Brandon Dotson, Lewis Doney

Producing Buddhist Sutras in Ninth-Century Tibet

Studies in Manuscript Cultures

Edited by
Imre Galambos, Konrad Hirschler, Caroline Macé,
Cécile Michel, Jörg B. Quenzer and Eva Wilden

Volume 43
Brandon Dotson, Lewis Doney
Producing
Buddhist Sutras
in Ninth-Century
Tibet
The Sutra of Limitless Life and its Dunhuang Copies
Kept at the British Library
The publication of this volume was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German
Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC 2176 ‘Understanding Written
Artefacts: Material, Interaction and Transmission in Manuscript Cultures’ – project no. 390893796.

ISBN 978-3-11-156930-7
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-156955-0
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-157009-9
ISSN 2365-9696
DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0

International License. For details go to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Creative Commons license terms for re-use do not apply to any content (such as graphs, figures,
photos, excerpts, etc.) that is not part of the Open Access publication. These may require obtaining
further permission from the rights holder. The obligation to research and clear permission lies solely
with the party re-using the material.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2024947643

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed
bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2025 with the author(s), published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. This book is published
with open access at www.degruyter.com.

Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck

www.degruyter.com
Questions about General Product Safety Regulation:
[email protected]

To my parents.
– B.D.

To Renée, with love.

– L.D.
Contents
Acknowledgements  XI

Conventions  XIII

Introduction  1

Part One: The Sutra Copies, their Production,

and Conservation  25

1 Conserving Limitless Life  27

1.1 Bundles of manuscripts in Dunhuang  28
1.2 Site numbers in London  36
1.3 Cataloguing and preparatory work in Cambridge  53
1.3.1 Roll numbers and panel numbers  58
1.3.2 Red-and-white curator’s stickers  62
1.4 Binding and cataloguing in London  64
1.4.1 Booklet numbers and cataloguing confusion  73
1.4.2 Cataloguing work to the present  76
1.5 Conclusions  80

2 Transmitting Limitless Life  82

2.1 Versions of Limitless Life at Dunhuang  86
2.1.1 Types of the dhāraṇī of the Buddha of Limitless Life  89
2.1.2 Versions of the Sutra of Limitless Life  100
2.2 Differences of content  107
2.2.1 The title  107
2.2.2 The Buddha’s names  110
2.2.3 The numbers of Buddhas  111
2.2.4 The pivotal paragraph 19  112
2.2.5 Verses on the six perfections  117
2.2.6 The final lines  123
2.2.7 Conclusions on content  124
2.3 Context of the different versions  125

3 Producing Limitless Life  129

3.1 The horse-year sutra-copying project  131
VIII  Contents

3.2 Double standards  143

3.3 Different types of bundles  155
3.3.1 Fragments, orphans, and traces of a lost bundle  160
3.3.2 Bundles, rolls, and glue in the margins  163
3.4 Scribal practices  164
3.4.1 Scribes beyond the scriptorium  169
3.4.2 Purity practices and scribal erasure in the sutra economy  173
3.5 Editorial processes  177
3.5.1 Teams of editors  181
3.5.2 Correcting and rejecting sutra copies  184
3.6 Paper re-use, ex-libris, and the fate of the sutra copies  193

Conclusions to Part One  208

Part Two: The Sutra Copies and our Documentation  215

4 Documenting Limitless Life  217

4.1 Catalogues of Tibetan Dunhuang Ap copies  217
4.2 In lieu of a catalogue  221
4.2.1 Bundles of single-sutra rolls  226
4.2.2 Mixed bundles  268
4.2.3 Other copies or fragments  311

5 Correcting Limitless Life  322

5.1 Corrections  322
5.2 Names and their spellings  325
5.3 Explicit orthography  327
Orthography in Dunhuang's scriptoria in the 820s  331
5.4 Transcribed explicits, colophons, and corrections  336
Explicits from editors’ exemplars  353
5.5 Transliteration of a sample copy of the Tibetan B1 version,
PT 3901  356

Appendix One: Transliterations of Sample Copies of the Tibetan A1

and C5 Versions of the Sutra of Limitless Life  363
1 Transliteration of A1 version, pressmark ITJ 310.1209  363
2 Transliteration of C5 version, pressmark ITJ 310.645  368
 Contents  IX

Appendix Two: Concordance of Tibetan Limitless Life Copies

by Pressmarks  376

List of Figures  384

Abbreviations  388

References  389

Index  399
Acknowledgements
This book has been a long time in the making, and it has benefited from the help
and from the input of many friends and colleagues. First and foremost, this re-
search would not have been possible without the support of our colleagues at the
British Library. We are especially indebted to Sam van Schaik, Mélodie Doumy,
Burkhard Quessel, and Han-Lin Hsieh for permitting us to consult so many manu-
scripts over the course of multiple visits spanning ten years from 2013 to 2023. We
are grateful to Sam van Schaik especially for helping us to piece together the conser-
vation history of these manuscripts and for sharing his insights about his work cata-
loguing them. On the topic of conservation and cataloguing, we would also like to
thank Vania Assis, Robert Davies, John Mumford, Ulrich Pagel, Susan Whitfield, and
Frances Wood for their insights about working with these and similar manuscripts.
We have also benefited from helpful suggestions and support from Stefan Baums,
Ruixuan Chen, Jake Dalton, Allan Ding, Charles DiSimone, Imre Galambos, Arlo
Griffiths, Ralf Kramer, Meghan Howard Masang, Bryan Lowe, Gudrun Melzer, Armin
Selbitschka, Marta Sernesi, Jonathan Silk, Vincent Tournier, and Hemal Trivedi.
This research began in 2013 under the auspices of the Kingship and Religion in
Tibet research project, sponsored by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. This
was based at the Institute for Indology and Tibetology at Ludwig-Maximilians-Uni-
versität München from 2010 to 2015. Brandon Dotson’s further research was sup-
ported by Summer Academic Grants from Georgetown University in 2017 and 2022,
and by a Renewed Stay Research Award from the Alexander von Humboldt Founda-
tion for June and July 2023 at the Institute for Sinology at Ludwig-Maximilians-
Universität München, where he was hosted by Prof. Armin Selbitschka.
We are grateful to Prof. Dongzhi Duojie of Northwest Nationalities University in
Lanzhou for his initial work on this project in February 2013 as a visiting researcher
in the Kingship and Religion in Tibet research project. Brandon Dotson would also
like to thank his research assistants at Georgetown University, Mideum Hong and
Alaina Keller, for helping to format various tables in this book for publication.
Parts of Chapter Three were published in 2015 as “The Remains of the Dharma:
Editing, Rejecting, and Replacing the Buddha’s Words in Officially Commissioned
Sutras from Dunhuang, 820s to 840s,” Journal of the International Association of
Buddhist Studies, 36-37 (2013-2014): 5–68. Parts of Chapter Five were published in
2016 as Brandon Dotson, “Misspelling Buddha: the Officially Commissioned Tibetan
Aparimitāyur-nāma mahāyāna-sūtras from Dunhuang and the Study of Old Tibetan
Orthography,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 79.1: 129–151.

Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550-201
XII  Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Peeters Publishers in Leuven and to Cambridge University Press

for permission to reproduce parts of the articles here.
Finally, we would like to thank Caroline Macé at the Centre for the Study of
Manuscript Cultures for shepherding this book to publication. We are deeply grate-
ful to Imre Galambos for his support of this research and for his painstaking work
typesetting and indexing the book, which presented numerous challenges.
Conventions
We transliterate Tibetan according to the Wylie system, and Old Tibetan following
the conventions articulated by Old Tibetan Documents Online.1 Given our focus on
the study of orthography, we make no attempt to correct misspellings or variant
orthographies. This will pose no difficulty to those accustomed to reading Old Tibet-
an or even non-standard or broken Tibetan. Those not so accustomed might be
confused by a few odd spellings, but context and reading phonetically (substituting
voiced for voiceless, or aspirated for unaspirated consonants and vice-versa) solve
this in most instances. Chinese characters are given in traditional, unsimplified
form. We have glossed most non-standard variants in Dunhuang manuscripts (e.g.
无/無, 万/萬).


1
See Imaeda 2011.
Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550-202
Introduction
“Mañjuśrī, those beings who will write or cause to be written the Dharma
discourse called “Proclaiming the Praise of the Qualities of the Tathāgata
Aparimitāyus,” or who or hear his names or who hold it or who keep in their
homes a copy written from its dictation, or who offer it flowers, incense,
perfumes, garlands, or powders – these will, when their lives have run out,
still be able to reach a hundred years of age.”
– The Sutra of Limitless Life1

“Here we have in mere gibberish a prayer for long life, addressed to

the Buddha, who taught that deliverance from life was the greatest of
all blessings. While the beautiful utterances of the Buddha were
forgotten, these miserable Dhāraṇis spread all over the world.”
– Max Müller, The Ancient Palm Leaves Containing the Pragñâ-
Pâramitâ-Hridaya-Sûtra and the Ushnîshavigaya-Dhâranî, 31

In the British Library’s Stein Collection of Dunhuang manuscripts there is a copy of

a short Buddhist sutra with some editorial corrections. It is the Sutra of Limitless
Life, known for short in Tibetan simply as the “Life Sutra” (Tshe mdo), and it is tradi-
tionally copied and recited to increase a person’s lifespan, to protect them from
harm, and to secure for them a good rebirth when they die. In this copy, the scribe
wrote out the sutra in a neat, clear hand in black ink. After the last line he wrote a
colophon in a messier hand, simply stating his name as the scribe. Throughout the
sutra, there are corrections by an editor who wrote in bright red ink. After the
scribe’s colophon following the end of the sutra, the editor wrote an editorial col-
ophon simply naming himself as having edited the sutra, and naming two other
editors also credited with correcting or checking this sutra copy a second and a
third time.
There are many ways in which this sutra copy is unremarkable. Scholars have
found sutra copies like this one to be unworthy of their attention for being in the
first place one of the most common of all the Dunhuang manuscripts, and in the


1 ITJ 310.645, ll. a8–11: ’jam dpal sems can gang dag de dag de bzhin gshegs pa tshe dpag du myed
pa de’i yon tan gyI bsngogs pa yongs su brjod pa zhes bya ba’i ’chos kyi rnam grangs / yi ger ’drI’aM
yi ger ’drir ’jug gaM mying yang nyan taM ’chang ba ’aM klog pa nas klegs baM la brIs ste khyim
na ’chang ba’am men tog dang bdug pa dang spos dang preng ba dang phye ma rnams gyis mchod
pa’I bar du byed pa de dag nI tshe yongsu zad pa las tshe yang lo brgya thub par ’gyur ro / /. See
Appendix One for a transliteration of the entire text of ITJ 310.645 with differences found in the
similar text, ITJ 310.651, recorded in the footnotes.
Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550-001
2  Introduction

second place for lacking any content that was deemed worthwhile to the history of
Buddhism, Dunhuang, Tibet, or China. To the first point, this edited copy of the
Sutra of Limitless Life is one of 1,492 copies of this same sutra kept in the Stein Col-
lection at the British Library. These sutra copies are all from Dunhuang, all copied
by the same groups of scribes, and all edited by the same groups of editors. More-
over, there are hundreds of virtually identical copies, again with the same scribes
and editors named in their colophons, that are kept in Dunhuang manuscript col-
lections in Paris, Gansu, and St. Petersburg. Smaller collections in Taiwan, Japan,
Europe, and the United States also hold Tibetan Dunhuang copies of the Sutra of
Limitless Life very much like this one.
The presence of this sutra copy in the British Library, and the dispersal of simi-
lar sutra copies all over the world, are the result of the discovery and ransacking of
Mogao Cave Seventeen, the so-called “library cave” of Dunhuang, during the first
two decades of the twentieth century. This yielded the largest and most significant
body of Chinese and Tibetan manuscripts from the medieval period, with most of
the manuscripts dating to the ninth and tenth centuries. The cache of manuscripts
and objects in this three-cubic meter cave also included manuscripts in Khotanese,
Uyghur, Sogdian, Sanskrit, and other languages, with some manuscripts dating as ear-
ly as the fourth century. The vast majority of the manuscripts were Buddhist sutras
or fragments of Buddhist sutras in Chinese or Tibetan.2 In particular, there were hun-
dreds of copies of the Diamond Sutra, the Lotus Sutra, and the Heart Sutra, in addi-
tion to hundreds of copies of the Sutra of Limitless Life in both Chinese and Tibetan.
After the Daoist monk Wang Yuanlu (c.1848–1931) discovered Cave Seventeen
in 1900, and began to share some of its manuscripts with others, word of a cave full
of ancient Buddhist manuscripts soon spread.3 When the Anglo-Hungarian explor-
er Marc Aurel Stein (1862–1943) and his learned secretary Jiang Xiaowan (1858–
1922) reached the cave in May 1907, they had only about one week to sort through
the bundles of manuscripts and objects that Wang brought out from the cave, select-
ing those that they would try to purchase for museums in London and Delhi, and
leaving aside those that interested them less.4 This depended on logistics and trans-
portation, and it created a sense of triage, and a necessity of making quick judg-
ments about what sorts of manuscripts and objects to prize over others. The scholar
Paul Pelliot (1878–1945) performed a similar task in 1908, but did so at a less hurried


2 For excellent introductions, see Rong 2013, Hao 2020, and Galambos 2020, 3–6.
3 On the circulation of Dunhuang manuscripts between Wang’s discovery of Cave Seventeen in
June 1900 and Stein’s arrival in May 1907, see Rong 2013, 79–108.
4 Stein recounts the tale in Ruins of Desert Cathay in 1912, and again in Serindia in 1921. This is
summarized briefly in Chapter One.
 Introduction  3

pace and also with a strong command of Chinese, allowing him to be a bit less scat-
tershot than Stein in choosing what to take and what to leave behind. Pelliot staged
a now-famous photograph of himself working by candlelight in Cave Seventeen,
ostensibly making scholarly judgments about which manuscripts and objects to
bring back with him to Paris, and which to leave behind.
Stein and Pelliot each took with them hundreds of copies of the Sutra of Limit-
less Life in Tibetan, though Pelliot took only half as many as Stein. Notably, they still
left hundreds of copies behind, and these were taken by other European, American,
and Japanese explorers, such as Sergey Oldenburg, who brought over two hundred
copies back to Russia following his expedition in 1914–1915. Even after all of this
activity, and even after most of the remaining manuscripts were taken to Beijing,
those that were left behind, and which ended up in libraries and archives in Gansu,
still included hundreds of copies of the Tibetan Sutra of Limitless Life. One can
therefore say that these sutra copies have the dubious distinction of being simul-
taneously the spoils of imperial exploitation, and the leftovers. Moreover, it would
be fair to conclude from their ubiquity and from their being left behind in Cave
Seventeen that copies of the Tibetan Sutra of Limitless Life were among the least
valued of all the Dunhuang manuscripts.
The first century of research on the Dunhuang manuscripts largely confirmed
the prevailing view that these sutra copies were comparatively unimportant. The
cataloguers of the Stein Collection in London and the Pelliot Collection in Paris,
Louis de La Vallée Poussin (1869–1938), and Marcelle Lalou (1890–1967), each de-
clined to properly document and catalogue their respective collection’s hundreds
of copies.5 Catalogues, anthologies, and photographic reproductions all tended to
neglect these sutra copies in favor of secular documents.6 These resources served
scholarship that valued the Dunhuang manuscripts for their unica – their remark-
able texts that are found nowhere else.
Apart from its ubiquity, the Sutra of Limitless Life was also dismissed for its
contents. In the field of Buddhist Studies, scholars have favored the specific contri-
butions of Dunhuang manuscripts to our understanding of medieval Chinese Bud-
dhism and Daoism, Esoteric Buddhism, and Chan, among other topics. The hun-
dreds of copies of the Sutra of Limitless Life are of limited value to such projects.
The Sutra of Limitless Life itself also occupies one of the traditional blind spots in
the field. F. Max Müller articulates this well in our introduction’s epigraph, where


5 La Vallée Poussin 1962; Lalou 1939; Lalou 1950; Lalou 1961.
6 In this same context, Imre Galambos cites the example of the fourteen volumes of facsimile re-
productions of the Stein Collection of Chinese Dunhuang manuscripts published from 1990–1995 by
the Sichuan People’s Press, which included only the non-Buddhist manuscripts; Galambos 2020, 6.
4  Introduction

he damns the sutra on two counts. First, he views a sutra for securing long life as
being anathema to the Buddha’s central message of escaping birth and death;
second, he calls it a “miserable dhāraṇi,” which is to say that it is essentially a spell,
a further degradation of the Buddha’s supposed rationalist disdain for magic.7 Such
Victorian presuppositions informing the development of Buddhist Studies have
been largely put to rest in favor of a more well-rounded approach, but they have
nonetheless informed a traditional view of the Sutra of Limitless Life as being vac-
uous or “popular.”
The Sutra of Limitless Life (Tib. Tshe dpag tu med pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen
po’i mdo; Ch. Wuliangshou zongyao jing 無量壽宗要經; Skt. Aparimitāyur-nāma
mahāyāna-sūtra) does indeed belong to the rather slippery genre of dhāraṇī scrip-
tures or “spell scriptures.” This includes scriptures largely devoted to introducing
and expounding upon a given dhāraṇī.8 The term dhāraṇī can be used interchange-
ably with “incantation” or “spell” (Ch. zhou 咒) and mantra (Tib. sngags), and also
with the “names” of a given Buddha. It refers to a string of syllables that are meant
to invoke or embody a particular Buddha or bodhisattva and/or activate certain
benefits or powers. The term dhāraṇī can also be used, pars pro toto, to refer to the
sutra or scripture that expounds it, which is one reason why the Sutra of Limitless
Life is sometimes referred to as the Dhāraṇī of Limitless Life.
The Sutra of Limitless Life contains no discourses on emptiness, skillful means,
compassion, ethics, or meditation. Besides expounding its dhāraṇī and its powers,
the sutra belongs also to the genre of Mahāyāna Buddhist devotional cosmology
and its articulation of various Buddhas and their Buddhafields. The sutra has the
Buddha teach the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī about a Buddha named Amitāyus/Apa-
rimitāyus and about the power of his dhāraṇī. Each of its paragraphs enumerates
a benefit that one may receive from, for example, writing or chanting this dhāraṇī
or from writing or chanting the sutra. One such benefit appears as this introduc-
tion’s other epigraph, which captures the gist of its contents. In over half of its forty
short paragraphs, the sutra enjoins that it be recited, copied, or worshipped in
order to obtain one benefit or another. This sort of message about the necessity of
writing down, copying, and spreading a sutra is found in many other Mahāyāna
sutras, such that their preoccupation with self-preservation and with reproducing
themselves has prompted one scholar to call them a “nervous genre.”9 The Sutra of


7 Müller 1884, 31.
8 See Hidas 2015, 129–131.
9 Eubanks 2011, 23. Eubanks adds, “[a]ware of their vulnerabilities to the ravages of time and
convinced they are always in danger of dying, they evince a strong reproductive drive. Mahāyāna
sutras are careful to include within themselves instructions about how they should be propagated,
 Introduction  5

Limitless Life is distinguished from most other Mahāyāna sutras, however, by hav-
ing self-reproduction as its central aim, to the exclusion of teaching any moral or
philosophical content. In line with Max Müller’s lament, the sutra is indeed con-
cerned with life and the preservation of life. The sutra’s preoccupation both with
its own survival and its ostensive powers to extend human life together motivated
the production of so many copies across the Buddhist world.
In these contexts of Dunhuang manuscript studies and Buddhist Studies, the
hundreds of copies of the Sutra of Limitless Life have been the proverbial haystack
that one had to sort through to find a precious needle, that is to say, a secular docu-
ment, colorful ritual text, or lineage history. In this vein, one might say that in their
approach to the Dunhuang manuscripts, these fields have shaped themselves in the
romantic image of Paul Pelliot in Cave Seventeen reading a manuscript by candle-
light amidst stacks of manuscript bundles. This sort of scholarship on a small body
of unique and fascinating texts has also informed an instrumentalist approach to
the Stein Collection and to other archives of Dunhuang manuscripts: scholars dip
in and out of a collection to consult one manuscript at a time for its contents, and
often do so with little knowledge of where and how that manuscript may have been
kept both in temple libraries in Dunhuang and in modern libraries in London, Paris,
Beijing, etc. This informs, and is also shaped by, curators’ preferences and library
policies that restrict a scholar to consulting only one manuscript at a time, and to
only a half dozen or so manuscripts per day.
When we were sitting in the British Library's Asian and African Studies
Reading Room, considering this unremarkable copy of a rather common sutra from
Dunhuang, we came up with a different set of questions from those that one would
ask about an intriguing text that occurs in just one Dunhuang manuscript. What is
this sutra copy’s relationship to the nearly 1,500 other copies of the same sutra in
the Stein Collection? Why was this sutra copy edited while other copies were not?
Who copied and edited these sutras? What types of mistakes did they correct? Did
scribes always copy the same version of the sutra? Who oversaw the project? Why
were these sutras produced? What did people do with the sutras? How and where
were they kept? By taking this large body of sutra copies as our topic of study, we
have had to contend with a large cross-section of the Stein Collection, and we have
also looked beyond this collection to take account of the sutra copies kept in
collections in Paris, Gansu, and St. Petersburg. As a result, we have provided a thick
documentation of one of the single largest groups of the Dunhuang manuscripts.
Rather than consulting one manuscript at a time, we have had to come to terms with


promises of reward for those who agree to do the propagating, and threats to inflict pain on those
who don’t comply.”
6  Introduction

different, larger units, specifically the bundle in which a sutra copy was rolled up
together with other sutra copies. As such, our work is part of a recent trend, gaining
momentum over one hundred years on from the dispersal of the Dunhuang manu-
scripts from Cave Seventeen, to take stock of this cave’s contents more holistically.10
This book is a case study of a particular body of Dunhuang copies of the Sutra
of Limitless Life, a social history of the project that produced these copies in the
820s, and a history of how they were documented, conserved, and catalogued in
England in the twentieth century. For reasons that will soon become clear, the
book’s chapters proceed in reverse chronological order, beginning in the twentieth
century and ending in the ninth. Because of this, it will be useful to give here a brief
history of these sutra copies from their inception to the present day.

1 Sutras for the emperor

In the mid-820s, an unknown patron sponsored an unknown number of copies of
the Tibetan version of the Sutra of Limitless Life as a gift for the Tibetan emperor.
These were to be copied in Dunhuang, a center for scriptural production, and then
were probably to be sent all over the Tibetan Empire. The Tibetan Empire (c. 608–
866 CE) had grown from a small kingdom in the Yarlung Valley in southern Tibet to
a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual empire. The empire reached its greatest extent
during the reign of Emperor Khri Srong lde brtsan (756–c. 800), stretching north-
ward up to the Uyghur and Turkic territories, westward as far as the borders of
Khurasan, and eastward to the Gansu corridor. This emperor also presided over the
growing institutionalization and promotion of Buddhism as a state religion. As
such, “Tibetan Buddhism” was at this time in conversation with the older Buddhist
cultures surrounding the empire, most notably South Asia and China.
During Khri Srong lde brtsan’s reign Tibet annexed important cities in the Gan-
su corridor, including Dunhuang/ Shazhou, which Tibet likely seized in 786.11 Tibet
thereby gained control of not only an important center on the regional trade and
transportation networks later known as the Silk Roads, but also of an important
center for Buddhist artistic and scriptural production. Dunhuang’s inhabitants
were already oriented outwards as a result of their strategic location near the meet-
ing of the northern and southern Silk Roads around the Taklamakan Desert. Dun-
huang’s multi-ethnic and multi-lingual make-up, which rendered it foreign from a


10 In this connection, see Doumy and van Schaik 2023.
11 For a discussion of an earlier date in the 760s, see Horlemann 2002.
 Sutras for the emperor  7

Han Chinese perspective, was further enriched by the six-decade period of Tibetan
rule that extended until 848.12
Dunhuang’s lay and monastic scribes and editors, who had been employed to
produce Chinese sutra copies for various patrons for centuries, now copied sutras
in both Chinese and Tibetan. They were also enlisted to write official and personal
letters, to draft contracts and legal charges, and to do official work for the Tibetan
administration. Over the course of over sixty years of Tibetan rule, many of the
local inhabitants learned Tibetan, and some adopted Tibetan personal names. Even
after the end of Tibetan rule, the language continued to be used in legal, administra-
tive, and religious writings.
Dunhuang’s scribes and editors produced Tibetan copies of the Sutra of Limit-
less Life for Emperor Khri Gtsug lde brtsan (reigned 815–841; known to posterity as
Ral pa can), the grandson of Khri Srong lde brtsan. The Xin Tangshu (New Tang An-
nals) states that he suffered from ill health, and it is quite possible that these sutras
were intended to combat his illness and to extend his life.13 While these sutras were
being copied and edited, another sutra-copying project was initiated in Dunhuang
in the horse year 826, also by an unknown sponsor, also as a gift for the Tibetan
emperor. This was a gift of multiple copies of the longest versions of the Perfection
of Wisdom sutras in Tibetan and Chinese: eight copies of the Tibetan Perfection of
Wisdom Sutra in 100,000 Lines (Skt. Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra; hereafter,
SP) and three copies of the even larger Chinese omnibus of the Perfection of Wisdom
sutras, known as the Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra (Daboreboluomiduo jing
大般若波羅蜜多經; Skt. *Mahā-Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra; hereafter, MP).
These sutras and their manner of production contrasted sharply with the Sutra
of Limitless life and its hundreds or perhaps thousands of copies. Most obviously,
they are massive, such that if one measures them in terms of paper, a single copy
of the Tibetan SP is roughly equivalent to 1,580 Tibetan copies of the Sutra of Limit-
less Life. One copy of the Chinese MP would be equivalent to more than 3,000 copies
of the Tibetan Sutra of Limitless Life. These longest Perfection of Wisdom sutras
were also probably the most prestigious of all the Buddhist sutras at this time. The
Kaiyuan Catalogue from the year 730 begins with the MP, which was often referred
to as the “mother of all Buddhist sutras.”14 The first extant catalogue of Buddhist
translations into Tibetan, the Ldan dkar ma Catalogue of approximately 812, similarly


12 On Dunhuang’s political and cultural position between China and Central Eurasia, see Rong 2013,
19–49; Galambos 2020; and Wen 2023.
13 Richardson 1981; Iwao 2012, 104.
14 Li 2016, 112.
8  Introduction

begins with the SP.15 Both the SP and the MP were emphasized in state-sponsored
rituals in Dunhuang in which their chapters were read out simultaneously in a
ritual of “sutra rotation,” sometimes held at multiple temples.16 These sutras not
only sanctified the places where they were copied, read, or kept, but also protected
those places from attack by both human and demonic armies, and bolstered one’s
own military forces with the troops of the four heavenly kings. 17 Besides
performing these practical and apotropaic functions, the Perfection of Wisdom
sutras were often viewed as the quintessence of the Buddha’s teachings on empti-
ness, and the foundation of Mahāyāna Buddhism.
The sacred and powerful contents of the Tibetan SP, as well as its massive size,
effectively mandates that it be produced as an impressive object that is worthy of
reverence. Each copy’s four massive tomes (Tib. dum bu) consisting of hundreds of
20 ✕ 73 cm pothī-format leaves was likely housed between beautifully carved book
covers. The Chinese MP, which ran to about twice the length of the Tibetan SP,
consisted of 600 rolls (juan 卷), which were housed in packets (zhi 袟) of ten rolls
each.18 The Tibetans levied a silk tax in part to manufacture beautiful wrappers for
these rolls and/or packets. The leaves of the Tibetan SP and the panels of the Chinese
MP were also pleasing to behold. The former has large margins that offset the text
from the paper, and the latter also has large margins and nicely spaced lines of
seventeen characters each (see below, Figs 5 and 37, respectively). No scribal or
editorial insertions were allowed to mar these royal sutras, so each leaf or panel is
a clean, final copy. Over a thousand discarded Tibetan leaves and discarded Chinese
panels marked as discards are full of insertions and corrections, and testify to this
editorial process. These discards bear witness to rigorous editorial norms standing
behind the clean copies, and which the finished product effectively conceals.
We know about the horse-year (826) project to copy these massive Perfection of
Wisdom sutras from two main classes of sources: leaves and rolls of the sutras
themselves, discarded panels and leaves, and documents relating to their produc-
tion. The latter include editorial notes, lawsuits, administrative documents, tax rec-
ords, scribes’ writing boards, and their jottings. An informative administrative doc-
ument, ITJ 1254, informs us about the project and the difficulties it faced. It reveals
that the sutra copies were possibly lost, and remained incomplete after ten years.
It further refers to sutra copies being sent to Guazhou, shows that some copies were


15 See Lalou 1953, 319, and 327; see also Herrmann-Pfandt 2008, 2 and 199–201. Meanwhile, the
Sutra of Limitless Life is entry 350 out of 736 in the Ldan dkar ma Catalogue.
16 Ding 2019, 665–666.
17 Ding 2019, 672–674.
18 Drège 1991, 229.
 Sutras for the emperor  9

intended to be deposited in Dunhuang, and that others were to be sent to various

parts of Bde blon gams (that is, the northeastern area of the Tibetan Empire). This
document also mentions an order to produce copies of the Chinese version of the
Sutra of Limitless Life, though it does not mention copies of the Tibetan version.19
The massive undertaking of producing these sutras, coupled with what looks
to be some confusion about the proper mix of public taxation and private donation
that supported it, made what should have been a one- or two-year project into a
decades-long fiasco that may have never concluded. From the start, the project’s
administrators were concerned about graft. They put in place a highly punitive re-
gime whereby scribes were whipped ten lashes for each sheet of paper they couldn’t
account for. This was achieved by subtracting the amount of panels (i.e. sheets) or
folia of completed sutra copies they submitted from the number of sheets or folia
they had been issued, minus any that had been excused as discards due to damage
or scribal error. The record for the first two years of the project, 826 and 827, tallies
over 4,000 missing sheets, and records the debts of over ninety scribes.20
Many of the same scribes and editors who copied and edited the Tibetan Sutra
of Limitless Life also copied and edited the Tibetan SP. Since the latter project
dragged on for some years, however, we can see what looks to be a process of pro-
motion taking place over this period, through which certain scribes of the Sutra of
Limitless Life were promoted to become editors after some years of working on the
Tibetan SP. We also find some overlap, albeit less, between the scribes of the Tibet-
an and Chinese versions of the Sutra of Limitless Life. This minimal overlap may
suggest more about the linguistic facility of the scribes than the difference in time-
lines between the copying of the Tibetan and Chinese versions of the Sutra of Limit-
less Life, but it does appear that the project to produce Tibetan copies preceded the
addition of Chinese copies.
The onset of the horse-year (826) project to copy the Tibetan SP and Chinese MP
apparently interrupted the production of copies of the Tibetan Sutra of Limitless
Life. The new project’s rigorous administrative practices and strict editorial norms
also seem to have prompted a reassessment of how the Sutra of Limitless Life was
produced. We reconstruct the process and its timeline as follows. In 824 or 825, an
order was made to produce thousands of copies of the Tibetan Sutra of Limitless
Life as a gift for the Tibetan emperor. The project employed dozens of scribes and
editors, and it took as its basis a translation of the sutra that had probably been


19 Fujieda Akira was the first to study the text in detail, and he established that the horse year
mentioned in ITJ 1254 and in other texts as the onset of this project was 826; Fujieda 1961, 79; see
also Iwao 2012 and Dotson 2013-2014, 10–15.
20 Takeuchi 1994, 857; see also the long epigraph to Chapter Three.
10  Introduction

brought from central Tibet. In comparison to the Chinese version that was in
circulation in Dunhuang at this time, this Tibetan version was a woefully deficient.
Of the sutra’s forty short paragraphs, all present in the Chinese version, the Tibetan
version was missing §8 through §11, as well as §19 and §31. Near the middle, the
Tibetan version skips and repeats paragraphs such that its paragraphs go in order
§15, §18, §17, §18 (again!), and §20. We have dubbed this defective Tibetan version
“version one.” It also uses a very short form of the dhāraṇī that, following Akira
Fujieda and Daishun Ueyama, we call “type B.”21 Ergo, it is the “B1” version of the
sutra. Alongside this, some copies also used the same version of the sutra but with
a longer, type-A dhāraṇī, which is to say the “A1” version of the sutra.
Scribes were issued either with a stack of 31–32 ✕ 45 cm sheets to make into
rolls, or else were issued pre-made rolls of up to forty-five such panels of paper.
Scribes or someone else in the scriptorium inked margins, columns, and guidelines
such that the rolls were to be read horizontally rather than vertically. The usual
layout was two 22-cm columns of text per 45 cm panel, with a fifteen mm column
gutter between them. Most often they had nineteen lines each. Attaching one panel
to another, the guidelines were usually flush, and a fifteen mm column gutter was
maintained between columns. Working from exemplar copies provided to them,
scribes copied sutras onto these long rolls, wrote their names in the colophons, and
submitted them to their editors. A typical sutra copy filled six columns of text over
three panels of paper, so a scribe could fit fifteen copies onto a forty-five panel roll.
This meant that a given roll could have from three to forty-five panels of paper, and
thus measure from 135 cm to twenty meters long. The copy shown below consists
of six columns of text over three panels of paper (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: An unrolled Tibetan Dunhuang Ap copy kept at the Bibliothèque nationale de France,
pressmark PT 3906; image captured by the authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the
Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Once a scribe submitted his completed sutra copies, the longer rolls of multiple
copies were separated into single-sutra rolls. The editors then corrected the sutras,


21 Fujieda and Ueyama 1962, 354–355.
 Sutras for the emperor  11

often using red ink. Their corrections tended to be minimal and well spaced, but on
occasion they would insert a missing passage between the lines or in the margins.
Some egregious errors were left to stand. The onset of the horse-year project of 826
paused their work, and the once the copying of the SP and MP was under way, the
method of producing the Sutra of Limitless Life was reassessed. At this point a few
important decisions were made. In the first place, scribes were to copy exclusively
the Tibetan A1 version with the longer type-A dhāraṇī rather than the B1 version
that employed the shorter dhāraṇī. This may be connected to a decision taken at
this same time to also copy the Chinese Sutra of Limitless Life, which used the type-
A dhāraṇī. Second, the sutras were no longer to be edited. This addressed an incon-
sistency between the appearance of the SP copies and that of the Sutra of Limitless
Life copies. Any visible editorial corrections in the former meant that a folio had to
be discarded and replaced with a fresh, correct version. The finished product was
to have no signs of editing. By contrast, the previously completed copies of the Sutra
of Limitless Life were meant to be edited. Many of them say as much in their colo-
phons where scribes wrote “to be edited” (zhu lags). By contrast, the newly pro-
duced copies of the Sutra of Limitless Life would be spotless, like the final SP copies.
But whereas editorial rigor and hundreds of discarded folia lay behind the pristine
SP copy as a finished product, an equally pristine appearance would be achieved
for the new copies of the Sutra of Limitless Life by choosing not to edit them at all.
Third, and connected to this decision to not edit the copies, they were no longer to
be separated into single-sutra rolls, but instead could be submitted and stored as
longer rolls containing multiple copies of the sutra.22
Other changes seem not to have been mandated, but to have come about in re-
sponse to the rigorous accounting system of the horse-year project. Namely, where-
as during the first phase of the project some copies of the Sutra of Limitless Life
were seven and eight columns long, and sometimes left entire columns blank, the
new copies were nearly all laid out in the highly efficient three-panel, six-column
layout. This obviously saved on paper, and allowed scribes to produce more copies
than they would with the earlier, less efficient layouts.
Scribes set about producing these new copies of the Sutra of Limitless Life after
what was likely only a brief pause to reassess the project. The brevity of this pause
is clear from the nearly total overlap between the names of the scribes in the col-
ophons of edited copies in single-sutra rolls and those in the colophons of unedited
A1 copies in single- and multiple-sutra rolls. The latter, newer copies therefore
probably began to be produced in 826 or 827.


22 The details of this argument are and the data that support it are provided in Chapter Three.
12  Introduction

Completed rolls of sutra copies were not rolled up, submitted, and stored indi-
vidually. Rather, twenty to one hundred rolls were stacked on top of one another
and rolled up together to form a “roll bundle” (Tib. bam thum). Administrators kept
track of the number of panels of paper in each roll within these bundles, and wrote
receipts. Even now, the matching stains on dozens of these manuscripts bear wit-
ness to how they were stored. For example, one can see where fluid bled through
from the outside of a bundle inwards, with the stains appearing in the same areas,
but being more extensive on the outer rolls than the inner rolls. The bundles of the
newer copies of the Sutra of Limitless Life, produced from the horse year and prob-
ably for only a few years thereafter, i.e. 826–828, were rolled up in bundles that
contained unedited A1 copies in rolls of one to fifteen sutra copies. The older copies
of the sutra were also rolled up together in bundles, and these bundles represent
the state of the project when it was paused for reassessment in 826. As a result, all
of the rolls in these bundles are single-sutra rolls, and most are version B1. More
than half of these copies are edited. The unedited copies, which were yet to be ed-
ited when the project was paused, are rolled up together with the edited copies.
Such bundles of sutra copies were presumably consecrated and sent all over
the Tibetan Empire. A fragment of what appears to be one of these sutra copies was
found Mīrān, far to the west of Dunhuang, and leaves from Dunhuang copies of the
Tibetan SP have been found in temples in central Tibet. 23 We know from marks
written on Chinese and Tibetan copies of the Sutra of Limitless Life that some were
kept in temples in Dunhuang, notably Longxing si 龍興寺, which was Dunhuang’s
largest temple, Lingtu si 靈圖寺, which was the temple of the famous translator Wu
Facheng/ ’Go Chos grub, and Jinguangming si 金光明寺, which had its own scrip-
torium and was active in the Tibetan Empire’s sutra-copying projects. The manner
in which they were wrapped up en masse in bundles of twenty to one hundred rolls
suggests that reading and chanting these sutras was secondary, and that holding
and storing them was primary. Thus in these temples, and in temples all over the
Tibetan Empire, the sutras likely would have been kept mostly unread – as sacred
objects that offered blessings and protection and relics of the meritorious act of
copying that had produced them.
Whereas there are many records of rituals, such as the “sutra rotation” men-
tioned above that involved the Tibetan SP and the Chinese MP, there is only one
document that describes the people of Dunhuang using the Sutra of Limitless Life
in a festival. This is an official letter dating to the reign of Queen Btsan mo ’phan


23 The fragment in question, pressmark Or.15000/434–437, is numbered Tak 550–553 in Takeuchi
1998, 183–185.
 Sutras for the emperor  13

and her son ’Od srung.24 It states that they had instructed the monks and nuns of
Dunhuang to remove from the temple library of Longxing si 135 rolls of the Chinese
Sutra of Limitless Life and 480 rolls of Tibetan Sutra of Limitless Life, and to give
them to the 2,700 households of Dunhuang on the occasion of a Buddhist festival
held in the late summer of 844. It specifies that these sutra copies had been “cop-
ied...as a gift for the previous emperor, the son of gods Khri Gtsug lde brtsan” (sngun
lha sras khri gtsug lde brtsan gyi sku yon du...bris te; PT 999, ll. 1–2). This record is
interesting for lumping the Chinese and Tibetan copies together as gifts for the em-
peror. Based on our proposed timeline, in which the project to produce Tibetan
copies preceded the decision to produce Chinese copies, this would suggest that the
latter were seen as an addition to the former, either as part of the project’s second
phase or perhaps slightly later. The document also helpfully informs us where and
in what sorts of numbers and units these sutra copies were kept. The distribution of
615 rolls (bam po) to 2,700 households suggests that many of these would have been
long rolls of multiple sutra copies, since otherwise there would not be enough copies
to go around. The document closes with its purpose, which is to order that replace-
ment copies for these sutras be produced in consultation with the relevant officials.25
This is a very interesting ritual distribution of the sutra copies to the laity, and
it shows a context of use that is distinct from the process we have assumed whereby
the sutras were bundled up together and stored. In this sense it is a repurposing of
the sutra copies. The merit of their copying was initially directed towards the
Tibetan emperor, possibly to improve his health, and certainly also to sanctify the
Tibetan Empire through being stored in its temples. But that emperor was already
dead in 844, and the empire was unravelling. At that time not only the merit, but
also the physical copies themselves were to be distributed among the people. In this
context, one could understand this festival as a poignant symbolic act that bears
comparison with the looting of the royal tombs in central Tibet, which debased the
monarchy and dispersed its regalia among the people. Seen in this light, this festival
use of some copies may be an outlier that has more to do with the desperation and
imminent collapse of the Tibetan administration, or other motivations, than it does
with the intended functions of these sutra copies. It is possible, though unlikely, that
some of these sutra copies given out to the people of Dunhuang have survived by
making their way into Cave Seventeen. The vast majority of the copies of the Sutra


24 PT 999; see Scherrer-Schaub 1991 and Imaeda 1998.
25 It is also unclear if the replacement copies that the document ordered were ever produced: all
of the extant Dunhuang copies were copied by the same group of scribes who were active in the
mid- to late-820s, and we do not find any cluster of copies with different scribes, as we would expect
for hundreds of copies produced by this order after 844.
14  Introduction

of Limitless Life kept in the Stein Collection come from bundles of sutra copies that
were rolled up and stored together, so copies dispersed during this festival would
presumably be found in messier bundles where they would rest alongside other
sorts of manuscripts.
It is unclear how many copies of the Tibetan and Chinese Sutra of Limitless Life
would have been produced in all as a gift for the emperor. There are two to three
thousand held in various archives, including the 1,492 in the Stein Collection.
Presumably these represent only those once kept in local Dunhuang temples that
were then deposited in Cave Seventeen, which would be some fraction of the total
amount that were copied and deposited in other temples across the region and
across the Tibetan Empire. A ninth-century note in the colophon of one Chinese
copy in the Stein Collection (S.1995) states that it is roll number 15,559. From this
evidence, and assuming that what we have represents only a fraction of the copies
that were produced, it is possible that scribes copied 18,000 copies of the Chinese
and 18,000 copies of the Tibetan Sutra of Limitless Life. Measuring in terms of paper,
this would be comparable, albeit slightly more than, the eight copies of the Tibetan
SP and three copies of Chinese MP commissioned in the 826.
Temples like Longxing si stored their rolls in packets (zhi), with about a dozen
rolls to each packet. These units were comparable to the “roll bundles” (bam thum)
in which sutra copies were submitted to be accounted for by the administrators of
the sutra-copying project, and it is likely that temple libraries stored the sutras in
these same bundles after they received them. These bundles were eventually depos-
ited in Cave Seventeen, and they seem to have remained undisturbed there from
around 1006 to 1900.

2 Bundles, rolls, and booklets

Fortunately for our research, the bundles of copies of the Sutra of Limitless Life
seem to have gone largely undisturbed from the discovery of Cave Seventeen in
1900 until they were documented in London and Cambridge from 1909 to 1918. In
fact, it is likely that they continued to be stored as bundles in London up until the
1990s. This is clear from the fact that among his haul, Stein brought back twenty-six
bundles that contained from seventeen to sixty-four rolls of the sutra. These were
split evenly between bundles of mostly edited single-sutra rolls produced in the first
stage of the project in the mid-820s, and bundles of unedited single- and multiple-
sutra rolls of A1 copies produced in the second stage of the project in the late-820s.
Only a few of these twenty-six bundles included anything besides the Tibetan Sutra
of Limitless Life, which again supports the contention that the rolled-up bundles
were largely undisturbed.
 Bundles, rolls, and booklets  15

Stein was aware of these bundles of sutra copies, and he did in fact document
one of them in his book Serindia. Here he partially unrolled a bundle to display a
copy near the top, and assigned it the site number “Ch.05” (see Figs 5, 8, and 12).
Fortunately, Stein did not separate this roll from the rest of the bundle when doing
so. Working in the basement under the British Museum, and also in the university
library at Cambridge, and sometimes in their own apartments, Stein’s assistants
and the Stein Collection’s cataloguers such as Caroline Mary Ridding (1862–1941)
assigned more rigorous site numbers to this and to the other bundles. The one that
Stein had designated “Ch.05,” for example, was a bundle of sixty rolls of unedited
copies. It was kept alongside eleven other bundles that were packed into crate
number seventy-eight when it was sent from Khotan to London in the summer of
1908. Assigning site numbers to these manuscripts, Stein’s assistants began with
largest unit, which was the crate number, and then proceeded to the next largest
unit, the bundle, followed by the smallest unit, which was the roll. In this case
Stein’s “Ch.05” indicated what was in fact bundle VII from crate seventy-eight, ergo
the site number was “78.VII.” In fact, someone wrote “78.VII.1,” which indicates that
particular roll as roll number one within bundle VII from crate seventy-eight. This
more specific type of site number, where every roll is assigned a serial number, for
example, “73.XVI.50,” is found for the manuscripts of some bundles and not others.
These site numbers pertain to the bundles that Stein called “library bundles,” which
were bundles of rolls, as opposed to the more misshapen “miscellaneous bundles”
that contained not only manuscripts but also paintings and other objects.26
The Tibetan copies of the Sutra of Limitless Life, together with most of the Stein
Collection’s Tibetan Dunhuang manuscripts, were brought to Cambridge in 1910 to
be documented and catalogued by Ridding and later by Louis de La Vallée Poussin.
They added stickers to the first and last manuscripts of each bundle, noting the
site number, the number of rolls, and the pressmark they had assigned. La Vallée
Poussin assigned each roll-format copy of the Sutra of Limitless Life the pressmark
310, and his catalogue provided an inventory of the site numbers of the bundles and
the number of rolls in each bundle. However, this was to document rather than
catalogue these sutra copies, since the catalogue did not provide details or press-
marks, e.g. 310.1, on each individual roll. The catalogue itself was abandoned in
1918, and only published posthumously in 1962.
The manuscripts returned to the India Office Library in London, and F.W. Thomas
(1867–1956), who served as librarian from 1903 to 1927, and who had hired La Vallée
Poussin, also added annotations to the stickers that La Vallée Poussin had applied.


26 For an excellent summary of Stein’s methods of assigning site numbers, see Terzi and Whitfield
2024, 61–72.
16  Introduction

In the 1920s, Thomas oversaw the binding of hundreds of Tibetan Dunhuang manu-
scripts into seventy-three large cloth- and leather-bound “volumes.” This was meant
for ease of storage and consultation, and it reflected a cultural bias toward the
codex as the preferred book format for a Western library. This intervention has
since been reversed, and the bindings have been discarded in favor of boxes in
which the manuscripts are kept. However, these boxes are still called “volumes,”
and retain their numbers from one to seventy-three. In the late 1990s dozens more
volumes were constructed to house manuscripts that had not been bound in 1920s.
La Vallée Poussin also prepared the 1,055 rolls of the Sutra of Limitless Life for
binding. He did so by writing roll numbers and panel numbers on each roll in pencil
in the top margin, and also by writing the number of sutra copies on the verso of
the front – or sometimes the back – of each multiple-sutra roll. He also wrote notes,
similarly in pencil, about sending the rolls to the bindery. These roll numbers and
panel numbers were meant to ensure that when the binders separated the panels
of these rolls in order to bind them, they would not accidentally shuffle them and
thereby bind them out of order. In the event, these sutra copies were not bound in
the large cloth- and leather-bound “volumes” during the 1920s. In fact, the appendix
to La Vallée Poussin’s catalogue, likely reflecting the state of affairs when Thomas
and A.F. Thompson edited and published the catalogue near 1962, states vaguely
that the Sutra of Limitless Life copies were “separately boxed.” 27 A type-written
inventory by A.F. Thompson, assistant keeper at the India Office Library during the
1950s and 1960s, specifies that the bundles were kept in twenty boxes, and gives the
site number of the bundle(s) kept in each box, and the number of rolls in each
bundle. These numbered boxes were presumably different boxes from the “crates”
in which the manuscripts had been transported from Khotan to London, which had
higher numbers.28 The sutras seem to have been conserved in this state up until the
1990s, as Tsuguhito Takeuchi, who consulted thousands of documents at the India
Office Library from 1988 to 1998, mentions bundles of rolls of the Sutra of Limitless
Life that had not been catalogued.29 As late as April 1997, the curator of the Tibetan
collection, Ulrich Pagel, remembers these sutra copies being in roll format. By 1999,
however, when Sam van Schaik began to catalogue them, the 1,055 complete rolls
of the Tibetan Sutra of Limitless Life, containing between them 1,492 complete cop-
ies, along with forty-six fragments of the sutra, had already been disassembled and


27 La Vallée Poussin 1962, 289.
28 Stein and others did refer to the initial crates in which the manuscripts and objects were shipped
as “boxes,” but we have tried to consistently refer to these as “crates.”
29 Takeuchi 1998, vol. 2, xx and xx, n. 33, and xvi.
 Bundles, rolls, and booklets  17

bound into 1,339 booklets. This binding necessarily occurred after the early 1960s,
and the evidence we have been able to gather suggests it took place around 1998.
Through this transformation of their format, the panels of a roll became
“bifolios,” each of which was folded in half at the column gutter. These were then
stacked together in the manner of Chinese “butterfly binding,” and joined together
with a spine made of conservation-quality Kraft paper, which was attached to the
Dunhuang papers with a conservator’s adhesive such as wheat starch paste. The
result was a 31–32 ✕ 23 cm booklet. Each such booklet was numbered, sometimes
on the spine, sometimes on the corner of its front or back cover (which is to say, the
verso what had been the beginning of the roll or the verso of what had been the
end). All of the rolls from a given bundle were stacked together in newly con-
structed “volumes,” that is, boxes that facilitated storage. As a result, booklets and
boxes replaced bundles and rolls, but these new quadrangular replacements re-
tained the organizational logic or their cylindrical predecessors. The images below
show one booklet for which a “cover” was made, and a stack of booklets housed
within a box referred to as a “volume.” The binding process is covered in greater
detail in Chapter One.

Fig. 2: Example of the booklet format into which the Tibetan rolls of the Sutra of Limitless Life were
bound; ITJ 310.274. Courtesy of the British Library.
18  Introduction

Fig. 3: Example of booklets stacked within a volume, Vol. 95 (note each booklet’s Kraft paper spine),
ITJ 310.283; photograph by Lewis Doney, courtesy of the British Library.

The odd number of booklets (1,339) – odd in the sense that it corresponds neither to
the number of rolls and fragments of the sutra nor to the number of copies and
fragments – resulted from a binding process in which conservators and binders
divided multiple-sutra rolls with little regard for their contents. A given booklet can
thus include one sutra copy or two sutra copies, but booklets often include 1.33 sutra
copies or 1.66 sutra copies. In these latter booklets, conservators and binders split
sutra copies based on the aesthetics and requirements of the booklets they were
producing, rather than the integrity of the textual contents of the rolls they were
undoing. Such a practice would be unthinkable for a “treasure of the British Li-
brary,” but for these ubiquitous sutras that La Vallée Poussin had already given up
on properly cataloguing, it was probably viewed as a matter of practicality.
The choice to transform the rolls of Tibetan Sutra of Limitless Life copies into
booklets had consequences for the eventual cataloguing of these manuscripts. Had
they been left intact as rolls, each roll would have constituted an “item” with its own
assigned pressmark. Such is the case for the Chinese rolls of the Sutra of Limitless
Life, which were held by the British Museum rather than the India Office Library,
and which are still conserved in roll format as single and multiple-sutra rolls. In the
case of the roll-format Tibetan copies of the Sutra of Limitless Life, La Vallée Poussin
intended that all of these be catalogued under the number 310, so each roll would
need to be assigned a “sub-pressmark” from ITJ 310.1 to, for example, ITJ 310.1101.
But the binding process effectively transformed the old items (1,055 rolls and forty-
six fragments) to make new items (1,339 booklets), leaving the cataloguer with a
 Chapter summary  19

quandary: simply catalogue these new items, or somehow account for their previ-
ous state as rolls? In the event, from 1999 to 2002 the British Library had Sam van
Schaik catalogue each booklet as an item by assigning each a sub-pressmark within
the 310 pressmark or by assigning a separate pressmark outside of the 310 series.
The cataloguing of these copies, completed in 2002, succeeded in assigning a
sub-pressmark to 1,210 items within the 310 pressmark. The pressmarks proceed
from ITJ 310.1 to ITJ 310.1210. However, over one hundred roll-format Tibetan copies
of the Sutra of Limitless Life that were intended for the 310 pressmark were not
catalogued here, but instead assigned other, higher pressmarks, such as ITJ 1617 to
ITJ 1716. Also, the 310 pressmark includes two items that do not belong there: ITJ
310.59 is the Heart Sutra, and ITJ 310.1207 is an invocation to Amitābha.
The pressmarks do not follow the site numbers. That is, they do not proceed
from the lowest numbered crates’ bundles to the highest numbered crates’ bundles,
and they sometimes number the booklets in a different order than the order of their
roll numbers or the order of their individual site numbers. Fortunately, the sutra
copies were catalogued bundle by bundle, and they are kept as booklets in volumes
that replicate the organization of rolls in bundles. The curatorial and cataloguing
practices of recording data about the bundles and maintaining their integrity –
albeit as booklets and boxes rather than as rolls and bundles – was instrumental to
our research on these sutra copies. It allowed us to perceive the difference between
the thirteen bundles of single-sutra rolls and the thirteen bundles of unedited A1
copies in single- and multiple-sutra rolls. This in turn empowered our insights
about the timeline of the project, and the shift in the preferred form of the dhāraṇī
in the Tibetan copies that occurred over a matter of just a few years. It is for this
reason that this book begins with conservation and cataloguing in England before
turning to the insights into sutra copying in Dunhuang in the 820s that this con-
servation and cataloguing work facilitated.

3 Chapter summary
This book is divided into two parts. Part One is a study of how the Sutra of Limitless
Life was produced in Dunhuang in the 820s, and how it was documented, con-
served, and catalogued in England in the 1900s. Part Two is our documentation of
the sutra copies, and an assessment of what their corrections and grammar can tell
us about Tibetan orthography in Dunhuang in the 820s.
The core of Part One is Chapter Three, which is a case study of how the sutra
copies were produced. We begin, however, with conservation and cataloguing in
London and Cambridge in Chapter One because it is through our reconstruction of
these manuscripts’ conservation history that we were able to travel back in time to
20  Introduction

perceive rolls of sutra copies in bundles rather than stacks of booklets in boxes.
Painstaking attention to curators’ notes, roll numbers, site numbers, and so forth,
in addition to the data we recorded about each sutra copy, also allowed us to draw
a through line from the bundles documented in London and Cambridge to the
bundles in Cave Seventeen, the packets of Dunhuang’s temple libraries, and the roll
bundles employed by the sutra-copying project itself in the 820s.
Attending in this way not only to individual manuscripts but to the larger units
of bundles and crates, we also demonstrate the value of the site numbers that Stein
and his assistants wrote on the manuscripts, and how they offer a way of navigating
the Stein Collection. Throughout our documentation of these sutra copies, we have
always kept the bundles in mind – as they came out of crates in the basement of the
British Museum, as they were stacked in packets in Cave Seventeen, as they lay in
temple libraries, and as they were rolled up following an administrator’s accounting.
In documenting the conservation and cataloguing history of these sutra copies
we have indulged also in some detective work. We have found areas where Stein’s
documentation of these manuscripts fell short, and where it was improved upon by
unsung pioneers of Tibetan Studies and Dunhuang manuscript studies such as Car-
oline Mary Ridding. We have also found many instances of curatorial and catalogu-
ing confusion, which is not at all surprising, given how unwieldy this mass of sutra
copies was and remains. In some instances we have tried to offer solutions, and in
others we have simply pointed out mistakes. Given the size of the collection and the
many numbers involved, we readily acknowledge that we will no doubt have intro-
duced a few mistakes of our own.
Chapter Two offers an overview of the different types of dhāraṇī and different
versions of the Sutra of Limitless Life in circulation in Dunhuang, particularly in the
820s. Drawing on previous studies of the Chinese and Tibetan versions, and adding
a few discoveries of our own, we document a shift in the preferred form of the
dhāraṇī in the Tibetan copies that occurred over a matter of just a few years. The
documentation of some of the various Tibetan and Chinese versions also permits
us to make some observations on the early transmission of these versions, and on
the practices of Dunhuang’s multilingual translators. We have augmented this with
some modest glances at Sanskrit and Khotanese versions, and contextualized the
Tibetan versions with reference to the later canonical versions of the sutra. One
felicitous discovery of the “needle-in-a-haystack” variety was our identification
among these sutra copies of a Tibetan version of the sutra that is more complete
than the A1 and B1 versions that were typically copied. It uses a longer dhāraṇī
(“type C”), has no skipped or repeated paragraphs, and is arguably superior to the
extant canonical (that is, Bka’ ’gyur) versions of the sutra. We present a full translit-
eration in Appendix One.
 Chapter summary  21

Chapter Three is the longest chapter, and it provides a detailed case study of
the project that produced these sutra copies. It gleans insights from the sutras them-
selves, their colophons, administrative records and jottings associated with sutra
copying and the administration of the sutra-copying project, and contracts, letters,
and legal texts that give us a clearer idea of the social lives of Dunhuang’s scribes
and editors. We document teams of editors who worked together, scribes who
traded sutra copies with one another in a subset of the larger “sutra economy,” and
shifts in scribal and editorial practices that occurred over a brief period around
826. We also demonstrate how the norms for producing the Sutra of Limitless Life
in Chinese and in Tibetan were in conversation with the norms for producing the
longest Chinese and Tibetan Perfection of Wisdom Sutra copies, and document some
instances where conventions for copying the Chinese version of the sutra have
crept into how scribes copied the Tibetan version.
In order to better contextualize issues such as the pace of work, and the purity
practices of Buddhist scribes, we have drawn sparingly on eighth-century sutra-
copying projects at the Nara scriptorium in Japan as a comparandum. Further com-
parisons may be made with other sutra-copying projects that have comparable or
sufficient evidence in the form of sutra copies themselves, as well as the discards,
editorial slips, and administrative texts surrounding them.
Part Two of the book presents our documentation of these sutra copies and a
study of their orthographic variations. Attention to the bundles informs our docu-
mentation of these sutra copies. We have grouped together those sutra copies that
were kept together in the same bundle, and proceeded bundle by bundle, rather
than pressmark by pressmark, as one would do in a traditional catalogue. In fact,
we did not set out to create a catalogue in the traditional sense, and our documenta-
tion of these sutra copies reflects this in its attention to editorial corrections, to the
form of the dhāraṇī that a sutra copy employs, and to various marks and notes that
curators and cataloguers have left on and alongside the manuscripts.
We catalogue the thirteen bundles of single-sutra rolls proceeding bundle by
bundle, which is to say site number by site number. We then do the same for the
thirteen bundles of unedited single- and multiple-sutra rolls. Finally we document
those sutra copies and fragments that fall into neither category. In every entry we
record the pressmark, site number, roll and panel numbers, the layout in terms of
the numbers of panels and columns, number of lines, the form of the dhāraṇī, and
the name of the scribe. In the case of edited copies, we record the names of the
editors. We also have a field for notes, where we sometimes include observations
about the paper, editorial corrections, handwriting style, or curatorial notes. This
documentation comprises Chapter Four, which is the longest chapter of the book.
22  Introduction

Appendix Two is a concordance of pressmarks and site numbers that facilitates

navigating the collection either way.
Our documentation in Chapter Four could be used for many purposes. We have
arranged it in table form because this permits one to see the relationships between
the pressmarks and between the rolls of a given bundle. This arrangement of data
lays bare, for example, cases where one roll is split across multiple pressmarks. It
also makes it easier to see where one scribe has written several sutra copies within
a single bundle, or where one team of editors has edited multiple copies together.
By the same token, this makes it easy to spot outliers, such as the few edited copies
found among bundles of unedited copies, which we have identified as exemplar
copies that served as models for scribes as they copied the sutra. We have demon-
strated various ways of navigating this data, and it is our hope that others will also
make use of it, perhaps even for purposes that we have yet to imagine.
One specific way we have used our data is to study orthography. In setting out
to study orthography, we transcribed the explicits of about ten percent of the sutra
copies, and also made notes about the corrections in these copies. Chapter Five pre-
sents this data and summarizes our results. While the sample is limited in terms of
the amount of transcribed explicits, it has the value of covering some important
orthographic features, and of being datable to the mid- to late-820s. There is also a
high degree of variation in some cases, which suggests that scribes did not copy
their exemplar texts in a mechanically precise and faithful manner. As such, our
data allows us to draw some important conclusions about, for example, the forms
of the terminative particle and the use of the genitive ’i as ostensibly a separate
syllable. Many of these same scribes were also employed to write letters and con-
tracts, so these observations should have relevance as norms for Tibetan writing in
820s Dunhuang, not limited to sutra copies.
In Chapter Five, we provide a transcription of a B1 copy of the sutra, PT 3901,
that we used as a reference point for editors’ corrections. It has eight columns of
text, indicated by the letters a through h, and it has eighteen lines per column.
Where our documentation flags a correction in a given copy as occurring at, e.g.
“d7,” this is a reference to the corresponding passage in PT 3901. This copy is in fact
more defective than the usual B1 version, since it is missing an additional para-
graph beyond this version’s usual lacunae. For the sake of completeness, and to
provide a previously unknown version of the sutra, Appendix One provides trans-
literations of a copy of an A1 version of the sutra (ITJ 310.1209) and a C5 version (ITJ
310.645). All three transliterations signal the forty chapters of the sutra, as parsed
by Sten Konow (1867–1948).
Appendix Two provides a concordance that gives pressmark, site number, vol-
ume and item number, and the number of rolls, number of booklets, and number
 Chapter summary  23

of sutra copies in a given site number. Additionally, it provides information about

the nature of each bundle. It indicates bundles of single-sutra rolls and mixed bun-
dles, but it also indicates the types of site numbers used for a given bundle. This
includes bundles that use serial site numbers, e.g. 73.XVI.1, those that do not, e.g.
86.X, and those that use both. In the latter case, we specify when, for example, serial
site numbers are used for the Chinese items in a bundle, but non-serial site numbers
are used for the Tibetan items. The concordance, besides being helpful for navi-
gating the sutra copies by pressmark or volume number, offers a preliminary sketch
for how exploring the Stein Collection by site numbers, i.e. bundles, can refine our
understanding of the different characters of various bundles and also illuminate
how these manuscripts were documented.30
At many points in this book we have tried to make sense of errors and equivo-
cations. Why was one scribe’s name rubbed out and another scribe’s name added
in a colophon? Why did the editor correct this minor misspelling but ignore that
serious mistake? Why did one version of the sutra omit this particular passage and
another version include it? Why did a curator cross out this site number and re-
place it with that one, in different ink? We have wrestled with questions such as
these, and offered our best attempts at solutions. This may have the appearance of
second guessing ninth-century scribes, editors, and translators with the benefit of
hindsight, and of doing the same to twentieth-century curators and cataloguers.
Having worked with these sutra copies for the past decade, we appreciate that their
sheer, repetitive mass, combined with the sutra’s overriding ethic to reproduce it-
self, make this a particularly unwieldy body to govern. We do not suppose ourselves
to be immune to the challenges that managing these sutra copies has posed to
scribes, editors, administrators, curators, and cataloguers, from the ninth century
to the present day. Our own attempts to make sense both of the manner of these
sutras’ production in the ninth century and the methods applied to their conser-
vation and cataloguing in the twentieth century are offered with humility and in
full recognition that our work, like those of our predecessors, is sure to have its own
lacunae and imperfections.


30 For insightful reflections on the different types of bundles, beyond Stein’s “library bundles”
and “miscellaneous bundles,” see Terzi and Whitfield 2024, 68–72.
Part One: The Sutra Copies, their Production,
and Conservation
Part One of this book contextualizes the data of Part Two and gestures towards how
it can contribute to the history of conservation, the transmission history of the sutra
and its dhāraṇī, and the social context of sutra copying in ninth-century Dunhuang.
These are three rather disparate areas, and are often kept separate as conservation
studies, Buddhist studies, and manuscript studies. In all three cases, it is our docu-
mentation of these manuscripts, and the data that we recorded in our augmented
catalogue, that pushed us to engage with these disciplines in these three chapters.
Chapter One uses this data to reconstruct the process of cataloguing and con-
serving these manuscripts, beginning with Stein and Jiang’s encounter with them
in Dunhuang in May 1907 and Jiang’s further documentation of these in Khotan in
July 1908. The action then moves to the basement of the British Museum – known
affectionately by Stein as “the Beehive” – in 1909, where many objects in the Stein
Collection were assigned site numbers. It then moves to Cambridge from 1910 to
1918, where the Tibetan copies of the Sutra of Limitless Life were more thoroughly
documented with site numbers, roll numbers, and pressmarks. The rolls were then
returned to London and were eventually bound into booklets. There was very little
cataloguing work carried out on these manuscripts until 1999.
Chapter Two contextualizes the different types of the dhāraṇī and various ver-
sions of the Tibetan Sutra of Limitless Life alongside the Chinese versions, and
draws sparingly on Khotanese and Sanskrit versions as comparanda. This briefly
contextualizes the sutra within Buddhist practices in China and Tibet, and its later
transmission in Tibet. An investigation of some of the differences across the ver-
sions reinforces the significance of the bilingual milieu in which scholars produced
their translations in Dunhuang.
Chapter Three, by far the longest chapter in Part One of the book, draws most
heavily on our documentation and on related administrative texts to lay out the state
of the manuscripts when they were collected together in bundles, and to use this to
reconstruct the processes that produced them. This offers a sketch of the “sutra econ-
omy” in which Buddhist merit was transferred from donor to donee, in which paper
was taxed for the production of sutras and other documents, and in which scribes
traded sutras with one another to avoid punishment for lost or missing paper.

Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550-002
1 Conserving Limitless Life
“All the more I felt the misgivings which the very hugeness of the deposit was
bound to inspire as to the possibility of a thorough methodical search.”
– Stein, Serindia, vol. 2, 809

Documenting 1,492 copies of the Sutra of Limitless Life (henceforth Ap, for Apari-
mitāyurnāma sūtra), we found ourselves wrestling with the history of their con-
servation and cataloguing. The sutra copies kept in London are unique in that
curators transformed them from roll format into booklet format for ease of storage,
something that was not done in the case of the sutra copies kept elsewhere. The
methods for documenting and conserving these manuscripts were not well de-
scribed in the accounts of Stein, nor in the catalogues and works of Louis de La
Vallée Poussin (1869–1938), F.W. Thomas (1867–1956), Zuihō Yamaguchi, and Sam
van Schaik. The most important evidence for piecing together these manuscripts’
conservation history, therefore, apart from the published catalogues, are the notes
that curators and cataloguers wrote on the manuscripts or onto slips of paper that
are kept alongside them.
Following these clues has enabled us to more clearly understand the process of
documentation and conservation of these manuscripts to a degree that illuminates
the history of these sutra copies’ storage and use. Since these manuscripts represent
a significant cross section of the Stein Collection, our insights into the processes and
methods by which Stein and, assistants, and later curators assigned site numbers
are also relevant to the collection and its history more generally.
Our investigation has also shown how Louis de La Vallée Poussin, during his
cataloguing work in Cambridge from 1914 to 1918, marked and numbered the indi-
vidual 31.5 ✕ 45 cm panels of paper of each roll of Tibetan Ap copies in order to
prepare them for binding. The 1,055 rolls of Tibetan Ap in the Stein Collection were
not among the many Dunhuang manuscripts that were bound into seventy-three
large leather-bound books known as “volumes” during the 1910s and 1920s. They
were, however, eventually bound into short paper booklets, presumably for ease of
storing and conservation. As a result, each of the 31.5 ✕ 45 cm panels of paper that
made up the rolls was separated, folded in half, stacked with two to five of its
neighboring panels, and bound at the spine with Kraft paper to create a thin book-
let. This type of booklet mimicked the style of Chinese “butterfly binding,” albeit
with the addition of a Kraft paper spine. Whereas a roll containing one sutra might
be transformed into a single such booklet, longer rolls with multiple Ap copies were
transformed into between two and fifteen booklets. Each of these newly created

Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550-003
28  Conserving Limitless Life

booklets was assigned a pressmark, or a sub-pressmark within one pressmark,

ITJ 310, which was meant to include all of the Tibetan Dunhuang Ap copies in roll
format. In this way, 1,055 rolls containing 1,492 sutra copies became 1,339 press-
marks, the vast majority of which are found in the sequence of sub-pressmarks that
run from ITJ 310.1 to ITJ 310.1210. Documenting this process of conservation and
cataloguing helps us to better understand the objects that we are working with,
and the meanings of the various marks and numbers that different hands have left
upon them.
Most importantly, Stein and his assistants assigned site numbers to these sutra
copies, which allow us to see which copies belong together. It also reveals some
meaningful distributions of the different types of Ap sutra copies in this collection,
permitting us to propose a plausible reconstruction of the processes that produced
them in ninth-century Dunhuang.

1.1 Bundles of manuscripts in Dunhuang

The story of the discovery of Dunhuang’s Cave Seventeen – often called the “library
cave” – and the tale of Sir Marc Aurel Stein’s negotiating the removal to India and
England of many of its treasures, has been told many times. Stein himself gives an
initial version in his 1912 two-volume work, Ruins of Desert Cathay, and an expand-
ed version in his 1921 five-volume work, Serindia. There is no need to recount the
narrative in detail here, but there are a few points within the story that are relevant
to the site numbers written on the Chinese and Tibetan Dunhuang Ap copies now
kept at the British Library, and to the different bundles of manuscripts and objects
in which they were initially found.
Stein and his “secretary” Jiang Xiaowan (see Fig. 6) had access to Cave Seven-
teen for only a short period of time, from May 23 to May 29, 1907. They had already
consulted a few manuscripts shared with them by the Daoist monk, Wang Yuanlu,
who was looking after the Mogao caves. Among these few initial manuscripts was
one whose colophon mentioned the famous Tang-dynasty monk and traveler Xuan-
zang, and this aided Stein and Jiang in their attempts to persuade Wang that Stein
was a sort of latter-day Xuanzang, come as a pilgrim from India to bring sacred
texts back to India and to England.1 Jiang’s role in supporting and positioning Stein


1 Stein 1921, vol. 2, 805–807, 812–813. The first manuscript that Stein and Jiang saw at Dunhuang
was in fact not related to the intrepid seventh-century scholar, but was rather a Chinese sutra brought
to them by a young monk “of Tangutan extraction” during Stein’s initial visit to the Mogao Caves
on March 16, 1907. This was written on a long Chinese scroll that the young monk’s Tibetan lama,
who was “away on a begging tour,” kept in his shrine; Stein 1912, vol. 2, 20–31; Stein 1921, vol. 2, 802.
 Bundles of manuscripts in Dunhuang  29

was central.2 As Stein put it in Ruins of Desert Cathay, “Chiang Ssŭ -yeh [...] loyally
did his best to persuade the Tao-shih that removal of the collection to a ‘temple of
learning in the Ta-Ying-kuo,’ or England, would in truth be an act which Buddha
and his Arhats might approve as pious.”3
Wang did not grant Stein and Jiang access to Cave Seventeen itself, but instead
stationed them in a makeshift “reading room” in the adjacent Cave Sixteen, away
from the eyes of curious pilgrims. There Stein and Jiang feverishly investigated bun-
dles of manuscripts as Wang brought them out. This work lasted seven days. Being
ignorant of Chinese and Tibetan, and largely unable to apply his archeological
method of marking individual objects with site numbers based on their locations,
Stein was both astounded at Cave Seventeen’s contents and frustrated by the chal-
lenges that lack of access to the cave posed. Wang had, after all, discovered the cave
seven years prior, and it was only owing to Wang’s disturbing of its contents that
word of the finds reached Stein in Urumchi. Stein laments the situation in Serindia:

That the contents of the walled-up chapel were no longer in the order in which they had been
deposited was clear. Any indications that the original position of the bundles might have af-
forded at the time of discovery had necessarily become effaced when the recess was cleared
out in search of valuables and, later again, on the occasion of the removal of the big inscribed
slab from the west wall. Even the assortment of the contents in each bundle was likely to have
been often disturbed. Besides, it was mere chance in what order the Tao-shih would hand out
the bundles.4

Stein further writes specifically about the bundles from Cave Seventeen : “[...] the
first bundles which the Tao-shih brought us from it consisted of thick rolls of paper,
from about 9 ½ to 10 ½ inches [24 to 27 cm] in height, evidently containing Chinese
translations of canonical Buddhist texts of Chinese treatises on them.”5 These bun-
dles were sometimes wrapped in “coarse canvas covers,” some with their ends
sewn up, but most with their ends left open.6 Stein and Jiang were soon able to
distinguish that there were two distinct types of bundles. “Miscellaneous bundles”
were of irregular shape and contained manuscripts, paintings, “ex-votos,” and paint-
ed fabrics, whereas “library bundles” were of a more uniform size and shape and
generally contained “an average of more than a dozen separate manuscripts.” 7


2 Jiang was also instrumental in keeping Stein in the good graces of local officials, who were in the
midst of political turmoil; Wang 2012, 4.
3 Stein 1912, vol. 2, 191–192.
4 Stein 1921, vol. 2, 813.
5 Stein 1921, vol. 2, 809.
6 Stein 1921, vol. 2, 823.
7 Stein 1921, vol. 2, 822; see also Stein 1912, 182–183.
30  Conserving Limitless Life

Generally, the miscellaneous bundles were found on top of the piles of library bun-
dles. The distinction between the two types of bundles is an extremely important
one, and comes to bear on the meanings of the different types of site numbers,
which we describe below. The vast majority of the Tibetan Dunhuang Ap copies
came from regular “library bundles” rather than the more misshapen miscellane-
ous bundles of diverse objects. Stein’s photograph of a pile of such library bundles
(Fig. 4) includes a few bundles enclosed in canvas covers, most of which have their
ends left open, just as Stein wrote.

Fig. 4: Bundles of rolls from Mogao Cave Seventeen, Stein photograph 392/27(589); after Stein 1912,
vol. 2, figure 194.

This image also confirms Stein’s observation that there are more than a dozen
“manuscripts” in each bundle. Here, however, we must clarify that by “manuscript”
Stein was referring to rolls that could be very long, and that some bundles con-
tained up to sixty rolls. Stein elsewhere refers to a stack of such rolls that were
placed on top of one another and then rolled up together using the now archaic-
sounding noun “convolute”: “I soon ascertained that the solid mass of ‘library bun-
dles’ still left in the chapel contained also a considerable proportion of packets with
 Bundles of manuscripts in Dunhuang  31

large convolutes of Tibetan sheets usually divided into six columns (Ch. 05, Plate
CLXXIII).”8 This describes the usual format of a Tibetan Ap roll, which consists of
six columns of text spread over three panels of paper (see Fig. 1, above). One can
see from the lower right image in Stein’s plate 173 that he was indeed referring to a
“convolute” – or bundle – of Tibetan Ap copies (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5: Photograph of a stack of SP2 folia (above), and one of the “convolutes” or “library bundles”
(lower right) from Mogao Cave Seventeen (note that the scraps in the image on the lower left,
“Ch.011,” bear no relation to the bundle “Ch.05” to its right). The bundle is partly unrolled to show that
it is a stack of Tibetan Ap copies that have been rolled up together; after Stein 1921, vol. 4, plate 173.

This photographic evidence of a stack of library bundles, some with canvas covers
(Fig. 4), each with of over a dozen sutra rolls, and of one partly unrolled bundle of
Tibetan Ap copies (Fig. 5) furnishes precious information that helps us to decipher
the meanings of the site numbers written on these manuscripts.


8 Stein 1921, vol. 2, 816.
32  Conserving Limitless Life

Due to the circumstances in which Stein and Jiang accessed these manuscripts,
there was no way to mark them with site numbers in such a way as to record their
initial location in Cave Seventeen. Stein mentions notes that he took at the time, and
it appears that he wrote a few site numbers on the manuscripts during this period
in Dunhuang, but he states that most site numbers were added later in London.9
Somewhat helpless in the face of so much Chinese and Tibetan textual material,
Stein seems to have focused on paintings and textiles, and to have tasked Jiang with
cataloguing the manuscripts.

I set the Ssŭ-yeh to work to prepare a rough list of titles; but as by and by the devout guardian
of these treasures took more courage and began to drag out load after load of manuscript
bundles, all attempt even at the roughest cataloguing had to be abandoned. It would have
required a whole staff of learned scribes to deal properly with such a deluge.10

This attempt at the “roughest cataloguing” was probably carried out prior to Stein’s
purchase of the manuscripts from Wang on May 29, and it may not have involved
Jiang writing any numbers or notes on the manuscripts themselves. Stein acquired
considerably more manuscripts and objects from Wang in the second week of June,
after Wang returned from a begging round, such that his entire haul consisted of
over 300 paintings and embroideries, approximately ninety bundles of Chinese and
Tibetan manuscripts, and other items, all packed away into sixteen or seventeen
cases.11 To this Jiang added a massive additional purchase of 220 to 230 bundles of
Chinese and Tibetan sutras, which he acquired from Wang in October.12
All of these manuscripts were eventually packed together in crates from June
19 to July 18, 1908, and shipped to London. Prior to and during the packing of these
crates, while Jiang and Stein were together in Khotan, Jiang wrote numbers and
notes on the versos of over a thousand of these Dunhuang manuscripts, mostly Chi-
nese sutras. Stein stated that at that time, Jiang was able to make “a first rapid
listing of less than a third” of the manuscripts in the “regular” or “library” bundles
comprising primarily textual material.13


9 Stein 1921, vol. 2, 828–829. See the helpful documentation in Terzi and Whitfield 2024, 62, which
uses Stein’s notes to specify which manuscripts and objects he consulted on each day from May 23
to May 28.
10 Stein 1912, vol. 2, 175.
11 Terzi and Whitfield 2024, 60 and 73, n. 25.
12 Terzi and Whitfield 2024, 60.
13 Stein 1921, vol. 2, 916. For further details about Jiang’s work during this time, see Terzi and
Whitfield 2024, 63.
 Bundles of manuscripts in Dunhuang  33

Fig. 6: Jiang Xiaowan at the end of Stein’s second expedition, Khotan, July 31, 1908. The British Library,
photograph 392/26(831).

Fig. 7: A Chinese roll from Dunhuang bearing Jiang Xiaowan’s numbering, “759,” and title, Lie guo
zhuan; after Stein 1921, vol. 4, plate 166. Now pressmark S.328.
34  Conserving Limitless Life

The upper right of the image shows that Jiang numbered the manuscript’s verso
using what are known as Suzhou numerals 蘇州碼子 or Huama 花碼, a numer-
al system employed during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.14 Jiang
added such numbers, along with titles and brief notes, to over 1,300 Chinese Dun-
huang manuscripts – including over a dozen copies of the Chinese Ap. Many have
Arabic numbers adjacent, presumably added later to translate Jiang’s numbers. The
first manuscript that Jiang numbered was S.823, a 472-cm roll of the Sutra of the
Buddhas’ Names (Fo ming jing 佛名經). Only rarely did Jiang number or annotate a
Tibetan manuscript.15
Only a few of Stein’s plates follow Jiang’s numbers, whereas his other images
of Dunhuang manuscripts employ a different sort of site number. Stein’s plate 173
(Fig. 5) captions the stack of leaves from a Tibetan pothī-format Perfection of Wis-
dom Sutra copy scribed at Dunhuang (henceforth SP2) with “Ch. 01,” and captions
the large bundle (Stein’s “convolute”) of Tibetan Ap rolls with “Ch. 05.” Ch. 01 now
bears the pressmarks ITJ 104 and ITJ 105. The site number “Ch. 05” was replaced
with the site number 78.VII, as noted in the concordance at the end of La Vallée
Poussin’s catalogue.16 It included sixty rolls of Tibetan Ap copies. The roll at one end
of this bundle, transformed into its final booklet, is now assigned the pressmark ITJ
310.683, and its verso bears both Stein’s old site number, found inside an India
Office Library stamp, and a newer one, written to its left (Fig. 8). This replacement
of Stein’s rather less specific site number with a more precise site number would
have taken place in London or Cambridge in the 1910s, as described below.
We find useful information about the early site numbers elsewhere in Stein’s
Serindia. In the appendices to volume 3, Stein includes provisional cataloguers’
entries for all of the texts in his plates. He asked F.W. Thomas to provide data on
the manuscripts in plate 173 based on the catalogue that Thomas had commissioned
La Vallée Poussin to produce.17 The information there agrees with Stein’s numbers,


14 Galambos 2020, 48.
15 An exception appears to be the Tibetan manuscript ITJ 1736, which includes two sets of Jiang
numbers and a note. Additionally, a curator’s slip kept with ITJ 130 consists of two Jiang numbers
and his note, along with a horizontal note in a different hand that states, by way of explanation,
“with CXXII.” It is unclear why this slip should be included with this manuscript, which bears the
site number “Ch.0010.”
16 La Vallée Poussin 1962, 289.
17 This is Appendix I, which is described as follows: “Notes on specimens of Tibetan manuscripts
from Ch‘ien-fo-tung, reproduced in plates CLXXIII, CLXXIV by F. W. Thomas, M.A., Ph.D. librarian
of the India Office from the catalogue prepared by L. de La Vallee Poussin professor at the univer-
sity of Ghent”; Stein 1921, vol. 3, 1470.
 Bundles of manuscripts in Dunhuang  35

i.e. “Ch. 01” and “Ch. 05.”18 Stein clarified the meaning of his site numbers or “site
marks” in a footnote in the preface to Serindia.

Fig. 8: Verso of ITJ 310.683, showing Stein’s initial site number, “Ch.05,” and the more specific site
number, “78.VII.1”; photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.

“Site-marks” given at the time of discovery show the initial letter of the site, the number of the
ruin, etc., followed by plain Arabic figures, e.g. N. xxiv. viii. 35. In such cases these last figures
correspond to the actual sequence of “finds.” When ‘site-mark’ numbers were given by myself
at the site, but after the day’s work, they are preceded by a zero, e.g. L.A. vi. ii. 061. When
objects had been marked by me merely with the place of discovery and numbers were subse-
quently added at the time of unpacking at the British Museum, two zeros precede the num-
bers, e.g. M. I. iv. 003.19

This does not necessarily shed light on site numbers like “Ch. 01” and “Ch. 05,”
where “Ch.” indicates the site Ch’ien-fo tung (Pinyin: Qianfo dong 千佛洞), that is,
the “Cave of One Thousand Buddhas” at Mogao. Stein’s remarks acknowledge that
some “site marks” were not assigned when objects were discovered, but rather
when they were unpacked at the British Museum. Apparently the majority of the


18 Stein 1921, vol. 3, 1470.
19 Stein 1921, vol. 1, xv, n. 16.
36  Conserving Limitless Life

Tibetan Dunhuang Ap copies were assigned site numbers at this later time, by
Stein’s assistants. Still other rolls were not given site numbers until later, when they
were kept at Cambridge University Library. Their situation was not unlike that of
Stein and Jiang trying to make sense of the contents of Cave Seventeen one bundle
at a time in May 1907, in the sense that Stein’s assistants were also documenting
manuscripts one bundle at a time as they unpacked them from crates in the base-
ment of the British Museum or in Cambridge. Of course they did so with the benefit
of more time to work and to devise sound methods of documentation.

