower, the property, and the interest (vṛddhi) should be recorded. When the perpetuity is placed, that pledge of twice the value is also to be placed with a devout lay-brother who has undertaken the five rules of training.7

Given the absence of writing and actual monasteries (vihāra-s) in the Buddha's day, it seems unlikely that the Buddha would have established such regulations for loan contracts. Again, Schopen remarks that the “earliest 'monasteries' that are known in India – and none of these are pre-Aśokan – are not 'monasteries' at all. They are either only barely improved, unorganized, natural caverns or caves, or poorly constructed and ill-organized shelters built of rubble and other cheap materials.”8 This would therefore mean that any mention of the Buddha or his contemporaries residing in any vihāra of notable scale would be anachronistic. In fact, Bronkhorst quoting Schopen points out that the earliest references to a vihāra system appear “only in Kharosṭḥī records of a little before and a little after the Common Era, about the same time that the first indications of permanent monastic residential quarters begin to appear in the archaeological record for the Northwest, and this is not likely to be mere coincidence.”9

Most vinaya literature providing complex rules and regulations for running monastic institutions can be understood as a much later development by clergy with quite different lifestyles from their predecessors. Consider for example how the Buddha is quoted in sūtra suggesting a śramaṇa does not sleep under the same tree twice10 with the clearly later vinaya literature which regulates living arrangements in large monasteries with slaves and taxed peasants (the vinaya recognizes the institution of slavery, which is why slaves cannot join the sangha).

It seems probable that the early sangha had house rules similar to what we see with the Jains (celibacy, non-violence and so forth), though later authors had to justify such rules plus additions by crafting tales to accompany each one where the Buddha, who possesses dictatorial powers within the sangha in the vinaya literature, is made to consent or forbid certain activities (under penalty of the hell realms). One interesting example I encountered comes from the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya Carma Vastu, translated into Chinese by Yijing 義淨 (635-713), where Ānanda takes a trip to Nepal without any shoes.

《根本說一切有部毘奈耶皮革事》卷2:「惡生太子以迷癡故。殺劫比羅城諸釋種。時城中或有走向西者。或有投泥婆羅。入泥婆羅者。皆是具壽阿難陀眷屬。後室羅筏城商人。持諸貨物。向泥婆羅。釋種見商人已。問曰。我今遭斯困苦逼。阿難陀聖者。豈不來此看我等耶。時諸商人一心憶念。交易既了。還至室羅筏城。具報阿難陀。聖者眷屬在泥婆羅。作如是言。聖者阿難陀。於諸商人。聞是語已。情懷愴然。即往泥婆羅國。國極寒雪。阿難陀手脚劈裂。迴還室羅筏城。諸苾芻見已。問言。阿難陀。汝先手脚柔軟。猶如於舌。因何如是劈裂。答言。泥婆羅國。地近雪山。由風雪故。令我脚手如是。又問。汝之眷屬。於彼云何存活。報言。彼著富羅。又問。汝何故不著。報言。佛未許著。時諸苾芻。以緣白佛。佛言。有寒雪處應著富羅」(CBETA, T23, no. 1447, p. 1057, a15-b1)

Virūḍhaka (Viḍūḍabha) out of ignorance slaughtered the Śākya clan in the city of Kapila. At the time in the city, some ran west and some fled to Nepal. Those who went to Nepal were all kinsmen of the Long Lived Ānanda. Later, merchants of Śrāvastī carried goods to Nepal. The Śākya clan saw the merchants and asked, “We now face this misery. Would not the Noble Ānanda come here and look after us?” The merchants at the time sincerely remembered this. After concluding their trading they returned to Śrāvastī and reported to Ānanda. They said, “Noble one – your kinsmen are in Nepal.” The noble Ānanda having heard these words from the merchants became full of sorrow and immediately went to the country of Nepal. The country was extremely cold and snowy. Ānanda's hands and feet became cracked and split. Upon returning to Śrāvastī the bhikṣus saw him and asked, “Ānanda, your hands and feet are soft like a tongue. Why are they cracked and split?” He replied, “The country of Nepal is close to the snowy mountains. The wind and snow made my feet and hands like this.” They again asked, “How do your kinsmen survive there?” He replied, “They wear pula [short boots].” They again asked, “Why did you not wear them?” He replied, “The Buddha has not permitted them to be worn.” At the time the bhikṣus asked the Buddha about this. The Buddha said, “In cold and snowy places one should wear pula.

