Glimpses of The Oral History of Tibetan Studies

The Oral History of Tibetan Studies (OHTS) project collects memories of individuals who have contributed to the formation of Tibetan Studies as an independent academic discipline in the second half of the twentieth century. Through interview recordings, it explores two aspects: the development of the discipline itself, and the distinctive life-stories of the individuals involved. The project includes scholars and academics, Tibetan teachers and traditional scholars, artists, photographers, book publishers, and sponsors. The oral testimonies also provide crucial information on related academic fields, such as Buddhist and Religious Studies, Anthropology, and Asian Studies more generally, and present a kaleidoscope of broader social, cultural, and educational developments. Of particular interest is the interconnection with Buddhist Studies, as exemplified in the UK and through links with the International Association of Buddhist Studies. This report aims to introduce the project, its open access online archive, and future plans.

Analysis of the Ratnakuta in the Mongolian Manuscript Kanjur

The Maharatnakuta is a collection of Buddhist texts, the bulk of which belong to the early Mahayana tradition. Its extant versions are included in the Chinese Tripitaka as well as the Tibetan and Mongolian Kanjurs. The collection has been studied to a certain extent with the use of the Chinese and Tibetan sources but almost nothing is known of its Mongolian-language versions. The article aims to provide a preliminary study of the Ratnakuta in the Mongolian manuscript Kanjur compiled in 1628–1629. It examines the structural traits of the collection, the data of the colophons and some textual elements preserved from the Tibetan original/s. The analysis reveals that, possibly, the major part of the Ratnakuta or the whole collection was translated into Mongolian en bloc in 1628–1629. The collection lacks eight sutras and places the final forty-ninth work between texts thirty-five and thirty-six. A number of textual elements preserved from the Tibetan source/s point to the proximity and possible relation of the Mongolian Ratnakuta to the Them spangs ma and Western Tibetan Kanjurs.

Zhipan’s Account of the History of Buddhism in China vol.1: Fozu tongji, juan 34-38: From the Times of the Buddha to the Nanbeichao Era, by Thomas Jülch.

Zhipan’s Account of the History of Buddhism in China vol.1: Fozu tongji, juan 34-38: From the Times of the Buddha to the Nanbeichao Era, by Thomas Jülch. Brill. 2019. X + 316pp. €116/$140. ISBN: 978-90-04-39620-3.

Women in British Buddhism: Commitment, Connection, Community, by Caroline Starkey.

Women in British Buddhism: Commitment, Connection, Community, by Caroline Starkey. Routledge, 2020. 222pp., Hb. £120, ISBN-13: 9781138087460; Ebook £33.29, ISBN 13: 9781315110455.

Buddhist Philosophy of Consciousness: Tradition and Dialogue, edited by Mark Siderits, Ching Keng and John Spackman.

Buddhist Philosophy of Consciousness: Tradition and Dialogue, edited by Mark Siderits, Ching Keng and John Spackman. Brill, 2021. 356pp., €135/$162. Hb ISBN-13: 9789004440890; e-PDF ISBN-13: 9789004440913.

Dravidian poem translated into Pali? Apadana-atthakatha/Visuddhajanavilasini |(534 13-537 28, vv 12–48)

This article examines a poem in the Kaludayittherapadanavannana which expands on the poem attributed to Kaludayitthera in the Theragatha; the poem in the Kaludayittherapadanavannana did not make it into the final canon. The hypothesis of this paper is that the poem may be a popular Dravidian song adapted to Buddhist use and translated into Pali, and this is the primary reason it was excluded from the canon. This conclusion is based on several factors. 1) The author of the Pali poem was not well versed in the Pali language and made constant mistakes in translation. 2) Gratuitous repetition; the poem itself is not very good poetry, containing the kind of needless repetition one associates with a popular song. 3) 13.4% of the words in the poem are direct lifts from Dravidian words; this compares to only 3.9% of the words in the Theragatha poem itself, of which this poem is an extension. While this does not prove that the source was a Dravidian poem, it raises the probability quite significantly. In addition, this kind of literature—making lists of biota in the natural world for comparison, personification and poetic effect— is common in Dravidian Sangam literature. 4) The poem contains wrong or awkward phrases in Pali which can be better understood as Dravidian imports, and 5) an extensive and growing body of linguistic evidence shows that the adoption of Dravidian terminology into Buddhist thought and practice was not an uncommon occurrence. It has long been assumed that the Buddha spoke more than just Indic languages, and that his oral teachings in Dravidian or Munda languages were lost. Although this poem is probably not in itself a teaching of the Buddha, but a popular Dravidian song adapted for Buddhist purposes, its analysis is the first attempt to show that some Pali transmissions may be adaptations or translations of indigenous languages; the ramifications and conclusions of such a hypothesis, if proven, open up a whole new area of Buddhist studies, i.e., the transmission of the Buddha’s teachings through indigenous, non Indo-Aryan (non-IA) languages.

Boran Kammatthan (Ancient Theravada) Meditation Transmissions in Siam from late Ayutthaya to Rattanakosin periods

This article investigates three distinct lineages of the transmission of the ancient Theravada meditation, boran kammatthan (Thai, Khmer; Pali, purana kammatthana), in Siam from the late Ayutthaya to the Thonburi and Rattanakosin periods, as well as the survival of two of them as living practices. It traces the Ayutthaya lineage of the Supreme Patriarch Suk Kaitheun (1733–1822) back from Wat Ratchasittharam (Thonburi) in the present to Wat Pa Kaew (Ayutthaya) in the sixteenth century. It also looks at the transmission of boran kammatthan from Wat Choengtha and other temples in Ayutthaya via Wat Hongrattanaram (Thonburi) to Wat Intharam (Thonburi) by King Taksin (r.1767–1782) and the Supreme Patriarchs of Thonburi under his support in the eighteenth century. It finally looks at the continuing transmission at Wat Pradusongtham (Ayutthaya) from the 1750s to the present. Key meditation teachers, covered in this article, include the Supreme Patriarchs of Thonburi and early Bangkok periods, as well as King Taksin. Overall, by documenting more than one transmission from a historical point of view, I argue in this article that there could be various meditation lineages that transmitted diverse practices within the broad framework of boran kammatthan.

Computer-assisted Analysis of Zhu Fonian’s Original Mahayana Sutras

In her 2010 study of the Shi zhu duan jie jing T309, Jan Nattier found that several passages in T309 were copied from earlier Chinese Buddhist texts. She thus proposed that T309 is not a translation from an Indian text, but a “forgery” by Zhu Fonian. Extending Nattier’s analysis with the help of TACL, a tool for computational textual analysis, we conducted a more thorough analysis of Zhu Fonian’s four Mahayana texts, namely, T309, the Pusa chu tai jing T384, the Zhongyin jin T385, and the Pusa yingluo jing T656, and found in T309 and T656 additional content deriving from earlier Chinese texts. On the basis of this analysis of these features of the texts, we propose that all four were likely compiled by Zhu Fonian himself.