1.2 Site numbers in London

Stein’s crates of manuscripts arrived at the British Museum in January 1909, where
they were kept in a portion of the museum’s basement as a separate collection with
its own set of keys. Of the ninety or so crates that arrived there, about thirty of them
were full of manuscripts.20 Stein’s chief assistant, Fred Andrews (1866–1957), over-
saw the manuscripts and objects until his departure for Kashmir in 1913. This duty
then fell to Florence Lorimer (1883–1967) until she also left for Kashmir in October
1919.21 The basement where the manuscripts and objects were kept and document-
ed, which Stein affectionately referred to as “our old cave” or “the Beehive,” was
effectively “the Stein Collection” until the objects and manuscripts were divided be-
tween the British Museum and the India Office Library, beginning in 1914.
Fred Andrews oversaw the unpacking of the crates and the documentation of
their contents. He was assisted initially by the archeologist Hugh Gerard Evelyn-
White and by Lena Macdonald, who were tasked with producing and typing up
catalogue slips for each object. By October 1909, they were joined by John Percival
Droop (1882–1963) and by Florence Lorimer, who replaced Lena Macdonald. 22 A
variety of other people were enlisted to catalogue and document the manuscripts
and objects of the Stein Collection. Lionel Giles (1845–1935) began cataloguing the
Chinese manuscripts in earnest in 1919.23 A.H. Francke (1870–1930) and F.W. Thomas
(1867–1956) were the first to catalogue and document the Tibetan manuscripts, fol-
lowed by Caroline Mary Ridding (1862–1941) and Louis de La Vallée Poussin (1869–
1938). Ridding commenced cataloguing by August 1910 in Cambridge, where much of
the Tibetan collection was sent. This was continued together with La Vallée Poussin


20 Mirsky 1977, 306.
21 Wang 1998, 216–217.
22 Wang 1998, 209–216.
23 Giles 1957, ix; Sims-Williams 2012, 6.
 Site numbers in London  37

from 1914 until he returned to Belgium in 1918.24 Stein also had crates of Chinese
and Tibetan manuscripts shipped to Paul Pelliot (1878–1945) in Paris and to Berthold
Laufer (1874–1934) in Chicago, respectively, but with equally unfruitful results.25
The slow pace of cataloguing of these manuscripts was a great disappointment
to Stein, and neither Giles’s catalogue of the Chinese manuscripts (1957) nor La
Vallée Poussin’s catalogue of the Tibetan manuscripts (1962) appeared before
Stein’s death in 1943. La Vallée Poussin recorded the site numbers of each of the
manuscripts in his catalogues of Tibetan Dunhuang manuscripts, but Giles did not
do so for his catalogue of Chinese Dunhuang manuscripts. Judging from their print-
ed catalogues, the existing online catalogue, and the evidence of the site numbers
themselves documented below, it is clear that most – but not all – of these numbers
were assigned before the collections were split between the British Museum, which
received mostly the manuscripts in Chinese, and the India Office Library, which
mostly received the manuscripts in Central Asian languages. That decision to split
the collection was made in 1914, and it took some time to sort out and accomplish.
Some site numbers may have been written onto the manuscripts by Stein him-
self while he was in Europe from January 1909 to December 1911, in part to work
on the collection.26 However, Stein was largely engaged with writing, lecturing, and
vacationing, and so most likely instructed Andrews – himself a trained arche-
ologist whom Stein referred to affectionately as “the Baron” – about assigning site
numbers.27 This would have left the work of assigning site numbers to Andrews and
to Stein’s other assistants, notably Lorimer – whom Stein called the “recording an-
gel.” A passage from a letter Stein sent to Andrews, dated Nov. 20, 1909, is suggestive
of such a delegation of labor: “As thing are, the best course is for you to guide Droop
and Miss L. by the light of your own experience & keenness & leave to them as much
of the drudgery as you possibly can, and to reserve for yourself the really novel
tasks, such as the silks and large frescoes.”28
Stein already established that the original disposition of the manuscripts and
bundles had been thoroughly disturbed prior to his own disarranging of Cave Sev-
enteen’s contents in 1907. Unpacking the crates in London in 1909, Stein and his as-
sistants would have had only the bundles to guide them, along with the numbers as-
signed to the twenty-five crates in which the manuscripts arrived. According to
Stein’s packing list, the manuscripts were packed in the crates numbered sixty-seven


24 Wang and Perkins 2008, 37; Stein 1921, vol. 2, 919.
25 Sims-Williams 2012.
26 Wang and Perkins 2008, 48.
27 On Stein’s activities at this time, see Mirsky 1977, 326 and Walker 1995, 187–189.
28 Bodleian Stein Manuscript 37/225, quoted in Wang 1998, 209; emphasis original.
38  Conserving Limitless Life

to ninety-one, and the list mentions the number of bundles in each crate. Unpacking
the crates in London, Fred Andrews made a note on the packing list, dated July 22,
1909, to say that fifty-seven crates remained unopened, and that twenty-five had
been repacked. A further note, dated January 7, 1910, stated that thirty-seven crates
were unpacked and that fifty-six crates were not unpacked. The latter are anno-
tated on the list in red pen, and include nearly all of the crates in which the manu-
scripts were contained.29 This could indicate that some of these crates were not un-
packed before being sent to Cambridge.

Figs 9a and 9b: Final two pages of Stein’s packing list, “Contents of antique cases packed June 19th–
July 18th, 1908,” giving the contents of each crate shipped to London; MSS Stein 37/119 and MSS Stein
37/120, courtesy of the Bodleian Library.

A comparison of Stein’s packing list with existing site numbers confirms that Stein’s
assistants in London employed the crate numbers for assigning site numbers to
the manuscripts. This is evident from the correspondence of the number of bundles
in Stein’s list to the number of bundles that La Vallée Poussin catalogued. To give
just one example, in crate eighty-six Stein lists “Tibetan mss. (15 bundles)” and the
concordance in La Vallée Poussin’s catalogue similarly records fifteen bundles of


29 Terzi and Whitfield 2024, 64.
 Site numbers in London  39

manuscripts that begin with the number eighty-six, e.g. site numbers 86.I to 86.XV.30
There are similar correspondences for the other crates. This, together with photo-
graphic evidence and an investigation of over a thousand site numbers written on
the Ap copies themselves, permits us to decipher the precise points of reference of
certain site numbers that have up until now remained imperfectly understood.
There is a variety of site numbers, only some of which follow Stein’s stated
methods. Another of Stein’s footnotes, regarding the site numbers on Brāhmī manu-
scripts from Dunhuang, is helpful for clarifying his general logic.

[Brāhmī manuscripts] in miscellaneous bundles can be distinguished from those which were
extracted from regular packets of Chinese rolls by the bundle number in small Roman figures
(ii,ii xl, etc.) prefixed to the serial numbers (003, 0019, etc.) in the ‘site marks’. Pōthī [sic] leaves
and rolls subsequently recovered on searching the regular packets in which they were embed-
ded bear only serial numbers (e.g. Ch.0041, 00271, etc.). [...] I may note here that when the
marking with serial numbers was made at the British Museum, no classification of the differ-
ent objects (manuscripts, paintings, decorated fabrics, etc.) found in the same mixed bundle
could be attempted.31

Summarizing Stein’s stated method for assigning these site numbers to Brāhmī man-
uscripts more plainly, an object from a “miscellaneous bundle” might be “Ch.VI.003,”
where “VI” indicates the bundle and “003” the object within the bundle. This in fact
accurately describes the site number Ch.XXXIII.003, which belongs to the Ap copy
with the pressmark ITJ 310.1035. In contrast, a manuscript from a regular “library
bundle” would be simply given a serial number, for example “Ch.0041,” with appar-
ently nothing to indicate the bundle from which it was extracted, and no indication
of how many other manuscripts there were in that regular library bundle. This cor-
responds to a site number such as Ch.05, which, as we have seen, labeled the entire
bundle of sixty Ap rolls displayed in Fig. 5.
This stated method would create a profound asymmetry with respect to how
manuscripts from the regular “library bundles” of rolls and other types of manu-
scripts were marked (e.g. “Ch.0041”) in contrast to the more detailed site numbers
(e.g. “Ch.VI.003”) assigned to objects from the “miscellaneous bundles” that includ-
ed manuscripts, painted scrolls, and other objects. Considering Stein’s statement in
light of the evidence of the site numbers written on the manuscripts themselves, it
is happily the case that the situation on the ground is not so unfortunate as the one
Stein described. In fact, more or less the same method that Stein stated above for


30 See Terzi and Whitfield 2024, 64–65. The packing list in question is kept in Stein’s papers at the
Bodleian Library, MSS Stein 37/117–120. Frances Wood has also written about the use of crate num-
bers for numbering the manuscripts; Wood 2012, 2.
31 Stein 1921, vol. 2, 814, n. 2.
40  Conserving Limitless Life

numbering “miscellaneous bundles” was applied to manuscripts from “library

bundles.” The main difference is that in the latter case the first number given in
Arabic numerals is the crate number, a point we have already established above
with recourse to Stein’s inventory. Just as in a site number for an object from a
miscellaneous bundle like “Ch.XXXIII.003” where the “003” refers to the third item
within bundle “XXXIII,” so too in a site number for an object from a regular library
bundle – almost always a roll – like “Ch.73.III.5,” the “5” refers to the fifth roll within
bundle “III” taken from crate seventy-three.32 It is chiefly the crate number at the
start of these site numbers for regular library bundles that distinguishes them from
those used for miscellaneous bundles. The reliance on the crate number also per-
mitted some laziness, since sometimes an entire bundle was given a number such
as 86.X without numbering its rolls individually, e.g. 86.X.1, etc.
The bundle numbers were presumably assigned according to the order in
which Stein’s assistants removed the bundles from a crate to document them. From
Fred Andrews’s tally of either unopened crates or repacked crates, one can assume
that bundles were returned to their crates after being assigned site numbers. This
explanation of such site numbers perfectly describes the state of the site numbers
assigned to both the Tibetan and Chinese Dunhuang Ap copies in the Stein Collec-
tion, and constitutes a sound method for documenting the bundles such as we see
them in the images above (Figs 4 and 5), since one can number the dozen or so bun-
dles that emerged from each crate without risk of confusing, for example, bundle
79.II with bundle 80.II, or roll 73.IX.5 with roll 75.IX.5. This demonstrates how these
site numbers are only made possible with the addition of the crate number. It also
shows how Stein and/or his assistants devised a system that in fact followed Stein’s
logic to add some precision to the earlier site numbers by working with relevant
objects at hand, namely crates, bundles, and rolls.
In this common type of site number that includes three numbers, e.g. “73.III.5,”
the prefix “Ch.,” indicating the site’s name, has often been elided. Stein’s practice
was to place spaces between these numbers and to use lowercase Roman numerals,
but Stein’s assistants, curators, and cataloguers have tended to dispense with the
spaces and to use uppercase Roman numerals, as we do here.
It is obvious that a site number like “Ch.05” is inferior to a site number like
“78.VII.1,” which is able to indicate crate number, bundle number, and roll number.
It is less obvious how curators were able to replace the former with the latter. One
possibility is that at some point during those seven days sorting through manu-
scripts and objects in May 1907, Stein or Jiang handled this bundle, and assigned the


32 Takeuchi came close to this solution, but mistook the initial number, e.g. seventy-three, for the
bundle number rather than the crate number; Takeuchi 2012, 209–210.
 Site numbers in London  41

number Ch. 05 to it and/or to one of its rolls. Following Stein’s protocols for using
zeros, this might indicate that this was done at the end of a day in May 1907 in Dun-
huang, rather than during the day itself or a year later in Khotan or two or more
years later in London. If this were the case, then this roll on which Stein wrote the
site number must have been returned to the bundle from which it came, since the
more detailed site numbers that identified it as bundle VII from crate seventy-eight
were necessarily only assigned after the crates were unpacked in London in 1909.
From Stein’s account of their work during these seven days, it is clear that
Wang first brought out only a few manuscripts and objects from Cave Seventeen,
and then brought manuscripts and objects in progressively larger amounts. This
process of “lending” out the manuscripts in ever larger units, and then collecting
them again at the end of each day, would disarrange those bundles and items that
Stein and Jiang consulted. In fact, Ch.05 is one of the few such site numbers of this
type (e.g. “Ch.07”) and of a similar type (e.g. “Ch. 0025”) to be replaced with more
detailed (e.g. “Ch.79.IX.5”) site numbers. Dozens of others, like Ch. 08 and Ch. 0066,
were never replaced with more detailed site numbers, perhaps because they could
not be reliably linked to the library bundle or miscellaneous bundle from which
Wang, Stein, or Jiang had separated them. While conjectural, this hypothesis offers
a plausible account of the meanings of the main types of site numbers, and some
hints about how and when they were produced.33
It is very helpful to know that site numbers like 73.III.5 indicate crate number,
bundle number, and roll number in “library bundles,” whereas a number like
XXXIII.003 indicates bundle number and item number in a miscellaneous bundle.
This allows one to fully appreciate the advantage of these site numbers, as imper-
fect as they are, and how they offer scholars another way to navigate the Stein col-
lection. Doing so, one can discover relationships between manuscripts and objects
that were and are catalogued and conserved apart from one another, and some-
times at different institutions, e.g. the British Museum and the British Library. In
Appendix Two we gesture further towards this approach by pointing out the con-
tours of each bundle in terms of its contents and how they were documented.34
There are many instances where different types of site numbers are found
alongside one another, revealing an “archeology” of documentation and conser-
vation. The Jiang numbers – and perhaps Stein numbers such as “Ch.05” – are the


33 Others, such as Ch.06 and Ch.011, which both became site number Ch.86.IV, can be found in La
Vallée Poussin’s concordance, published at the end of his posthumous catalogue; La Vallée Poussin
1962, 289. For discussions of the various types of site numbers, see Takuechi 2012b, 209–212 and
Terzi and Whitfield 2024, 61–68.
34 See also the attempt to reconstruct a few bundles in Terzi and Whitfield 2024, 78–82.
42  Conserving Limitless Life

earliest stratum, and they appear on many Chinese manuscripts that are catalogued
as having no site number. They also appear alongside site numbers assigned later.
In this regard they are not alone; examples of both types of site numbers that
Stein described occur in the upper margin of Or.8212/83, a manuscript fragment
with Chinese on the recto and Sogdian on the verso (Fig. 10). There one reads
“Ch.00334” and, in a separate hand using different ink, “82.XVI.” Presumably Stein
or an assistant wrote the first number, and the second number was added once the
practice of numbering items by crate and bundle had been settled, and when this
manuscript could still be reliably provenanced to bundle 82.XVI.

Fig. 10: Or.8212/83 recto, showing two site numbers; image captured by the authors from
http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.

The same situation is found on the verso of a fragmentary Tibetan Ap copy. This
was apparently taken from bundle 73.XV, which also contains a few other Tibetan
Ap copies, among other manuscripts. It was then catalogued for the Khotanese
content on its verso and assigned the pressmark IOL Khot S 17 (Fig. 11). As in the
previous case, two separate hands in two separate inks wrote the two site numbers,
“Ch.0020” and “73.XV.001” (Fig. 11a, upper left corner). Later curators wrote on the
mounting gauze to clarify that the one number is equated with the other (Fig. 11a,
upper right; Fig. 11b). As before, Stein or someone else first extracted this manu-
script from a regular bundle and gave it a number in keeping with his statement
quoted above, and then Stein or an assistant then apparently improved upon this
by specifying the number of the bundle it had originally been extracted from, and
the number of the crate in which it was packed. It is not surprising that this is rare,
 Site numbers in London  43

since such “extraction” is likely to orphan a manuscript from its bundle unless there
is a note attached, or unless it was carefully put back in place in its bundle.

Figs 11a and 11b: IOL Khot S 17 verso, showing two site numbers; image captured by the authors
from http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.

Stein and his assistants typically assigned site numbers at the level of the object. In
the case of the manuscripts considered here, this is true whether the object was a
fragment of a roll, a 135 cm-long roll containing one sutra copy, or a twenty-meter-
long roll containing fifteen sutra copies. The task of going through thousands of
manuscripts in these crates and bundles and writing a site number on each roll
proved to be impractical, however, perhaps nowhere more so than in the case of
the 1,055 rolls of Tibetan Ap copies that emerged from Stein’s crates. Consequently,
and possibly as a result of the work of various different hands – Stein’s, Andrews’s,
Lorimer’s, and others – a variety of methods arose by which the site numbers were
added. Here we describe a few of these.
Having removed a bundle from a crate in order to assign site numbers, Stein
or one of Stein’s assistants would be faced with a rather unwieldy task. The bundle
might be made up of single-sutra rolls, each 135 to 160 cm long, which had been
unrolled, stacked on top of one another and then rolled up as a bundle. To unroll
this bundle and to separate each roll in order to number them individually would
be to risk damaging the rolls. It would also be to clutter one’s workspace with fifty
or so rolls, since a bundle contains between seventeen and sixty-four rolls, and each
44  Conserving Limitless Life

roll would naturally spring back into its rolled position if its ends were not weighted
down. An enlarged image of the bundle that Stein dubbed “Ch.05” is instructive.
Here one can see the disposition of the bundle. The sutra copy that Stein made visible
for the picture by partially unrolling the bundle would be on top of the stack of flat
sutras if the bundle were fully unrolled.35 In fact, when they fully unrolled the bun-
dle Stein’s assistants found another sutra copy adjacent to this one, and that copy –
ITJ 310.683, pictured above in Fig. 8 – was assigned a site number as the first roll in
the bundle, 78.VII.1. There were no doubt other such discoveries and surprises
within these bundles once they were unrolled, and this would be one of the main
reasons for unrolling each bundle.

Fig. 12: Detail of one of the “library bundles” from Mogao Cave Seventeen; after Stein 1921, vol. 4,
plate 173.

These bundles were also quite messy. The bundle pictured above, 78.VII, contained
forty-eight single-sutra rolls each measuring about 135 cm, four two-sutra rolls each
measuring about 180 cm, three three-sutra rolls each measuring about 225 cm, one
four-sutra roll measuring about 270 cm, and four five-sutra rolls each measuring
about 315 cm. As a stack of rolls, it would have a thick, 135-cm “body,” and a long,
thin 315-cm “tail.” This state of affairs also explains how rolls of single-sutra copies
might lay adjacent to one another within a bundle, only to be discovered when the
bundle was fully unrolled. In this and other such bundles, the rolls of varying
lengths were not stacked neatly according to the length of each roll, e.g. longest to


35 This is ITJ 310.682, which is now the second to last booklet in the stack of booklets in Vol. 106.
 Site numbers in London  45

shortest or vice-versa, before being rolled up together as a bundle. Additionally, the

sutra copies were not necessarily all stacked on top of one another right-side up
when they were rolled into bundles. This is evident from at least two facts. First,
damage from water or another fluid affected all twenty-four of the rolls in bundle
86.XIII, and this is more apparent in the last few rolls than it is in the first few rolls,
no doubt because of how the bundle was rolled up. 36 However, this damage is
visible in the top margins of some sutra copies, and in the bottom margins of others,
which means that they were not all stacked in the same direction with respect to
their contents. Second, the sutra copies in bundle 86.X have this site number in
black ink written either on the verso of the first panel or on the verso of the last
panel, which is to say, either on the front cover or the back cover of their booklets
(Fig. 15, below). This would happen were one to number a bundle of rolls without
arranging them such that they are all oriented the same way, that is, without attend-
ing to the fact that some were rotated 180 degrees with respect to the others. It might
also suggest that this work was done by assistants and curators who treated these
rolls as objects without attending to the direction of writing.
Given that Wang, Stein, and Jiang may have disturbed these bundles of rolls
prior to their being documented in London, we cannot necessarily assume that this
order of rolls reflected the bundle’s original state as it was deposited in Cave Seven-
teen. Nor, for that matter, can we conclude with certainty that this order reflected
these sutra copies’ manner of storage in the Dunhuang temple libraries of Longxing
si, Sanjie si and others prior to their being deposited in Cave Seventeen. However,
a close examination of these bundles and their rolls of sutras, as described in Chap-
ter Three, reveals a high degree of internal coherence at the level of the bundle that
strongly suggests that most bundles were in fact largely untouched after they were
rolled up. It was apparently only during the later stages of their conservation in
Cambridge and London that the order of rolls became inverted or shuffled, but even
this, as we will see, was rare. This is important to the context of these manuscripts’
use, since it suggests that they were mainly copied to be kept or “deposited” for the
merit that they created. It may also be the case that these manuscripts’ ubiquity,
and the comparatively low doxographical status of the Sutra of Limitless Life, also
accounts for their relatively undisturbed state prior to conservation in London.
If Stein or his assistants were to have separated each roll from the other rolls
in its bundle, then they would have faced the issue of whether to store these sepa-
rately, as individual rolls, or whether to roll them back up as they were, in a bundle,
without damaging them or disturbing their sequence. The sixty rolls of bundle


36 This makes it less likely – though not impossible – that the damage occurred after they were bound
as booklets.
46  Conserving Limitless Life

78.VII (pictured in Fig. 12) would have been even more unwieldy and more prone
to damage as separate objects than as rolls within a bundle. In this case, someone
wrote the site number “78.VII.1” on first, that is the top, roll in the bundle. They
neglected to number the rolls below this one, only numbering the bottom roll in the
bundle “78.VII.” The fifty-eight rolls between these two rolls have no site numbers
at all. This suggests a cursory “first pass,” probably in the Beehive, that did not in-
volve separating the rolls individually from their bundle. It also implies that these
rolls were meant to be assigned serial site numbers based on the model of the first
number assigned, i.e. 78.VII.1 to 78.VII.60. In the end, nobody ever completed this
task, and fifty-eight of this bundle’s sixty rolls went without site numbers.

Fig. 13: ITJ 310.1149 on its side, rotated ninety degrees – in faded red ink one can read “Ch.73.XI.19,”
adjacent, in pencil, is a “3,” indicating the number of sutras in this multiple-sutra roll, and in the left of
the image (top right of the booklet), a reduplication of the site number is written in pencil, perpendic-
ular to the faded red site number; photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.

In other bundles it is clear that someone did what was apparently intended for bun-
dle 78.VII by assigning serial site numbers to every roll in a bundle. For example,
the twenty-eight rolls in bundle 73.XI have site numbers written onto their versos
in red ink, which has since faded to pink (Fig. 13). Duplicate site numbers in pencil,
perpendicular to these, were presumably added once the ink had faded to illegibil-
ity. Both sets of site numbers proceed serially, from 73.XI.1 to 73.XI.28. The site
numbers are written on the verso of the beginning of each roll, which would have
been the available outside surface of each roll in the bundle if it were barely un-
rolled for numbering purposes and to check it for other manuscripts or objects.
Thus site numbers may have been assigned to each of this bundle’s twenty-eight
rolls without fully unrolling them, or at least without separating the rolls individu-
ally from one another.
 Site numbers in London  47

Fig. 14: Site number 79.IX.25 on the verso of S.2018, a Chinese Ap copy; image captured by the
authors from http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.

We find a similar situation when examining the Chinese Dunhuang Ap copies kept
at the British Library. Like the Tibetan Ap rolls, these rolls are also of varying lengths:
some rolls contain a single Ap copy and other rolls contain multiple Ap copies. These
rolls also came from regular “library bundles,” some of which they shared with
Tibetan Ap rolls.37 Those Chinese rolls with the site number 79.IX are numbered in
red pen using the serial method, as in the case of those Tibetan rolls with site
number 73.XI, also in red ink. The numbers run from 79.IX.1 to at least 79.IX.37.38
They are similarly written on the verso of the beginning of each roll, as in the case
of S.2018 (Fig. 14). These site numbers are not necessarily in the same hand as those
on the Tibetan Ap copies. The writing is larger, and one also notes here the absence
of the Ch. prefix on the 79.IX site numbers for these Chinese Ap rolls.
In the case of this bundle of Chinese Ap copies, which fell under the purview of
the British Museum, the rolls were separated from their bundles, and each roll was
stored individually in its own scroll box. As a result, hundreds of scroll boxes had
to be manufactured for these and the 288 rolls or fragments of Chinese Ap copies in
the Stein Collection. Some are long rolls with up to four Ap copies, while others are
rolls of just one sutra copy. These are discussed in more detail in Chapter Three.


37 One example is 77.VII, a bundle that contained, among other manuscripts, one roll of Tibetan
Ap and two rolls of Chinese Ap. See Appendix Two for details.
38 Terzi and Whitfield use this as one of the three bundles in their case study for reconstructing
bundles based on site numbers; see Terzi and Whitfield 2024, 67–70. They commit the common
mistake of conflating these Ap copies with copies of the Sukhāvatīvyūha sūtra. The two texts share
the same short title in Chinese.
48  Conserving Limitless Life

A more common method of assigning site numbers, which appears to have

been more often used for the Tibetan manuscripts at the India Office Library than
for the Chinese manuscripts at the British Museum, was to forego the serial site
numbers by assigning a less precise site number that applied equally to every roll
in a given bundle. This is a middle ground between the desultory method of just
marking the site number on the first and last roll of a bundle, e.g. 78.VII, and the
more thorough method of writing a unique serial site number on every roll, e.g.
73.XI.1 to 73.XI.28. This applies, for example, to the fifty-five single-sutra rolls of
Tibetan Ap copies that were assigned the site number 86.X. Stein or an assistant
wrote the site number “86.X” in black ink on the versos of all fifty-five rolls in this
bundle (see Fig. 15). These numbers appear sometimes at the beginning of the verso
and sometimes at the end. This suggests, as stated above, that when the rolls were
stacked on one another and rolled into a bundle for storage in a temple library
and/or in Cave Seventeen, the sutra copies were not carefully arranged with respect
to their contents. Some apparently were rotated 180 degrees, and some may have
lain “back-to-back” (versos touching) or “front-to-front” (rectos touching) with their
neighbors. Alternatively, this could have resulted from someone consulting an Ap
copy or otherwise disturbing the bundle, but in such cases one would assume that
this would involve only the first or last roll rather than rolls in the middle of a
bundle. The most convenient method was for Stein or his assistants to number the
versos that were most easily accessible as they documented these manuscripts and
made inventories of each bundle. This likely accounts for why the site number
“86.X” is found either on the beginning or end of the verso, which is to say the front
cover or back cover of the booklets kept in Vol. 95 (Figs 15a and 15b).39
This type of site numbering, which does not add serial site numbers to each roll
within a bundle, also appears on some Chinese Ap copies, again in black ink. On
S.492 and S.503, for example, the site number 86.I is written in black ink on the verso
of the end of each roll. This agrees perfectly with the method of assigning site num-
bers to the Tibetan rolls at 86.X, and it is perhaps notable that both bundles come
from the same crate, number eighty-six.
In these few examples, we can already see a lack of uniformity with regard to
the location of the site numbers on the manuscripts, the color of ink used to write
them, and the method of assigning them. Concerning the latter, we observe that
those rolls with site number 73.XI all bear serial site numbers, e.g. 73.XI.1 through
73.XI.29, rather than simply all sharing the same site number of 73.XI. Of the twenty-
six site numbers – which is to say twenty-six bundles – that include several rolls of


39 Additional photographic documentation of site number 86.X appears in Fig. 2, where “86.X”
bleeds through from the verso, as well as Figs 3, 19, 20, 23a, and 24.
 Site numbers in London  49

Figs 15a and 15b: Site numbers 86.X written on the verso of the start of ITJ 310.256 (upper right of
front cover of the booklet, spine to the left) and on the verso of the end of ITJ 310.253 (upper left of
back cover of the booklet, spine to the right). Note booklet number “12” in pencil below the site
number in Fig. 15a; photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.

Tibetan Ap copies, only five employ these serial site numbers that distinguish the
specific number of each roll. The other four are Ch.73.XVI (Vol. 113), Ch.73.XVII
(Vol. 114), Ch.73.IX (Vol. 117), and Ch.73.X (Vol. 118). These are split evenly between
bundles of single-sutra rolls and bundles that also include multiple-sutra rolls, the
specifics of which are treated in Chapter Three.
These various methods are not necessarily the result of unitary norms that de-
graded over time from the more thorough to the cursory. Rather, they appear to
have resulted from different standards applied by different assistants and curators.
These tend to cohere not only at the level of the bundle, but also at the level of the
crate, which suggests that different people (e.g. La Vallée Poussin, Ridding) were
assigned different crates to go through and number. All of the many Tibetan Ap
copies from the bundles in crates seventy-eight and eighty-six, for example, use the
less specific type of site number, and this is written in black ink. By contrast, all of
the Tibetan Ap copies from the bundles in crate seventy-three have the more spe-
cific site numbers, and these are written in red ink. As we will see, it appears that
these latter, specific site numbers were the work of C.M. Ridding in Cambridge.
A few Tibetan Ap copies have different site numbers that tell us nothing of
their locations within crates or bundles. This is true of those labeled “Fragments.”
Confusingly, some of these are complete sutra copies (e.g. Fragment 41, pressmark
50  Conserving Limitless Life

ITJ 310.422), while others are indeed fragments of sutra copies (e.g. Fragment 53.5,
pressmark ITJ 310.427). It is unclear why these complete sutra copies were desig-
nated as fragments.
There is also a sequence of Ap copies, pressmarks ITJ 1588 to ITJ 1615 – exclud-
ing ITJ 1601 –, that have simple site numbers consisting only of Arabic numerals
and without the Ch prefix. These amount to twenty-two manuscripts and fragments
numbered 10, 13, 14, 23, 34, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58.
Their skips in sequence, e.g. from 36 to 44, appear to be a recognition of existing
manuscripts that bear intervening numbers prefixed by “Fragment,” e.g. “Frag-
ment 41,” mentioned just above. These numbers are often in pencil, alongside the
number 310, the latter written in pen, probably by La Vallée Poussin. It is not neces-
sarily the case that the word “Fragment” was elided from these penciled numbers,
since we find Fragment 44, Fragment 49, and Fragment 52 – which overlap with the
unprefixed numbers 44, 49, and 52 just given above – as site numbers assigned to
non-Ap manuscripts at pressmarks ITJ 109, ITJ 120, and ITJ 256, respectively, in La
Vallée Poussin’s concordance.40
The numbers on these manuscripts represent an anomaly. Since they are not
found in La Vallée Poussin’s inventory of site numbers, nor in his catalogue’s con-
cordance, they were likely added after his cataloguing work, which is to say after
World War I. If one assumes the concordance to be the work of A.F. Thompson, then
these numbers were also probably unknown in the early 1960s. Examining these
manuscripts in more detail, it becomes clear that these are only “quasi-site num-
bers,” that have resulted from confusion during the process of documenting these
manuscripts and assigning site numbers. In other words, these are manuscripts
that were quite likely mislaid, or orphaned from their bundles during the catalogu-
ing process. In this respect they are similar to Stein’s Ch.0023- and Ch. 05-type
numbers, which also seem to have resulted from separating manuscripts from the
regular library bundles in which they had been previously kept. One example will
suffice to demonstrate this. La Vallée Poussin’s catalogue lists five copies under the
pressmark “Ch.i.1.” However, only one Ap copy is now found with this site number,
at pressmark ITJ 310.1034. In pencil, on the verso of column a of this copy we find
written, “aparamitayur, 5 copies, incomplete, Ch.I.1. Part of a bundle numbered Ch.I
from sorted Chinese bundles.” This further corroborates La Vallée Poussin’s cata-
logue. This copy’s roll number is thirteen, and it is a copy of the “A1” version of
the sutra, the details of which will be discussed in Chapter Two. Searching among
the twenty-two above items with their defective, penciled quasi-site numbers, we
find rolls nine, ten, eleven, and twelve, all A1 copies, strongly suggesting that they,


40 La Vallée Poussin 1962, 299.
 Site numbers in London  51

together with roll thirteen (ITJ 310.1034), had previously constituted the five copies
at Ch.I.1. These four copies bear the respective “quasi-site numbers” 54, 53, 49, and
47. Presumably, the site number “Ch.I.1” was initially added only to one of the five
rolls when they were kept together, and somehow the other four were separated
and mislaid.41 These four rolls were later assigned pressmarks ITJ 1611, ITJ 310.423,
ITJ 1607, and ITJ 1605, respectively.
To compound this mistake, the manuscript with the quasi-site number “53” was
moved together with the four fragments and copies that La Vallée Poussin had
catalogued as “Fragment 53.” Someone then added decimals in pencil after each
number 53, such that the five manuscripts in this newly created group proceeded
“53.1” through “Fragment 53.5,” thereby creating the false impression that “53” had
been a part of “Fragment 53” all along. The latter site number therefore ended up
having five items within it, rather than the four items that La Vallée Poussin rec-
orded for Fragment 53 in his catalogue. In Chapter Three and Four and in Ap-
pendix Two we rectify these and other such mistakes to virtually reunite some man-
uscripts that had been orphaned or misassigned by the processes of conservation
and cataloguing.
There are such “casualties” of the documentation process among the Chinese
Ap copies as well. Most have consistent site numbers, and many that are listed as
having no site number in fact have Jiang numbers. However, a few of them, mostly
fragments, have no site numbers at all. Among those with no site numbers are the
fragments S.324, S.1107, and S.1143. The complete, edited Ap copy S.4088 (Fig. 39) also
has no site number.
Among the sutra copies and fragments that do not come from regular bundles
of mostly Ap copies, but rather from bundles where they were mixed in among
many other sorts of texts, we also find an odd variation on the more standard site
numbers. Pressmarks ITJ 310.415, 416, and 418 are three complete Ap copies with
the site number 87.XIII. To this site number was added the lower-case letters “a,”
“b,” and “f,” respectively, but these are written slightly below, suggesting they were
added later, by someone who was not following the usual system that would dictate
the use of Arabic numerals for serial site numbering. This type of site number (e.g.


41 Prevarication between lowercase and uppercase letters has sowed confusion concerning this
site number. There are several painted scrolls and Khotanese manuscripts with the site number
Ch.i, with serial numbers preceded by two zeros, e.g. Ch.i.003. Four Tibetan items, by contrast, use
the upper case Ch.I, and follow this with serial numbers without zeros, e.g. Ch.I.3. The ambiguity of
the uppercase I has also meant that some curators and cataloguers have (mis)read the site number
as “Ch.1,” that is, the Arabic number rather than the Roman numeral.
52  Conserving Limitless Life

“87.XIII.d,” where “d” is apparently a later addition) is visible in the image of the
fragment ITJ 310.1204 in Fig. 22 below.
Later strata of numbering processes complicate matters even further. We have
already shown that Stein and/or his assistants probably wrote many of these site
numbers onto the manuscripts as they proceeded through their documentation of
crates and bundles in the basement of the British Museum. However, it is also clear
that some site numbers were added later, after the Chinese materials went to the
British Museum and the Tibetan materials went to the India Office Library, begin-
ning from 1914. This becomes evident when we approach these manuscripts at the
level of the bundle. Tibetan and Chinese manuscripts from the same bundle are not
always numbered using the same method. Whereas in some bundles, Tibetan and
Chinese items are both marked with serial site numbers, in other bundles Chinese
items are marked with serial site numbers while the Tibetan items in the same bun-
dle are marked without them. This is true of manuscripts with site number 81.VIII,
for example, whose Tibetan manuscripts are each labeled 81.VIII, whereas its Chi-
nese manuscripts each have their own serial number, e.g. 81.VIII.7. Elsewhere, the
serial site numbers of Chinese items in a bundle overlap with the serial site num-
bers of Tibetan items in the same bundle, which is something that presumably
would not occur if the items in the bundle were numbered serially when they were
kept together in the Beehive. In bundle 79.XIV, for instance, 79.XIV.3 designates
both the Tibetan manuscript ITJ 310.1206 and the Chinese manuscript S.3824. This
is not an isolated occurrence, and other instances where Tibetan and Chinese man-
uscripts from the same bundle are assigned identical site numbers are noted in
Appendix Two. Such duplicate numbers, as well as the more common circumstance
where Tibetan manuscripts and Chinese manuscripts from the same bundle em-
ploy less specific (non-serial) and more specific (serial) site numbering, respective-
ly, confirms that quite a lot of site numbering was done after the Tibetan manu-
scripts were separated from the Chinese.
These site numbers assigned to Chinese manuscripts at the British Museum and
to Tibetan manuscripts at the India Office Library diverged not only from each
other, but also from the initial site numbers assigned prior to the division of the
collection. In bundle 79.XIV, for example, seven of the twelve Tibetan items lack
serial site numbers. It may be that Stein, Andrews, Lorimer, or another of the
“Beehive” assistants added the site number “79.XIV,” and that Hoernle, Ridding, or
La Vallée Poussin added the more detailed serial site numbers later. An inverse
situation could also apply, where someone first assigned a few detailed site num-
bers, and expected others to follow the model for further items, as in the case of
bundle Ch.05/ 78.VII, described above. An almost identical situation describes the
site numbering of the items at 79.XVI. This would suggest that up to three hands
 Cataloguing and preparatory work in Cambridge  53

assigned site numbers within such a bundle: one at the “Beehive” prior to the divi-
sion of the collections, assigning numbers at the level of the bundle; one working
on the Chinese manuscripts at the British Museum; and one working on the Tibetan
manuscripts at the India Office Library or in Cambridge. Despite these rough edges,
which emerge only when one examines the collection at the level of the bundle, the
documentation process largely succeeded in preserving the crucial information
about which manuscripts came from which bundles.

1.3 Cataloguing and preparatory work in Cambridge

F.W. Thomas was responsible for Stein’s Tibetan Dunhuang manuscripts at the
India Office Library in London, where he served as librarian from 1903 to 1927. He
and C.M. Ridding began documenting the manuscripts in 1910, and by 1914 Thomas
enlisted Louis de La Vallée Poussin, the famous Belgian Buddhologist who took
refuge at Cambridge during the First World War. A letter from Stein dated July 8,
1910 refers to the deposit of Stein’s Tibetan manuscripts at Cambridge University
Library, and states that Ridding, who was preparing an inventory, should be per-
mitted to work on the material at her home, “up to a maximum of three bundles.”42
La Vallée Poussin probably enjoyed similar privileges at Cambridge.
In fact, one paper wrapper bearing C.M. Ridding’s handwriting is likely the
original wrapping in which she transported a bundle of Dunhuang manuscripts
between her home and the Cambridge University Library. It is now found in Vol.
118, together with the Ap copies bearing site number 73.X (Figs 16a and 16b). The
wrapper was presumably conserved as an example of the type of wrapper that was
used for conserving these manuscripts while they were still kept in bundles, prior
to binding.
On the back of this wrapper we read, written in red ink, “Ch 73.x. C.m.R.” and
“[Contents aparimitāyurjñānam C.m.R.]” (Figs 16c and 16d). This confirms that
C.M. Ridding used a red pen to identify the contents as part of her initial cataloguing
work. The sutra copies from this bundle do in fact have the more detailed, serial
site numbering in red pen. It is likely that Ridding was responsible for this more
specific method of site numbering in red pen where it is found in the other four
relevant bundles in crate seventy-three, as detailed above.


42 Wang and Perkins 2008, 37.
54  Conserving Limitless Life

Figs 16a and 16b: Paper wrapping in which the Tibetan Ap copies were initially conserved while still
in roll format, Vol. 118; photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.

Figs 16c and 16d: C.M. Ridding’s annotations on the bundle wrapper, Vol. 118; photographed by
Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.

Besides his task of producing a catalogue, La Vallée Poussin was apparently also
charged with preparing manuscripts for binding. This entailed numbering each
bundle’s rolls individually, as well as numbering each roll’s panels. Despite num-
bering these rolls of sutras individually, La Vallée Poussin did not catalogue them
 Cataloguing and preparatory work in Cambridge  55

individually, but rather grouped them all together under a single pressmark, num-
ber 310. This was part of the sequence 306–455 of his catalogue, which La Vallée
Poussin consecrated to “tantric works with identified Sanskrit titles.”43 He makes
special mention of this pressmark in the catalogue’s introduction.

The rolls of the Aparimitāyur-jñāna-sūtra ([pressmark] 310) deserve special notice. The paper
is quite different from the paper of the other manuscripts in the collection. The majority con-
sists of three sheets, each with two pages, stuck together to make a roll of six pages: some have
seven pages, an additional half sheet having been added. All the copies examined agree with
the two edited by Professor Sten Konow (Hoernle, Manuscripts Remains, pp. 289 et seq.) in
omitting 8 to 31 [sic] of the Hoernle edition. Some copies have been corrected in red ink, and
may record the scribes, the same names occurring more than once.44

This notice gives no inkling that this pressmark, 310, includes over one thousand
copies of this sutra. Otherwise, the description is helpful as long as one understands
that by “pages” La Vallée Poussin meant “columns” of text; this agrees with the two
separate measurements given in his entry published in Serindia. We shall return to
his observations about the sutra copies’ format and contents below.
La Vallée Poussin’s catalogue entry for 310 describes it as “a collection of rolls.”45
Besides transcribing eight sample colophons and including some references, he sup-
plied an inventory of site numbers, along with the number of “copies” – by which
one must understand “rolls” – included under each of these site numbers. La Vallée
Poussin’s record of the site numbers is valuable as a witness to the state of affairs
from 1914 to 1918, when he and Ridding held the sutra copies in their hands. It is
therefore worth quoting here in full the beginning of his entry for 310:

tshe dpag tu myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo/

(Aparimitāyur-nāma mahāyāna-sūtra)
Ch. 0071, I. 1 (5 copies), XIX. 003, XXXIII. 003, XL. 004, 73. VI. 1a (5 copies), 73. VII. 1-3 (3 copies),
73. IX. (19 copies), 73. X, 73. XI (28 copies), 73. XIII. 12, 73. XV. 2 and 8, frag. 10b, 73. XVI, 74. V,
75. IV. 1, 75. IX. 5, 76. XI. 3, 77. VII. 1, 77. XVI, 78. I (23 copies), 78. II, 78. III (51 copies), 78. IV
(38 copies), 78. VII, 78. VIII (54 copies), 78. IX, 78. X (50 copies), 78. XI, 78. XII (30 copies), 79. VIII.
5, 79. XIII. 1, 79. XIV. 3, 79. XVI. 6, 80. II, 80. II. B1, 80. IV. 1, 80. VIII. 1, 80. IX. B1, 81. V. 1, 81. VIII
(2 copies), 82. II. 6, 83. V. 1, 83. VI. 2, 83. IX. 10, 85. IV. 2, 85. IX. 1 and 6, 86. I (46 copies), 86. III
(28 copies), 86. VI. 86. VIa (46 copies), 86. VII (31 copies), 86. IX (12 copies), 86. X (2 copies),
86. Xa (54 copies), 86. XIII (25 copies), 86. XIV (48 copies), 86. XV (38 copies), 87. XIII (9 copies),


43 La Vallée Poussin 1962, xiii–xiv.
44 La Vallée Poussin 1962, xv. “8 to 31” is a typo: the main Tibetan version of the sutra copied at
Dunhuang omits §8–§11, as discussed in detail in Chapter Two.
45 La Vallée Poussin 1962, 101.
56  Conserving Limitless Life

87. XIIIa, b, d, f (4 copies), CXLVII. 2, Fragments 28 (fr. 0060), 29 (fr. XLIII. 002), 33, 38 (3 copies),
39a (written on both sides, roll and scroll), 39b-c, 41, 53 (4 copies), 59, 84 (2 copies), and unnum-
bered fragments bound in vols. 53 and 55; a collection of rolls.46

Comparing this account with the state of the manuscripts today, it is evident that
La Vallée Poussin’s use of the term “copies” is misleading. By this term he in fact
designated rolls. This is important because, as noted already, some rolls contained
up to fifteen copies of the sutra, while others contained only one. For example,
while the thirty-eight single-sutra rolls marked with the site number 78.IV together
contain thirty-eight sutra copies, the nineteen multiple-sutra rolls with the site
number 73.IX contain sixty-seven sutra copies in total. Adding up the number of La
Vallée Poussin’s “copies” therefore gives nowhere near the number of Ap copies
held in the collection, and also falls well short of the number of sub-pressmarks
eventually included within the 310 pressmark. It is safe to assume that those site
numbers in which Arabic numbers follow the Roman numerals, e.g. “73.XIII.12,”
refer to single rolls. One cannot assume the same for those site numbers where La
Vallée Poussin did not state the number of rolls, as we know that many of these site
numbers include several rolls. It is unclear whether La Vallée Poussin failed to rec-
ord this data because he chose to ignore it or because it was unavailable to him. For
data based on our survey, which shows the numbers of pressmarks, rolls, and sutra
copies in each site number, giving also La Vallée Poussin’s tally, see Appendix Two.
Looking at the site numbers, one can easily see how they reflect the situation
of packing crates one dozen or so bundles per crate. Seven site numbers begin with
“73,” with the highest Roman numeral being “XVI.” Bundles IX and XI in crate
seventy-three have nineteen and twenty-eight rolls, respectively. It is also clear that
the Tibetan Ap did not account for all of the bundles in crate seventy-three, which,
as discussed by Takeuchi, contained seventeen bundles in total, many of which in-
clude a variety of tantric texts that date to the period after the Tibetan occupation
of Dunhuang.47 Crate eighty-six included ten bundles of Tibetan Ap rolls, with an
average of thirty-three rolls each. That same crate also included copies of the Chi-
nese Ap, which are similarly found together with the Tibetan Ap in crates seventy-
four, seventy-seven, seventy-nine, eighty, eighty-one, eighty-two, and eighty-seven
(see Appendix Two). There are only five Tibetan Ap rolls that come from “miscel-
laneous bundles,” and their site numbers, I.1, XXXIII.003, XL.004, XLIII.002, and
CXLVII.2, indicate that they were bundled together with painted scrolls, as well as
other manuscripts.


46 La Vallée Poussin 1962, 101.
47 Takeuchi 2012, 207–208. See also La Vallée Poussin 1962, 293–295.
 Cataloguing and preparatory work in Cambridge  57

It is clear that La Vallée Poussin intended the 310 pressmark as a catch-all for Ti-
betan Dunhuang Ap copies in roll format, since it includes not only the large bun-
dles of rolls but also fragments of rolls that he identified as belonging to this sutra.
(He assigned pothī-format fragments of Ap different pressmarks, such as 308 and
309.) Therefore, it is surprising that three bundles of sutra rolls with the site num-
bers 78.V, 78.VI, and 73.XVII, containing over one hundred Ap copies between them,
are not included in the 310 pressmark. The latter two are listed as pressmark 310 in
La Vallée Poussin’s concordance, compiled by A.F. Thompson in the late 50s and
early 60s, but 78.V is absent.48 The sutra copies from these three bundles are now
assigned pressmarks ITJ 1617 to ITJ 1716. There are also further copies or fragments
originating from outside of these bundles, including those numbered ITJ 1588
through ITJ 1615 (excepting ITJ 1601). It is clear that all of these were intended for
the 310 pressmark. A note on a curator’s sticker on the recto of the first roll from
the bundle 78.VI, pressmark ITJ 1617 (Fig. 17), for example, states, “78.VI No. 97 310.”

Fig. 17: Curator’s stickers on the front of ITJ 1617; photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the
British Library.


48 La Vallée Poussin 1962, 295–296.
58  Conserving Limitless Life

Another small sticker on the same booklet’s spine adds, “78.V No. 310.” This indi-
cates that the rolls with these two site numbers were intended for the 310 press-
mark. An annotation in blue, on the same sticker, reads “2 [illegible] 17 + 24,” which
presumably means that seventeen of the fifty-one rolls came from one bundle, and
twenty-four came from another. The roll numbers reflect this, proceeding serially,
one to twenty-four and then one to seventeen. Only one of the manuscripts in this
volume bears a site number in pen, and two others have site numbers on red-and-
white stickers and/or in pencil. Taken together with the blue annotation and the
roll numbers, these suggest that the first twenty-four rolls are from bundle 78.V and
the next seventeen rolls – plus the edited exemplar, which is the first booklet in the
stack – are from bundle 78.VI. We will return to these red-and-white stickers after
reviewing what seems to have been La Vallée Poussin’s parallel task, that of prepar-
ing the Ap rolls for binding.

1.3.1 Roll numbers and panel numbers

La Vallée Poussin wrote numbers in pencil onto the rolls themselves in order to
facilitate the binding of these rolls into booklets. There are two such types of num-
bers, both written in pencil onto the manuscripts themselves, that pertain to bind-
ing. The first indicate how many sutra copies are in a longer roll with multiple Ap
copies, and the second assign numbers to the rolls in a given bundle and to the in-
dividual panels of paper in each roll. The first type of numbering is given in pencil
on the verso of the first column of a multiple-sutra roll. In Fig. 13 above, adjacent to
one of the red site numbers, “Ch.73.XI.19,” there is a “3” written in pencil. This indi-
cates that the roll included three sutra copies.

Figs 18a, 18b, and 18c: The roll numbers (denominators) and panel numbers (numerators) added in
pencil to the top right of each panel of paper of ITJ 310.295; photographed by Brandon Dotson,
courtesy of the British Library.
 Cataloguing and preparatory work in Cambridge  59

The second, more involved set of numbers appear on every panel of every roll,
which is to say every bifolio of every bound booklet. These numbers are present in
all of the booklets of Tibetan Ap, always on the recto, sometimes in the middle of a
panel in the upper margin, and other times at its top right. These come in the form
of a numerator, which gives the panel (aka “sheet” or “bifolio”) number within each
roll, and a denominator, which gives the roll number within each bundle. In the
case of the bundle of fifty-three single-sutra rolls where the site number 86.X was
written on each roll, or example, “1/49” was written in pencil in the upper right
corner of the first panel of the forty-ninth roll (Fig. 18a), ”2/49” on its second panel
(Fig. 18b), and “3/49” on its third (Fig. 18c).
Roll forty-eight, also a three-panel sutra copy, was similarly numbered “1/48,”
“2/48,” and “3/48” on its three respective panels; roll fifty, a four-panel copy, was
numbered “1/50,” “2/50,” “3/50,” and “4/50” on its four respective panels; and so on
for all of the fifty-three rolls in this bundle. This task was carried out for all of the
over one thousand Ap rolls in the British Library’s Stein Collection. By numbering
these rolls and panels in this way, La Vallée Poussin or another curator tasked with
this job ensured that their contents would appear in their proper order once they
were bound as booklets, and that their panels would not get shuffled once they were
separated into sheets/ bifolios. Conservators and binders following these numbers
would not bind, for example, the panels of roll forty-nine out of order, e.g. “1/49,”
“3/49,” “2/49,” when folding them, stacking them, and making them into a booklet.
Nor would they bind a panel from roll forty-nine into a booklet with panels marked
with denominators of “48” or “50.”
Among the approximately 1,500 booklets they bound, we noted only one such
mistake: in the booklet with the pressmark ITJ 1489, the second and third panels of
a four-panel roll were shuffled, so the booklet has these panels appear in the order
one, three, two, four. Similarly, we found very few errors of numbering at the level
of the roll (as opposed to the several contradictions between site numbers, roll num-
bers, and booklet numbers, some of which we document below.) One such rare
mistake is found in ITJ 1588, a single Ap copy whose panels are numbered “1/1,” 2/2,”
and “2/3.”
In the case of multiple-sutra rolls, La Vallée Poussin followed the same method,
but there were more panels of paper to number. In the case of a three-sutra roll
with the site number 73.XI.19, for example, he wrote “3” on the verso of the first
panel, and numbered its nine panels “1/19” to “9/19” in the top margin of their rectos.
Later, when these were bound in London, the three sutra copies were bound into
three separate booklets with pressmarks ITJ 310.1149, 1150, and 1151.
It is clear from notes on the manuscripts themselves and from slips of paper
kept with them that La Vallée Poussin added these numbers in pencil to prepare
60  Conserving Limitless Life

the rolls for binding. A cataloguer’s note kept together with the Ap copies in Vol. 114
states, “N.B. 73.XVII now in bundle in Stein order – check Poussin’s pagination if
copies are ever bound!” The note is written in blue crayon (or a very blunt blue
pencil), probably by F.W. Thomas. Indeed there are two sets of numbers on these
manuscripts: the site numbers in red pen, identified in the note as the “Stein order”
– which was likely written by C.M. Ridding – and the roll numbers in pencil (those
with numerator and denominator, as just described), identified in the note as La
Vallée Poussin’s. (We follow suit by referring to these as La Vallée Poussin’s num-
bers for the sake of convenience, but do so with the assumption that this task may
have fallen to others to complete.) In this case, these two sets of numbers run in
inverse order. Thus the roll marked with the site number Ch.73.XVII.1 was also
marked in pencil as roll “28” on each of its panels, and the roll marked with the site
number Ch.73.XVII.2 was marked as roll “27.” The two sets of numbers proceeded
inversely in this fashion up to the roll marked with the site number Ch.73.XVII.28,
which was marked as roll “1” in pencil.49
There are no dates or initials added to the note in blue, but the circumstances
it describes are such that it probably belongs to F.W. Thomas, and to his early
review of La Vallée Poussin’s work prior to when the rolls were sent to the bindery.
Thomas would have presumably added this note after La Vallée Poussin had fin-
ished his work in 1918, and before Thomas left the India Office Library in 1927.50
This shows that the rolls were marked for binding by this time, even though the
rolls were not bound until decades later. In this case Thomas was trying to make
sense of the results of the work he had commissioned to be produced in Cambridge.
This is not the only such example of confusion that stems from one person treating
the top roll as the first roll in the bundle and another person treating the top roll as
the last roll in the bundle. Returning to bundle 78.VII, which Stein featured in an
early plate as “Ch. 05,” we noted above that the top roll was marked “78.VII.1,”
evidently to indicate that the remaining fifty-nine rolls should be assigned serial
site numbers on this model. Nobody ever added these numbers, and the only other
roll in the bundle with a site number is the last, bottom roll, which is marked
“78.VII” (see Fig. 8). When La Vallée Poussin added roll numbers and panel numbers
to the rolls of this bundle in Cambridge, he numbered the rolls bottom to top, that


49 Only on the last roll, number twenty-nine, do the numbering systems agree, which suggests that
La Vallée Poussin might have mislaid the roll when he numbered the rolls’ panels in pencil.
50 Denison Ross (1871–1940), who was briefly employed to catalogue Stein manuscripts in 1914,
and who served as Keeper of the Stein Antiquities at the British Museum between 1914 and 1916,
was also known to use blue pencil, so it is possible that he added this note; see Wood 2012, 2. It may
also be the case that the British Museum and the India Office Library shared similar practices in
terms of having different curators and cataloguers use different pencils and inks.
 Cataloguing and preparatory work in Cambridge  61

is, backwards. They are now catalogued in this inverse order, with the pressmarks
ITJ 310.612 to 310.683. The roll marked 78.VII.1 is ITJ 310.683, and the first half of a
two-sutra roll that had been the last roll in the bundle is now ITJ 310.612. The sutra
copies from bundle 73.XVII, just described above, similarly follow the order of the
rolls penciled by La Vallée Poussin, rather than the order of site numbers inked by
C.M. Ridding.
The note’s statement, “if copies are ever bound” is echoed by the mention of
binding in three other cataloguer’s notes found in other volumes of Tibetan Ap
copies. One, in pencil on a note card in Vol. 94, states, “34 Rolls of M.S.S. Each roll in
separate lot. Binder. Aparamitayur.” The fifty-five booklets of this volume were
indeed made from thirty-four rolls of Ap copies. A similar note, which belongs in
Vol. 93 but found its way into Vol. 11, states, “86VII. 310. 31 Sheets. 30 rolls. (Each roll
done up separate.) Binder. Aparimitayuh.” There were indeed thirty rolls in bundle
86.VII, which are now fifty-four numbered booklets in Vol. 93. It is unclear what this
note meant by “31 sheets.” Another note card, now sitting atop the Ap copies stacked
in Vol. 113, reads, in blue ink or crayon, “Ch.73.XV + 79.XIII5 310.” (The “5” in majus-
cule might refer to the number of copies from site number 79.XIII.) Below, in pencil,
“Aparimitayur” confirms that this does in fact pertain to Ap copies, and of course
“310” confirms the pressmark. On the reverse of card, in pencil, we read, “39 Rolls
each roll in a section (Binder).” These latter notes may belong to La Vallée Poussin.
It is unclear what exactly is meant by “each roll in separate lot” or “done up sepa-
rate,” or “each roll in a section.” There is no record of these rolls ever having been
stored separately in over a thousand individual scroll boxes, as was done for the
nearly three hundred Chinese Ap rolls kept at the British Museum. Also, “done up
separate” cannot refer to a one-to-one relationship between rolls and booklets or
sutra copies, since, to use the example of Vol. 93, the eighty-seven Ap copies within
the thirty rolls in bundle 86.VII were bound into fifty-four booklets.
The last of these three notes is curious for the fact that it seems to bear witness
to a group of thirty-nine Ap rolls from bundles 73.XV and 79.XIII, of which we can
only account for four or five.51 The note suggests that a total of thirty-nine Ap rolls
were taken from these two bundles, then collated and assigned continuous roll and
panel numbers for the bindery with the intention that they be kept together in a
volume. However, La Vallée Poussin’s catalogue only lists four rolls for these site
numbers, and no site number in his listing has thirty-nine rolls. It seems that either
the information on this note card is hopelessly confused, or else that these rolls exist
within the collection but have been assigned different site numbers. This would be


51 It is possible that this concerns the site number 79.VIII: in the curator’s note an original “VIII”
in blue was corrected to “XIII” with pencil.
62  Conserving Limitless Life

conceivable for a bundle of forty-one rolls where a curator only numbered the first
and last roll, and where these were separated from the unnumbered mass of rolls
between them. It lines up, albeit only roughly, with the forty-two rolls that ended
up bound as booklets in Vol. 105, where eighteen rolls seem to be from one bundle
(tentatively, 78.VI), and twenty-four from another (tentatively, 78.V). Another alter-
native, that these rolls went missing between the time that they were documented
in Cambridge and London and the time that they were catalogued, is also possible.

1.3.2 Red-and-white curator’s stickers

The 310 pressmark was also assigned to these manuscripts through the application
of red-and-white stickers with designs of hearts at their four corners. These stickers
usually include both the pressmark 310, and the site number. They were typically
stuck onto the verso of the beginning of the first roll in a bundle and the verso of
the end of the last roll in a bundle. As such, these pressmarks and site numbers
were meant to apply to all the manuscripts kept in between them, in the same
manner as the most desultory method of adding site numbers to only the first and
last rolls of a bundle, as described above. Many such stickers include annotations.
Where these annotations give the number of rolls, this is usually in blue pencil or
crayon, probably added by F.W. Thomas. This attention to the number of rolls con-
firms that the stickers were applied prior to binding, when the manuscripts were
still in roll format. On the other hand, some stickers are found on the Kraft paper
spines of the booklets (Fig. 19). However, in these cases the stickers have not been
applied directly to the spines, but were rather stuck to a different piece of paper
that was then peeled and/or cut out and glued to the spine, demonstrating that they
were, like the other stickers, initially stuck onto the manuscripts. Whatever their
precise chronology, the stickers and their annotations furnish important infor-
mation about conservation and cataloguing alongside the site numbers, roll num-
bers, panel numbers, and annotations written onto the manuscripts themselves.
On these stickers and in the notes on curators’ slips conserved alongside these
manuscripts, we often find one curator trying to make sense of another’s work. In
some cases one rectifies another’s errors, and in other cases they introduce new
errors. Only later curators like Ulrich Pagel and Sam van Schaik left dates and
initialed their notes, so we are left to contend with the different color inks and
different hands, as well as the contents of these notes themselves in order to piece
together the order of events. In the case of the fifty-five rolls from bundle 86.X, we
appear to see F.W. Thomas with his blunt blue pencil or crayon trying to make sense
of two sources of confusion. In the first place, there are two red-and-white stickers
 Cataloguing and preparatory work in Cambridge  63

on the verso of the first panel of ITJ 310.245 (Fig. 19), ostensibly the first roll in this
bundle, now kept as the first bound booklet in Vol. 95. One sticker is in the middle
of the page, and the other is glued to the spine of the booklet. There is also a red-
and-white curator’s sticker in the middle of the verso of the first panel of what was
ostensibly the third roll in this bundle, ITJ 310.247 (Fig. 20). About halfway through
ITJ 310.247, on its verso, there is also a rather larger site number in black pen, also
reading 86.X. In the top right corner of each figure below, one can also see the site
number, which is 86.X in both cases.

Figs 19 and 20: Curator’s red-and-white stickers on ITJ 310.245 and ITJ 310.247 (the site number
“86.X” is written in the top right corner of each page); photographed by Lewis Doney, courtesy of the
British Library.

Examining La Vallée Poussin’s roll numbers in pencil in the top margins of the su-
tras’ rectos, the first two rolls are numbered one and two, but then the numbering
begins again, at the third roll, which is numbered one. It then proceeds in order to
fifty-three, but skips forty and forty-one and repeats forty-two and forty-three. The
roll numbering indicates that La Vallée Poussin treated the first two rolls as belong-
ing to a separate bundle. The differing stickers on the versos that are now in the mid-
dle of the first page of each booklet suggest how this may have happened. Namely,
someone – perhaps even La Vallée Poussin – misread the site number 86.X as 80.X,
and errantly labeled and applied the sticker onto the roll that is now ITJ 310.245. As
64  Conserving Limitless Life

a result, it is likely that this roll and the next one, ITJ 310.246, were initially kept
separately from the other fifty-three rolls, and that the “first” of these latter rolls,
now ITJ 310.247, was therefore given the correctly labeled sticker, “86.X.” Thomas
or someone working under him then discovered this error, corrected “80.X” to
“86.X,” and reunited the first two booklets with the fifty-three others from this
bundle. This may have happened as part of the preparations for binding. The stick-
er now on the spine of the booklet ITJ 310.245 (Fig. 21) preserves what is probably
Thomas’s attempt to reckon with the situation.

Fig. 21: Curator’s red-and-white sticker, with blue annotations, on the spine of ITJ 310.245; photo-
graphed by Lewis Doney, courtesy of the British Library.

The blue pencil appears to amend 86.X to “86.X.a” and above this it adds “86 x 2.”
Between the site number and the pressmark “No. 310,” Thomas adds “54” to indicate
the number of rolls, where the four has been retraced over a three for “53.” Thomas
then added, but subsequently struck through, “but wrongly numbered two 2s.” Pre-
sumably he struck this through because there were also two rolls that were num-
bered “one” in addition to two rolls that were numbered “two.” However, this makes
fifty-five, not fifty-four rolls, and he did not strike through “54.” Also, the inter-
vention of creating two site numbers – 86.X and 86.X.a – in response to La Vallée
Poussin’s apparent mistake, was ignored, and does not appear in the catalogue that
Thomas had a role in publishing.

1.4 Binding and cataloguing in London

After La Vallée Poussin’s cataloguing activity during the First World War, the Stein
Collection of Tibetan Dunhuang manuscripts was moved to the India Office Library
 Binding and cataloguing in London  65

at Cannon Row in London. The Tibetan Ap manuscripts were apparently still con-
served as bundles, probably wrapped in papers such as that pictured in Figs 16a
and 16b, when they were transported from Cambridge University Library (and
occasional visits to Ridding’s and La Vallée Poussin’s homes) to the India Office
Library in London.
During the 1920s the India Office Library had hundreds of the Stein manu-
scripts bound into Western-style, cloth- and leather-bound books. Loose leaves and
fragments were gathered and bound, and these bound books’ resulting “pages”
were assigned serial Arabic numerals, either in pencil or typewritten. These books
were called “volumes,” and were numbered one to seventy-three. La Vallée Poussin
– or Thomas and A.F. Thompson, the editors of his posthumous catalogue – refers
to these volumes, in fact, in the survey of site numbers included in the 310 press-
mark, which concludes with “unnumbered fragments bound in vols. 53 and 55.” One
such fragment can be seen below (Fig. 22), with its typewritten pagination and dam-
age along the left margin attesting to its prior binding.

Fig. 22: Pagination and possible damage from binding (upper right) in leather-bound “volumes”;
ITJ 310.1204; image captured by the authors from http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.

Whereas volumes one to seventy-three were bound in large cloth- and leather-
bound books, other manuscripts were not bound in such books. This is clear from
66  Conserving Limitless Life

the concordance at the end of La Vallée Poussin’s catalogue, which once again may
have been F.W. Thomas’s work and that of A.F. Thompson, who prepared the cata-
logue for posthumous publication. The concordance gives the site numbers, press-
marks, and also “locations” of the manuscripts. Its only sentence of preliminary ex-
planation states, “[n]umbers in location column refer to bound volumes, B indi-
cates MSS. separately boxed.”52 Pressmark 310, notably, has “B” as its location. An
undated typewritten inventory compiled by A.F. Thompson, who worked as assis-
tant keeper at the India Office Library in the 1950s and 1960s, provides some further
details. Headed “310: Contents of boxes 1–20,” it lists the site numbers kept in each
of twenty boxes.53 Next to the site number, in parentheses, it gives the number of
rolls in each site number, which in many cases corresponds to a bundle. These cor-
respond closely to those in La Vallée Poussin’s catalogue, but there are a few cases
where Thompson’s inventory provides a number of rolls that was not provided in
La Vallée Poussin’s catalogue. This demonstrates that the Ap copies were still in roll
format when Thompson made her inventory in the late 50s or early 60s.
We have been unable to locate any conservation records or work orders rele-
vant to the rolls’ trips to the bindery. It is certain that the Ap copies were in booklet
format when Sam van Schaik began to catalogue them, as early as 1999. Given the
modern conservationist’s ethic of minimal intervention, our initial assumption was
that these rolls were bound as booklets several decades before this. The use of the
butterfly-bound booklet, a Chinese format, is reminiscent of some of the practices
current during an active period of conservation at the British Museum and the
India Office Library from 1975 to 1982, when conservators were at pains to use Asian
methods.54 However, the information available to us points to a more recent date.
Tsuguhito Takeuchi, who consulted thousands of Tibetan manuscripts at the India
Office Library and at the British Library from 1988 to 1998 for his catalogue, Old
Tibetan Manuscripts from East Turkestan in the Stein Collection of the British Li-
brary, states that the Ap copies were still in roll format at this time: “[t]here are also
a considerable number of uncatalogued rolls, which are mostly Aparimitāyurnāma
sutras.”55 He goes on to state that among the Tibetan texts of the Stein collection from
Dunhuang, “there exist bundles of wrapped scrolls...mostly Aparimitāyur-nāma
sutras.”56 Ulrich Pagel also recalls handling these sutra copies in roll format, and he
made annotations on them as late as April 1997, prior to his departure from the


52 La Vallée Poussin 1962, 289.
53 We are grateful to Sam van Schaik for sharing this inventory with us.
54 Barnard 1996, 17.
55 Takeuchi 1998, vol. 2, xvi.
56 Takeuchi 1998, vol. 2, xx and xx, n. 33.
 Binding and cataloguing in London  67

British Library in June of the same year.57 The clear implication is that the Ap copies
were stored in bundles even after they were numbered in Cambridge and London,
and that they largely remained in boxes (“location B” in La Vallée Poussin’s
concordance), probably for several decades, before being bound. It appears that
binding took place between mid-1997 and 1999, though an earlier date cannot be
entirely ruled out.
During World War II, most of the manuscripts of the Stein Collection were
removed to Yorkshire in order to protect them. After the war, as a result of several
years of work on the part of F.W. Thomas (who died in 1956) and the Assistant
Keeper, A.F. Thompson, La Vallée Poussin’s catalogue was published in 1962. In
1967, the India Office Library moved to Orbit House, an air-conditioned, glass-
walled building at 197 Blackfriars Road in London that included a 4,000 sq. ft. con-
servation department comprising a purpose-built repair room and bindery.58 The
India Office Library’s Stein Collection eventually found its way into the British Li-
brary, which was founded in 1973. This involved some back and forth and another
period of intense conservation and cataloguing activity. The British Library housed
many Stein manuscripts in its “Oriental Collection” (OC), which was moved into Or-
bit House in 1990 and 1991 to merge with the India Office Library’s Stein Collection
in order to form the “Oriental and India Office Collections” (OIOC).59 This merged
collection moved to the British Library in 1998 and in around 2005 became part of
the “Asia, Pacific and Africa Collections.”60
Apart from a few rolls being photographed for microfilm, the bundles of Ap
rolls seem to have gone largely undisturbed up until the 1990s, in preparation for
their being transferred from the India Office Library to the British Library. From
the information in La Vallée Poussin’s and Takeuchi’s catalogues, from A.F. Thomp-
son’s inventory of boxes, and from the statements from Pagel and van Schaik men-
tioned above, it appears likely that it was amidst all of this activity, probably in
1998, that the Ap rolls were bound as booklets.
To transform these rolls of various lengths into booklets of uniform size, con-
servators separated a roll’s panels of paper from one another, folded the resulting
loose leaves in half as bifolios, stacked three to six of these upon one another, and
joined them at the spine with Kraft paper to create a 31.5 ✕ 23 cm booklet. The Dun-
huang papers were attached to the Kraft paper spine with a conservator’s adhesive
such as wheat starch paste. Conservators also used Kraft paper to repair tears and


57 Personal communication, 10 Feb., 2023.
58 Lancaster 1966, 173; Lancaster 1969, 7–8.
59 Takeuchi 1998, xix.
60 British Library 2006, 29.
68  Conserving Limitless Life

damage and to bulk out the margins of those leaves that became uneven when fold-
ed or that measured less than 23 cm wide – thereby making each page in the booklet
lie flush when closed. The rationale behind this intervention – besides a cultural
bias for the codex format – was presumably that these booklets were easier to store
and easier for readers to consult than a rolled-up mass of rolls in dozens of bundles
or than over a thousand separately conserved rolls in their individual scroll boxes.
Curators left one roll, ITJ 310.1, intact, presumably to bear witness to the original
state of these documents. (Three other rolls, ITJ 310.1208, 1209, and 1210, were
unintentionally preserved due to their having been apparently misplaced and then
rediscovered, first in the 1920s and then in the early 2000s.)
Binding these rolls into booklets, the curators created an object with a front
cover and back cover, and with pages and a spine, thereby complicating how schol-
ars and cataloguers describe these objects in light of their previous format as rolls.
In addition, the curators’ and binders’ creation of multiple booklets out of individ-
ual, longer rolls, posed serious problems for cataloguers and how they approached
the relationship between “item” and “text,” or “item” and “manuscript.” The photo-
graphic documentation of a single booklet, ITJ 310.295 (Fig. 23), is helpful for fully
comprehending the transformation of these rolls into booklets.

Figs 23a and 23b: ITJ 310.295, page 1 (cover, originally the verso of the first half of the first panel of
the roll, behind text column a) and pages 2–3 (originally the recto of the first panel of the roll, contain-
ing text columns a and b). Photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
 Binding and cataloguing in London  69

Figs 23c and 23d: ITJ 310.295, pages 4–5 (originally the verso of the second half of the first panel of
the roll, behind text column b, and the verso of the first half of the second panel of the roll, behind
text column c) and pages 6–7 (originally the recto of the second panel of the roll, containing text
columns c and d). Photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.

Figs 23e and 23f: 23f: ITJ 310.295, pages 8–9 (originally the verso of the second half of the second
panel of the roll, behind text column d, and the verso of the first half of the third panel of the roll,
behind text column e) and pages 10–11 (originally the recto of the third and final panel of the roll,
containing text columns e and f); note the colophon with scribes and editors. Photographed by
Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.

Fig. 23g: ITJ 310.295, page 12 (originally the verso of the second half of the third panel of the roll,
behind text column f). Note the Kraft paper spine. Photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the
British Library.
70  Conserving Limitless Life

Despite the changed format, it is possible to clearly see where the conservators sep-
arated the panels of the rolls (Fig. 24).

Fig. 24: ITJ 310.296; photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.

Fig. 25: What appears to be newsprint sucked onto the margin of ITJ 310.266, probably occurring when
conservators unglued its panels; photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
 Binding and cataloguing in London  71

When the rolls were separated, the conservators did not cut the panels, but rather
undid the original glue that had kept them together as rolls for more than a millen-
nium. Whether achieved by humidification or by other means, the process is in-
advertently recorded on the edges of some of the manuscripts. There, newsprint, or
some form of printed text, was apparently sucked up by the ninth-century adhesive
after the panels were decoupled (Fig. 25).61
Now in booklet format, the Ap copies could be more easily stored in red quad-
rangular boxes called “volumes.” These same types of boxes largely replaced the
cloth- and leather-bound “volumes” one to seventy-three, whose leaves were un-
bound and stacked in the replacement boxes. The boxes retained the earlier desig-
nation as “volumes,” and new volumes (that is, new boxes), were created to house
the manuscripts that hadn’t been bound in the cloth- and leather books, including
the booklets of Ap copies.62 These go up to 122, but seventy-five to seventy-nine are
not volumes but booklets, and 123 to 154 are scroll boxes. Looking at the volume
numbers of the boxes in which the Ap copies are now kept, their numbers are al-
most all higher than seventy-three, and they go mostly from eighty-nine to 119. Ad-
ditionally, in the case of Stein’s regular “library bundles,” each “volume” generally
corresponds to what had been a single bundle of rolls. Thus Vol. 93 in Figs 26a and
26b below is in a sense the quadrangular version of what had been bundle 86.VII.
Ap copies are now stacked, up to seventy-nine booklets deep, within such boxes.
Above, when introducing the numerators and denominators that La Vallée
Poussin wrote onto every panel, we described the separation of the three-sutra
roll with site number “73.XI.19” into three booklets of one sutra each, with press-
marks ITJ 310.1149, 1150, and 1151. This instance of binding followed a logic whereby
each pressmark constituted one copy of the sutra. However, this logic of making
one booklet equal one sutra, and thereby equating “item” with “text” such that
three sutra copies equal three pressmarks, is an anomaly, since this is the only
bundle for which the binders separated and bound multiple-sutra rolls with any
attention to their textual contents. More often, binders and conservators split sutra
copies across booklets. Each booklet was then viewed as an item and catalogued
with its own pressmark. As a result, sutra copies – not just a “manuscript” or “item”
in the sense of a roll, but also a “text” in the sense of a copy of the sutra – were split
across pressmarks. The binding of the roll with the site number 73.IX.8, for example,
like 73.XI.19, contained three sutra copies consisting of three panels of paper each.
However, in this case, the binder divided these three sutra copies into two booklets.
The first booklet, ITJ 310.1052, comprises four leaves/ sixteen pages, that is, all of the


61 Examples may be seen in the margins of ITJ 310.266, ITJ 310.279, and ITJ 310.717.
62 Dalton and van Schaik 2006, xix.
72  Conserving Limitless Life

Figs 26a and 26b: Vol. 93, which contains fifty-four booklets bearing the pressmarks ITJ 310.136 to ITJ
310.189; photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.

first sutra copy and the first third of the second copy (“1/8” to “4/8” in La Vallée
Poussin’s roll-and-panel numbering). The second booklet, ITJ 310.1053, comprises
five leaves/ twenty pages, that is, the last two-thirds of the second sutra copy and
the whole of the third copy (“5/8” to “9/8” in La Vallée Poussin’s roll-and-panel
numbering). These two booklets were assigned the pressmarks ITJ 310.1052 and ITJ
310.1053. This, the most common method of binding three-sutra rolls, split a single
roll into two booklets and divided three sutra copies between them. A standard cat-
aloguing practice of providing incipits and explicits of each pressmark would there-
fore do nothing but sow confusion by implying that many of these pressmarks con-
tained incomplete copies of the sutra. Another fairly common practice was to in-
clude two sutra copies in a single, thicker booklet of six leaves/ twenty-four pages.
If the anomalous binding of the rolls with site number 73.XI.19 (Vol. 119) repre-
sents a first attempt at binding, and one that respected the integrity of the sutra
 Binding and cataloguing in London  73

copies, then one can speculate that efficiency came to be increasingly prized in sub-
sequent trips to the bindery, meaning that sutra copies became split across press-
marks as just described, or else were bound two to a booklet. La Vallée Poussin’s
numbering was agnostic with respect to how the binders divided longer rolls be-
tween booklets; these were choices taken decades later at the British Library and/or
the India Office Library in London.

1.4.1 Booklet numbers and cataloguing confusion

The binding of these rolls into booklets instigated the addition of yet another set of
numbers to these manuscripts. These are also in pencil, but whereas La Vallée Pous-
sin’s penciled numbers describe the manuscripts in their state as rolls, the newer
marks in pencil number the manuscripts after they were bound as booklets. This is
most obvious when these numbers appear on the Kraft paper spines of the booklets.
These booklet numbers are sometimes also written on the manuscripts’ panels, usu-
ally in the upper corner of the first column’s verso (first page/ cover of a booklet)
or the corner of the last column’s verso – (last page/ back cover of a booklet).
The booklet numbers are now essential for navigating these sutra copies, since
they effectively stand in for “pressmarks,” e.g. “ITJ 310.190.” The “pressmarks” are
not written on each copy. Rather, one uses the serial booklet numbers within the
booklets stacked in each volume. To consult one of these sutra copies one must
know the volume number in which a copy is kept. One knows, for example, that the
first booklet in Vol. 94 is pressmark ITJ 310.190, that the second booklet is ITJ 310.191,
and so on. In this sense, “ITJ 310” or “ITJ 310.190” is not a pressmark or a shelfmark
in the usual sense, since it does not indicate where one can find a manuscript in a
cabinet or on a shelf. It is rather a cataloguer’s number, and it will not easily permit
one to locate a manuscript without a concordance that gives the volume number
and item number within a volume. The relevant volume numbers, together with site
numbers, and “pressmarks,” are provided in our concordance in Appendix Two.
As with cases of non-correspondence between site numbers and roll numbers
described above, booklet numbers also presented an opportunity to misnumber the
manuscripts back to front. Such is the case for the fifty-five booklets in Vol. 94,
housing what was once the thirty-five rolls of the mixed bundle 86.IX. These book-
lets are numbered one to fifty-five according to the numbers written in pencil on
their front spines, but are also numbered inversely fifty-five to one based on the
numbers on the upper right of the back of each booklet. The numbers on the front
spines follow the same ascending order as La Vallée Poussin’s roll numbers, where-
as those on the versos follow an inverse order. The booklet numbers on the front
74  Conserving Limitless Life

spines are underlined, and these were added by Sam van Schaik when he assigned
pressmarks to these booklets in 2002.63 The inverse booklet numbers on the back
sides of these booklets were probably added earlier, presumably by someone who
numbered the booklets when they were stacked upside-down, and who may have
been ignorant of the direction of writing in Tibetan.
In other cases where we find inverse sets of booklet numbers in a single
volume, neither set can claim to follow the earlier roll numbers. The fifty-one book-
lets in Vol. 111 (bundle 78.XII), for example, now follow the order numbered one to
fifty-one on the spines of their covers, and not the inverse order of fifty-one to one
penciled on their back covers, in the opposite corners. However, in this case the
booklet numbers run roughshod over La Vallée Poussin’s roll numbers. The bundle
consisted of twenty-nine mostly multiple-sutra rolls. Once bound, the booklets were
evidently shuffled out of order, such that if one looks at their roll numbers, these
latter proceed 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 5, 7, 8, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 14, 15, 16, etc., to 29. The booklet
numbers, meanwhile, proceed in an orderly fashion, numbering one to fifty-one,
utterly masking the disorder they have created by so doing. These booklets were
eventually assigned pressmarks based on these errant booklet numbers, a mistake
that probably cannot be undone.
There are further cases where one set of penciled booklet numbers is struck
through and replaced with another set, but where these do not follow an inverse
order. The booklets in Vol. 105 (pressmarks ITJ 1617 to 1665), for instance, have two
sets of numbers on the front of each booklet, with one set on the spine and the other
set, whose numbers are struck through, in the upper right corner. These booklets
were assigned pressmarks based on the set of booklet numbers written on the
spine, which makes the struck-through booklet numbers look like a disordered
jumble. Examining the struck-through booklet numbers, they are in fact a mess.
There are two sets of twelves, thirteens, and fourteens. Worse, the first booklet,
made from a three-sutra roll (now ITJ 1647), is one of the two booklet fourteens, and
the second booklet from the same roll (now ITJ 1648) is booklet twenty. Whoever
wrote the first set of booklet numbers, now struck through, made very obvious
mistakes that the second set of booklet numbers sought to rectify. Alternatively, it
may be that two stacks of booklets were somehow shuffled together. Site numbers
78.V and 78.VI are written on only three rolls, so the site numbers can only do so
much here to remedy the confusion.


63 Personal communication, Sam van Schaik, 11 Sept., 2014. Unfortunately, there is no log book
or similar document that serves as a record of conservation at the India Office Library and at the
British Library.
 Binding and cataloguing in London  75

In other volumes, rolls have either disappeared or been wrongly inserted. In

Vol. 96, for example, a red-and-white sticker mounted on brown paper on the book-
let assigned the pressmark ITJ 310.300 gives the site number “86.XIII.4” and press-
mark “310.” The writing on this sticker is in black ink as usual, but blue pencil adds
“24,” referring to the number of rolls. Only this first roll in the bundle was assigned
a site number. The roll numbering begins at four, proceeding through number
twenty-four. Rolls one, two, and three appear to correspond to three rolls that es-
caped binding, and which were only assigned pressmarks by Sam van Schaik when
he happened upon them in the early 2000s and gave them the last three sub-
pressmarks in the 310 series: ITJ 310.1208, 1209, and 1210. That they belonged to this
bundle is suggested by the fact that they are unedited copies of the A1 version of the
sutra (on which, see below), by the scribes Be Hing tse, Yang Kog cung, and Khang
Btsan bzher – the first two of whom scribed copies in Vol. 96/ bundle 86.XIII, and by
the absence of three other likely candidates among the fifty rolls we have cata-
logued as “other copies and fragments.” If we are correct in assuming that these are
indeed the first three rolls from bundle 86.XIII, then these three copies raise some
further questions. They have no roll or panel numbers, and yet they must have been
present in this bundle for La Vallée Poussin to begin numbering the next roll in the
bundle “4,” rather than “1.”64 Moreover, La Vallée Poussin stated that this bundle
contained twenty-five rolls. This would not be the first time that he was off by one
or two, and F.W. Thomas’s blue pencil rectifies this to “24.” Without its first three
rolls, this number should be “21.” ITJ 310.1208 and 1209 also have curious diagonal
cuts that removed large portions the lower right corners of each roll. Both also
include ink stamps from the India Office Library dated 10 October 1929 (Fig. 27). ITJ
310.1210 has no stamp and its lower right corner was not cut away. When Sam van
Schaik happened upon these rolls in the early 2000s, he added their new press-
marks in pencil adjacent to the stamps, and in the same area on ITJ 310.1210.
Of these three rolls, only ITJ 310.1208 has two site numbers, located in two
places on the verso. One is in black ink, on the top right corner of the end of the
verso, and reads “Chien. 0598”; the other is at the other end of the roll’s verso, in the
opposite corner, in pencil and upside-down, and it appears to read “Chien. 0698.”
The black site number may have been added by Stein himself. “Chien.” as opposed
to “Ch.” was used as a prefix for the 600 or so items that Stein brought back from
his subsequent expedition to Dunhuang in 1914.65 If they are indeed from Stein’s
1914 expedition, then Chien. 0598 is one of the highest numbers in this sequence. It


64 Given that these numbers were written in pencil, it is possible that they were erased.
65 Stein wrote that he brought back 570 rolls, but he may have also included in this site number
an additional forty-six or so items given to him; Terzi and Whitfield 2024, 65.
76  Conserving Limitless Life

is unclear that these site numbers even went as high as Chien. 0698, which renders
the latter number suspect.

