Ajitasena-vyakarana-nirdesa‑nama-mahayana-sutra (“Mahayana Sutra called ‘The Explanation of Prophecy [for King] Ajitasena’”) of IOM RAS Manuscript Collection. Part I (original) (raw)
The article is devoted to the problem of studying of the manuscript from Nikolay F. Petrovsky Manuscripts’ Collection which belongs to the Central Asian Manuscripts’ Fund of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the RussianAcademy of Sciences. It presents a brief outline of the history of the discovery and the study of two Ajitasena-vyakarana’s versions (Gilgit’s and Khotanese) as well as the manuscript paleographic description and the attempt of genre identification. Author shows the closeness the plot of Ajitasena-vyakarana with that of Ajitasena-vyakarana-nirdesha-nama-mahayana-sutra. Ajitasena-vyakarana is so-called ‘proto-Mahayana’ sutra which was found near Gilgit in 1931.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
On the Version of Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra Used in the 18th Century Kalmyk Scrolls
Zorin A. On the Version of Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra Used in the 18th Century Kalmyk Scrolls. Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, No. 58, pp. 237—266., 2021
The paper deals with several versions of the Tibetan translation of Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra found in the ancient Dunhuang manuscripts, the Mdo mang collection printed in Kumbum in the 18th century and the 18th century Kalmyk manuscript scroll. The study of the latter brought about this textological research.
This paper is centred on the first edition of a Sanskrit palm-leaf fragment of the Rigyaralli (Add.1680.12), a slightly obscure, late Buddhist tantra. The introductory study contains a description of the multiple-text manuscript the fragment is transmitted in, an examination of testimonia, a brief overview of the Tibetan translation of the tantra and some related literature, and a short note on the pantheon. I argue that the text must date from the early 11 th c. CE. Accompanied by a tentative translation and some notes, the edition is given in two forms: critical and diplomatic. || 1 Isaacson, personal communication, 2008. Luo 2010 has used the Buddhakapāla fragment for his edition; a study of the Vajrāmṛta is currently under preparation by Francesco Sferra (see his contribution to the present volume). 2 http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-OR-00158-00001/1\. Brought to you by |
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.