Assuming here that Nepal means the Kathmandu valley and nearby regions (the border area of modern Nepal with UP and Bihar in India is far away from snowy mountains), Ānanda took a lengthy trip on foot through the foothills of the Himalayas barefoot. Such imbecilic and emotional behavior is sometimes characteristic of Ānanda in Buddhist literature as he is often made to look foolish or weak, such as at the first council where he gets escorted out by the arm by Mahākāśyapa because he has yet to achieve arhatship (conversely in Mahāyāna literature it is Śāriputra who is mocked, such as in the Vimalakīrti Sūtra). While it is possible Virūḍhaka indeed massacred the Śākya clan, the additional part of Ānanda foolishly walking barefoot through cold and snowy lands to see his kinsmen and suffering frostbite because of it, though still ardently maintaining his precepts, is an example of Buddhist bards crafting a story to justify or explain precepts or their revisions. Note here how it is a silly Ānanda and not any of Śākyamuni's other relatives who suffer easily preventable frostbite. It might be an amusing story, but it is fiction.

Another set of examples of anachronisms in a sūtra, attributed to the Buddha and in the Śrāvakayāna canon, is in the Śāriputrapariprcchā Sūtra 舍利弗問經. While it is technically a Mahāsāṃghika sūtra, the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī does make an appearance (the Mahāsāṃghikas and Sthaviravāda were the two primary lineages of early Buddhism, the former often being favorable to mysticism and Mahāyāna scriptures). It provides a prophecy detailing the various sects that would arise long after the Buddha passed away. It states that the Mahāsāṃghika school will wear yellow robes, the Dharmagupta school will wear red robes, the Sarvāstivāda school will wear black robes, the Kāśyapīya school will wear dark-brownish robes, and the Mahīśāsaka school will wear blue robes.11

Such prescriptions reflect later monastic uniforms which the author of said sūtra felt the need to justify and legitimize, hence the Buddha foresees and explains such developments long before they unfold. However, monks wearing pure colored uniform robes contradicts other areas of vinaya literature which proscribe wearing pure colors. Also, there are supposed to be multiple sources of clothing (or cloth, bearing in mind that such attire was basically akin to a toga as single long pieces of fabric), which would likely preclude the possibility of everyone being in uniform attire. For instance, the Dharmagupta Vinaya lists the following ten types of permitted clothing:

1. Clothes that have been chewed by cows.
2. Clothes that have been gnawed upon by mice.
3. Clothes that have been burnt.
4. Clothes made from menstrual rags.
5. Clothes made from towels used in childbirth.
6. Clothes from a “deity-house” (Skt. deva-kula). These may be used if they have been carried off by the wind or birds.
7. Clothes from burial mounds (death shrouds).
8. Clothes that have been solicited.
9. Clothes made from the cloth used to transport corpses.
10. Clothes made from cloth discarded after a regal enthronement.12

Additionally the color must be “broken” or dyed and marked with additional colors. The Dharmagupta Vinaya further states that “breaking the color is to dye it blue, black and kāla-śyāma.”13 The idea is that the cloth is not to be of a single color, but marked with multiple colors which thereby makes it pure for the bhikṣu to wear (it seems later on the marking became a mere formality with regulations provided for the required size and shape of the dyed area). If the early sangha was in fact a group of mendicants acquiring cloth from the aforementioned sources, then presumably uniform robes would have been unfeasible given that some sources of cloth might have been from royal functions while others from death mounds and funerals.

Historical figures influential in the Buddhist movement in India were also written into the canon in creative ways, such as Kaniṣka (c.78-144) of the Kuṣāṇa dynasty in northern India. Kaniṣka was a patron of Buddhism and is famous for his Kaniṣka Stūpa in present day Peshawar, Pakistan. In the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya Bhaiṣajya Vastu the Buddha foresees said king and his stūpa:

《根本說一切有部毘奈耶藥事》卷9:「世尊復至渴樹羅聚落。於此村中。有一童子。以土為塔。而作戲劇。世尊見已。便告金剛手。汝見此童子以土為塔。而作戲不。金剛手白佛言。我今已見。佛言。我滅度後。迦尼色迦王(此云淨金)於此童子戲造塔處。建大窣堵波。號曰迦尼(上聲)色迦塔。」(CBETA, T24, no. 1448, p. 41, b25-c1)

The World Honored One returned to the village of Kharjūra. In this village there was a boy making a stūpa from earth and playing. The World Honored One saw this and then said to Vajrapāṇi, “Do you see this boy making a stūpa from earth and playing?” Vajrapāṇi said to the Buddha, “I have now seen him.” The Buddha said, “After I pass away, King Kaniṣka here where the boy playfully builds a stūpa will build a great stūpa. It will be called the Kaniṣka Stūpa.”

Coin from reign of Kaniṣka I.
Assuming the author had the same stūpa in mind, the historical Buddha is positioned in what is now modern northern Pakistan near the Afghanistan border, which is far from Magadha in what is now largely Bihar state in India. Kaniṣka was famous and influential enough to merit having a prophecy about him on the part of the Buddha in canonical literature (recall that the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya was in use in Nālandā). Again, this just illustrates the fact that Śrāvakayāna literature is full of anachronisms which demonstrate it to be ahistorical and fictional.