Fig. 27: Stamp and pressmark on the verso of ITJ 310.1208; image captured by the authors from
http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.

The absence of stickers, pressmarks, and roll numbers, along with these cuts and
stamps, and the dueling site numbers purporting to be from Stein’s 1914 expedition
on one of the manuscripts but not the others, are all rather mysterious. The date in
the 1929 stamp might suggest that the three rolls were “rediscovered” or returned
to the library at this date after having been mislaid or misappropriated. This could
resolve how they came to be silently accounted for, yet skipped, in La Vallée
Poussin’s and Thomas’s roll numbering, assuming that these are indeed the first
three rolls from bundle 86.XIII. Perhaps it was unclear how to reintegrate them
with the other manuscripts, and someone assumed that at least one of the three
rolls came from the 1914 expedition and therefore assigned it what may have been
the highest available number in that series at that time, i.e. in 1929 after Thomas
had left the India Office Library. This does not resolve exactly how this may have
happened, how they came to be cut, and where they were kept until Sam van Schaik
happened upon them in the 2000s and assigned them pressmarks. That they evaded
binding suggests that they were mislaid at least twice.

1.4.2 Cataloguing work to the present

A cataloguing effort from the late 1990s to the early 2000s produced the current
catalogue, available electronically through the British Library and the International
 Binding and cataloguing in London  77

Dunhuang Programme.66 In preparation for this, Ulrich Pagel, the head of the Tibet-
an collection until summer 1997, went through many of the manuscripts. He left
records of two of his interventions concerning Ap copies. One is found as an annota-
tion to a red-and-white curator’s sticker on the spine of the first booklet in Vol. 118,
pressmark ITJ 310.1083 (Fig. 28). As usual, the sticker gives the site number (in this
case Ch.73.XVI, with a fainter “1-64” added in pencil) and the pressmark (310). There
is also a blue annotation, probably by Thomas, giving the number of rolls as “64.”
Here a large X has been made over the whole sticker in pencil, and “U.P. 30.4.97”
has been added in pencil by Ulrich Pagel, claiming and dating his rejection of this
sticker’s information.67 There is a second red-and-white sticker in the middle of the
front cover, which gives the site number “Ch.73.X.1-38.” This has been left to stand,
and Vol. 118’s thirty-eight booklets of single-sutra copies all bear serial site numbers
73.X.1 to 73.X.38.

Fig. 28: Red-and-white curator’s sticker with Ulrich Pagel’s dated annotations, ITJ 310.1083;
photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.

The inverse, or other half of this intervention is found in an almost identical note
on the red-and-white curator’s sticker on the spine of the second booklet in Vol. 113,
pressmark ITJ 310.971. Here a large X has been made over the whole sticker in


66 <http://idp.bl.uk/> (accessed 13 Sept. 2023).
67 As noted above, Pagel recalls these manuscripts being in roll format when he worked with them.
If this is accurate, then he would have annotated this sticker prior to binding, when it was stuck to
the roll itself. After binding, this, like many other stickers, would have been relocated to the book-
let’s spine.
78  Conserving Limitless Life

pencil, the site number “ch 73.X.1-38” has been crossed out, and another site number
“73.XVI.2” has been left to stand. As before, Pagel helpfully dated his intervention
“30/4/97,” and wrote his initials, “U.P.” Like the rolls in bundle 73.X, the rolls in this
bundle also bear serial site numbers from 73.XVI.1 to 73.XVI.64, so it is not immedi-
ately clear how the rolls or booklets of the one bundle or volume could be mistaken
for those of the other and so mislabeled. Pagel, as noted above, recalls these manu-
scripts still being in roll format when he worked with them. To add to this simple
confusion of swapping the labels of two bundles/ volumes, there is a notecard on
the top of Vol. 113 that states, “Ch.73.XV + 79.XIII 5.” This note, already discussed
above, may be irrelevant to this volume’s contents, given that we have found note
cards in one volume that in fact describe the contents of another volume.
From 1999 to 2002, Sam van Schaik was faced with the task of sorting through
this unruly mass of booklets and fragments, and assigning pressmarks and sub-
pressmarks to each. His most common intervention seems to have been to renum-
ber the booklets when they had been erroneously numbered back to front, perhaps
by binders or staff who were ignorant of the direction of Tibetan writing. He was
also faced with more difficult problems, such as that posed by Vol. 114/ bundle 73.XVII.
As described above, La Vallée Poussin numbered this bundle’s rolls backwards in
relation to the serial site numbers, which proceed Ch.73.XVII.1 to Ch.73.XVII.29. A
note, probably from F.W. Thomas, rests atop the booklets in this volume, and states,
“N.B. 73.XVII now in bundle in Stein order – check Poussin’s pagination if copies are
ever bound!” In this case van Schaik chose to follow La Vallée Poussin, and added
a note alongside F.W. Thomas’s: “changed from Stein’s order to Poussin’s order
(SvS, 7/2/02).”
Cataloguers, curators, and binders made an effort to follow the order of La
Vallée Poussin’s roll numbers, as we have seen in the note about the inverse num-
bers in Vol. 114. For his part, La Vallée Poussin mostly followed the site numbers,
with occasional lapses, as documented above. However, there is no rule that a cata-
loguer’s pressmarks must take account of the manuscripts’ site numbers and the
sequences they record. It is certainly true, for example, that Giles’s numbering of
the Chinese Ap copies largely ignored the sequencing of the site numbers. To take
three site numbers from the same bundle as an example, Giles numbered as 4890,
4891, and 4892 the multiple-sutra-rolls of Ap copies with the site numbers 79.IX.13,
79.IX.20, and 79.IX.4, respectively. These were later assigned pressmarks S.1836,
S.1837, and S.1838. So, while it may be ideal that the pressmarks should reflect La
Vallée Poussin’s roll numbers, which in turn should reflect the site numbers where
they are given serially, this is probably an unrealistic standard. In any case it was
not achieved. What matters most is that the manuscripts have been kept together
 Binding and cataloguing in London  79

and catalogued in a way that preserves the integrity of the bundles, and the rough
equation of volume with bundle has achieved this.
As mentioned already, La Vallée Poussin intended that the roll-format Tibetan
Dunhuang Ap copies should all be given the 310 pressmark. Thus excluded were at
least two Tibetan Ap copies from Dunhuang, ITJ 308 (Fig. 33) and ITJ 478, which are
folia from the same manuscript, and ITJ 309. These are in pothī format and there-
fore were almost certainly not commissioned as part of the sutra-copying project
that produced the thousands of roll-format Ap copies. Sam van Schaik catalogued
1,210 sub-pressmarks within the 310 pressmark, from ITJ 310.1 to ITJ 310.1210. By the
logic that this pressmark was reserved for Tibetan Ap copies in roll format, two
pressmarks in this sequence are miscatalogued: ITJ 310.59 is the Heart Sutra, and
ITJ 310.1207 is an invocation to Amitābha.68 More numerous are Ap copies that were
intended for this pressmark but to which van Schaik assigned separate pressmarks.
These amount to over one hundred Ap copies, including pressmarks ITJ 930, 1234,
1235, 1488, 1489, 1497, 1499–1501, 1569, 1588–1600, 1602–1615, and 1617–1716. The last,
largest group comprises two volumes (105 and 114) that include three bundles of Ap
(78.V, 78.VI, and 73.XVII), and which bear red-and-white stickers with the 310
pressmark, as described above. For whatever reason – perhaps because La Vallée
Poussin did not list them in his catalogue entry – van Schaik did not assign the ITJ
310 pressmark to these Ap copies.
In cataloguing the Tibetan Dunhuang Ap copies, van Schaik faced a difficulty
that cataloguers of the Chinese Ap copies did not. We noted above that Giles made
little effort to follow the sequencing of the site numbers when he assigned numbers/
pressmarks to items in his catalogue. However, Giles and subsequent cataloguers
often had the advantage of cataloguing each item with its own number, whether
that item were a single-sutra roll or a roll of multiple Ap copies, and where that
item’s format had not been transformed by curators’ interventions. Due to the
binding of the Tibetan Ap rolls, however, the equation of “item” – in the sense of
one roll – with pressmark was less straightforward. We noted above that La Vallée
Poussin’s numbering of the rolls was agnostic with respect to how the binders
divided longer rolls between booklets. Similarly, the creation of these new items
(booklets) from old items (rolls) did not mandate that they be catalogued in such a
way as to obscure the relationship between one or more booklets that had previ-
ously been joined in a single roll. This is precisely what happened, however, when
each booklet was catalogued separately with its own pressmark. Their pressmarks
give no indication, for example, that ITJ 310.492 (a booklet containing 1.33 sutra
copies) and ITJ 310.493 (a booklet containing 1.66 sutra copies) were originally the


68 For a translation and discussion of the latter, see Halkias 2013, 75–83.
80  Conserving Limitless Life

same item (roll). The booklet thus replaced the roll not only physically through
binding, but as the fundamental unit by which these sutra copies were catalogued.
Whatever its shortcomings, the cataloguing of the Tibetan Ap copies is what
has made scholars’ requisition and consultation of these manuscripts possible, and
van Schaik is to be applauded for succeeding in assigning pressmarks to this un-
wieldy body of sutra copies where others failed. The decision to bind these rolls as
booklets can be understood as a culturally insensitive and Eurocentric form of con-
servation. At the same time, having spent a decade consulting both Chinese rolls of
Ap copies and Tibetan booklets of Ap copies, we must admit that our multiple con-
sultations of almost 1,500 booklets of Tibetan Ap copies would have taken us even
longer to accomplish if these manuscripts were conserved as rolls. The unrolling
and rerolling of rolls also leads to more wear and damage than does flipping
through a booklet. This is not to endorse the transformation of these rolls into book-
lets, but only to offer something more than a one-sided view of this intervention, and
to acknowledge that it undeniably benefited our (admittedly slow) pace of research.

1.5 Conclusions
We did not set out to write a detailed history of the conservation and cataloguing
of the Stein Collection’s Tibetan Ap copies. Indeed, if that were our intention, then
this sketch of conservation history falls well short, given that there are archival
records in London, Oxford, and Cambridge that might allow for more precision
about the work carried by Ridding, La Vallée Poussin, Thomas, and others. Our
principal aim was rather to document these sutra copies. It was through our
decision to record not just ninth-century data (colophons, explicits, etc.) but also
twentieth-century data (site numbers, roll numbers, curator’s stickers, etc.) that we
came to understand that the latter reveal certain crucial facts about the former.
Most importantly, the bundle emerged as the single most important unit for making
sense of these sutra copies, both in their genesis in Dunhuang, and also in their
subsequent storing, conserving, and cataloguing in London. Our insight into the
meaning of the site numbers that grace the vast majority of Ap copies in the Stein
Collection was critical, and bears recapitulating: a site number such as “78.V.1” in-
dicates the number of the roll (“1”) within a bundle of manuscripts (“V”) that lay
alongside around a dozen other such bundles within a crate (“78”). Once we wid-
ened our gaze to view the Stein Tibetan Ap copies at the level of the bundle, we
perceived twenty-six bundles of Ap rolls split evenly into two types. There were
thirteen bundles of mostly edited copies of the sutra in single-sutra rolls, largely
employing the B1 version of the sutra; and there were thirteen bundles of unedited
copies, often in multiple-sutra rolls, largely employing the A1 version of the sutra.
 Conclusions  81

We discuss these and other versions in Chapter Two, and in Chapter Three we
propose a hypothesis about how these two types of bundles reflect two stages of the
sutra-copying project.
It was through this emphasis on the bundle, and the order of rolls within the
bundle, that we came to perceive some of the rough edges in conservation and cata-
loguing, such as when manuscripts were shuffled or misplaced. The site numbers,
roll numbers, booklet numbers, and annotations left on the manuscripts tell a tale
of many hands at work from 1907 to 2002, not always in agreement with one an-
other. Methods of assigning site numbers ranged from the desultory marking of the
first and last roll in a bundle to the serial numbering of every roll within a bundle.
The latter method is most helpful for us in attempting to move towards compre-
hending the original state of the rolls within their bundles, but it also reveals in-
stances where La Vallée Poussin numbered the rolls backwards. La Vallée Poussin’s
roll numbers similarly lay bare the few cases where, after binding, the booklets
were shuffled and misnumbered.
While these observations are secondary to our main aim of documenting the
sutra copies, they are perhaps valuable for others working with the Stein Collection,
since we have been able to offer some insights into the cataloguing and conserva-
tion processes in London and Cambridge, and to demonstrate how and why certain
site numbers were used. We have worked very much in the same vein as previous
scholars who have taken on the task of making sense of this vast body of sutra
copies, by taking stock of their work, and by trying to make sense of it. The infelici-
ties or mistakes that we have found are surely the result of working with such an
unwieldy body of manuscripts; it was no accident that these sutra copies evaded
cataloguing for so long. The sheer size – and some would say monotony – of this
collection of sutra copies has the disadvantage of seeming to invite errors at all
stages in its life cycle, from scribing and editing in Dunhuang to documenting and
cataloguing in Cambridge and London. Such errors are usually small, though, and
these are outweighed by the advantages that can be gained from looking at the
sutra copies from the vantage point of larger units such as bundles. Our augmented
catalogue makes it possible to navigate the collection by roll number and by site
number, so as to travel back through the history of these sutra copies’ conservation
to see relationships between these manuscripts that have been partly occluded by
their having been bound and catalogued as booklets. Besides bringing together val-
uable data about the Tibetan Ap copies, it also furnishes a cross-section of a signif-
icant body of the Stein Collection, and a window into practices of documentation
and conservation.
2 Transmitting Limitless Life
“I have added a full Apparatus Criticus in order to make it
superfluous in future to compare the manuscripts of this dull text.”
Sten Konow, “The Aparimitâyuḥ Sūtra,” 293–294

The Mahāyāna Sutra of [the Buddha of] Limitless Life is often copied, commissioned,
chanted, and worshipped in order to ensure health and extend life. The sutra em-
phasizes the virtues and benefits that one accrues by copying it, commissioning it,
chanting it, having it chanted, making offerings to it, keeping it in one’s dwelling,
and so forth. These benefits also accrue by writing or hearing the “names” of the
sutra’s central Buddha, who is variously known as Aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-
(tejo)rāja, Aparimitāyus, and Amitāyus. These “names,” sometimes said to number
108, are vaguely understood to reference the dhāraṇī, which is repeated over and
over in the paragraphs of the sutra. In entreating its users, the sutra sometimes
switches between enumerating the benefits of copying the sutra, and enumerating
the benefits of copying the dhāraṇī. This is to blur the line somewhat between the
sutra and the dhāraṇī, or else to see the latter as a synecdoche or a distillation of
the former. Extending this to the sutra’s central Buddha, whose “names” constitute
the dhāraṇī, and who might be considered an embodiment of the dhāraṇī, one ar-
rives at the familiar and loose equation of sutra with Buddha.
Apart from being loosely equated with one another, all three – the Buddha
Amitāyus, the Sutra of Limitless Life, and the dhāraṇī – also have their independent
lives apart from one another. the Buddha Amitāyus joins White Tārā and Uṣṇīṣa-
vijayā as longevity deities,1 and the dhāraṇī or a component of it is transmitted inde-
pendently and in various forms in manuscripts and inscriptions. There are also
various forms of the Buddha Amitāyus and of his dhāraṇī. 2 This sort of fluidity
could be said to extend to the sutra itself. Although it has been “canonized” in the
Tibetan Bka’ ’gyur, even there it is notable for appearing in three versions. These
“versions” are largely identical, but the manuscript record of this sutra shows a
great degree of fluidity with respect to its contents in terms of the number of para-
graphs, the form of the dhāraṇī, and the structure of the verses. This is apparent
from the ninth-century Tibetan and Chinese Dunhuang copies and also from vari-
ous extant Sanskrit manuscripts dating from the fourteenth century to the present.


1 See, for example, Samuel 2012.
2 See the four forms of Amitāyus described in Willson and Brauen 2000, 285–286.
Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550-004
 Transmitting Limitless Life  83

Besides being called on for long life and protection, the sutra, the dhāraṇī, and
the Buddha of Limitless Life are also prescribed in the context of many tantric prac-
tices as a corrective against the dangers that these can pose to one’s well being. This
is especially true of practices such as “transference” (’pho ba), which are thought to
have the potential to reduce one’s lifespan. This is congruent with the more com-
mon appeal to this sutra, this dhāraṇī, and this Buddha on behalf of one’s own flag-
ging health or that of one’s close relatives, lamas, etc. In addition, the purported
benefits are such that it is used not only for the ailing or the aged, but also on behalf
of the deceased to secure for them a pleasant rebirth.
This sutra, dhāraṇī, and Buddha therefore can be said to have an almost univer-
sal appeal, both to the elite tantric practitioner and to the child of a sick or aging
parent, and both to the living and to the dead. Its relative brevity, along with its
injunction to produce more copies in order to spread its benefits and to sanctify
and protect the places where it is copied, recited, and kept, accounts for its ubiquity
across the Buddhist world. Indeed the Sutra of Limitless Life is found in all the lan-
guages of Mahāyāna Buddhism, with new translations being produced right up to
the present day.3
The sutra begins with the obligatory “thus have I heard,” and introduces a
setting in the groves of Anāthapiṇḍada, in the Jetavana in Śrāvastī. There, the Bud-
dha preaches to Mañjuśrī and to the 1,250 assembled monks and bodhisattvas about
the perfected Buddha Aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita(tejo)rāja, who oversees a Bud-
dha realm known as Aparimita-guṇa-saṃcaya. The Buddha preaches the virtues of
writing, copying, reciting, and worshipping the text that praises Aparimitāyurjñāna-
suviniścita(tejo)rāja’s virtues, and of remembering and reciting the 108 syllables of
his name – apparently identical with the dhāraṇī, though, as we shall see, numeri-
cally problematic. Hundreds of millions of Buddhas – in descending numbers from
990,000,000 to 250,000,000 – recite the sutra in unison. The bulk of the sutra then
presents the manifold benefits of copying, sponsoring, keeping, and worshipping
the text. The Buddha enumerates these one after another, with the dhāraṇī
punctuating each one as if to validate and ensure it. Among these benefits, devotees
shall extend their lives to a full span of one hundred years, live free from accident
and untimely death, never be reborn as a woman, or in a lower realm. Further-
more, they shall preserve the teachings of the Buddha, receive absolution from the
most heinous acts, be protected by the four guardian kings, and be reborn in
Amitābha’s pure land of Sukhāvatī. Near its end the text then shifts to verse, dedi-
cating a quatrain to each of the six perfections. The sutra closes with the gathered
multitude either rejoicing at the Buddha’s teaching or else taking it to heart, and


3 For example, Roberts and Bower 2021a; Roberts and Bower 2021b.
84  Transmitting Limitless Life

with a statement that the Aparimitāyur-nāma mahāyāna-sūtra is complete. This may

be followed by a scribal colophon giving the name of the scribe, and, when applica-
ble, an editorial colophon with the name(s) of the editor(s).
Some of the oldest extant copies of this sutra come from Dunhuang, and they
are found in various formats. The sutra is found both on its own and in compila-
tions alongside other texts. Some copies include colophons that reveal the purposes
behind their being commissioned. A pothī-format compilation of texts dedicated to
a councilor named ’Ba Tse syong, for example, which includes a copy of the Tibetan
Ap, has a colophon that reads, “This was commissioned as a ritual service for the
body of the great political councilor and patron ’Ba’ Tse syong. May he be endowed
with all excellent life and vitality!” ($/ /yon bdag chab srid kyi blon po chen po ’ba’
tse syong gi sku rim gror bzhengs gsol pa lags/ tshe dbang thams cad phun sum
tshogs pa dang ldan bar gyur cig/; PT 98, f. 47).4 Another compilation text, in concer-
tina format, also includes a copy of the Tibetan Ap. It was commissioned by the
monk Tru ’hu Rin chen, and its colophon states, “by the power of the merit gener-
ated from creating the [Sutra of] Limitless Life, I pray that my previously deceased
mother and father may be reborn in a higher realm” (tshe dpag myed pzhengs sol/
pa’I sod nams gyis stops gyis . . . (l. 4) pha pha dang/ ma snga raps das pa yang mto
rIs gyi gnas su skye par smon; ITJ 463).5
Such universal concerns as these appealed not only to councilors and monks,
but also to rulers. This, and perhaps the Tibetan emperor’s own health problems,
possibly accounts for the commissioning of thousands of copies of the Sutra of
Limitless Life in both Tibetan and Chinese as a gift for the Tibetan emperor.6 Besides
the individual benefits that it might offer the ailing ruler, the Sutra of Limitless Life,
like the largest Tibetan and Chinese Perfection of Wisdom Sutra copies that were
commissioned for this same Tibetan emperor in the horse year 826, offers collective
benefits through its claims to sanctify and protect the place where it is copied,
recited, or kept. It also claims to benefit those who read or hear its verses, extending
even to animals who hear it recited.7 As such, the sutra might also be understood in
the context of Tibet’s engagement with the more widespread phenomena that are
debated under the rubrics of “state-protection Buddhism” and the “Buddhist cult of
the book.”


4 On the final colophon to this text, see van Schaik 2016, 301–302.
5 Transliterated in Dalton and van Schaik 2006, 208.
6 The Xin Tangshu states that, “during his reign of about thirty years, [he] was sick and unable to
attend to business, and the government was in the hands of the chief ministers”; Bushell 1880, 522;
Pelliot 1961, 133. For a very brief discussion of the issue, see Richardson 1981.
7 This is treated in greater detail in Chapter Three’s discussion of the possible reasons for copying
these sutras.
 Transmitting Limitless Life  85

Rock inscriptions near Jyekundo in eastern Tibet, possibly dating to the first
few decades of the ninth century, give us some idea of how Tibetans understood
the Sutra of Limitless Life. In these rock inscriptions at Leb khog possibly commis-
sioned during the reign of Khri Lde srong brtsan (c.800–815), one finds the dhāraṇī
carved onto a rock wall near images of the Buddhas Vairocana and Maitreya. Below
this, a dedicatory verse offers a candid summary (mdo tsam) of contemporary ideas
about the sutra’s and/or the dhāraṇī’s purpose:

If you recite and [illegible] this mantra, it will extend life and remove sins. The gods will also
protect you. In your next life, you shall not be born in a lower realm, and shall not be born in
female form. You shall be reborn wherever you wish, in the Buddha realm of Aparimita-
guṇa-saṃcaya and so on. You shall obtain the power of recollection of past and future lives.
You shall prostrate and offer to the Buddhas of the ten directions. Reciting this is to recite the
84,000 collections of the dharma. There are indeed many more benefits besides, and here is
written only a summary.

sngags ’dI [x]la[x xx] t[x xx] mchod na/ tshe ring / sdig ’byang/ lhas kyang bsrung bar ’gyur/
[tshe] phyi ma la ngan song du myI skye/ bud med gyi lus su [sk]y[e] myI ’gyur/ / sangs rgyas gyI
zhing yon tan dpag du myed pa stsogs pa dang [x]n s[x] pa gar ’dod [x]r skye ’o/ / tshe snga phyi
dran ba thob par ’gyur/ phyogs bcu’I [xx xx] phyag byas shing mchod par ’gyur/ ’dI plags na
chos kyi phung po stong [phrag brgyad] cu rtsa [b]zhI plags par ’gyur ro/ gzhan yang yo+n tan
mang mod [g]yi/ ’dIr ni mdo tsam brIs so.8

This summary evokes many of the statements found in the Sutra of Limitless Life
itself. As a sort of “digest” of the sutra, this inscription offers us a window into the
concerns of those who carved it and how they understood this mantra/ dhāraṇī to
address these concerns. The foregrounding not only of long life but also of the
“removal of sins” is intriguing in the context of the late Tibetan Empire. It is reminis-
cent of the Buddhist temples that Tibetan generals built after their campaigns, as
part of a process of purification and expiation for the sins of battle.9 In the context
of the thousands of copies of the Sutra of Limitless Life commissioned for the Ti-
betan emperor, it is tempting to see these not only as potentially healing his ailing
body, but also as a salve for the Tibetan Empire’s body politic in the wake of decades
of war that had been paused by treaties in the early 820s with the Tang, Uyghurs,
and Nanzhao.10


8 Based on the rubbing – and in consultation with the transliteration – published in Qinghai Pro-
vincial Institute of Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 2017, 114–115 and in Zhang 2022. See also the
earlier transliteration in Pa sangs dbang ’dus and Don grub phun tshogs 2011, 122–123.
9 See e.g. Kapstein 2009, 45 on the prayers commemorating the construction of De ga g.yu tshal
Temple, found in PT 16 and ITJ 751.
10 For further historical context, see Kapstein 2009.
86  Transmitting Limitless Life

2.1 Versions of Limitless Life at Dunhuang

The Sutra of Limitless Life is a fluid text with a fluid dhāraṇī. This is clear from the
wide degree of variation among the thousands of manuscript copies in Tibetan,
Chinese, and Sanskrit. It is only the inclusion of the sutra in Tibetan and Chinese
canons, and the production of a critical edition in the early twentieth century, that
gives the false impression of a fixed text. The Sutra of Limitless Life is one of the
most ubiquitous Mahāyāna sutras, and has been translated into most of the lan-
guages spoken by Mahāyāna Buddhists. There are two slightly differing Tibetan
canonical versions in the Tibetan Bka’ ’gyur: Toh. 674 (and the nearly identical Toh.
849), and Toh. 675. The former is generally thought to be an eleventh- or twelfth-
century translation from the Sanskrit. Similarly, there are two different Chinese
versions in the Taishō Canon. The first of the two Chinese canonical translations,
T.936, is attributed to Wu Facheng, alias ’Go Chos grub (d. c. 864), the famous Sino-
Tibetan translator who was active in Dunhuang and Ganzhou. However, as pointed
out by Daishun Ueyama, there is no extant colophon that states that Facheng was
the translator, so this attribution appears to be pure speculation.11 The other Chi-
nese canonical version, T.937, whose late-tenth-century translation is attributed to
Fatian, uses a different dhāraṇī and has a significantly different title.12 The dhāraṇī
also has a transmission history of its own, and it can be found inscribed on rock
faces and pillars throughout the Buddhist world. The differing forms of the dhāraṇī,
in concert with the differing versions of the sutra, are part of what makes the trans-
mission of this sutra both fascinating and vexing.
As the earliest extant copies of the complete sutra, the Dunhuang manuscripts
of the Sutra of Limitless Life are central to the study of its transmission. Among the
Dunhuang manuscripts are Khotanese, Chinese, and Tibetan versions of the sutra.
In 1916, Sten Konow made an edition and translation from the Khotanese pothī-
format leaves that were later assigned pressmarks from IOL Khot 60 (Fig. 29) to IOL
Khot 64.13 Konow also produced a Sanskrit edition that drew on four manuscripts
in his critical apparatus. In the same year Walleser published a critical edition and
translation into German from the Sanskrit. 14 Konow also drew on both Tibetan


11 Ueyama 1990, 438.
12 The title specifies that this is a “dhāraṇī sutra”: 佛說大乘聖無量壽決定光明王如來陀羅尼經.
13 The leaves all have the same site number, Ch.XLVI.0015, but are spread over five pressmarks.
IOL Khot 60/1–4: fols. 1–4; IOL Khot 61/1–4: fols. 5–8; IOL Khot 62/1–4: fols. 9–12; IOL Khot 63/1–4:
fols. 13–16; IOL Khot 64/1–4: fols. 17–20; see Skjærvø 2002, 298. Konow also used a leaf of another
manuscript, IOL Khot 56/2, which overlapped from the complete manuscript’s 7v4 to 8r3, in his
edition; Skjærvø 2002, 296.
14 Walleser 1916.
 Versions of Limitless Life at Dunhuang  87

canonical versions of the sutra and on two Tibetan Dunhuang copies as comparan-
da for his edition. Unfortunately, he did not record the site numbers of the Dun-
huang Ap copies, but we have been able to identify one of them based on his de-
scription and our documentation.15

Fig. 29: Folio of Khotanese Dunhuang Ap copy, IOL Khot 60/1; image captured by the authors from
http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.

A second Dunhuang Khotanese copy of the Ap was discovered in a multiple-text

manuscript, S.2471, and Duan Qing completed an edition based on the two copies in
1992.16 Duan dated both to the tenth century, with the pothī-format manuscript be-
ing the later, and found that neither were influenced by the officially produced
Chinese or Tibetan copies from Dunhuang.17 Duan also produced another Sanskrit
“edition” by simply collating those of Konow and Walleser.
In drawing on Tibetan Dunhuang copies of the Ap in his edition, Konow failed
to appreciate that not all copies used the same version of the sutra. In 1962, Akira
Fujieda and Daishun Ueyama noticed while studying Tibetan Ap copies kept at the
Bibliothèque nationale de France that the sutra copies do not all use the same ver-
sion of the dhāraṇī. Some use a longer form, which they dubbed “type A,” and others
use a shorter form of the dhāraṇī, which they referred to as “type B.”18 From the


15 The first copy cannot be identified based on his description, but the second one can be identi-
fied as ITJ 1590. Konow dubs them T1 and T2, and describes each. T1 is apparently an edited, four-
panel, eight-column copy of eighteen lines/ column, with the name Bam Stag slebs in the scribal
colophon. If there is an editors’ colophon Konow did not record it. No manuscript in our survey
matches this description. The closest are ITJ 310.348, which is however unedited, and has seven
columns of nineteen lines/ column, and seven lines on its final column; and ITJ 310.345, which is
edited, but has seven columns of text and nineteen lines/ column. T2 is apparently a three-panel,
six-column copy of nineteen lines/ column with the name ’Go Mdo brtsan in its scribal colophon
and the editors Shin dar, Sgron ma (mistranscribed Ston ma), and Chos brtan (mistranscribed Chos
bdun) in the editors’ colophon. This can only be ITJ 1590. See Konow 1916, 294–295.
16 Duan 1992.
17 Duan 1992, 21.
18 Fujieda and Ueyama 1962, 354–355.
88  Transmitting Limitless Life

1990s to the present, several scholars have attended to the Chinese and Tibetan
Dunhuang copies of the sutra, and have found differences not only in the dhāraṇī,
but also in the sutra itself. 19 Fang Guangchang’s catalogue of Dunhuang manu-
scripts kept at the National Library in Beijing, for example, identifies the most com-
mon Chinese version of the sutra at Dunhuang, identical with T.936, as “version A”
(甲本). Apart from this, there is an “alternative version A” (異甲本, represented by,
e.g. BD03334) and a “version B” (乙本, represented by, e.g. BD06348).20 We discuss
these below in our typology of different Chinese, Tibetan, Sanskrit, and Khotanese
versions of the sutra.
The vast majority – but not all – of the Tibetan copies of the sutra from Dun-
huang represent just one version of the text. That is to say, they have the same
structure, and have nearly identical language. Only their dhāraṇīs differ in being
either type A or type B. However, there are some rare Tibetan versions from Dun-
huang with different structures and/or different language. Given the predominance
of the one version, and inheriting Fujieda and Ueyama’s terminology, which has
been adopted by subsequent scholars, we refer to this dominant Tibetan version as
“A1” and “B1,” where the letter indicates the dhāraṇī and the number indicates the
version of the text based on its structure. We explore five types of the dhāraṇī be-
fore discussing five versions of the sutra. These are in no way exhaustive, and our
typology is specific to our sample.
As comparanda, we consider inscriptions and paper copies of the sutra, often
in other formats, that were not among those copied as a gift for the Tibetan emperor
in the 820s. We bracket translations into other languages such as Tangut, and draw
sparingly on existing Sanskrit and Khotanese editions. The Sanskrit “editions,” in
particular, are highly problematic, and should not be taken to represent a unitary
Sanskrit “version” of the text against which to compare Tibetan, Chinese, and
Khotanese versions. Konow’s editio princeps relied on four manuscripts, none older
than the seventeenth century, all of which were in fact copied for him by Hoernle.21
Three of the four were held in the Cambridge University Library and closely agreed,
with only a Nepalese paper manuscript (Konow’s “B”) offering significant variant
readings. Walleser’s ‘edition’ is largely based on a single manuscript, possibly da-
ting to the seventeenth century, which he purchased in Darjeeling, and which is


19 The most recent and lucid of these studies is Zhang 2022.
20 Fang 2013. See also Zhang 2022, 716–717.
21 These are 1) No. B. 38 in the collection of the Asiatic Society of Bengal in Calcutta; 2) MS Add.
1277 at Cambridge University Library, dated to the seventeenth or eightenth century; 3) MS Add.
1385 at Cambridge University Library, dated to 1659 CE; 4) MS Add. 1623 at Cambridge University
Library, dated to 1700.
 Versions of Limitless Life at Dunhuang  89

very similar to the Cambridge manuscripts used by Konow. Walleser drew lightly
on, but apparently did not have access to, the Nepalese manuscript that Konow
called “B,” and in his edition he emended the Sanskrit based on readings in the Ti-
betan canonical versions. Duan, as mentioned above, simply collated Konow’s and
Walleser’s editions. While useful as points of reference, none of these “editions”
form a firm foundation upon which to make any conclusions about the transmis-
sion of the sutra in Sanskrit. A cursory perusal of a few other Sanskrit manuscript
versions, none of which pre-date the thirteenth century, is sufficient to reveal the
hubris in Konow’s proclamation in this chapter’s epigraph that he had effectively
closed the book on this sutra.
These thousands of sutra copies are, as ever, unwieldy, and new discoveries
and old oversights will probably continue to emerge. This has as much to do with
the difficulties these sutra copies pose to researchers as it does with the difficulties
they posed to the ninth-century translators, scribes, and editors, whose context in
Dunhuang may have produced the different versions of the sutra that we examine
here. We describe the state of affairs by attending first to the dhāraṇī, then to the
structure and content of the sutra in its various Dunhuang versions. In doing so, we
foreground the ninety-nine percent of Tibetan copies in roll format, nearly all of
which were commissioned for the Tibetan emperor, and draw sparingly on the
Chinese copies, also in roll format, also commissioned for the emperor. As such, this
is by no means an exhaustive study, but only a contribution to the early transmis-
sion and translation of the sutra during the first half of the ninth century, with
occasional glances forward into Tibetan and Chinese canonical versions.

2.1.1 Types of the dhāraṇī of the Buddha of Limitless Life

We use the term dhāraṇī to refer to the string of Sanskrit syllables that is repeated
scores of times in this sutra. Such spells are relevant to the categories of mantra
and vidyā, and they go back at least two thousand years in Indian religious tradi-
tion.22 In ninth-century Dunhuang, people referred to this string of syllables as an
incantation/ spell (zhou 咒), a mantra (sngags), and a dhāraṇī (tuoluoni). Text in-
ternally, the Tibetan Dunhuang versions of the Sutra of Limitless Life refer to these
syllables as the names (mtshan) of the Buddha Amitāyus and as “mantric verses”
(sngags gyi tshigs). The dominant Chinese version precedes each instance of these
syllables with the phrase, “the dhāraṇī says” (tuoluoni yue 陀羅尼曰). A variant
Chinese version (S.147, BD03334) refers text-internally to the sutra as the “Dhāraṇī


22 See Davidson 2009.
90  Transmitting Limitless Life

of Limitless Life” (Wuliangshou tuoluoni 無量壽陀羅尼), and at least one copy of the
dominant Chinese version (S.4061) bears the end title Essential Dhāraṇī Sutra of
Limitless Life Spoken by the Buddha (Foshuo dasheng wuliangshou zongyao tuoluoni
jing 佛說大乘無量壽宗要陀羅尼經). The Ldan dkar ma Catalogue of Buddhist
translations kept at the Tibetan court in the early ninth century most likely refers
to the sutra as the Dhāraṇī of Limitless Life (Tshe dpag tu med pa’i gzungs), which it
catalogues in the section for “dhāraṇī [texts] of various sizes.”23 In all of this we can
observe a fluidity on the one hand between dhāraṇī and sutra, and on the other
hand between dhāraṇī, mantra, spell, and the names of a Buddha.24 Our choice of
the term dhāraṇī in not intended to deny this fluidity, but rather to recognize that
it informs and is informed by a ritual arena in which there is an intentional slippage
between invocation, text, and Buddha.
As a result of Fujieda and Ueyama’s classification of the Dunhuang Ap copies
based on the longer and shorter types of the dhāraṇī as A and B, respectively, the
form of the dhāraṇī has taken priority in classifying Dunhuang copies of this sutra.
While this might seem to put the cart before the horse, so to speak, this is also true
of the later transmission of the two canonical Tibetan versions of this sutra, which
are distinguished also by their differing dhāraṇīs: Toh. 675, with its shorter dhāraṇī
containing two occurrences of the syllable “Oṁ,” is known in Tibetan Buddhist
tradition as the “two-Oṁ version,” whereas Toh. 674 (and the largely identical Toh.
849) with its longer dhāraṇī is known as the “three-Oṁ version.”25 The structure and
contents of the two “versions” are otherwise largely identical, and we therefore
classify them below as representing the same version (version five) of the text using
two different “types” of the dhāraṇī (types C and E). Various forms of the dhāraṇī
also circulated on their own in manuscripts and inscriptions.
Turning to the Tibetan and Chinese Ap commissioned for the Tibetan emperor,
versions of the sutra with type-A or type-B dhāraṇīs constitute over ninety-nine
percent of the Tibetan Dunhuang copies. These two main types of the dhāraṇī are
given below, where the numbers of syllables are counted based on the Tibetan,
which does not perfectly coincide with the Sanskrit it phoneticizes. These numbers
of syllables are approximations, and are complicated by how one counts long vow-
els and certain consonant clusters. The syllables that differ between the types of
dhāraṇīs are underlined.


23 Lalou 1953, 327; no. 350; see also Herrmann-Pfandt 2008, 199–201.
24 See also the discussion in Hidas 2015, 129. The term incantation/ spell (zhou 咒), is similar to
dhāraṇī in that it can be understood to refer to the entire text of a sutra: as noted by Allan Ding, the
Chinese Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra refers to itself as the king of spells (zhou); Ding 2019, 675.
25 For discussion, see Roberts and Bower 2021a, i20 forward.
 Versions of Limitless Life at Dunhuang  91

Type-A dhāraṇī in sixty-seven syllables: 26 namo bhagavate aparimitāyujñānasuviniścita-

rājāya tathāgataya tadyathā oṁ sarvasaṁskārapariśuddha dharmate gaga-ṇasamudgate
svabhāvaviśuddhe mahānāyaparivāre svāhā

Type-B dhāraṇī in fifty-one syllables:27 namo bhagavate aparimitāyujñānasuviniś-citarājāya

tathāgataya oṁ sarvasaṁskārapariśuddha dharmate mahānāyaparivāre svāhā

The main differences are clear: type A places tadyathā in the middle, at the begin-
ning of the “second half” of the dhāraṇī. For type B, tadyathā normatively appears
at the start of the dhāraṇī only in its first appearance in the sutra; subsequent repe-
titions of the dhāraṇī in the same sutra begin with namo. The biggest difference
between the two is the absence in type B of gagaṇasamudgate svabhāvaviśuddhe
between dharmate and mahānāya.
Some variations in types A and B exist, to which we have assigned sigla. These
sigla mainly relate to the presence or absence of tadyathā. Where a sutra uses type
A, but the first dhāraṇī begins with tadyathā (as if it were type B, whose first dhāraṇī
customarily begins with tadyathā), we refer to this as “A+” to indicate this deviation
from the norm. In contrast, “A-” means that a copy using type A omits tadyathā in
the middle of the dhāraṇī after tathāgataya. Where a sutra using type B adds
tadyathā in the middle after tathāgataya (as if it were type A), we refer to this as
“B+.” Should a sutra using type B omit tadyathā at the start of the first dhāraṇī, we
refer to it as “B-.” These variants of type B are rare, but A+ dhāraṇīs are common.
All of these variants of type A and type B can be explained by the circumstances
in which the same scribes who produced sutra copies with the type-A dhāraṇī also
produced sutra copies with the type-B dhāraṇī. In extreme cases, this resulted in a
scribe using both types A and B in a single sutra copy (see e.g. ITJ 310.135 or Dy.t.170).
Such a sutra with mixed dhāraṇīs does not constitute a discrete “version” of the
sutra in the sense that we define versions, since there is no structural difference in
their contents. It is rather the product of the fact that these sutra copies were scribed
during a time when neither the sutra nor the dhāraṇī had settled into a standardized
version, and where some scribes appear to have lost track of which dhāraṇī they
were meant to be inserting.28 In fact, there are even copies of the sutra in which an
editor’s pen has inserted tadyathā and gagaṇasamudgate svabhāvaviśuddhe in order


26 On the first appearance of this dhāraṇī in a sutra, it sometimes begins with tadyathā, making
seventy syllables.
27 On the first appearance of this dhāraṇī in a sutra, it customarily begins with tadyathā, making
fifty-four syllables. Subsequently, it omits tadyathā.
28 By contrast, Xia Wucuo 夏吾措 / Shawu Tso and Sanji Dongzhi 桑吉东知 / Sanggye Dundup
classify such a sutra with both type-A and type-B dhāraṇī, e.g. Dy.t.170, as “version C”; Xia Wucuo
and Sanji Dongzhi 2021.
92  Transmitting Limitless Life

to transform a type-B dhāraṇī into a type-A dhāraṇī.29 Such is the case in ITJ 310.5. It
is also true of PT 3618 (Fig. 30), where the editor, Cang Tsi dam, has corrected the B1
sutra copy scribed by ^An Dge brtan so that it may serve as an A1 exemplar for
another scribe, Cang Legs rtsan.

Fig. 30: Editor’s corrections of the type-B dhāraṇī into a type-A dhāraṇī, PT 3618; image captured by
the authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

One additional variant that is worth mentioning occurs in ITJ 310.1, a copy commis-
sioned for a private individual. This uses the type-A dhāraṇī, but adds tejo: su bi ni
ci ta te tso ra tsa ya.
Turning to the types of the dhāraṇī in Chinese Dunhuang copies of the Ap, we
find a similar picture. Again, more than ninety-nine percent of the copies represent
a single version of the sutra, which we refer to below as version five.30 Unlike the
Tibetan copies, where A1 and B1 are copies of the same sutra with different dhāraṇīs,
the vast majority of the Chinese copies use only one type of dhāraṇī. This is the type-
A dhāraṇī, which comprises seventy-two Chinese characters that are in most cases
divided into fifteen units, marked off by blank space and/or by numbers, one to
fifteen. In almost every case the dhāraṇī is preceded by the phrase, “the dhāraṇī
says” (tuoluoni yue 陀羅尼曰).

[1] 南謨薄伽勃底 [2] 阿波唎蜜哆 [3] 阿喻紇硯娜 [4] 須毘儞悉指陀 [5] 囉佐耶 [6] [6] 怛他羯
他耶 [7] 怛姪他唵 [8] 薩婆桑悉迦囉 [9] 鉢唎輸底 [10] 達磨底 [11] 伽迦娜 [12] 莎訶某持迦底
[13] 薩婆婆毘輸底 [14] 摩訶娜耶 [15] 波唎婆唎莎訶

The corresponding Sanskrit of this type-A dhāraṇī, retaining the Chinese parsing
into fifteen units, is as follows:


29 Xia and Sanji discuss this and reproduce an image of the relevant sutra copy, Db. t. 0182 in Xia
Wucuo and Sanji Dongzhi 2021, 62.
30 This is the version corresponding to T.936 and to “version A” in the National Library of China’s
catalogue.
 Versions of Limitless Life at Dunhuang  93

Chinese Type-A dhāraṇī:

namobhagavate aparimita ayujñāna suviniścita rājāya tathāgataya tadyathā-oṁ sarvasaṁ-
skāra pariśuddhe dharmate gagaṇa samudgate svabhāvaviśuddhe mahānāya pari-vāresvāhā

There are a few Tibetan Ap copies whose dhāraṇīs are similarly parsed into fifteen
units, set off by punctuation (shad) rather than by numbers or spacing. Among
these are ITJ 310.320 and ITJ 310.914, which both include type-A dhāraṇīs. There are
also example of the type-B dhāraṇī in a Tibetan Ap copy being divided into twelve
units, at ITJ 310.98 and ITJ 310.134. This fits the Chinese parsing, since gagaṇa
samudgate svabhāvaviśuddhe are the three groups missing from the type-B dhāraṇī,
from the perspective of type A. These are intriguing examples of textual practices
associated with the copying of the Chinese sutra being applied to the production of
Tibetan copies.
As with the Tibetan copies, the Chinese copies also include different types of
the dhāraṇī, as well as some errant ones. We find the type-B dhāraṇī in S.147, a
damaged Ap copy missing its first fifteen paragraphs.31 The end title, Wuliangshou
jing yi juan (Sutra of Limitless Life in One Roll), differs from the usual end title
Foshuo wuliangshou zongyao jing. The units of the dhāraṇī are separated by spaces
and not by numbers, and the phrase “the dhāraṇī says” is absent.

Chinese type-B dhāraṇī in fifty-four syllables: 怛姪他 南谟薄伽薄底 阿波利蜜多 阿喻也

那 须毗你只多 啰左耶 怛他枿多耶 唵 萨婆僧塞羯啰 波利输䭾 达摩底 摩诃衍
那 波唎 跋隸 莎诃

This type of the dhāraṇī is also parsed into fifteen groups based on the spacing, as
if it were aware that this was the customary way to group the dhāraṇī’s syllables in
the more dominant type-A dhāraṇī. However, this is only achieved by a highly idio-
syncratic parsing: oṁ stands on its own, and parivāresvāhā is split into three groups
of two syllables each. The Sanskritized version below lays bare the strangeness of
this parsing:

Chinese type-B dhāraṇī: tadyathā namobhagavate aparimita ayujñāna suviniścita rājāya

tathāgataya oṁ sarvasaṁskāra pariśuddhe dharmate mahānāya pari vāre svāhā

Even where it overlaps with type A, one notes that type B uses concision to convey
the same Sanskrit syllables in fewer Chinese characters.
Apart from idiosyncratic instances of errant type-A and type-B dhāraṇīs that
omit or misspell a syllable or two, and which thus do not rise to the status of in-
dependent types of the dhāraṇī, we discovered in the Tibetan Dunhuang copies a


31 Zhang 2022, 715. This has been miscatalogued as the Sukhāvatīvyūha sūtra (T. 366).
94  Transmitting Limitless Life

longer type of the dhāraṇī, which we dub “type C.” We have identified type C in
three complete sutra copies, ITJ 310.645 (Fig. 54), 310.646, and 310.651. All of these
sutra copies are attributed in their colophons to the prolific scribe Se thong pa. The
scribe Se thong pa, incidentally, is credited as scribe of several copies of version A1,
and one copy of B1 in our corpus, which is to say that he scribed sutra copies with
three types of dhāraṇīs. Type C is also found in fragments ITJ 790, ITJ 1499, and ITJ
1501, the latter two probably being parts of a single copy of Ap.32 This dhāraṇī can
also be identified in a fragment of a roll from Mīrān, Or.15000/271, whose mise-en-
page does not match that of the official copies from Dunhuang.33 The syllables that
differ between type A and type C are underlined.

Type-C dhāraṇī in seventy-eight syllables: namo bhagavate aparimitāyujñānasuviniścita-

tejorājāya tathāgatāyārihate samyaksaṁbuddhāya tadyathā oṁ sarvasaṁskārapariśuddha
dharmate gagaṇasamudgate svabhāvaviśuddhe mahānayaparivāre svāhā

Fig. 31: Type-C dhāraṇī as the “heart incantation of Amitāyuḥ” in a short dhāraṇī text from Dunhuang,
PT 4065; image captured by the authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque
nationale de France.

The type-C dhāraṇī also appears in a short Dunhuang text consisting of three
dhāraṇīs, PT 4065 (Fig. 31). The first of these is to Śākyamuni, and the second is to


32 ITJ 1499 consists of three panels and four columns, but is torn. ITJ 1501 appears to be the missing
middle panel of the same sutra copy. For ITJ 790, see Dalton and van Schaik 2006, 329.
33 This bears the number Tak 372 in Takeuchi 1998, 122.
 Versions of Limitless Life at Dunhuang  95

Amitāyus. The text refers to the Amitāyus dhāraṇī as the ^a ’byi ta wur ’sim ji’u, the
“heart incantation” (xin zhou 心咒) of Amitāyus.
The title of this dhāraṇī is notable for its similarity to that of the “Essence of
Ārya Aparimitāyus” (Tshe dpag med kyi snying po; Toh. 673a), a very short text in
the Tibetan Bka’ ’gyur that similarly consists only of a dhāraṇī. However, the latter
text’s dhāraṇī comprises solely of the textual unit that would come to be inserted
into the middle of type-E version the dhāraṇī, and which is also found in the Sarva-
durgatipariśodhana tantra: oṁ puṇye puṇye mahāpuṇye aparimitāyur-puṇyajñāna-
saṃbharopacite svāhā.34
The type-C dhāraṇī, and in fact the Tibetan version of the sutra in which the
dhāraṇī is customarily found (version five), coincides more closely with that found
in the Khotanese Dunhuang version, which is of course later. One small difference,
suggested by the transcription, is that the Khotanese version uses the form Apara-
mitāyuḥ instead of Aparimitāyuḥ. However, this is a mirage: the late-Khotanese
vowel system had become impoverished, such that there is no meaningful distinc-
tion between Aparamitāyuḥ and Aparimitāyuḥ.35

Khotanese type-C dhāraṇī in seventy-eight syllables: namau bhagavate aparamitāya-jñāna-

suviniścita-tejau-rājaya tathāgatāyarhite samyak-sabuddhāya tadyathā aum sarva-saṃskāra-
pariśuddha-dharmate gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhi mahānaya-parivare svāhā

A few Chinese Dunhuang Ap copies employ the type-C dhāraṇī. A most intriguing
example is kept at the National Library in Beijing with the pressmark BD03334.
After the tenth paragraph, the text omits the dhāraṇī, but leaves three lines of blank
space for it to be written in. The result is the bare bones of the text, to which should
be added the flesh of the dhāraṇī iterations. Writing of this in the context of scribal
practices, Costantino Moretti suggests that it is evidence of a practice whereby a
separate scribe would write the dhāraṇī after the first scribe wrote the body of the
text.36 The dhāraṇī itself is in nineteen units, and is not preceded by the phrase “the
dhāraṇī says.”

Chinese type-C dhāraṇī in eighty-three syllables: 南谟薄伽跋帝 阿波唎蜜多 阿喻纥砚那

须鼻你失只多 帝祖罗左耶 怛他竭多耶 阿罗诃羝 三藐三勃䭾耶 怛姪他 唵 萨婆
桑塞迦啰 波唎输䭾 达麽羝 伽迦娜 娑呣特羯羝 莎皤婆毗秫提 摩诃那耶 波唎跋
隸 莎诃


34 Roberts and Bower 2021c, i.5–6.
35 We are indebted to Ruixuan Chen for this observation.
36 Moretti 2021, 310–311.
96  Transmitting Limitless Life

The Sanskrit equivalent, retaining the Chinese parsing, is namobhagavate aparimita ayujñāna
suviniścita tejorājāya tathāgatāya arahate samyaksaṁbuddhāya tadyathā oṁ sarvasaṁskāra
pariśuddhe dharmate gagaṇa samudgate svabhāvaviśuddhe mahānāya parivāre svāhā

At least one other Chinese Dunhuang Ap copy, BD06348, also uses the type-C
dhāraṇī, with only minor syllabic differences from that in BD03334.37 These copies
are also interesting for their variant contents, which are discussed below.
Looking beyond Dunhuang to the two later, canonical Tibetan versions of the
sutra, the type-C dhāraṇī is transmitted in the so-called “two-Oṁ version” in Toh.
675. The only difference is that it begins with Oṁ.

Toh. 675’s Type-C dhāraṇī in seventy-nine syllables: oṁ namo bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-

suviniścitatejorājāya tathāgatāyārhate samyaksaṃbuddhāya tadyathā oṁ sarvasaṃskārapa-
riśuddha dharmate gaganasamudgate svabhāvaviśuddhe mahānayaparivāre svāhā

Our discovery of the type-C dhāraṇī in a few Tibetan Dunhuang manuscripts could
constitute something like the missing link in the Tibetan transmission of the
dhāraṇī, since the main Dunhuang types, A and B, are shorter than the Tibetan
canonical types, whereas type C is the likely ancestor of the “two-Oṁ version” in
Toh. 675. As we will see, this may also hold true for the Tibetan Dunhuang version
of the sutra that employs the type-C dhāraṇī.
We find another type of the dhāraṇī in a 6.3 ✕ 28 cm pothī-format leaf of Ap
from Dunhuang, PT 4071 (Fig. 32). This dhāraṇī stands in relation to type C precisely
as type B stands in relation to the longer type A. As such, we call it type D.

Type-D dhāraṇī in sixty-three syllables: namo bhagavate aparimitāyujñāna suviniścitatejorā-

jāya tathāgatāyārahate samyaksaṁbuddhāya oṁ sarvasaṁskārapariśuddha dharmate mahā-
nayaparivāre svāhā

This represents a middle ground between B and C. Like C, it includes tejo and the
longer unit arahate samyaksaṁbuddhāya, and like B it omits tadyathā in the middle
and gagaṇasamudgate svabhāvaviśuddhe near the end.
The Leb khog inscription, discussed above as a summary of the sutra, includes
what can be understood as a variant of the type-D dhāraṇī. Once again, it is presented
based on the published rubbing and with the aid of Zhang Changhong’s transcription.

Leb khog Inscription dhāraṇī in sixty-eight syllables: tadyathā namo bhagavate aparimitāyu-
jñānasuviniścitatejorājāya tathāgatāyārahate samyaksaṁbuddhāya oṁ sarvasaṁskārapari-
śuddha dha[rma]te gā[gaṇa] mahānayaparivāre svāhā


37 Zhang 2022, 717 and 720–723.
 Versions of Limitless Life at Dunhuang  97

Fig. 32: Leaf from a pothī-format copy of Ap, PT 4071, with type-D dhāraṇī; image captured by the
authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

This departs from type D only by appearing to include gāgaṇa, though in the rub-
bing only gā is legible.
This type of the dhāraṇī is somewhat comparable to that found in the Batu Bedil
stone inscription on Sumatra, possibly dating to around 900. It is heavily damaged,
and the transcription relies on Arlo Griffiths’s reconstruction. 38 In brackets we have
added what we suppose might be the missing text.

Batu Bedil Inscription dhāraṇī in circa seventy-three syllables: namo bhagavate aparimitāyur-
jñānasuviniścitatejorājāya tathāgatāyārhate sa-[myaksambuddhaya tadyata Om sarva sam-
skara-parisuddha dharmate] svabhāva pariśuddhe mahānayaparivāre svāhā

Alternatively, this dhāraṇī might, like the Leb khog Inscription’s, omit tadyata/ tad-
yathā from the middle, and include gāgaṇa; this or our above reconstruction is
possible given the available space of about twenty-one missing syllables in the three
illegible lines in the middle of the dhāraṇī. This dhāraṇī’s main difference from the
other types is its phrase svabhāvapariśuddhe mahānaya where one expects svabhā-
vaviśuddhe mahānaya.39 This variant is also found in some Sanskrit versions.
The history of this dhāraṇī appears to be one of expansion, such that it became
longer over the centuries. One of the passages of the sutra appears to suggest that the
dhāraṇī – insofar as it represents the 108 names of the Buddha Aparimitāyurjñāna-
suviniścita(tejo)rāja – should be 108 syllables – actually akṣaras – long. At least this
is how it was understood at some point, since a (nearly) 108-syllable dhāraṇī is
found in later Sanskrit versions.


38 Griffiths 2014, 152–155.
39 Griffiths 2014, 153–154, n. 54, mentions a few relevant variants from Chinese versions of the
dhāraṇī, namely that whereas the canonical versions at T. 936 and T. 937 read svabhāvaviśuddhe,
the dhāraṇī at T. 1389, the Wuliangshou dazhi tuoluoni 無量壽大智陀羅尼 “Dhāraṇī of the Great
Knowledge of Aparimitāyus,” reads svabhāvaśuddhe. The pari in pariśuddhe is Griffith’s recon-
struction.
98  Transmitting Limitless Life

The oldest extant nearly complete copy of which we are aware is a palm leaf
manuscript kept at Cambridge, MS Or. 153, which has been variously dated from
the twelfth to fourteenth century. This may represent the earliest instance of what
would become the dominant form of the dhāraṇī in Nepal and Tibet, which we call
type E. It is underlined where it differs from type C.

Type E dhāraṇī in 108 syllables: oṃ namo bhagavate aparimitāyurjñānasuviniścitatejorājāya

tathāgatāyārhate samyaksaṃbuddhāya || tadyathā oṁ puṇya puṇya mahāpuṇya aparimita-
puṇya aparimitapuṇya jñānasaṃbhāropacite | oṃ sarvasaṃskāra pariśuddhadharmate
gaganasamudgate svabhāvaviśuddhe mahānayaparivāre svāhā40

This longer form of the dhāraṇī expands on type C through the insertion of the unit
oṁ puṇya puṇya mahāpuṇya aparimitapuṇya aparimitāyuhpuṇya jñānasambhāro-
pacite, which brings the dhāraṇī close to 108 syllables. This latter unit, as noted
above, stands on its own as the “Essence of Ārya Aparimitāyus” (’Phags pa tshe dpag
du med kyi snying po) in the Tibetan Bka’ ’gyur (Toh. 673a).41 This same unit is also
found in the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana tantra in association with the mandala of
Aparimitāyus.42
The type-E dhāraṇī is also found in Walleser’s Sanskrit edition, and it agrees
with that found in the Ap copy in the eighteenth-century Sanskrit Dhāraṇīsaṅgraha
transcribed by Hidas.43 It is also the same as the dhāraṇī found in a concertina of
multiple Sanskrit texts in Rañjanā script printed in Beijing in the fifteenth or six-
teenth century, BnF sanscrit 1815.44 It may be that this form of the dhāraṇī became
dominant in the early second millennium, such that it was current when Tibetans
produced a new translation of the sutra in the eleventh or twelfth century. It is in-
deed the form of the dhāraṇī found in Toh. 849 in the dhāraṇī compendium section
of the Bka’ ’gyur. A variant form of the dhāraṇī, which omits aparimitapuṇya,


40 We are grateful to Allan Ding for this transcription.
41 Roberts and Bower 2021c, i.5–6.
42 Roberts and Bower 2021c7; Roberts and Bower 2021a, i.14. Griffiths 2014, 154, n. 54, points out
that a further dhāraṇī split into two in the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana uses many of the same textual
units (here underlined) as the Aparimitāyuḥ dhāraṇī: oṁ namo bhagavate sarvadurgatipariśodhana-
rājāya tathāgatāyārhate samyaksambuddhāya tadyathā oṁ śodhane śodhane sarvapāpaviśodhani
śuddhe viśuddhe sarvakarmāvaraṇaviśodhani svāhā mūlavidyā oṁ sarvasaṁskārapariśuddhe
dharmate gaganasamudgate svabhāvaviśuddhe mahānayaparivāre svāhā; see also Skorupski 1983,
27–30. As noted by Roberts and Bower, there are Tibetan apologetics against the notion that the
type E (the “three-Oṁ version”) was created by inserting this long unit (oṁ puṇya puṇya [...]);
Roberts and Bower 2021b, i.29 and following.
43 Ms. Add. 1326; Hidas 2021, 100–106.
44 We are grateful to Allan Ding for a discussion of this manuscript.
 Versions of Limitless Life at Dunhuang  99

occurs in Toh. 674 in the sutra section of the Bka’ ’gyur. Both versions of the sutra
are known equally in Tibet as the “three-Oṁ version,” which is by far the most pop-
ular version in Tibet.45
We should note that this typology of the different forms of the dhāraṇī is de-
rived from our corpus, and is therefore driven by the Dunhuang copies, with a bit
of supplemental information from later Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the sutra
with their own different forms of the dhāraṇī. A more global study of the dhāraṇī
would likely arrive at different types. One example of this dhāraṇī that we have left
to one side, but which is very important to its history, is a Gilgit/ Bāmiyān Type II
fragment of the Sutra of Limitless Life, possibly dating to the eighth or ninth centu-
ry, FE 3366. Its dhāraṇī overlaps with those presented above but includes an entire-
ly different ending. The beginning is missing, and the fragment is damaged such
that the first part of each line of text is missing.

1 /// .. jñāya tathāgatāya || tadyathā oṃ sa[r]vasaṃskārapariṣuddhadharma

2 /// .. .. abhāvasamudgate mahādharmahetunayaupratiṣṭit[e]
3 /// + ◯ mitāyuṣe svā • ||46

This dhāraṇī aligns with none of our types. It most closely follows type A at tathā-
gatāya tadyathā oṃ sarvasaṃskārapariṣuddha dharma[te]. The presence of tadya-
thā rules out type B, and the absence of ārhate rules out types C and E. The appear-
ance of [sv]abhāvasamudgate, as opposed to svabhāvaviśuddhe differs from the
other types, and leads into this dhāraṇī’s different ending: mahādharmahetuna-
yaupratiṣṭit[e]...[apari]mitāyuṣe svā{hā}. The fragment goes on to include some of
the verse on the six perfections, so there is no doubt that it is indeed a part of the
Sutra of Limitless Life. Despite the missing beginning and the damage, it is clear that
this earliest extant Sanskrit version of the dhāraṇī is significantly different, and
probably shorter than what we find in Sanskrit manuscripts from the thirteenth
century onward.
From this partial survey of the dhāraṇī, which draws mostly on Dunhuang
manuscripts, and only sparingly on inscriptions and on Sanskrit manuscripts, we
can sketch a picture of the dhāraṇī expanding over time through the addition of
textual units or formulae (i.e. Sanskrit pada). Following such logic, the shortest form
of the dhāraṇī, type B, becomes type A largely through the insertion of the unit
gagaṇasamudgate svabhāvaviśuddhe. Type A in turn becomes type C largely through


45 For discussion, see e.g. Roberts 2021a, i.15 forward.
46 Von Hinüber 2014, 111. We are grateful to Charles DiSimone for his reading of this fragment.
We are also grateful to Gudrun Melzer for sharing her observations on this fragment and its tran-
scription. Any misunderstandings are our own.
100  Transmitting Limitless Life

the insertion of the unit arihate samyaksaṁbuddhāya; and type C becomes type E
largely through the insertion of the unit oṁ puṇya puṇya mahāpuṇya aparimi-
tapuṇya aparimitāyuhpuṇya jñānasambhāropacite, which brings the dhāraṇī to 108
syllables. There are some notable variants along the way, including type D, and
the earliest extant dhāraṇī in the Gilgit fragment. These could be taken to point to
regional variation and to a vibrant transmission history of the dhāraṇī. Canon for-
mation and printing did not fully flatten this picture, but it did succeed in promot-
ing type C, from T.936 in the Taishō Canon, in the Sinophone world, and the longer
type E, from Toh. 849 and Toh. 674 in the Tibetan Bka’ ’gyur, in the Tibetan Buddhist
world.
Our discovery of the Tibetan type-C dhāraṇī in Dunhuang copies of the sutra is
interesting with respect to the transmission history of the sutra in Tibet, and the
presence of this dhāraṇī characterizing the “two-Oṁ version” (Toh. 675) in the Bka’
’gyur. There are doubtless other copies of the sutra in both Chinese and Tibetan that
use the type-C dhāraṇī, or which have it interspersed among iterations of type A or
B. Just as Fujieda and Ueyama’s discovery prompted scholars to distinguish types A
and B rather than lumping all the Tibetan Dunhuang copies together, our descrip-
tion of type C among Tibetan and Chinese Dunhuang copies may also prompt schol-
ars to identify sutra copies with type-C dhāraṇīs that have been overlooked. The same
can also be said of the different versions of the sutra itself, to which we now turn.

2.1.2 Versions of the Sutra of Limitless Life

In describing the different types of the dhāraṇī, it would have been logical to des-
ignate them from shortest to longest, A to E. This is impractical, however, since it
would contradict the longstanding custom, following Fujieda and Ueyama, of refer-
ring to the longer of the two main types of the dhāraṇī in Tibetan Dunhuang Ap
copies as type A, and the shorter one as type B. We have arguably compounded this
by applying their same logic when describing the pothī-fragment PT 4071’s dhāraṇī
as type D, essentially a shorter form of type C. In the case of different versions of
the Sutra of Limitless Life itself, there is less intellectual baggage – or at least less
uniformity in adopting a set of conventions –, and we propose to order these from
least complete to most complete. To avoid confusion, we also refer to the National
Library of China’s typology of Chinese versions.
Scholars have described the structure of this sutra in various ways. Zhang
Changhong divides the sutra into five parts: the introduction; the groups of hun-
dreds of millions of Buddhas who preach the sutra; the dhāraṇī; the paragraphs
describing the benefits of copying, reciting, etc. the sutra; and the verses on the per-
 Versions of Limitless Life at Dunhuang  101

fections.47 Although this is extremely helpful, and has borne fruit in Zhang’s own
study of the various Chinese and Tibetan versions of the sutra, we prefer to return
to Sten Konow’s method of assigning numbers to each of the sutra’s “paragraphs,”
one to forty, based on the parsing of his Sanskrit edition.48 This permits one to give
a more granular picture of the differences between the versions. Before detailing
the structural differences that define these versions, it is necessary to give a brief
summary of the sutra’s forty paragraphs. We do so based on the Tibetan C5 version.

§1. Setting, the Buddha with an assembly of 1,250 monks and bodhisattvas.
§2. The Buddha speaks to Mañjuśrī about the Buddha Aparimitāyurjñāna-suvi-
niścita(tejo)rāja.
§3. Copy, offer, hear etc. the 108 names of the Buddha Aparimitāyurjñāna-suvi-
niścita(tejo)rāja to increase lifespan to 100 years.
§4. Copy, etc. the 108 names of the Buddha Aparimitāyus to achieve long life.
§5. Dhāraṇī (this is the only time that Konow counts the dhāraṇī as its own
section).
§6. Copy, etc. the name(s) of the Buddha Aparimitāyus to increase lifespan to
100 years, be reborn in Buddha realm Aparimita-guṇa-saṃcaya. Dhāraṇī.
§7. 990,000,000 Buddhas recite the Sutra of Limitless Life. Dhāraṇī.
§8. 840,000,000 Buddhas recite the Sutra of Limitless Life. Dhāraṇī.
§9. 770,000,000 Buddhas recite the Sutra of Limitless Life. Dhāraṇī.
§10. 650,000,000 Buddhas recite the Sutra of Limitless Life. Dhāraṇī.
§11. 550,000,000 Buddhas recite the Sutra of Limitless Life. Dhāraṇī.
§12. 450,000,000 Buddhas recite the Sutra of Limitless Life. Dhāraṇī.
§13. 360,000,000 Buddhas recite the Sutra of Limitless Life. Dhāraṇī.
§14. 250,000,000 Buddhas recite the Sutra of Limitless Life. Dhāraṇī.
§15. Buddhas as numerous as sands of the Ganges recite the Sutra of Limitless
Life. Dhāraṇī.
§16. Write the Sutra of Limitless Life to increase lifespan (to 100 years). Dhāraṇī.49
§17. Write the Sutra of Limitless Life to avoid three lower rebirths, and to re-
member past lives. Dhāraṇī.
§18. Write the Sutra of Limitless Life, and it is as if one has written all 84,000 of
the Buddha’s teachings. Dhāraṇī.


47 Zhang 2022, 714.
48 Konow 1916, 291. There is one manuscript that Giles catalogued as Wuliangshou jing, S.4061,
where he states that the paragraphs are numbered in upper margin from one to thirty. He gives
the title as Foshuo dasheng wuliangshou zongyao tuoluoni jing; Giles 1957, 147; no. 4990.
49 The Chinese Dunhuang A5 version mentions extending life, but not to 100 years.
102  Transmitting Limitless Life

§19. Write the Sutra of Limitless Life and it is as if one has erected and conse-
crated 84,000 dharmarāja stupas. Dhāraṇī.
§20. Write the Sutra of Limitless Life, and the five heinous acts leading to hell
are purified. Dhāraṇī.
§21. Write the Sutra of Limitless Life, and misdeeds as massive as Mt. Meru will
be purified. Dhāraṇī.
§22. Write the Sutra of Limitless Life, and be protected from demons. Dhāraṇī.
§23. Write the Sutra of Limitless Life, and when you die 990,000,000 Buddhas
will teach you and 1,000 Buddhas will take you from Buddha field to Buddha
field. Dhāraṇī.
§24. Write the Sutra of Limitless Life, and the four guardian kings will protect
you. Dhāraṇī.
§25. Write the Sutra of Limitless Life, and when you die you will be reborn in
Sukhāvatī, the Pure Land of Amitābha. Dhāraṇī.
§26. That country in which the Sutra of Limitless Life is written becomes worthy
of worship like a caitya. Even animals who hear it will become fully en-
lightened Buddhas. Dhāraṇī.
§27. Cause the Sutra of Limitless Life to be written, and never be reborn a wom-
an. Dhāraṇī.
§28. Offer even a small coin for the Sutra of Limitless Life, and it is like filling
the whole trichiliocosm with the seven precious treasures. Dhāraṇī.
§29. Offer to the Sutra of Limitless Life, and accomplish the entirety of the Dhar-
ma. Dhāraṇī.
§30. The merit from offering to the seven Buddhas can be measured, but that
from [offering to, etc.] the Sutra of Limitless Life cannot. Dhāraṇī.
§31. The merit from offering (seven precious) jewels equal to Mt. Meru can be
measured, but that from [offering to, etc.] the Sutra of Limitless Life cannot.
Dhāraṇī.50
§32. The drops of water in the four oceans can be measured, but the merit from
[offering to, etc.] the Sutra of Limitless Life cannot. Dhāraṇī.
§33. Cause the Sutra of Limitless Life to be written or offer to it, and it is to
worship the Buddhas of the ten directions. Dhāraṇī.
§34. Verse on giving (first perfection).
§35. Verse on discipline (second perfection).
§36. Verse on patience (third perfection).
§37. Verse on diligence (fourth perfection).
§38. Verse on meditative concentration (fifth perfection).


50 The Chinese Dunhuang A5 version specifies it is the seven precious jewels equal to Mt. Meru.
 Versions of Limitless Life at Dunhuang  103

§39. Verse on wisdom (sixth perfection). (Dhāraṇī.)

§40. The assembled beings take to heart the teaching and rejoice at it. The sutra
is complete.
[§41.] Colophon(s).

There are key areas of the sutra that determine, structurally, which version one is
reading. These are the descending “decades” of tens of millions of Buddhas; the piv-
otal paragraphs sixteen through twenty-one; and paragraph thirty-one.
First, in the “decades” of tens of millions (Skt. koti; Ch. gai 姟; Tib. bye ba)
of Buddhas who with one voice preach the sutra, a version either has all nine
numbered groups of Buddhas (§7–§15), descending from 990,000,000 to 840,000,000
to 770,000,000 to 650,000,000 to 550,000,000 to 450,000,000 to 360,000,000 to
250,000,000 and then to Buddhas as innumerable as the sands of the Ganges, or it
omits §8 through §11, skipping from 990,000,000 to 450,000,000. As we will see,
some of the numbers differ across versions, and the Chinese A5 version includes
some errors in its numbers. At the structural level of analysis for determining ver-
sions of the sutra, what matters is whether these paragraphs are present or absent.
Second, a version will either 1) substitute §18 for §16, repeat §18 again verbatim
after §17, and then skip §19 (i.e. proceed §15, §18, §17, §18, §20, §21); 2) only skip §19;
3) only skip §21; or 4) include all of the §16–§21. §16 states that copying, etc. the sutra
will increase one’s lifespan to 100 years. This largely repeats §3 or §4, depending on
whether a version mentions 100 years or not in §16. §18 is about how copying, etc.
the sutra is to copy all 84,000 of the Buddha’s teachings. §19 is about how copying,
etc. the sutra is to copy all 84,000 of the Buddha’s teachings and/or to erect and
consecrate 84,000 stupas. §19 has the greatest deal of variation, with some versions
omitting any mention of stupas and instead largely repeating §18. As with the vari-
ant numbers in the decades of millions of Buddhas, what matters for determining
versions on a structural level is whether a paragraph is present or not; whether it
is correct is secondary.
Third, a version either includes §31 or omits it. §31 is the second of three para-
graphs on the immeasurability of the merit one accrues from offering to, etc. the
Sutra of Limitless Life. It likens this to offering treasures equal to Mt. Meru.
Using these rubrics, and classifying the versions of the sutra from shortest to
longest, or from least complete to most complete, version one omits §8–§11, pro-
ceeds §15, §18, §17, §18, §20, §21 through the pivotal middle paragraphs of the sutra,
and omits §31. One might say that it is comically defective. Over ninety-nine percent
of the Tibetan Ap copies from Dunhuang are version one. These either use the type-
A dhāraṇī or the type-B dhāraṇī, and so can be designated A1 and B1. We also find
a roll-format fragment of version one with the B+ dhāraṇī in Mīrān, spread over
104  Transmitting Limitless Life

pressmarks Or.15000/434–437, whose panels appear to match the mise-en-page of the

official copies from Dunhuang, and which may therefore have been carried there
from Dunhuang.51
Version two similarly omits §8–§11, but includes §16 and does not repeat §18. It
omits §19 and §31. This corresponds to the Tibetan copies at ITJ 310.315 and PT 3671,
and to the copy in the compilation text PT 105. All use the type-A dhāraṇī, and are
thus classified as A2. This probably also classifies the incomplete pothī-format
manuscript ITJ 309, which includes §2 through §30. However, its incomplete state
prevents one from saying whether or not §31 is present.52 Version two is also found
in the Chinese Ap copy BD06348, which uses the type-C dhāraṇī, and can thus be
classed C2. Fang Guangchang’s catalogue of the National Library manuscripts refers
to this as “version B” (乙本). The fragmentary Chinese Ap copy S.147, which uses the
type-B dhāraṇī, may also be version two since it is missing §19 and §31, but this copy
only begins at §15, so we cannot say if it omits §8–§11.
Version three includes all the decades of tens of millions of Buddhas, and is
complete except for its omission of §19. This describes the Khotanese Dunhuang
version (C3) and the Tibetan Ap copy in the compilation text PT 98, which uses the
type-A dhāraṇī (A3).
Version four is complete except for its omission of §21. This describes the San-
skrit version in Konow’s, Walleser’s and Duan’s critical editions. It uses the longest
form of the dhāraṇī and is thus classed as E4. Many Sanskrit versions, including the
oldest palm leaf manuscript, MS Or. 153, and those from Cambridge consulted by
Walleser, have a §27 that differs from those in the Dunhuang manuscripts and later
Chinese and Tibetan versions. In this alternate §27, rather than not being reborn a
woman, one avoids being reborn poor.53
We are not aware of any Ap copy that is complete except for its omission of §31,
but given the proliferation of versions, and the fluid nature of this sutra, such a
version may well exist.
Version five is the complete sutra in forty paragraphs. The vast majority of Chi-
nese Dunhuang Ap copies use this version with the type-A dhāraṇī, and are thus A5.


51 These are numbered Tak 550–553 in Takeuchi 1998, 183–85. IOL Khot S 17 is also a roll fragment
of Tibetan version B1.
52 This manuscript is interesting for its use of foliation, but also for internal annotations of the
paragraphs according to Konow’s parsing. The number “22,” for example, is visible in the middle
of folio ja, where §22 – according to Konow’s parsing – begins. Other such marks seem to have been
erased. La Vallée Poussin likely made these marks in order to take stock of the version(s) of the
sutra he was cataloguing, since he remarks on their missing paragraphs in his catalogue, as noted
in Chapter One.
53 Konow 1916, 317.
Table 1: Structural Comparison of Paragraphs of the Ap in the Various Versions.

Version/ 1 2 3 4 5
Paragraph (Over 99% of Tibetan (PT 105, ITJ 310.315, (Khotanese version (Cambridge Sanskrit manuscripts MS (Over 99% of Chinese Dunhuang
Dunhuang Ap) PT 3671, and BD06348); and PT 98) Add. 1277; MS Add. 1385; MS Add. Ap; T.936; ITJ 10.645; both Tibetan
“version B” (乙本) 1623; MS Or. 153; MS Add. 1326) Bka’ ’gyur versions, BnF sanscrit
1815); “version A” (甲本)

§1–§7 §1–§7 §1–§7 §1–§7 §1–§7 §1–§7

§8–§11 X X §8–§11 §8–§11 §8–§11
§12–§15 §12–§15 §12–§15 §12–§15 §12–§15 §12–§15
§16 §18 §16 §16 §16 §16
§17 §17 §17 §17 §17 §17
§18 §18 §18 §18 §18 §18
§19 X X X §19 §19
§20 §20 §20 §20 §20 §20
§21 §21 §21 §21 X §21
§22–§30 §22–§30 §22–§30 §22–§30 §22–§30 §22–§30
§31 X X §31 §31 §31
§32–§40 §32–§40 §32–§40 §32–§40 §32–§40 §32–§40
Versions of Limitless Life at Dunhuang  105
106  Transmitting Limitless Life

This corresponds to the version in the Taishō Canon, T. 936. Fang Guangchang’s
catalogue of the National Library manuscripts refers to this as “version A” (甲本).
This version is also found in the curious Chinese Ap copy BD03334, which employs
the type-C dhāraṇī a few times before leaving blank spaces in which it was to be
inserted, and is referred to in Fang Guangchang’s catalogue as “alternative version
A” (異甲本). Perhaps the most coherent instance of version five is found in only a
few Tibetan Ap copies from Dunhuang that use the type-C dhāraṇī, ITJ 310.645,
310.646, and 310.651. As we will see when discussing content, these copies’ §19 men-
tions 84,000 dharmarāja stupas. Among Sanskrit manuscripts, the Paris concertina,
BnF sanscrit 1815, is the complete E5 version. The two Tibetan canonical versions
belong here as well, as C5 (Toh. 675) and E5 (Toh. 674 and Toh. 849) versions, though
their §19 is largely a repetition of §18.
One challenge in creating a typology of versions of this text is that some copies
of the sutra are idiosyncratic in that they skip a paragraph by accident. Such is to
be expected in a text of this type, where the repetition of the dhāraṇī after nearly
every paragraph invites eyeskip. Moreover, in documenting over a thousand copies
of the sutra, it is possible that some version-two copies have been misidentified as
version-one copies. Nevertheless, version one and its missing or jumbled para-
graphs represent the “standard” Tibetan version copied by Dunhuang’s scribes. The
standard Chinese version, by contrast, is a complete version five of the text. A simi-
larly inverse situation applies to the very few alternatives to these Tibetan and Chi-
nese standard versions: whereas the few Tibetan outliers, like C5, are an improve-
ment upon the standard A1 and B1 version, the few Chinese copies of version two
seem more like failed prototypes for the standard version five translation. It was
indeed this A5 version that found its way into the Taishō Canon. We address the
question of what processes may have produced this inverse distribution of versions
in Tibetan and Chinese copies after reviewing the social history of Dunhuang’s
scriptoria in Chapter Three.
A similar situation of textual flux may have informed the Khotanese version.
Konow remarked that the copy he worked with was a rough copy, containing many
errors, and evidently made from an older exemplar.54 The absence of early Sanskrit
textual witnesses also perhaps masks an unsettled transmission. The few manu-
script copies we have perused are mostly E4 versions, with one E5 version, and we
find some differences in the key §19 and also §27. In any case, we are chiefly con-
cerned with the Tibetan sutra copies, and our use of the various Sanskrit, Kho-
tanese, and Chinese versions as comparanda does not pretend to any comparable
depth of engagement with these.


54 Konow 1916, 290–291.
 Differences of content  107

2.2 Differences of content

There are several minor differences in language and content across the versions, in
addition to the obvious structural differences. We do not aim here to document all
of these, but only to spotlight a few that we deem to be most relevant to the sutra’s
transmission. These include the title, the use of numbers, the pivotal §19, the verses
on the six perfections, and the closing lines of the sutra.55

2.2.1 The title

In the Tibetan versions the full title is given at the beginning and the end of the sutra.
A short title also appears in multiple paragraphs where the text refers to the merits
of its being copied, recited, etc. In nearly all Tibetan Dunhuang versions the full title
is Tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. This corresponds to the
Sanskrit title given at the head of these Tibetan versions: Aparimitāyur-nāma
mahāyāna-sūtra. An exception is version five, where the end title is given as Tshe
dpag du myed pa’i mdo (Aparimitāyuḥ-sūtra). This corresponds to the short title that
all Tibetan Dunhuang versions use self-referentially in their many paragraphs about
the benefits of copying etc. the sutra. Occasionally mdo sde is substituted for mdo in
these paragraphs, and in several edited Tibetan copies the sde is inserted by editors.
The title given in the Leb khog Inscription, Tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo sde, is
an outlier. Its dhāraṇī, as we have classified it, is a variant of type D. The inscription
contains only a brief summary of the text, and not the sutra itself. A further, more
extreme outlier is found in ITJ 308 (Fig. 33), a fragmentary Ap copy consisting of
three pothī leaves that appear to have been written in an ink mixed with blood.56
The extant leaves only include §1–§5, §23–§27, and §33–§40, but an additional frag-
ment from what appears to be the same pothī, ITJ 478, includes §30–§31. More of
the same text appears to be kept at the Bibliothèque nationale de France under
pressmark PT 4073. This contains two successive leaves that include §12–§22, and a
third damaged leaf with §28–§32. From the foliation we can conclude that if these
are all part of the same pothī, then it contained multiple copies of Ap, and perhaps
other texts as well. Surveying these paragraphs in the extant leaves, it is most likely
that this is a copy (or these are copies) of version A5, but the missing section on the


55 For more details on the differences between the Tibetan versions, see Sangji Dongzhi 2019;
Roberts and Bower 2021a, i.21 forward; and Roberts and Bower 2021b, i.10 forward. See also Zhang
2022, which includes observations on both Chinese and Tibetan versions.
56 Van Schaik, Helman-Ważny, and Nöller 2015, 118.
108  Transmitting Limitless Life

hundreds of millions of Buddhas renders this conclusion uncertain. What remains

is nevertheless intriguing for its use of non-standard Tibetan Buddhist translation
terms. The opening title is “The Mahāyāna Sūtrānta of Immeasurable Life in One
Roll” (Tshe tshad myed pa zhes bya ba’ theg pa’ chen po’I mdo sde’ bam bo gcig),
which does not quite correspond to its Sanskrit title Aparamitāyuḥ-nāma mahā-
yāna-sūtra.

Fig. 33: The ostensibly first folio of a Tibetan Ap copy in pothī format, ITJ 308, possibly with ink mixed
with blood; image captured by the authors from http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.

Here its Sanskrit title differs from that in other versions, and uses the form Apara-
mitāyuḥ rather than Aparimitāyuḥ. This is also true of its type-A dhāraṇī. Its closing
title reads: Tshe tshad myed pa zhes bya ba’ theg pa chen po’i mdo’. Its paragraphs
use the short form Tshe tshad myed pa’i mdo sde. Virtually the same title is found
at the head of another fragmentary Ap copy, PT 2079v, written on the verso of a
discarded leaf of the Tibetan SP2: Tshe tshad myed zhes bya ba theg pa chen po ’i
mdo sde. While it omits bam po gcig, its Sanskrit title uses the form Aparamitāyuḥ.57
The two versions of Ap preserved in the Tibetan Bka’ ’gyur possess a different
title, ’Phags pa tshe dang ye shes dpag tu med pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo
(Skt.: Ārya-aparimitāyurjñāna-nāma mahāyāna-sūtra). Here ’phags pa is prefixed
and ye shes is inserted, probably to reflect one of the longer forms of this Buddha’s
name. Internally, the text in both versions refers to itself as the Tshe dang ye shes
dpag tu med pa’i mdo sde (Aparimitāyurjñāna sūtrānta). It was this title that La
Vallée Poussin used, anachronistically, in his catalogue entry for the Dunhuang cop-
ies of the sutra.
Both the Sanskrit and the Khotanese versions lack a title at the beginning, but
share this same short form Aparamitāyuḥ-sūtra within the text itself.58 The Sanskrit


57 On this intriguing variant of the sutra, see also Bse chang Sangs rgyas don grub 2016. The same
author also recognized ITJ 478, a torn pothī leaf, as a fragment of this Tshe tshad myed pa variant
of the sutra; Sangji Dongzhi 2019, 105.
58 The colophon of the Khotanese version mentions this short title as well.
 Differences of content  109

manuscripts usually end with the title in the phrase “the Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra of
Limitless Life is complete” (ārya aparimitāyur nāma mahāyānasūtraṃ samāptaḥ;
MS Or.153), with some variations, notably “the Noble Dhāraṇī of Limitless Life is
complete” (ārya aparimitāyur nāma dhāraṇī samāpta; Konow’s “B”), and “the Noble
Dhāraṇī Mahāyāna Sūtra of Limitless Life is complete” (ārya aparimitāyur nāma
dhāraṇī samāpta; Konow’s “B”).59
The Chinese Dunhuang versions, like the Tibetan versions, have a title at the
beginning and the end. The head title (shouti 首題) of the dominant version A5 is
Dasheng wuliangshou jing 大乘無量壽經, the Sanskrit for which would be Aparimi-
tāyuḥ mahāyāna-sūtra. The end title (weiti 尾題) is Foshuo wuliangshou zongyao
jing 佛說無量壽宗要經, the Essential Sutra of Limitless Life Spoken by the Buddha.
Internally, the text refers to itself as the Wuliangshou zongyao jing 無量壽宗要經
and Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經. There are also some longer end titles in some
copies. The title Essential Sutra of King and Tathāgata of Limitless Life and Merit
(Foshuo wuliangshou zongyao gong de jue ding wang ru lai jing 佛說無量壽宗要功
德決定王如來經) appears in S.1995, a copy scribed by Songsheng 宋昇.60 The same
scribe uses a slightly shorter title, Essential Sutra of Limitless Life and Merit (Foshuo
wuliangshou zongyao gong de jing 佛說無量壽宗要功德經) in copies at S.1841,
S.1862, S.1874, and S.2013. Elsewhere, at S.1866, this same scribe uses the standard
end title.
The fragmentary Chinese Ap copy S.147, which may be version B2, is missing its
first fifteen paragraphs and so lacks a head title. Its end title is Sutra of Limitless
Life in One Roll (Wuliangshou jing yi juan), where yi juan corresponds to the Tibetan
title bam po gcig in ITJ 308’s title. Text internally, S.147 refers to the merit one gains
by copying, etc. the “Dhāraṇī of Limitless Life” (Wuliangshou tuoluoni 無量壽陀
羅尼). This is also true of some paragraphs in the Chinese C5 version (BD03334). At
least one Chinese A5 copy, S.4061, which was mentioned above as numbering its
paragraphs one to thirty, uses the end title Foshuo dasheng wuliangshou zongyao
tuoluoni jing 佛說大乘無量壽宗要陀羅尼經.61
The presence of these few variant Chinese titles should not add to the existing
confusion about the sutra’s title with respect to other Chinese sutras. Namely, there
has been a tendency to conflate the Ap, where version A5 corresponds to T. 936, vol.
19, with two other Chinese sutras with similar or identical titles. These are the larger
Sukhāvatīvyūha sūtra (T no. 360, vol. 12), which is also called Wuliangshou jing, and


59 There latter two are from manuscript B 38 in the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal (Konow’s “B”)
and Ms. Add. 1277; Konow 1916, 292.
60 Giles 1957, 145; no. 4921.
61 Giles 1957, 147; no. 4990.
110  Transmitting Limitless Life

the Sutra of Contemplating [the Buddha of] Limitless Life (Guanwuliangshou jing
觀無量壽經) (T. 365, vol. 12).

2.2.2 The Buddha’s names

As with the name of the sutra, there is also variation in the name of its central
Buddha. This pertains both to whether or not a version uses the longer form of the
name including tejo (Tib. gzi brjid; Ch. weide 威德) and to the pattern by which a
version introduces the Buddha’s longer name before switching to the shorter form
Aparimitāyus. The dominant Tibetan Dunhuang version represented by both A1
and B1 introduces this Buddha in §2 as Aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścitarāja (Tshe
dang ye shes dpag du myed pa shin du rnam par gdon myi za ba’i rgyal po). In §3 it
refers to him by the short form Aparimitāyus (Tshe dpag du myed pa) and then
again by the longer form. It then uses the short form in §4 and §6. ITJ 308 uses
variant terminology and employs the type-A dhāraṇī, but follows virtually the same
pattern: it gives the long form Amitāyurjñāna-suviniścitarāja (Tshe tshad myed pa’i
ye shes shin du’ rnam par gdon myi za ba’i rgyal po) in §2, then the short form
Amitāyus (Tshe tshad myed pa) followed by the long form in §3, and the short form
Amitāyus in §4. §6 is not extant. The Tibetan Dunhuang version C5 and the Sanskrit
version E4 follow this same pattern, but add tejo to the long form of the name: he is
Aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścitatejorāja in §2 and on the second occurrence in §3,
and Aparimitāyus in the first occurrence in §3 and in §4 and §6. The canonical
versions also follow this pattern, but where C5 (Toh. 675) has the long form Apari-
mitāyurjñāna-suviniścitarāja and the short form Aparimitāyurjñāna, version E5
(Toh. 674 and Toh. 849) has the long form Aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścitatejorāja
and the short form Aparimitāyus.
In the dominant Chinese version A5, he is the tathāgata Aparimitāyurjñāna-
suviniścitarāja (無量智決定王如来 or 無量寿智决定王如来) only on his first ap-
pearance in §2, and is Aparimitāyus/ Amitāyus (無量壽) thereafter. The Khotanese
version uses the long form Aparamitāyurjñāna-suviniścitarāja in §2, §3, §4, and §6.
Chinese versions C2 (BD06348) and C5 (BD03334) also use the longer form Apari-
mitāyurjñāna-suviniścitatejorāja (智寿無量决定威德王).62
In summary, only the Tibetan and Sanskrit versions appear to adhere to a
specific pattern of alternating long and short forms of the Buddha’s name in §2, §3,
§4, and §6. The Tibetan Dunhuang version C5, the Sanskrit version E4, the rare
Chinese versions C2 and C5, and the Tibetan canonical version E5 all use the longest


62 Zhang 2022, 719.
 Differences of content  111

form of the name Aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścitatejorāja. This accords with the

form found in their dhāraṇī. However, the Tibetan canonical version C5 (the “two-
om version,” Toh. 675) does not use tejo in the Buddha’s name despite having tejo
in its dhāraṇī. Therefore the form of the dhāraṇī may not be the determining factor
for which form of the Buddha’s name is used in a given version.

2.2.3 The numbers of Buddhas

Turning to the decades of tens of millions of Buddhas in §7–§14, we find some

interesting numerical variations across versions. The progression in all extant
Tibetan versions, apart from some minor deviations, is 990,000,000, 840,000,000,
770,000,000, 650,000,000, 550,000,000, 450,000,000, 360,000,000, 250,000,000. This
is also true of the Khotanese and Sanskrit versions, with the same caveat that
there are some minor deviations. The dominant Chinese Dunhuang version A5, by
contrast, proceeds 990,000,000, 1,040,000,000, 70,000,000, 650,000,000, 550,000,000,
450,000,000, 360,000,000, 250,000,000. This is also true of Chinese version C5
(BD03334).63 Surveying much of this same information, Zhang Changhong argued
that this substitution of 1,040,000,000 for 840,000,000 can be explained as a transla-
tion error from Tibetan into Chinese, where brgyad (eight) in brgyad cu rtsa bzhi
(“eighty-four”) has been misread brgya or brgya’ (one hundred), resulting in the
odd number brgya cu rtsa bzhi (“one hundred, ten and four”).64 We find the same
error in some Chinese versions of §18, which features the number 84,000. Whereas
the dominant version A5 has 84,000 (八萬四千), C2 (BD06348) has 100,040 (百千
四十), and C5 (BD03334) has 4,000,000 (四十百千).65 These could plausibly be the
result of a Chinese translator trying to deal with a similar misreading of brgya for
brgyad, resulting in the errant and very confusing Tibetan number stong phrag
brgya bcu rtsa bzhi (something like “one hundred and four sets of ten thousand”).
Intriguingly, the translation of this same number, 84,000, can also point to
translation in the opposite direction, to an odd choice of words in Tibetan versions
that could have resulted from translating from the Chinese. The dominant Tibetan
Dunhuang version (A1 and B1) typically uses the rather standard Tibetan form
stong phrag brgyad cu rtsa bzhi, literally “eighty-four sets of a thousand” or “eighty-
four thousands.” This is also true of the other Tibetan Dunhuang versions, and it is
similar to what one finds in the Khotanese and Sanskrit versions, save for their


63 Fatian corrected this in his tenth-century translation at T. 937.
64 Zhang 2022, 733.
65 Zhang. 2022, 724.
112  Transmitting Limitless Life

numerical structure being “four and eighty.”66 The exception among Tibetan Dun-
huang versions is C5. It, and both later canonical versions, use an unexpected form,
brgyad khri bzhi stong, literally “eight ten thousands, four thousands.” This cor-
responds precisely to the Chinese ba wan si qian 八萬四千 found in the dominant
Chinese version A5. These three Tibetan versions use brgyad khri bzhi stong in both
§18 and §19.
There is another instance of “Chinese-style numbers” in the Tibetan Dunhuang
C5 version. In §1, which states that there were 1,250 monks and bodhisattvas in the
assembly, all other Tibetan versions use the “Tibetan-style numbering,” brgya phrag
phyed dang bcu gsum, literally “one half [hundred less than] thirteen sets of a hun-
dred.” This closely reflects the Sanskrit. By contrast, the Tibetan Dunhuang C5
version has stong nyis brgya lnga bcu, literally “[one] thousand two hundred and
fifty.” This again echoes the Chinese A5 version: qian erbai wushi 千二百五十, and
reads oddly in Tibetan for the omission of “one” (chig) before “thousand” (stong).
The two Tibetan canonical versions, which join Dunhuang version C5 in using the
“Chinese style” numbers brgyad khri bzhi stong at §18 and §19, both use the Tibetan
or Sanskrit style numbers in this passage in §1.
The “Chinese-style” numbers in the Tibetan Dunhuang C5 version, together
with the numerical error of 1,040,000,000 for 840,000,000 in the Chinese A5 version,
complicate the supposition that translation went in one direction, from Tibetan to
Chinese or from Chinese to Tibetan. Rather, it seems to have gone both ways, from
Chinese to Tibetan and from Tibetan to Chinese, with these translations drawing on
one another. This is in fact entirely fitting in the bilingual context of ninth-century
Dunhuang. It also explains our somewhat matching versions of Chinese and Ti-
betan Dunhuang copies of the sutra, even if these occur with an inverse distribution.
It is also likely that these bilingual translators drew on different Sanskrit copies that
had their own rescensional differences.

2.2.4 The pivotal paragraph 19

Looking beyond the number 84,000 in §18 and §19, we recall that these two para-
graphs – and §19 specifically – are crucial to determining the versions of Ap. These
two paragraphs are very similar in that §18 states that copying, etc. the Ap is equiva-
lent to copying, etc. all 84,000 dharma teachings, and §19 states that it is equivalent
to copying all 84,000 dharma teachings and/or constructing 84,000 stupas. In version


66 There are some exceptions. ITJ 310.330, for example, is a B1 copy whose first instance of §18 uses
brgyad khri bzhi stong, and whose second instance of §19 uses stong phrag brgyad cu rtsa bzhi.
 Differences of content  113

one of the sutra, §18 is repeated, so we can say that §19 is absent, or, if one considers
the second appearance of §18 to constitute §19, then we can say that §19 is defective.
§19 is absent in version two in both Chinese and Tibetan, and absent in version
three in Chinese, Tibetan, and Khotanese. It is present in the Sanskrit versions E4
and E5. In version five, §19 is present in both Chinese and Tibetan Dunhuang copies,
and it is present in Fatian’s 983 translation, and in the Paris concertina. §19 is pre-
sent in both Tibetan Bka’ ’gyur versions, but it is arguably defective in the sense
that §19 is there largely a repetition of §18. Besides being a meaningful paragraph
for determining the version of the sutra, this also raises the question of how it came
to be that the dominant Tibetan versions of the sutra, both in Dunhuang and in the
Bka’ ’gyur, came to have a repetitive or defective §19.
To begin with the defective version one, there we find §18 repeated after an
intervening §17 amidst the jumble of §15, §18, §17, §18, §20.

Tibetan A1/B1 version, §18 (1): “Whosoever causes this Aparimitāyuḥ sūtra to be copied, he
shall cause a heap of 84,000 dharma [teachings] to be copied.”
yang la la zhIg gi tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI ’drIr bcug na / des chos gyI phung po stong
phrag brgyad cu rtsa bzhI ’drIr bcug par ’gyur ro/

Tibetan A1/B1 version, §18 (2): “Whosoever causes this Aparimitāyuḥ sūtra to be copied, he
shall cause a heap of 84,000 dharma [teachings] to be copied.”
gang la la zhIg tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI ’drIr bcug na de’I chos gyI phung po stong phrag
brgyad cu rtsa bzhI ’drIr bcug par ’gyur ro/

This is a verbatim repetition. Whether they were aware of this repetition in version
one or not, the translators of version two in Chinese and Tibetan and version three
in Khotanese and Tibetan entirely omit §19. If this was indeed a decision, and not a
relic of haplography passed on in these lines of transmission, then it was presum-
ably an aesthetic choice against the repetition or near repetition of the preceding
paragraph. These versions of §18 are essentially the same as version one’s, save for
Tibetan version three’s (in the compilation text PT 98) inclusion of the word “copy”
in addition to “cause to be copied,” and Chinese version C2’s errant 100,040 (百千
四十) in place of 84,000, already noted above. Other variant readings need not
detain us here.
The Tibetan canonical version of the sutra (C5 and E5) improves upon version
one’s repetition of §18 only by adding a bit of periphrasis.

Bka’ ’gyur version C5/E5, §18: “Whosoever copies or causes this Aparimitāyurjñāna sūtra to be
copied, he shall cause a heap of 84,000 dharma [teachings] to be copied.”
gang zhig tshe dang ye shes dpag tu med pa’i mdo sde ’di yi ger ’dri’am yi ger ’drir ’jug na
des chos kyi phung po brgyad khri bzhi stong ’drir bcug par ’gyur ro; Toh. 674, Toh. 675, and
Toh. 849
114  Transmitting Limitless Life

Bka’ ’gyur version C5/E5, §19: “Whosoever copies or causes this Aparimitāyurjñāna sūtra to be
copied, he shall cause the heap of eighty-four thousand dharma [teachings] to be made and
established.”
gang zhig tshe dang ye shes dpag tu med pa’i mdo sde ’di yi ger ’dri’am yi ger ’drir ’jug na des
chos kyi phung po brgyad khri bzhi stong byed du bcug pa dang rab tu gnas par byas pa yin no;
Toh. 674, Toh. 675, and Toh. 849

The Bka’ ’gyur versions’ §19 differs from the preceding §18 only by its addition of
“and made to be established/ consecrated” (dang rab tu gnas par byas pa yin no).
Returning to the Dunhuang manuscripts, the Tibetan C5 version included a ver-
sion of §19 that differed significantly from §18:

Tibetan version C5, §18: “Whosoever causes this Aparimitāyuḥ sūtra to be copied, he shall
cause a heap of 84,000 dharma [teachings] to be copied.”
Gang zhIg tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI yi ger ’drir ’jug pa des chos gyI phung po brgyad khrI
bzhi stong ’drir bcug par gyur ro /; ITJ 310.645, c11–12

Tibetan version C5, §19: “Whosoever causes this Aparimitāyuḥ sūtra to be copied, [also] causes
84,000 dharmarāja stupas to be made and established.”
Gang zhIg tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI yi ger ’drIr ’jug pa des chos gyi rgyal po mchod rten
brgyad khri bzhI stong byed du bcug cIng rten btsugs par ’gyuro; ITJ 310.645, c13–14

Both paragraphs use the number 84,000, but in §19 it designates “dharmarājikā
stupas,” probably in reference to those stupas established by Emperor Aśoka.67

The dominant Chinese A5 version from Dunhuang also contains stupas at §19,
but it represents a middle ground, since it also includes dharma teachings here.

Chinese A5 version, §18: “If you yourself copy, or cause someone else to copy the Wuliangshou
zongyao jing, this is to faithfully recite or copy the entirety of 84,000 scriptures.”
若有自書寫。教人書寫是無量壽宗要經。受持讀誦如同書寫八萬四千一切經典。

Chinese A5 version, §19: “If you yourself copy, or cause someone else to copy the Wuliangshou
zongyao jing, this is equivalent to writing the 84,000 teachings and to erecting stupas and
temples.”
若有自書寫教人書寫是無量壽宗要經即是書寫八萬四千部建立塔廟


67 For a discussion of the term dharmarājika (not dharmarājikā) in relation to stupas, see Tournier
2020, 881.
 Differences of content  115

Looking to the second Chinese canonical version of the sutra, translated by Fatian
in 983, his §19 is more like that of the Tibetan C5 version, without reference to writ-
ing or copying the teachings.

T. 937, §18: “this dhāraṇī scripture of the tathāgata, the radiant king of limitless life – if you
yourself copy, or cause someone else to copy it, this is as if a person copied the canon of 84,000
scriptures.”
此無量壽決定光明王如來陀羅尼經。若自書若教人書。如是之人則同書寫八萬四千法藏。
所獲功德而無有異。

T. 937, §19: “this dhāraṇī scripture of the tathāgata, the radiant king of limitless life – if you
yourself copy it, or cause someone else to copy it, this is as if a person constructed 84,000
stupas.”
此無量壽決定光明王如來陀羅尼經。若復有人若自書若教人書。如是之人便同修建八萬
四千寶塔。所獲功德而無有異。

Presumably, Fatian saw this as an improvement of the A5 translation, whose §19

was perhaps contaminated by reference to that of the Tibetan A1/B1 version.
All of these translations into Tibetan and Chinese were presumably made from
different Sanskrit exemplars, and with some awareness of other Tibetan and Chi-
nese versions. Although the extant Sanskrit manuscripts date from several centu-
ries later, their §18 and §19 may nonetheless preserve the readings that informed
some of these earlier translations. Konow’s edition has the following for §18 and §19:

Sanskrit version E4, §18: “Whoever will write out this Aparimitāyuḥ sūtra, or have it written
out, will thereby cause to be copied 84,000 heaps of dharma [teachings].”
Ya idam aparimitāyuḥ-sūtraṃ likhiṣyati likhāpayiṣyati | tena caturaśītidharmaskandhasahas-
rāṇi likhāpitāni bhaviṣyanti

Sanskrit version E4, §19: “Whoever will write out this Aparimitāyuḥ sūtra, or have it written
out, will thereby make and establish 84,000 dharmarājikā.”68
Ya idam aparimitāyuḥ-sūtraṃ likhiṣyati likhāpayiṣyati | tena caturaśīti dharmarājikāsahas-
rāṇi kārāpitāni pratiṣṭhāpitāni bhaviṣyanti69

If something like this was the basis for the Tibetan C5 and Chinese A5 translations,
then we can see that the Tibetan and Chinese translators clearly understood the
feminine adjective dharmarājikā to refer to stupas. The Tibetan translator supplies
the word stupa (chos gyi rgyal po mchod rten), and the Chinese translator supplies
stupa, adds temples, and omits dharmarājikā (ta miao 塔廟).


68 Walleser 1916, 33; see also the English translation in Payne 2007, 294.
69 Konow 1916, 311; Duan 1992, 135.
116  Transmitting Limitless Life

The Sanskrit E5 version makes the same choice as the Tibetan C5 version. Its
§18 agrees with Konow’s edition, but its §19 supplies the word stupa, albeit cor-
rupted as stvapa.

Sanskrit version E5, §19: “Whoever will write out this Aparimitāyuḥ sūtra, or have it written
out, will thereby make and establish 84,000 dharmarājikā stupas.”70
ya idam aparimitāyuḥsūtraṃ likhiṣyanti likhāpayiṣyanti tena caturaśītidharmarājikāstvapa
sahasrāṇi kārāpitāni pratiṣṭhāpitāni bhavanti |71

Given that dharmarājikā is something like a kenning, it may be that stupa was an
interlinear gloss that was then copied into the text.
If the term dharmarājikā required glossing, it opens up room for other deci-
sions by editors and translators. Walleser in his edition seems to have used the Ti-
betan Bka’ ’gyur version to gloss dharmarājikā – the reading in his Sanskrit manu-
script – with dharmarāśi (“volumes of Dharma”).72 This was somewhat artful, since
the Bka’ ’gyur version had chos kyi phung po (dharmaskandha) in both §18 and §19.
If one assumes a parallel line of thinking for Indian pandits and Tibetan translators
in the early second millennium, then a similar gloss of dharmarājikā with dharma-
rāśi could go some way toward explaining the Bka’ ’gyur version’s §19. It could
equally be the case that the sutra was transmitted through a language where a shift
from j > y > ś occurred (e.g. Gandharī), in which case rāśi was a secondary develop-
ment from rāji.73 In this case kā would have been deleted by an editor who saw
rāśikā and did not understand it as rājikā. We can also observe that §19’s periphras-
tic “and made to be established/ consecrated” (dang rab tu gnas par byas pa yin no),
which differentiates it from §18, is faithful to the Sanskrit kārāpitāni pratiṣṭhāpitāni
bhaviṣyanti.74 It could also be the case that the translators of the Bka’ ’gyur versions
also had a ninth-century A1 or B1 copy to hand, and that the prestige of this imperial
version and its repeated §18 influenced their choices. We have not examined the
hundreds of extant Sanskrit copies themselves for clues, but this would surely be
rewarding for the study of the Ap’s transmission. Whatever the case may be, we can
see from the extant translations how medieval Tibetan and Chinese translators ad-
dressed this issue.


70 Walleser 1916, 33; see also the English translation in Payne 2007, 294.
71 BnF sanscrit 1815, 68a, 13–14. We are grateful to Allan Ding and to Charles DiSimone for discuss-
ing this passage with us.
72 Walleser 1916, 23, n. 31.
73 We are indebted to Stefan Baums for this suggestion.
74 An alternate translation of this phrase, favored by Roberts and Bower, is “cause the practice
and the continuation”; Roberts and Bower 2021a, 1.34.
 Differences of content  117

Even while attempting to make sense of their translation choices in terms of a

putative Sanskrit source text, we can also see how the Tibetan and Chinese transla-
tions seem to have exerted mutual influence. The dominant Chinese A5 version’s
choice to include both teachings and stupas in §19 is relevant here. It goes against
the Tibetan C5 version, the later translation by Fatian, and the Sanskrit manuscripts
we have consulted. Other versions make the “either/or” choice of having 84,000
teachings or 84,000 stupas, whereas the Chinese A5 opts for a “both/and” solution.
In this case, we are tempted to see this as a nod to the dominant Tibetan A1/B1
version. Reciprocally, it is precisely in §19 that the Tibetan C5 version makes use of
“Chinese-style” numbers for 84,000. This once again seems to point to a situation in
which the Chinese and Tibetan versions were evolving in conversation with one
another and through their consultations of different Sanskrit versions.

2.2.5 Verses on the six perfections

Another important difference between the versions appears in the verses on the six
perfections near the end of the sutra. This is the only verse in the sutra, and it has
posed some difficulties for translators. Tibetan versions one and two read:

By the power of giving, a Buddha is perfectly ennobled.

Realizing the power of giving, when the lions among men
Enter the city of compassion
The sound of the power of giving resounds.
sbyin ba’i stobs kyis sangs rgyas yang dag ’phags
myi ’i seng ges sbyin ba’i stobs rtog ste /
snying rje grong khyer du ’ang ’jug pa na /
sbyin ba’i stobs kyi sgra ni grags par ’gyurd; PT 3901, g1–g3

Version three and both later canonical versions (C5 and E5) diverge from this only
by a slightly different third line: “[...] enters the compassionate city” (snying rje can
gyi grong khyer ’jug pa na; PT 98).
The Tibetan Dunhuang version C5 changes the order of the four lines in the
quatrain and uses different wording in its final line:

When they enter the compassionate city

Buddhas are perfectly ennobled by the power of giving.
By the power of giving, the lions among men
Abundantly proclaim the power of giving.
snying rje ldan ba grong khyer ’jug pa na
sbyin ba’i stobs gyis sangs rgyas yang dag ’pags /
118  Transmitting Limitless Life

sbyin ba’i stobs gyIs myi’I seng ge rnams /

lhag pa nyid ces sbyin ba’i stobs sgra grag; ITJ 310.645, e12–12.575

Another version is found in the Mīrān fragment that employs the type-C dhāraṇī,
but which is too short to reveal what version of the sutra it represents:

Buddhas perfectly arise from the power of giving.

By the power of giving [illegible]
Through the power of giving does the sound resound.
They completely enter the city that is endowed with steng rjin.
sbyin [ba’i] stobs kyis sang rgyas yang dag ’byung /
sbyin ba’i stobs kyis [xx xx xx xx xx]
sbyin stobs kyis sgra yang grags pa yin/
steng rjin l[d]an pa’i khy[er] du rab du [zhugs]; Or.15000/271, recto 8–976

The damaged second line probably would have included “lions among men.” The
vocabulary of the last line poses some challenges: khyer can indicate walls, but one
wonders whether it was used here in place of grong khyer on account of the meter.
The meaning of steng rjin is unclear, but it stands in the position of snying rje ldan
pa in the other versions. It cannot be explained as a phoneticization of Khotanese
mu’sdi’ṣauṇä, Sanskrit kāruṇakasya, or Chinese cibei.
Different still is the fragmentary version possibly written in blood ink, whose
order and meaning both diverge from the other Tibetan versions, but closely track
the dominant Chinese A5 version:

[On] the Buddha arisen from the power of giving,

By the power of giving is a person a lion [among men].
By the power of giving can he hear all sounds.
He completely enters the stage of compassion.
sbyin ba’i stobs gyis byung ba’i sangs rgyas te’/
sbyin ba’i stobs gyis//rig pa’i skyes bu’ seng ’ge yin/
/ sbyi’n ba’i stobs kyi’s/ / kund du’ sgra’ yang thos/
/ snying rje’i rim pa+s rab du ’jug/; ITJ 308, 7r3–4

The grammar here is simpler, but it is also awkward. We have read snying rje’i rim
pas rab du ’jug as if it were rim pa “stage/ level” rather than rim pas “gradually.”
Reading rim pas, one would be gradually and compassionately and completely en-
tering, but there would be no site – no city – that one enters. As awkward as this


75 See Fig. 54 for an image of the column on which this text occurs, and Appendix One for a trans-
literation of the entire text.
76 Takeuchi 1998, 122. In the first line, Takeuchi reads ’gyur where we read ’byung.
 Differences of content  119

may be, it is a close equivalent to the dominant A5 Chinese version, whose last two
lines have very similar language and meaning.

By the power of generosity one can one be perfectly enlightened.

By the power of realizing generosity is one a lion among men.
By the power of generosity one can hear all sounds.
Compassion in stages gradually, one is able to supremely enter.
布施力能成正覺
悟布施力人師子
布施力能聲普聞
慈悲階漸最能入

Here zui neng ru 最能入 corresponds to rab du ’jug. The phrase Cibei jie jian 慈悲
階漸 also well justifies our ambivalence about rim pa “stage” versus rim pas “gradu-
ally”: jie 階 means stage or level, and jian 漸 means gradual. It is as if the translator
of version A5 translated snying rje’i rim pa rim pas – perhaps another example of
his tendency for having it both ways. Whether the Tibetan quatrain in ITJ 308 is a
faithful translation of the Chinese or vice-versa, neither includes the “entering the
city” motif.
The Chinese version S.147 has a different quatrain, whose order and content
closely resemble the Tibetan version one:

By the power of giving, a Buddha is completely superior.

The lion among men is wondrously able to know.
The sugatas, in the midst of the city [of] compassion,
By the power of giving they are all-hearing.
布施之力佛最勝
人中 師子妙能知
善逝慈悲聚落中
[布施]77之力遍聞響

This differs from version one and from all other versions by mentioning the
sugata(s) (shan shi 善逝). Also, juluo 聚落 corresponds fairly well with the Tibetan
grong khyer and the Sanskrit pura as a vague term that could correspond to “city,”
as opposed to the more precise term for a walled city, cheng 城. It also departs from
the expected ru 入 for “entering the city” and instead places the sugata(s) in the
middle (zhong 中) of the city.
Fatian’s 983 translation adds two more lines to the verse and replaces “lion
among men” (ren zhong shizi 人中師子) with a different epithet of the Buddha,


77 The text errs here by substituting 檟郍. The other five verses follow the pattern of naming the
relevant perfection here.
120  Transmitting Limitless Life

“teacher of gods and humans” (tian ren shi 天人師). He also changes what is heard
when one enters the “city” – here jingshi 精室78– of great compassion: for Fatian it
is the dhāraṇī. This was presumably seen as a tidy solution to the ambiguity around
what it was that was heard, or what it was that resounded, or whether entering the
city involved one becoming “all-hearing.”

By the power of practicing giving does one succeed;

By the power of giving does one become a Buddha.
When entering into the midst of the jingshi 精室 of great compassion
One hears this dhāraṇī.
If one practices giving completely,
That person will quickly become a teacher of gods and humans.
修行布施力成就 布施力故得成佛
若入大悲精室中 耳暫聞此陀羅尼
設使布施未圓滿 是人速證天人師
設使布施未圓滿 是人速證天人師

The Tibetan Dunhuang version C5 and the Chinese version A5 follow the same order
as the Sanskrit quatrain in Konow’s edition. However, the latter includes the phrase
about entering the city (or “realm” – pura) of compassion (kāruṇikasya pure pra-
viśāntam).

The Buddha is unexcelled at the power of giving.

By the power of giving is the lion among men known.
One hears the sound of the power of giving
When one enters the city of compassion.79
dāna-balena samudgata buddho
dāna-balādhigatā nara-siṃhāḥ |
dāna-balasya ca śrūyati śabdaḥ
kāruṇikasya pure praviśāntam80

This is essentially the same version found in the Gilgit/ Bāmiyān Type II fragment
FE 3366.

dānavalena samudgatu vuddho

dānavalā[dhigatā narasiṃhāḥ


78 This is a term more commonly found in Daoist and Chinese medical contexts, where it is con-
nected with various internal organs, and sometimes associated with immortality; Liu 2009, 103 and
304, n. 42.
79 Walleser 1916, 35; Payne 2007, 298.
80 Konow 1916, 323; Duan 1992, 138.
 Differences of content  121

d](ā)navalasya ca śruyati śavdo

kāruṇikasya pure pravi[śantaṃ]81

It also agrees with the verse in ostensibly the oldest nearly complete Sanskrit copy,
Ms. Or. 153.
The Khotanese version gives a slightly different verse in Sanskrit with the first
two lines reversed, and then gives the verse in Khotanese. Its Sanskrit verse reads:

dāṁnabalābhiratā narasīhā
dāṁnabalena samudgatāṁ buddhā
dāṁnabalasya śruṇīyata śabdaṁ
kāruṇakasya puraṁ praveśaṁte 82

The Khotanese reads:

The lions among men delight in the power of giving.

Protected by the power of giving, you attained Buddhahood.
We now hear the sound of the power of giving,
As we enter the city of compassion.83
haurīje hauva jsa hayaraṃdā hvaṃḍāna sarauva
haurīje hauvi jsa āysdaḍä ṣṭāna ba’ysųścä bustī
haurīje hauva bijāṣä pvā’mana vaysñą
mu’śdi’ṣauṇä ttramdye ṣṭām kīthāṣṭä vāṣṭāą

Looking across these different versions of the verse, we again perceive differences
in order and in language. The power of giving may distinguish Buddhas as superior
or noble, or it might be a condition of their Buddhahood. The lions among men re-
alize the power of giving, are constituted or are known by their power of giving, or
delight in the power of giving. The sound of the power of giving resounds, is heard,
or the power of giving makes one all-hearing. They enter either the city of compas-
sion or the stage of compassion.
In all versions the same structure obtains for the verses that follow on the other
five perfections. In most versions, excepting the dominant Chinese C5 version, the
verse is followed by the final occurrence of the dhāraṇī.


81 Von Hinüber 2014, 111; his reconstructions in brackets.
82 This follows Konow 1916, 322.
83 This follows Duan’s translation; Duan 1992, 62. Konow translates the verse differently, diverging
most in the first line: “By the power of alms the lions amongst men are living. Being hallowed by
the power of alms, thou acquiredest buddhahood; the hearing of the sound of the power of alms
one does not hear here, it is proclaimed to him who has entered into the city of the Merciful One”;
Konow 1916, 322.
Table 2: Structural Comparison of the Verses in the Ap in Various Versions.

Version/ Sanskrit E4 Chinese 1, 2, 3 and S.147 Tibetan Tibetan Mīrān Khotanese

Verse Element Dunhuang A5 and canonical Tibetan Dunhuang C5 Fragment version
ITJ 308 versions C5 and E5 Or.15000/271

1 Power of giving 1 ennobles 1 enlightens 1 ennobles 1 ennobles 4 entering the 1 enlightens 2 lions delight in
enlightens/ ennobles city power of giving
2 Lions among men 2 By the power 2 realizing power 2 lions realize 2 lions realize 1 power of 2 By the power 1 enlightens,
realize/ are known by/ of giving is the of giving makes giving ennobles of giving protects
122  Transmitting Limitless Life

exist through the lion among men lions among men Buddhas [...][vacat]
power of giving known
3 Sound of the power 3 is heard 3 by power of 4 entering the city 4 They are all- 2 lions among 3 resounds 3 is heard
of giving is heard/ giving one is all- hearing men, by the
resounds hearing power of giving
4 When one enters the 4 when one 4 one is able to 3 resounds 3 Sugata(s) in 3 proclaim (?) 4 [they] fully 4 when one enters
city of compassion enters the city enter stage of the midst of the power of enter the city the city of
of compassion compassion the city of giving that is endowed compassion
gradually compassion with steng rjin
 Differences of content  123

2.2.6 The Final Lines

A final area where versions differ is in how the sutra ends. In Tibetan versions one,
two (PT 105), and three (PT 98), Mañjuśrī and the human and non-human assembly
of listeners rejoice at what the Buddha taught:

Mañjuśrīkumārabhūta, the gods, humans, non-humans, gandharvas and all the worldly as-
sembly manifestly rejoiced at what the bhagavan taught.
’jam dpal gzho nur gyurd pa dang / lha dang / myI dang / lha ma yin dang / / drI zar bcas pa’I
’jig rten gyI ’khor de thams cad / bcom ldan ’da’s gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga’ ’o /; ITJ
310.1209, g4-6

Tibetan version C5, by contrast, does not mention Mañjuśrī at the end, and has the
assembly both rejoice and offer praise:

The all-encompassing entourage, the gods, humans, non-humans, and gandharvas [of this]
world delighted in what the bhagavan taught and manifestly praised it.
thams chad dang ldan ba’I ’khor / de dang lha dang myi dang lha ma yIn dang dri zar bcas pa’I
’jig rten / bcom ldan ’da’s gyIs gsungs pa la yi rang ste mngon bar bstod to’; ITJ 310.645, e17-1985

This wording corresponds to the two Tibetan canonical versions, except for the fact
that these include Mañjuśrī.
The fragmentary version at ITJ 308, by contrast, does not have the assembly
praise the teachings but rather commit the teaching to their hearts. Mañjuśrī is
again absent.

The gods, humans, non-humans, gandharvas, and all of the retinues of those worlds quickly
held it in their hearts just as the bhagavan taught.
lha: dang: myi: dang: lha ma: yin: dang: dri: za’ dang ’jig: rten: de: dag: gi ’khor: thams: chad/
bcom: ldan: ’das: gyis: gsungs: pa: bzhin: du/ / myur: ba’i: yidu ’dzin: to; ITJ 308, 7v5-6

The Chinese A5 version has the assembly both rejoice and “put their confidence in”
the teaching, roughly equivalent to holding it in their hearts:

The entire assembly of gods, asuras, gandharvas, etc. delighted at what the Buddha taught
and put their confidence in it.
一切世間天人阿修羅揵闥婆等。聞佛所說。皆大歡喜。信受奉行

S.147 follows this, but omits the last part, 信受奉行, so the assembly only expresses
its delight.


85 See Fig. 54 for an image of the column on which this text occurs.
124  Transmitting Limitless Life

The ending in ITJ 308 corresponds closely with that in the Khotanese version,
which also has the statement that the audience took the teachings to heart/ placed
it in their minds.

[...] all gods and men and the assembly in the world beginning with asuras and gandharvas
quickly embraced that saying of the Venerable Exalted One, and when it became understood
placed it in their mind.86
khu gyastä ba’ysä ttu hvanai hva yuḍe biśä gyasta u hvaṇḍä aysurāṃ gandharvām āstąna lovya
parṣä’ tta tu gyastä ba’ysä hīvī hvanai thyau nāṃdä ñāpaṃdai-v-ī aysmya yuḍāṃdä

The Sanskrit E4 version, following Konow’s edition, also omits Mañjuśrī:

Thus spoke the bhagavan joyfully, and the bhikṣus, the bodhisattvas-mahāsattvas, and the vast
assembly, and the worlds of gods, men, asuras, garuḍas, gandharvas, found pleasure in what
the bhagavan had spoken.87
idam avocad bhagavān āttamanās te ca bhikṣavas te ca bodhisattvā mahāsattvāḥ sā ca
sarvāvatī parṣat sa-deva-manūṣāsura-garuḍa-gandharvaś ca loko bhagavato bhāṣitam
abhyanaṇdann iti88

Other Sanskrit E4 versions appear to display only minor variations, such as omit-
ting bhikṣus or garudas.
In this closing passage the main differences are whether or not Mañjuśrī is
present (Tibetan versions one and two, and canonical versions) or absent (Tibetan
Dunhuang version C5 and ITJ 308; Chinese, Khotanese, and Sanskrit versions); and
whether or not the assembly delights in/ praises the teaching (Sanskrit E4 version;
Tibetan Dunhuang versions one, two, three, and five, and both canonical versions;
Chinese Dunhuang version S.147), commits it to heart (Khotanese version; ITJ 308),
or both (Chinese A5).

2.2.7 Conclusions on content

Looking at these various key differences in content, it is evident that they do not
align neatly with the structural differences between versions. Even where one ver-
sion might be suspected of being translated from or co-created with another version
based on their structural affinities, the specific choices of language in these key para-
graphs suggest a complex situation in which translators drew on multiple versions


86 Konow 1916, 328; Duan 1992, 64.
87 Walleser 1916, 36; Payne 2007, 299.
88 Duan 1992, 138.
 Context of the different versions  125

to make their choices. For example, structurally PT 98 in Tibetan is version three

and thus corresponds to the Khotanese version. However, its verse structure does
not mirror the structure of the Khotanese verse. By contrast, the structure of the
verse in ITJ 308, a possibly blood-written Ap copy, most closely tracks that in the
dominant Chinese A5 version.
From the perspective of transmission, one might say that the Chinese and Ti-
betan versions of the Sutra of Limitless Life produced in Dunhuang in the ninth
century are hopelessly “contaminated” in the sense that transmission is not purely
from one source text and language to one target text and language. We have seen
some evidence that points to translation – or rather influence – from Tibetan to
Chinese and some evidence that points in the reverse direction. We have also seen
how different readings or different variants of the Sanskrit source texts could have
produced different Tibetan and Chinese translations of §19. It may be the case that
scribal errors account for version one replacing §16 with §18, as others have sug-
gested. It may also be the case that this was a principled decision that was made
based on the source text(s) that the translator(s) had before them. It is only the
documentation of so many sutra copies as textual witnesses that allows us to per-
ceive and document this rich history of “contamination.” However messy it may be,
such a situation likely reflects standard practice in many other contexts in which
Buddhist texts were collated and translated. It may accurately represent something
like a standard practice of using as many versions and resources as one had to hand
in order to produce a translation. Any appearance of a tidy and uncontaminated
transmission might even be taken on the one hand as evidence of a lack of textual
data and/or on the other hand an indication of a lack of a vibrant practice context.

2.3 Context of the different versions

All of the Dunhuang Tibetan versions as well as the Chinese versions are either rep-
resented in the sutra-copying project of the 820s, or else are not far removed from
it temporally. Even the variant with the idiosyncratic title Tshe tshad myed pa,
which is so far attested in only seven leaves across three pressmarks in Paris and
London, is found in one of these fragments on the verso of a discarded SP2 folio PT
2079v, where it exists alongside the jottings typical of such discards. As such, it is
very likely contemporary with the production of these Perfection of Wisdom Sutra
copies, which were a part of the horse-year project begun in 826. The Chinese and
Tibetan Ap copies, as we will conclude in Chapter Three, were largely copied in the
years just before and after 826, as part of a separate, but related, sutra-copying
project. Version two is found not only in the compilation text PT 105, which was not
a part of the sutra-copying project, but also in ITJ 310.315 and PT 3671, which are
126  Transmitting Limitless Life

otherwise identical with the A1 and B1 copies of Ap, and are therefore probably
contemporary with them. The names of the scribes and editors also overlap with
those who scribed and edited the main A1 and B1 sutra copies produced during the
project to produce Ap copies for the Tibetan emperor. Version three, by contrast, is
only so far attested in the Khotanese copies and in the Tibetan copy in PT 98, a
compilation text that was probably commissioned later than the Ap copies made
for the Tibetan emperor. It is quite possible that official sutra copies of version
three, which uses the type-A dhāraṇī, are to be found among those sutra copies that
have been classed by other scholars and cataloguers as type A and by us as A1. The
Tibetan Dunhuang version C5, as we have already noted, was produced as part of
the sutra-copying project, even if copies are extremely rare.
The variant Chinese versions may also belong to the Chinese Ap copies com-
missioned for the Tibetan emperor. They share the same mise-en-page as the domi-
nant A5 version, and feature thirty to thirty-five characters per line rather than the
standard seventeen characters per line that one usually finds in sutra copies pro-
duced during the Tang. Some other Dunhuang copies of version A5, by contrast, do
follow this more standard mise-en-page of seventeen characters per line, as we de-
scribe in the next chapter. This sets them apart from the more cramped writing in
the Chinese Ap copies commissioned for the Tibetan emperor. It remains an open
question when, where and by whom the Chinese A5 version, canonized as T.936, was
translated – or why it became the obvious choice for an exemplar when copies of
this Chinese version of the sutra were commissioned shortly after 826.
In any case, at least three versions of the sutra – versions one, two, and five in
Tibetan and versions two and five in Chinese – appear to have been contemporary
with one another in the 820s in Dunhuang, and included among the official copies
produced as a gift for the Tibetan emperor. In Chapter Three, we will argue that the
Tibetan copies were commissioned prior to the commission of the Chinese copies,
but that this was only a matter of a few years on either side of 826.
That these versions were copied at this time does not mean that 820s Dunhuang
was the site of their translation. It may be the case that the defective version one
favored by the Tibetan Ap copies was a translation brought from central Tibet that
had already been completed in the late-eighth or early ninth century. This may be
the version recorded in the Ldan dkar ma Catalogue as the Tshe dpag tu med pa’i
gzungs, measured as 110 ślokas, and included in this catalogue’s section for “dhāraṇī
[texts] of various sizes.” 89 Its prestige as a central Tibetan, imperially sponsored


89 Lalou 1953, 327; no. 350; see also Herrmann-Pfandt 2008, 199–201. Entry 381 of the same section,
“’Phags pa Tshe dpag tu med pa” in thirty-nine ślokas, refers, as Herrmann-Pfandt has noted, to the
Ārya-Aparimitāyur-jñāna-hṛdaya-nāma-dhāraṇī; Herrmann-Pfandt 2008, 218. This is confirmed by
 Context of the different versions  127

translation may account for its being used despite its missing and jumbled para-
graphs. If this were version B1, then the intrusion of the type-A dhāraṇī, which
became standard in Tibetan copies after 826, may have been influenced by the Chi-
nese A5 version, or else by the general popularity of the type-A dhāraṇī in Dun-
huang as opposed to central Tibet. To the extent that they are rare variant transla-
tions, it is possible that the Chinese and Tibetan version two copies were created at
Dunhuang in conversation with one another and with other versions that transla-
tors had to hand. However, it is difficult to imagine that anyone producing such a
translation was aware of the complete version five. This makes the Chinese copies
of version two (aka 乙本) particularly anomalous.
The few scribes who copied both the Tibetan A1/B1 version of the sutra and the
Chinese A5 version may have taken no notice of their differences in content. There
are no instances where they have inserted the missing paragraphs eight to eleven
or corrected the jumbled paragraphs sixteen through twenty-one. This was not the
role of a scribe, or even of an editor, and it is already surprising to find the rare
“Sinophone” interventions that we do encounter in a few of these Tibetan sutra
copies, such as the parsing of the dhāraṇī into twelve or fifteen sections. On the
other hand, translators, and elite bilingual monks and nuns obviously took notice
of these differences. The inadequacy of the Tibetan version A1/ B1 in comparison
with the Chinese version A5 may have been what prompted the production of the
Tibetan C5 version. This version, as we have seen above, is not a faithful translation
from the Chinese, but it may have drawn on Chinese versions as well as Tibetan
versions, in addition to a Sanskrit source text or texts. This sort of translation prac-
tice, involving not only translation from Sanskrit into Tibetan or Chinese, but also
some facility in comparing existing Tibetan and Chinese translations, and translat-
ing between these, is a product of this particular period on the Chinese-Tibetan
frontier. Some well-known figures like Wu Facheng/ ’Go Cho grub have become
emblematic of this sort of translation practice, but it probably represented a modus
operandi for a group of elite Sino-Tibetan translators not only in Tibetan Dunhuang
but also in Guazhou and in other areas of the eastern Tibetan Empire.
The transmission of the Sutra of Limitless Life and of its dhāraṇī is a much more
detailed story than the one we have sketched here. Our typologies are serviceable
for our purposes, and the disambiguation of types of the dhāraṇī from versions of
the sutra is a welcome refinement from the vague designations of Tibetan Dun-
huang copies as “A” or “B,” or the Bka’ ’gyur copies as “two-Oṁ” or “three-Oṁ.” Over
time we have traced what appears to be the expansion of the dhāraṇī through the


their discrepancies in length: 110 versus thirty-nine ślokas. For reference, the same catalogue
measures the Heart Sutra as twenty-eight ślokas.
128  Transmitting Limitless Life

addition of different textual units until it reached the ideal of 108 syllables/ akṣaras.
We have also seen the most dominant ninth-century Tibetan Dunhuang version
(A1/B1) give way to the longer and less jumbled Bka’ ’gyur version (C5/E5). The
manuscript record is spotty, with the earliest fragment coming from Gilgit includ-
ing only a bit of the dhāraṇī and part of the verse. We have thousands of ninth-
century Dunhuang manuscripts, but the Sanskrit manuscripts are from the twelfth
century at the earliest. These largely use the longer type-E dhāraṇī, and most appear
to be version four (without §21) along with a few of version five. The fluid nature of
the text, driven by its will to reproduce and by the avid production of copies, fueled
the proliferation of versions and variants. The thick nature of the manuscript
record at Dunhuang permits us to see these clearly, but similarly vibrant transmis-
sion lines may have thrived elsewhere.
3 Producing Limitless Life
The deficits of paper in the horse and sheep years for the scribes of the
100,000-line Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, which is a gift for the son of gods.
Commissioners Stag bzang Tsi dam and G.yu bzher Brtan kong calculated
[by subtracting] the record of scribed sutras submitted [by each scribe] from
the tally of paper received [by each scribe]. Setting aside the discards,
damaged sheets, and paper wrappers used as work surfaces, they assigned
each scribe’s respective shortfalls of paper to each scribe’s precise name.
They submitted this to councilor Rgyal zigs and to dog councilor Btsan bzher.
[Councilor Rgyal zigs and to dog councilor Btsan bzher] ordered: “the collection of
these debts of paper is entrusted to the ‘heads of fifty,’ that is, the officials of each
district and their subordinates to permanently resolve, and the keeper
(rub ma pa) Brtan kong is instructed to add [the receipt of these debts to his
records]. Complete this by the first autumn month of the monkey year.”
This having been decided, they wrote the [following] record of what is to be
managed (i.e. collected). If there be anyone who would dare to oppose managing
this matter, whether by profiting from these papers by collecting them for himself
or not profiting from these papers, or if anyone would flee/ be absent, then seize
and shackle one of his closest relations at the site of the gift (i.e. the scriptorium),
and make the scribe himself manage the [missing] papers. Up until he manages
this, seize his wealth and possessions at a rate of double [the value of his paper
debt] as a surety, and entrust this [wealth and possessions] to the keeper
(rub ma pa). If rather than manage this issue he should dare to oppose it or not
collect [the papers] to be managed, then the li ceng are to whip him at a rate
of ten lashes per sheet of missing paper. The li ceng shall harry him each day
up to the site of the gift and recalculate the size of the [debt of] paper
that he has offered.
– ITJ 1359(A)1


1 ITJ 1359(A), ll. 1–17: $/:/ rta dang lug gI lo la / / lha sras kyI sku yon dar ma shes rab ’bum pa / brI
pa’I yI ge [pa] rnams kyI khong na shog chad ci mchis pa / / ring lugs stag bzang tsI dam dang / g.yu
bzher brtan kong gI g.yar sngar / / shog shog mnos pa’i dkar chag dang / dar ma phul pa’i bu[l] yIg
tu brtsis pa las / / ro gron dang glegs tshas bton pa’I slad na / / yI ge pa’I khong na shog shog chad
yang dag pa’I mying smras / / blon rgyal zigs dang / to dog blon btsan bzher la zhus pa las / / shog
chad ’di rnams sde tshan so so’i lnga bchu rkang dang ’og sna la gnyer par gtan pa chos la / rub ma
pa je’u brtan kong gis ni snon du skoste / spre’u lo ston sla ra ba gum tshun cad kyis gnyer ’gum su
stsol cIg ces mchid gyis bcad nas gnyer yIg dkar chag du bris pa’ / / gnyer pas kyang ngo zlog phod
par ’tshol te / shog shog ‘byor na dngos su bsdus; / shog shog ma ’byor ram / rang reng ’tshal ba zhig
mchis na phu nu nye drung gcig zungste / btson car stsol la / / sku yon sar btson du zho[g] ste / yI ge
pa dngos kyis ni / shog shog gi gnyer ’gum su stsal / gnyer ma ’khums gyi bar du phyugs nor la stsogs
Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550-005
130  Producing Limitless Life

When Tibetan armies overran the Gansu corridor in the second half of the eighth
century they took control of renowned sites of Buddhist cultural production. Dun-
huang was justly famous for visual arts, but both Dunhuang (Shazhou) and Guazhou
were also important centers for scriptural production. By the beginning of the sixth
century there was already an established scriptorium in Dunhuang, and its various
temples had libraries of their own.2 Tibetan control of Dunhuang (c. 786–848) also
coincided with a period when Tibet’s emperors, generals, and officials embraced
Buddhism, especially in terms of building temples and sponsoring the translation,
reproduction, and recitation of scriptures. During the Tibetan period, Dunhuang’s
scribes, many of them effectively born into their trade, were employed in an official
scriptorium (jingzang 經藏), where they often produced sutras for the Tibetan em-
peror and for other powerful patrons. Other scribes may have worked at their own
monasteries, where Chinese monks and nuns were joined by Tibetans and those of
other ethnicities. As the Chinese scribes of Dunhuang became more Tibetanized
over the course of generations of Tibetan rule, they learned Tibetan language and
worked alongside Tibetans and other ethnicities copying not only Chinese but also
Tibetan sutras.
In embracing Buddhism, Tibet’s emperors had already prioritized scriptural pro-
duction and the translation of Buddhist teachings, mostly from Sanskrit. Through
royal patronage there was by the early ninth century a centralized translation bu-
reau, manuals for standardizing translations of technical terms from Sanskrit, a
growing Sangha, a network of temples and “Dharma colleges” across the Tibetan
Empire, and a growing catalogue of Buddhist translations. Whereas in central Tibet
these projects were increasingly focused on India and on the Sanskrit language, in
eastern areas such as Dunhuang there was a legacy of Chinese Buddhist scriptural
production, as well as a vibrant ritual calendar and material culture in which sutras
were prominently featured.
The bilingual sutra-copying project initiated in the horse year 826 is a key event
in the articulation of an imperially sponsored Buddhism under the Tibetan Empire.
On the face of it, its bilingualism is inclusive, and communicates a message that the
Tibetan emperor is the emperor for both Tibetans and Chinese and that Buddhist
palladia such as these sutras should be commissioned in both languages. At the same
time, the legal and administrative apparatus that oversaw the production of these


pa gta’ nyI ri phrogs la / rub ma pa la gtod cig / gnyer pas ngo zlog ma phod dam / gnyer ma ’dus
par gyur na / li ceng rnams kyang / shog shog yug re lcag bcu bcu’I thang du rgyab chad gyis chod
par bcado lI ceng gi rnams kyang gdugs re lan re sku yon sar ’phyan cad snyogs la / shog shog ’bul
stobs che chung yang rtsi zhing mchi shig/ /; for a different translation, see Takeuchi 1994, 857.
2 Fujieda 1969, 24–27; Drège 1991, 224 and following.
 The horse-year sutra-copying project  131

sutras, translated above in this chapter’s epigraph, was punitive and coercive, and
applied to Tibetan and Chinese scribes as well as to those of other ethnicities. United
sometimes by devotion to the Buddhas, sometimes by fear of administrators, and
other times by frustration with their editors, Dunhuang’s scribes produced specific
solutions to the specific challenges they faced. Their work, recorded in the thou-
sands of sutra copies and folia that have come down to us, is a snapshot of a unique
moment in the histories of both Tibet and Dunhuang leading up to the collapse of
Tibetan rule in Dunhuang in 848 and the dissolution of the Tibetan Empire itself
not long after. It is also a unique and fascinating time for the coalescing of different
Chinese and Tibetan scribal and editorial norms for producing Buddhist sutras.

3.1 The horse-year sutra-copying project

The Dunhuang manuscripts themselves include several records of sutra-copying
projects in the form of both administrative records and colophons. Due to the scale
of producing copies of massive sutras like the Daboreboluomiduo jing 大般若波羅
蜜多經 (*Mahā-prajñāpāramitā; hereafter, MP), or multiple copies of shorter su-
tras, it was only the wealthy and powerful who acted as patrons of such projects.
One such patron was Yuan Rong 元榮, the prince of Dongyang (Dongyang wang 東
陽王), who commissioned hundreds of sutra copies while serving as Inspector (cishi
刺史) of Guazhou from 525 to 542. The colophons of these sutras detail his motiva-
tions, as Yuan Rong variously prays for the enlightenment of the heavenly kings
Vaiśravana, Śakra, and Brahmā, and, through them, for recovery from illness, for
long life, for the return of his son from travels, for the protection of the kingdom,
and for the benefit of all beings.3 Another such patron was Lady Cui, wife of the
prince of Qin, who in the year 588 commissioned 500 copies of the Linked Discourses
(Za ahan jing 雜阿含經; Saṃyuktāgama).4
In the case of the sutra-copying project that accounts for the single largest
group of extant Dunhuang manuscripts, we have administrative records, colophons,
and jottings, but lack a dedication record or detailed colophon stating the name of
the giver and detailing their motivations. Fortunately, F.W. Thomas, Akira Fujieda,
Tsuguhito Takeuchi and others have studied the relevant administrative docu-
ments, which allow us to date the beginning of the project to 826. A key document


3 The Prince of Dongyang’s commissions have been treated in various places, e.g. Hao 2020, 89–90.
See most recently the detailed discussions and translated colophons in Chen 2020.
4 Drège 1991, 198–199.
132  Producing Limitless Life

concerning taxation and expenditure, ITJ 1254, records six separate requests con-
cerning the project. The third of these requests states:

Dedicated as a gift simultaneously, in the horse year. From the administrative order: “Copy
eight [copies] of the Tibetan 100,000[-line Perfection of] Wisdom [Sutra] and three [copies] of
the Chinese-600 roll 100,000[-line Perfection of Wisdom Sutra].” So it says.
rta ’[i] l[o’i] [d]us gcig du sku yon du bsngos te / bla’I mdzad [b]yang las byung ba / bod kyi shes
rab ’bum pa sde brgyad dang / / rgya’i ’bum pa [b]am po drug brgya’ [pa] sde gsum ris shIg ches
byungste; ITJ 1254, ll. 8–9.

Here the authority that orders the production of these sutras is exceedingly vague:
the “administrative order” (bla’i mdzad byang) is a slip or document (byang) that
mandates that one do or make (mdzad) something, which is issued from the author-
ity (bla, literally, “above”). 5 Indeed, quite a few of the disputes surrounding this
sutra-copying project that are recorded in this and other administrative texts effec-
tively stem from the petitioners’ lack of proper records to justify expenditure or
repayment from various administrative offices. It may be that the sutras were a gift
from a high official, and that some ostensive cost sharing between this patron’s per-
sonal benefaction and some expected contributions in the form of public expendi-
ture contributed to such confusion.
Other records, in any case, make it clear that the recipient of the gift of these
sutras was the emperor Khri Gtsug lde brtsan who ruled from 815 to 841. To excerpt
only a few:

“Those scribes who in the horse and sheep years were copying the 100,000[-line Perfection of]
Wisdom Sutra, the gift (sku yon) for the son of gods [...]”
rta dang lug gI lo la / / lha sras kyI sku yon dar ma shes rab ’bum pa / brI pa’I yI ge [pa] rnams;
ITJ 1359(A), ll. 1–2 (legal document concerned with the punishment of scribes for lost paper).

“Dedicated as a gift for the lord, the son of gods.”

rje lha sras gyI sku yon du bsngos the; ITJ 310.168 and ITJ 310.939 (separate jottings in Tibetan
Ap colophons).

“Written as a gift for the great king.”

rgyal po chen po de’i sku yon du bri; ITJ 310.699 (jotting in Tibetan Ap colophon).

“Two hundred sheets of long-sheet paper [...] for the purpose of copying the gift [sutras].”
sku yon ’dri ba’i shog shog yug rings nyis brgya’; PT 1078, r.2 (lawsuit about a loan of paper). 6


5 The term mdzad byang shares this administrative meaning in the text PT 999, which also con-
cerns the production of Ap copies after their use in a festival in 844. On this term, and its later use
to indicate author colophons, see Wangchuk 2022, 326–330.
6 See Takeuchi 1995, 181.
 The horse-year sutra-copying project  133

“As a gift for the previous son of gods, Khri Gtsug lde brtsan, the Chinese and Tibetan Limitless
Life sutras were copied in Shazhou.”
sngun lha sras khri gtsug lde brtsan gyi sku yon du // sha cur rgya bod gyi dar ma tshe dpag du
myed pa [br]is te//; PT 999, ll. 1–2 (administrative text dating to 844).

The seventh and final request in the administrative document ITJ 1254 states that
“the two sets of sutras written in the horse year were entrusted to the Shazhou
messenger Rgya sheg Tsheng tsheng, but there was no seal of receipt” (rta’I lo la
brI ba’i dar ma sde gnyis / / shacu’I pho nya rgya sheg tsheng tsheng la brdzangste /
bul rtags kyI phyag rgya ni ma mchis nas; ITJ 1254, ll. 15–16). This almost certainly
refers to the three copies of the Tibetan 100,000-line Perfection of Wisdom Sutra
(Śatasāhasrikā-Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, henceforth SP) and eight copies of the Chi-
nese MP. The passage goes on to state that the sutras have been considered missing,
and are to be returned to the scriptorium, but that this had not been accomplished
after four years of searching. At issue now is authorizing an expenditure to replace
them. This is of a piece with the same documents’ other passages, which paint a
picture of dysfunction.
It is notable that the horse-year commission of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra
copies is separate from the commissioning of the thousands of copies of the Sutra
of Limitless Life, even if both sutras are referred to as gifts for the emperor. The
fifth request in the same document references an order very like the one quoted
above that commissioned the Chinese and Tibetan versions of the Perfection of Wis-
dom Sutra. It is fragmentary, but one can make out “[illegible] order: it says ‘Copy
the Chinese Sutra of Limitless Life.’” ([xx] byang byungste/ rgya’i tshe dpag du ma
m[chi]s pa ris [shig] ches byung; ITJ 1254, ll. 24–25).7 It is interesting that this comes
later in the text than mention of the order to copy the Chinese and Tibetan versions
of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, since this might suggest a temporal succession
whereby the Chinese Sutra of Limitless Life was commissioned after the horse year
826 when the Chinese and Tibetan Perfection of Wisdom sutras were commissioned.
It is also intriguing that this order does not mention the Tibetan version of the Sutra
of Limitless Life as being commissioned at the same time (dus gcig du), as in the case
of the order to copy the Chinese and Tibetan Perfection of Wisdom sutras. The ad-
ministrative order PT 999, which dates to 844, treats the Chinese and Tibetan copies
of the Sutra of Limitless Life together, so there has been a tendency to assume that
they, like the Chinese and Tibetan Perfection of Wisdom Sutra copies, were commis-
sioned at the same time. However, an examination of the names in the colophons


7 One notes here the odd title that this passage gives for the sutra, Tshe dpag du ma mchis pa, in
place of the usual Tshe dpag du myed pa. This is likely the mistake of an administrator.
134  Producing Limitless Life

of all of these sutras suggests that the copying of the Tibetan Sutra of Limitless Life
was initiated first, followed by the Tibetan and Chinese versions of the Perfection
of Wisdom Sutra, and then the Chinese Sutra of Limitless Life. The text from 844
may have lumped the Chinese and Tibetan copies of the Sutra of Limitless Life to-
gether for the sake of convenience, or else it may have been unaware of the precise
chronology of their commission, which had occurred nearly two decades prior.
Comparing the colophons of Tibetan Ap and Tibetan pothī-format SP2 (both
visible in Fig. 5, above), there are significant overlaps in personnel, some of which
are revealing. Among those editors found in multiple colophons of both the Tibetan
Ap and the SP2 are Ci keng, Dam ’gi, Dam ^ing, Dam tsong, Leng Ce’u, Leng pe’u, ’Od
snang, Phab dzang, Phab weng, Phab ting, and Phug ’gi. At the same time, there are
at least seven editors of SP2, Bam Stag bzang, Brtan legs, Cang Weng yir, Chos grub,
Ha Stag slebs, Stag brtan, and Stag slebs, who are found only as scribes and not as
editors in Ap colophons. There do not appear to be any inverse cases of people who
served as scribes of SP2 and as editors of Ap. This is significant for establishing a
timeline: if one assumes a career progression in which a scribe advances from
serving as a scribe to becoming an editor, and assumes inversely that someone who
has served as an editor is unlikely to subsequently serve exclusively as a scribe,
then this would indicate that these people worked as scribes of the Ap before they
worked as editors of the SP2. This by itself is not conclusive evidence that the Ti-
betan Ap was copied before the order in the horse-year 826 to copy the Tibetan SP2
and the Chinese MP, since one could also imagine a case where the editors of one
sutra are the scribes of another, but alongside other editorial practices, which we
will treat in detail below, such a chronology becomes fairly likely.
The scribes and editors in the colophons of Tibetan and Chinese Ap copies, by
contrast, barely overlap. The lone edited Chinese Ap copy, S.4088 (Fig. 39), names
Zhixin 智忻 as its editor, and this probably corresponds to Ci shan, the editor of
multiple Tibetan Ap copies. Among the scribes, there are only a few found in both
Chinese and Tibetan colophons: among these are Lu Dze shing/ Lü Rixing 吕日興,
Cang Zhun tse/ Zhang Juanzi 張涓子, and Cang Kong tse/ Zhang Guangzi. This min-
imal overlap can be taken to suggest that the projects were separated somewhat
temporally, and/or that the Chinese and Tibetan sutras were generally copied by
different personnel. Their differing editorial practices, described below, and the in-
verse distribution of Chinese and Tibetan versions of the sutra, where, as described
in Chapter Two, scribes copied the defective Tibetan version one and the complete
Chinese version five, support the hypothesis that the copying of the Tibetan sutra
was initiated first.
The choice of the longest Chinese and Tibetan versions of the Perfection of Wis-
dom Sutra as a gift for the Tibetan emperor is in no way surprising. These were
 The horse-year sutra-copying project  135

widely revered as paramount expressions of Mahāyāna Buddhism. The Perfection

of Wisdom Sutra texts – from the Heart Sutra as the shortest, to the Diamond Sutra
as a manageable length, and through to the MP as the longest – are also popular
choices for copying and for recitation. This is evident from the numerous copies
found at Dunhuang commissioned before and after the horse-year project, and also
from eighth-century copies of the MP produced at Nara, as well as from the popular-
ity of the 8,000-line Perfection of Wisdom Sutra (Aṣṭasāhasrikā-Prajñā-pāramitā-
sūtra) as a text for illumination in early second-millennium India.8
The MP, in particular, is the prime example of the expansion or distension of
textual length in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra genre. The administrative text ITJ
1254 quoted above accurately describes it as equivalent to two SP copies, but
incorrectly refers to it as “100,000 [lines],” when 200,000 would be closer to the
truth. A veritable omnibus of Perfection of Wisdom Sutra texts, the MP contains the
Perfection of Wisdom Sutra in 100,000 lines, 25,000 lines (Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā),
18,000 lines (Aṣṭadaśasāhasrikā), 8,000 lines (Aṣṭasāhasrikā) in two versions,
2,500 lines (Sāddha-dvisāhasrikā, aka Suvikrāntavikrāmī-paripṛcchā-prajñāpāra-
mitā-nirdeśa), 700 lines (Saptaśatikā), 300 lines (Triśatikā, aka Vajra-cchedikā), and
150 lines, as well as a few other related texts.9 The internal organization of the MP is
such that these compiled sutras are divided between sixteen “assemblies” (hui 會),
that are set at four separate teaching settings or framing locations. Physically, the
document is divided into 600 rolls (juan 卷), which were stored in sixty numbered
“packets” (zhi 袟).10
The composite nature of the text may have contributed to its particular modes
of use in Dunhuang. In particular, the MP was employed in “sutra rotation” (zhuan
jing 轉經) rituals in which the sutra’s packets were divided between monks and
nuns who recited it in shifts, such that while one reciter or group of reciters was
reciting one part of the text, another was simultaneously reciting a different part.
On a larger scale, and usually at the level of state sponsorship, recitation could
occur simultaneously and/or successively at multiple temples, often in different lo-
cales. In one such sutra rotation that took place in 814 on behalf of the Tibetan em-
peror, fourteen different Dunhuang temples were lent separate sections of the MP,
identified by their “packet” (zhi 袟) numbers, in order to chant.11 There are over
twenty further records of sutra rotations or of loans of sections of the MP in support
of sutra rotations, most of which took place between 814 and 822, largely sponsored


8 On Nara, see Lowe 2017, 119–120; on illuminated Indian manuscripts, see Kim 2013, 9.
9 For details see Keyworth 2020, 299–301.
10 Drège 1991, 229.
11 Ding 2019, 665–666.
136  Producing Limitless Life

by the Tibetan emperor. The only other named sponsors during the Tibetan period
were the Prefect of Guazhou (kva cu’i rtse rje blon in P. 3336/3), his wife (in P. 3654/4),
and, in an interesting parallel with the sixth-century prince of Dongyang who was
also an “Inspector,” the Tibetan Inspector of the Army (P. 3336/4).12
The reasons for copying and reciting this massive sutra extend beyond the ob-
vious prestige factor of its sheer size. Xuanzang, in his translator’s colophon, states
of the MP that “[i]t is recorded in the sutra itself that in this country there will be
people taking delight in Mahāyāna teachings. All kings, ministers, and followers of
the four groups who copy, receive, and keep it, as well as recite and circulate it will
be reborn in the heavens and obtain ultimate emancipation.”13 These benefits align
with claims in the text itself, to the effect that those who hear, recite, and practice
the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra will be protected by the gods and will be free from
worldly or demonic harm.14 Elsewhere, there are claims about the power of the MP
to heal through touch.15 Some of the text’s claims are particularly relevant to mili-
tary concerns. A passage from the MP states,

When a son or daughter of a good family enters the front of a battlefield with the troops, if
they sincerely recite the Prajñāpāramitā, they will not be hurt or killed by weapons. All their
enemies will generate compassion; those who attempt to hurt them will naturally be defeated.
It is not possible for them to die on the battlefield!16

Dunhuang liturgies specifically harnessed the MP’s powers on behalf of Tibet’s mili-
tary, as is evident in a “liturgical script” (zhaiwen 齋文) for a sutra rotation of the
MP sponsored by the Tibetan chief councilor Zhang Khri sum rje shortly before 816.
Part of this script, which is in Chinese, states that this councilor makes use of the
sangha of Dunhuang to “protect soldiers and warhorses,” and to unite divine armies
with those of Tibet in order to defeat their enemies.

First, we use [the merit] to empower the four world-protecting heavenly kings, together with
dragons, gods, and the rest of the eight kinds of supernatural beings. We wish to make the
light of their might blaze and their auspicious energy grow; may both armies [i.e. non-human
and human] become equally powerful, and the northern aggressors be vanquished and sub-
mit to us.
先用莊嚴護世四王、龍神八部。 願使威光盛，福力增，使兩陳齊威，北戎伏款。17


12 Ding 2019, 666–667.
13 Keyworth 2020, 280.
14 For a full discussion of the “apotropaic Prajñāpāramitā,” see Ding 2019, 673–676.
15 Strickmann 2002, 187.
16 Ding 2019, 674.
17 Ding 2019, 672.
 The horse-year sutra-copying project  137

Many of these same factors are pertinent to the choice of the Tibetan SP as the other
sutra to be copied in this horse-year project. It, too, was employed in sutra rotation
in Dunhuang, a record for which exists from the year 815.18 It may also have been
seen to align with the type of Buddhism publicly embraced by Emperor Khri Srong
lde brtsan (742–c.800) and by his son and successor Khri Lde srong brtsan (r. c.802–
815), which emphasized karma and Buddhist moral cosmology.19 Exemplar copies
of the sutra were evidently brought from central Tibet to serve as models for the
copies to be made at Dunhuang and elsewhere.20

Fig. 34: Tax document PT 1128, with details about supplies for copying sutras; image captured by the
authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

In the case of both the Chinese MP and the Tibetan SP, it was important to produce
not just a faithful copy of the text, but a beautiful object. For the roll-format MP,
this meant that its 600 rolls were kept in sixty beautiful packets, probably made of
silk. For the pothī-format SP, there were other methods of storage and adornment.


18 Ding 2019, 665, n. 24.
19 See Kapstein 2000, 42–46; Doney 2023, 9–14 and 22–25.
20 Lalou 1954, 258; Dotson 2013–2014, 20–21.
138  Producing Limitless Life

For instance, PT 1128 (Fig. 34), an official decision bearing a seal from the Bde blon,
considers a request for expenditures for items such as sutra wrappers (phyi tshas),
binding strings (glegs thag), and silk brocades (men tri).21
There is also a “memo” (bsnyel byang) written on what looks to be a re-used
portion of an SP2 folio, PT 1018, that requests the creation of beautiful carvings of
the four heavenly kings for a sutra’s wooden book covers (dar ma’i glegs shing).22
These four kings would be fitting for the SP, which is divided into four tomes (dum
bu; Skt. kāṇḍaka) of seventy-six “chapters” (bam po; Chinese: juan) each. And of
course it aligns with the prayer in the liturgical script above and the prominence of
the four heavenly kings and of Vaiśravana in particular in the context of the ritual
efficacy of sutras for protection and warfare.23
Commissioning three MP copies and eight SP copies required not only a huge
amount of paper and ink, but also a large group of scribes and editors, workspaces
for them, and payment for their labor. The administrative text ITJ 1254 states that
the rations amounted to 470 loads of grain and an additional sixty loads of grain as
a gift, in addition to the costs of paper and ink.24 It goes on to say that no proper
document authorizing the expenditure has been received, and that these rations
have not yet been paid. The next request is about resolving a situation that arose
when the officials of Dunhuang decreased by half the rations for those copying the
Tibetan SP. It refers separately to the eighty scribes and twenty editors responsible
for copying the Chinese MP. A request in a separate document, initiated by both
Tibetan and Chinese scribes and monks, demands annual payment in kind for five
monks and twenty-five scribes, perhaps also in connection with this commission of
sutra copies.25 The other requests in ITJ 1254 add to the sense of a crumbling ad-
ministration, or at least to confusion about who is to pay for the production of the
sutras, who is to receive them, and where they have gone.
Indeed the main material necessities, paper and ink, were also a matter of ad-
ministrative concern. The above-mentioned official letter PT 1128 (Fig. 34) closes with


21 PT 1128, l. 16–20. For a translation of this text with commentary, see Taenzer 2012, 263–269. On
men tri, see Uebach 2015, 545.
22 The text reads, ban de bar ’byor gyi bsnyel byang du gsol ba’/ / dar ma’I glegs shIng thugs dpag
bdzad pa/ cI legs cI zang zhIg du mdzad pa dang/ rI mo rgyal cen bzhin bzhugs pa / phyag cha dang/
myI nor bar bgyi ba dang/ phyi’I ri mo legs shIng mdzes bar bgyi bar gsol//.
23 These four kings are also the notional audience for sutra copying at Nara in the eighth century;
Lowe 2017, 49.
24 rgya’i ’bum pa sde gsum / bod kyI ’bum pa sde drug gI tshal ma stsa[ng] khal bzhi brgya bdun
bcu tsam dang / yon khal drug cu tsam dang / snag shog gyi rin lastogs pa; ITJ 1254, ll. 13–14; Thomas
1951, vol. 2, 74, and 76.
25 S.5824; Drège 1991, 207.
 The horse-year sutra-copying project  139

a tally of taxes payable by the Chinese of Dunhuang in the monkey year (probably
828). It includes also those outstanding taxes payable from the previous two years
(horse year [probably 826] and sheep year [probably 827]) as well as unpaid taxes
from the snake year (probably 825). At least two items from the list of taxes due in
kind are of interest to the economy of sutra copying and to the project that began
during this time: nine bolts and nine measures of silk brocade (men tri yug dgu dang
mda’ dgu), and 48,158 sheets (yug) of paper.
The term yug can refer to a “sheet” of paper, as one might find in a stack of such
sheets, or it can refer to that same sheet of paper once it is attached to neighboring
sheets of paper as a “panel” in a roll. We translate yug with “sheet” or “panel” based
on these respective contexts. As described in Chapter One, the panels of the Tibetan
Ap rolls were separated by twentieth-century conservators and then folded (as
“bifolios”) to construct booklets. In all cases, “sheet,” “panel,” and “bifolio” refer to
the same physical object. As a measurement of paper, the term yug applied both to
a 31.5 ✕ 45 cm sheet of paper that would be glued together with other sheets to form
a roll of panels, and also to the long, rectangular 20 ✕ 73 cm folio used for the pothī-
format SP2. The latter was sometimes specified as a glegs bu yug (loosely translated,
“flat sheet”) which was counted as being equal to two “normal” yug or “roll sheets.”
One can see the logic of this equation from their similar surface areas and from the
fact that a pothī-format SP folio was double layered as opposed to the single-layered
panels of MP and Ap rolls. A panel used in the MP was typically 45 cm long, and cut
to 25 cm high for a surface area of 1,125 cm2. (The same measurement, yug, problem-
atically also designates the panels of Ap rolls, which are approximately 31.5 ✕ 45 cm
and thus have a larger surface area of 1,417 cm2.) One folio of SP – a “flat sheet”
(glegs bu yug) – measures approximately 20 ✕ 73 cm for a surface area of 1,460 cm2.
Its double thickness makes its 2,920 cm notionally equal to, but in fact more than,
two “panel sheets (yug) of Ap (2,790 cm).
As mentioned already, the SP consists of four tomes of seventy-six “chapters”
(bam po) each, which makes 304 total. On average, each chapter is about 7.8 folia
(glegs bu yug) long. That amounts to 2,371 “flat sheets,” which translates to 4,742
“roll sheets” per copy of SP. Multiplied by eight copies commissioned in the horse
year, almost 38,000 sheets (yug) would be required for these SP copies. Making simi-
lar calculations for the MP, each of its 600 rolls (juan) is between 730 and 870 cm
wide for an average of about eighteen “roll sheets” per roll. Multiplied by 600 juan,
it would require around 10,800 sheets of paper to produce a single copy of the Chi-
nese MP, and 32,400 panels to produce the three copies commissioned in the horse
year. The discrepancy in measurements, such that one MP copy does not require
precisely twice as much paper as one SP copy, may be due to the rough nature of
140  Producing Limitless Life

this estimate. Nevertheless, it is close enough to demonstrate the general accuracy

of the ninth-century Tibetan administrators’ statement that one MP equals two SP.
The sheer number of folia and rolls produced in this enterprise to copy these
Perfection of Wisdom sutras is staggering, and would have heavily burdened the
local resources of paper-producing centers and scribal centers like Dunhuang and
Guazhou – as well as likely drawing on the surrounding area’s supplies. Compared
with the tax document’s statement about 48,158 sheets of paper due in the monkey
year (probably 828), one can more easily appreciate the magnitude of the approxi-
mately 70,000 sheets of paper required for copies of three MP and eight SP. This is
to say nothing of all of the panels and folia of paper that, due to damage, errors,
loss, or theft, did not make their way into these sutras if and when they were final-
ized and consecrated as gifts.
The scale of paper taxation in support of the scribal centers of Shazhou and Gua-
zhou also pertains to some inherited truisms about paper scarcity and re-use during
the period of Tibetan rule there. Besides tax records, there are also records of gifts
and loans of paper. Taken together, these suggest that paper was an important eco-
nomic item, but not necessarily one that was exceedingly rare. Jean-Pierre Drège
has explored the issue of paper as a commodity in Dunhuang, and notes that paper
was measured in tie 帖, which indicated about fifty sheets in some cases and about
100 sheets in others. 26 Some of the Chinese records that Drège employs, such as
S.2447v, date to the Tibetan period, and it may be that the discrepancy (tie 帖 as fifty
sheets in some sources, 100 in others) corresponds to the difference between a “roll
sheet” (yug) and a “flat sheet” (glegs bu yug), which equalled two roll sheets, as just
described. The corresponding Tibetan term for a unit of fifty sheets – or perhaps
100 sheets – is theb, which has the same phonetic value as tie 帖, with tie being the
likely the source for the loan into Tibetan. This measurement for paper is found,
for example, in the Tibetan contract PT 1078v involving a sutra scribe borrowing
paper, where “within the two hundred long sheets to be paid is one theb of paper
for the annual tribute” (yug rings nyis brgya’i nang na lo thang shog shog theb gcig
phul; PT 1078v, l. 2).27 A jotting on the verso of a discarded panel of SP2, pressmark
PT 1922, also uses the unit theb in connection with large numbers of sheets of paper.
The above-mentioned loan contract for paper, PT 1078v, mentions an important
detail of legal practice that in a way shows the value of paper: scribes were whipped
for lost or missing sheets. This is corroborated in the administrative document ITJ
1359, translated in this chapter’s epigraph. The document is catalogued across four
sub-pressmarks, ITJ 1359(A) to ITJ 1359(D). ITJ 1359(A) includes an explanation of the


26 Drège 1991, 200 and 208.
27 Takeuchi 1995, 180–183.
 The horse-year sutra-copying project  141

tally of sheets of paper that had gone unaccounted for in the horse (probably 826)
and sheep (827) years, and the list spanning ITJ 1359(B) (Fig. 35) to ITJ 1359(D) assigns
numbers of such missing sheets to each of ninety-one named scribes. These are
specified in ITJ 1359(A) as the “scribes who in the horse and sheep years were copy-
ing the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra [in] 100,000 [lines], the gift for the son of gods,”
which is to say, those tasked with copying the Chinese MP and the Tibetan SP. It
arrives at the number of missing sheets from the number of sheets or folia they
received against the number of completed panels or folia they handed in, without
counting against them any panels that were defective or damaged (gron) or that,
having been rejected by editors, were marked as discards (ro).

Fig. 35: Amount of paper owed by Dunhuang scribes, with interlinear annotations, ITJ 1359(B); image
captured by the authors from http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.