In modern times with the scholarly consensus that Mahāyāna literature long postdates the death of the Buddha, a number of figures, perhaps predominately connected with Theravāda, have condemned Mahāyāna traditions for putting words into the mouth of the Buddha, yet in reality Śrāvakayāna literature, be it sūtra or vinaya, did the same thing. One of the leading scholars on early Buddhism in the western world Johannes Bronkhorst even states the following:

It is not easy to get a clear picture of the Buddha's original teaching. Certainly, its aim was to stop suffering and rebirth. To achieve this, the Buddha taught a path in which consciousness played a major role. This is clear from the awareness practices and from the four stages of meditation. In the highest stage of meditation, it is somehow possible, with the help of wisdom (prajñā), to bring about a decisive transformation. Once this happens, the goal is attained.14

The brief discussion above concerning evident anachronisms in the literature supports Bronkhorst's conclusion: it is difficult to ascertain the Buddha's original teachings.

I would also add that this extends to the matter of ecclesiastical discipline in the early sangha. The extant vinaya literature at best reflects the concerns and conceptions of a small minority of literate monastery-dwelling clerics in different time periods and locations long after the Buddha's time. Put simply, the vinaya of any tradition is mostly fiction probably based loosely on inherited śramaṇa customs and sangha folktales. As Schopen has demonstrated in his works, there is no evidence that vihāra-s existed until a few centuries after the Buddha's death (all are post-Aśoka). Following their gradual establishment, they developed disciplinary codes and associated taxation systems for the peasants under the monasteries, and often attributed relevant decrees to Śākyamuni Buddha himself. In practice this is no different than Mahāyāna sūtras using the Buddha as a literary figure to propagate their own ideas and practices.

This effectively undermines any claim by living Buddhist traditions to having the true tradition of the historical Buddha. This is unlikely to be easily accepted, but nevertheless it is increasingly the consensus of specialist scholars in the field of Buddhology, like Bronkhorst as quoted above. Secular scholarship in any case is effective at challenging Buddhist beliefs about their own textual and lineage histories, though few Buddhists seem to really appreciate and accept this.



1 This is likely an error on Schopen's part as the Taishō clearly states the translator is Gautama Saṃghadeva 瞿曇僧伽提婆 from Kashmir.

2 Gregory Schopen, “Two Problems in the History of Indian Buddhism The Layman/Monk Distinction and the Doctrines of the Transference of Merit” in Indian Monastic Buddhism Collected Papers on Textual, Inscriptional and Archaelogical Evidence (New Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, 2010), 25.

3 Ibid., 23-24.

4《增壹阿含經》卷11 序品〉:「若有書寫經卷者...(CBETA, T02, no. 125, p. 550, c5)

5《增壹阿含經》卷4448 十不善品〉:「若有書寫經...(CBETA, T02, no. 125, p. 789, c3)

6 For further details see Richard Salomon, “On The Origin Of The Early Indian Scripts: A Review Article” in Journal of the American Oriental Society 115.2 (1995): 271-279. http://indology.info/papers/salomon/.

7 Translation by Gregory Schopen. See “Doing Business for the Lord Lending on Interest and Written Loan Contracts in the Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya” in Indian Monastic Buddhism Collected Papers on Textual, Inscriptional and Archaelogical Evidence (New Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited), 48.

8 Gregory Schopen, “The Good Monk and His Money in Monasticism of 'the Mahāyāna Period'” in Indian Monastic Buddhism Collected Papers on Textual, Inscriptional and Archaelogical Evidence (New Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited), 1-2.

9 See Johannes Bronkhorst, Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism Handbook of Oriental Studies (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 18-19.

10 See the Sūtra in Forty-Two Chapters 四十二章經:

The Buddha said, “Removing beard and hair he becomes a śramaṇa. He receives the Dharma of the path, does away with worldly wealth and takes what is sufficient from begging. He eats a single meal at midday, sleeps one night under a tree and is careful not to repeat either of these! It is clinging and desire which make people foolish.

11《舍利弗問經》卷1:「摩訶僧祇部。勤學眾經宣講真義。以處本居中。應著黃衣。曇無屈多迦部。通達理味開導利益。表發殊勝。應著赤衣。薩婆多部。博通敏達以導法化。應著皂衣。迦葉維部。精勤勇猛攝護眾生。應著木蘭衣。彌沙塞部。禪思入微究暢幽密。應著青衣。」(CBETA, T24, no. 1465, p. 900, c12-17)

12《四分律》卷39:「糞掃衣有十種。牛嚼衣。鼠嚙衣。燒衣。月水衣。產婦衣。神廟中衣。若鳥銜風吹離處者。塚間衣。求願衣。受王職衣。往還衣。是謂十種糞掃衣。」(CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 850, a24-28)

13《四分律》卷16:「壞色者。染作青黑木蘭也」(CBETA, T22, no. 1428, p. 676, c11-12)

14 Johannes Bronkhorst, Buddhist Teaching in India (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2009), 58