Folia or panels rejected by editors because of physical damage or scribal error did
not count against the scribe as long as these were submitted to the relevant admin-
istrator and recorded by him. The punishable amount was therefore presumed
stolen, and punishment was set at ten lashes per missing sheet. Perhaps the most
gruesome detail of this text is the instruction that a scribe should be dragged to the
scriptorium (the “site of the gift”; sku yon sa) each day to be whipped until the debt
was paid. This public whipping would therefore transpire in a place that was meant
to be sanctified by the presence of the sutras there and by the purity practices of
the scribes who copied them. Yet these same scribes and editors would have to wit-
ness this public whipping of their fellow scribes. Between the ninety-one named
scribes who, in this legal context are arranged according to their residence in one
of the three thousand-districts (stong sde) of Dunhuang, the total number of missing
sheets over a period of two years was 4,084. That is over five percent of the ap-
proximately 70,000 sheets/ folia necessary to produce three copies of MP and eight
copies of SP. More importantly, these represent only the missing sheets and not the
142  Producing Limitless Life

presumably much larger amount of folia and panels that were rejected due to dam-
age and due to scribal errors.
Comparative data from the Nara Shōsōin are helpful for contextualizing the
administrative texts from Dunhuang and their testimony to confusion and disor-
ganization attending the horse-year sutra-copying project. The records from the
Shōsōin permit a reconstruction of eighth-century sutra-copying projects and their
administration that goes into minute detail, as documented by Bryan Lowe and oth-
ers.28 At the scriptorium in Nara, scribes copied approximately 8.6 sheets (panels)
per day in the mid-eighth century. These sheets were, similarly to those in Dun-
huang, 45–47 cm long, with seventeen characters per line. They differed from the
Chinese MP in Dunhuang by having twenty-four lines per panel, rather than twenty-
eight. On the basis of these measurements, a scribe’s output was approximately
3,500 characters per day. Notably, those copying sutras at Nara as a legal punish-
ment were only required to copy about five sheets per day. Later Heian-period
Lotus Sutra copies were produced at a rate of approximately seven sheets per day.29
If Dunhuang’s MP scribes copied sutras at the same rate as the Nara scribes, they
would produce 7.4 sheets of scribed sutra copies per day (approximately 3,500
characters) on account of the different page layout. As noted above, one MP copy
consists of approximately 10,800 panels. This would take one scribe 1,460 days of
work – four years without a day off – to copy. As also noted above, the administra-
tive text ITJ 1254 mentions that eighty scribes and twenty editors engaged in produc-
ing the Dunhuang MP copies. Eighty scribes could theoretically produce a copy of
MP in 18.24 days at a rate of 592 panels per day. Assuming rest, and about ten per-
cent waste in the form of panels rejected due to scribal error, a project moving at
this rate and with this number of scribes and editors should produce the mandated
three copies of Chinese MP in about three months. Were these scribes to move at
the pace of those Japanese who copied sutras as punishment, eighty scribes would
produce three copies of MP in ninety-four-and-a-half days, or about four or five
months if one allows for waste.
If one assumes a similar rate of labor for the eight copies of Tibetan SP, and if
one factors in the time it takes to edit, to reject and replace panels and folia, and
other elements of production such as sutra wrappers and book covers, one can
comprehend how this project might take two years to complete. By the same token,
one can be struck by the fact that, as the administrative documents reviewed above
attest, the project was stalled or incomplete after several years.


28 Lowe 2017, 106–145.
29 See Lowe 2017, 112, n. 15 and the works cited there.
 Double standards  143

3.2 Double standards

Hundreds of the leaves and rolls of Tibetan SP2 and Chinese MP deposited in Cave
Seventeen are discards. These are either torn or damaged, or were rejected by an
editor due to scribal errors. These discards remind us that in the process of produc-
ing a massive amount of sutra copies, the necessary by-product was a parallel pro-
duction of a huge cache of discards, or an “archive of errors.” In the final calcula-
tion, the number of discards and the number of missing sheets generated by the
horse-year sutra-copying project probably ran into the thousands. Many of these
were re-used, and we find them on the backs of some famous Dunhuang manu-
scripts, including the Old Tibetan Chronicle.30
Concern with the appearance of these “gift sutras” meant that interlinear or
marginal additions were not tolerated in a final copy of a complete MP or SP. When
a scribe submitted a folio or a “chapter” (bam po), it was customarily edited by three
editors. 31 They compared the scribe’s work against their editorial exemplar, and
rejected the scribe’s work if it included obvious additions (lhag) or omissions (chad).
Surveying the leaves of SP preserved in London, Paris, and elsewhere, it is often
easy to distinguish those that have been rejected from those that have not. The for-
mer sometimes have large Xs over the entire folio, and often their margins have
been cut. In most cases, a rejected folio includes a cut, made from one string hole to
the top or bottom margin. This served to free it from one of the binding strings,
permitting it to lie askew such that it was easy for the “replacement team” to find.
Once found by the replacement team, they would copy a clean version of the offend-
ing folio, taking care not to repeat the rejected folio’s errors, and attending also to
spacing, so as not to finish before the end of the folio or have to fit a large amount
of text into the last few lines. Indeed some would-be replacement folia were reject-
ed for committing precisely these errors when the replacement team’s writing was
either too cramped or too loose.32
Most discarded SP folia also bear editorial notes in the margins. One type of
note, usually in the left margin, records the name of the scribe, the name of the
editor who marked the folio for removal, and, optionally, the reason for doing so.
When an editor gives a reason for removal, it is usually brief, and sometimes sarcas-
tic or exaggerated. Typical examples are missing or extra lines, or writing a folio
side upside-down in relation to its recto. Another sort of note, usually in the bottom


30 See Iwao 2017 on re-use of blank Tibetan SP paper; see also van Schaik 2013a, 230–231 and Doney
2018, 75 and 91–92 on possible re-use of blank Tibetan Ap paper.
31 There are also cases of four editors, and some of one or two editors; see Dotson 2013-2014, 28–30.
32 Dotson 2013-2014, 36–45.
144  Producing Limitless Life

margin, gives the folio number alongside another number, which records the num-
ber of that particular discard in a tally of discards.

Fig. 36: Editor’s notes in the margins of a discarded SP2 folio, PT 1332; image captured by the authors
from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliotèque nationale de France.

This number may tally an individual scribe’s discards, or may be a collective run-
ning count of discards for a tome, or for a scribal and editorial team within the
scriptorium. The term for discard is ro, meaning “remains,” and this is a short form
of “sutra remains” (dar ma ro).33 To reject a folio is to “remove it as a discard” (ror
phyung ba/ ror dbyung ba), though this act in fact only marks a folio for removal
and replacement by a subsequent team of scribes and editors, since actually remov-
ing it at the rejection stage would be to risk having missing folia in the final copy.
Scribes were very concerned that these discards be tallied under their name
by the official known as the “keeper” (rub ma pa), so that they would not be held


33 Dotson 2013-2014, 54–56.
 Double standards  145

accountable for a shortfall and punished as a result.34 Scribes were often responsi-
ble for ensuring that the “keeper” recorded this, to the extent that we find notes
from scribes warning others against taking their discarded folia. The period be-
tween getting hold of one’s discard and handing it in to the “keeper” also afforded
scribes the opportunity to produce some of the most candid forms of literature ever
attested. Besides the expected insults hurled at their editors, we find here poetry
and jottings that offer a window into the lives of Dunhuang’s scribes.35
The editors of the Chinese MP applied similar norms when accepting or reject-
ing the rolls (juan) that scribes submitted. Their editorial notes give reasons for re-
jection such as “one line [of text] missing” or “one line copied twice.”36 In the pothī-
format SP, the binding string could be unfastened in order to replace a faulty folio.
In the roll-format MP, by contrast, a single roll might consist of eighteen panels of
paper, and it was necessary to unglue or cut out the offending panel and then replace
it with a newly scribed, correct panel. As a result of this practice there are many
MP rolls in which one panel may be of a slightly different color than the others, or
where it may otherwise stand out by not lying perfectly flush with its surround-
ing panels in the roll. The panels marked for removal can often be easily spotted


34 Scherrer-Schaub discussed the term rub ma pa in the context of its appearance in PT 999, and
followed Lalou in translating it with “conservateur”; Scherrer-Schaub 1992, 434, n. 38; Lalou 1956,
12. We can add that the noun rub ma pa likely derives from the verb ’brub, which is found in the
same document’s phrase, “they [the Chinese and Tibetan Ap copies] were deposited (brubs) in
Longxing Temple’s scripture treasury [...]” (lung hung sI’i gtsug lag [kha]ng gI dar ma’I mdzod du
brubs pa las; PT 999, ll. 2–3). This same verb is used for incarceration, in the sense of putting some-
one or something in a hole; Hill 2010, 211–212. The latter use calls to mind the Jiu Tangshu’s (Old
Tang Annals) statement that the Tibetans initially had no laws and punished people capriciously
by putting them in deep holes for years at a time; Bushell 1880, 441. For our present puposes, it is
interesting that the noun rub ma pa, if it indeed derives from the verb ’brub, implies imprisonment,
and that this verb was applied specifically to what one does with sutras. These connotations are
relevant to whatever line one draws between a library and a reliquary – and the putative thickness
of such a line. Such a discussion pertains to not only monastic libraries such as that of Longxing
Temple but also Cave Seventeen itself; see Doumy and van Schaik 2023. We have no objection to
translating rub ma pa with “conservator,” but we avoid it here on account of the fact that we have
used this term at length in Chapter One to describe people working in libraries and museums in
the twentieth century, and whose duties are quite different. “Keeper” has the advantage of being
used not only in museum and library contexts, but also in the zoo, a space of quasi-imprisonment.
It also serves nicely as a translation of the official roles of “keepers and disseminators of secrets”
(gsang gI rub ma pa dang ’gyed ma pa) in PT 1089, translated previously as “conservateur secret et
répartiteur” and as “collectors and distributors of secrets”; Lalou 1956, 12; Dotson 2009, 72.
35 For details see Dotson 2013-2014 and Dotson 2015a.
36 Schneider 1996, 148.
146  Producing Limitless Life

because the editors wrote the word “replace” (dui 兑) in the top margin. In some
cases, they even wrote this in large, brushed letters over an entire panel (Fig. 37).37

Fig. 37: The characters dui “replace” written in brush over a rejected panel of Chinese MP, S.461;
image captured by the authors from http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.

The processing and recording of these discarded panels was extremely important
to scribes. If they were registered as discards with the “keeper,” then these panels
or folia did not count against a scribe in the tally of missing paper; if they were not
so registered, then this meant ten lashes per missing panel or folio that the scribe
failed to come up with. Tallies of discards and tallies of completed sutra chapters
and copies also offer some information on how scribes and editors worked. An edi-
tor’s note in the left margin of a discarded SP2 folio states, “Leng ho Pe’u tshon’s dis-
card, and also the chapter. Removed at re-edit from Monk Leng ce’u’s group.”38 Leng
ce’u is found as an editor of numerous SP2 folia and Tibetan Ap copies, and it is
evident from this note that he led a team (gra) of scribes and editors. A similar note
in the left margin of another discarded SP2 folio refers to a team headed by Keng
Spyan spyan.39 There are further references to such teams in tallies that probably


37 Schneider 1996; Dotson 2013-2014, 56–58.
38 leng ho pe’u tshon gyi ro le’u yang mchiste/ dang zhus pa ban de leng ce’u ’i grar phyungo; PT
1329, 46r; Dotson 2013-2014, 43.
39 PT 1337, 4v; Dotson 2013-2014, 44.
 Double standards  147

refer to completed Ap copies, where we find Stag Su tam and Bran ce’u’s team, and
also Lha bo’s team. An editorial note in a Tibetan Ap copy, ITJ 310.1117, refers to Rdo
rje’s team. These probably refer to the internal organization of Dunhuang’s official
scriptorium (Ch. jingzang 經藏), in which more than one hundred scribes and
editors labored. As noted above, this scriptorium was apparently also referred to
as the “site of the gift” (sku yon sa).

Fig. 38: The characters dui “replace” written in the top margin of a rejected Ap fragment, S.2355;
image captured by the authors from http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.

Dunhuang’s scribes and editors operated with different sets of norms when copying
the Sutra of Limitless Life than when copying the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra. Most
of the differences concern maximizing the available space for writing. The mise-en-
page of the Chinese MP follows the Tang norm of having seventeen characters per
line, making for a pleasing and elegant appearance and for rather large characters.
The Chinese Ap, by contrast, did not cut its panels to 25–26 cm, but rather to 31–32 cm,
and scribes wrote thirty to thirty-seven characters per line.40 It is easy to thereby
distinguish between Ap copies produced as part of this project and those that do


40 Iwao 2012, 103.
148  Producing Limitless Life

not belong to it. Those Ap copies with the standard seventeen characters per line,
which do not belong to this sutra-copying project, are almost all fragmentary and a
few of them bear the editorial mark dui in their upper margins to mark them as
discards (Fig. 38).41 Those Ap fragments unaffiliated with the gift for the Tibetan
emperor are 25–28 cm high.
The different mise-en-page of the Chinese Ap that were copied with the Tibetan
Ap as gifts for the Tibetan emperor is plain to see (Fig. 39).

Fig. 39: The first panel of an edited Chinese Ap copy, S.4088; image captured by the authors from
http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.

Fig. 39 also demonstrates a second major difference between the way that editors
approached the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra copies in the horse-year sutra-copying
project and the way that they approached the Sutra of Limitless Life copies. Name-
ly, there are editorial corrections, visible in red ink, in the above Chinese Ap copy
S.4088, but there is no indication that this panel was rejected. In fact, there are


41 Among the fragments are P. 4950, P. 4953, P. 4954, S.990, S.1015, S.1107, S.1545, S.1960, S.2355,
S.3349, and S.4777. The latter eight are all marked “replace.”
 Double standards  149

corrections in red ink on all five panels of this complete sutra copy, the end of which
includes both a scribal colophon and an editorial colophon. We have seen no extant
Ap copy or fragment with this more efficient mise-en-page and with the larger for-
mat of 31–32 cm high that is marked for rejection.
The edited Chinese Ap copy S.4088 is an outlier, though, since it appears to be
the only one of the nearly 300 Chinese Dunhuang Ap rolls in the British Library’s
Stein Collection that has such editorial corrections (see Fig. 39). This is a major dif-
ference between the Tibetan Ap copies and the Chinese Ap copies. It aligns the Chi-
nese Ap copies more closely with the unedited Tibetan Ap rolls found in mixed bun-
dles, rather than with the mostly edited Tibetan copies in bundles of single-sutra
rolls. The other Chinese Ap copies include only scribal colophons, and some are
without any colophon at all. Although the dominant Chinese A5 version of the sutra
contains the same number of characters in every copy, there is a wide variation in
the length of the copies, that is, in how much paper a scribe used to copy the sutra.
This ranges from 150 to 220 cm. The most common lengths are four panels (160–180
cm) and five panels (200–220 cm). Of the 288 rolls or fragments of Chinese Ap that
Giles catalogued in the British Library’s Stein Collection, 141 consist of a single copy
of the sutra, thirty-four are rolls that each include multiple copies (from two to five),
and 113 are incomplete or fragmentary. The thirty-four multiple-sutra rolls contain
in total eighty-seven Ap copies.
In an interesting merger of Chinese and Tibetan book formats, the Tibetan Ap
was arranged horizontally, in roll format, with the text arrayed in columns. Mar-
gins, lines, and columns were inked prior to writing. The lines are evenly spaced,
with fifteen mm leading, which is also standard in all Dunhuang SP copies. A col-
umn usually includes nineteen lines of text. Columns are on average 21–22 cm wide,
with two columns of text per 45 cm-wide panel of paper. Columns are separated by
fifteen mm column gutters. Top and bottom margins are generally 20 mm high, and
right and left margins are usually 10–12 mm wide (see Fig. 23b). The Tibetan Ap
contain no ninth-century foliation or numbering.
The panels of paper used for the rolls, like those used for Chinese Ap copies, are
31–32 cm high. Sixteen copies stand out for using shorter, 27.5–28 cm-high paper. It
may be that this was paper intended for a different sutra, perhaps even the MP.
Generally, the paper used for Tibetan Ap copies is very smooth, bright, and uniform
in texture, in contrast to the paper used for many other Tibetan Dunhuang manu-
scripts.42 It features twelve to fourteen laidlines per 3 cm, and chainlines at 7 cm
intervals. This is the same paper used for the Chinese Ap copies.


42 A rougher, less uniform type of paper with large fibers visible on the surface was used for only
a very few Ap copies, such as ITJ 310.930 and ITJ 310.938.
150  Producing Limitless Life

A Tibetan Ap copy required less paper than a Chinese copy. About twenty per-
cent of the Tibetan sutra copies consist of four panels (160–180 cm) or three-and-a-
half panels (140–160 cm). The vast majority comprise three panels (120–135 cm).
That a Tibetan copy of the sutra should require less paper than the Chinese copy is
surprising until one recalls that the Tibetan copies used version one of the sutra,
which has six fewer paragraphs (and six fewer accompanying dhāraṇī) than ver-
sion five, which was used for the Chinese copies. The Tibetan sutras also differ in
that a larger number of these are edited.
The differing lengths of the Tibetan Ap copies can be understood in the context
of economizing on paper (see Figs 40–43 for examples). At one extreme are sutra
copies consisting of four panels and eight columns in which the first column (a) or
the last column (h) is left totally blank, save for the inked guidelines and margins.
Frequently, the last column of an eight-column copy contains only the colophon. A
middle ground in economizing paper is the seven-column copy using four panels,
but where one panel – either the first or the last, generally – is cut into a half-panel
measuring approximately 22.5 cm wide. If this is the first panel, we describe the
sutra’s number of columns as “7 (no a)”; if the last panel is cut in half, then it is
described as “7 (no h).” At the other extreme are some sutra copies written over five
columns, where the last column is fifty percent wider than a standard column, such
that the text is written across a ¾-size panel of approximately 34 cm. The most
common length of a sutra copy, represented in nearly all of the multiple-sutra rolls,
comprises three panels with six columns of text. The efficiency of this layout is
obvious: for example, a scribe issued with eighty-four sheets of standard 31.5 ✕ 45
cm paper could copy twenty-one sutra copies in a four-panel, eight-column layout,
twenty-four copies in a three-and-a-half-panel, seven-column layout, or twenty-
eight copies in a three-panel, six-column layout.

Fig. 40: Four-panel, eight-column layout, PT 3901; image captured by the authors from
https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
 Double standards  151

Fig. 41: Three-and-a-half-panel, seven-column layout (column a missing), PT 3905; image captured by
the authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Fig. 42: Three-panel, six-column layout, PT 3906; image captured by the authors from
https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Fig. 43: Two-and-three-quarter-panel, five-column layout (column e is 150 percent wider than the
rest), PT 3793; image captured by the authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque
nationale de France.

The distribution of layouts in panels of paper and columns of text among our corpus
of Tibetan Dunhuang Ap copies in the British Library is as follows:

3,6 (three-panel, six-column): 1,213

4,7 (a or h missing): 184
4,8: 132 (including those where a and/or h is blank)
3,5: 42
4,6 (a and h missing): 30
5,8: 3
5,9: 2
5,10: 1
152  Producing Limitless Life

The practice of using the three-and-a-half-panel, seven-column layout, as well as the

two-and-three-quarter-panel, five-column layout, meant that scribes and editors
made use of various sizes of paper sheets. There were standard “roll sheets” (yug)
of 31.5 ✕ 45 cm, half-sheets that measured approximately 31.5 ✕ 22.5 cm and which
were called “short sheets” (yug thung), as well as ¾ sheets of 31.5 ✕ 34 cm, and ¼
sheets of 31.5 ✕ 11 cm. Scribes would have used their knives to cut sheets to these non-
standard sizes, from which they (or someone else in the scriptorium) assembled the
rolls. While most rolls are of one of the more standard sizes given above, some were
assembled in an idiosyncratic fashion. For example, ITJ 310.172 is a sutra of six col-
umns written over four panels of paper. That in itself is not so uncommon, were it
made of a half panel on either end of two full panels (that is to say, panel one = column
a; panel two = columns b+c; panel three = columns d+e; and panel four = column f).
In this case however, there is a half panel in the middle, such that the arrangement
is a+b; c; d+e; f. The same is true of ITJ 310.850. Similarly, ITJ 310.396 is an eight-
column sutra copy written over five panels, where the third and fifth are half panels
(a+b; c+d; e; f+g; h). Many sutra copies also contain quarter panels in the form of
half-width columns either at the beginning or end of the sutra. Such idiosyncratic
panels probably resulted from someone using offcuts in order to assemble a roll.
The variation in size of the paper and the number of panels used for Tibetan
Ap copies mirrors a variation in the number of lines per column. Just as Dunhuang’s
scriptoria preferred the three-panel, six-column layout, there was also a marked
tendency towards ruling nineteen lines per column. There is also a significant num-
ber of copies with twenty lines per column. The distribution of number of lines per
column among our corpus of Tibetan Dunhuang Ap copies in the British Library is
as follows:

Fifteen lines/ column: 2

Sixteen lines/ column : 1
Seventeen lines/ column : 7
Eighteen lines/ column : 24
Nineteen lines/ column : 1,147
Both eighteen and nineteen lines/ column : 2
Both nineteen and twenty lines/ column : 7
Twenty lines/ column : 330
Twenty-one lines/ column : 80
Both twenty and twenty-one lines/ column : 2
Nineteen, twenty, and twenty-one lines/ column : 1
Both twenty-one and twenty-two lines/ column : 1
Twenty-two lines/ column : 1
 Double standards  153

Comparing the number of lines per column (ll./col.) with number of columns per
sutra copy, we find general correlations of the type that one would expect. That is,
four-panel, eight-column copies tend to have fewer lines per column (nine at 18
ll./col.; 122 at 19 ll./col.; one at 20 ll./col.), and three-panel, five-column copies tend to
have more lines per column (one at 18 ll./col.; fifteen at 19 ll./col.; twenty at 20 ll./col).
Among the most prevalent, three-panel six-column size, nine had 18 ll./col., 909 had
19 ll./col., and 293 had 20 ll./col.
The administrators who kept track of sutra copying were well aware of the
different layouts and lengths of the sutra copies, and this is reflected in their account-
ing. This is evident from a tally preserved in a wooden slip published by F.W. Thomas,
now catalogued as ITN 2208 (Fig. 44):

The account for Stag Su tam and Bran ce’u’s team: within their roll bundle are seventy-nine
three-panel rolls; thirteen four-panel rolls; one four-and-a-half-panel roll; and seven three-
and-a-half-panel rolls. All together that makes 318 panels for 100 rolls.
stag su tam dang bran ce’u gyI grar brtsis pa/ bam thum ’di ’I nang na/ / yug gsum pa bam po
bdun cu rtsa dgu / yug bzhI pa baM po bcu gsum/ / yug phyed dang lnga pa bam po gchig/ / yug
phyed dang bzhi pa bam po bdun/ spyir brtsis na bam po brgya’ la/ shog shog yug sum brgya’
rtsa bco brgyad byung//; ITN 2208.43

Figs 44a and 44b: ITN 2208, recto and verso; image captured by the authors from http://idp.bl.uk/,
courtesy of the British Library.

The number of panels is roughly equivalent to the distribution that we have recorded
across the Ap copies kept at the British Library (i.e. the predominance of three-panel


43 Thomas 1951, 84; Scherrer-Schaub 1992, 219. The late Tsuguhito Takeuchi kindly provided us
with the pressmark for this document, which, by Thomas’s reference to “No. 735,” was otherwise
unlocatable. It has no site number, which may imply that it was not among the documents recov-
ered by Stein.
154  Producing Limitless Life

rolls). It is highly likely, therefore, that this tally relates to Tibetan Ap copies, and
not to Chinese Ap copies, which tend to have four or five-panel rolls. Neither can
the tally refer to copies of Tibetan roll-format SP (henceforth SP3), whose rolls are
far longer. However, we do not find these names as scribes or editors in our corpus,
so it possibly relates to a different time or place.
Another wooden slip from Dunhuang, PT 1009 (Fig. 45), concerns the same pro-
cess of accounting. It reads: “The account for Lha bo’s team: 759 panels of paper in
253 three-panel rolls” (lha bo’i grar brtsiste yug gsuM pa bam po nyis brgya’ lnga
bchu rtsa gsuM la / shog shog yug bdun brgya’ lnga bchu rtsa dgu /.44 Lha bo is found
as a scribe of two Ap copies in the Pelliot Collection and perhaps one in St. Peters-
burg.45 These documents either constitute, or closely resemble, the “receipts of sutra
copies offered” mentioned in the description of the accounting process for paper in
the legal-administrative text ITJ 1359(A). There, a scribe’s shortfall is calculated with
recourse to the “record of paper received” (shog shog mnos pa’i dkar chag) and the
“receipt of sutra copies offered” (dar ma phul ba’I bul yig; ITJ 1359(A), ll. 3–4). That
process pertains to accounting at the individual level of the scribe, but it no doubt
drew on receipts such as these relating to a team within the scriptorium.

Figs 45a and 45b: Figs 45a and 45b: PT 1009, recto and verso; image captured by the authors from
https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

As noted above, these records offer us some insight into the internal organization
of the scriptorium into teams of scribes and editors. They also demonstrate the use
of wooden tallies for accounting and administrative purposes, something that was
also done one century earlier in the Nara scriptorium’s 712 production of an MP


44 Lalou 1950, 37; Scherrer-Schaub 1992, 219. Unfortunately, Scherrer-Schaub followed Lalou’s mis-
transcription of gra with gur, and thereby misunderstood this passage.
45 PT 3669 and PT 3796 have Lha bo as a scribe, and Dkh. Tib. 184 has Lha bu; Nishioka 1984, 315;
Savitsky 1991, 79.
 Different types of bundles  155

copy.46 The use of the term “roll bundle” (bam thum) to refer to the sutra copies sub-
mitted by Stag Su tam and Bran ce’u’s team is also revealing. It calls to mind the
“packets” (zhi 袟) in which Dunhuang’s temple libraries stored the MP and other
sutras, ten to twelve rolls (juan) to each packet. At the same time, it recalls the bun-
dles in Mogao Cave Seventeen, discussed in Chapter One. In the case of MP, one
juan/ bam po had an average of eighteen panels (yug), so a packet (zhi 袟) of ten
juan would have approximately 180 panels of paper. Within these packets, as Drège
notes, there is also some variation in the number of rolls.47 Bundles of Tibetan Ap
rolls in the British Library’s Stein Collection range from seventeen rolls to sixty-
four rolls, and from twenty-eight to 104 copies of the sutra, which is to say roughly
ninety to 300 panels of paper. The mean average across the twenty-six bundles is
fifty-four sutra copies, which is to say 162 panels of paper if they were all three-
panel rolls. Considering other layouts, the average number of panels per bundle
would be closer to 170. This is fairly strong grounds for equating the bundles in Cave
Seventeen with the “packets” (zhi) used by Dunhuang’s temple libraries in their in-
ternal organization of rolls. While that assumption may seem obvious, it is perhaps
helpful to have this sort of proof to confirm it. With respect to making the further
step of equating packets and bundles with the term “roll bundle” (bam thum) used
in the wooden slip above for a group of sutra copies, only the largest bundle of Ti-
betan Ap copies in the Stein Collection approaches the size of Stag Su tam and Bran
ce’u’s roll bundle (bam thum), which had 318 panels. Without further examples, we
cannot be sure what sort of variation there would be in these bam thum. If other
accounts of such roll bundles were to bring down the average number of rolls and
panels, then this unit could be equated with the packets of Dunhuang’s temple
libraries (zhi) and with the bundles of Cave Seventeen. On the other hand, bam
thum could be a measurement used by administrators and not by librarians.

3.3 Different types of bundles

The sutra copies in our corpus come overwhelmingly from two types of bundles.
There are thirteen bundles of Ap rolls in which each roll contains just one sutra
copy, and there are thirteen bundles that include longer rolls with multiple copies
of the sutra in addition to single-sutra rolls. These twenty-six bundles contain
almost exclusively Tibetan Ap rolls, with only a few bundles containing other texts


46 Tally sticks (Jp. mokkan) were used to keep track of paper, rice, etc. in the 712 production of the
MP; see Lowe 2017, 119–120.
47 Drège 1991, 215–218.
156  Producing Limitless Life

interspersed. Bundle 86.I, for example, contains forty-five Tibetan Ap rolls, two Chi-
nese Ap rolls, one Tibetan copy of the Heart Sutra, and three torn fragments of the
Tibetan SP.48 Bundle 86.XV contained thirty-nine Tibetan Ap rolls, and a pothī leaf
of another sutra, pressmark ITJ 198. Bundle 73.X contained thirty-eight Tibetan Ap
rolls, a monochrome stencil of the Buddha at ITJ 1361, a color image at ITJ 1362, mono-
chrome sketches of Vajrapāṇi and royal ladies at ITJ 1363, a fan-shaped painted
paper image of Vajrasattva mounted on a pointed stick at ITJ 1364, a torn painting
of Avalokiteśvara at ITJ 1365, a hung paper painting of a tantric diagram featuring
the Buddha Vairocana, and the top of a painted silk banner, ITJ 1367. 49 Bundle
73.XVII contained twenty-nine Tibetan Ap rolls, and one roll-format Buddhist text,
with the site number 73.XVII.29 and the pressmark ITJ 1717.50 Such non-Ap “inter-
lopers” are remarkably rare in these twenty-six bundles, and they are found both
in the thirteen bundles of single-sutra rolls and in the thirteen mixed bundles. Cata-
loguers placed these non-Ap texts in different volumes apart from the Ap copies,
and gave them different pressmarks. The only exceptions to this are one roll of the
Heart Sutra, which was miscatalogued as pressmark ITJ 310.59, an homage to Ami-
tābha with the pressmark ITJ 310.1207, and ITJ 1601, which is kept in Vol. 99 with
what are otherwise exclusively Ap copies and fragments.
Counting the Tibetan Ap copies at the level of the bundle, we calculated that a
bundle contains between seventeen and sixty-four rolls, with a mean average of
thirty-eight. What is most fascinating is that a given bundle includes predominantly
single-sutra rolls or predominantly multiple-sutra rolls. In the thirteen bundles of
single-sutra-roll copies there is only one anomalous two-sutra roll. The thirteen
bundles that contain predominantly multiple-sutra rolls, by contrast, include many
single-sutra rolls as well as multiple-sutra rolls. Indeed, the ratio of single-sutra
rolls to multiple-sutra rolls within these “mixed bundles” is 4 : 5. There are also
important differences between the sutra copies in the two types of bundles. Those
copies in the mixed bundles are almost exclusively unedited, whatever their bal-
ance of single-sutra rolls to multiple-sutra rolls. The majority (412 of 580) of the
sutra copies in the bundles of single-sutra rolls, by contrast, are edited. The layouts
of the sutra copies also differ in the two types of bundles. The copies in mixed bun-
dles tend to use the three-panel, six-column layout – referred to below with the
shorthand “3,6” – whereas the copies in the single-sutra-roll bundles feature a wid-
er variety of layouts. Additionally, our corpus shows a largely coherent distribution


48 These are ITJ 1137, 1138, and 1139.
49 All of these items are discussed and analyzed in van Schaik, Helman-Wazny, and Nöller 2015.
50 We were unable to consult this manuscript, but its measurements, 31.5 ✕ 45 cm, are those of an
Ap panel.
 Different types of bundles  157

of A1 and B1 sutra copies at the level of the bundle. The unedited sutra copies in
mixed bundles are almost all A1 copies which use the longer form of the dhāraṇī,
whereas the largely edited sutra copies in single-sutra-roll bundles are largely B1
copies that employ the shorter form of the dhāraṇī. Below we provide the infor-
mation in table form, for ease of reference.

Table 3: Single-Sutra-Roll Bundles.

Site No./ Unedited Unedited 3,6 Edited Rolls Edited 3,6 Non-B1 Copies
Bundle No. Rolls Copies Copies

73.X 13 8 25 8 2 A1
73.XVI 1 1 63 51 44 A1
78.III 3 2 48 5 4 A1
78.IV 2 2 36 5 1 A1
78.VIII 25 18 29 12 14 A1
78.IX 32 26 31 5 7 A1
78.X 13 11 37 14 0
86.I 12 8 33 7 0
86.III 3 3 25 9 0
86.VI 6 6 41 12 1 A,1 1 A1+B1
86.X 26 20 32 13 3 A1
86.XIV 37 24 11 5 3 A1
86.XV 10 6 29 5 2 A1

In total, these single-sutra-roll bundles contained 620 sutra copies in 619 rolls. That
makes a mean average of forty-eight rolls per bundle. 438 of these sutra copies are
edited and 182 are unedited. This roughly 7 : 3 ratio of edited to unedited copies is
generally reflected in four of the bundles, whereas five bundles have a much higher
ratio, with the extreme being sixty-three edited to one unedited copy in bundle
73.XVI. Three bundles have a nearly even balance of edited and unedited copies,
whereas one bundle, 86.XIV, is an outlier in having only eleven edited copies and
thirty-seven unedited copies. There is only one damaged roll in these bundles,
ITJ 310.774, which is nearly complete but for a torn final panel. Another copy,
ITJ 310.762, omits the explicit and colophon, but is physically undamaged.
Of the 182 unedited rolls in these bundles, 135 are in 3,6 layout, making for a
roughly 4 : 1 ratio in favor of 3,6 layout in these unedited rolls. By contrast, of the
438 edited rolls, only 167 are in 3,6 layout, which is a 2 : 3 ratio against the 3,6 layout
158  Producing Limitless Life

in edited copies. This is an interesting fact that has implications for how one under-
stands the nature of these bundles and the processes that produced them. Also, fifty-
one of these 167 edited copies in 3,6 layout – that is, thirty-eight percent of them –
come from a single bundle, 73.XVI, marking it as an outlier that skews the data from
the other twelve bundles. In every other bundle, well less than one half of the edited
copies use a 3,6 layout.
Bundle 73.XVI is also anomalous for having forty-four A1 copies among its sixty-
four rolls. Thirty-seven of these A1 copies are attributed to a single scribe, Se thong
pa. That accounts for forty-five percent of the eighty-three non-B1 copies found across
these thirteen single-sutra-roll bundles. The other 537 copies in these bundles are all
version B1.
There is no meaningful correlation between 3,6 layout and A1 copies in these
thirteen single-sutra-roll bundles. If the anomalous A1 copies attributed to Se thong
pa are set aside, then there are twelve A1 copies in 3,6 layout, and twenty-seven A1
copies in other layouts. This is another important fact that is relevant to the differ-
ent characters of the two types of bundles.

Table 4: Mixed Bundles.

Site No./ Bundle Single-Sutra Multiple-Sutra Non-3,6 Copies Non-A1 Copies

No. Rolls Rolls

73.IX 3 16 1 1 B1
73.XI 13 15 0 5 B1
73.XVII 8 21 1 0
78.I 6 18 5 0
78.II 13 13 1 2 B1
78.V 6 11 0 0
78.VI 6 19 2 2 B1
78.VII 48 12 8 3 C5
78.XI 16 24 0 3 B1
78.XII 13 16 8 24 B1
86.VII 13 17 1 0
86.IX 12 23 4 6 B1
86.XIII51 18 6 7 1 B2


51 As discussed in Chapter One, three intact rolls with the pressmarks ITJ 310.1208, 1209, and 1210
appear to belong at the head of bundle 86.XIII, whose pressmarks run from ITJ 310.300 to ITJ 310.328.
 Different types of bundles  159

In total, these thirteen mixed bundles contain 175 single-sutra rolls and 211 multiple-
sutra rolls. This amounts to 822 sutra copies: 175 in single-sutra rolls, and 647 in
multiple-sutra rolls. Only two bundles, 86.XIII and 78.VII, feature more single-sutra
rolls than multiple-sutra rolls. Only one copy, ITJ 1617, can be said to be fragmentary
due to a tear, but this is an edited exemplar that would have been used as a model
for copying.52
The sutra copies in the mixed bundles show a strong preference for the 3,6
layout. Only thirty-three out of 822 copies feature a different layout. This contrasts
with the preference for non-3,6 layouts in the edited copies from single-sutra-roll
bundles just discussed above, and is more extreme than the 4 : 1 preference for the
3,6 layout among unedited copies in single-sutra-roll bundles. (This is made far
more extreme if the anomalous fifty-one edited 3,6 copies from single-sutra-roll
bundle 73.XVI are set to one side.) This latter fact speaks against an assumption that
the unedited copies in the single-sutra-roll bundles were produced in the same time
and/or scriptoria as the unedited sutra copies in the mixed bundles.
Turning to the version of the sutra copied, there are forty-four B1 copies and
three C5 copies against 775 A1 copies. Four bundles feature only A1 copies. Other
bundles include one to six non-A1 copies. This is the inverse of the preference for
B1 copies in the single-sutra-roll bundles. Like those bundles, the data in the mixed
bundles is skewed by one outlier that, inversely, accounts for about half of the non-
A1 copies. This is bundle 78.XII, which contains twenty-four B1 copies, nearly all of
which are attributed to two scribes, Ha Stag slebs and Heng je’u. In fact, these two
scribes, along with another named ^I ’do, are responsible for every B1 copy in these
bundles apart from those special cases of copies that are attributed to editors like
Cang Tsi dam and Dpal gyi Sgron ma.53
Navigating our data at the level of the bundle, we find the same scribes and
editors at work in both types of bundle. Generally, there is coherence at the level of
the site number/ bundle, which is to say that a given scribe would produce A1
copies, which are found in mixed bundles, and B1 copies, which are found in bun-
dles of single-sutra rolls. This is true of dozens of scribes. Lu Dze shing/ Lu Tse shing,
for example, scribed twenty-seven rolls of A1 copies and eighteen rolls of B1 copies,
and followed the expected pattern whereby the former are in mixed bundles and


52 ITJ 310.938 is a two-sutra roll, the first of which is aborted just before the end, but the roll itself
is intact and without tears. The scribal colophon of the second copy attributes the copy to Phan
phan. ITJ 1636 is also incomplete at the end, but has a full three-panel, six-column layout, so it is not
physically a fragment.
53 The sole exception may be ITJ 310.229 in bundle 86.IX, an unedited B1 copy ascribed to Lha legs.
160  Producing Limitless Life

the latter are in bundles of single-sutra rolls.54 The same scribe, signing off in Chi-
nese as Lü Rixing 吕日興, is found in several colophons of Chinese A5 copies. By con-
trast, in only a small handful of cases are there A1 and B1 sutra copies by the same
scribe in the same bundle. This is true, for example, of an A1 copy (ITJ 310.1089), and
a B1 copy (ITJ 310.1100) in the mixed bundle 73.X, both attributed to Ser Thong thong.
Both of these sutra copies have the same editors, Li Phab weng and Heg ching, and
this suggests that the sutra copies were produced at roughly the same time in the
same scriptorium. One can find other similar instances that demonstrate conclu-
sively that A1 and B1 copies of the sutra were being copied and edited by the same
people, probably at the same time and in the same scriptorium.
The continuity of editors also complicates how one understands what is argua-
bly the most anomalous bundle, 73.XVI. All but one of its sixty-four single-sutra rolls
is edited, and its first forty-three rolls are A1 copies, thirty-seven of which are at-
tributed to the scribe Se thong pa. The final twenty-one rolls, by contrast, are attribut-
ed to a variety of scribes, and are all B1 copies – apart from one A1 copy attributed
to Cang Shib tig (elsewhere a scribe of both B1 and A1 copies). Despite this stark con-
trast between the first part of the bundle and the second part, some of the editorial
teams in the latter part overlap with those who edited Se thong pa’s A1 sutra copies
in the first part. This makes it difficult to argue that the final twenty-one rolls do
not truly belong to this bundle, or that the first forty-three rolls are interlopers.

3.3.1 Fragments, orphans, and traces of a lost bundle

In contrast to the rolls belonging to these twenty-six bundles of almost exclusively

Ap copies, our corpus contains ninety-five rolls or fragments with various press-
marks that do not obviously belong to either of the above two types of bundles.
There are three main types of manuscript in this group: 1) fragments, which range
from less than one panel to nearly complete Ap copies; 2) Ap copies that come from
bundles of mostly non-Ap material; and 3) Ap copies that appear to have been sepa-
rated from their bundles of mostly Ap copies and thereby “orphaned” during docu-
mentation and cataloguing.
Of the ninety-five items in this group, forty-five are fragments and fifty are
complete, single-sutra rolls. There are no multiple-sutra rolls. Thirty-five are edited
and sixty are unedited. Where the type of dhāraṇī can be discerned, there are thirty
type A, sixty-three type B, and two type C. Of the fifty complete copies, thirty-two


54 Notably, his name tends to appear as Lu Ts(h)e (s)hing in his B1 copies, and Lu Dze shing in his
A1 copies.
 Different types of bundles  161

use the 3,6 layout. Twenty-three of these use the type-B dhāraṇī and nine use the
type-A dhāraṇī.
There are three pressmarks containing pothī-format fragments included here
for the sake of completeness.
It is striking to find only forty-five Ap fragments in contrast to the over 1,000
complete rolls. This stands in stark contrast to the hundreds upon hundreds of dis-
carded folia that were a by-product of the production of the Tibetan SP copies in
Dunhuang around this same time. In terms of the different editorial processes of
these two sutra-copying projects, the paucity of discarded or torn panels of Ap copies
was a direct result of the more lenient editorial standards applied to copying this
sutra. We will discuss below how some of these torn fragments were repurposed in
Dunhuang’s temple libraries.
Those Ap copies in the second category come from regular library bundles and
from miscellaneous bundles. Only five rolls come from the latter, which can be
identified as miscellaneous bundles by their site numbers: I.1, XXXIII.003, XL.004,
XLIII.002, and CXLVII.2. Other copies come from dozens of different regular library
bundles, the numbers for which are given in Chapter Four.
As described in Chapter One, nearly two dozen rolls and fragments were sepa-
rated from their bundles during the documentation and cataloguing process in the
twentieth century, and may belong in one or another of the bundles documented
in Tables Three and Four above, or in other bundles whose site numbers have been
lost. In fact, if one attends closely to the roll numbers in the sequence of complete
copies that have the woefully deficient site numbers or “quasi-site numbers” from
“10” to “99,” some prefixed with “fragment,” it is possible to reverse some of the
mistakes that have crept into the documentation and cataloguing of these manu-
scripts. In Chapter One we saw that four rolls with the “quasi-site numbers” 47, 49,
53, and 54 in all likelihood came from site Ch.I.1. Placing them there, this site num-
ber now contains five Ap rolls, as La Vallée Poussin stated in his catalogue. Attend-
ing to another striking inconsistency between the state of affairs that La Vallée
Poussin recorded and that which confronts us, he listed nine rolls under site num-
ber 87.XIII.55 This is in addition to the four rolls he listed as 87.XIIIa, b, d, and f. The
latter are four B1 single-sutra rolls, pressmarks ITJ 310.415 to 418, edited by the team
of Phab dzang, Phab ci, and Dpal mchog. Their roll numbers, 11 to 14, suggest that
they were in the middle of a bundle when La Vallée Poussin added these roll
numbers. Among the Ap copies we surveyed, only the fragment ITJ 310.1204, which
had been bound in Vol. 54, bears the site number 87.XIII. As pictured in Fig. 22
above, a curator added “d” to this site number, so it is perhaps to be included with


55 La Vallée Poussin 1962, 101.
162  Producing Limitless Life

the four complete rolls 87.XIIIa, b, d, and f. This, however, would create a duplicate
site number, so the addition of “d” was probably an errant intervention. Still, it is
an open question whether La Vallée Poussin would have counted a fragment such
as this among the nine “copies” he recorded under site number 87.XIII. The binding
of ITJ 310.1204 in Vol. 54 also speaks against its inclusion. Looking to the complete
copies with quasi-site numbers, and to those with site numbers that begin with
“Fragment,” the four edited B1 rolls with the defective site number “Fragment 53”
furnish us with rolls one to four, with roll two being a fragment and roll one being
edited by the same team of Phab dzang, Phab ci, and Dpal mchog. The edited B1
rolls with the quasi-site numbers 34, 48, 52, 46, 45, and 44 give us rolls five to ten,
with roll ten being a fragment and roll six (ITJ 1606) being edited by this same team.
These are plausible candidates for being the nine rolls that were from site number
87.XIII, given their similarities to the four rolls from this same site number that are
suffixed with letters.56
There is, however, a second set of candidates for these nine rolls in the form of
further B1 copies edited by Phab dzang, Phab ci, and Dpal mchog with roll numbers
immediately above the sequence from eleven to fourteen. Among the copies with
quasi-site numbers, 50 (ITJ 1608), 51 (ITJ 1609), 35 (ITJ 1599), 36 (ITJ 1600), and
Fragment 38 (ITJ 310.1038 and 1037), Fragments 39b-c (ITJ 310.1040 and 1039) and
Fragment 41 (ITJ 310.422) also furnish nine complete B1 rolls, two of which feature
this same set of editors. These have the advantage of being nine complete rolls. As we
have seen, a bundle of Tibetan Ap copies usually only included complete rolls; frag-
ments were found in other bundles. Assuming that the complete Ap copies marked
as “Fragments” or bearing quasi-site numbers like “50” were misplaced from their
bundles, the sequence that we have just reconstructed would plausibly furnish a
bundle (87.XIII) of twenty-three edited single-sutra rolls. This must remain specu-
lative, however, and besides relying on grouping copies together based on their sim-
ilarities, it also rests on the assumption that these roll numbers were added sequen-
tially during La Vallée Poussin’s practice of numbering the rolls within a given bun-
dle. An alternative explanation would be that these “orphaned” copies, once irre-
mediably separated from their original bundles, were stacked together as a group
(i.e. a “quasi-bundle”) and then numbered. We have also noted in Chapter One a
conservator’s note in Vol. 113 that records the existence of two further bundles of
Ap copies, Ch.73.XV and 79.XIII, that between them contained thirty-nine rolls.
It is possible that other of these rolls with deficient site numbers might be simi-
larly connected with one another or else to an existing bundle. La Vallée Poussin’s


56 Note that there are two roll sixes and no roll nines in this sequence. The relevant pressmarks
are ITJ 310.426, 427, 424, 425, ITJ 1598, 1606, 1610, 1604, 1603, and 1602.
 Different types of bundles  163

record provides an aid for this work, but we have also observed that his tally of
rolls was sometimes off by one or two, and had to be corrected by F.W. Thomas’s
blue pencil. As such, one has to be careful about attempting to reconstruct the state
of the manuscripts in La Vallée Poussin’s record, since that record itself contains
both minor errors and major lacunae.

3.3.2 Bundles, rolls, and glue in the margins

Tallying the contents of these two main types of bundles together with the ninety-
five items that do not belong to either type of bundle, there were 1,055 complete
rolls, containing 1,492 complete Tibetan Ap sutra copies. Additionally, there were
forty-seven fragments – including only two from the mixed bundles and single-
sutra-roll bundles – ranging from a scrap to a nearly complete copy with a small
tear. This tally is offered with the same caveat that operates wherever these sutra
copies and fragments are concerned: other fragments and copies may have escaped
our notice, and our tallies, like those of La Vallée Poussin and Thomas, may have
miscounted by a few.
We do not pretend to have comprehensively surveyed the Chinese Dunhuang
Ap copies in the British Library. From our partial survey it appears that there was
only one bundle that consisted either exclusively or predominantly of rolls of
Chinese Ap. This is bundle 79.IX, which features serial site numbers. The lowest is
79.IX.1 and the highest is 79.IX.37, but we were able to locate only thirty-three rolls
of what should be thirty-seven rolls, every one of which is Chinese Ap. Of these,
nineteen are single-sutra rolls, and fourteen are multiple-sutra rolls. Together they
contain fifty-eight Ap copies.57 The single-sutra rolls range in width from approxi-
mately 162 to 213 cm. The multiple-sutra rolls range from two copies to four copies.
None displays signs of editing. This largely aligns with what one finds in the “mixed
bundles” of Tibetan Ap. Without the witness of several other bundles of Chinese Ap
copies that would allow us to make such a determination, we cannot take this as
evidence that the Chinese bundles were similarly of two types, that is, single-sutra-
roll bundles and mixed bundles. The other Chinese Ap copies and fragments rather
belong to bundles of neither category, much like the ninety-five Tibetan items just
described. Many lack a site number, which makes it impossible to perform any sort
of analysis at the level of the bundle.


57 For a table containing the site numbers, pressmarks, Giles numbers, measurements, and scribes’
names, see Terzi and Whitfield 2024, 69. The missing site numbers are 79.IX.5, 79.IX.15, 79.IX.28, and
79.IX.29.
164  Producing Limitless Life

Among the Chinese Ap copies in other bundles there are both fragments and
complete copies, both in single and multiple-sutra rolls. Notably, there are two
complete single-sutra rolls of Chinese Ap in bundle 86.I, which is otherwise a bundle
of forty-five single-sutra rolls of Tibetan Ap copies, with one copy of the Heart Sutra
in Tibetan. There are a few bundles in which one finds small numbers of both Ti-
betan and Chinese Ap copies and/or fragments, along with other texts. This is true
of 77.VII, 79.XVI, 82.II, and 87.XIII. It is difficult to draw any conclusions about this,
but a more detailed virtual reconstruction of these bundles might reveal something
more about them.
We will return to the riddles posed by these bundles after reviewing the edito-
rial process in some detail. Before doing so, however, it is important to introduce a
further crucial point. The vast majority of the single-sutra rolls show signs that they
were previously a part of longer, multiple-sutra rolls. This is evident in the glue,
visible by a faint red residue, on the left margin of a sutra’s first panel and/or the
right margin of the final panel. This is true of the rolls from both types of bundles,
and it is also true of many multiple-sutra rolls. Our working assumption is that
scribes or someone else within the scriptorium assembled a roll of up to forty-five
panels long – or perhaps fifty, as a tie 帖/ theb58 – inked the guidelines horizontally
and inked the columns and margins vertically. The scribe then filled this long roll
with multiple copies of the sutra. Either the scribe, the editors, or someone else then
detached the sutra copies individually by ungluing the panels or cutting the paper
with a knife. In the case of a roll of three-and-a-half-panel, seven-column Ap copies,
every odd copy, which ends half way through every fourth panel, would have to be
cut; every even copy could be unglued/ peeled. A long roll of three-panel, six column
copies could simply be peeled or unglued. It is clear from the margins of some sutra
copies, however, that not all papers could be peeled so easily, and some required
cutting. This is evident from the margins of ITJ 310.311, where one finds a small sliv-
er of a previously attached panel adhesed to the margin, presumably the result of
a combination of peeling and cutting.59

3.4 Scribal practices

There are more than 150 named scribes and more than thirty named editors in the
colophons of the Tibetan Dunhuang Ap copies kept at the British Library. These


58 See above, based on Drège 1991, 200 and 208.
59 This is from a bundle of single-sutra rolls, so the cutting in this case was not the work of
twentieth-century conservators separating panels to create booklets.
 Scribal practices  165

same scribes and editors are found in the Tibetan Ap copies from Dunhuang held
in Paris, St. Petersburg, and Gansu. Most of the scribes and editors were Chinese,
but some Tibetans, Tuyuhun, and people of other ethnicities also worked on the
project.60 Some, though not all, were monks, as indicated by the titles they bear in
the colophons, such as ban de or dge slong. They often have Tibetan personal names
and Chinese family names, though many have purely Chinese names and a few have
purely Tibetan names. Chinese born under Tibetan rule often took Tibetan personal
names, and learned Tibetan as a second language.61 The practice continued even
after the fall of the Tibetan Empire, when the use of Tibetan names by Chinese in
Dunhuang may have had more of a Buddhist character.62
The scribal colophons often give the full form of a scribe’s name, such as Sag
Zhun zhun or Snyal Stag snya. Sometimes they omit the family name, though, which
can lead to ambiguity. Stag snya in a scribal colophon, for instance, could refer to
Snyal Stag snya or to Bung Stag snya. The names of the scribes and editors reflect
the cultural milieu of Dunhuang in the 820s. The three names just given, for exam-
ple, are those of Ap scribes, but they represent three different types of names. The
most common types are purely Chinese, like Sag Zhun zhun, which is a Chinese
family name, Sag (Pinyin: Suo 索), followed by a Chinese personal name. Following
these in frequency are Chinese family names with Tibetan personal names, such as
Bung (Pinyin: Feng 奉) Stag snya, and then Tibetan family names with Tibetan per-
sonal names, such as Snyal Stag snya. Some personal names are neither Chinese
nor Tibetan, as in the case of Cang (Pinyin: Cang 張) Shib tig, where the personal
name can be reconstructed as Shide (十德 or 什德).63 Some scribes, like ^An (Pinyin:
An 安) Dge brtan and Khang (Pinyin: Kang 康) Dpal mchog, have family names that
are typically associated with Sogdians. Some names also point to a scribe’s status as
an immigrant to Dunhuang from elsewhere, as in the case of the prolific scribe Se
thong pa (“Man from Se thong”). Sometimes scribes also employ nicknames, as seen
in the colophons of the ten-sutra roll scribed by Snyal Lha gzigs. He wrote his name
in eight of these colophons, left one blank, and wrote “Snyal the Snowborn” (Snyal
Kha ba skyes) in one.64 Other names in the colophons could similarly be nicknames
or else names with a negative connotation and possibly an apotropaic function. One
such name is “the ’E wam Puppy” (’E wam Khyi phrug/ ’E bam Khyi brug).


60 On the ethnicities of the scribes, see Taenzer 2012, 110–154.
61 On a typology of Tibetan names during this period, and for a discussion of these issues, see
Takeuchi 1995, 129–134.
62 Takeuchi 2004. On onomastics during the Guiyijun period, see Galambos 2020, 233–246.
63 On this name, see Takata 2019, 100; and Galambos 2020, 236.
64 This roll is split across ten booklets from ITJ 310.1190 to 1199.
166  Producing Limitless Life

The same scribes’ names appear in both the copies from single-sutra-roll bun-
dles and those from mixed bundles. An unedited copy generally has only a scribal
colophon, e.g. “written by Phan phan” (phan phan bris). This is usually in black ink,
but it is often written in a slack hand that contrasts with the neat calligraphy of the
sutra itself. The grammar, like the script in these colophons, is also loose: while the
past form of the verb, bris, is most common, other forms are also found. This can
be preceded by an ergative, as one would expect, but sometimes by an errant
genitive, and most often by no case particle at all. 113 complete sutra copies lack
scribal colophons, and one of these states “as for this, I wrote it” (’di ni bdag gis bris;
ITJ 310.1133). Most of these “unsigned” copies are unedited, and many appear in
multiple-sutra rolls, where a scribe’s name may be written in the colophon of one
sutra copy in a long roll and not in other copies in the same roll. Such “unsigned”
copies are usually in the same hand, and can therefore be easily attributed. How-
ever, there are also some “unsigned” copies among edited single-sutra rolls that in-
clude an editorial colophon.65
Scribes added very little content to Ap copies beyond what they were tasked to
produce. We find some jottings among the few torn fragments of the sutra, but these
are nothing like as numerous or rich as those found on discarded SP folia. Among
the few exceptions to the scribal practice of only copying the Ap and adding a
scribal colophon, we find jottings and names in Chinese on at least thirteen sutra
copies, and at least twenty instances of scribes writing “Praise to Amitābha” (na mo
^a myi ta pur), just before the colophon.66 This praise is found in Ap copies kept in
Paris, Gansu, and St. Petersburg as well. In ITJ 310.54, the scribe adds “Praise to
bodhisattva Kṣitigarbha” (na mo dyi dzang bo sar), and in ITJ 310.827 the scribe
wrote “Praise to the Buddha” (na mo bu sar). In an edited single-sutra roll from St.
Petersburg, Dkh. Tib. 151, “OM phat sva hA” appears after the scribal and editorial
colophons.67 Following the colophon of the edited single-sutra roll from Gansu, Db.
t. 0274, a short prayer appears perpendicular to the sutra: “I pray that all of the gods
and nāgas of the land assemble simultaneously!” (sang gang gi klu dang lha dang/


65 The few examples include ITJ 310.760, 770, 777, 780 and 793, all from within bundle 78.IX, as well
as ITJ 310.735 (edited by the same editorial group) and ITJ 310.1108 (edited by another triumvirate
of editors).
66 ITJ 310.426, 310.967, 310.1034, 310.1038, 310.1040, 310.1103, ITJ 1598 and 1610 contain Chinese on
their versos. ITJ 310.204, 310.908, 310.1187, ITJ 1626 and 1679 contain Chinese in the margins at the
crossover between panels. ITJ 310.68, 310.134, 310.258, 310.285, 310.287, 310.392, 310.523, 310.543,
310.553, 310.575–79, 310.603, 310.609, 310.776, 310.1045, 310.1098, 310.1100 and ITJ 1591 all contain
some variant of the phrase na mo ^a myi ta pur. On ^a myi ta pur as the Tibetan rendering of the
Chinese Amituofo, see Silk 1993, 17–19.
67 Savitsky 1991, 67.
 Scribal practices  167

dus gchig du ga ’du bar smon to).68 ITJ 310.46 adds the dhāraṇī after the end of the
text. In a few cases, ^om is written after the scribe’s name or the editors’ names.
Other scribal additions include “dedicated as a gift for the lord, the son of gods”
(rje lha sras gyI sku yon du bsngos the; ITJ 310.168, ITJ 310.939), and “written as a gift
for the great king” (rgyal po chen po de’i sku yon du bri; ITJ 310.699). An interesting
jotting after the colophons in an edited single-sutra roll from St. Petersburg, Dkh.
Tib. 142, states “dedicated as a gift for the great councilor. Granted affectionately as
an additional gift” (zhang lon chen po ‘i sku yon du bsngos the / gya dga’ yang deb
zhen stsal do).69 This is particularly intriguing, as it suggests that some copies might
have been consecrated to not only the emperor but also to his councilors.
A rare jotting in which a scribe appears to reveal something of his personality
is the scribal colophon to the Ap copy ITJ 310.329, which reads, “I, Ser Thong thong,
the great scribe of Shazhou, wrote this” (bdag cag sha cu yig po che / / ser thong
thong bris / /). Another, with less bravado, writes after the first colophon of his
three-sutra roll, “Written by Khab Btsan bzhI. Written by Khong Sen tse. As for er-
rors, there are none” (khang btsan bzhI gi bris so/ / khong sen tse briste / chad ni
maMchis/; Db. t. 109).70
The vast majority of the multiple-sutra rolls give the same scribe’s name in each
sutra copy’s colophon, with all of these written in the same hand. However, in a few
cases we find copies in the same roll, written in the same hand, but attributed in
their colophons to separate scribes. ITJ 310.216 and 217, for example, are two book-
lets that were previously one roll containing three sutra copies. The first and the
third copies bear the name Mchims G.yu gzIgs in the scribal colophon, and the
second has the name Mal GzIgs kong, but the copies are written in the same hand.
Many other such cases exist, such as the three multiple-sutra rolls that comprise
pressmarks ITJ 310.955 to ITJ 310.963, which are all in the same hand, but where
nine copies are attributed to Ha Stag slebs and five to ^I ’do.
There are also many cases where one scribe’s name is rubbed out or struck
through and replaced with that of another (see Figs 46 and 47). Sometimes the at-
tempt to efface another scribe’s name is not at all thorough, such that it is hardly ap-
parent that one name is struck through. This is the case, for example, in ITJ 310.796,


68 Ma 2011, 176.
69 Savitsky 1991, 64. As with other transcriptions from St. Petersburg materials, these rely entirely
on Savitsky, and should be verified through consulting the manuscripts or images of these. Here
we take gya dga’ to be bya dga’, and cannot say if this was a ninth-century or a twentieth-century
spelling error.
70 Ma 2011, 109.
168  Producing Limitless Life

where we find in the colophon “Written by Him Lha bzher. Written by Cang snang
legs” (him lha bzher bris / / cang snang legs gyi bris).

Figs 46 and 47: Rubbed-out names in colophons of PT 3564 and 3582; image captured by the authors
from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

More than one scribe is listed in some instances, such as PT 3957. Here, “Written
by ’Gu Khong brtan” is in the same hand as the sutra, but “Written by Jeg Shan
she’u” is in a second hand, and “also written by Song ^ag tshe” is in a third. None is
crossed out. There are more such cases in the copies held in Paris and Gansu.71 In
other cases, the spelling of a scribe’s name is corrected, as with “Phan bphan” in
ITJ 310.8, or “Bam Stag bziang” in ITJ 310.425, suggesting that the person writing
the name did not know how to spell it. This is in fact precisely what we find in edi-
torial colophons, where one editor wrote their own name and that of one or both
of their two colleagues, but often misspelled the latters’ names. There are also cases
in which the scribe’s name in the colophon is written in a different hand, and/or
with different (i.e. fainter) ink than the body of the sutra (e.g. ITJ 310.489).
We gain some insight into the process by which such colophons were produced
when examining a roll of six sutra copies spread across pressmarks ITJ 310.319–321.
The colophons of the first five copies each state “written by Gu rib Lha lung brtsan,”
excepting the second colophon, which is blank. However, the final colophon reads,
“Gu rib Lha lung brtsan’s roll, written by Mchims G.yu gzigs” (gu rib lha lung brtsan
gyi bam po mchims g.yu gzIgs gyis brIs /; ITJ 310.321). This suggests a dynamic of
scribes and client scribes; here Mchims G.yu gzigs has scribed sutra copies that will
presumably be recorded as Gu rib Lha lung brtsan’s when handed in and credited
against his earlier receipt of paper. It is further evident from a jotting in ITJ 310.516
that scribes exchanged sutra copies with one another: “written by Ling ho Bing


71 See, for example, Db. t. 0209 and Db. t. 0225; Ma 2011, 150 and 155.
 Scribal practices  169

bing. Offered as a gift to Bam Stag slebs” (lIng ho bing bing gis ’bris / / bam stag slebs
gyi lag stang gi phul ba /).
The desultory strikethroughs and those colophons that contain the “signature”
of more than one scribe strongly suggest that the intention was not to fool the edi-
tors or to hoodwink the “keeper” (rub ma pa) about who scribed a sutra copy. If the
practice of scribing sutra copies for someone else were prohibited, then the scribes
would have taken greater care to conceal this. What mattered, therefore, was that
the “keeper” was clear about to whom a sutra copy should be credited. Presumably,
in those cases where two scribes’ names appear, or where one is barely rubbed out,
scribes would have resolved the ambiguity with the “keeper” directly.
Such circumstances are further suggested by a close reading of ITJ 1359, the
legal document that records scribes’ shortfalls of paper to be collected. Despite be-
ing an official document bearing seals, it contains numerous interlinear annota-
tions that bear witness to the difficulties of bookkeeping. To cite one example, Khang
Btsan slebs, a scribe of Stong sar thousand-district, faced a deficit of fifty-two sheets
of paper. However, an interlinear note says that this debt was taken over (kha bstan)
by Sheg Lha rton, who is found in two further interlinear notes to the deficits of
other scribes whose debts he also took upon himself.72 Assuming Sheg Lha rton was
not serving as a scapegoat (or a bodhisattva) by taking a whipping for the others,
his undertaking would have involved “ghostscribing” sutra copies for these scribes
in order to save them from punishment – and perhaps making a profit himself on
the interest or on whatever other fee he asked. This administrative document per-
tains to SP copies, but the same situation may have been the norm for many of these
same scribes who produced Ap copies and sold or gave them to other scribes who
needed to fill their quotas to avoid punishment. A scribe might also write in the col-
ophon the name of a scribe in whose debt he found himself by way of repayment.
This would account for those copies attributed to a given scribe, but whose hand-
writing plainly differs from scores of other copies “signed” by the same name.

3.4.1 Scribes beyond the scriptorium

Given their physical location together in bundles of Ap copies, and the few jottings
marking these as gifts for the Tibetan emperor, we have assumed that nearly all of


72 Sheg lha rton kha bstan te stsal; ITJ 1359(B), interlinear note below l. 4 (see Fig. 35). In the two
other examples, the grammar is different, i.e. sheg lha rton la…kha bstan. The phrase kha bstan is
employed in a very similar context in a loan contract, where ban de Thub brtan takes over the loan
of grain to Li Kang tse and pays it back to the lender; Takeuchi 1995, 260–261.
170  Producing Limitless Life

these Tibetan roll-format Ap copies are of a piece, as part of a gift commissioned for
the Tibetan emperor. Only those copies that have an entirely different format, e.g.
pothī, scroll, or concertina, are obviously separate from this project. The few outli-
ers, such as an A2 copy (ITJ 310.315), and a few C5 copies (ITJ 310.645, 646, and 651),
are written by the same scribes as the dominant A1 and B1 copies, use the same
layouts, and are found in the same bundles, so these also seem to belong to the pro-
ject. There is one sutra copy, in fact the very first in the pressmark ITJ 310 (ITJ 310.1),
that shows how scribes who worked on this project also worked on smaller, private
commissions. This is preserved in roll format, and was no doubt kept as such in
order to show for posterity what these rolls looked like prior to their transfor-
mation into booklets. This roll has the site number “Fragment 39.a,” and seems not
to have been part of any of the twenty-six bundles of Ap copies. It was scribed by
Cang Lha legs, who also produced A1 and B1 copies in both types of bundles. This
copy has the same layout as Ap copies commissioned for the Tibetan emperor.
However, its colophon reveals that it was commissioned for Kyim Phan sum as a
“commitment text” (g.yar dam), probably for daily recitation. The colophon states,
“written by Cang Lha legs. I prostrate to all the Buddhas and bodhisattvas. This is
Kyim Phan sum’s commitment (text)” (cang lha legs bris / / $// sangs rgyas dang
byang chub sems dpa’ thams cad la phyag ’tshal lo / / kyim phan sum gi g.yar dam
lags so /). It then goes on, “make a pair from it and [illegible] scribes of Guazhou
[illegible]” (cha yod par gyis shig ya[x] ’bri mkhan nI ga cu ba [xx]u[xx]o[x] mkhan
yin no /). This phrase “to make a pair,” presumably refers to the use of this sutra
copy as an exemplar for producing copies. Perhaps Kyim Phan sum donated it as
an exemplar for the sutra scribes so that he might generate more merit, or perhaps
it was entirely separate from the sutra-copying project, and is only kept together
with the latter’s sutra copies as a result of cataloguing practices in London. (Its site
number, Fragment 39.a, is of no help.) The apparent reference to Guazhou scribes,
though it comes in a damaged section, constitutes intriguing circumstantial evi-
dence concerning the provenance and/or destination of this sutra. There are clear
indicators that SP2 copies that were produced in Dunhuang were sent to Guazhou,
and we can assume that the same was true for at least some of the Ap copies. In any
case, this colophon is a witness to the use of the Sutra of Limitless Life as a central
text for daily practices (g.yar dam).
Scribes also lent and borrowed other tools of the trade such as paper, ink, and
knives. Scribes’ writing boards (glegs tshas) are full of jottings that tally such loans
and debts, and which draft contracts for important items. The writing board PT
1166, for example, mentions a knife lent between two sutra scribes, Li’u Klu rton
 Scribal practices  171

and ^Im Stag rma. 73 Sutra scribes indeed appear in loan and sale contracts, letters,
and legal documents.74 Wang Stagu, Lu Dze shing, Leng ho Pe’u tshon, Cang ^I tshe,
and Je’u Brtan kong serve as witnesses, for example, to a contract in which a certain
Li G.yu legs hires a person named ’Bu ^Eng tse to work in his stead transporting the
annual grain tribute. The contract, PT 1098 (Fig. 48), includes these scribes’ personal
seals (sug rgya).75 One of these witnesses, the scribe Cang ^I tshe, is listed as the head
of an administrative unit (tshan) in the legal document ITJ 1359, which meant that
he was held responsible for managing the issue of missing paper among the scribes
in his unit.76

Fig. 48: End of a hire contract, PT 1098 – showing the personal seals of the witnesses, some of whom
were sutra scribes; image captured by the authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the
Bibliothèque nationale de France.

The scribes found in Ap colophons are well represented in letters and contracts,
often as witnesses. This may have followed on from their work drafting such con-
tracts. The sutra scribe Wang Hva tshe, for example, appears as a lender of grain in
the contract PT 1115, which also bears personal seals.77 Two further Ap sutra scribes,
Wang Hing tse and Cang Zhun zhun, served as witnesses to the sale of an ox in the
contract PT 1095, which also bears their seals.78 Wang Hing tse is listed as the head
of an administrative unit (tshan) in the legal-administrative text related to short-
falls of sutra-copying paper, ITJ 1359(C), l. 16. The Ap scribes Hva Hva hva and Wang


73 Takeuchi 2013, 105.
74 See Takeuchi 1995, 53–58.
75 Takeuchi 1995, 94–96 and 264–267.
76 ITJ 1359(D), l. 11.
77 Takeuchi 1995, 208–211.
78 Takeuchi 1995, 145–147.
172  Producing Limitless Life

Stagu are witnesses for the sale of a horse in the contract PT 1297.79 A receipt for the
repayment of loaned grain, ITJ 844, includes the witness seals of Bam Stag slebs and
Cang Klu legs, both of whom are found as scribes in Ap colophons.80
Some documents also give us a sense of the social life of sutra scribes. A patch
on the back of a discarded panel of roll-format SP, PT 1648v, includes a contract for
the supply of millet to brew beer. It is addressed to the “rgya’i ’tsal za rnams” (possi-
bly “Chinese vegetarians”) and it includes penalties, payable in jugs of beer, for
failure to supply grain on time. Most of the signatories are sutra scribes, including
Bung Stag snya and Zhun zhun, who each scribed Ap copies in our corpus. Another
loan contract, PT 1104c, reveals that the Ap sutra scribe Cang Weng yir took a loan
of millet from a temple in order to brew beer.81
Other documents and jottings find sutra scribes involved in lawsuits, question-
able lending practices, and possibly crimes. One sutra scribe, Cang Hing tse, is the
complainant in a lawsuit together with his son, the monk Shang hing, in PT 1297.2.
The complaint alleges that Shang hing was assaulted and beaten by a certain man
named Dong tse and by his brother, who are also accused of deliberately letting
their sheep loose in the crop field belonging to Cang Hing tse and his son Shang
hing.82 An apparent draft of another legal charge, written on the writing board PT
1155, states that Bung Dze weng, a sutra scribe and editor, raped his brother’s wife.
This same Bung Dze weng, whose name is also spelled Tse weng, took 200 sheets of
paper that he had received for the sutra-copying project, and lent them to the
papermaker (shog mkhan) Shang He ’do, as stated in the loan contract PT 1078.83
Bung Dze weng fell ill, and Shang He ’do did not pay him back. The terms of re-
payment are the point of the new contract document: Shang He ’do shall pay the
paper back by the tenth day of the middle winter month of the sheep year, or else
will suffer confiscation of wealth and property.84 In addition, Shang He ’do stands
to be whipped according to the laws governing missing paper in the sutra-copying
project. One of the witnesses is the sutra scribe ^Im Gtsug legs. Bung Dze weng is
mentioned once again as a scribe of a Tibetan SP whose production was begun in
Bde gams in a pig year, probably 831, and he may be the Tse weng found in the
scribal colophon of the Ap copy ITJ 310.160.85


79 Takeuchi 1995, 153–158.
80 Takeuchi 1995, 257–259.
81 Takeuchi 1995, 225–231.
82 For details see Dotson 2015b, 289–291.
83 Takeuchi 1995, 180–181; Dotson 2013-2014, 5–6.
84 The initial loan took place in either 824 or 836, and the repayment was due in the sheep year
827 or 839.
85 PT 1024; Dotson 2013-2014, 6.
 Scribal practices  173

3.4.2 Purity practices and scribal erasure in the sutra economy

Figures such as Bung Dze weng, sketchy though they may be, helpfully trouble some
general assumptions about practices surrounding the production of Buddhist su-
tras. Jean-Pierre Drège recounts various anecdotes from medieval China about the
merits of sutra copying and the necessity that this be characterized by sincerity and
purity. A passage from the Huayan jing zhuanji describes how each act in preparing
the room where the sutra was to be copied had to be perfectly pure. The scribe
observed abstinence, bathed three times a day with perfumed water, and wore
pure clothing.86 In a striking image found in the Mingbao ji and elsewhere, a nun
who commissions a copy of the Lotus Sutra maintains the purity of the chamber
where it is to be copied by effectively sealing it off from the outside world. She fixes
a bamboo tube through the wall to communicate with the scribe inside, and the
scribe is instructed to breathe through the tube – a sort of medieval “exhaust pipe”
– so as not to exhale on the Lotus Sutra he has been commissioned to copy.87
These and other similar tales surely exaggerate the extent of such purity prac-
tices, but we know that eighth-century scribes in the Nara scriptorium observed
dietary taboos such as abstinence from meat and alcohol, and taboos against pollu-
tion such as that which comes from exposure to a corpse. They also bathed, ab-
stained from sex, wore specific “pure garments” (jōe) for their work in the scripto-
rium, and often slept there as well.88 All of this was to ensure that the sutras were
“purely copied” (Ch. jiejing xiejing 潔淨寫經). Purity practices are also in evidence
in Dunhuang. In his exploration of purity practices around sutra copying, Bryan
Lowe translates a colophon to a seventh-century Dunhuang copy of the Vimalakirti
Nirdeśa Sūtra: “A disciple burned incense and summoned the sutra copyist Zhu
Lingbian 朱令辯 from afar. [The scribe] diligently upheld the abstinential precepts
(Ch. zhaijie 齋戒), bathed with fragrant water, donned pure garments, and stayed
in a quiet chamber practicing the path at all times.”89 Lowe also cites a colophon
from Dunhuang dating to 662 in which scribes were hired to purely copy an en-
tire canon.90
The antics of some of Dunhuang’s sutra scribes do not necessarily exclude the
possibility that they performed purity practices. In fact, one colophon of a damaged


86 Drège 1991, 204.
87 Drège 1991, 204–205; see also the discussion of this narrative as an example of a “parasutraic
narrative” encouraging sutra copying “as a bodily act of reverence” in Ho 2019, 143.
88 Lowe 2017, 36–45.
89 Lowe 2017, 69.
90 P. 2056; Lowe 2012, 206.
174  Producing Limitless Life

Chinese Ap copy, S.3453, states that it was “reverently copied (gong xie 恭寫) by
Zhang Lüefu 張略復.”91 The general absence of other such statements in Tibetan or
Chinese in the colophons to SP2, MP, and Chinese and Tibetan Ap does not neces-
sarily mean that these were not also “reverently copied” or “purely copied.” On the
other hand, the many editorial notes and jottings that these sutra-copying projects
produced tend to foreground the scribes and editors and their various transactions
with each other and with the administrators overseeing their work. Their visibility
in the documentary record contrasts with the near erasure of scribes – down to
their breathing – in the anecdotes about sutra copying.
In a situation of exchange where benefit and merit are supposed to accrue to
the patron who commissioned the sutra copies, purity practices function to safeguard
against a perceived risk that the scribes who copy these sutras might siphon some
of this merit for themselves. In the face of such practices, which serve to elide the
scribe from the transaction and to foreground the patron and the sutra, the fact re-
mains that it is always the name of the scribe – or of the editor(s) in edited copies of
Ap – that closes the sutra in its colophon. If one fetishizes the sutra copy as the
speech of the Buddha (buddhavacana), or even, pars pro toto, the body of the Buddha,
then this injection of the scribe’s name at the end is more than a false note. It is the
insertion of a mundane name in apposition with that of the Buddha. On this point
Jinah Kim writes,

In a way, if we consider the practice of inserting one’s name into a Buddhist text as a behavior
driven by the desire to be near the Buddha, the scribal colophon tacked at the end of a manu-
script would afford the scribe a part of the religious merits (puṇyam) accrued in the donation
of the manuscript.92

In light of the purity practices and their virtual removal of the figure of the scribe
and his labor from the central transaction in this ritual economy of merit, Kim’s
observation about the scribe’s name in a colophon is tantamount to “saying the
quiet part out loud.” It voices precisely the fear that purity practices serve to allay.
It is also, in the wider context of Buddhist artistry and artisanry, extraordinary that
scribes should enjoy such a privilege where visual artists responsible for creating
the form of the Buddha so often remain anonymous.
This line of thought offers another way to approach the contrast between the
neat handwriting and grammar of the sutras that scribes copied and the slack writ-
ing and poor grammar of the colophons in which they wrote their names. The
distinction between reproducing verbal content and creating one’s own content is


91 Giles 1957, 149; no. 5102.
92 Kim 2013, 254.
 Scribal practices  175

the most obvious explanation for the different styles of handwriting and the diver-
gent grammar. The slack colophonic hand could also be explained as simply being
a ritualization in the sense of a convention, or “a done thing.” At the same time,
scribes were perfectly capable of writing their names in the same neat script in
which they copied a sutra, and sometimes they did so. Writing in a neat or slack
script was a choice. Alongside these more obvious and more likely explanations, it
is perhaps fruitful to at least entertain the notion that it was also this juxtaposition
of their own names with those of the Buddha that prompted a loosening of the grip,
as if to only half-write one’s name.
In a similar vein, it may be precisely in the colophon, where the scribe is most
present, that the perceived danger of siphoning merit was most acute. Of course the
merit of copying thousands of copies of the Sutra of Limitless Life, and the benefits
for health, long life, and so forth, were intended for the Tibetan emperor. However,
scribes read and copied certain paragraphs of the sutra that concerned the benefits
that accrued not only for “one who causes this sutra to be copied” but also for “one
who copies this sutra.” Such statements in the sutra itself may have even exacer-
bated an anxiety that the scribes, as intermediaries in the production of merit,
might use up or “embezzle” for themselves the merit intended for the recipient and/
or donor. It is probably relevant here that the dominant Tibetan version of the sutra
(A1/ B1) most often copied by Dunhuang’s scribes consistently uses the phrase “who-
ever causes it to be copied” (’drir bcug or ’drir ’jug) rather than “whoever copies it
or causes it to be copied” (’dri ’am ’drir bcug or ’dri ’am ’drir ’jug). It is difficult not
to see this as a conscious choice, given that the more concise elision would produce
the phrase “whoever copies.” This contrasts with the Sanskrit and Chinese versions,
which typically use the expression “whoever copies it or causes it to be copied”
(likhiṣyati likhāpayiṣyati; zi shu xie jiao ren shu xie 自書寫教人書寫). The later Ti-
betan canonical versions also use the longer, inclusive phrase, whereas the Tibetan
Dunhuang C5 version does not. Whether a version uses “copy,” “cause to be copied,”
or both, may not necessarily function as an index of how scribal labor was valued,
but the elision of “copy ” in the vast majority of these Tibetan Ap sutra copies for
the emperor is intriguing, and pertinent to questions of merit. Again with the pro-
viso that this would be a secondary or tertiary factor, it may be that some awareness
of their patrons’ anxieties about their roles in the transaction of merit can also part-
ly account for the scribes’ slack handwriting in the colophons, which would, on
such a reading, constitute something like an act of self-defacement.
In the context of scribes and client scribes and their exchanges that have left
their marks in rubbed out colophons, the act of “signing” a colophon to a sutra that
someone else scribed is in a sense to fully realize the taboo act of seizing the benefit
of another’s sutra copy. In real terms, having one’s name written in the colophon
176  Producing Limitless Life

of a three-panel Ap copy is to save a scribe from ten lashes. However, this type of
exchange might be seen to operate on a different level of the greater sutra economy,
at its fringes or its “black market,” so to speak. It is an open question whether such
lower-level transactions, such as the trade of sutra copies between scribes, had any
impact on the higher level transactions of merit involving donors and recipients.
Theoretically, the merit economy operates on different principles than the paper
economy. Most fundamentally, merit is taught to be catalytic, such that rejoicing in
another’s meritorious act does not siphon any merit away from that act, but simply
produces more. The anecdote literature about scribes, however, tends to under-
stand merit as a zero-sum proposition, such that when others take it from you or
receive it from you, then that merit, like the credit for panels of scribed sutra copies
given or sold to another scribe, is no longer yours.
The point is made most clearly in the revenant tale of Madame Chen in the
Fayuan Zhulin, which may have been known to Dunhuang’s scribes. Afflicted by her
own mother’s death in 663, Madame Chen herself temporarily dies and descends to
hell, where she witnesses the officials of hell tormenting her mother. Her mother
asks her to copy the Lotus Sutra to ease her suffering, and Madame Chen then re-
vives and sets about carrying out her deceased mother’s wish. Madame Chen’s hus-
band purchases a nearly complete copy that had been commissioned for a member
of another family, the Fan, and Madame Chen has it mounted and stained, and
consecrates it to her mother. Madame Chen’s deceased mother then visits her in a
dream, and asks Madame Chen why she has not commissioned the Lotus Sutra for
her. Madame Chen’s mother recounts that a functionary in hell admonished her for
taking the Fan family’s sutra, which effectively erased the merit it would have pro-
duced for the Fan family, and therefore constituted a great sin for Madame Chen.
In the end, Madame Chen commissions a new copy of the Lotus Sutra, expressly for
her mother.93
The analogy with giving or bartering Ap copies among scribes is clear. To erase
one Ap scribe’s name and replace it with another’s is to credit the latter person in
the ledgers of the “keeper.” But unlike the functionaries of hell, the “keeper” is hap-
py to validate this transfer, which, in a parallel to certain hellscapes, may save a
scribe from being tortured. What remains less clear is what if any impact this
transaction was thought to have on the main transaction of merit between the
sponsor of the sutra copies and the recipient. Does this minor transaction between
scribes siphon or destroy any of the merit that is meant to be generated in the major
transaction between donor and recipient – in this case the Tibetan emperor? Does
the client scribe receive the merit for his copying, and more merit for giving the


93 Kim 2013, 206.
 Editorial processes  177

sutra to another scribe to sign? What if he is charging for his services? What if he
is also charging interest? These questions relate to the larger sutra economy, which
includes the Buddhist economy of merit, the economy of the gift, the economy of
paper and materials, and the economy of labor and labor management. Whereas
donor and recipient operate on the more august levels, far removed from admin-
istrators like the “keeper” or the official who whipped the scribes for missing sheets
of paper, the scribes and editors are present at all levels of these various exchanges.
Their neogtiations of these various parts of the sutra economy, from the mundane
and coercive to the divine and meritorious, defined their lives and the sutra copies
they produced.

3.5 Editorial processes

Some of the unedited Ap copies contain what appear to be the instructions “to be
edited” (zhu lags). This comes in the form of the phrase dang zhu bar zhu sum zhu
lags, variants of which we find in at least nine unedited Ap copies.94 Significantly,
these instructions are found almost exclusively in the colophons of unedited sutra
copies that come from bundles of single-sutra rolls, and not in unedited copies from
mixed bundles.95
The instructions that the sutra must be edited, re-edited, and “third-edited”
accurately reflect the editorial process in which there are often three named editors
in the editorial colophon of an edited Ap copy. These “edit” (zhus), “re-edit” (yang
zhus), and “third-edit” (sum zhus) the sutra copy. This is similar to the editorial
process for the roll-type SP, though there one also finds “fourth editors” (bzhi zhus)
and “chief editors” (zhu chen). One typical Ap colophon reads: “edited by Rev. Shin
dar, re-edited by Leng ce’u, and third-edited by Ci keng” (dge slong shin dar zhus / /
leng ce’u yang zhus / ci keng sum zhus / /; ITJ 310.24). Very rarely, the terms dang,
bar, and sum from the “to be edited” formula are used in the editing formula
instead. For instance ITJ 310.1035 reads: / he jing dang zhus / / pug ’gi bar zhu [=zhus]
[...] he jing sum zhus /. 96 In a few apparently unedited Ap, such as the two sutra
copies under the pressmark ITJ 310.161, we find the phrase “edited and re-edited”
(zhus lags / yang zhus, and zhus / yang zhus). In another sutra that also appears to
be free of corrections by an editor’s hand we find the similar phrase “it has been


94 ITJ 310.259, 279, 368, 536, 766, 808, 820, 833, and 843. Of these, four lack scribal colophons.
95 The exception is ITJ 310.161.
96 A colophon at PT 3663 also has an interesting example. An unedited copy with no scribal attrib-
ution, its colophon reads dang zhu dang bar zhu dang sum zhu lags/ A red arrow below the line
points to the large word bskyar (“again”), also in red.
178  Producing Limitless Life

edited” (zhus lags so; ITJ 310.431). These could attest to a process of self-editing by
scribes. On the other hand, the attestations are few, and these instances of “edited”
(zhus lags) are more likely to simply be misspellings for “to be edited” (zhu lags).
Spelling and grammar in both scribal and editorial colophons is poor, with
absent or errant cases and errant verb tenses. Taking zhu, “to edit,” to be a transi-
tive verb, we expect the agent to be marked in the ergative. In fact, instances of
“[editor’s name] – [ergative] – zhus” are rare. Where we do find them, the ergative
is sometimes used for one editor, and not for the others.97 We often find a genitive
in place of an ergative.98 By far the most common form is the absolutive, for in-
stance, phab dzang zhus / phab cI yang zhus / dpal mchog suM zhus; ITJ 310.54. This
could be read either as a colophonic shorthand, for example, “ed. Phab dzang, re-
ed. Phab ci, third-ed. Dpal mchog,” or it could be read as evidence that Dunhuang’s
predominantly Chinese scribes and editors were far less adept at putting their own
words into writing than they were at copying someone else’s words. Even worse
misspellings, like that in the editorial colophon of Db. t 0274, confirm this: “edited,
re-entered by Chos ’grus, third-entered by Phab tsun” (zhus lagso/ chos ’grus yang
zhugs/ phab tsun/ sum zhugs).99 This level of literacy among copyists would be con-
sonant with many scribal traditions elsewhere in the world. It is interesting to ob-
serve it also among editors.
Some editorial colophons shed light on the editorial process. In ITJ 310.1045, we
find the editors’ names in red, followed by the statement, also in red and in the
same hand, “additions and omissions having been corrected, it is finalized” (lhag
chad bcos nas gtan phab bo). In a copy from St Petersburg, Dkh. Tib. 145, we find a
similar phrase, “there being no omissions or additions, it was finalized” (chad lhag
ma mcis gtan la phab).100 The phrase gtan [la] phab describes the work of the editors
and refers to the end of the editorial process – or the end of one stage of editing.
This term appears in the same position in ITJ 310.126, 310.557, 310.569, 310.588,
310.596, and 310.1101, and in many copies in Paris and Gansu. In ITJ 310.588, for ex-
ample, the editorial colophon reads, “Edited by Dam ’gi. Re-edited by Ci keng, third-
edited by Dam ’gi, and finalized” (dam ’gI zhus// / cI keng yang zhus/ dam ’gi suM
zhuste gthan la phabo/). We find a similar statement in the colophon of ITJ 310.772:
“written by Shin dar; [second hand, in red:] edited by Leng pe’u, edited and finalized


97 For example, ci keng gIs zhus / dam ’gI yang zhus ci keng suM zhus /; ITJ 310.1094; or phug ’gi
zhus dpal mchog gyis yang zhus / / pab dzang gyis sum zhus /; ITJ 310.573.
98 For example, dge slong daM tsheng gI zhuso / dge slong leng ce’u yang zhus / cI keng sum zhus/ /;
ITJ 310.44; or dge slong shin dar zhus / / dge slong dam tsheng gi yang zhuso / ce king gI sum zhuso / /;
ITJ 310.34.
99 Ma 2011, 176.
100 Savitsky 1991, 66.
 Editorial processes  179

by Ben ceng” (shin dar gIs bris/ / leng pe’u zhus ben ceng gtan la bab zhuso//). Another
colophon, to ITJ 310.1117, reads, “Written by Cang Zhun zhun. Edited. Sutra finalized,
it is to be submitted to Rdo rje’s team” (cang zhun zhun kyIs bris / / zhus so / dar ma
gtan la bab te / rdo rje’i grar zhu /. Here, Rdo rje’s team is the next stop in the edi-
torial process. These phrases about the sutra being finalized, found in editorial colo-
phons of Ap copies that include numerous corrections, may be taken to support the
view that these are indeed final sutra copies deposited as gifts for the emperor,
against the opinion that they should be viewed as discards.
There are additional details at the end of the colophon to ITJ 310.1117 that per-
tain to how editors corrected the sutra copies that scribes submitted to them. After
the text just quoted, the colophon continues, in faded orange ink, “Li Phab weng’s
exemplar for comparing with sutra [copies]” (lI phab weng gyI dar ma gtugs pa’I
dpe’ / /. The verb “compare” (gtugs) relates to the editorial process, and we often
find this word in the columns of roll-format SP3 copies.101 It refers to the practice of
editing a sutra with recourse to an exemplar copy. For instance, a fragment from
the back of a blank, sixteen-line column of SP3 refers to the use of exemplars during
editing: “having no exemplar, we did not perform the second edit” (dphe ma mchiste
yang zhus ma bgyis; ITJ 932). This suggests that, in the above situation, the editor Li
Phab weng used this corrected, finalized copy as an editorial exemplar for correct-
ing other copies of Ap that were submitted to him. Similarly, we find in the colo-
phon of the Ap copy ITJ 310.131, “written by Cang Zhun zhun. Edited. To be re-edited
and third-edited. Phug ’gi’s exemplar. Edited” (cang zhun zhun gyis bris/ zhus so
yang zhus sum zhus lags// $/:/phug ’gI gyIs dpe lags so//zhus). This colophon features
the usual poor grammar with respect to tense and case, but it is easy enough to see
that it indicates that this is Phug ’gi’s exemplar, and we know that Phug ’gi, like Li
Phab weng, was a prolific editor.
The editors’ use of exemplars seems to mirror the manner in which scribes
produced their copies. Here, it appears that editors wrote out model sutras for
scribes to copy, or else gave them a good, clean copy, or a copy that had been well
edited. In the colophon in PT 3601 (Fig. 49), an Ap copy written by Shes rab who was
also a prolific editor, we find the phrase, “Cang ZhIg hing[’s] copy” (cang zhIg hing
dpe’). In this context, where the colophon states that the sutra was written by Shes
rab, who was an editor, the phrase “Cang ZhIg hing[’s] copy” probably means that
the scribe Cang ZhIg hing used this exemplar as a model for his own sutra copies.
In at least one case, a scribe inadvertently copied the colophon of his model text. In
PT 3648, a two-sutra roll, the scribe Dang Tse tse “signed” his own name in one


101 On the features and production of SP3 copies, see Lalou 1957; Iwao 2013; Dotson 2013-2014;
Taenzer 2021.
180  Producing Limitless Life

colophon, but wrote “written by ’Dam ge” in the other. The latter, whose name is
properly spelled ’Dam gi, was a prolific editor, and so a similar situation of a sutra
copy scribed by an editor being used as a scribe’s exemplar likely pertains in this
case too. Alternatively, it could relate to the trade in sutra copies described above.

Fig. 49: Colophon of what is probably an exemplar sutra copy, PT 3601; image captured by the
authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

The use of editors’ copies as scribal exemplars also accounts for three out of the
four edited copies found in the mixed bundles of unedited copies. ITJ 310.1045 and
ITJ 310.1046 are the first two rolls in a mixed bundle of nineteen rolls at 73.IX, most
of them multiple-sutra rolls, and all otherwise unedited. These first two are edited
single-sutra rolls, of version B1 and A1, respectively. Their scribes are Dpal gyi Sgron
ma and Shin dar, both of whom are prolific editors. A likely explanation for their
anomalous presence alongside unedited sutra copies here is that they were used as
scribal exemplars in producing the other sutra copies in this bundle. The same is
true of ITJ 1617, an edited B1 sutra copy in a bundle of unedited copies at 78.V. It was
scribed by Cang Tsi dam, who worked both as a scribe and an editor. The only other
anomaly is ITJ 310.683, an A1 copy with only one editor, ’Bal Gtsug rton. If these
bundles represent anything like the original state of the sutra copies when they
were submitted and deposited in a temple, then exemplar copies were included
alongside the copies produced from them. In single-sutra-roll bundles these exem-
plars were mixed in with both edited and unedited copies.
If these colophonic notes reflect the normative situation at Dunhuang, then we
can infer that sutra copies were made by scribes who worked from exemplars, and
edited by editors who compared them with their own exemplars. This does not mean
that every exemplar was identical. Surveying sutra copies written by editors, many
of which we assume were used as exemplars, we find some interesting variation in
 Editorial processes  181

their prescribed orthographies. And of course there is the more obvious difference
between a version A1 exemplar and a version B1 exemplar. Chapter Two introduced
an exemplar copy in which an editor, Cang Tsi dam, had corrected a B1 copy to
produce an A1 exemplar. Indeed, the original scribe ^An Dge brtan produced only
B1 copies in our corpus, and the scribe for whom this copy was adjusted, Cang Legs
rtsan, largely produced A1 copies, in accordance with Cang Tsi dam’s corrections.
This exemplar copy, it should be noted, does have some jottings on the verso and in
the margins. This may have been tolerated on exemplar copies where it may not
have been allowed in other copies. Nevertheless, these exemplar copies were found
in the same bundles with edited and unedited sutra copies and so were presumably
acceptable as gifts for the Tibetan emperor.

3.5.1 Teams of editors

The majority of editorial colophons record teams of three editors, but most bundles
also include copies whose colophons name only two editors. In the latter case there
are two types of colophons: either it still lists a first, second, and a third editor, but
the first editor and the third editor are in fact the same person, or else the colophon
names only a first and second editor. We also find several instances of sutra copies
with just one editor. On the other end of the spectrum are a few Ap copies, such as
PT 3742, that include the names of four editors in their colophons. Only one bundle
in the Stein Collection, 86.I, has copies that exclusively contains the names of three
separate editors in each copy’s colophon. This bundle is additionally notable for its
use of monastic titles: dge slong Shin dar, dge slong Dam tsheng, and dge slong Leng
ce’u appear in multiple colophons. This bundle also contains several copies with
the “inefficient” four-panel, eight-column layout. We suggest below that this points
to the likelihood that this was one of the first bundles to be produced.
The corrections in an edited sutra copy most often appear to be the work of a
single hand, even when up to three are named in the editorial colophon. It is also
exceedingly rare to find an editorial colophon where each editor’s name is written
in a separate hand. This means that an editor often recorded the name of one or
both of their editorial colleagues, and often misspelled them or spelled them pho-
netically. Such misspellings or variant spellings were exacerbated by the circum-
stance of writing Chinese names in Tibetan script, but this makes for some valuable
data for historical phonology, as noted in Chapter Five. There is also a good deal of
variation in the spelling of scribes’ names, due in part to the phoneticization of
Chinese names in Tibetan, but also to the trade in sutra copies and the dynamics of
scribes and client scribes, as detailed above. In any case, it appears that one of the
182  Producing Limitless Life

editors did the lion’s share of the work, and that the other two editors ratified this
with the inclusion of their names in the colophon.
From the editorial colophons we can discern recurring teams of editors. The
editors Phab ci, Phab dzang, and Dpal mchog, for example, edited seventy-six sutra
copies together. They edited thirty-four copies in the order just given, where Phab
ci was the first editor, Phab dzang the second editor, and Dpal mchog the third. They
edited forty-two further copies with the order Phab dzang, Phab ci, Dpal mchog.
Phab ci did not edit any Ap copies apart from those where he appears with Phab
dzang. There are also nineteen sutra copies in which these two are the only editors:
seven where Phab ci is both first and third editor with Phab dzang as second editor;
eleven where Phab dzang is first and Phab ci is second, without a third editor; and
one with Phab ci as first, Phab dzang as second, and with no third editor. As first
editor, Phab dzang’s name is always spelled as such, but as second or third editor
there are thirty-five instances of the spelling Pab dzang. Like most editors, Phab
dzang’s family name only appears in scribal colophons, and is not given in editorial
colophons. From this we have his full name, ^An (安) Phab dzang. No colophon
names him as a monk. Phab ci, by contrast, is ban de Phab ci at ITJ 310.1018, although
other sutra copies from the same bundle simply call him Phab ci. He is not found as
a scribe among the Stein Collection or Pelliot Collection or St. Petersburg colophons.
The editor Dpal mchog contrasts with Phab ci for working together with many
other editors. The team of Dpal mchog, Phug ’gi, and Phab dzang edited twenty-two
Ap copies. The same team, with the order Phug ’gi, Dpal mchog, P(h)ab dzang edited
thirty-three copies, twenty-seven of which were “signed” Pab dzang – again mis-
spelled. Only one copy was edited by the same team in the order Dpal mchog, P(h)ab
dzang, Phug ’gi. Less commonly, Dpal mchog edited sutra copies together with edi-
tors such as Ci shan, Shes rab, and Leng pe’u. Dpal mchog is credited as the scribe of
four sutra copies, with one colophon specifying his family name as Khang (Kang 康).
Dpal mchog’s collaborations helpfully connect to other teams of editors, such
as those containing monks – although not always clearly identified as ordained. Leng
pe’u, who is one of Dpal mchog’s co-editors, typically worked together with the ed-
itors Dpal gyi Sgron ma and Ci keng. In that order, they edited thirty-seven copies;
they edited a further twenty-five copies as (Dpal gyi) Sgron ma, Ci keng, Leng pe’u;
twelve as (Dpal gyi) Sgron ma, Leng pe’u, Ci keng; three as Leng pe’u, Ci keng, (Dpal
gyi) Sgron ma; and one as Ci keng, (Dpal gyi) Sgron ma, Leng pe’u. Leng pe’u is
named as a fully ordained monk (dge slong) in the colophon to ITJ 310.551 but, as with
Phab ci, other colophons in the same bundle (78.III) refer to him without a title.
Finally, Leng pe’u is the scribe of just one sutra copy, with no family name given, but
we know from Nishioka’s study of Dunhuang Ap colophons in the Pelliot Collection
 Editorial processes  183

that his family name is ^Im (Yin 陰).102 Dpal gyi Sgron ma could be an ordination
name, or an indication of Tibetan ethnicity, or neither.103 The short form Sgron ma
is used in several editorial colophons, but the long form is used in the five scribal
colophons where Dpal gyi Sgron ma appears. Ci keng, like the other monks, is
named as ban de in one colophon, and then without the title in another colophon
from the same bundle. This can be understood to suggest that editors were incon-
sistent in how they used their own and/or their fellow editors’ monastic titles. If this
is so, these titles cannot be used as a means for dating sutra copies based on an
assumption of career progression from novice or layman to ordained monk. Alter-
natively, it could be understood to indicate that a given bundle includes a mixture
of sutra copies produced earlier (e.g. edited by Ci keng) and later (e.g. edited by ban
de Ci keng) in the duration of the sutra-copying project. However, the general
coherence of the sutra copies in a given bundle, in terms of their dhāraṇī, layout,
editing or lack of editing, and the presence of consistent teams of editors, speaks
against the latter view.
In some bundles, like 73.XVI, one team of editors is responsible for the majority
of sutra copies. Here some combination of Phab dzang, Phab ci, and Dpal mchog
edited forty-six of the first forty-seven copies in this sixty-four-roll bundle, and a
further four of the remaining sixteen copies. These include the largely anoma-
lous A1 copies, which are rare in bundles of single-sutra-rolls. Similarly, some com-
bination of the editors Dpal gyi Sgron ma, Leng pe’u, and Ci keng edited fifteen of
the twenty-eight Ap copies in bundle 86.III. In bundle 86.XV, in which there are
twenty-nine edited copies and nine unedited copies, some combination of the edi-
tors Phug ’gi, Dpal mchog, and Phab dzang edited fifteen of the twenty-nine edited
copies. The same team edited sixteen of the thirty edited copies in bundle 78.IX,
which also includes thirty-three unedited copies. However, in most bundles of single-
sutra rolls there is no editorial team that predominates, such that several different
teams are represented.104 The state of the bundles therefore runs a gamut. There
are those bundles, such as 73.XVI, which represent what one would expect were the
bundle to have been submitted by the team of Phab dzang, Phab ci, and Dpal mchog,
and then deposited in a temple, and eventually in Cave Seventeen, all while being
left largely untouched. Then there are other bundles where no team of editors


102 Nishioka 1984, 315 (= 101).
103 Dpal gyi Sgron ma is also found in the colophon to PT 496, a roll that contains part of a com-
mentary to the Heart Sutra. The colophon reads “copied by Dpal gyi Sgron ma; no additions or omis-
sions” (dpal gyi sgron mas bris te lhag cad ma mchis so/). This is followed by a drawing of a stupa.
104 Dpal gyi Sgron ma, Leng pe’u, and Ci keng, for example, edited only thirteen of the fifty-one
copies at 78.III; thirteen of the fifty-eight copies at 78.IV; and fourteen of the fifty copies at 78.X.
184  Producing Limitless Life

predominates, such that the bundle cannot be identified as the product of any par-
ticular team. One inference that could be made from such bundles that have a wider
variety of editorial teams would be that their rolls have been more often used, shuf-
fled, and disturbed after their initial deposit in a temple library than those bundles
in which one team is responsible for the majority of the sutra copies. A simpler and
more likely explanation would be that different editorial teams worked together in
a scriptorium such that a finished bundle of edited copies had a variety of editors,
just as the bundles attest.
Sifting through the data that we have recorded for each pressmark, and doing
so at the level of the bundles, it is possible to get a sense of the teams of editors and
also of the scribes that worked with them. The scribes Se thong pa, ^An Dge brtan,
Je’u Brtan kong, and Legs rma, for example, are almost exclusively edited by the
team of Phab dzang, Phab ci, and Dpal mchog, whereas the scribes Phan Phan, Bam
Lha legs, and Cang Stag ra are almost exclusively edited by the team of Leng pe’u,
Ci keng, and Dpal gyi Sgron ma. A few scribes, like Cang Jung jung, are edited by
both teams. Such relationships between scribes and editors could be explored
further among the other Dunhuang collections worldwide, albeit without the bene-
fit of information about bundles, which seems only to have been recorded within
the manuscripts of the Stein Collection.

3.5.2 Correcting and rejecting sutra copies

Corrections in edited Ap copies are almost uniformly spare (see Fig. 50). They also
appear in predictable places. The same passages tend to be flagged up time and time
again: mdo is corrected to mdo sde, de na to de nas, and gang zhig to gang la la zhig.
Editors targeted the dhāraṇī, too, most commonly amending de and da to dhe and
dha, respectively. One can sympathize with these editors in that the sutra is very
repetitive. The sutra repeats the same terms and sentence structures over and over
again, and the dhāraṇī appears every few lines. Nevertheless, some corrections are
relevant to the development of Tibetan grammatical norms. Among the few inter-
esting corrections are that of ’gyur ro to ’gyur to and of dga’ go to dga’ ’o. There are
also corrections relevant to case particles, for example the correction of tshe’ang to
tshe yang, stobs gis to stobs gyis, and rten gI to rten gyI. These are discussed in more
detail in Chapter Five.
 Editorial processes  185

Fig. 50: Some typical corrections in Tibetan Ap copies, PT 3790; image captured by the authors from
https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Such corrections might be interpreted as being suggestive of the aesthetics of

producing Ap copies. Very rarely do the editors correct the dhāraṇī in every one of
its appearances. The splashes of their red ink are generally well spaced on each
page and do not clutter up the text or detract too heavily from its appearance (see
Fig. 50). The impression is that the sparse corrections in red have been intended as
visual evidence that the editorial duty has been discharged, rather than the un-
leashing of a pedant with a red pen. This is of course diametrically opposed to the
ethic of hiding the editorial process that produces clean, final copies of the Perfec-
tion of Wisdom Sutra copies, and goes against the ethic of minimizing the presence
or roles of scribes and editors in the production of sutra copies.

Fig. 51: Insertion between lines one and two of a Tibetan Ap copy, PT 3920; image captured by the
authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
186  Producing Limitless Life

An exception to this pattern of minimal and often predictable editorial corrections

appears in some cases where a scribe has left out a passage or paragraph of the
sutra, or part of the dhāraṇī, and an editor has inserted this between the lines. Alt-
hough margins and column gutters are generally kept empty, some of these addi-
tions curve up the column gutter and into the top margin (see Fig. 51).
In some copies, such as ITJ 310.991, an entire paragraph and its attendant
dhāraṇī – in this case §7, on the 990,000,000 Buddhas – is inserted by an editor. Such
longer insertions also show us that editors were concerned with checking that the
sutra was complete. This is evident from the colophon of ITJ 310.1045 quoted above,
which contains the statement that additions and omissions have been corrected.
Indeed, completeness is emphasized in the vocabulary of Tibetan editing: a good
copy has “no omissions [or] additions” (chad l[h]ag ma mchis; ITJ 1656, col. f), and
we know from the editorial notes on rejected SP folia that these could be rejected
for having “many additions [and] omissions” (lhag chad mang; PT 1312, folio 7).105
This stark contrast, where editors were far more permissive when editing the
Tibetan Ap than when editing the Tibetan SP or Chinese MP, is also clear from sev-
eral copies in which one finds the beginning of the Ap upside-down on the final line
of a complete sutra copy.106 How this came to be is obvious: a scribe made an error
in the first line of the sutra by launching into the dhāraṇī in the middle of the sutra’s
Sanskrit title, e.g. “rgya gar skad du ^a pa rI mi ta ^ yur nya na su bI ni sci ta [...]”
instead of “rgya gar skad du ^a pa rI mi ta ^ yur na ma ma ha ya na su tra.”107 Real-
izing the mistake, the scribe would rotate the roll 180 degrees and begin again. This
meant that the aborted first line of the first column of the sutra copy was now upside-
down, in the last line of its last column. What is remarkable is that the errant line,
now upside-down at the end of the sutra, was not rubbed out or struck through, but
simply left there on an ostensibly final copy. Certain scribes chose not to address a
false start in this way, and instead crossed out their mistake and restarted the sutra
on the next line; such was the choice of the scribe Hva Hva hva at the head of the
sutra copy ITJ 310.1167.108 Less egregiously, one finds the error rgya gar skad du ^a
pa rI mi ta ^a yur na ma ma ha na ya na su tra at the start of ITJ 310.1119, where the
scribe self-corrects an error in writing mahāyāna that is also presumably due to


105 Lalou 1961, 13.
106 For example, ITJ 310.172, ITJ 310.185, ITJ 310.316, and ITJ 310.682.
107 The same mistake is found at the start of the Gansu copies Db. t. 0146 and Db. t. 0196; Ma 2011,
130 and 145.
108 There is a similar example in the Gansu copy Db. t. 0146; see Ma 2011, 130.
 Editorial processes  187

being so accustomed to writing mahānaya as part of the dhāraṇī. This correction,

sometimes by a scribe and other times by an editor, is found in other copies as well.109
Some copies in our corpus, including ITJ 1687, show that the scribe has omitted
the end title and colophon. Other copies, such as PT 3901, omit paragraphs in the
middle of the sutra that have not been inserted between the lines or in the margins
by either the scribe or the editor(s). A close reading of these copies would uncover
many more such errors.
From these false starts and false endings, and from both the presence of long
interlinear and marginal assertions and the benign neglect to insert missing para-
graphs, it is clear that fairly sloppy scribal work was allowed to stand in final Ap
copies. What did it take, then, for an editor to reject a scribe’s work copying the
Tibetan Ap? To address this question we can draw on the dozens of torn Ap panels
that have apparently been rejected or discarded. Apart from the 1,492 Tibetan
Dunhuang Ap copies in the Stein Collection, there are forty-six fragments. Notably,
these have separate site numbers, and apart from two exceptions there are no frag-
mentary sutras found in the twenty-six bundles that consist almost exclusively of
Tibetan Ap copies. Many such fragments are also found in the Pelliot Collection of
the Bibliothèque nationale de France. These fragmentary Ap copies range from less
than one column of text to five columns. Some show signs of editing, but others do
not. It appears that none has an editorial sign in the margins or on the verso to mark
it as a discard. Yet the contents or appearance of these fragments often supply clues
as to why they were torn apart or left incomplete.
The Pelliot Collection has at present been largely digitized and made freely
available, so we use examples from there to demonstrate. The single torn panel at
PT 4082 (Fig. 52), for instance, was presumably discarded due to an ink spill.
Other torn panels feature writing that is messier than any that one finds in a
complete Ap copy. Such is the case with the two-and-a-half-panel fragment ITJ 1614,
whose first column has been torn away. Its penultimate column of text crams in six
lines of content in the space of four ruled lines. The situation is even more extreme
in the case of the torn two-and-a-half panels of text in PT 4026 (Fig. 53). Here the
scribe has crammed twenty-seven lines of text into the extant middle column. It
may be that this scribe was tasked with replacing the end of an errant Ap copy, and
that s/he foolishly tried to fit three columns of content into a single two-column
panel of paper.


109 For example, ITJ 310.94, ITJ 310.788, and the St. Petersburg copy Dkh. Tib. 193; Savitsky 1991, 85.
188  Producing Limitless Life

Fig. 52: A panel of a Tibetan Ap, PT 4082, showing an ink spill; image captured by the authors from
https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Fig. 53: A torn fragment of a Tibetan Ap, PT 4026, presumably discarded due to cramped writing and
deviation from the inked guidelines; image captured by the authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr,
courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
 Editorial processes  189

Fig. 54: Final panel of a Tibetan Ap, ITJ 310.645, showing cramped writing on final column; photo-
graphed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
190  Producing Limitless Life

This is not to say that every instance of cramped writing entailed that a sutra copy
be rejected. We find counterexamples in our corpus in the form of complete sutra
copies containing cramped or overly expansive spacing. The first two panels of ITJ
310.320, for example, are written in small, cramped letters; whereas the final two
panels are written in huge, spaced letters, apparently in the same hand. ITJ 1701
also features very cramped writing in its final lines, as does a C5 copy at ITJ 310.645
(Fig. 54).
It may be significant that these examples of sutra copies with cramped spacing
come from mixed bundles of unedited copies. This is further circumstantial evidence
that suggests two phases to the copying of the Tibetan Ap, with divergent editorial
norms, the details of which we explore below.
We came across only one Tibetan Ap copy in the Stein Collection that was marked
as a discard, using the vocabulary and the editorial practices applied to Tibetan SP2.
This is ITJ 310.382, an edited, three-and-a-half-panel, seven-column copy from a
bundle of single-sutra rolls, 86.XV. It contains many insertions, including the entire-
ty of §15 and its dhāraṇī in column c that runs up the column gutter and curves
around the top margin to the left margin. However, §15 has in fact been inserted in
between §18 and §17, rather than where it should appear in this B1 copy, before §18.
(Recall from Chapter Two that the paragraphs in version one of the sutra proceed
§14, §15, §18, §17, §18, §20.) There is a similarly long insertion of §32, up the column
gutter and around the top and left margins, on column e. In the lower margin of
this same column (Fig. 55), we find an editorial note: “[t]his single section [of] this
sutra marked for discard is Khang ’Go ’go’s” (dar ma ’di le’u gchig gi ro ’byung ba ’di
ni / khang ’go ’go gi lagso).

Fig. 55: Editorial note in the lower margin of ITJ 310.382, marking it for discard; photographed by
Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
 Editorial processes  191

We observed that this panel was partly cut around the left and top of this note,
which would render it a partly attached approximately 2 ✕ 15 cm flap hanging out
of the bottom margin of the roll. This is precisely the convention that editors of the
Tibetan SP used when they partially cut similar notes, usually in the left margin of
pothī leaves – presumably in order to make these easy to find and then replace with
newly scribed, error-free leaves.110
In the colophon, we find that the scribe of this sutra is indeed Khang ’Go ’go,
leaving little doubt that this note pertains to this Ap copy. The two long insertions
of missing paragraphs appear to have prompted this rejection. The three editors
are Shin dar, Ci keng, and Leng pe’u. This was a prolific team of editors, but we have
not come across another copy in which they have supplied such an editorial note.
Notably, both Ci keng and Leng pe’u also served as editors of Tibetan SP, where
such editorial notes were normative. The same team is found on two fragmentary
panels of Khang ’Go ’go’s Ap copies, ITJ 1500 and PT 4025, which were presumably
torn apart by way of rejection. This might be taken to show that this team practiced
two different modes of rejecting a scribe’s work: one by leaving a partly torn edito-
rial note, and the other by tearing or separating a sutra copy’s offending panels.
There is another note of interest, found on an Ap copy in the St. Petersburg
collection, but it does not use the language of “discards” (ro). In Dkh. Tib. 115, an Ap
copy scribed by Bam Stag bzang and edited by dge slong Leng ce’u, Sgron ma, and
Shin dar, the editorial colophon is followed by the note, “Bam Stag zig’s chal – one
le’u incomplete” (bam stag zig gi chal le’u cig ma tshang go).111 Not having consulted
this manuscript, we must rely on Savitsky’s transcription, and cannot say whether
this note is in the editor’s hand, the scribe’s, or a third hand, nor can we vouch for
the accuracy of the transcription. We can observe the similar reference to “one
le’u,” in common with the note in the bottom margin of ITJ 310.382. There is a fur-
ther interesting note in another edited single-sutra roll from St. Petersburg, Dkh.
Tib. 203, which lacks a colophon. It states, dar ma ’di bcug ma mcis. This could be
taken to mean that this sutra copy (dar ma) was not included with the others be-
cause it was deficient, or it could be a misspelling for “this sutra copy has no ending.”
These editorial notes’ uses of the terms dar ma and le’u raise some questions.
The term dar ma, as noted by Rolf Stein, is often used to refer to a “sutra” in the
sense of a single item, text or copy.112 We have already seen it used in the colophon
at ITJ 310.1117: “[w]ritten by Cang Zhun zhun. Edited. Sutra copy finalized” (cang
zhun zhun kyIs bris / / zhus so / dar ma gtan la bab te). The term dar ma is also used


110 Lalou 1954, 258–259; Dotson 2013-2014, 44–45.
111 Savistky 1991, 54.
112 Stein 1983, 182–184.
192  Producing Limitless Life

to refer to precisely these sutra copies in the above-quoted administrative text PT

999: “the Chinese and Tibetan Limitless Life sutras were copied in Shazhou” (sha
cur rgya bod gyi dar ma tshe dpag du myed pa [br]is te//; PT 999, ll. 1–2). Dar ma
similarly refers to the Chinese and Tibetan Perfection of Wisdom Sutra copies in the
administrative text ITJ 1359(A), translated in this chapter’s epigraph. In the context
of SP, the term le’u refers to its sections or chapters. The term customarily refers to
a textual or recitational or ritual section or unit, and only by extension to a physical
unit. It shares this frame of reference with the term dar ma. The inverse pertains to
the term bam po (“roll”), which is primarily physical, and secondarily textual. In a
short sutra such as the Ap, there are no le’u in the sense of sections or chapters –
apart from those that Konow imposed –, so it may be that editors were making a
false analogy with the SP, where scribes worked on particular chapters (le’u) of this
longer sutra (dar ma). In such an analogy, the editors might have loosely thought of
a long roll of Ap copies as a dar ma, and an individual copy within that long roll as
a le’u. In a single-sutra roll, the two terms would fully overlap, and this might
account for how these terms seem to be used in the three notes given above, where
le’u may be a subordinate unit to dar ma in the note in ITJ 310.382, but where le’u
and dar ma seem interchangeable in the notes in the St. Petersburg copies.
The supposition that Shin dar and his editorial team received a longer roll of
multiple Ap copies from Khang ’Go ’go and then separated these as part of their
editorial process is supported by the presence of adhesive, visible in the margins of
most sutra copies. It is notable that this sutra copy is found in a bundle (86.XV) of
thirty-seven edited single-sutra rolls and one anomalous unedited two-sutra roll
(ITJ 310.394). As a discard, ITJ 310.382 is mixed in with all of the other Ap copies in
this bundle. If this bundle represents the state of the sutra copies when they were
deposited, then it follows that ITJ 310.382 was not in the end discarded, but instead
deposited alongside this bundle’s edited and unedited copies. On the other hand, if
the bundle was disturbed, or if it was produced through reorganization processes
in one of Dunhuang’s temple libraries, then this discarded sutra copy could be an in-
terloper. However, the general coherence of the bundles, as detailed above, speaks
against the second scenario.
There is another editorial note, ITJ 768, that may refer to the Tibetan Ap copies,
and which resembles the type of editorial note used by SP2 editors when they tore
a folio’s margin out and used it for tallying discards. It measures 4 ✕ 20.8 cm and
both recto and verso are written in a slack editorial hand. These read, respectively,
“Edited by Cang Ke’u tse and Shin dar” (cang ke’u tse dang/ / shin dar zhus/) and
either “roll ninety-one removed” or “ninety-one rolls, removed” (bam pho dgu bcu
tsa gchig byung/). Given the poor grammar of such notes, one might also understand
byung as “to be removed/ to be rejected.” It is evident that this note does not pertain
 Paper re-use, ex-libris, and the fate of the sutra copies  193

to SP2 because the SP consists of four volumes of seventy-six bam po (“chapters”)

each, so ninety-one cannot refer to one of its “chapters.” Further, Cang Ke’u tse is
otherwise unknown, but Shin dar is a prolific editor of Ap copies, though not an ed-
itor or scribe of SP2. The implication is that these editors have rejected ninety-one
rolls/ copies, probably of Tibetan Ap. However, this curious information is crossed
out, possibly to indicate that this removal of ninety-one copies had already been
carried out, or else to countermand the instruction to remove these rolls. It is tempt-
ing to conclude from this strikethrough, together with the presence of the discarded
copy ITJ 310.321 in a single-sutra-roll bundle, that a judgment was made against dis-
carding edited Tibetan Ap copies.
The preponderance of Tibetan Ap copies that include editorial corrections, but
which show no signs of having been rejected, contrasts with what one finds in the
Chinese MP and Tibetan SP commissioned from the horse year 826. SP folia and MP
panels with evidence of editing are almost all discards, marked as such by editors’
notes and tallies. The editorial practice that informed these Ap copies in the thirteen
single-sutra-roll bundles would seem to be the inverse of the ethic followed when
editing the SP and the MP. In the latter case, the goal was to hide the editorial
process that stood behind the final, pristine copy. The Ap copies, by contrast, appear
to draw attention to the editorial process not only with their splashes of editorial
red ink but also with statements such as “to be edited” found in unedited copies in
single-sutra-roll bundles. This contrast could be due to a timeline in which these Ap
copies preceded the SP copies and therefore also preceded the articulation of the
rigorous editorial norms associated with producing the latter. It could also be that
editorial norms for copying the Ap evolved over the course of this sutra-copying
project, and that edited copies were initially meant to be rejected, but were subse-
quently allowed to be finalized and submitted. We will return to these issues, and
to the contrast with the mixed bundles of unedited Ap copies, after first reviewing
further uses of torn Ap panels.

3.6 Paper re-use, ex-libris, and the fate of the sutra copies
Many of the torn Ap panels feature jottings in Tibetan and/or Chinese on their ver-
sos, as one would expect from discards in the context of this sutra-copying project.
ITJ 310.967 is a one-panel fragment with the Tibetan refuge prayer on the verso. The
same prayer is found on the verso of another torn panel, PT 4050. There are Chinese
and Tibetan jottings, including the name “the god, the emperor Khri Srong brtsan”
(lha btsan po khri srong brtsan) in large letters on the verso of a torn panel, PT 4015.
On the verso of a fragmentary Ap copy that comprises two torn panels, PT 4017,
194  Producing Limitless Life

there are numerous jottings in Chinese as well as the draft opening of a Tibetan
letter (Fig. 56).

Fig. 56: The verso of a torn fragment of Tibetan Ap copy, PT 4017, featuring jottings and a draft Tibet-
an letter; image captured by the authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque
nationale de France.

Figs 57 and 58: A drawing on the verso of a partial Tibetan Ap copy, PT 4012, and punctuation-like
designs on the verso of a Tibetan Ap fragment, PT 4078; images captured by the authors from
https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

On the back of a torn two-panel Ap fragment, PT 4038, there is a jotting about differ-
ent people receiving or owing loads of grain.
 Paper re-use, ex-libris, and the fate of the sutra copies  195

There are also some drawings in addition to jottings. A nearly complete copy,
PT 4012, with only its last column torn away, features a drawing, perhaps of a dog,
on its verso (Fig. 57). PT 4078, a one-panel fragment, features clusters of designs in
its upper right corner (Fig. 58).
Among these incomplete or torn Ap fragments is a particular group that is no-
table for how it has been repurposed. Each of these fragments constitutes about a
single panel of paper, and on their versos we find numbers written in Chinese.
These are all “packet numbers” relating to how sutras and other rolls were stored.
PT 4010 (Fig. 59), for example, is the torn final panel of a Tibetan Ap copy, and in
the top left of the verso one reads “packet number fifty-nine” (di wushi jiu zhi 第五
十九袟).

Fig. 59: Verso of a torn Tibetan Ap panel, PT 4010 – the text “packet number fifty-nine” indicates
that this was used as a wrapper for bundles of sutras; image captured by the authors from
https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

There are a handful of other such Ap panels repurposed as packet wrappers. These
mostly comprise one panel each, and the packet number is usually written towards
the top of the verso, and horizontally often near the middle. The pressmarks and
packet numbers are as follows. PT 4002v = packet number forty-five; PT 4010v =
packet number fifty-nine; PT 4029v = packet number fifty-four; PT 4030v = packet
number twenty-eight; PT 4031v = packet number fifty-three; PT 4032v = packet num-
ber fifty-two; PT 4033v = packet number nineteen; PT 4034v = packet number forty-
four; PT 4036v = packet number forty-seven; PT 4041v = packet number fifty; PT
4042v = packet number nine; PT 4048v = packet number seventeen; PT 4097v = pack-
et number fifty-one; PT 4104v = packet number sixty; PT 4105v = packet number
four; PT 4108v = packet number forty-two; PT 4109v = packet number twenty-six;
196  Producing Limitless Life

PT 4123v = packet number eleven. Among the Chinese Ap copies, S.4024 is a two-
panel fragment whose verso states “packet number thirty-five.”113
These extant packet wrappers are only numbered up to sixty, which suggests
that one of Dunhuang’s temples used these as wrappers for the Chinese MP, which,
as noted above, was kept in sixty packets of ten rolls each. If this was in fact how
these panels were repurposed, it could have happened long after the sutra-copying
project came to an end. The temple in question may have even had so many Tibetan
Ap copies to hand that they repurposed some as wrappers. Therefore one cannot
confidently say that these particular panels were discarded during the sutra-copying
project itself. On the other hand, if the number of Ap copies commissioned was
comparable in size – measured in paper – to the Tibetan SP and Chinese MP copies
commissioned in the horse year, then sixty packets of Ap copies would be notionally
equivalent to one MP copy or two SP copies. One packet contained ten rolls of MP,
each of which was on average eighteen panels long. Using these measurements, a
packet used for Ap copies could contain up to sixty three-panel Ap copies. The mean
average across the twenty-six bundles in our corpus is fifty-four sutra copies, which
is to say approximately 162 panels of paper, which lines up fairly well with this
assumption, and even better when we recall that the Ap panels were 31–32 cm high
in contrast to the 25-cm height of MP panels. Were sixty such packets to be commis-
sioned as being the equivalent of a Chinese MP copy, this would amount to about
3,600 Ap copies. If one accounts for the discrepancy in the height of the paper, then
it would be closer to 3,000 copies. Tallying the Stein Collection copies in the British
Library with the hundreds of Ap copies kept in Gansu, Paris, and St. Petersburg, the
number is less than 3,600. Of course, the extant Ap copies do not represent all those
that were commissioned, but only those that made their way into Cave Seventeen.
To conceptualize how many Ap copies may have been commisioned, we can
turn to an astounding note in the colophon to the Chinese Ap copy, S.1995, which
simply states, “roll number 15,559” (juan di yi wan wu qian wu bai wu shi jiu 卷第一
萬五千五百五十九). 114 If we take this to be numbering exclusively Chinese Ap
copies produced for the Tibetan emperor, then production of Chinese Ap would
have literally outweighed that of Chinese MP. The Chinese Ap, as noted above, were
four or five panels long, rather than the typical three panels of Tibetan Ap, and its
panels were 31–32 cm high rather than the MP’s 25 cm. 16,000 copies of Chinese Ap
would therefore require almost three times as much paper to produce as the three
copies of Chinese MP commissioned in the horse year. If 16,000 copies of Tibetan Ap


113 Giles 1957, 149; no. 5067.
114 Giles 1957, 145; no. 4921.
 Paper re-use, ex-libris, and the fate of the sutra copies  197

were also produced, this would be equivalent to almost nine copies of the Tibetan
SP – a bit more than the eight copies that were commissioned.
The questions surrounding the repurposing of Ap panels as packet wrappers
also pertains to these sutra copies’ history of use. Once these sutras were conse-
crated, they were presumably deposited in various temples in Shazhou, Guazhou,
and other parts of the eastern Tibetan Empire (e.g. Bde blon khams) and beyond.
We know from PT 999 that 135 rolls of Chinese Ap and 480 rolls of Tibetan Ap were
taken from the Longxing Temple 龍興寺 and used in a festival for the people of
Shazhou in 844.115 Longxing si was Dunhuang’s largest temple, and enjoyed state
sponsorship. It also had the largest library of all of Dunhuang’s temples.116
In addition to such statements, we can associate the Ap copies with Longxing si
through the presence of marks on the versos of some sutra copies, called ex-libris.
Such marks indicated the temple to which a roll or a packet belonged and to which
they should be returned after recitation, etc. These are especially common among
rolls and packets of Chinese MP, which were often lent out for rituals such as sutra
rotation. In his study of such ex-libris among the Dunhuang manuscripts, Jean-
Pierre Drège mentions a Chinese Ap copy, S.3915, marked long 龍 for Longxing si 龍
興寺. He also notes a Chinese Ap copy, S.4208, marked tu 圖 for Lingtu si 靈圖寺. 117
This was the temple of Wu Facheng/ ’Go Chos grub. It had a library and a scripto-
rium, and its monks were involved in copying sutras for the Tibetan emperor.118
Drège also notes that another Chinese Ap copy, S.4201, is marked jin 金 for Jin-
guangming si 金光明寺.119 This temple had a library and scriptorium and we know
from administrative records that it was involved in copying sutras during the Tibet-
an period.120 We find the same ex-libris (jin 金) on the versos of complete copies of
Chinese Ap in the Stein Collection, S.115 (Fig. 9), S.2611 (Fig. 61), and S.4201.
On the verso of a multiple-sutra roll kept in Gansu, GM. t. 10461, “sutra of Sanjie
si library” appears in Chinese (san jie si zang jing 三界寺藏經). 121 This was the
famous Dunhuang temple that grew in size during the Guiyijun (歸義軍) period
(851–mid-eleventh century), and whose library’s tenth-century renovation or re-
structuring accounts for many of the manuscript deposits in Cave Seventeen.
There are marks on other Tibetan Ap copies that look very much like ex-libris,
but which do not correspond to those listed by Drège. There is a Chinese glyph that


115 See Scherrer-Schaub 1991 and Imaeda 1998.
116 Sørensen 2021, 57–61.
117 Drège 1991, 241–242.
118 Sørensen 2021, 53–56.
119 Drège 1991, 239.
120 For a helpful overview of this temple, see Sørensen 2021, 46–50.
121 Ma 2011, 34. The entries here appear to have a typo, reading “10401” instead of “10461.”
198  Producing Limitless Life

Figs 60 and 61: Ex-libris on S.115v and S.2611v – the former also includes Jiang’s numbering, its
“translation” into Arabic numbers, and Jiang’s title in red; image captured by the authors from
http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.

Figs 62, 63, 64, and 65: Ex-libris PT 3954v, PT 3632r, PT 3819v, and ITJ 310.1187; images captured by
the authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, and photo-
graphed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
 Paper re-use, ex-libris, and the fate of the sutra copies  199

includes the elements nü 女 and chuan 川, which is found in the corners of PT 3546,
PT 3821, and PT 3954 (Fig. 62). There is another, indistinct glyph that appears in the
corners of PT 3632 (Fig. 63), PT 3655, PT 3656, and PT 3758. All are in rubrics except
for one, resembling the character 禾, on PT 3819 (Fig. 64). A further indistinct set of
partial characters in the margins of ITJ 310.1187 (Fig. 65) might read Liantai si 蓮臺寺.

Figs 66, 67, and 68: Possible Tibetan ex-libris, PT 3512v, PT 3818v, and PT 3669v (note also the
“modern ex-libris” in pencil on PT 3818); images captured by the authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr,
courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

There are also at least eleven Tibetan Ap copies in the Stein Collection on which we
find the word lha written in large letters. This appears on the corner of the verso of
the last panel of four copies,122 on the corner of the verso of the first panel of three
copies,123 and on the corner of the recto of the first page of four.124 The word lha is
also found written on several Ap in the Pelliot Collection (see Figs 66, 67, and 68) on
several copies kept in Gansu, and on at least one copy kept in St. Petersburg.125 If this


122 ITJ 310.131 and 310.1117, scribe Cang Zhun zhun (also appearing at the panel changeovers in
these to texts); ITJ 310.449, scribe Cang Lha legs; and ITJ 310.779, scribe Stag legs.
123 ITJ 310.296, scribe Lu Tse shing; ITJ 310.457, scribe Kim Lha bzher; and ITJ 310.1044, scribe Mgar
Klu khong.
124 ITJ 310.334, scribe Bam Stag bzang; ITJ 310.381, 400, and 401, all scribe Ngo brom Khyung kong.
125 PT 3512 and 3998, scribe Do khong legs; PT 3585, scribe Wang hva tse; PT 3618, scribe ^An dge
brtan; PT 3656, scribe Je’u Hva ’do; PT 3681, scribe Ldong nya; PT 3669, scribe Lha bu; PT 3695, scribe
Hing tshin; PT 3739, scribe Phab dzang; PT 3748, scribe Phan phan; PT 3777, Spang po Ldong nya; PT
3818, unsigned; PT 3891, scribe Khang kog khen; and the fragments PT 3977, 4057 and 4091 (which
200  Producing Limitless Life

were to follow the practice of Chinese ex-libris, then lha would abbreviate the name
of the temple where these sutras were kept. It is unclear which temple this would
have been – presumably a Tibetan temple in or near Dunhuang with lha in its name.
If these marks are not linked to temples, then an alternate explanation of their
presence could be as other marks of belonging, perhaps referring to different teams
in the scriptoria. This interpretation might be supported by the existence of a few
copies (ITJ 310.160 and 161) that bear the Tibetan letter kha in the corners of their
versos, but if this were an internal system for numbering sheets of paper one would
expect to find more than just these few letter numerals, if letter numerals they be.
The resemblance of lha and the undeciphered Chinese glyphs to other ex-libris there-
fore suggests that these abbreviate the names of temples, even if the temples they
apparently abbreviate remain unknown.
These ex-libris, along with the use of Tibetan Ap panels as packet wrappers,
present us with problems that relate both to the immediate fate of the sutra copies
and to their movements up to and including their deposit in Cave Seventeen. We do
not know how many copies were made, nor where they were intended to be depos-
ited. If administrative documents and jottings that refer to SP copies intended for
Bde gams and SP copies being sent to Guazhou may be taken as a parallel, then it is
likely that Tibetan and Chinese Ap copies were also sent to temples all over the
eastern Tibetan Empire. As noted above, the Ap copy found in Mīrān has the same
mise-en-page as the Dunhuang copies and may have been produced at Dunhuang.
There are also a few examples of leaves of Dunhuang SP copies found in temples in
central Tibet. This suggests that the copies were sent all over the Tibetan Empire,
probably in order to fulfill their apotropaic functions of sanctification and protec-
tion. In this light, Dunhuang, along with Guazhou, may have been the source for
many or most of these sutra copies, but it may be that Dunhuang was only one
among many destinations for these copies. It may therefore be the case that the note
in the Chinese Ap colophon of S.1995 that it is the 15,559th copy is a factual state-
ment, and not hyperbole.
The fate of the sutra copies after Tibetan rule is interesting to ponder, since
these copies were gifts for the Tibetan emperor, and were ostensibly part of Tibet’s
engagement with what has come to be known, especially in the context of Japan, as
“state-protection Buddhism.” Judging from our extant collections, these copies


therefore contain no scribal attribution), all have lha written on their versos. Further examples
undoubtedly exist, though not all of the versos of the Pelliot Collection have been photographed
and uploaded to Artstor, Gallica, or the International Dunhuang Programme website as of the time
of writing. There is also an Ap copy in St. Petersburg, Dkh. Tib. 142, with lha written in four places
on its verso; Savitsky 1991, 64.
 Paper re-use, ex-libris, and the fate of the sutra copies  201

fared better than other palladia of empire such as the royal tombs, whose looting
marked a symbolic and real desecration of the Tibetan royal line. As objects that
sanctify place and which benefit people, and as embodiments of the Buddha’s
words, it may be that these sutras still found a place for themselves in Dunhuang
under the Guiyijun, after Tibetan rule. It may also be the case that the merit-making
act of copying them was paramount, and that these sutra copies were effectively
“banked” and deposited as “receipts” shortly after being finalized, and that they
were then largely forgotten. We have seen that sutras were accounted for in roll
bundles (bam thum), and it may also be the case that they were deposited in temples
in this form. Temples, in any case, kept rolls together in packets, and it is in such
packets/ bundles that the Ap copies were eventually deposited in Cave Seventeen.
The general coherence of the two types of bundles (mostly edited single-sutra rolls
of mainly version B1 versus unedited single- and multiple-sutra rolls of version A1)
suggests that each bundle’s copies were generally kept together, and were not sig-
nificantly disturbed by the interventions of monk librarians in Dunhuang’s temples
such as Longxing si, Jinguangming si, Lingtu si, and Sanjie si, where we know they
were kept. It equally suggests that their rolls were not significantly disturbed in
the twentieth century by Wang Yuanlu, or by Stein and Jiang. Fred Andrews and
his assistants in the “Beehive” under the British Museum in London, as well as
C.M. Ridding and Louis de La Vallée Poussin in Cambridge, assigned site numbers
that permit us to discern the differences among these bundles, even in their trans-
formed state as booklets that are kept in boxes.
The evidence from the sutra copies, colophons, and administrative and legal
texts suggests that the Tibetan Ap was commissioned – but not necessarily complet-
ed – prior to the commissioning of the Chinese and Tibetan versions of the Perfec-
tion of Wisdom Sutra in the horse year 826. This assumption accounts for the ab-
sence of any mention of the Tibetan Ap copies in the administrative text ITJ 1254.
There, the commissioning of Chinese Ap copies is mentioned after that of the Perfec-
tion of Wisdom Sutra copies, suggesting that the Chinese Ap commission came last.
Such a timeline also accounts for the fact that several scribes of Tibetan Ap are
found as editors of Tibetan SP2, but not vice-versa. This earlier start to the copying
of the Tibetan Ap additionally fits with its use of the deficient version one of the
sutra in contrast to the complete version five used for the Chinese Ap.
Various hypotheses could account for the existence of the two types of bundles
of Tibetan Ap copies. Hypothesis one, perhaps the most obvious, and the one that
first occurred to us when we noticed their differences, is that the two types of bun-
dle represent two steps in a single editorial process. In this case, the bundles of most-
ly unedited single-sutra rolls would represent the end of the production process,
and the mixed bundles of unedited rolls would represent the stage before these
202  Producing Limitless Life

sutra copies were submitted to editors. This hypothesis accounts for the glue in the
margins of most rolls, since this makes it clear that the sutra copies in bundles of
single-sutra rolls were once part of longer rolls with multiple copies. In the case of
the various roll lengths in the mixed bundles, one would assume that a scribe was
issued with a long roll of paper, perhaps forty-five or fifty panels long (i.e. a theb or
tie), and that it was a matter of preference whether they copied up to fifteen sutras
onto this long roll or whether they separated this into smaller, less unwieldy rolls.
The one anomalous unedited two-sutra roll ITJ 310.394 in the single-sutra-roll
bundle 86.XV could be cited to support this hypothesis if one assumes that it was
meant to be separated and edited, but that it somehow was overlooked. This hy-
pothesis need not take a position on whether it was the scribes, editors, or someone
else who separated the longer rolls into single-sutra-rolls, and whether this took
place before, during, or after editing. The closely overlapping names of scribes in
both types of bundles are no problem for this hypothesis, since it assumes that these
represented steps in the same process, in close temporal succession.
The main problem with hypothesis one is that it cannot account for the signif-
icant differences between the sutra copies in the two types of bundles. If the copies
in the mixed bundles represent a prior step in a single editorial process whose next
step is represented by the copies in bundles of single-sutra rolls, then why do the
former use a three-panel, six-column layout and the type-A dhāraṇī whereas the
latter use a variety of layouts and prefer the type-B dhāraṇī? One can review Tables
Three and Four above, as well as the discussion of layouts and dhāraṇīs in these
bundles to see that this objection is unanswerable, and that it reveals the fatal
flaw of hypothesis one. The other challenge to this hypothesis is that it would have
to explain what circumstances could produce such a “snapshot” of the editorial pro-
cess, with its two steps frozen in time, so to speak, in the two types of bundles. One
almost requires a deus ex machina, or the eruption of a Gansu Vesuvius, to produce
such a situation. On the other hand, the various interruptions and the apparent mis-
management of the sutra-copying projects, as described in the administrative text
ITJ 1254 and in other documents about unpaid scribes, could provide some plausible
circumstances under which the project may have been abandoned midstream.
Hypotheses two and three are less comprehensive, and are chiefly concerned
with the status of the bundles of single-sutra rolls. Hypothesis two holds that all of
the edited Ap copies in these bundles are discards. The editing of these Ap copies
took place prior to the commissioning of the eight Tibetan SP copies and three Chi-
nese MP copies, and it was therefore possibly prior to the articulation of editorial
standards by which sutra copies or portions of sutra copies were rejected and tal-
lied as “discards” (ro). Our lone example of an Ap discard that does use this vocab-
ulary, detailed above, would represent the intrusion of these standards once the
 Paper re-use, ex-libris, and the fate of the sutra copies  203

same group of scribes and editors began work on the Tibetan SP in 826 and thereby
adopted more rigorous norms.
Hypothesis two must assume a practice of discarding sutra copies without
marking them as discards and without tearing them. It must also contend with why
some edited copies were marked as “finalized” (gtan la bab) if these were in fact
discards. Hypothesis two also has trouble accounting for the many unedited Ap
copies (about thirty percent) alongside the edited copies in these bundles of single-
sutra rolls. Some of these also include in their colophons the line, “to be edited” (zhu
lags). Why were these not edited, and why were they rolled up among the edited
copies if the latter are discards? Are they also discards? These are difficult objec-
tions for hypothesis two to answer.
Hypothesis three similarly views the edited copies as categorically different
from the unedited copies by postulating that the former are all exemplars for pro-
ducing the latter. We have seen that some exemplars were marked as such in colo-
phons that stated that they were a certain scribe’s “exemplar” (dpe) copy from
which they produced their own copies. Most of these exemplars were written by an
editor. We find some instances, however, of heavily edited copies that serve as ex-
emplars in which scribes must attend closely to all of the corrections in order to
produce a clean copy. For hypothesis three, such would be the status of all of the
edited Ap copies.
Hypothesis three is challenged by the existence of edited copies with minimal
corrections. These might be explained as resulting from the generally lax editorial
standards of a project to copy what was, after all, a defective version of the sutra,
or these might result from a gradual relaxation of standards. A further objection is
that there are exemplar copies in the mixed bundles that presumably helped with
producing the sutra copies in single- and multiple-sutra rolls found alongside them.
If exemplars were meant to be kept in the bundles of single-sutra rolls, then why
are these exemplars in the mixed bundles? Also, the ratio of exemplars to unedited
copies in the mixed bundles is very low. There are only four such exemplar copies,
and they are found in three bundles, in each case appearing at the very beginning
(ITJ 310.1045 and 310.1046 in bundle 78.VII and ITJ 1617 in bundle 78.VI) or very end
(ITJ 310.683 in bundle 73.IX) of the bundle.126 Exemplars would thus comprise 0.5
percent of copies in the mixed bundles and seventy percent of copies in the single-
sutra-roll bundles. An argument for hypothesis three might hold that these were
exemplars that produced thousands of copies, no longer extant, that were sent all


126 “Beginning” and “end” are probably meaningless here, and could be due to whether these
bundles were numbered top to bottom or bottom to top in London or Cambridge. Nor can one nec-
essarily assume whether the exemplar “should” be at the top or the bottom of a given bundle.
204  Producing Limitless Life

over the Tibetan Empire. Like hypothesis two, it still has trouble explaining why
thirty percent of the copies in these bundles of “exemplars” should be unedited.
Presumably, these would represent copies that have been made from the edited
exemplars. Still, it could be asked why these should be kept together in the same
bundle, and in such odd proportions when compared with the proportions in the
mixed bundles.
Having established some parameters by entertaining these hypotheses and rais-
ing some objections, we now present our preferred explanation for the state of these
twenty-six bundles. It inverts hypothesis one by understanding the bundles of single-
sutra rolls to be prior to the mixed bundles, not as steps in a single process, but
rather as two phases separated by some months or perhaps one or two years. This
is to assume a gradual movement towards more efficient layouts, a gradual stand-
ardization of the dhāraṇī, and a relaxation of editorial practices. In this scenario,
the bundles of single-sutra rolls would have been largely produced prior to the
horse year 826. The application of more rigorous editorial norms to the Tibetan SP
in 826, by many of the same scribes and editors, would have prompted a reassess-
ment of the norms applied to the Ap copies. The thirteen bundles of single-sutra
rolls would represent the state of the project when it was paused for this reassess-
ment, in or shortly after the horse year 826. Given the overlap of personnel between
the two types of bundles, the pause would have been brief, but sufficient to reassess
the editorial practices for producing the Tibetan Ap, and to update the preferred
dhāraṇī. When copying restarted, the Ap copies were no longer to be edited or to be
separated into single-sutra rolls, and the type-A dhāraṇī was to be employed. That is,
the project’s managers chose to produce clean copies not through rigorous editing
and revising, but by not editing them at all. By mandate or simply by economic im-
peratives, the more efficient three-panel, six-column layout was also preferred.
The lone example of a discarded sutra copy (ro) in a bundle of single-sutra rolls
would, on this reading, be viewed as evidence of the intrusion of the new editorial
norms from the horse-year project into the production of Tibetan Ap copies. Simi-
larly, the presence of A1 copies and copies with three-panel, six-column layout in
the bundles of single-sutra rolls, particularly 78.VIII and 73.XVI, may have contrib-
uted to a felt need to reassess what one was copying and how one was doing so. The
precipitating event, however, was most likely the onset of the project to produce
eight copies of the Tibetan SP and three copies of the Chinese MP, and the articula-
tion of editorial norms that focused on producing clean copies of these sutras.
The revision of editorial norms for copying the Tibetan Ap must be understood
in conversation with those applied to the Tibetan SP. The managers of the two
projects, in all likelihood monastic officials, consciously chose to apply different
norms to the Tibetan Ap than they applied to the SP. From the perspective of the
 Paper re-use, ex-libris, and the fate of the sutra copies  205

editorial practices governing the production of the Tibetan SP, the edited Tibetan
Ap copies, with their splashes of editorial red and interlinear and marginal inser-
tions, were already compromised. Rather than harmonize editorial standards by
applying the more rigorous SP editorial processes to the Ap – which would be to
follow the lead of the editorial note on our lone Tibetan Ap discard, ITJ 310.382 (Fig.
55), and perhaps entail the discarding of all edited Ap copies – they chose a two-
track system in which the newly produced Ap copies were not to be edited at all.
With this decision, the bundles of mostly edited single-sutra rolls from the first
phase of the project were instantly outmoded. They now occupied an awkward
middle ground between the new practice of not editing Ap copies and the more
rigorous practice of producing clean copies of the Tibetan SP. It is for this reason
that they were set aside, with the not-yet-edited copies – some with the phrase “to
be edited” (zhu lags) – rolled up in bundles together with the edited copies.
At a more granular level, and looking to the putative first phase of the project,
the differences among the bundles of single-sutra rolls could be understood as tem-
poral developments within this first phase. The preference for less efficient layouts
and for three editors in a bundle like 86.I could, for example, represent the earliest
and least efficient stratum of the project. The presence of more efficient layouts and
type-A dhāraṇīs in bundle 73.XVI could date from the end of the first stage of the
project, just prior to the suspension of sutra copying and the decision to no longer
edit Ap copies. These could equally be produced by differing norms across Dun-
huang’s various temple scriptoria, or across teams in the main scriptorium. What-
ever the case, the new norms for producing Ap copies entailed greater standard-
ization, which is evident in the mixed bundles of unedited A1 copies.
A fairly short suspension of the project and a quick transition to new editorial
norms would also account for some inconsistencies in the otherwise more homog-
enous choice of dhāraṇī and layout in the mixed bundles. The few sutra copies in
the newer mixed bundles that do employ type-B dhāraṇīs, or that use a layout
other than three-panel, six-column layout would have resulted from initial confu-
sion about the new standards. Some copies in these rolls from mixed bundles were
scribed by people like Bam Stag bzang, Cang Weng yir, and Ha Stag slebs, who are
listed as editors in SP colophons. The implication is that they were not yet editors
when they scribed these unedited copies of multiple-sutra rolls. This circumstance
may also suggest that the Ap copies were completed shortly after the resumption of
the project, whereas the SP copying project dragged on for many years, allowing
these scribes to be promoted to editors.
The Chinese Ap copies, being almost exclusively unedited and in single- and
multiple-sutra rolls, align with the production of the mixed bundles of Tibetan Ap.
This also speaks in favor of understanding the bundles of single-sutra rolls as
206  Producing Limitless Life

products of the earlier phase of Tibetan Ap copying, and the mixed bundles as cre-
ated at a later stage, when they were joined by Chinese Ap.
No bundle seems to represent the copies commissioned in 844 to replace the Ap
copies used in the Buddhist festival described in the text PT 999, since one would
expect much less overlap in personnel for copies produced at least eighteen years
later than the sutra copies in bundles of single-sutra rolls. It may also be the case that
these copies commissioned in 844 were never in fact produced, given that this order
came at a time when the Tibetan imperial administration was nearing collapse.
There are two main implications of this hypothesis. First, the bundles of single-
sutra rolls would have been set aside after the putative “horse-year reassessment”
and the decision to no longer edit Ap copies. The hypothesis remains agnostic on
whether this “setting aside” meant declaring them finished in the sense of banking
them for their merit on the one hand, or declaring them finished in the sense of
consigning them to the dark corner of a temple library on the other. In the latter
case one might expect them to be repurposed for their blank versos, or cut up and
re-used as wrappers/ patches for other manuscripts, and this obviously did not oc-
cur on a large scale. The colophons suggest that they were not intended to be dis-
carded at the point that work on producing these copies was suspended. In terms
of their being deposited, there is a profound ritual difference between consecrating
the sutras and placing them in a temple to sanctify it and spread its benefits on the
one hand, and charging a temple with the storage of bundles of unconsecrated sutra
rolls on the other. Physically speaking, however, there is little to no difference: the
former bundles would be stored in one part of the temple library, and the latter in
another part. Over the course of time, the consecrated bundles would join the un-
consecrated bundles in a dark corner to make room for other texts, and the line
between these two bodies of sutra copies would be blurred. Eventually, they would
be indistinguishable, and both types of bundles would end up in Cave Seventeen,
whether as part of a library reorganization, as part of an offering to a deceased
figure who was associated with these sutras, or both.127
A second main implication of our hypothesis is that the preferred form of the
dhāraṇī changed over a short period of time around the year 826. One possibility is
that the defective B1 version of the sutra came from a prestigious central Tibetan
translation, but that the influence of the type-A dhāraṇī – either due to its ap-
pearance in the A5 translation in Dunhuang or due to other sources for its popu-
larity – was such that it began to intrude into some Tibetan sutra copies produced
in Dunhuang. The revision of editorial norms in or shortly after 826 presented the
opportunity to update the exemplars with the more popular form of the dhāraṇī.


127 On the funerary context of Cave Seventeen, see Imaeda 2008; and Doumy and van Schaik 2023.
 Paper re-use, ex-libris, and the fate of the sutra copies  207

However, this did not also involve updating the version of the sutra, despite the fact
that a superior Tibetan C5 version and Chinese A5 version were then in circulation.
There may be other hypotheses that could account for the distribution of the
sutra copies in the bundles as they have come down to us. The picture we have
constructed from the data is one of norms cohering through practice over time, and
in conversation with the editorial standards for producing the Perfection of Wisdom
Sutra copies.
Conclusions to Part One
Our detailed survey of over 1,500 copies and fragments of the Tibetan Ap kept in
the Stein Collection has been augmented by investigations of nearly 300 Chinese Ap
copies from the same collection, and hundreds more Tibetan Ap copies kept in
Paris, Gansu, and St. Petersburg. We have also contextualized these sutra copies in
relation to thousands of rolls and folia of the Tibetan Perfection of Wisdom Sutra
in 100,000 lines (SP) and the Chinese Daboreboluomiduo jing 大般若波羅蜜多經
(*Mahā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra; MP), which were part of a commission of sutras that
began in 826 and which involved many of the same scribes and editors who pro-
duced the Ap copies. Besides these sutra copies and fragments, we have also drawn
on administrative and legal documents related to supplying paper and other re-
sources for these sutra-copying projects, paying scribes and editors, delivering or
failing to deliver sutra copies, accounting for lost or missing paper, punishing
scribes for suspected theft of paper and ink, and replacing sutra copies that were
given to the people of Dunhuang during a festival held in 844. In addition, we have
tried to sketch the social milieu of Dunhuang’s scribes and editors with recourse to
their activities as witnessed in loan and sale contracts and lawsuits, and by attend-
ing also to the scant information found in and after scribal and editorial colophons.
While this is chiefly a case study of a body of sutras and the forces that produced
them, it also draws sparingly on data from a somewhat comparable venue for sutra
copying at the scriptorium in Nara in eighth-century Japan. This has served to
underline some continuities in the processes of scriptural production, and some
interesting contrasts, notably with regard to the pace of work and with respect to
the purity practices observed by scribes and editors.
By attending to all these sources, and to the distribution of the names of scribes
and editors in the colophons of the sutra copies, we have put forward a rough chro-
nology that builds upon that already established by earlier scholars such as Akira
Fujieda. The chronology is anchored by the horse year – generally agreed to be 826
– in which an order was made to copy eight copies of the Tibetan SP and three
copies of the Tibetan MP as a gift for the Tibetan emperor. Administrative docu-
ments and comparative data from Nara about the pace of sutra copying under
sound management reveal that the horse-year project was beset by difficulties, and
that it dragged on for many years. It is unclear, in fact, if it ever came to fruition.
Our study has proposed that prior to this order there was already a project to pro-
duce copies of the Tibetan Ap, also as a gift for the Tibetan emperor. The copying of

Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550-006
 Conclusions to Part One  209

this particular sutra, as has been suggested before, may well have been undertaken
as a response to the emperor’s poor health.
The initial copies of Ap produced for the Tibetan emperor would have been
copied not long before the horse year. They are represented by the mostly edited
copies that were kept in bundles of single-sutra rolls, at least thirteen of which were
documented by site numbers assigned in London and Cambridge between 1909 and
1918. These sutra copies often have inefficient layouts of four panels of paper and
eight columns of text, sometimes with entire columns left blank or else including
only the colophon. These copies also tend to use the B1 version of the sutra, that is,
the defective Tibetan version with the shorter type-B dhāraṇī. The horse-year pro-
ject to copy the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra in Tibetan and Chinese involved many
of the same scribes and editors, but it forced them to operate by different editorial
norms with respect to these two bodies of sutras. The final copies of the Perfection
of Wisdom Sutra in Tibetan and Chinese were to be spotless: any mistake that an
editor flagged up, or any insertion they added between the lines or in the margin
necessitated that folio’s replacement by a new, clean and correct folio. The ad-
ministration of the sutra-copying project took account of this system by requiring
scribes to recover and submit their rejected folia so that these would not be pre-
sumed missing or stolen. In a measure that seems anathema to the ethic of repro-
ducing the words of the Buddha, those scribes who submitted fewer completed folia
or panels of sutra copies than they had received as sheets of paper, and who could
not account for this shortfall in terms of rejected folia or panels, were to be whipped
ten times per missing sheet. This whipping was apparently done publicly, at the
very scriptorium where these sutras were copied.
These editorial norms and accounting practices had significant effects upon
how the Tibetan Ap were copied and edited after the horse-year project commenced
in 826. Also, perhaps in parallel to the horse-year project’s decision to copy both
Tibetan and Chinese versions of the longest Perfection of Wisdom sutras, thousands
of copies of the Chinese Ap were commissioned as gifts for the Tibetan emperor.
Probably in response to the ethic of submitting clean copies of the Perfection of
Wisdom sutras, Tibetan Ap copies were now also to be free of editors’ corrections.
Also, whereas the earlier Ap copies mostly used version B1, the newer copies used
exclusively the A1 version with the longer, type-A dhāraṇī. Notably, this is the same
dhāraṇī used in the Chinese A5 version of the sutra that many of these same scribes
copied. Also, perhaps in response to the administration’s accounting practices, and
as a move towards economizing on paper, these new copies mostly employed a
more efficient three-panel, six-column layout. The most obvious departure from the
earlier phase of the project is apparent in the length of the rolls: whereas the older
copies were divided into single-sutra rolls, the newer copies were largely kept in
210  Conclusions to Part One

longer rolls ranging from two to fifteen Ap copies. Thirteen bundles of such rolls
were documented in London and Cambridge, for a total of twenty-six bundles of
mostly or exclusively Tibetan Ap copies.
The practice of the publicly whipping scribes for missing paper and ink also
produced a trade in sutra copies, and opportunities for client scribes and “ghost
scribes.” One scribe could take on another scribe’s debts in paper and insert their
client scribe’s name in the colophons of sutra copies so as to square their client’s
accounts. This is evident from the many cases where the scribal attribution does
not match the scribal hand, that is, where we can establish a given scribe’s hand
from multiple sutra copies, and can then identify an outlier written in a different
hand but including the same scribe’s name in the colophon. It is even more clear
from the many instances where one name has been rubbed out or struck through
and replaced by another in a scribal colophon. In addition, there are cases where a
note states plainly that a sutra copy was written by one scribe and then given to
another. This, together with the desultory strikethroughs of one scribe’s name next
to another’s, suggest that this was not an illicit trade in scribed sutra copies, but
rather one that was tolerated by the project’s administrators. In fact, it may have
been one of the only ways for these officials to balance their accounts and to there-
by avoid whipping scribes hundreds of times.
It is uncertain how much time elapsed between the production of the Ap copies
that ended up in single-sutra-roll bundles, and the production of those Ap copies
that ended up in mixed bundles of single- and multiple-sutra rolls. Decisive in this
regard is the fact that the personnel overlap significantly between sutra copies in
the two types of bundles. This means that although a pause in the project would be
necessary to reassess and to establish new norms before proceeding to produce un-
edited A1 copies in single- and multiple-sutra rolls, this pause must have been brief.
We therefore assume that the earlier copies were produced only a year or two be-
fore and during the onset of the horse-year project in 826, e.g. 824–826, and that the
later copies were produced not long after, e.g. 826–828. In parallel with the prob-
lems that beset the horse-year project, however, it may be that these sutras contin-
ued to be copied for some years.
Given this brief temporal horizon of the project, it is interesting to see the
preferred form of the dhāraṇī change during this time. It is also notable that there
were multiple Chinese and Tibetan versions of the sutra in circulation at this time,
with significant differences between them. In particular, the Chinese A5 version
that scribes copied was a complete version of the sutra, whereas the Tibetan ver-
sion that they copied was defective in the sense of missing several paragraphs. In
terms of bilingualism and translation practice, it is significant that the putative
pause in the project to copy the Tibetan Ap entailed only a change to its dhāraṇī,
 Conclusions to Part One  211

rather than a choice to produce and/or copy a more complete or less defective ver-
sion of the sutra. This could have been done by filling in the Tibetan A1 version’s
missing paragraphs with translations from those paragraphs from the Chinese A5
version. Even this would not be necessary, however, since we know from three
copies in our corpus that a complete C5 version of the sutra existed in Tibetan at
this time. Its survival here seems like an accident, but it is fortuitious, since it pro-
vides us with what is possibly the most complete extant version of the sutra, and
one dating to the mid-to-late 820s.
The number of rolls produced is less clear. We have the sutra copies themselves
in London, Paris, Gansu, St, Petersburg, and elsewhere, but these represent only
those that happened to find their way into Mogao Cave Seventeen. From adminis-
trative documents and from manuscript finds in central Tibet and in Mīrān, it is
clear that these sutras were not meant only to be deposited in Dunhuang. Dun-
huang and Guazhou were rather centers for scriptural production, and the sutras
produced there were sent all over the Tibetan Empire. In the case of these royal
sutras, which were meant to benefit the emperor and the realm, they were likely
sent across the Tibetan Empire’s network of Buddhist temples. In this context, we
mentioned the note following the scribal colophon to the Chinese Ap copy, S.1995,
which simply states, “roll number 15,559” (juan di yi wan wu tian wu bai wu shi jiu
卷第一萬五千五百五十九).1 This number seems astronomical at first, but it must
be placed in the context of the horse-year commission of eight copies of the Tibetan
SP and three of the Chinese MP.
Paper was measured with the unit yug, which could indicate a double-layered
pothī-format leaf of 20 ✕ 73 cm or a panel of 45 ✕ 31 cm paper, where one of the
former (often called glegs bu yug) equated to two of the latter. We estimated that
one SP copy required 2,371 glegs bu yug, which means that 18,968 would be required
for the eight copies commissioned in the horse year. Translating the eight SP copies’
approximately 19,000 glegs bu yug into panels, that is 38,000. This would be suffi-
cient to produce 12,667 three-panel copies or 10,857 three-and-a-half-panel copies.
For Chinese Ap copies, which were usually four or five panels, the same amount of
paper could yield 9,500 or 7,600 copies, respectively. There is no necessary reason
why the amount of Ap copies produced should be comparable to the amount of
Perfection of Wisdom Sutra copies produced, but as we have seen, the two projects
were in conversation with one another in terms of editorial norms, so it is possible
that they sought to cohere in terms of quantity as well. These rough calculations
also show that the Chinese Ap copy S.1995’s statement that it is “roll number 15,559”
is not outlandish, but rather nearly twice as large as three copies of Chinese MP or


1 Giles 1957, 145; no. 4921.
212  Conclusions to Part One

eight copies of Tibetan SP. Those latter quantities – three and eight – are resonant
Buddhist numbers that evoke the three jewels and the eight auspicious symbols or
the noble eightfold path. It worth noting in this context that roll 15,559 would not
be the final roll, and that one would expect the target number of Ap copies to also
be an auspicious, Buddhist number, such as 18,000. On such an assumption, scribes
would have produced, by volume, twice as much of the Chinese Ap as they did of
the Chinese MP. The same could apply, by analogy, to the Tibetan Ap copies in re-
lation to the Tibetan SP copies. This could be another instance where the Sutra of
Limitless Life’s will to reproduce, coupled with its relatively short length and the
comparative ease of producing a copy when compared with the massive under-
taking of producing an SP or MP copy, led it to outstrip those sutras in at least one
measure of importance.
The practice of writing multiple sutra copies on a long roll, or else of separating
these into numerous rolls of one sutra copy each, relates to the production and stor-
age of rolls. Besides the measurement of individual sheets or folia in yug, the unit
theb/ tie 帖 was used for fifty or one hundred sheets. It may be more than coinci-
dence that the longest extant rolls of fifteen Ap copies consist of forty-five panels,
which is almost this amount. Scribes or someone else in the scriptorium prepared
these long rolls by inking their columns and guidelines. A scribe then had the option
to fill this long roll with up to fifteen sutra copies, or else to divide it into multiple
rolls of more manageable sizes. The former option had the advantage of keeping a
scribe’s copies together, to prevent them from being misplaced or stolen. Once these
sutra copies were completed, they were accounted for as a “roll bundle” (bam
thum). This is quite possibly the same unit in which the rolls were stored in temple
libraries, where they would resemble the unit called a “packet” (zhi 袟), which was
typically used to house ten to twelve rolls. To go by how they were arranged when
bundles were unrolled and rolls were numbered in London and Cambridge, we can
see from stains and damage that the sutra copies were placed in a stack and then
rolled up together to form a bundle. As a matter of practicality, this practice of
stacking and rolling prevents the individual rolls from being flattened and
squashed under one another’s weight as individual rolls. It also may account for
why so few of the Tibetan Ap copies have wooden rollers.2
This manner of keeping or storing the sutras also aligns with the assumption
that these sutras were made to be deposited, as essentially a receipt of the merito-
rious act of their copying, and as objects that sanctify the place where they are kept.
Unlike a packet of ten MP rolls, there was little value in separating one roll from
another, since they were not different chapters, but all copies of the same sutra. Of


2 For one example of an Ap copy with a roller, see PT 3618.
 Conclusions to Part One  213

course, it is possible that this manner of rolling up the sutra copies in a stack was
effected by a temple librarian clearing out these sutra copies and depositing them
in Cave Seventeen. Even if such an intervention occurred, however, the bundle
thereby produced was either a bundle of single-sutra rolls or a mixed bundle, and
it preserved all of the attendant distinctions between the two types of bundles. We
can fairly confidently draw a through line, therefore, from the bundles assigned
site numbers in London and Cambridge to the bundles kept in Cave Seventeen, to
the packets (zhi) kept in Dunhuang’s temple libraries to the “roll bundles” (bam
thum) in which sutra copies were submitted once they were completed in the mid-
to-late 820s. In other words, these sutra copies, by their ubiquity and due to their
perceived lack of value, retained something like their archeological context despite
Stein’s lamentations about the disturbed state of Cave Seventeen and his inability
to properly document its contents.
Our study is limited in its scope to the Tibetan Ap copies from the Stein Collec-
tion at the British Library, but its conclusions extend beyond these. Most obviously,
our typologies of the versions of the sutra and the types of the dhāraṇī can be ap-
plied to the Dunhuang Ap copies held in other collections throughout the world.
Among these there may well be further rare C5 versions, as well as other versions
that we did not identify. These sutra copies in other collections would have also
been kept in bundles, and our observations on the two different types of bundles,
together with the teams of scribes and editors that our data lays bare, may be useful
for tentatively reconstructing some of these bundles, to the extent that cataloguing,
storing, and conservation renders this possible in the collections in Paris, St.
Petersburg, and Gansu. Our use of site numbers to perceive these bundles, coupled
with our equation of some of the bundles to the packets (zhi) in which Dunhuang’s
temple libraries kept many of their manuscripts, has obvious applications to how
scholars can navigate the Stein Collection as a whole. The Ap copies may be a special
case in that they were rolled up as bundles and appear to have remained largely
undisturbed from the time of their initial deposit until their documentation in
London and Cambridge. Other bundles within Stein’s “regular library bundles”
may have similar histories, and studies that operate at the level of the bundle have
the potential to uncover further details about groups of manuscripts, their storage,
and production.
Part Two: The Sutra Copies and our Documentation
The information that we have recorded about these sutra copies both falls short of
and also exceeds that found in a normal catalogue. It does not record height and
width, incipit, and explicit for each pressmark. At the same time, it does record roll
numbers; numbers of panels, columns, and lines; dhāraṇī type; scribes’ and editors’
names; editors’ corrections; and curators’ notes. Some of this documentation is un-
wieldy, and our “augmented catalogue” is therefore split across two chapters. Chap-
ter Four includes the information that is most profitably arrayed in table form, so
as to disclose patterns and relationships within and between booklets, rolls, and
bundles, between scribes and editors, and so forth. Chapter Five records more de-
tailed information such as explicits and corrections, which we gathered from a rep-
resentative sample of sutra copies in order to offer some conclusions on ortho-
graphic norms.

Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550-007
4 Documenting Limitless Life
“The frequent repetition of certain particularly cherished chapters
and prayers, a quasi-mechanical process for acquiring spiritual merit
which seems at all times to have had a fatal attraction for pious
Tibetans, has confirmed the suspicions I entertained from the first.”
– Stein, Ruins of Desert Cathay, vol. 2, 219

4.1 Catalogues of Tibetan Dunhuang Ap copies

Despite – or perhaps even due to – their ubiquity, the sutras officially commissioned
during the Tibetan Empire’s control of Dunhuang have received comparatively lit-
tle attention, especially in the case of the Ap in general and the Tibetan Ap in partic-
ular. In the triage of cataloguing and studying Dunhuang manuscripts, scholars
tended to privilege the unique and more intriguing texts. The Ap copies were not
properly catalogued by Louis de La Vallée Poussin or by Marcelle Lalou in their re-
spective catalogues of the Stein and Pelliot collections. Partial catalogues and stud-
ies came later, and have gathered pace in recent decades. Our augmented catalogue
draws on these works and the standards they have set, and also responds to some
of the unique circumstances of the Stein Collection, most notably its site numbers
and the binding of these manuscripts into booklets.
The catalogue of La Vallée Poussin and the cataloguing work of van Schaik have
already been discussed in detail in Chapter One. For the sake of completeness, it
should be noted that between 1977 and 1988 Zuihō Yamaguchi and a team at the
Tōyō Bunko published a twelve-volume catalogue of the Tibetan Dunhuang manu-
scripts in the Stein Collection and assigned further numbers to many of the manu-
scripts that La Vallée Poussin did not catalogue.1 This cataloguing process relied on
microfilm, and was therefore limited to those manuscripts that had been photo-
graphed. The microfilm apparently included only five of the 1,207 manuscripts that
were then kept under the 310 pressmark, and these are listed in the Tōyō Bunko
catalogue. However, only three of these five manuscripts are in fact Ap copies. The
first, site number 77.XVI, was misidentified by La Vallée Poussin,2 and is not an Ap
copy; it is now catalogued as ITJ 1136. The third, ITJ 310.1207, is not an Ap copy but


1 Yamaguchi et al. 1977-1988.
2 La Vallée Poussin 1962, 101.
Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550-008
218  Documenting Limitless Life

an invocation to Amitābha.3 The second and fourth correspond to ITJ 310.1206 and
ITJ 310.417, but the latter’s scribal and editorial colophon is not recorded in the Tōyō
Bunko catalogue. No site number is supplied for the fifth copy, but it uses the rare
type-C dhāraṇī.4
Turning to catalogues of other collections, in 1975, Wu Chi-yu published a study
of the four copies of the Tibetan Dunhuang Ap conserved in Taipei.5 Research gath-
ered pace in the early 1980s, and in 1982 Huang Wenhuan published a catalogue of
the colophons of 313 Tibetan Dunhuang Ap rolls (and four roll-type SP3 copies) kept
at the Dunhuang Museum, the Dunhuang Academy, the Jiuquan Museum, Zhangye
Museum, and Lanzhou Library.6 In many ways, this catalogue was exemplary. Huang
transcribed the colophons, and noted the following for each pressmark: number of
sutras contained in the roll; number of panels of paper per sutra copy; number of
columns per panel of paper; number of lines per column; and the height and width
of the roll. In 1984, Nishioka Soshū partially filled one of the lacunae in Lalou’s
catalogue by recording the names of the scribes and editors of most of the Tibetan
Ap copies in the Pelliot Collection, and noting the pressmarks under which they
appear.7 This article took the form of an index of scribes and editors, however, so it
less helpful than Huang’s catalogue for seeing how the pressmarks might be
clustered in edited or unedited copies. In the same year, Lev Savitsky published an
article that similarly indexed the scribes and editors of the 202 Tibetan Dunhuang
Ap copies conserved at the Institute of Oriental Studies in St. Petersburg. Savitsky
also made detailed observations on the codicology and paleography of the Tibetan
Ap in general, attending to layout, margins, and measurements.8
Savitsky presented his paper at the Csoma de Kőrös Symposium held in Vienna
in 1981, before the publication of Huang’s or Nishioka’s work. Drawing on the scant
information in La Vallée Poussin’s catalogue, however, Savitsky was able to note
that five of the seven scribes recorded in the latter also appeared in the St. Peters-
burg Ap colophons. From this, he made the following conclusion: “it can be supposed
that the Tunhuang scrolls bearing the dbu-can text of the Aparimitāyurjñāna-sūtra
kept in Leningrad, London, Paris, Kyoto and T’aipei are wholly identical.”9 In ad-
dition to providing some discussion of editorial practices, Savitsky also made im-
portant observations concerning future research. First, he lamented the lack of a


3 For a translation and discussion, see Halkias 2013, 75–83.
4 Yamaguchi et al. 1980, 10–14; see also the five entries in the table in Yamaguchi et al. 1977, xi.
5 Wu 1975.
6 Huang 1982.
7 Nishioka 1984.
8 Savitsky 1984, 281–283.
9 Savitsky 1984, 283.
 Catalogues of Tibetan Dunhuang Ap copies  219

catalogue of the Tibetan Ap held in London, Paris, and Kyoto. Second, he underlined
the importance of collating and analyzing the names of the scribes and editors –
both in order to help ascertain their ethnicities and also as a method for identifying
and dating scribal hands.10
A Russian version of Savitsky’s article appeared as the introduction to his 1991
catalogue of the Tibetan Dunhuang manuscripts in the Institute of Oriental Studies
in St. Petersburg. Savitsky’s catalogue included incipits, measurements, colophons,
and brief observations on orthography.11 This took the form of a traditional cata-
logue with one entry after another, and was followed by indices of names, and by
images of the incipits of ninety-two Ap copies.
A few years after the works of Huang, Nishioka, and Savitsky, the Dunhuang
copies of the Tibetan Ap once again received increased attention from scholars, and
some of Savitsky’s hopes began to be realized. In 1999, Wang Yao and Chen Jian
published a catalogue including twenty-two brief entries for the rolls and frag-
ments of Tibetan Ap in the Pelliot Collection numbered PT 3500 to PT 4168. These
are hardly catalogue entries at all, since they give only the title and the number of
items, e.g. rolls or fragments, within each of the twenty-two entries.12 In 2011, Ma De
compiled a catalogue of Dunhuang manuscripts kept at various institutions in
Gansu, including images of some of the manuscripts.13 This is another exemplary
catalogue that includes measurements, incipits, explicits, and colophons, as well as
notes about any irregular content, for hundreds of single and multiple-sutra rolls.
In 2012, Gertraud Taenzer used the sutra copies’ colophons in precisely the way that
Savitsky suggested, in order to examine the ethnicities of Dunhuang’s inhabitants.14
Besides confirming that scribes were predominantly Chinese, and proposing
Chinese equivalents for their names, Taenzer also identified official or legal docu-
ments in which some of the scribes are mentioned. In the same year, Kazushi Iwao
published an article on the sutra-copying project that gave a general overview of
the sutras, their formats, and the manners of their production. Iwao concluded
from the non-standard, small writing on the Chinese Ap that the aesthetic appear-
ance of both it and the Tibetan Ap copies mattered less at the Dunhuang scriptoria
than the number of copies that were produced.15 Iwao related this fact to their
purpose, which he saw as probably being for the generation of merit on behalf of


10 Savitsky 1984, 284–287.
11 Savitsky 1991.
12 Wang and Chen 1999, 276–277.
13 Ma 2011.
14 Taenzer 2012, 110–154.
15 Iwao 2012, 103.
220  Documenting Limitless Life

the Tibetan emperor – so that he may have a long life and a good afterlife.16 Alt-
hough it does not directly concern the Ap, it is worth noting that Iwao followed up
his article on the sutra-copying project with an investigation into the features of the
roll-format 100,000-line Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, dubbed SP3,17 whose scribes
were also the focus of an article by Taenzer. 18
In 2013, Marta Matko and Sam van Schaik fulfilled another one of Savitsky’s
wishes by publishing an online catalogue of the colophons of the Tibetan SP and Ap
kept at the British Library.19 Apart from the SP, they transliterated the colophons of
every Ap catalogued under sub-pressmarks of ITJ 310, of which there are 1,208, as
well as the colophons of the Ap catalogued under 134 other pressmarks. Those Ap
that lack colophons, for example fragments, or copies whose colophons are left
blank, were not included in this resource. Matko and van Schaik identified the
transliterations with numbers that correspond to the panel number and line num-
ber on which they are found. The entry for ITJ 310.4, for example, gives the colophon
at “3.38” and “3.39.”20 This means that it appears on the third panel of paper, on lines
38 and 39. As noted in Chapter Three, each column of text in a Tibetan Ap copy
generally contains nineteen lines; here the authors have added the lines of the two
columns of a single panel, where the colophon appears at the very end of the second
column. (Our use of letters for columns would designate these as, e.g. f18 and f19.)
Our own work benefits from that of Matko and van Schaik, and can be profitably
consulted in concert with their record of these colophons. We have made no special
note of those instances where our documentation contradicts theirs, although there
are some such cases. It is worth noting that their electronic version already incor-
porates some of our suggestions,21 and we hope that it will benefit further from the
augmented catalogue provided below.
The catalogues of Nishioka, Huang, Savitsky, Ma De, and Matko and van Schaik
are extremely helpful in aiding our research into the Tibetan Ap. Drawing on Nishi-
oka’s catalogue to examine Ap manuscripts in the Pelliot Collection, and comparing
our data with Savitsky’s catalogue of Ap in St. Petersburg and Huang’s and Ma De’s
catalogues of Ap in the archives of Gansu, we can readily confirm Savitsky’s suppo-
sition that the Ap are essentially the same in every collection. Were one to perform


16 Iwao 2012, 104.
17 Iwao 2013.
18 Taenzer 2021.
19 Matko and van Schaik 2013.
20 Matko and van Schaik 2013, no. 14.
21 A statement below the copyright information for the catalogue’s original creation now reads:
“First electronic edition was made in 2013. New edition with corrections from Lewis Doney and
Brandon Dotson was made in September 2014” (Matko and van Schaik 2013).
 In lieu of a catalogue  221

a study similar to ours on the Ap in these collections, and those held in Japan and
elsewhere, the overall results in terms of codicology, paleography, and orthography
are unlikely to be very different. We also find the same teams of editors, the same
occasional homages to Amitābha, and the same ex-libris for Sanjie si and other tem-
ples. Within these collections there are no doubt some hidden gems, such as inter-
esting colophons and jottings, perhaps even beyond those that we highlighted in
Chapter Three. These may well allow future scholars to further establish the con-
tours of different scribal and editorial teams, and to more fully document the shifts
in editorial and scribal practices that we have uncovered.
It remains to be seen whether or not the conservation and cataloguing prac-
tices in St. Petersburg, Paris, and Gansu have disarranged these collections’ sutras
to the extent that our insights about the two main types of bundles cannot be ap-
plied. In the Stein Collection’s case, the site numbers lay bare which rolls belonged
to which bundles, but it is also the case that those manuscripts from the same bun-
dle are catalogued sequentially, or at least together. A hypothetical researcher go-
ing through the entire collection without the aid of site numbers might notice that
the Ap copies occur in groups of mostly edited copies in single-sutra rolls, or else in
groups of unedited A1 copies in both single- and multiple-sutra rolls. The hundreds
of Tibetan Ap copies in Dunhuang manuscript collections in Paris, St. Petersburg,
and Gansu would have also come from bundles, and may also be catalogued in
sequences that allow one to perceive this, together with other contextual clues such
as the scribes, editors, and dhāraṇīs. A rigorous study of their disparate conserva-
tion histories, and a tabular collation that allows one to visualize the data, might
allow one to perceive the rough contours of these bundles.
There remains much to be done on the analysis of scribal hands, and for this
one must rely on digital images and thereby collate and analyze the ductus of
individual graphemes. At present, only a handful of the Ap copies in the British Li-
brary have been digitized, as compared with the hundreds (though not all) of the
Ap digitized by the Bibliothèque nationale de France. The full digitization of these
collections, along with those in China, Russia, and Japan, must become a greater
priority if research is to continue to accelerate in the manner that it has over the
past few decades.

4.2 In lieu of a catalogue

For each Tibetan Ap copy, we noted the following: the pressmark or sub-pressmark;
the site number; the roll and panel numbers; the number of panels of paper in each
sutra copy (usually three); the number of columns of text (usually six); the number
of lines per column (usually nineteen); the type(s) of the dhāraṇī it uses; scribe’s
222  Documenting Limitless Life

name; and name(s) of editor(s) where applicable. In addition, we made notes of any
extraordinary codicological or paleographical features, or of other marks left on
the manuscripts. Such features include rolls of non-standard height, copies written
in a square handwriting style, and the rare cases where one finds anything written
on the verso. Here we may also include marks left on the manuscripts during the
processes of conservation and cataloguing.
We measured orthography through a more detailed process that we applied to
approximately ten percent of the collection in a largely representative sample of
168 sutra copies. In the interest of studying orthography, we biased these towards
edited rather than unedited copies. In the first place, we attended to the editors’
corrections. These, like the names of the editors given in the colophons, are often
written in red ink. In the second place, we transliterated an extended explicit con-
sisting of the final phrases of the sutra. These transliterations form a searchable
sample from which we draw conclusions about orthographic norms in Chapter
Five. In order to have a fixed point of reference for the corrections throughout each
copy, we noted them not on the panel and line where they appeared in each copy,
since this is variable, but on the corresponding panel and line in an Ap copy that
we transliterated for this purpose. This is PT 3901, written over eight columns, to
which we assigned the corresponding first eight letters of the alphabet. Thus a cor-
rection that we record in a given Ap copy may, for example, be at “d3.” This means
that the correction that we record was made to a passage within that copy corre-
sponding to the third line of the fourth column of PT 3901. We provide a trans-
literation of the latter in Chapter Five.
We did not record the height and width of the manuscripts. One option was to
catalogue them as they are, as booklets, giving the dimensions of the booklets (e.g.
31.5 ✕ 23 cm ±1 cm) and their numbers of “pages.” This is of questionable value.
Another option was to measure each panel and then to add these measurements
together, perhaps subtracting a centimeter for overlap. This is complicated by
the circumstance that it would reconstruct the original state of rolls split across
multiple pressmarks. Although we have elected not to do so, the fairly standard size
of the panels used for these sutra copies (31.5 ✕ 45 cm), is such that it would be
possible to roughly reconstruct the original widths (lengths) of each roll using our
documentation.
The binding of these rolls into booklets also problematizes the cataloguing
norm of recording incipit and explicits. There are booklets, and thus pressmarks,
that begin one-third of the way through a given sutra copy due to the copy having
been split into multiple booklets across multiple pressmarks or sub-pressmarks. In
such cases, recording the incipits of the booklets under their corresponding press-
mark would give the false impression that they contain texts that begin differently
 In lieu of a catalogue  223

from the Ap. This is also true of any explicit of a booklet/pressmark that ends in the
middle of a sutra copy. In addition, the Ap’s beginning itself is of questionable value
for our aims of studying orthography, since it merely consists of the Tibetan tran-
scription of the sutra’s Sanskrit title followed by the same Tibetan title that is rec-
orded in the explicit. In any case, we have recorded in the notes any sutra copy’s
incipit that diverges from the norm, as was discussed in Chapter Three in the con-
text of “false starts” to the sutra when a scribe accidentally launched into the
dhāraṇī in the midst of writing the title.
Our augmented catalogue is given below in table form. The more detailed infor-
mation on explicits and corrections is too long to include in a table, and so these are
given separately in Chapter Five, where they form the dataset on the basis of which
we offer some preliminary conclusions about orthography. The “notes” field con-
tains a variety of information, sometimes referring to the site number or press-
mark. Where these are detailed, they have required the addition of footnotes. Ini-
tially we recorded the presence or absence of glue on the first and final margins,
but this proved to be so common that we ceased to record it. As discussed in Chapter
Three, the traces of glue in these margins suggest that scribes worked with long
rolls of paper that were separated into shorter rolls once they had filled these long-
er rolls with sutra copies.
The different characters of the bundles often dictate the nature of our notes. In
some bundles the notes may focus on paleography, in others they emphasize the
dhāraṇī, and in still others they focus on booklet numbers. In no bundle have we
made exhaustive notes of all such features, since this would cause our augmented
catalogue to collapse under its own weight, and would make it harder to visualize
the connections between the sutra copies of a given bundle. Those instances where
we have gone into more detail documenting site numbers or booklet numbers have
enabled our insights about the conserving and cataloguing of these manuscripts in
Chapter One. The notes that we have offered on handwriting have similarly aided
us in piecing together the trade in sutras within the “sutra economy” as described
in Chapter Three. The latter notes also provide leads for other scholars to follow in
studies of scribal attribution. While this is a rich data set, it is in no way exhaustive,
and there is more to be found among these sutra copies.
Our sigla and shorthands require some explanation. The roll number is the first
number that La Vallée Poussin wrote at the top of each panel of an Ap copy. Thus a
three-panel, six-column roll that was the first of a bundle would, after being bound
into a booklet, bear the numbers “1,1” 1,2” and “1,3” in the top margins of
its three panels. In the field for “roll number,” we do not simply record this as “1,”
but as “1,1-3.” This is more or less redundant in single-sutra rolls, but is helpful in
multiple-sutra rolls where a booklet might, for example, be recorded as “17,6-10,”
224  Documenting Limitless Life

meaning it contains panels six to ten of roll seventeen. Where a roll number is only
recorded as, for instance, “1-3,” this means that the numbering in the top margins
includes a panel number but no roll number, for example “1,” “2,” and “3,” on suc-
cessive panels.
The “panels” column is self-explanatory, save for the fact that we have abbre-
viated “panels” with “P.” The number of columns is less straightforward, since there
are a variety of layouts, as discussed in Chapter Three. We refer to the columns of
a sutra copy with lowercase letters, “a” through “h” – even up to “j” in the case of
the rare ten-column copy ITJ 310.1033. We then use shorthand to indicate when a
column is blank (e.g. “a blank”), or when it consists of only a colophon (e.g. “h colo-
phon”). In the cases of three-and-a-half-panel, seven-column copies, either the first
or last panel is a half-panel that was cut down the middle. For these we do not rec-
ord 3.5 panels but rather four. If the half-panel starts the sutra copy we indicate this
with “no a,” and if the half-panel ends the copy we indicate this with “no h.” Of
course this does not mean that anything is missing or incomplete: it is simply a short-
hand that permits this data to fit on the page.
As noted in Chapter Two, there are variations in the type-A and type-B dhāraṇī.
“A+” means that a copy uses type A but the first dhāraṇī iteration begins with
tadyathā (as if it were type B). “B+” means that a copy uses type B but each iteration
adds tadyathā in the middle of the dhāraṇī after tathāgataya (as if it were type A).
“B-” means that a copy using type B omits tadyathā at the start of the first dhāraṇī.
“A-” means that a copy using type A omits tadyathā in the middle after tathāgataya.
These typologies and their frequent recurrence testify to the situation we have de-
scribed in which there was a shift from the type-B to the type-A dhāraṇī around the
year 826. We have recorded the type of the dhāraṇī in the column marked “dh.”
We abbreviate column with “col.,” but do not abbreviate colophon. In describ-
ing panels and their measurements we use a shorthand that designates their col-
umns. In a three-panel, six-column copy, for example, “ab” is panel one; “cd” is pan-
el two; and “ef” is panel three.
Where we record deletions or strikethroughs we have done so with <[deleted]>,
e.g. “<’bye mdo snang gi brIs so /> / cang yem tse” = “’bye mdo snang gi brIs so / / cang
yem tse.” To mark the use of red ink in a colophon or elsewhere we use, e.g. “(red <)
sgron ma yang zhus leng pe’u suM zhuste lhag chad bcos nas gtan phab bo// (> red).”
In discussing ductus we draw on Sam van Schaik’s rough categorization of styles
– chiefly “square style” and “sutra style,” and on some of the rubrics described in
Dotson and Helman-Ważny 2016.22 Among the latter, we use the shorthand “/:/” to
point out the use of shad – double tsheg – shad as a form of punctuation.


22 van Schaik 2013b.
 In lieu of a catalogue  225

We separate our documentation according to the differing characters of the

two types of bundles. First come the thirteen bundles of mostly edited single-sutra
rolls. Here the table gives the names of the editors, so that one can easily see which
editors worked together in teams. Next come the thirteen mixed bundles of uned-
ited sutra copies, where the documentation has no need for editors. In both of these
sections of our documentation, we offset each bundle by giving its volume number
and the number of booklets in a volume. Here we also add information about cura-
tors’ notes, etc. that are pertinent to the booklets in a given volume. Third, we docu-
ment the “orphans,” that is, the Ap copies and fragments that come from bundles
that were not predominantly comprised of Ap copies, or which curators misplaced
from their bundles during the documentation process.
Since some of these “orphans” were not categorized as part of the 310 series,
they have been assigned different ITJ pressmarks. In order to alert the reader to the
resulting “mixed” nature of the final table, we have titled the third column “ITJ
310.x.” Then, all sub-pressmarks of ITJ 310 are identified by a simple number, e.g.
“1041,” while non-310 pressmarks are provided in full, e.g. “ITJ 309.”
In all three cases we have ordered our documentation by bundle number and
not primarily following pressmarks, since Chapters One and Three showed the for-
mer to be a more helpful ordering principle for showing patterns in the production
of Tibetan Ap. However, the concordance in Appendix Two aligns pressmarks and
sub-pressmarks with site numbers, volume numbers, the type of bundle, number
of booklets, number of rolls, and number of sutra copies in order to help scholars
to navigate the Tibetan Ap copies in the Stein Collection.
4.2.1 Bundles of single-sutra rolls

Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
Vol. 118: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to thirty-eight. They are wrapped up together in thick paper, on which is written in blue pencil and
large letters “Ch 73 x. [??] + 79 XIII” and “-5”; and below it, smaller and in black ink: “Ch. 73. x. 1-38” (see Figs 16a and 16b). On the back of this paper wrapper
is written in red ink: “Ch 73.x. C.m.R.” and “[Contents aparimitāyurjñānam Cm.R.]” (see Figs 16c and 16d). On a red-and-black sticker in the middle of the cover
of the first booklet, in black pen: “Ch. 73.X.1-38, No. 310.” On a sticker on the spine, in black: “Ch.73.XVI, No. 310.” In blue: “64.” Pencil adds “1-64” to 73.XVI,
also adds, “U.P. 30/4/97” (see Fig. 28). Site numbers in this bundle are written in faded red on versos of col. a (i.e. the booklet’s covers). They have been written
again, adjacent, in pencil, probably after they faded.
73.X.1 1,1-4 1083 4 6 (no a, h) 19 A- chos grub cI keng dam 'gI cI keng
226  Documenting Limitless Life

73.X.2 2,1-3 1084 3 6 19 B lha cI shan pug 'gI dpal mchog

73.X.3 3,1-4 1085 4 7 (no h) 19 B dpal mchog de'u ^ing dam ^Ing de'u ^Ing
73.X.4 4,1-3 1086 3 6 19 B ser thong thong lI phab weng he cing [none] sum zhuso
73.X.5 5,1-3 1087 3 6 19 B dze'u tsheng tshe
73.X.6 6,1-3 1088 3 6 19 B wang rma snang phab weng leng pe'u cI keng
73.X.7 7,1-4 1089 4 8 (a blank) 19 A+ ser thong thong li phab weng heg ching [none] sum zhuso
73.X.8 8,1-3 1090 3 6 19 B dze'u tsheng tshe
73.X.9 9,1-4 1091 4 8 (a blank) 19 B do khong legs Square style, thick ink
73.X.10 10,1-3 1092 3 6 19 B cang tsi dam
73.X.11 11,1-4 1093 4 6 (no a, h) 19 B chos grub phab cI phab dzang phab cI
73.X.12 12,1-4 1094 4 6 (no a, h) 19 B chos grub cI keng dam 'gI ci keng See footnote23


23 Scribe self corrects chom ldan ’das in final line.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
73.X.13 13,1-3 1095 3 6 19 B ha stag lod l. 19 blank on panel e
73.X.14 14,1-3 1096 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 20 B jeg bzang leng pe'u lI phab weng sgron ma l. 20 blank on panel d24
73.X.15 15,1-3 1097 3 6 20 B unsigned
73.X.16 16,1-3 1098 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 20 B phan phan phab weng leng pe'u cI keng na mo ^a mi ta phur in
colophon
73.X.17 17,1-4 1099 4 6 (no a, h) 19 B ^an phab dzang dam 'gI cI keng dam 'gI See footnote25
73.X.18 18,1-4 1100 4 7 (no h) 19 B ser thong thong lI phab weng heg cing [none] sum zhuso na mo ^a mi ta phur in
colophon
73.X.19 19,1-3 1101 3 6 19 B cang stag lod cI keng dam 'gI cI keng After sum zhus: / gtan la
phab /
73.X.20 20,1-3 1102 3 6 19 B ha stag lod
73.X.21 21,1-4 1103 4 7 (no h) 19 B gtsug bzang dpal mchog phug 'gI phab dzang See footnote26
73.X.22 22,1-3 1104 3 6 19 B ^im lha bzher leng pe'u phab weng cI keng See footnote27
73.X.23 23,1-3 1105 3 5 (e 1.5 width) 20 B jIn lha phab weng leng pe'u cI keng
73.X.24 24,1-4 1106 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam zhan 'do de'u ^ing [none] yang zhus [none] sum zhus


24 Scribal colophon: jeg bzang bris// sangs rgyas dang / byang cub sems dpa’ tham chad la phyag ’tshal lo/ /.
25 Scribe leaves 2.5–2.7 cm gap between left margin and all text on col. b (first column).
26 Holes in lower portion of panels. Note card on top reads, “Ch.73.X.21” in black, repeated underneath in red. Then “a few Chinese words and [illegible].”
There are twenty-nine characters of Chinese, including numbers, in two lines on verso of col. a, in two hands.
27 Another name (or other writing) on the line below ^im lha bzher has been rubbed out such that the paper is very thin at that point.
In lieu of a catalogue  227
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
73.X.25 25,1-3 1107 3 6 19 B, B+ je'u hva 'do leng pe'u phab weng cI keng See footnote28
73.X.26 26,1-3 1108 3 6 19 B unsigned cI keng dam 'gI ci keng
73.X.27 27,1-4 1109 4 8 (h blank) 19 B chos ye shes
73.X.28 28,1-3 1110 3 5 (e 1.5 width) 20 B cang stag lod leng pe'u phab weng cI keng
73.X.29 29,1-4 1111 4 7 (no a) 19 B chos kyi ye shes
73.X.30 30,1-4 1112 4 6 19 B cang tsi dam See footnote29
73.X.31 31,1-4 1113 4 7 (no h) 19 B 'gI tig phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.X.32 32,1-4 1114 4 8 (h blank, 19 B wang stagu
228  Documenting Limitless Life

0.66 width)
73.X.33 33,1-4 1115 4 6 (no a, h) 19 B ha stag lod
73.X.34 34,1-4 1116 4 7 (no h) 19 B dpal mchog dge slong dam shin dar ji keng
tseng
73.X.35 35,1-4 1117 4 8 19 B cang zhun zhun [none] zhus so See footnote30
73.X.36 36,1-4 1118 4 6 (no a) 19 B leng 'ho be'u leng pe'u phab weng shIn dar 0.5 width colophon on
tshven col. h
73.X.37 37,1-3 1119 3 6 19 B wang legs brtan daM ^ing de'u ^ing [none] sum zhus See footnote31
73.X.38 38,1-3 1120 3 6 19 B chos gyi ye shes


28 Paper is thin, fibers visible on surface. As with other works by this scribe, the first seven dhāraṇīs sometimes include tad tya tha and also occasionally
omit ta tha ga ta ya (fifth dhāraṇī again); not corrected by editors here.
29 Panels proceed a, bc, d, ef (single-col. half panel at front and in middle).
30 Large lha at changeover on versos. It is pink, matches ink in the first colophon. Second colophon’s ink is orange.
31 Scribe begins sutra: $/:/ rgya gar skad du ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yur na ma ma ha <na> ya na su tra / / .
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
Vol. 113: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to sixty-four. Booklet numbers are written in pencil on the spines, with inverse booklet numbers on
the verso of the final col., lower corner, upside-down, beginning “61” on booklet “3” (ITJ 310.972) and then proceeding in descending order until the end. Only
the inverse numbers one through nine are struck through. A note card on top of the first booklet reads: “Ch.73.XV + 79.X1III5 310.” Below this, “Aparimitayur”;
on the verso of the card, in pencil: “39 Rolls each roll in a section (Binder).” Site numbers are written in pencil in upper corner of versos of col. a (i.e. the
booklet’s covers), over faded red ink that provided the initial site number. The faded red site numbers are legible in places, and confirm that this is bundle
73.XVI, with serial site numbers.
73.XVI.1 1,1-3 970 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab ci dpal mchog
73.XVI.2 2,1-3 971 3 6 19 A mchims lha rton phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog See footnote32
73.XVI.3 3,1-3 972 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.4 4,1-3 973 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab ci
73.XVI.5 5,1-3 974 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.6 6,1-3 975 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab ci
73.XVI.7 7,1-3 976 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab ci
73.XVI.8 8,1-3 977 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab ci
73.XVI.9 9,1-3 978 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab cI
73.XVI.10 10,1-3 979 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.11 11,1-3 980 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab ci dpal mchog
73.XVI.12 12,1-3 981 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.13 13,1-3 982 3 6 19 A mchims lha rton phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog Same hand as above


32 Strong signs of ink running out and then being refreshed throughout the text (ink only seems to last two or three syllables). On a red-and-white
curator’s sticker on the spine, in black: “ch 73.X.1-38, no. 310.” This is crossed out in pencil, dated “30/4/97,” initialled “UP.”
In lieu of a catalogue  229
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
73.XVI.14 14,1-3 983 3 6 19 A snyal stag snya phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog Different hand
73.XVI.15 15,1-3 984 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.16 16,1-3 985 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
73.XVI.17 17,1-3 986 3 6 19 A kho sma bye gro(s) phab dzang phab ci dpal mchog Different hand
73.XVI.18 18,1-3 987 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.19 19,1-3 988 3 6 19 A kho sma bye gro(s) phab dzang phab ci
73.XVI.20 20,1-3 989 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab cI dpa+l mchog dpa+l mchog
73.XVI.21 21,1-3 990 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab ci dpal mchog
230  Documenting Limitless Life

73.XVI.22 22,1-3 991 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab ci dpal mchog

73.XVI.23 23,1-3 992 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab cI phab dzang
73.XVI.24 24,1-3 993 3 6 19 A se thong pa
73.XVI.25 25,1-3 994 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab ci See footnote33
73.XVI.26 26,1-3 995 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog See footnote34
73.XVI.27 27,1-3 996 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.28 28,1-3 997 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab ci
73.XVI.29 29,1-3 998 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
73.XVI.30 30,1-3 999 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab ci
73.XVI.31 31,1-3 1000 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab ci phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.32 32,1-3 1001 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog


33 On verso of col. a, perpendicular: dbon zhang. Verso of col. a, left hand side vertically, writting down to up reads: dbon / shens pa tshe.
34 Many of these sutra copies attributed to Se thong pa in the colophon show the name to be written in a messier style than the rest of the sutra.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
73.XVI.33 33,1-3 1002 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.34 34,1-3 1003 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.35 35,1-3 1004 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab ci dpal mchog
73.XVI.36 36,1-3 1005 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab ci
73.XVI.37 37,1-3 1006 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab ci dpa+l mchog
73.XVI.38 38,1-3 1007 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.39 39,1-3 1008 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
73.XVI.40 40,1-3 1009 3 6 21 A se thong pa phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
73.XVI.41 41,1-3 1010 3 6 20 A se thong pa phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.42 42,1-3 1011 3 6 19 A lho lha gzigs phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.43 43,1-3 1012 3 6 19 A se thong pa phab dzang phab ci dpa+l mchog
73.XVI.44 44,1-3 1013 3 6 19 B legs rma phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog See footnote35
73.XVI.45 45,1-3 1014 3 6 19 B legs rma phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.46 46,1-3 1015 3 6 19 B jIn lha bzhe+r phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.47 47,1-3 1016 3 6 19 B legs rma phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.48 48,1-3 1017 3 6 19 B cang legs rtsan dam 'gI leng pe'u ci keng See footnote36
73.XVI.49 49,1-3 1018 3 6 19 B shIn cheg ban 'de phab cI phab dzang phab cI
73.XVI.50 50,1-3 1019 3 6 18 B leng ho be'u tshven de'u ^ing dam ^ing phab weng
73.XVI.51 51,1-3 1020 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 20 B heng je'u dam 'gI leng pe'u dam 'gI


35 Long insertion of §18, just after §18, making paragraphs proceed §15, §17, §18, §18, §20.
36 Two Chinese characters at corner of verso of col. a.
In lieu of a catalogue  231
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
73.XVI.52 52,1-3 1021 3 6 19 B leng ho be'u tshven de'u ^ing dam ^ing
73.XVI.53 53,1-4 1022 3 6 19 B leng pe'u cI shan dpal mchog phug 'gi
73.XVI.54 54,1-4 1023 4 7 (no a) 20 B, B+ se thong pa phab dzang phab ci See footnote37
73.XVI.55 55,1-4 1024 4 7 (no h) 19 B legs rma phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.56 56,1-4 1025 4 7 (h blank, 19 B bam rma bzher dam 'gI leng pe'u chI keng
0.5 width)
73.XVI.57 57,1-4 1026 4 8 19 A+ cang shib tig dge slong daM leng ce'u shIn dar
tsheng
232  Documenting Limitless Life

73.XVI.58 58,1-4 1027 4 8 (h blank) 19 B brtan legs dge slong shIn dar leng ce'u ci keng
73.XVI.59 59,1-4 1028 4 8 (h blank) 19 B ci sun dam ^ing de'u ^Ing dam ^Ing See footnote38
73.XVI.60 60,1-4 1029 4 8 (h blank) 19 B brtan legs dge slong shin dar leng ce'u ci king
73.XVI.61 61,1-4 1030 4 8 (a blank) 19 B bam zhan 'do phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang
73.XVI.62 62,1-4 1031 4 8 (a blank) 19 B bam thong thong shes rab dzeng the jI ^in
73.XVI.63 63,1-4 1032 4 8 19 B legs rma phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
73.XVI.64 64,1-5 1033 5 10 19 B bam thong thong shes bar dzeng the jI ^in See footnote39


37 End of text is in a slack hand. Scribal and editorial colophons in single hand. Editorial colophon: phab dzang dang phab ci zhus / /. Scribe inserts tad
thya tha in the middle of many dhāraṇīs throughout the sutra, occasionaly omitting ta tha ga ta (e.g. third dhāraṇī, though not on fifth dhāraṇī as with
Je’u hva ’do). Perhaps not the same as the Se thong pa whose copies are in a neater hand with type-A dhāraṇīs.
38 Scribal colophon: ci sun gyi bris so sva h’a /.
39 Col. a has beginning of text that was abandoned in first line; col. j is blank. Red-and-white curator’s sticker, in middle of verso of final col., upside-
down: “Ch.73.XVI, No. 310.”
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
Vol. 103: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to fifty-one.
78.III 1,1-4 523 4 8 (h blank) 19 B bam thong thong jI ^in shes rab dzeng the See footnote40
78.III 2,1-4 524 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B lu tse shing shes rab jI ^in dpal mchog
78.III 3,1-4 525 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B lu tse shing shes rab jI ^in dpa+l mchog
78.III 4,1-4 526 4 6 19 A+ cang shib tig dam ^ing de'u ^ing phab weng Scribbles down middle
of h verso
78.III 5,1-4 527 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B lu tshe hing de'u ^Ing dam ^ing phab weng
78.III 6,1-3 528 3 6 20 B myag le g.yu bzang
78.III 7,1-4 529 4 7 (no h) 19 B ser thong thong li phab weng heg ching [none] sum zhus
78.III 8,1-4 530 4 8 (a blank) 19 B cang zhun tse dam 'gI ci keng dam 'gI See footnote41
78.III 9,1-4 531 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B lu tshe hing dam ^eng de'u ^eng phab weng
78.III 10,1-3 532 3 6 19 B ser thong thong dam 'gI ci keng dam 'gI
78.III 11,1-4 533 4 8 (a blank) 19 B phan la brtan od snang dzeng the phab dzang
78.III 12,1-4 534 4 7 (no a) 19 B, B+ je'u hva 'do phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang See footnote42
78.III 13,1-4 535 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u phab tIng cI keng


40 A large circle appears before the shad in the colophon; double circles between shads in text.
41 In every instance of rnying rje’i grong khyer, the ’i is crossed out.
42 Scribe begins writing tad ya tha in the middle of the dhāraṇī, though not in the first instance. The opening tad ya tha in the first instance is corrected
in red to tyad thya tha by writing over the black ink. Some later tad ya tha occuring in the middle of the dhāraṇī are crossed out in red ink, and some of
these amended to ta tha ga ta ya (fifth and seventh dhāraṇī). These tad ya tha are only in the first half of the sutra copy: the tenth dhāraṇī forward revert
to classic type B (see also IOL 310.72).
In lieu of a catalogue  233
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
78.III 14,1-3 536 3 6 19 B cang 'phan legs See footnote43
78.III 15,1-4 537 4 8 19 B cang zhun tshe cI keng dam 'gI ci keng
78.III 16,1-4 538 4 8 (a, h blank) 19 B mgar klu mthong
78.III 17,1-4 539 4 6 (no a, h) 19 B, B+ je'u hva 'do dpal mchog phug 'gI phab dzang See footnote44
78.III 18,1-4 540 4 7 (no a) 19 A+ shIn dar shIn dar sgron ma leng pe'u
78.III 19,1-4 541 4 8 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma jI keng
78.III 20,1-4 542 4 7 (no h) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u dpal gyI sgron ma cI keng
78.III 21,1-4 543 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B lu tse shing shes rab jI ^in dpal chog
234  Documenting Limitless Life

78.III 22,1-4 544 4 7 (no h) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma cI keng
78.III 23,1-3 545 3 6 19 B lu tse shing shes rab jI ^in dpa+l mchog
78.III 24,1-4 546 4 8 19 B cang zhun tshe cI keng dam 'gI cI keng
78.III 25,1-4 547 4 8 (a blank) 19 B ^im lha bzer dam 'gI ci keng dam 'gI
78.III 26,1-3 548 3 6 19 B cang jung jung sgron ma cI keng leng pe'u
78.III 27,1-4 549 4 8 (a blank) 20 B, B+ je'u hva 'do phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang See footnote45
78.III 28,1-4 550 4 7 (no h) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u dpal gyi sgron ma ji keng
78.III 29,1-4 551 4 7 (no h) 19 B bam lha legs dge slong leng pe'u sgron ma jI keng


43 After colophon: dang zhu dang bar zhu sum zhu lags.
44 As in ITJ 310.534 and 310.72, tad ya tha occurs in the middle of some of the first seven dhāraṇīs, once omitting ta tha ga ta ya (fifth dhāraṇī, amended
by editor in red ink).
45 As in other works by this scribe (above), tad ya tha occurs in the middle of some of the dhāraṇīs, alongside omitting ta tha ga ta ya, amended by
editor in red ink (again in fifth dhāraṇī, but also in penultimate, so this time throughout text).
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
78.III 30,1-4 552 4 7 (no h) 19 B, B+ je'u hva 'do phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang See footnote46
78.III 31,1-4 553 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma ci keng
78.III 32,1-4 554 4 7 (no h) 19 B, B+ je'u hva 'do phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang Same as other copies by
this scribe
78.III 33,1-4 555 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma jI keng
78.III 34,1-4 556 4 8 (h blank) 19 B cang zhun tse dam 'gI ci keng dam 'gI
78.III 35,1-4 557 4 8 (a blank) 19 A+ ser thong thong dam 'gI See footnote47
78.III 36,1-4 558 4 7 (no h) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u dpal kyI sgron ma jI keng
78.III 37,1-4 559 4 7 (no h) 19 B gtsug legs leng pe'u pab weng shin dar
78.III 38,1-4 560 4 8 19 B chang zhun tshe dam 'gI ci keng dam 'gI
78.III 39,1-4 561 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u dpal kyI sgron ma jI keng
78.III 40,1-4 562 4 8 (a blank) 19 B, B+ je'u hva 'do dpal mchog phug 'gI phab dzang Same as other copies by
this scribe
78.III 41,1-3 563 3 6 (f blank) 19 B cang zhun tshe cI keng dam 'gI ci keng
78.III 42,1-4 564 4 8 (a blank) 19 B bam zhan 'do dpal mchog phug 'gI phab dzang
78.III 43,1-4 565 4 8 (h blank) 19 A+ jIn lha bzher leng pe'u pab weng shin dar
78.III 44,1-4 566 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B cang zhun tshe dam 'gI ci keng dam 'gI


46 As in other works by this scribe, tad ya tha occurs in middle of some dhāraṇīs, which also often omit ta tha ga ta ya (e.g. fifth dhāraṇī, though not
amended). Some cases amended by editor in black ink (though less thoroughly than the red-ink editing above).
47 Editorial colophon: dam ’gi zhus ya+ng zhu ste sum zhus gtan la phab.
In lieu of a catalogue  235
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
78.III 45,1-4 567 4 7 (no a, h: 19 B, B+ je'u hva 'do phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang Same as other copies by
colophon) this scribe
78.III 46,1-3 568 3 6 19 B ser thong thong cI keng dam 'gI ci keng
78.III 47,1-4 569 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma cI keng
78.III 48,1-4 570 4 7 (no h) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma jI keng
78.III 49,1-4 571 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma cI keng
78.III 50,1-4 572 4 8 (a blank) 19 B cang zhun tshe dam 'gI ci keng dam 'gI
78.III 51,1-4 573 4 7 (no h) 19 B, B+ je'u hva 'do phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang Same as other copies by
236  Documenting Limitless Life

this scribe
Vol. 104: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to thirty-eight.
78.IV 1,1-4 574 4 7 (no h) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma cI keng
78.IV 2,1-4 575 4 7 (no a) 18 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma cI keng na mo ^a myi ta phur in
colophon
78.IV 3,1-4 576 4 7 (no h) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma cI keng na mo ^a myi ta phur in
colophon
78.IV 4,1-4 577 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma jI keng na mo ^a myi ta phur in
colophon
78.IV 5,1-4 578 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u dpal kyI sgron ma jI keng na mo ^a myi ta phur in
colophon
78.IV 6,1-4 579 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u dpal kyI sgron ma jI keng na mo ^a myi ta phur in
colophon
78.IV 7,1-3 580 3 6 19 B cang zhun tse dge slong dam 'gI ci keng dam 'gI
78.IV 8,1-3 581 3 6 19 B lu tshe hing dam ^ing de'u ^eng phab weng
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
78.IV 9,1-4 582 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B lu tshe hing dam ^Ing de'u ^Ing weng
78.IV 10,1-3 583 3 6 19 B phan phan leng pe'u dpal kyI sgron ma leng pe'u
78.IV 11,1-3 584 3 6 19 B wang klu legs
78.IV 12,1-4 585 4 7 (no h) 19 B cang zhun tshe dam 'gI ci keng dam 'gI
78.IV 13,1-4 586 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u dge slong pab tIng cI keng
78.IV 14,1-4 587 4 8 19 A+ lha snang de'u ^Ing dam ^Ing phab wang
78.IV 15,1-5 588 5 9 (no i) 19 B cang zhun tshe dam 'gI cI keng dam 'gI See footnote48
78.IV 16,1-3 589 3 6 19 B ser thong thong leng pe'u sgron ma cI keng
78.IV 17,1-4 590 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B cang zhun tshe dam 'gI ci keng dam 'gI
78.IV 18,1-4 591 4 8 19 B cang zhun tshe ban de cI keng dam 'gI leng pe'u
78.IV 19,1-4 592 4 7 (no h) 19 B, B+ je'u hva 'do dpal mchog phug 'gI phab dzang See footnote49
78.IV 20,1-4 593 4 7 (no a) 19 B cang zhun tshe cI keng dam 'gI ci keng
78.IV 21,1-4 594 4 7 (no h) 19 B lha legs leng pe'u dpal kyI sgron ma cI keng See footnote50
78.IV 22,1-3 595 3 6 19 B khang thig thIg
78.IV 23,1-4 596 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B cang zhun tshe cI keng dam 'gI cI keng See footnote51
78.IV 24,1-4 597 4 7 (no h) 19 B lu tshe hing dam ^ing de'u ^ing phab weng See footnote52


48 Editorial colophon ends dam 'gi sum zhuste gtan la phab bo//.
49 Same as other works by this scribe, though less thoroughly edited here.
50 Lha legs should be Bam Lha legs by looks of script and association with editors (compare with ITJ 310.574).
51 Editorial colophon ends cI keng sum zhuste gtan la phab bo//.
52 Col. a has false start to text (...a4 thos pa dus na /) then text begins again on col. b.
In lieu of a catalogue  237
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
78.IV 25,1-4 598 4 8 18 B phan phan dpal kyI sgron ma jI keng leng pe'u ^om drawn in red after zhus
78.IV 26,1-4 599 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma ji geng
78.IV 27,1-4 600 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B lu tshe hing de'u ^ing dam ^eng daM ^ing
78.IV 28,1-4 601 4 8 (h blank) 19 B cang zhun tshe dam 'gI cI keng leng pe'u
78.IV 29,1-4 602 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B lu tshe hing dam ^ing de'u ^Ing phab weng
78.IV 30,1-4 603 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u dpal kyI sgron ma jI keng
78.IV 31,1-4 604 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u jI keng sgron ma
78.IV 32,1-4 605 4 7 (no a) 19 B, B+ je'u hva 'do phug 'gi dpal mchog phab dzang Same as other copies by
238  Documenting Limitless Life

this scribe
78.IV 33,1-4 606 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B lu tse shing shes rab jI ^in dpa+l mchog
78.IV 34,1-4 607 4 7 (no a) 19 B cang zhun tshe cI keng dam 'gI ci keng
78.IV 35,1-3 608 4 8 (a blank) 19 B cang zhun tshe dam 'gI ci keng dam 'gI shig at end of colophon
78.IV 36,1-4 609 4 7 (no h) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u dpal kyi sgron ma ji keng na mo ^a myi ta phur in
colophon
78.IV 1-4 610 4 7 (no a) 19 B je'u hva 'do phug 'gi dpal mchog See footnote53
78.IV 1-3 611 3 6 19 B phan phan dpal kyI sgron ma jI keng leng pe'u Verso of f: “site no. ch.
78.IV no. 310”


53 Not the same type of dhāraṇī as the above works with the same scribe’s name in the colophon. Paper is rougher too, but the handwriting is similar.
Only very light editing in red. This and the next copy have no roll numbers.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
Vol. 107: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to fifty-four.
78.VIII 1,1-4 684 4 8 (a blank, h 19 B- 'bre lha bu de'u ^Ing [none] yang zhus daM ^ing
colophon)
78.VIII 2,1-4 685 4 7 (no h) 19 B wang rma snang shin dar leng ce'u cI keng
78.VIII 3,1-4 686 4 7 (no a) 19 B stag snang
78.VIII 4,1-4 687 4 7 (no a) 21 A+ cang rgyal legs
78.VIII 5,1-4 688 4 8 (a blank) 19 A+ ser thong thong bam zhun tse heg cing heg cing
78.VIII 6,1-3 689 3 6 21 B sag chos grub phab cI phab dzang phab cI See footnote54
78.VIII 7,1-3 690 3 6 20 B cang ^I tse See footnote55
78.VIII 8,1-4 691 4 7 (no a, h blank) 19 B lha lod dam 'gI cI keng leng pe'u
78.VIII 9,1-3 692 3 6 19 B lha lod cI keng leng pe'u dam 'gI
78.VIII 10,1-3 693 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 20 A+ so hva hva shin dar sgron ma leng che'u
78.VIII 11,1-4 694 4 7 (no a, h 19 B wang rma snang dge long shin dar leng cI'u cI keng
colophon)
78.VIII 12,1-3 695 3 6 19 B lha lod cI keng leng pe'u dam 'gI
78.VIII 13,1-4 696 4 8 (a blank) 19 B stag la brtsan phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
78.VIII 14,1-4 697 4 7 (no h) 19 A+ wang shun thong See footnote56
78.VIII 15,1-3 698 3 6 20 A+ unsigned


54 Glue and scraps of previously attached panel on final margin.
55 Glue and scraps of previously attached panel on final margin.
56 Square writing, but not as impeccable as ITJ 310.280 and others; midline tshegs, /:/.
In lieu of a catalogue  239
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
78.VIII 16,1-3 699 3 6 19 B bzang kong shIn dar sgron ma leng ce'u
78.VIII 17,1-4 700 4 8 (a blank) 19 A+ dvan hing dar phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog See footnote57
78.VIII 18,1-4 701 4 8 19 B wang rma snang dge slong shin dar cI keng leng ce'u See footnote58
78.VIII 19,1-3 702 3 6 19 B klu legs See footnote59
78.VIII 20,1-4 703 4 7 (no a, h 19 B chos grub phab ci phab dzang phab cI See footnote 60
colophon)
78.VIII 21,1-3 704 3 6 20 A 'go klu skyes See footnote61
78.VIII 22,1-4 705 4 6 (no a, h) 19 B lha lod dam 'gI ci keng
240  Documenting Limitless Life

78.VIII 23,1-4 706 4 7 (no h) 19 B ser thong thong dge long shin dar ban 'de leng ce'u cI keng Double circles between shads
78.VIII 24,1-3 707 3 6 20 A je'u hyen tse
78.VIII 25,1-3 708 3 6 20 B jin legs kong See footnote62
78.VIII 26,1-4 709 4 7 (no h) 19 A+ song gung legs Final half-sheet 27.5 cm
high
78.VIII 27,1-3 710 3 6 19 B klu legs
78.VIII 28,1-4 711 4 8 (h blank) 19 B phan la brtan


57 Evidence of writing (shads) on otherwise blank col. a from a previously attached sutra copy.
58 Col. g is a quarter-width panel with editorial and scribal colophons at end.
59 Different style of writing, similar to van Schaik’s sutra style; with wide horizontal spacing.
60 Beautiful writing, with orthography correct almost to Classical Tibetan standards, e.g. with respect to genitive and ergative. Very few gi log; still
alternates aspiration, e.g. the/te.
61 Thin strip of paper on verso of final margin suggests that a previously extant following panel was cut off to make a single-sutra roll.
62 Scribe skips the first instance of the dhāraṇī, eye-skip from b4 to b7 ('dri 'am 'drir).
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
78.VIII 29,1-3 712 3 6 19 B stag lod
78.VIII 30,1-3 713 3 6 19 B wang rma snang shin dar leng ce'u ci keng
78.VIII 31,1-3 714 3 6 19 B bung stag snya
78.VIII 32,1-4 715 4 7 (no a) 19 B wang rma snang shIn dar leng ce'u ci keng See footnote63
78.VIII 33,1-4 716 4 7 (no h) 21 B unsigned Ugly square dbu can
writing64
78.VIII 34,1-3 717 3 6 19 B lha lod dam 'gI phab ting ci keng Newspaper print on
glued margin of b
78.VIII 35,1-3 718 3 6 20 B heng je'u
78.VIII 36,1-3 719 3 6 20 B khang tig tig
78.VIII 37,1-3 720 3 6 19 B cang snang legs chos brtan sgron ma shIn dar
78.VIII 38,1-4 721 4 6 (no a, h) 19 B hye'I keng de'u ^ing de'u ^eng dam ^eng
78.VIII 39,1-3 722 3 6 19 A wang hing tse
78.VIII 40,1-3 723 3 6 19 B ser thong thong dge slong shin dar leng ce'u cI keng
78.VIII 41,1-3 724 3 6 20 B cang klu legs
78.VIII 42,1-3 725 3 6 20 B stag ra
78.VIII 43,1-3 726 3 6 20 A+ song ^ag tse


63 Glue and scraps of following panel on final margin.
64 Looks like a first-year student’s hand. Glue and scraps of preceding panel on first margin; also some evidence of writing across the margin (not from
previous pressmark: different handwriting).
In lieu of a catalogue  241
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
78.VIII 44,1-3 727 3 6 19 B cang se'u hvan chos brtan sgron ma leng che'u See footnote65
78.VIII 45,1-3 728 3 6 19 B lha lod dam 'gI leng pe'u cI keng
78.VIII 46,1-4 729 4 6 (no a, h) 18 B lha lod cI keng leng pe'u dam 'gi
78.VIII 47,1-3 730 3 6 20 A+ wang rgyal legs
78.VIII 48,1-3 731 3 6 19 A+ klu legs
78.VIII 49,1-3 732 3 5 (e 1.5 width) 19 B leng ho zhun tse cang chos brtan shin dar leng che'u 28 cm high66
78.VIII 50,1-4 733 4 7 (no h) 21 A+ cang dge legs
78.VIII 51,1-3 734 3 6 19 B dze'u cang zhi shin dar sgron ma leng che'u
242  Documenting Limitless Life

78.VIII 52,1-3 735 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 20 B unsigned phug 'gi dpal mchog See footnote67
78.VIII 53,1-3 736 3 6 19 B shin cheg cI keng dam 'gI ci keng
78.VIII 54,1-3 737 3 6 19 B si dze yeng

Vol. 108: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to sixty-three.
78.IX 1,1-4 738 4 8 19 B shes rab de'u ^ing dam ^ing de'u ^ing See footnote68
78.IX 2,1-3 739 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 21 B jIn lha bzher dpal mchog phug 'gi
78.IX 3,1-3 740 3 6 19 B stag ra


65 Glue and scraps of following panel on final margin.
66 Glue and scraps of paper from the following panel on final margin.
67 Editor adds tyad thya tha ^om in red before first instance of dhāraṇī. Two editorial colophons. First: 'phug gi zhus/ dpal mchog yang zhus/; second:
dpal mchog zhus/.
68 First instance of dhāraṇī amended in red to add tad thya tha before / na mo [...].
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
78.IX 4,1-3 741 3 6 20 B hvA hva hva
78.IX 5,1-3 742 3 6 19 B 'go klu zigs
78.IX 6,1-4 743 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B shig 'gI tig phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang
78.IX 7,1-3 744 3 6 20 B khang tIg tig
78.IX 8,1-3 745 3 6 19 B ^im stag rma
78.IX 9,1-3 746 3 6 19 A+ je'u brtan kong phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
78.IX 10,1-3 747 3 6 20 B wang rma snang
78.IX 11,1-3 748 3 6 19 B rubbed out dpal mchog phug 'gi pab dzang
78.IX 12,1-3 749 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 20 B- phan la brtan dpal mchog phug 'gi pab dzang
78.IX 13,1-4 750 4 6 (no a, h) 19 A+ shin dar shIn dar leng pe'u ben ceng
78.IX 14,1-3 751 3 6 19 B ^im stag rma
78.IX 15,1-3 752 3 6 20 B khang tig tig
78.IX 16,1-3 753 3 6 20 B cang yem tse See footnote69
78.IX 17,1-3 754 3 6 19 B lI stag snang
78.IX 18,1-4 755 4 7 (no a, h blank) 19 B 'bye mdo snang
78.IX 19,1-3 756 3 6 20 B phan phan
78.IX 20,1-3 757 3 6 19 B hvA hva hva
78.IX 21,1-4 758 4 7 (no a) 19 B- khang dpal mchog de'u ^ing de'u [^ing?] dam ^ing
78.IX 22,1-3 759 3 6 19 B unsigned
78.IX 23,1-3 760 3 6 19 B unsigned phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang Shorter height


69 Scribal colophon: <'bye mdo sna bris so> / / cang yem tse bris / /.
In lieu of a catalogue  243
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
78.IX 24,1-3 761 3 6 20 B jIn lha bzher
78.IX 25,1-4 762 4 7 (no a) 19 A+ unsigned
78.IX 26,1-4 763 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 A+ hvan hing dar See footnote70
78.IX 27,1-3 764 3 6 20 B, B+ je'u hva 'do See footnote71
78.IX 28,1-3 765 3 6 20 B phan phan
78.IX 29,1-4 766 4 8 (a blank, 19 B unsigned See footnote72
0.5 width)
78.IX 30,1-4 767 4 8 19 B stag legs phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang See footnote73
244  Documenting Limitless Life

78.IX 31,1-3 768 3 6 20 B phan la brtan

78.IX 32,1-3 769 3 6 19 B wang rma snang
78.IX 33,1-3 770 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 20 B- unsigned dpal mchog phug 'gi pab dzang
78.IX 34,1-4 771 4 8 (a blank) 19 B zhang rgyal bzang phug 'gi
78.IX 35,1-4 772 4 7 (no a) 19 A+ shIn dar leng pe'u See footnote74
78.IX 36,1-3 773 3 6 20 B lI'u lha leg
78.IX 37,1-4 774 4 7 (a blank, g torn) 19 B n/a See footnote75


70 tad dya tha crossed out in red ink, in the middle of the second dhāraṇī, among other small corrections only in the first two panels. Unfinished editing job?
71 See above on first seven dhāraṇīs in edited works by the same scribe. Perhaps he is copying from an exemplar that contains these divergences.
72 After scribal colophon: dang zhu bar zhu sum zhu lags /.
73 Editor (Phug ’gi?) adds ^om after tad tya tha at the beginning of the first dhāraṇī, in red ink.
74 Editorial colophon: leng pe'u zhus ben ceng gtan la bab zhuso//.
75 Col. g is torn such that colophon is missing. Panels proceed ab, cd, e, fg.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
78.IX 38,1-3 775 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 20 B wang rma snang phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang
78.IX 39,1-3 776 3 6 19 B dpal kyI sgron ma phab tIng dpal mchog leng pe'u
78.IX 40,1-5 777 5 9 (a blank, i 19 B unsigned phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang See footnote76
colophon)
78.IX 41,1-4 778 4 7 (no a) 19 B ser thong thong li phab weng he jeng [none] sum zhuso
78.IX 42,1-4 779 4 8 19 B stag legs dpal mchog phug 'gi pab dzang Large lha on a verso
78.IX 43,1-3 780 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 19 B unsigned dpal mchog phug 'gi
78.IX 44,1-3 781 3 6 20 B, B+ je'u hva 'do Same as other copies by
this scribe
78.IX 45,1-3 782 3 6 20 B gtsug bzang See footnote77
78.IX 46,1-3 783 3 6 19 B dam 'gi dam ^ing de'u ^ing dam ^ing
78.IX 47,1-4 784 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma jI keng
78.IX 48,1-4 785 4 8 (a blank) 19 B shig 'gI tig dpal mchog phug 'gi pab dzang See footnote78
78.IX 49,1-4 786 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B ser thong thong li phab weng he jIng [none] sum zhuso
78.IX 50,1-3 787 3 6 19 B ^im stag rma
78.IX 51,1-4 788 4 7 (no a) 19 B dge slong he kong dam ^Ing de wu ^ing dam ^ing See footnote79
78.IX 52,1-3 789 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 21 B jIn lha bzher dpal mchog pab dzang phug 'gi


76 Panels proceed ab, cd, ef, g, hi. Sutra begins $/:/ <da tshe> rgya gar [...].
77 Panel/bifolio two is coming detached, needs to be rebound to spine.
78 Editor (Phug ’gi?) adds ^om after tad tya tha at the beginning of the first dhāraṇī, in red ink.
79 Name may be He kang (possible strikethrough of a na ro).
In lieu of a catalogue  245
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
78.IX 53,1-3 790 3 6 19 B phan phan
78.IX 54,1-4 791 4 7 (no h) 19 B- shes rab de'u ^ing dam ^ing de'u ^Ing
78.IX 55,1-4 792 4 7 (no h) 19 B lI'u lha legs leng ce'u leng pe'u shIn dar
78.IX 56,1-4 793 4 8 (a blank) 19 B unsigned phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang
78.IX 57,1-3 794 3 6 20 B cang yem tse See footnote80
78.IX 58,1-3 795 3 6 19 B ^im stag rma
78.IX 59,1-3 796 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 19 B cang snang legs See footnote81
78.IX 60,1-4 797 4 8 (a blank, 19 A+ dvan hing dar shin dar leng pe'u leng ce'u
246  Documenting Limitless Life

0.5 width)
78.IX 61,1-4 798 4 8 (a blank) 19 B 'gi tig phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang Scribe’s name in faded
dark red ink
78.IX 62,1-3 799 3 6 20 B cang snang legs Col. f: end title and
colophon
78.IX 63,1-4 800 4 8 (h blank) 19 A+ phan legs No end title

Vol. 109: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to fifty. On the cover of the first booklet, on a red-and-white curator’s sticker mounted on brown
paper, between site number and pressmark, is written in blue: “50.”
78.X 1,1-4 801 4 8 (h blank) 19 B brtan legs dge slong shin dar leng ce'u cI keng
78.X 2,1-3 802 3 6 19 B ser thong thong


80 Scribal colophon: <'bye mdo snang gi brIs so /> / cang yem tse. Scribe’s name struck through in the same manner as 310.753 (above, with three horizontal lines).
81 Scribal colophon: <him lha bzher bris / /> cang snang legs gyi bris. Desultory horizontal strikethrough.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
78.X 3,1-3 803 3 6 19 B jIn lha bzher phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
78.X 4,1-3 804 3 6 20 B heng je'u
78.X 5,1-3 805 3 6 20 B lu tse shing shes rab jI ^in dpa+l mchog
78.X 6,1-3 806 3 6 19 B cang stag lod
78.X 7,1-4 807 4 8 (a, h blank) 19 B 'bre lha bu daM ^ing de'u ^ing dang man tshe
78.X 8,1-3 808 3 6 19 B unsigned See footnote82
78.X 9,1-4 809 4 8 (a blank) 19 B ldong nya phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog bag bag sos on column a
78.X 10,1-3 810 3 6 19 B phan phan dpal kyi sgron ma ji keng leng pe'u
78.X 11,1-3 811 3 6 19 B phan phan sgron ma jI keng leng pe'u
78.X 12,1-3 812 3 6 19 B khang tig tIg
78.X 13,1-4 813 4 7 (no a) 19 B phan phan dpal gyI sgron ma leng pe'u jI keng
78.X 14,1-4 814 4 7 (no h) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u dpal kyI sgron ma cI keng
78.X 15,1-4 815 4 6 (no a, h) 19 B cang jung jung phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
78.X 16,1-4 816 4 8 (a blank) 19 B phan phan dpal kyI sgron ma cI keng leng pe'u
78.X 17,1-3 817 3 6 20 B je'u hva 'do
78.X 18,1-3 818 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 20 B bam stag slebs phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
78.X 19,1-4 819 4 8 (a, h blank) 19 B dze'u hIng tsIn phab weng leng pe'u shIn cig
78.X 20,1-4 820 4 6 (no a, h) 19 B legs kong See footnote83
78.X 21,1-3 821 3 6 19 B ser thong thong li phab weng he jIng [none] sum zhuso


82 In lieu of colophon: dang zhu dang bar zhu sum zhu lags.
83 After scribal colophon: dang zhu dang bar zhu sum zhu lagso.
In lieu of a catalogue  247
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
78.X 22,1-4 822 4 6 (a 1.5 width, 19 B kvag sha sam dpal mchog phug 'gI phab dzam
no f)
78.X 23,1-4 823 4 7 (no a) 20 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma cI keng See footnote84
78.X 24,1-4 824 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma ci keng
78.X 25,1-3 825 3 6 19 B phan phan leng pe'u sgron ma ci keng
78.X 26,1-3 826 3 6 19 B phan phan sgron ma jI keng leng pe'u
78.X 27,1-3 827 3 5 (e 1.5 width) 20 B de'u kong phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog Before colophon: na mo
bu sar
248  Documenting Limitless Life

78.X 28,1-3 828 3 6 20 B stag ra

78.X 29,1-3 829 3 6 20 B jin legs kong
78.X 30,1-3 830 3 6 19 B phan phan sgron ma leng pe'u ci keng Smudged black
fingerprints on verso
78.X 31,1-3 831 3 6 19 B wang legs brtan
78.X 32,1-3 832 3 6 19 B phan phan sgron ma leng pe'u cI keng
78.X 33,1-3 833 3 6 19 B legs kong See footnote85
78.X 34,1-4 834 4 7 (no h) 19 B phan phan dpal kyI sgron ma leng pe'u ji keng ^a mI ta phur preceding
colophon86
78.X 35,1-4 835 4 8 (h blank) 19 B brtan legs dge slong daM dge slong ban 'de leng ce'u
tsheng shin dar


84 Smudges and fingerprints in red and black ink on verso of final column.
85 Before colophon: dang zhu dang bar zhu sum zhu lags.
86 Large red ^om below editors’ names.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
78.X 36,1-4 836 4 8 (a blank) 18 B phan phan dpal gyI sgron leng pe'u jI keng
ma
78.X 37,1-3 837 3 6 19 B bzang kong
78.X 38,1-3 838 3 6 19 B phan phan sgron ma leng pe'u jI keng
78.X 39,1-3 839 3 6 19 B sheg dam 'gI dam ^ing de'u ^ing dam ^ing
78.X 40,1-3 840 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 19/ B, B+ je'u hva 'do dam 'gI leng pe'u ci keng See footnote87
18
78.X 41,1-3 841 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 19 B heng je'u dam 'gI leng pe'u ci keng ji on upper right corner
of col. a recto
78.X 42,1-3 842 3 6 19 B phan phan dpal kyI sgron ma cI keng leng pe'u
78.X 43,1-4 843 4 7 (no a) 19 B legs kong See footnote88
78.X 44,1-4 844 4 7 (no h) 19 B cang zhun tshe dam 'gI ci keng dam 'gI See footnote89
78.X 45,1-3 845 3 6 19 B ^an dge brtan phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog Square style, midline
tshegs, /:/
78.X 46,1-3 846 3 6 19 B phan phan dpal kyI sgron ma leng pe'u cI keng
78.X 47,1-4 847 4 7 (no h) 19 B phan phan dpal kyI sgron ma cI keng leng pe'u
78.X 48,1-4 848 4 6 (no a, h) 19 B ban 'de hye dam ^ing [none] yang zhus de'u ^ing


87 First sheet is standard height (31 cm) and has 19 ll./ col., the rest are 29 cm high and 18 ll./ col.. First dhāraṇī: tad ya tha/ ^om sa rba sang ska ra pa ri
shud dhe/ dhar ma te ma ha na ya pa ri ba re sba hA/. The rest are B+ with tadyathā in middle, or B.
88 Before scribal colophon: dang zhu dang bar zhu sum zhu lags.
89 In scribal colophon, a rubbed-out name: <'bye mdo snang gi briso>. Dhāraṇī divided by shads into twelve sections.
In lieu of a catalogue  249
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
78.X 1-3 849 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 17 B wang rma snang phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang See footnote90
78.X 1-5 850 5 8 15 B leng ho pe'u tshven de'u ^ing dam ^Ing phab weng 27.5 cm high91

Vol. 90: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to forty-six.
86.I.1 1,1-4 15 4 8 (h blank) 19 B brtan legs dge slong shin dar dam tseng leng ce'u
86.I 2,1-3 16 3 6 19 B phan phan dpal gyI sgron ma leng pe'u ci keng
86.I 3,1-4 17 4 7 (f 0.5 width) 19 B lI brtan legs dge slong shin dar leng ce'u ci keng See footnote92
86.I 4,1-4 18 4 7 (f 0.5 width) 19 B leng ho be’u dzven de'u ^ing dam ^ing phab weng
250  Documenting Limitless Life

86.I 5,1-4 19 4 8 (h blank) 19 B lI brtan legs dge slong dam shin dar leng ce'u
tsheng
86.I 6,1-4 20 4 8 (a blank) 19 B ldong nya phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
86.I 7,1-3 21 3 6 19 B ^an dge brtan phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
86.I 8,1-4 22 4 8 (h colophon) 19 B brtan legs dge slong shin dar phrul dkyI rtod pa leng ce'u
86.I 9,1-4 23 4 8 (h colophon) 19 B brtan legs dge slong daM shin dar leng ce'u
tsheng
86.I 10,1-4 24 4 8 (h blank) 19 B lI brtan legs dge slong shin dar leng ce'u ci keng
86.I 11,1-4 25 4 8 (a blank) 19 B lI brtan legs shIn dar dam tseng ce king
86.I 12,1-4 26 4 8 (h blank) 19 B bam stag bzang


90 27 cm high; column widths: a: 33.5 cm; b: 24.5; c: 22; d: 23; e: 23.
91 Panels proceed ab, c, de, f, gh.
92 “46” in pencil by site number (indicating number of rolls in bundle).
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
86.I 13,1-3 27 3 6 (f colophon) 20 B yam lha sbyin
86.I 14,1-3 28 3 6 19 B dze’u hang tsin phab weng ci keng leng pe'u
86.I 15,1-4 29 4 8 (h blank) 19 B brtan legs dge slong shin dar leng ce'u ci keng
86.I 16,1-4 30 4 8 (h blank) 19 B lI brtan legs dge slong shin dar dge slong leng ce'u ban 'de cI keng
86.I 17,1-4 31 4 8 (h blank) 19 B lI brtan legs dge slong dam dge slong ban 'de ce keng
tsheng le'u ceng
86.I 18,1-3 32 3 6 19 B khang tIg tig
86.I 19,1-3 33 3 6 19 B dze'u cang zhi leng ce'u sgron ma shIn dar
86.I 20,1-4 34 4 8 (h blank) 19 B lI brtan legs dge slong shin dar dge slong dam ce king
tsheng
86.I 21,1-3 35 3 6 19 B bzang kong
86.I 22,1-3 36 3 6 19 B cang snang legs
86.I 23,1-3 37 3 6 20 B jIn bzher
86.I 24,1-3 38 3 6 19 B cang klu legs
86.I 25,1-4 39 4 8 (h colophon) 19 B brtan legs dge slong shin dar dge slong dam ce king
tsheng
86.I 26,1-3 40 3 6 19 B 'bye mdo snang phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang
86.I 27,1-4 41 4 8 (a blank) 19 B dze’u hIng tsIn leng pe'u pab weng ci keng
86.I 28,1-3 42 3 6 (a blank, 20 B unsigned dpal mchog phug gI phab dzang
0.5 width)
86.I 29,1-4 43 4 8 (h blank) 19 B lI brtan legs dge slong shin dar phruld kyi rtod pa leng tse'u
86.I 30,1-4 44 4 8 (h colophon) 18 B lI brtan legs dge slong daM dge slong leng ce'u cI keng
tsheng
In lieu of a catalogue  251
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
86.I 31,1-4 45 4 8 (h blank) 19 B brtan legs dge slong shIn dar leng ce'u ci keng
86.I 32,1-4 46 4 8 (h colophon) 19 B brtan legs dge slong daM dge slong leng ce'u cI keng See footnote93
tsheng
86.I 33,1-4 47 4 7 (a 0.5 width) 19 B bam kIm kang
86.I 34,1-4 48 4 8 (a blank) 18 B cang klu legs
86.I 35,1-4 49 4 8 (h colophon) 19 B brtan legs dge slong shin dar ban 'de dam 'tseng leng ce'u
86.I 36,1-4 50 4 8 (h colophon) 19 B lI brten legs dge slong shin dar dam tseng leng ce'u
252  Documenting Limitless Life

86.I 37,1-3 51 3 6 19 B ser thong thong

86.I 38,1-4 52 4 8 (a blank) 19 B dze’u hIng tsin leng pe'u ci keng pab weng Col. h: colophon
86.I 39,1-3 53 3 6 19 B 'bye mdo snang phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang
86.I 40,1-4 54 4 7 (g 0.5 width) 19 B ^an dge brtan phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
86.I 41,1-4 55 4 7 (g 0.5 width) 19 B 'phug 'gI shin dar sgron ma leng ce'u
86.I 42,1-4 56 4 7 (g 0.5 width) 19 B leng ho pe’u tshven dam ^ing de'u ^ing phab weng
86.I 43,1-3 57 3 6 20 B klu legs
86.I 44,1-3 58 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 20 B cang klu legs leng ce'u sgron ma shIn dar
86.I 59 [=HEART SUTRA, NO SCRIBE]
86.I 46,1-3 60 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 21 B ser thong thong


93 Second or third editor (names written in dark red ink) adds the same dhāraṇī B at the end, in dark red ink on col. h.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
Vol. 91: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to twenty-eight.
86.III 1,1-4 61 4 8 (a blank) 19 B phan phan dpal kyI sgron ma ji keng leng pe'u
86.III 2,1-3 62 3 6 19 B heng je'u
86.III 3,1-3 63 3 6 19 B phan phan dpal kyI sgron ma cI keng leng pe'u
86.III 4,1-4 64 4 8 (h colophon) 18 B lI brten legs dge slong shin dar dge slong daM ce king
tsheng
86.III 5,1-4 65 4 6 (no a, h) 19 B chos grub phab cI phab dzang phab cI
86.III 6,1-4 66 4 7 (no a, h 0.5 19 B phan phan sgron ma jI keng leng pe'u
width)
86.III 7,1-3 67 3 6 19 B phan phan dpal kyI sgron ma cI keng leng pe'u
86.III 8,1-3 68 3 6 19 B dpal gyI sgron ma leng pe'u phab ting dpal mchog
86.III 9,1-4 69 4 7 (no h) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u dpal kyI sgron ma cI keng
86.III 10,1-3 70 3 6 19 B phan phan dpal gyI sgron ma leng pe'u ci keng
86.III 11,1-4 71 4 8 (a blank) 19 B phan phan sgron ma jI keng leng pe'u
86.III 12,1-4 72 4 7 (no a) 19 B, B+ je'u hva 'do dpal mchog phug 'gI phab dzang Same as other copies by
this scribe
86.III 13,1-3 73 3 6 19 B phan phan dpal kyI sgron ma jI keng leng pe'u
86.III 14,1-3 74 3 6 20 B cang shIb tig
86.III 15,1-4 75 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B ^an dge brtan phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
86.III 16,1-4 76 4 7 (no h) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma cI keng
86.III 17,1-4 77 4 7 (no a) 19 B cang zhun tse dam 'gI ci keng dam 'gI
In lieu of a catalogue  253
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
86.III 18,1-3 78 3 6 20 B mdo brtsan See footnote94
86.III 19,1-4 79 4 7 (no h) 18 B bam lha legs leng pe'u dpal kyI sgron ma jI keng
86.III 20,1-3 80 3 6 18 B lu tshe hing dam ^Ing de'u ^Ing phab weng
86.III 21,1-3 81 3 6 19 B phan phan sgron ma leng pe'u ci king
86.III 22,1-4 82 4 8 (h blank) 18 B phan phan dpal gyI sgron ma jI keng leng pe'u
86.III 23,1-3 83 3 6 20 B dze’u cang zhi
86.III 24,1-3 84 3 6 19 B phan phan sgron ma jI keng leng pe'u
86.III 25,1-4 85 4 7 (no h) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma cI keng
254  Documenting Limitless Life

86.III 26,1-3 86 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 20 B cang shib tig phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
86.III 27,1-3 87 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 21 B heng je’u shIn dar cI keng leng ce'u
86.III 28,1-3 88 3 6 16 B cang ’gI che ‘u dpal kyI sgron ma jI keng leng pe'u

Vol. 92: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to forty-seven. In his catalogue, La Vallée Poussin (1962, 101) writes “86. VI. [and?] 86. VIa,” probably on
account of some confusion about the last two rolls. The first forty-five proceed in sequence, but the last two are numbered rolls three and one. Of these last
two, the first lists editors not found in any of the other rolls, and the last is of an irregular height and employs both the type A and type B dhāraṇī.
86.VI 1,1-3 89 3 6 19 B lha lod ci keng leng pe'u ci keng
86.VI 2,1-4 90 4 7 (no h) 19 B ban de deng dam shes rab dpal mchog phug 'gI
^ing
86.VI 3,1-4 91 4 8 (h blank) 19 B sag klu gzigs dpal mchog phug 'gI chos kyI rje
86.VI 4,1-4 92 4 7 (no a) 19 B sag klu gzigs dpal mchog phug 'gI ci shan


94 First instance of dhāraṇī begins tad thya tha ^om /: / na mo [...].
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
86.VI 5,1-4 93 4 7 (no a) 19 B ban de deng dam dpal mchog phug 'gI phab dzang
^ing
86.VI 6,1-4 94 4 8 (a blank) 19 B bam thong thong shes rab jI ^in [none] suM zhus See footnote95
86.VI 7,1-4 95 4 7 (no h) 19 B lI chos gyi rgyan shes rab
86.VI 8,1-4 96 4 7 (no a) 19 B ban de daM ^ing shes rab phug 'gi dpal mchog
86.VI 9,1-4 97 4 8 (h blank) 19 B legs rma phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
86.VI 10,1-3 98 3 6 19 B ser thong thong dge slong shin dar leng ce'u cI keng Divides dhāraṇī into 12
sections
86.VI 11,1-4 99 4 8 (a blank) 19 B cang stang ra shes rab dzeng the ji ^in
86.VI 12,1-3 100 3 6 19 B ser thong thong shin dar ban 'de leng ce'u cI keng
86.VI 13,1-3 101 3 6 19 B lha lod dam 'gI phab ting cI keng
86.VI 14,1-4 102 4 7 (no h) 19 B cang stag ra sgron ma leng pe'u cI keng
86.VI 15,1-3 103 3 6 20 B stag ra See footnote96
86.VI 16,1-3 104 3 6 19 B lha lod dam 'gI leng pe'u cI keng See footnote97
86.VI 17,1-3 105 3 6 19 B lha lod cI keng leng pe'u dam 'gI
86.VI 18,1-4 106 4 8 (a blank) 19 B sag klu gzigs phug 'gi dpal mchog jI ^in See footnote98
86.VI 19,1-3 107 3 6 19 B lha lod dam 'gI ci keng lIng pe'u


95 Several subscribed suffixes at ends of lines.
96 Different (messier) hand from previous copy by Cang Stag ra.
97 Thick black ink splotches along base of paper.
98 Red ink bled on verso, probably an impression of five or six Tibetan words.
In lieu of a catalogue  255
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
86.VI 20,1-4 108 4 7 (no a) 19 B lI chos gyi rgyan shes rab dpal mchog phug 'gI
86.VI 21,1-4 109 4 8 19 B stag legs dpal mchog phug 'gI phab dzang
86.VI 22,1-4 110 4 7 (no h) 19 B ser thong thong shin dar leng ce'u cI ke<'u>ng
86.VI 23,1-3 111 3 6 19 B dam ‘gI dam ^ing de'u ^Ing dam ^ing
86.VI 24,1-4 112 4 7 (no h) 19 B lI chos gyi rgyan shes rab ci yin phug 'gI
86.VI 25,1-4 113 4 6 (no a, h) 19 B lha lod cI keng dam 'gI leng pe'u
86.VI 26,1-4 114 4 8 (h blank) 19 B dge legs phab dzang phab cI ben ceng Uses double circles
86.VI 27,1-4 115 4 7 (no a) 19 B dge slong dam shes rab phug 'gI dpal mchog Hand turns very slack
256  Documenting Limitless Life

tseng towards end of sutra99

86.VI 28,1-4 116 4 7 (no h) 19 B lI chos gyi rgyan shes rab phug 'gi dpal mchog
86.VI 29,1-3 117 3 6 19 B ci sun ban 'de phab rtsI phab dzang phab cI See footnote100
86.VI 30,1-4 118 4 8 (a 0.5 width) 19 B wang rma snang shin dar leng ce'u cI keng
86.VI 31,1-4 119 4 6 (no a, h) 18 B cang lha lod dam 'gI leng pe'u cI keng
86.VI 32,1-3 120 3 6 19 B wang rma snang
86.VI 33,1-3 121 3 6 19 B lha lod dam 'gI leng pe'u cI keng
86.VI 34,1-4 122 4 6 (no a, h) 19 B lha lod dam 'gI leng pe'u ci keng
86.VI 35,1-3 123 3 6 19 B khang tig tig
86.VI 36,1-4 124 4 8 (h blank) 19 B sag klu gzigs dpal mchog phug 'gI cI shan
86.VI 37,1-3 125 3 6 20 B jin legs kong


99 Ta tha ga ta ya inserted in first dhāraṇī.
100 Editorial insertion at end of col. a, between ll. 18–19, then curving up the column gutter. Contains dhāraṇī.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
86.VI 38,1-3 126 3 6 19 B ^an phab dzang dam 'gI cI keng daM 'gI See footnote101
86.VI 39,1-4 127 4 8 19 A+ ser thong thong dge slong shin cI keng leng ce'u
dar
86.VI 40,1-4 128 4 8 (h colophon) 18 B sag klu gzigs phug 'gi cI shan
86.VI 41,1-4 129 4 7 (no h) 19 B lha lod dam 'gI cI keng leng pe'u
86.VI 42,1-3 130 3 6 19 B+ je’u hva ‘do Smaller writing, fine
ink.102
86.VI 43,1-4 131 4 8 (h colophon) 19 B cang zhun zhun See footnote103
86.VI 44,1-3 132 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 20 B cang stag lod phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang
86.VI 45,1-3 133 3 6 19 B lha lod cI keng leng pe'u dam 'gi
86.VI 3,1-4 134 4 8 (a blank) 19 B do lha sbyin ban de dam yu heng tsi See footnote104
86.VI 1,1-3 135 3 6 18 B, B+, cang yem tshe 26.5 cm high; possibly in
A, A+ 2 hands


101 Someone has written te gtan la phab, now in fainter red, perhaps in a different hand from final two editors’ names.
102 Long descenders on pa, ba, and ya.
103 Red shad inserted between two black shads in cols c and d. Large red-and-black lha, top left of verso, and twice more, marking panel changeovers.
This is an exemplar copy: after scribal colophon: zhus so yang zhus sum zhus lags// $/:/phug 'gI gyIs dpe lags so//zhus.
104 This booklet has a red-and-white sticker that reads “86.VI” and “No. 310”; top right corner is numbered “46” for the booklet number, but inner
margin roll numbers show “3.” Faded red shads are inserted into the dhāraṇī, on every appearance: na mo bA ga ba te/ ^a pa ri mi ta/ ^a yu gnya na/ su
bi ni shci ta/ ra dza ya/ ta thA ga tha ya/ ^om sa rba sang ska ra/ pa ri shud dha/ dhar ma te/ ma ha na ya/ pa ri ba re sva ha.
In lieu of a catalogue  257
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
Vol. 95: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to fifty-five. On a red-and-white sticker in the middle of col. a, verso of the first booklet, ITJ 310.245:
“80.X” crossed out for “86.X” (see Fig. 19). A second red-and-white sticker is mounted on brown paper on the spine. Above its first line is written in blue ink:
“86x 2.” First line, in black ink: “Ch. 86.X” (blue ink adds “9”). Second line: “No. 310.” Between lines, in blue: “54”; then, trailing onto brown paper, in blue, but
struck through also in blue: “but wrongly numbered two 2s” (see Fig. 21). The site numbers, which appear on the fronts of some booklets and on the backs of
others, are discussed above in Chapter One (see also Figs 15a and 15b).
86.X 1,1-3 245 3 6 19 B phan phan dpal kyI sgron ma leng pe'u ci keng
86.X 2,1-4 246 4 7 (no h) 19 A+ cang shIb tig dge slong daM shIn dar leng pe'u
tsheng
258  Documenting Limitless Life

86.X 1,1-4 247 4 8 (a blank) 19 B lI brtan legs dge slong daM shn dar leng ce'u Earlier scribe’s name
tsheng rubbed out
86.X 2,1-3 248 3 6 19 A+ dvan snang bzang phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog Square style script
86.X 3,1-4 249 4 8 (a blank) 19 B phan phan leng pe'u dpal kyI sgron ma cI keng
86.X 4,1-3 250 3 6 19 B khang thig thIg
86.X 5,1-4 251 4 8 (a blank) 19 B do lha sbyin shin dar leng ce'u sgron ma See footnote105
86.X 6,1-3 252 3 6 19 B cang shib tig
86.X 7,1-3 253 3 6 20 B so hva
86.X 8,1-4 254 4 8 (a blank) 19 B phan phan dpal kyI sgron ma jI keng leng pe'u
86.X 9,1-3 255 3 6 19 B do khong legs See footnote106
86.X 10,1-3 256 3 6 19 B leng ho be'u tshvon dam ^ing de'u ^ing phab weng


105 Conservator’s paper on first and final margins.
106 After scribe’s name, cang [yaMs p]o bris is crossed out (see below ITJ 310.272, and ITJ 310.291). Cols a, c, and e are 20 cm; b, d, and f are 23 cm.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
86.X 11,1-3 257 3 6 19 B jin legs kong
86.X 12,1-4 258 4 7 (no h) 19 B dpal kyI sgron ma leng pe'u sgron ma leng pe'u See footnote107
86.X 13,1-4 259 4 8 (a blank) 19 B unsigned See footnote108
86.X 14,1-4 260 4 7 (h blank, 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u dpal kyI sgron ma jI keng Large lha written on
0.5 width) recto of (blank) a
86.X 15,1-3 261 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 19 B kvag stag rtsan phug 'gi dpal mchog phab dzang
86.X 16,1-3 262 3 6 20 B ser thong thong
86.X 17,1-3 263 3 6 20 B cang lha legs
86.X 18,1-3 264 3 6 20 B phan phan dpal kyI sgron ma jI keng leng pe'u Black ink fingerprints on
col. b verso
86.X 19,1-3 265 3 6 20 B mdo brtsan See footnote109
86.X 20,1-3 266 3 6 19 B chos grub phab cI phab dzang phab cI See footnote110
86.X 21,1-3 267 3 6 19 B cang shib tig
86.X 22,1-3 268 3 6 19 B dze'u hIng tsIn phab weng ci keng leng pe'u
86.X 23,1-4 269 4 7 (no h) 20 B bam lha legs leng pe'u dpal kyI sgron ma cI keng
86.X 24,1-3 270 3 6 19 B phan phan sgron ma jI keng leng pe'u
86.X 25,1-3 271 3 6 19 B cang legs Square style script


107 First dhāraṇī ends with ma ha na ya (skips to 'jam dpal […]).
108 Scribe writes dang zhu dang bar zhu sum zhu lags /.
109 First dhāraṇī adds ^om between tadyathā and namo.
110 Glue on first margin seems to have picked up newsprint (see Fig. 25).
In lieu of a catalogue  259
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
86.X 26,1-3 272 3 6 20 B cang yem tse See footnote111
86.X 27,1-4 273 3 6 20 B klu legs
86.X 28,1-4 274 4 7 (no a) 19 B, B+ je'u hva 'do phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang See footnote112
86.X 29,1-3 275 3 6 19 B cang shib tig
86.X 30,1-3 276 3 6 19 B lu tse shing shes rab jI ^in dpal mchog
86.X 31,1-3 277 3 6 19 B jIn lha bzhe+r phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
86.X 32,1-3 278 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 20 B cang stag lod phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
86.X 33,1-4 279 4 8 (a blank) 19 B stag la brtsan See footnote113
260  Documenting Limitless Life

86.X 34,1-3 280 3 6 19 B, B+ je'u hva 'do See footnote114

86.X 35,1-3 281 3 6 19 B unsigned
86.X 36,1-4 282 4 8 (a, h blank) 19 B 'bye mdo snang Square style, midline
tshegs, /:/
86.X 37,1-3 283 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 17 B rma snang phug 'gi dpal mchog phab dzang
86.X 38,1-3 284 3 6 20 B klu legs
86.X 39,1-3 285 3 6 19 B dpal gyI sgron ma leng pe'u sgron ma leng pe'u See footnote115


111 Strikethrough in scribal colophon: bye <m>klu legs bris so / (perhaps the whole name is crossed out with an extremely fine line) cang yem tse bris / /.
112 Same pattern of first seven dhāraṇīs as in other edited copies by same scribe. Col. a pictured in Fig. 2.
113 First dhāraṇī: tad dya tha ^om sa rba sang ska ra pa ri shud de dar ma te ma ha na ya pa ri ba re sva ha/. In colophon, scribe writes dang zhu bar zhu
sum zhu lags. Newsprint bled into verso margin of col. b.
114 Midline tshegs, but not very square style. Same pattern of first seven dhāraṇīs as in other edited copies by same scribe.
115 Different size manuscript: 45.5 ✕ 27 cm panels, 22.5 cm wide cols. Editorial colophon written vertically up right side of col. e due to space constraints.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
86.X 42,1-4 286 4 7 (no h) 19 B ^im 'phan la brtan [none] zhus dzeng the phab dzang Roll number should
probably be 40
86.X 43,1-4 287 4 8 (h blank) 19 B phan phan dpal kyI sgron ma ci keng leng pe'u Roll number should
probably be 41116
86.X 42,1-3 288 3 6 19 B 'go mdo rtsan Square style; /:/
86.X 43,1-4 289 4 7 (no h) 19 B ^an dge brtan phab dzang phab ci dpal mchog
86.X 44,1-3 290 3 6 19 B jin legs kong phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
86.X 45,1-3 291 3 6 19 B do khong legs See footnote117
86.X 46,1-4 292 4 6 (no a, h) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma ji keng
86.X 47,1-4 293 4 7 (no h) 19 B bam lha legs leng pe'u sgron ma jI keng
86.X 48,1-3 294 3 6 19 B lu tse shing shes rab jI ^in dpa+l chog
86.X 49,1-3 295 3 6 19 A+ shIn dar shes rab dzeng the [none] sum zhus See footnote118
86.X 50,1-4 296 4 8 (a blank) 19 B lu tse shing shes rab jI ^in dpa+l chog See footnote119
86.X 51,1-3 297 3 6 20 B stag ra
86.X 52,1-4 298 4 7 (no a, h blank) 19 B phan phan sgron ma jI keng leng pe'u Big black ink blot on a16
86.X 53,1-3 299 3 6 20 B unsigned


116 Smudged fingerprints in black ink on verso.
117 The ductus of scribe’s name does not resemble the rest of the text, and below it another name is rubbed out ([xxx]u ny[xxx]?), see ITJ 310.255 and ITJ
310.272 above.
118 Beautiful square and small script and midline tshegs (see Figs. 18a–c and Figs. 23a–g).
119 On verso of col. a, top right corner, lha written in fine/faded ink, 6 cm from head to foot, 2 cm wide.
In lieu of a catalogue  261
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
Vol. 97: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to forty-eight. Pencil numbering on the spine governs volume numbering, 1–48. There is inverse
numbering, upside-down on the lower right corner of verso of final column, also in pencil, and not crossed out. Written on a red-and-white sticker on the first
booklet’s cover is: “Ch.86.XIV, No. 310” in black pen. “48” appears in blue pencil in between. Otherwise, site numbers are in black on versos of each roll, some
near the start, most near the end of a roll.
86.XIV 1,1-3 329 3 6 20 B wang klu legs
86.XIV 2,1-4 330 4 7 (no h) 19 B wang sta gu phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
86.XIV 3,1-4 331 4 8 (h blank) 19 B ^im 'phan la brtan 'od snang dzeng the' phab dzang
86.XIV 4,1-3 332 3 6 19 B so hva hva
262  Documenting Limitless Life

86.XIV 5,1-4 333 4 6 (no a, h) 19 B cang ^i tse

86.XIV 6,1-4 334 4 8 (a blank) 19 B bam stag bzang Large lha written on col.
a recto
86.XIV 7,1-3 335 3 6 (f colophon) 20 B cang lha legs
86.XIV 8,1-3 336 3 6 19 B jIn lha bzher
86.XIV 9,1-3 337 3 6 19 B stag lod
86.XIV 10,1-4 338 4 6 (no a, h) 19 B do khong legs See footnote120
86.XIV 11,1-3 339 3 6 20 B ser thong thong
86.XIV 12,1-3 340 3 6 19 B je'u cang zhI At bottom of verso of
final column: log
86.XIV 13,1-3 341 3 6 20 B so hva hva
86.XIV 14,1-4 342 4 8 (h blank) 19 B bam stag bzang


120 Name struck through in scribal colophon: <cang ngur hur bros>. Hand of sutra and colophon resembles that of PT 3850, also attributed to Do Khong legs.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
86.XIV 15,1-3 343 3 6 19 B ling ho zhun tse he jing pIg gi' li phab weng
86.XIV 16,1-4 344 4 8 18 A+ je'u brtan kong phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
86.XIV 17,1-4 345 4 7 (no h) 19 B bam stag slebs he jing pug 'gi he jing
86.XIV 18,1-4 346 4 8 (h colophon) 19 A+ je'u brtan kong phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
86.XIV 19,1-4 347 4 8 (h colophon) 19 B wang klu legs
86.XIV 20,1-4 348 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam stag slebs See footnote121
86.XIV 21,1-3 349 3 6 20 B phan phan
86.XIV 22,1-3 350 3 6 19 B cang snag legs
86.XIV 23,1-3 351 3 6 19 B leng ho zhun tse dge slong he jing shIn dar lI phab weng
86.XIV 24,1-3 352 3 6 19 B je'u brtan kong phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
86.XIV 25,1-3 353 3 6 20 B wang rma snang
86.XIV 26,1-4 354 4 8 (h blank) 19 B wang klu legs
86.XIV 27,1-4 355 4 7 (no a) 19 B unsigned
86.XIV 28,1-4 356 4 8 (h blank) 19 B bam stag bzang
86.XIV 29,1-4 357 4 7 (no h) 19 B bam kim kang
86.XIV 30,1-3 358 3 6 20 B phan phan
86.XIV 31,1-3 359 3 6 19 B heng je'u
86.XIV 32,1-3 360 3 6 20 B cang stag lod
86.XIV 33,1-3 361 3 6 20 B wang rma snang
86.XIV 34,1-4 362 4 7 (no a) 19 B bam kIm kang


121 This may be the first of the two Dunhuang manuscripts used by Konow; its final col. has seven lines before the end title and colophon.
In lieu of a catalogue  263
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
86.XIV 35,1-3 363 3 6 20 B ser thong thong
86.XIV 36,1-3 364 3 6 20 B wang rma snang
86.XIV 37,1-3 365 3 6 20 B khang kog khen
86.XIV 38,1-3 366 3 6 20 B wang rma snang
86.XIV 39,1-3 367 3 6 19 B je'u ^ing tse phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
86.XIV 40,1-4 368 4 7 (no h) 19 B unsigned See footnote122
86.XIV 41,1-3 369 3 6 19 B heng je'u
86.XIV 42,1-3 370 3 6 19 B dam tshong dge slong dam shin dar ci keng
264  Documenting Limitless Life

tseng
86.XIV 43,1-3 371 3 6 20 B stag slebs
86.XIV 44,1-4 372 4 8 (a blank) 19 B bam kim kang
86.XIV 45,1-4 373 4 8 (a blank) 19 A+ je'u brtan kong phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog
86.XIV 46,1-4 374 4 7 (no h) 19 B khang tig tIg
86.XIV 47,1-3 375 3 6 (f colophon) 20 B cang snang legs
86.XIV 48,1-3 376 3 6 20 B phan phan See footnote123

Vol. 98: the booklets are numbered one to forty-two. The last four booklets in this volume, with roll numbers eleven through fourteen, are from bundle 87.XIII
and are therefore documented below in the “Other copies and fragments” section. These four copies have booklet numbers 39–42 from their inclusion here,
but they also have struck-through booklet numbers 1–4, presumably from their previous inclusion with other copies from bundle 87.XIII. Returning to the


122 In lieu of colophon: dang zhu dang bar zhu sum zhu lags.
123 Red-and-white sticker on the back, upside-down, with black pen: “86.XIV, No. 310.”
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
booklets in this volume, the first four have booklet numbers in pencil on their spines. Booklet numbers are also found in the top right corners, with the latter
struck through only in these first four booklets. Site numbers are in black pen on the versos of col. a (i.e. the booklet’s covers).
86.XV 1,1-3 377 3 6 19 B lIng ho hing je'u See footnote124
86.XV 2,1-4 378 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B cang stag lod phug 'gi dpal mchog phab dzang See footnote125
86.XV 3,1-4 379 4 7 (no a) 19 A+ ldang cang / lha de'u ^ing ci keng dam ^ing See footnote126
snang
86.XV 4,1-4 380 4 8 (a, h blank) 19 B ^an btsan zigs See footnote127
86.XV 5,1-4 381 4 7 (no h) 19 B ngo brom phug 'gi dpal mchog phab dzang See footnote128
khyung kong
86.XV 6,1-4 382 4 7 (no h) 19 B khang 'go 'go shin dar cI keng leng pe'u Col. g: colophon
86.XV 7,1-4 383 4 8 (h colophon) 19 B cang stag lod dpal mchog phug 'gI phab dzang
86.XV 8,1-3 384 3 6 19 B stag ra
86.XV 9,1-4 385 4 8 (a blank) 19 B wang rma snang dge slong khan leng ce'u ci keng
po shin dar
86.XV 10,1-4 386 4 7 (no h) 19 B ^an btsan zigs


124 The struck through number on this booklet is “4.”
125 Editors’ names written in bottom margin under g19. Struck through booklet number, top right verso of column a: “3.”
126 Struck through booklet number, top right verso of col. a: “2.” Scribal colophon: ldang cang / lha snang bris // Scribal hand resembles that of PT 3671,
which is attributed to Lha snang (no attributions to Ldang cang, but Lha snang’s family name may be Cang; cf. PT 3899).
127 Two red-and-white stickers on verso of col. a. On spine, perpendicular: “Ch.86.XV, No. 310” in black ink. Between these two lines, in blue: “38.” In
middle of paper a similar sticker says “86.XV, No. 310.” Struck through booklet number, top right verso of col. a: “2.”
128 On verso of col. a: large lha in upper right corner.
In lieu of a catalogue  265
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
86.XV 11,1-4 387 4 8 (a blank, h 19 B wang rma snang dge slong shin dar leng ce'u cI keng
colophon)
86.XV 12,1-4 388 4 (h blank) 19 B do khong legs leng pe'u Col. g: colophon, ^om
86.XV 13,1-4 389 4 7 (no h) 19 B cang stag lod dpal mchog phug 'gi pab dzang
86.XV 14,1-4 390 4 8 (a blank) 19 B gtsug legs he jing lI phab weng dam 'gi
86.XV 15,1-4 391 4 7 (no h) 19 B cang stag lod phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang
86.XV 16,1-3 392 3 6 19 B cang tsI dam leng pe'u
86.XV 17,1-4 393 4 8 (a blank) 19 B cang stag lod phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang
266  Documenting Limitless Life

86.XV 18,1-6 394 3 6 19 A+ lha lod x2

86.XV 19,1-3 395 3 6 19 B cang jung jung phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang
86.XV 20,1-5 396 5 8 19 B cang stag lod dpal mchog dge legs pab dzang Panels proceed ab, cd, e,
fg, h
86.XV 21,1-4 397 4 6 (no a, h) 19 B stag [lod?] dpal mchog phu[g 'gi?] phab dzang
86.XV 22,1-4 398 4 8 (a blank) 19 B ngo brom dpal mchog phug 'gi phab dzang
khyung kong
86.XV 23,1-3 399 3 6 19 B ^im lha bzher
86.XV 24,1-4 400 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B ngo brom dpal mchog phug 'gI phab dzang See footnote129
khyung kong


129 On verso of col. a: large lha in upper right corner.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
86.XV 25,1-4 401 4 8 (a blank) 19 B ngo brom phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang See footnote130
khyung kong
86.XV 26,1-3 402 3 6 19 B cang lha legs phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang
86.XV 27,1-4 403 4 7 (no h) 19 B cang stag ra leng pe'u cI keng sgron ma
86.XV 28,1-4 404 4 7 (no h) 19 B cang stag ra sgron ma cI keng leng pe'u
86.XV 29,1-4 405 4 7 (no a) 19 B wang rma snang shin dar leng ce'u ci keng
86.XV 30,1-4 406 4 7 (no a) 19 B ^an btsan zigs
86.XV 31,1-4 407 4 7 (a blank, no h) 19 B wang rma snang dge slong shIn dar leng ce'u ci keng
86.XV 32,1-3 408 3 6 20 B cang lha legs phug 'gi dpal mchog phab dzang
86.XV 33,1-3 409 3 6 19 B ser thong thong dge slong shin dar leng ce'u ci keng
86.XV 34,1-4 410 4 7 (no a) 19 B- ^an btsan zIgs
86.XV 35,1-4 411 4 8 (a blank) 19 B cang stag lod phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang
86.XV 36,1-4 412 4 7 (no h) 19 B chos gyi ye shes phab weng
86.XV 37,1-4 413 4 7 (no h) 19 B cang stag lod dpal mchog phug 'gI phab dzang
86.XV 38,1-3 414 3 6 19 B lIng ho hing je'u


130 On verso of col. a: large lha in upper right corner.
In lieu of a catalogue  267
268  Documenting Limitless Life

4.2.2 Mixed bundles

Our documentation of the thirteen mixed bundles pays a bit more attention to notes
and circumstances relevant to binding. As described in Chapter One, La Vallée
Poussin penciled a number on the verso of the front of each multiple-sutra roll to
indicate how many copies of the sutra it contained. These numbers are now found
on the cover of the first booklet made from such a roll, but of course they are not
present on the subsequent booklets made from the same roll. We omit these num-
bers in our documentation, but they may be taken for granted.
There are only four edited copies among these bundles, and their explicits, colo-
phons, and corrections are noted in Chapter Five.
As noted in Chapter One, the binders often split a sutra copy into two parts,
binding a three-sutra roll into one booklet with 1.33 copies and into a second booklet
with 1.66. In recording the names of scribes, we begin our record of the second colo-
phon in such cases with “cont.” This advertises that the booklet is a continuation of
the sutra copy bound in the booklet with the previous pressmark. Where a booklet
contains two copies signed by the same scribe – or with the same scribe’s name in
the colophon – we have usually recorded this as, e.g. “jin lha bzher x2.” In cases of
significant orthographic variation between the same names in the same booklet, e.g.
“weng yir; wang yer,” we have recorded this.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
Vol. 117: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to thirty-eight. Each booklet bears a struck-through number, written in pencil on the top right, onto
the verso of col. a (i.e. each booklet’s cover). These are all one number higher than the number, also written in pencil, along the spine in the upper left corner
of the booklet. The exception is the final booklet, which has “38” on the spine and “1” on the verso of booklet.
73.IX.1 1,1-3 1045 3 6 19 B dpal kyI sgron ma Exemplar copy131
73.IX.2 2,1-4 1046 4 6 (no a, h) 19 A+ shIn dar Exemplar copy132
73.IX.3 3,1-3 1047 3 6 20 A+ je'u hva 'do
73.IX.4 4,1-6 1048 3 6 19 A+ 1: unsigned; 2: lu dze shing Sutras in same hand
73.IX.5 5,1-6 1049 3 6 19 A snyal kha ba skyes x2
73.IX.6 6,1-6 1050 3 6 20 A+ cang weng yir x2 See footnote133
73.IX.7 7,1-6 1051 3 6 19 A+ 1: wang hva tshe; 2: unsigned Sutras in same hand; colophon in slack hand134
73.IX.8 8,1-4 1052 3 6 19 A+ cang shib tig
73.IX.8 8,5-9 1053 3 6 19 A+ cont: cang shIb tig x2
73.IX.9 9,1-4 1054 3 6 19 A+ weng yer
73.IX.9 9,5-9 1055 3 6 19 A, A+ cont: weng yir; 2: wang yer
73.IX.10 10,1-4 1056 3 6 19 A+ cang weng yir
73.IX.10 10,5-9 1057 3 6 19 A+ cont: cang weng yir x2


131 Colophon: dpal kyI sgron ma brIs//jI keng zhus/ (red <) sgron ma yang zhus leng pe'u suM zhuste lhag chad bcos nas gtan phab bo// (> red). See also
Chapter Five.
132 Colophon: shIn dar gIs brIso / / (red <) sgron ma zhus/ / ben cer yang zhus leng pe'u suM zhus// (> red). See also Chapter Five.
133 Second Ap copy has squeezed seven lines into the space for four at the bottom of col. f.
134 After first colophon: na mo a myi ta phur /.
In lieu of a catalogue  269
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
73.IX.11 11,1-6 1058 3 6 19 A+ yem lha sbyIn x2 First and last panels 30 cm; others 31.5135
73.IX.11 11,7-12 1059 3 6 19 A+ yam lha sbyIn ✕ 2 See footnote136
73.IX.12 12,1-6 1060 3 6 20 A gu rIb lha lung brtsan x2
73.IX.12 12,7-12 1061 3 6 20 A gu rib lha lung brtsan x2
73.IX.13 13,1-6 1062 3 6 19 A+ je'u hva 'do x2
73.IX.13 13,7-12 1063 3 6 19 A+ 1: unsigned; 2: je'u hva 'do Same hand
73.IX.14 14,1-4 1064 3 6 19 A 'go gyu len
73.IX.14 14,5-10 1065 3 6 19 A cont: 'go gyu len x2
270  Documenting Limitless Life

73.IX.14 14,11-15 1066 3 6 19 A cont: 'go gyu len x2

73.IX.15 15,1-4 1067 3 6 19 A 'go gyu len Chinese characters in middle of final margin, verso
73.IX.15 15,5-10 1068 3 6 19 A cont: 'go gyu len x2 Chinese characters in middle of margin at end of
cont, verso
73.IX.15 15,11-15 1069 3 6 19 A cont: 'go gyu len x2
73.IX.16 16,1-4 1070 3 6 19 A+ cang shib tig
73.IX.16 16,5-10 1071 3 6 19 A+ cont: cang shIb tig x2
73.IX.16 16,11-15 1072 3 6 19 A+ cont: unsigned; 2: cang shib tig Same hand
73.IX.17 17,1-6 1073 3 6 20 A gu rIb lha lung brtsan x2
73.IX.17 17,7-12 1074 3 6 20 A 1: gu rib lha lung brtsan; 2: gu rIb
lha lung brtsan


135 For both sutra copies, the first dhāraṇī goes tad thya tha ^om sa rba sang ska ra [...] (never corrects itself). Others are type A.
136 Copy 1: first dhāraṇī as in previous two copies; copy 2: scribe writes sa, corrects it by writing na mo over it.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
73.IX.17 17,13-18 1075 3 6 20 A gu rib lha lung brtsan x2
73.IX.18 18,1-6 1076 3 6 20 A+ khang kog ken x2
73.IX.18 18,7-12 1077 3 6 20 A+ khang kog ken x2
73.IX.18 18,13-18 1078 3 6 20 A+ khang kog ken x2
73.IX.19 19,1-6 1079 3 6 20 A gu rib lha lung brtsan x2
73.IX.19 19,7-12 1080 3 6 20 A gu rib lha lung brtsan x2
73.IX.19 19,13-18 1081 3 6 20 A gu rIb lha lung brtsan x2 See footnote137
73.IX.19 19,19-24 1082 3 6 20 A gu rIb lha lung brtsan x2 See footnote138

Vol. 119: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to seventy-nine. On the back covers of booklets, in the corner, booklets are numbered backwards, “79”
to “1.” Faded red serial site numbers are written perpendicular on many of the booklets’ front covers, or on some back covers (see Fig. 13). Adjacent, this is
also given in pencil. On a red-and-white sticker mounted on brown paper, is written in pen: “Ch.73.XI, No. 310.” Between these two lines, in pencil: “28.” Next
to them, in blue pen: “+73XV.” Below, on brown mounting paper, in black pen: “+73.XIII, 73.XV.”
73.XI.1 1,1-3 1121 3 6 19 A+ cang tsi dam See footnote139
73.XI.2 2,1-3 1122 3 6 22 A+ cang tsI dam
73.XI.3 3,1-3 1123 3 6 19 A+ leng ho zhun tse See footnote140
73.XI.4 4,1-3 1124 3 6 19 A+ stag brtan
73.XI.5 5,1-3 1125 3 6 21 A+ stag brtan


137 All of these copies attributed to Gu rib are in the same hand, and match that of PT 3516, 3653, and 3755.
138 In pencil on corner, “1” is crossed out. Two red-and-white stickers on back of booklet both say “Ch. 73.IX.1–19.”
139 Another scribe’s name is rubbed out, barely legible: b[tsa]n bzhe+r gyis bris/ /
140 The first dhāraṇī goes tad tya tha ^om sa rba sang ska ra [...] (never corrects itself). Others are type A.
In lieu of a catalogue  271
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
73.XI.6 6,1-3 1126 3 6 19 A+ stag brtan
73.XI.7 7,1-3 1127 3 6 19 A ser thong thong
73.XI.8 8,1-3 1128 3 6 19 A+ cang ^i tse
73.XI.9 9,1-3 1129 3 6 21 A+ stag brtan Two faint Chinese characters on final margin, verso
73.XI.10 10,1-3 1130 3 6 20 A+ lu tshe hing
73.XI.11 11,1-3 1131 3 6 19 A+ stag brtan
73.XI.12 12,1-3 1132 3 6 21, 22 B stag slebs ab, ef: 22 lines; cd: 21 lines
73.XI.13 13,1-3 1133 3 6 19 A+ bdag Colophon: 'di ni bdag gis bris
272  Documenting Limitless Life

73.XI.14 14,1-3 1134 3 6 19 A stag lod In pencil, perpendicular, booklet’s front “2”
73.XI.14 14,4-6 1135 3 6 19 A cang stag lod
73.XI.15 15,1-3 1136 3 6 20 Bx* stag slebs In pencil, perpendicular, booklet’s front “2.”
Scribe skips first dhāraṇī
73.XI.15 15,4-6 1137 3 6 20 B stag slebs
none “15+”,1-3 1138 3 6 19 A 'go gyu len This roll may be from bundle 73.XV
none “15+”,4-6 1139 3 6 19 A unsigned Same hand as previous
73.XI.16 16,1-3 1140 3 6 19 A ser thong thong
73.XI.16 16,4-6 1141 3 6 19 A ser thong thong
73.XI.16 16,7-9 1142 3 6 19 A ser thong thong
73.XI.17 17,1-3 1143 3 6 20 B stag slebs
73.XI.17 17,4-6 1144 3 6 20 B ha stag slebs
73.XI.17 17,7-9 1145 3 6 20 B ha stag slebs
73.XI.18 18,1-3 1146 3 6 19 A+ leng ho zhun tse
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
73.XI.18 18,4-6 1147 3 6 19 A+* leng ho zhun tse See footnote141
73.XI.18 18,7-9 1148 3 6 19 A+ leng ho zhun tse
73.XI.19 19,1-3 1149 3 6 19 A+ cang stag lod
73.XI.19 19,4-6 1150 3 6 19 A+ cang stag lod
73.XI.19 19,7-9 1151 3 6 19 A cang stag lod
73.XI.20 20,1-3 1152 3 6 20 A+ cang snang legs
73.XI.20 20,4-6 1153 3 6 20 A+ cang snang legs
73.XI.20 20,7-9 1154 3 6 20 A+ cang snang legs
73.XI.20 20,10-12 1155 3 6 20 A+ cang snang legs
73.XI.21 21,1-3 1156 3 6 19 A+ 'go le'u le'u
73.XI.21 21,4-6 1157 3 6 19 A+ 'go le'u le'u
73.XI.21 21,7-9 1158 3 6 19 A+ 'go le'u le'u
73.XI.21 21,10-12 1159 3 6 19 A+ 'go le'u le'u
73.XI.22 22,1-3 1160 3 6 20 A se'u hvan See footnote142
73.XI.22 22,4-6 1161 3 6 20 A se'u hvan
73.XI.22 22,7-9 1162 3 6 20 A se'u hvan
73.XI.22 22,10-12 1163 3 6 20 A se'u hvan
73.XI.22 22,13-15 1164 3 6 20 A se'u hvan
73.XI.23 23,1-3 1165 3 6 20 A+ hvA hva hva


141 The first dhāraṇī goes tad tya tha ^om sa rba sang ska ra [...] (never corrects itself). Others are type A.
142 On top of this booklet is a loose slip of white paper with a note in red: “5 copies each”; and in pencil: “22-27.” Possibly intended for the bindery.
In lieu of a catalogue  273
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
73.XI.23 23,4-6 1166 3 6 20 A+ hvA hva hva
73.XI.23 23,7-9 1167 3 6 20 A+ hvA hva hva See footnote143
73.XI.23 23,10-12 1168 3 6 20 A+ hvA hva hva
73.XI.23 23,13-15 1169 3 6 20 A+ hvA hva hva
73.XI.24 24,1-3 1170 3 6 19, 20, 21 A+* bzang kong Dhāraṇī consistently wrong144
73.XI.24 24,4-6 1171 3 6 19 A+* jeg bzang kong Dhāraṇī as above145
73.XI.24 24,7-9 1172 3 6 19 A+* jeg bzang kong Dhāraṇī, size and layout as immediately above
73.XI.24 24,10-12 1173 3 6 19 A+* jeg bzang kong Dhāraṇī, size and layout as immediately above
274  Documenting Limitless Life

73.XI.24 24,13-15 1174 3 6 19 A+* jeg bzang kong Dhāraṇī, size and layout as immediately above
73.XI.25 25,1-3 1175 3 6 19 A ser thong thong Right cols: 23 cm; left: 19
73.XI.25 25,4-6 1176 3 6 19 A ser thong thong Cols as immediately above
73.XI.25 25,7-9 1177 3 6 19 A ser thong thong Cols as immediately above
73.XI.25 25,10-12 1178 3 6 19 A ser thong thong Cols as immediately above
73.XI.25 25,13-15 1179 3 6 19 A ser thong thong Cols as immediately above
73.XI.26 26,1-3 1180 3 6 19 A+ cang tsi dam


143 Sutra begins: $/:/ <rgya gar skad du ^a pa rI mi ta ^ yur nya na su bI ni sci ta ra dza ya ta tha ga ta ya tad thya tha ^om sa rba sang ska ra pa ri shud
dha/ dhar ma te ga ga na sa mu dga' te sba bha ba bi shud de ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva hA/ />.
144 The dhāraṇī consistently reverses tathāgataya and tadyathā ^om. The first dhāraṇī is, for example: tad dya tha na mo bA ga ba te/ ^a pa rI mi ta/ ^a
yu gnya' na / su bI ni schi ta/ ra dzA ya/ tad dya tha ^om/ ta tha ga ta ya/ ^om sa rba sang ska ra/ pa rI shud dha/ dar ma te/ ga ga na sa mu dga te/ sva ba
ba bI shud de/ ma ha na ya/ pa rI bare sva hA/. Right hand cols (b, d, f) narrower than left cols (16.5 : 22.5). Paper is slightly short at 30 cm high. Lines per
col.: ab: 21; cd: 20; ef: 19.
145 Uses three-quarter-width panels: panel one is 30 cm; thereafter 31.5 cm. Right-hand cols (b, d, f) narrower than left cols (16.5 : 22.5). Height 30 cm.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
73.XI.26 26,4-6 1181 3 6 19 A+* cang tsi dam See footnote146
73.XI.26 26,7-9 1182 3 6 19 A+ cang tsi dam
73.XI.26 26,10-12 1183 3 6 19 A+ cang tsI dam
73.XI.26 26,13-15 1184 3 6 19 A+ cang tsi dam
73.XI.27 27,1-3 1185 3 6 19 A ser thong thong Right cols: 22.5 cm; left: 19.5
73.XI.27 27,4-6 1186 3 6 19 A ser thong thong Right cols: 22 cm; left: 20
73.XI.27 27,7-9 1187 3 6 19 A ser thong thong Even cols. Three Chinese characters in first
margin, verso (see Fig. 65)
73.XI.27 27,10-12 1188 3 6 19 A ser thong thong Even cols until panel er, where e is 20 cm and
f is 22.5
73.XI.27 27,13-15 1189 3 6 19 A ser thong thong
73.XI.28 28,1-3 1190 3 6 20 A snyal lha gzigs Right cols: 22.5 cm; left cols: 20.5 147
73.XI.28 28,4-6 1191 3 6 20 A snyal lha gzigs Right cols: 23 cm; left cols: 21
73.XI.28 28,7-9 1192 3 6 20 A unsigned Same hand. Left cols: 20.5 cm; right cols: 23
73.XI.28 28,10-12 1193 3 6 20 A snyal lha gzigs Left cols: 20.5 cm; right cols: 23
73.XI.28 28,13-15 1194 3 6 20 A snyal lha gzigs Left cols: 18 cm; right cols: 23.5 cm
73.XI.28 28,16-18 1195 3 6 20 A snyal kha ba skyes Same hand. Left cols: 20.5 cm; right cols: 23
73.XI.28 28,19-21 1196 3 6 20 A snyal lha gzigs Left cols: 18 cm; right cols: 23.5 cm


146 First dhāraṇī begins tad thya tha <^om sa rba/ sa> ba ga ba te [...]. Left cols wider than right cols on first sheet (a and b); 19.5 : 23.5 cm. On next sheets
they even out.
147 This pressmark is written only in faded red ink, and not in pencil.
In lieu of a catalogue  275
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
73.XI.28 28,22-24 1197 3 6 20 A snyal lha gzigs Left cols: 18 cm; right cols: 23.5 cm
73.XI.28 28,25-27 1198 3 6 20 A snyal lha gzigs Left cols: 18 cm; right cols: 23.5 cm
73.XI.28 28,28-30 1199 3 6 20 A snyal lha gzigs See footnote148

Vol. 114: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to fifty-one. Booklets are numbered in pencil on the spine, with different numbers in the upper right
corner of the front cover, struck through. There are faded red site numbers, mostly illegible, with black site numbers adjacent. On top of the stack of booklets
is a scrap of paper written on in blue pencil: “N.B. 73.XVII now in bundle in Stein order – check Poussin’s pagination if copies are ever bound!” A note in pencil
states that the order was changed from Stein’s order to Poussin's order, initialled “SvS, 7/2/02.”
73.XVII.28 1,1-6 ITJ 1666 3 6 21 A+ 1: jIn lha bzher; 2: unsigned In pencil on upper right cover: “48,” i.e. booklet
276  Documenting Limitless Life

no., crossed out. In pen: “roll of 8”

73.XVII.28 1,7-12 ITJ 1667 3 6 21 A+ jIn lha bzher x2 Booklet no. “49” crossed out
73.XVII.28 1,13-18 ITJ 1668 3 6 21 A+ jIn lha bzher x2 Booklet no. “50” crossed out
73.XVII.28 1,19-24 ITJ 1669 3 6 21 A+ jIn lha bzher x2 Booklet no. “51” crossed out
73.XVII.27 2,1-6 ITJ 1670 3 6 19 A 1:snyal lha gzigs; 2: unsigned Booklet no. “45” crossed out. “Roll of 6” on verso of col. a
73.XVII.27 2,7-12 ITJ 1671 3 6 19 A unsigned x2 Booklet no. “46” crossed out
73.XVII.27 2,13-18 ITJ 1672 3 6 19 A unsigned x2 Booklet no. “47” crossed out
73.XVII.26 3,1-4 ITJ 1673 3 6 21 A+ lha lod Booklet no. “42” crossed out. “Roll of 5” on col. a verso
73.XVII.26 3,5-10 ITJ 1674 3 6 21 A+ cont: unsigned; 2: lha lod Booklet no. “43” crossed out
73.XVII.26 3,11-15 ITJ 1675 3 6 21 A+ cont: lha lod; 2: lha lod Booklet no. “44” crossed out
73.XVII.25 4,1-4 ITJ 1676 3 6 19 A unsigned Booklet no. “39” crossed out. “Roll of 5” on col. a verso


148 Red-and-white sticker on back of booklet: “Ch.73.XI, no. 310.” Left cols: 18 cm; right cols: 23.5.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
73.XVII.25 4,5-10 ITJ 1677 3 6 19 A cont: snyal lha gzigs x2 Booklet no. “40” crossed out
73.XVII.25 4,11-15 ITJ 1678 3 6 19 A cont: unsigned; 2: snyal lha gzigs Booklet no. “41” crossed out
73.XVII.24 5,1-4 ITJ 1679 3 6 19 A ser thong thong Booklet no. “36” crossed out149
73.XVII.24 5,5-10 ITJ 1680 3 6 19 A cont: ser thong thong x2 Booklet no. “37” crossed out150
73.XVII.24 5,11-15 ITJ 1681 3 6 19 A cont: ser thong thong x2 Booklet no. “38” crossed out
73.XVII.23 6,1-4 ITJ 1682 3 6 19 A+ mchims g.yu gzigs Booklet no. “33” crossed out151
73.XVII.23 6,5-10 ITJ 1683 3 6 19 A+ cont: mchims g.yu gzigs x2 Booklet no. “34” crossed out
73.XVII.23 6,11-15 ITJ 1684 3 6 19 A+ cont: mchims g.yu gzigs x2 Booklet no. “35” crossed out
73.XVII.22 7,1-4 ITJ 1685 3 6 21 A+ jIn lha bzher Booklet no. “31” crossed out. “Roll of 3” on col. a verso
73.XVII.22 7,5-9 ITJ 1686 3 6 21 A+ cont: jIn lha bzher x2 Booklet no. “32” crossed out
73.XVII.21 8,1-4 ITJ 1687 3 6 19 A unsigned Booklet no. “29” crossed out152
73.XVII.21 8,5-9 ITJ 1688 3 6 19 A cont: cang se'u hvan 2: se'u hvin Booklet no. “30” crossed out
73.XVII.20 9,1-4 ITJ 1689 3 6 20 A+ lu dze shing Booklet no. “27” crossed out. “Roll of 3” on col. a verso
73.XVII.20 9,5-9 ITJ 1690 3 6 20 A+ cont: lu dze shing x2 Booklet no. “28” crossed out
73.XVII.19 10,1-4 ITJ 1691 3 6 19 A+ lu dze shing Booklet no. “25” crossed out153


149 “Aparimiyāyur jnana – roll of 5” on col. a verso. There are one or two illegible Chinese characters at bottom margin on crossover between panels 1
and 2 of second copy. The conservators have cut the paper on the left edge of panel 2 rather than ungluing the panels, since the text spills over from
panel 1 onto panel 2.
150 Traces of Chinese character(s) in bottom left hand corner of page one of this booklet.
151 “Roll of 5 copies of Aparimiyāyur jnāna – roll of 5” on col. a verso.
152 “Roll of 3” on col. a verso. Omits final title as well as colophon due to lack of space.
153 “Roll of 3” on col. a verso. Two or three Chinese characters in lower corner of col. a verso, upside-down.
In lieu of a catalogue  277
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
73.XVII.19 10,5-9 ITJ 1692 3 6 19 A+ cont: lu dze shing x2 Booklet no. “26” crossed out
73.XVII.18 11,1-4 ITJ 1693 3 6 19 A unsigned Booklet no. “23” crossed out
73.XVII.18 11,5-9 ITJ 1694 3 6 19 A cont: snyal stag snya x2 Booklet no. “24” crossed out
73.XVII.17 12,1-4 ITJ 1695 3 6 20 A+ unsigned Booklet no. “21” crossed out. “Aparimitayur
jnana roll of 3” on col. a verso
73.XVII.17 12,5-9 ITJ 1696 3 6 20 A+ cont: unsigned; 2: ^im lha bzher Booklet no. “22” crossed out
73.XVII.16 13,1-6 ITJ 1697 3 6 19 A+ 1: deng ^ing tse; 2: deng ^ing tsi Booklet no. “16” crossed out154
73.XVII.15 14,1-6 ITJ 1698 3 6 21 A 1: unsigned; 2: khang tig tIg Booklet no. “15” crossed out
278  Documenting Limitless Life

73.XVII.14 15,1-6 ITJ 1699 3 6 19 A 1: unsigned; 2: snyal gzigs Booklet no. “14” crossed out. “Roll of 2” on col. a verso
73.XVII.13 16,1-6 ITJ 1700 3 6 19 A+ khang tIg tig x2 Booklet no. “13” crossed out
73.XVII.12 17,1-6 ITJ 1701 3 6 19 A+ unsigned x2 Booklet no. “12” crossed out155
73.XVII.11 18,1-6 ITJ 1702 3 6 19 A- phan phan x2 Booklet no. “11” crossed out156
73.XVII.10 19,1-6 ITJ 1703 3 6 19 A- unsigned x2 Booklet no. “10” crossed out157
73.XVII.9 20,1-6 ITJ 1704 3 6 19 A snyal stag snya x2 Booklet no. “9” crossed out
73.XVII.8 21,1-3 ITJ 1705 3 6 19 A+ deng ^ing tse Booklet no. “8” crossed out158


154 “Roll of 2.” In both colophons, one name replaces another: deng <de'u de'u bris> / ^ing tse bris /. Second copy omits final title. Handwriting doesn't
match that of ITJ 1705 below or those attributed to DIng ^Ing tshe (310.172 and 173 (93-37 and 38) above.
155 “Aparimitayur jnana roll of 2” on col. a verso. Final six to eight lines of both copies very cramped.
156 “Aparimitayur jnana roll of 2” on col. a verso. Scribe consistently omits tad dya tha from the middle of the dhāraṇīs.
157 “Aparimitayur jnana roll of 2 copies” on col. a verso. Scribe (Phan phan?) consistently omits tad dya tha from the middle of the dhāraṇīs.
158 Rubbed out, below attributed scribe: / < [se'u hvan lxxx] > /; doesn’t appear to have written “bris” and ductus of attributed scribe’s name matches that of text.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
73.XVII.7 22,1-3 ITJ 1706 3 6 20 A+/A* khang tIg tig Booklet no. “7” crossed out159
73.XVII.6 23,1-3 ITJ 1707 3 6 17 A+ cang lyang 'gI Booklet no. “6” crossed out160
73.XVII.5 24,1-3 ITJ 1708 3 6 19 A+ [lha?] bzhe+rr Booklet no. “5” crossed out. Handwriting
resembles that of ITJ 1711 below
73.XVII.4 25,1-4 ITJ 1709 4 7 (no h) 19 A dzI'u cang zhi Booklet no. “4” crossed out
73.XVII.3 26,1-3 ITJ 1710 3 6 20 A+ ^Im lha bzhe+r Booklet no. “3” crossed out
73.XVII.2 27,1-3 ITJ 1711 3 6 20 A+ ^im lha bzhe+r Booklet no. “2” crossed out
73.XVII.1 28,1-3 ITJ 1712 3 6 19 A- phan phan Booklet no. “47” crossed out161
73.XVII.29 29,1-6 ITJ 1713 3 6 19 A- cang shIb tig x2 Booklet no. “18” crossed out
73.XVII.29 29,7-12 ITJ 1714 3 6 19 A- 1: cang shib tig; 2:cang shIb tig Booklet no. “19” crossed out
73.XVII.29 29,13-18 ITJ 1715 3 6 19 A- cang shIb tig x2 Booklet no. “20” crossed out
73.XVII.29 29,19-24 ITJ 1716 3 6 19 A- cang shib tig x2 Booklet no. “17” crossed out

Vol. 101: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to forty-seven. A red-and-white sticker on the cover of the first booklet gives the pressmark (310) and
site number; between these, in blue: “24” indicates the number of rolls.
78.I 1,1-4 433 3 6 19 A gzIgs gong
78.I 1,5-10 434 3 6 19 A cont: gzigs gong x2


159 The opening tad dya tha of the first dhāraṇī appears crossed out diagonally in black ink, yet so does bha ga ba te ^a pa ri on that line, so it may
simply be a slip of the pen.
160 28 cm high; hole patched and written over with sutra on col. e (patch is on the verso). Square style, midline tshegs, high proportion of gi logs.
161 Red-and-white sticker on spine reads: “73.VI, No. 310” in black. Blue crayon corrects: “73.XVII” and, below, “29.” A second sticker, in middle of verso
of col. a., reads: “73.XVI, No. 310.” Blue crayon corrects it to: “73.XVII.”
In lieu of a catalogue  279
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
78.I 1,11-15 435 3 6 19 A; A+ cont: gzigs gong x2
78.I 2,1-4 436 3 6 20 A+ khang btsan bzher
78.I 2,5-10 437 3 6 19 A+ cont: khang btsan bzher x2
78.I 2,11-15 438 3 6 19 A+; A cont: khang btsan bzher x2
78.I 3,1-4 439 3 6 19 A snyal kha ba skyes 2: four Chinese characters on col. a verso, top
right corner
78.I 3,5-10 440 3 6 19 A cont: snyal kha ba skyes x2
78.I 3,11-15 441 3 6 19 A cont: snyal kha ba skyes x2
280  Documenting Limitless Life

78.I 4,1-4 442 3 6 20 A+ khang btsan bzher 1: scribe omits middle tad dya tha on first
instance of dhāraṇī only
78.I 4,5-9 443 3 6 20 A+ cont: khang btsan bzher x2
78.I 5,1-3 444 3 6 (f colophon) 20 A cang stag lod
78.I 6,1-4 445 3 6 19 A+ jIn legs kong
78.I 6,5-9 446 3 6 19 A+ unsigned x2 Jin Legs kong’s hand
78.I 7,1-4 447 3 6 20 A cang stag lod
78.I 7,5-9 448 3 6 20 A cont: cang stag lod x2
78.I 8,1-6 449 3 6 19 A+ cang lha legs x2 Large lha on verso corner of last col.162
78.I 9,1-3 450 3 6 19 A+ ^im lha bzher Dhāraṇī first begins ta thya tha ^om / na mo [...]
78.I 10,1-3 451 3 6 19 A+ ^im lha bzher


162 Quite a bad copy, to judge from many omissions in the dhāraṇī.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
78.I 11,1-7 452 4; 3 7; 6 19 A+ ^Im lha bzher x2 See footnote163
78.I 12,1-4 453 4 7 (no a) 19 A+ ^im lha bzher
78.I 13,1-4 454 3 6 19 A+ khang tIg tig
78.I 13,5-9 455 3 6 19 A+; A cont: khang tIg tig; 2: khang tig tig
78.I 14,1-6 456 3 6 19 A+ ^im lha bzher x2
78.I 15,1-3 457 3 6 19 A+ kim lha bzher Verso of a: lha bzher, vertically
78.I 16,1-4 458 3 6 19 A+ lu tshe hing
78.I 16,5-10 459 3 6 19 A+ cont: lu tshe hing x2
78.I 16,11-16 460 3 6 19 A+ cont: lu tshe hing x2
78.I 17,1-3 461 3 6 19 A+ lu tshe hing
78.I 18,1-6 462 3 5 (no a); 6 20 A+ 1: unsigned; 2: lu tshe hing
78.I 19,1-4 463 3 6 19 A+ bam rma bzher
78.I 19,5-10 464 3 6 19 A+ cont: bam rma bzher x2 2: omits much of dhāraṇī in first instance: tad dya
tha ^om sa rba [...]
78.I 19,11-15 465 3 6 19 A+ bam rma bzher x2
78.I 20,1-4 466 3 6 19 A+ li stag snang
78.I 20,5-10 467 3 6 19 A+ cont: stag snang x2
78.I 20,11-15 468 3 6 19 A+ cont: stag snang x2
78.I 21,1-4 469 3 6 19 A unsigned Same hand as following


163 In the first copy, panel 2 consists of a single col. (c); col. g begins the new sutra copy, but stops after $/// rgya.
In lieu of a catalogue  281
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
78.I 21,5-9 470 3 6 19 A cont: khang tig tig; 2: snyal stag snya See footnote164
78.I 22,1-4 471 3 6 19 A+ cang legs rtsan
78.I 22,5-10 472 3 6 19 A+ cont: cang legs rtsan; 2: unsigned
78.I 22,11-15 473 3 6 19 A+ cont: cang legs rtsan x2
78.I 23,1-4 474 3 6 19 A snyal lha gzigs
78.I 23,5-10 475 3 6 19; 18 A cont: snyal lha gzigs x2
78.I 23,11-15 476 3 6 18; 19 A cont: snyal lha gzigs x2
78.I 24,1-4 477 3 6 19 A unsigned Snyal Lha gzigs’s hand. Site no. in pencil
282  Documenting Limitless Life

78.I 24,5-10 478 3 6 19 A cont: snyal lha gzigs x2

78.I 24,11-15 479 3 6 19 A cont: snyal lha gzigs x2 See footnote165

Vol. 102: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to forty-three. Booklet numbers are in pencil in the upper left corner on the binding, but also penciled
into top right corner. The latter numbers are more jumbled, and most are struck through; they do not proceed in reverse order, unlike in some other volumes.
On the cover of the first booklet is a red-and-white sticker on brown paper, stating: “Ch.78.II, No. 310.” In blue, between these lines: “26.” In pencil, on brown
paper: “LVP 310 Ch.78.II.26.” This would suggest that the roll numbers follow the inverse order of the intended serial site numbers.
78.II 1,1-4 480 3 6 20 A+ cang legs bzang
78.II 1,5-10 481 3 6 20 A+ cont: cang legs rtsan x2
78.II 1,11-15 482 3 6 20 A+ cont: cang legs rtsan; 2: unsigned
78.II 2,1-6 483 3 6 21 A+ cang legs bzang x2 On binding in pencil: “4”; struck through in
upper right: “10”


164 Scribal hand resembles that of Snyal Stag snya (e.g. PT 3628) against that of Khang tig tig (e.g. PT 3557).
165 A red-and-white sticker on the back of this booklet gives pressmark (310) and site number; between these, in blue: “24” indicates the number of rolls.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
78.II 2,7-12 484 3 6 20 A+ cang legs bzang x2
78.II 3,1-3 485 3 6 19 B ^i 'do
78.II 4,1-6 486 3 6 19 A gu rib lha lung brtsan x2
78.II 4,7-12 487 3 6 19 A gu rib lha lung brtsan x2
78.II 5,1-3 488 3 6 19 A+ cang legs bzang
78.II 6,1-4 489 4 7 (no h) 19 B li stag legs Large, more rounded hand than copies below166
78.II 7,1-3 490 3 6 20 A unsigned See footnote167
78.II 8,1-3 491 3 6 20 A unsigned Same hand as previous
78.II 9,1-4 492 3 6 19 A+ lu ju ju Slack dbu can, descenders at 5 to 5:30
78.II 9,5-10 493 3 6 19 A+ cont: lu ju ju x2
78.II 9,11-15 494 3 6 19 A+ cont: lu ju ju x2
78.II 10,1-3 495 3 6 19 A+ cang lha legs Name rubbed out and written over in thick ink,
separate hand
78.II 11,1-3 496 3 6 20 A lI stag legs See footnote168


166 This copy doesn't share their abrupt ending, either. Scribe’s name written in lighter ink than text, as are those attributed to Li Stag legs and Cang Kong
tse, below. Those latter all share square style handwriting and abrupt ending to sutra (mdo rdzogs so or rdzogs so), so perhaps an anonymous scribe (or Zhim
Tshir tshIr of ITJ 310.517) wrote them and someone traded or sold them to other scribes. Some of these colophons, e.g. at ITJ 310.490 and 491, are left blank.
167 Same hand at ITJ 310.517 (Zhim Tshir tshir), below: squarish style with midline tshegs, ungrammatical shads, /:/ punctuation, and abrupt ending;
ends incipit with thra'; $ to 12:00 o’ clock.
168 Square style, midline tshegs; no /:/ punctuation or non-grammatical shads at end of lines. Inserts shad in explicit after thams cad, where ITJ 310.490,
491, and 517 do not. $ points to 3:00. Not the same hand as “Li Stag legs” at ITJ 310.496. Scribe’s name written in lighter ink than text.
In lieu of a catalogue  283
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
78.II 12,1-3 497 3 6 19 A cang kong tse See footnote169
78.II 13,1-3 498 3 6 20 A+ unsigned Not same hand as previous
78.II 14,1-6 499 3 6 19 A+ 1: unsigned; 2: kong tse See footnote170
78.II 14,7-12 500 3 6 20 A+ unsigned x2 Same hand as previous
78.II 14,13-18 501 3 6 20 A+ kong tse x2 Same hand as previous
78.II 14,19-24 502 3 6 19 A+ 1: unsigned; 2: kong tse Same hand as previous
78.II 14,25-30 503 3 6 19 A+ kong tse x2 Same hand as previous
78.II 15,1-4 504 3 6 21 A unsigned See footnote171
284  Documenting Limitless Life

78.II 15,5-9 505 3 6 21 A cont: unsigned x2 Same hand as previous. Booklet number in
pencil, “24,” is in error
78.II 16,1-4 506 3 6 19 A+* bzang kong ITJ 310.506-15 all in the same hand, with same
idiosyncratic dhāraṇī172
78.II 16,5-10 507 3 6 19 A+* cont: jeg bzang kong; 2: bzang kong
78.II 16,11-15 508 3 6 19 A+* cont: bzang kong x2


169 Same hand as previous: square style, midline tshegs, ungrammatical shads at the end of the line (ten out of nineteen lines end in shads, not counting
-g as a quasi-shad) e.g. see end line pa / la. No /:/ punctuation, and writing is slightly smaller than in rolls 7, 8, 22, and following. $ points to 3:00. Scribe’s
name written in lighter ink, very similar to previous roll.
170 Not square style, large, but no midline tshegs or abrupt ending. In the first copy nineteen lines are lined, but in col. f, five lines crammed into space
provided for two lines – probably in order to reach the end of the text in three panels.
171 Same style as ITJ 310.489: square style, uses /:/ and some ungrammatical shads; incipit ends with tra, not thra', as in rolls 7, 8, 22 and following; abrupt
ending to the sutra.
172 Scribe consistently writes ra dza ya / tad dya tha ^om / ta thaga ta ya / ^om sarba [...]. Orthographic variants (though usually sic) in the middle of the dhāraṇīs.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
78.II 17,1-4 509 3 6 19 A+* unsigned
78.II 17,5-10 510 3 6 19 A+* cont: bzang kong x2
78.II 17,11-15 511 3 6 19 A+* cont: bzang kong x2
78.II 18,1-4 512 3 6 19, 20 A+* bzang kong First 2 panels are 20 ll., next 2 are 19 ll.
78.II 18,5-10 513 3 6 20 A+* cont: bzang kong x2
78.II 19,1-3 514 3 6 20 A+* bzang kong
78.II 20,1-3 515 3 6 20 A+* bzang kong
78.II 21,1-3 516 3 6 20 A- lIng ho bing bing Similar hand to ITJ 310.506-15, not square style173
78.II 22,1-3 517 3 6 21 A zhim tshIr tshir Same style as ITJ 310.490, 491174
78.II 23,1-6 518 3 6 21 A zhim tshir tshIr x2 Squarish, similar but not identical to previous hand175
78.II 24,1-3 519 3 6 21 A unsigned See footnote176
78.II 25,1-6 520 3 6 21 A 1: zhim tshir tshIr; 2: unsigned Second copy in same hand as first. Square style;
similar hand as previous
78.II 25,7-12 521 3 6 21 A 1: zhIm tshIr tshir; 2: zhIm tshir tshir Same hand as previous
78.II 26,1-6 522 3 6 21 A 1: zhIm tshir tshIr; 2: zhIm tshIr tshir Same hand as ITJ 310.519


173 Scribe always omits tad dya tha in the middle of the dhāraṇī. After colophon: “offered to Bam Stag slebs as a gift” (lIng ho bing bing gis 'bris / / bam
stag slebs gyi lag stang gi phul ba / /).
174 Not the same hand as PT 1478 and 310.161, also ascribed to Zhim Tshir tshir; no kha on verso either.
175 No /:/, few ungramatical shads at line ends; and explicit ends in tra.
176 Square, similar to previous, uses /:/ ungrammatical shads at line ends; incipit ends in tra.
In lieu of a catalogue  285
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
Vol. 105: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to forty-nine. The first roll/ booklet, ITJ 1617, bears the site number 78.VI; the second roll/ booklet, ITJ
1618, and seventh roll (tenth booklet), ITJ 1626, bear the site number 78.V. No others bear site numbers. A red-and-white sticker in the middle of the first
booklet’s cover states: “Ch.78.VI <No. 97> 310.” In a small sticker on spine: “78.V No. 310” and in blue: “2 [illegible], 17 + 24” (see Fig. 17). Based on this
information, we surmise that the first twenty-four rolls – minus the very first roll, which is an edited exemplar – belong to bundle 78.V, and that the last 17 –
plus the edited exemplar – belong to 78.VI. We start, therefore, with the second booklet, and catalogue the first booklet – the edited exemplar – as the last.
Incidentally, that is how this latter booklet was once numbered.
78.V 1,1-4 ITJ 1618 3 6 19 A+ lha lod “2” on spine in pencil, “1” struck through in
upper right corner177
[78.V] 1,5-10 ITJ 1619 3 6 19 A+ cont: lha lod x2 “3” on spine, “2” struck through
286  Documenting Limitless Life

[78.V] 1,11-15 ITJ 1620 3 6 19 A+ cont: lha lod x2 “4” on spine, “3” struck through
[78.V] 2,1-6 ITJ 1621 3 6 20 A+ bam stag bzang x2 ^a myi ta phur in colophon. “5” on spine, “11”
struck through
[78.V] 1,1-6 ITJ 1622 3 6 20 A+ cang snang legs x2 “6” on spine, “10” struck through178
[78.V] 4,1-6 ITJ 1623 3 6 20 A+ 1: 'bye hing; 2: 'bye hIng “7” on spine, “9” struck through
[78.V] 5,1-6 ITJ 1624 3 6 20 A+ hvan hing dar x2 “8” on spine, “8” not struck through
[78.V] 6,1-6 ITJ 1625 3 6 19 A+ ser thong thong x2 “9” on spine, “7” struck through
78.V 7,1-6 ITJ 1626 3 6 19 A 1: gu rib lhas btsha's; 2: gu rIb lhas btsas “10” on spine, “6” struck through179
[78.V] 8,1-4 ITJ 1627 3 6 18 A mchims g.yu gzIgs “11” on spine, “4” struck through
[78.V] 8,5-9 ITJ 1628 3 6 18 A+ cont: unisgned; 2: mal gzIgs kong Sutras in same hand. “12” on spine, “5” struck through


177 Red-and-white sticker on col. a verso: “78.V, No. 310.”
178 ^a myi ta phur in first colophon. Thin strip of paper from cut-off following panel on final margin (verso).
179 Site number in pen, verso of col. c. In changeover, bottom corner of col. d, verso: ershi wu zhang 二十五張 (“25 sheets”).
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
[78.V] 9,1-4 ITJ 1629 3 6 19 A+ lu ju ju “13” on spine, “38” struck through
[78.V] 9,5-9 ITJ 1630 3 6 19 A+ cont: lu ju ju x2 “14” on spine, “39” struck through
[78.V] 10,1-6 ITJ 1631 3 6 20 A+ khang stag snya x2 “15” on spine, “37” struck through180
[78.V] 11,1-3 ITJ 1632 3 6 20 A gnang rma gong “16” on spine, “33” struck through
[78.V] 12,1-6 ITJ 1633 3 6 20 A snyal stag snya x2 “17” on spine, “34” struck through
[78.V] 13,1-3 ITJ 1634 3 6 20 B ha stag slebs “18” on spine, “35” struck through
[78.V] 14,1-3 ITJ 1635 3 6 19 A gu rib brtan kong? “19” on spine, “36” struck through181
[78.V] 15,1-6 ITJ 1636 3 6 19 A+ so hva hva x2 “20” on spine, “25” struck through
[78.V] 16,1-3 ITJ 1637 3 6 20 A+ jIn lha bzher “21” on spine, “26” struck through
[78.V] 17,1-6 ITJ 1638 3 6 20 A+ khang btsan bzher x2 “22” on spine, “40” struck through
[78.V] 17,7-12 ITJ 1639 3 6 20 A+ khang btsan bzher x2 “23” on spine, “41” struck through
[78.V] 18,1-6 ITJ 1640 3 6 20 A 1: unsigned; 2: gnyal stag snya “24” on spine, “42” struck through
[78.V] 19,1-6 ITJ 1641 3 6 20 A snyal lha gzigs x2 “25” on spine, “43” struck through
[78.V] 20,1-6 ITJ 1642 3 6 19 A snyal lha gzigs x2 “26” on spine, “44” struck through
[78.V] 21,1-7 ITJ 1643 3; 4 6; 7 (no h) 20; 19, 18 A+ 1: lha legs; 2: unsigned “27” on spine, “45” struck through182


180 Thin strip of paper from cut-off following panel on final margin (verso).
181 On bottom of col. b: gu rib brtan kong gi sug ris. Roll ends before sutra is finished, but glue on the final margin suggests that it was once attached to
a following panel. Signs of Chinese at the panel changeovers, but only right half of the characters extant. Also, oddly, there is no overlap between panel
1 and 2, and the Tibetan runs over from one panel to another, (see especially the bottom line, corresponding to b14 in PT 3901). There is sign of overlap
between panel 2 and 3 though. Final panel is missing; sutra copy ends in middle of §39 at end of col. f.
182 Second sutra copy starts with nineteen lines per col., then ef, g of second copy are eighteen lines per col. Copies may be different hands. Small format:
panels at 28.5 cm high.
In lieu of a catalogue  287
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
[78.V] 22,1-6 ITJ 1644 3 6 19 A+ lu tshe hing x2 “28” on spine, “46” struck through
[78.V] 23,1-3 ITJ 1645 3 6 19 A+ lu tshe hing “29” on spine, “47” struck through
[78.V] 24,1-6 ITJ 1646 3 6 20 A+ jIn lha bzher x2 “30” on spine, “48” struck through
[78.VI] 1,1-4 ITJ 1647 3 6 21 A- cang shIb tig “31” on spine, “14” struck through
[78.VI] 1,5-9 ITJ 1648 3 6 19 A- cont: cang shIb tig x2 “32” on spine, “20” struck through
[78.VI] 2,1-3 ITJ 1649 3 6 20 A+ mchIms brtan la bse “33” on spine, “12” struck through
[78.VI] 3,1-6 ITJ 1650 3 6 19 A- 1: unsigned; 2: cang shib tig “34” on spine, “13” struck through
[78.VI] 4,1-3 ITJ 1651 3 6 19 A unsigned “35” on spine, “12” struck through
288  Documenting Limitless Life

[78.VI] 5,1-3 ITJ 1652 3 6 19 A- stag skyes “36” on spine, “13” struck through
[78.VI] 6,1-6 ITJ 1653 3 6 19 A+ 1: jIn lha bzhe+r; 2: jIn lha bzher “37” on spine, “14” struck through
[78.VI] 7,1-6 ITJ 1654 3 6 19 A+ lha lod x2 “38” on spine, “15” struck through
[78.VI] 8,1-6 ITJ 1655 3 6 20; 19 A+ 1: lha legs; 2: cang hIg tshe These copies look to be in separate hands. “39”
on spine, “16” struck through
[78.VI] 9,1-6 ITJ 1656 3 6 20 A+ cang jung jung x2 “40” on spine, “27” struck through183
[78.VI] 10,1-6 ITJ 1657 3 6 19 A khang tIg tig x2 “41” on spine, “28” struck through
[78.VI] 11,1-3 ITJ 1658 3 6 20 A+ cang jung jung First dhāraṇī begins tad thya tha ^om na mo [...].
“42” on spine, “29” struck through
[78.VI] 12,1-6 ITJ 1659 3 6 21 A+; A- khang btsan bzher x2 “43” on spine, “30” struck through184


183 First dhāraṇī begins tad thya tha ^om na mo [...] and variants. After second colophon: chad lag ma mchis/ /. Thin strip of paper from cut-off following
panel on final margin (some Tibetan went over the panel crossover, necessitating the cutting-off instead of ungluing the panels).
184 Unruled line between first and second line (not counted here as a line). Scribe omits tad dya tha from the middle of many (but not most) of the dhāraṇīs.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
[78.VI] 13,1-6 ITJ 1660 3 6 20 A+; A- 1: khang btsan bzhe+r; 2: btsan bzher Dhāraṇīs as in preceding copy. “44” on spine,
“31” struck through
[78.VI] 14,1-6 ITJ 1661 3 6 19 A+ jIn lha bzher x2 First dhāraṇī begins tad thya tha ^om na mo [...].
“45” on spine, “32” struck through
[78.VI] 15,1-4 ITJ 1662 3 6 20 A mal gzIgs kong “46” on spine, “21” struck through
[78.VI] 15,5-9 ITJ 1663 3 6 20 A cont: mal gzIgs kong; 2: mal gzIgs kong “47” on spine, “22” not struck through
[78.VI] 16,1-3 ITJ 1664 3 6 20 A mchims g.yu bzIgs Same hand as previous. “48” on spine, “23” not
struck through
[78.VI] 17,1-3 ITJ 1665 3 6 20 A mal gzigs kong Same hand as previous. No number on spine,
“24” struck through
78.VI 1,4 ITJ 1617 2 3 (no h) 19 B cang tsi dam “1” on spine, “49” struck through185

Vol. 106: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to seventy-two. Booklet numbers are in pencil on corners of the booklet covers. No site numbers are
written onto the manuscripts themselves, excepting the final roll/ booklet, as discussed in Chapter One. On the spine of the first booklet, on a red-and-white
sticker mounted on brown paper, is written: “78.VII, No. 310” and in blue: “60.”
78.VII[.60] 1,1-4 612 3 6 19 A snyal stag snya
[78.VII.60] 1,5-9 613 3 6 19 A cont: snyal stag snya x2
[78.VII.59] 2,1-3 614 3 6 19 A+ stag tse
[78.VII.58] 3,1-3 615 3 6 19 A+ stag


185 In pencil, top right of cover: “Ch.78.VI (97),” with “97” struck through (see Fig. 17). In pen on recto of col. c: “78.VI.” Exemplar copy, edited by Leng pe’u.
First panel ab is torn on left. Second and final page in booklet is g, with colophon, in a separate hand, as if two separate fragments were bound into one.
In lieu of a catalogue  289
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
[78.VII.57] 4,1-6 616 3 6 19 A+ stag tse x2
[78.VII.56] 5,1-6 617 3 6 19 A+ 1: ^an stag slebs; 2: ^an stag tse
[78.VII.55] 6,1-6 618 3 6 19 A+ 1: unsigned; 2: lu tshe hing
[78.VII.55] 6,7-10 619 3 6 19 A+ lu tshe hing
[78.VII.55] 6,11-15 620 3 6 19 A+ cont: lu tshe hing x2
[78.VII.54] 7,1-6 621 3 6 19 A+ lu ju ju x2
[78.VII.54] 7,7-12 622 3 6 19 A+ lu ju ju x2
[78.VII.53] 8,1-3 623 3 6 19 A 'be nya rma
290  Documenting Limitless Life

[78.VII.52] 9,1-3 624 3 6 19 A se tong pa'

[78.VII.51] 10,1-3 625 3 6 19 A be nya rma
[78.VII.50] 11,1-3 626 3 6 19 A se tong pa
[78.VII.49] 12,1-3 627 3 6 19 A sI tong pa
[78.VII.48] 13,1-3 628 3 6 19 A 'be nya rma
[78.VII.47] 14,1-3 629 3 6 20 A 'be nya rma
[78.VII.46] 15,1-3 630 3 6 19 A 'be nya rma
[78.VII.45] 16,1-3 631 3 6 19 A se tong pA
[78.VII.44] 17,1-3 632 3 5 (no f) 19 A se tong pa
[78.VII.43] 18,1-3 633 3 5 (no a) 19 A se tong pa
[78.VII.42] 19,1-3 634 3 5 (no a) 19 A se thong pa
[78.VII.41] 20,1-3 635 3 6 20 A 'be nya rma
[78.VII.40] 21,1-3 636 3 6 19 A se thong pa
[78.VII.39] 22,1-3 637 3 5 (no f) 19 A se tong pA
[78.VII.38] 23,1-3 638 3 5 (no f) 19 A seng tong pa
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
[78.VII.37] 24,1-3 639 3 5 (no f) 19 A se tong pa
[78.VII.36] 25,1-3 640 3 6 20 A 'be nya rma
[78.VII.35] 26,1-3 641 3 6 19 A 'be nya rma
[78.VII.34] 27,1-3 642 3 6 19 A se thong pa
[78.VII.33] 28,1-3 643 3 6 19 A mchims lha rton
[78.VII.32] 29,1-3 644 3 6 21 A se thong pa
[78.VII.31] 30,1-3 645 3 5 (no f) 19 C se thong pa See footnote186
[78.VII.30] 31,1-3 646 3 6 20 C se thong pa
[78.VII.29] 32,1-3 647 3 6 19 A se thong pa
[78.VII.28] 33,1-3 648 3 6 19 A se tong pA
[78.VII.27] 34,1-3 649 3 6 19 A se thong pa See footnote187
[78.VII.26] 35,1-3 650 3 6 19 A se thong pa
[78.VII.25] 36,1-3 651 3 6 20 C se thong pa
[78.VII.24] 37,1-3 652 3 6 20 A se thong pa
[78.VII.23] 38,1-3 653 3 5 (no f) 19 A si tong pa'
[78.VII.22] 39,1-3 654 3 6 19 A se thong pa
[78.VII.21] 40,1-3 655 3 6 19 A se thong pa
[78.VII.20] 41,1-3 656 3 6 19 A se thong pa
[78.VII.19] 42,1-3 657 3 6 20 A+ cang jung jung


186 Writing is small and compressed on the second half of the last col., then expands again for the end and colophon (see Fig. 54).
187 In scribal colophon <rma kong gyis briso> is replaced with se thong pa. Note also variant spellings of Se thong pa in these copies.
In lieu of a catalogue  291
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
[78.VII.18] 43,1-3 658 3 6 19 A+ cang jung jung
[78.VII.17] 44,1-3 659 3 6 19 A+ so hva hva
[78.VII.16] 45,1-3 660 3 6 19 A+ cang jung jung
[78.VII.15] 46,1-3 661 3 6 21 A+ so hva hva
[78.VII.14] 47,1-5 662 3 6 20 A+ unsigned
[78.VII.14] 47,6-11 663 3 6 20 A+ cont: wang hva tshe x2
[78.VII.14] 47,12-15 664 3 6 20; 19 A+ cont: wang hva tshe x2
[78.VII.13] 48,1-6 665 3 6 20 A+ 1: cang wing yir; 2: spro phod mol Both texts and colophons written in the same hand
292  Documenting Limitless Life

[78.VII.12] 49,1-4 666 3 6 19 A+ kong tse

[78.VII.12] 49,5-9 667 3 6 20 A+ cont: kong tshe x2
[78.VII.11] 50,1-3 668 3 6 20 A+ cang weng yir
[78.VII.10] 51,1-4 669 3 6 19 A ser thong thong
[78.VII.10] 51,5-10 670 3 6 19 A cont: ser thong thong x2
[78.VII.10] 51,11-15 671 3 6 19 A cont: ser thong thong x2
[78.VII.9] 52,1-3 672 3 6 21 A+ cang jung jung
[78.VII.8] 53,1-6 673 3 6 19 A+ cang weng yir x2
[78.VII.7] 54,1-3 674 3 6 19 A+ ^an stag tse
[78.VII.6] 55,1-4 675 3 6 19 A+ leng ho zhun tse
[78.VII.6] 55,5-9 676 3 6 19 A+ cont: leng ho zhun tse x2
[78.VII.5] 56,1-3 677 3 6 19 A+ leng ho zhun tse
[78.VII.4] 57,1-4 678 3 6 19 A- unsigned
[78.VII.4] 57,5-10 679 3 6 19 A- cont: phan phan; 2: unsigned
[78.VII.4] 57,11-15 680 3 6 19 A- cont: phan phan; 2: phan phan
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
[78.VII.3] 58,1-3 681 3 6 19 A snyal stag snya
[78.VII.2] 59,1-3 682 3 6 19 A unsigned This is the sutra copy pictured in Stein’s plates of
“Ch.05” (see Fig. 5)188
78.VII.1 60,1-3 683 3 6 19 A+ ^an stag tse Exemplar copy, edited by Bal Gtsug rton189

Vol. 110: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to sixty-five. A red-and-white sticker on the front of the first booklet, mounted on brown paper, gives
the site number and pressmark. Between these, in blue, “40” indicates the number of rolls.
78.XI 1,1-6 851 3 6 19 A+ so hva hva x2
78.XI 2,1-6 852 3 6 19 A+ yam lha sbyin x2 1: starts tadyathā ^om
78.XI 2,7-12 853 3 6 19 A; A+ yam lha sbyin x2 2: first dhāraṇī begins tadyathā ^om sarva.
Insertion adds na mo...tathāgataya
78.XI 3,1-3 854 3 6 19 A+ yam lha sbyin First dhāraṇī begins tadyathā ^om <sarva
sangskara> na mo
78.XI 4,1-5 855 3 6 19 B ha stag slebs
78.XI 4,6-9 856 3 6 19 B cont: ha stag slebs x2
78.XI 5,1-4 857 3 6 19 A+ unsigned Same hand as the rest of roll
78.XI 5,5-10 858 3 6 19 A+ cont: khang kog hen; 2; khang kog ken
78.XI 5,11-15 859 3 6 19 A+ cont: khang kog khen; 2; khang kog On verso of final panel: lha dang /
<kog> khen


188 Bottom of final panel has upside-down start of sutra.
189 Red-and-white sticker on middle of verso of final col., upside-down: “78.VII, No. 310.” On verso of col. a, near bottom, upside-down, in black pen,
“78.VII.1”; next to this, India Office Library stamp; and within stamp, in pencil: “Ch.05” (see Fig. 8).
In lieu of a catalogue  293
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
78.XI 6,1-4 860 3 6 19 A+ cang legs rtsan
78.XI 6,5-10 861 3 6 19 A+ cont: chang legs rtsan; 2: cang legs rtsan
78.XI 6,11-15 862 3 6 19 A+ cont: cang legs rtsan x2 2: first dhāraṇī begins tad dya tha <^om sa rba
sang> na mo
78.XI 7,1-4 863 3 6 19 A+ jIn lha bzher
78.XI 7,5-10 864 3 6 19 A+ cont: jIn lha bzher x2
78.XI 7,11-15 865 3 6 19 A+ cont: jIn lha bzher x2
78.XI 8,1-3 866 3 6 19 A+ khang 'go 'go
294  Documenting Limitless Life

78.XI 9,1-6 867 3 6 19 A+ 'e wam khyI brug x2 1: colophon hand does not match sutra hand
78.XI 9,7-12 868 3 6 19 A+ 1: 'e bam khyI brug; 2: 'e wam khyI brug
78.XI 10,1-3 869 3 6 19 A+ e wam khyi brug
78.XI 11,1-4 870 3 6 19 A+ khyi brug Same hand as previous
78.XI 11,5-10 871 3 6 19 A+ cont: khyI brug x2
78.XI 11,11-15 872 3 6 19 A+ cont: khyI brug; 2: 'e wam khyI brug
78.XI 12,1-3 873 3 6 19 A+ lu dze shing
78.XI 13,1-6 874 3 6 19 A ser thong thong x2
78.XI 14,1-6 875 3 6 19 A+ 1: wang hva tshe; 2: unsigned Roll is all in a single hand
78.XI 14,7-12 876 3 6 19 A+ unsigned x2 2: first dhāraṇī goes tadya tha om/ sa rba...190
78.XI 15,1-3 877 3 6 19 A+ wang klu legs
78.XI 16,1-6 878 3 6 19 A+ wang klu legs x2


190 Inserted below the line, after tadyathā: na mo [...] tathāgataya.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
78.XI 17,1-6 879 3 6 20 A+ cang weng yir x2 2: first dhāraṇī: tadya tha om/ sa rba...191
78.XI 17,7-12 880 3 6 20 A+ 1: unsigned; 2:cang weng yir
78.XI 18,1-3 881 3 6 19 A+ khang 'go 'go Panels 1 and 3: 31.5 cm; panel 2: 30 cm
78.XI 19,1-5 882 3 6 19 A+ stag snya
78.XI 19,6-9 883 3 6 19 A+ cont: khang 'go 'go; 2: khang 'go go
78.XI 20,1-3 884 3 6 19 A+ cang shib tig
78.XI 21,1-6 885 3 6 19 A+ stag brtan x2
78.XI 21,7-12 886 3 6 19 A+ stag brtan x2
78.XI 22,1-6 887 3 6 19 A 1: cang stag lod; 2: stag lod
78.XI 22,7-12 888 3 6 19 A 1: stag lod; 2: cang stag lod
78.XI 23,1-4 889 3 6 20; 19 A+ jin legs kong
78.XI 23,5-10 890 3 6 19 A+ cont: jin legs kong x2
78.XI 23,11-15 891 3 6 19 A+ cont: jin legs kong; 2: jIn legs kong
78.XI 24,1-3 892 3 6 20 A+ unsigned See footnote192
78.XI 25,1-3 893 3 6 19 A+ stag lod
78.XI 26,1-6 894 3 6 19 A+ cang legs rtsan x2
78.XI 27,1-3 895 3 6 20 A unsigned
78.XI 28,1-6 896 3 6 19 A+ 1: lu dze shing; 2: unsigned Both copies in same hand
78.XI 29,1-3 897 3 6 19 A+ wang rma snang


191 Inserted below the line, after tadyathā: na mo [...] tathāgataya tadyathā.
192 On verso, perpendicular, and where panel had been glued to a longer roll: do kyang 'do phul ba/.
In lieu of a catalogue  295
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
78.XI 30,1-3 898 3 6 19 A+ unsigned
78.XI 31,1-3 899 3 6 19 A+ unsigned Height: ab: 30.5 cm; cd, ef: 31.5 cm
78.XI 32,1-3 900 3 6 19 A+ wang klu legs
78.XI 33,1-3 901 3 6 20 A+ ^im lha bzher
78.XI 34,1-5 902 3 6 19, 20 A+ ^Im lha bzher See footnote193
78.XI 34,6-9 903 3 6 19, 20 A+ cont: ^Im lha bzher; 2: ^Im lha See footnote194
b<r>zher
78.XI 35,1-4 904 3 6 19 A+ tshe'u cang zhi
296  Documenting Limitless Life

78.XI 35,5-10 905 3 6 19 A+; A cont: dze'u cang zhi; 2: unsigned Both copies in same hand
78.XI 35,11-15 906 3 6 19 A cont: tse'u cang zhi; 2: dze'u cang zhi
78.XI 36,1-4 907 3 6 19 A mchims g.yu gzigs Scribe’s name written in a thin ink
78.XI 36,5-10 908 3 6 19 A cont: mchims g.yu gzIgs x2 Chinese character in upper left margin of panel 6
78.XI 36,11-15 909 3 6 19 A cont: mchims g.yu gzIgs x2
78.XI 37,1-6 910 3 6 19 A+ khe rgad lha tse x2
78.XI 37,7-10 911 3 6 19 A+ khe rgad lha tse
78.XI 37,11-15 912 3 6 19 A+ cont: khe rgad lha tses x2
78.XI 38,1-6 913 3 6 20 A- phan phan x2


193 Another scribe’s name is scribbled over; only the beginning ^e is legible. Only fourth panel contains twenty lines per col.
194 Another scribe’s name is scribbled over in both colophons: ^em lha sbyIn. Only eighth panel has twenty ruled lines. Cont: first dhāraṇī begins phad
sva hA/ na mo ba ga ba te/.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
78.XI 39,1-6 914 3 6 19 A unsigned x2 Dhāraṇī divided by shads and spaces into 15
sections
78.XI 40,1-3 915 3 6 19 A+ unsigned

Vol. 111: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to fifty-one. This follows the numbers penciled on their upper left spines. They are numbered fifty-one
to one on their back covers, in the opposite corners.
78.XII 1,1-3 916 3 6 19 A khang tig tig
78.XII 2,1-3 917 3 6 20 A+ 'go kog thong
78.XII 3,1-4 918 4 7 20, 21 B heng je'u See footnote195
78.XII 3,5-10 919 4 7 21 B cont: heng je'u x2
78.XII 3,11-16 920 4 7 21 B cont: heng je'u x2
78.XII 3,17-21 921 4 7 21 B cont: heng je'u x2
78.XII 4,1-4 922 4 7 (no a; h 20 B 'go klu gzigs
blank)
78.XII 6,1-4 923 3 6 19 A snyal lha gzigs
78.XII 6,5-10 924 3 6 19 A cont: snyal lha gzigs x2
78.XII 6,11-15 925 3 6 19 A cont: snyal lha gzigs x2
78.XII 5,1-4 926 3 6 21 A+ stag brtan


195 First two panels contain 20 ll./col. The third, which ends the cont and begins the next, contains 21 ll./col. Sutra copies in this roll are: ab, cd, ef, g; a,
bc, de, f; a, bc, de, f; a, bc, de, f; a, bc, de, f; a, bc, de, f; and a, bc, de. By panels, that is 3.5, 3 ✕ 5, and 2.5. The construction of this roll is such that one could
not detach individual copies without cutting a panel in half.
In lieu of a catalogue  297
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
78.XII 5,5-10 927 3 6 21 A+ cont: stag brtan x2
78.XII 5,11-15 928 3 6 21 A+ cont: stag brtan x2
78.XII 7,1-3 929 3 6 21 A+ unsigned
78.XII 8,1-3 930 3 6 21 A- unsigned See footnote196
78.XII 13,1-3 931 3 6 20 A+ bam rma bzher
78.XII 12,1-6 932 3 6 20 A+ cang legs bzang x2
78.XII 12,7-12 933 3 6 19 A+ cang legs bzang x2
78.XII 11,1-3 934 3 6 19 B+ unsigned
298  Documenting Limitless Life

78.XII 10,1-4 935 3 6 20 A+ le'u lha legs

78.XII 10,5-10 936 3 6 20 A+ cont: lI'u lha legs; 2: le'u lha legs First panel is 31.5 cm, others are 30 cm
78.XII 10,11-15 937 3 6 20 A+ cont: lha legs x2
78.XII 9,1-6 938 3 6 21 A- 1: unsigned; 2: phan phan First copy is aborted near explicit197
78.XII 14,1-3 939 3 6 19 A+ li'u lha legs Colophon: rje lha sras gyi sku yon du bsngos the
<bri>/li'u lha /legs bris//
78.XII 15,1-3 940 3 6 19 A+ lha lod
78.XII 16,1-6 941 3 6 19 A+ 1: lha lod; 2: unsigned Both copies in same hand


196 Paper is rougher, has large fibers visible on surface, same hand as Phan phan (see 310.938 below); ten laidlines per 3 cm, chainlines every 6.5 cm,
patchy coverage of paper.
197 Col. f, l. 9 ends lha dang myi dang/ (g16 of PT 3901). Paper is rougher, has large fibers visible on surface, and same hand as ITJ 310.930 above, so
probably owned by the same scribe; ten laidlines per 3 cm, chainlines every 6.5 cm, patchy coverage of paper.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
78.XII 16,7-12 942 3 6 19 A+ 1: lha lod; 2: cang stag gu See footnote198
78.XII 17,1-6 943 3 6 21, 20 A+ stag brtan x2
78.XII 17,7-12 944 3 6 20 A+ stag brtan x2
78.XII 18,1-3 945 3 6 19 A+ 'go le'u le'u
78.XII 19,1-6 946 3 6 19 A- cang legs bzang x2
78.XII 20,1-4 947 3 6 19 A cang stag lod
78.XII 20,5-10 948 3 6 19 A cont: stag lod x2
78.XII 20,11-15 949 3 6 19 A cont: cang stag lod x2
78.XII 21,1-3 950 3 6 19 A cang stag lod
78.XII 22,1-3 951 3 6 20 A tshe'u dge la rton Square style, midline tshegs
78.XII 23,1-3 952 3 6 19 A+ 'go le'u le'u Colophon in separate hand
78.XII 24,1-6 953 3 6 19 A+; A 1: 'go le'u le'u; 2: 'go mdo btshan See footnote199
78.XII 24,7-12 954 3 6 19 A+ 'go le'u le'u x2 See footnote200
78.XII 25,1-4 955 3 6 20 B ha stag slebs
78.XII 25,5-10 956 3 6 19 B cont: ha stag slebs; 2: ^i 'do Sutras in same hand
78.XII 25,11-15 957 3 6 19 B cont: ^I 'do; 2: ha stag <stobs> slebs Sutras in same hand


198 Same hand in sutra and colophons of both copies, which matches other copies attributed to Lha lod (e.g. PT 3672 and PT 3706).
199 Colophon may be in separate hand or just in slack, colophonic hand; both copies in same hand.
200 Colophon may be in separate hand or just in slack, colophonic hand. 1: First dhāraṇī begins tad thya tha/ / ^om ba ga ba the/.
In lieu of a catalogue  299
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
78.XII 26,1-4 958 3 6 20, 19 B ha stag slebs Same hand as previous roll201
78.XII 26,5-10 959 3 6 19 B cont: ha stag slebs; 2: yi' 'do Sutras in same hand
78.XII 26,11-15 960 3 6 19 B cont: ha stag slebs x2
78.XII 27,1-4 961 3 6 20 B yI 'do 28.5 cm high202
78.XII 27,5-10 962 3 6 20 B cont: ^I 'do; 2: ha stog slebs 28.5 cm high. Sutras in same hand
78.XII 27,11-15 963 3 6 20 B cont: ha stag slebs; 2: stag slebs 28.5 cm high. Cont: first dhāraṇī is missing
78.XII 28,1-3 964 3 6 19 A snyal lha gzigs
78.XII 29,1-4 965 3 6 19 A unsigned See footnote203
300  Documenting Limitless Life

78.XII 29,5-9 966 3 6 19 A cont: unsigned; 2: heng ce'u The sutras in this roll are in the same hand

Vol. 93: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to fifty-four. A slip of paper, wrongly placed in Vol. 11, reads: “86VII. 310. 31 Sheets. 30 rolls. (Each roll
done up separate.) Binder. Aparimitayuh.”
86.VII 1,1-6 136 3 6 19 A+ stag slebs x2
86.VII 2,1-6 137 3 6 19 A she'u klu legs x2
86.VII 2,7-12 138 3 6 19 A she'u klu legs x2
86.VII 2,13-18 139 3 6 19 A she'u klu legs x2
86.VII 3,1-6 140 3 6 20 A lI ben tshe x2


201 Writing from end of line visible in first margin, showing it was previously attached to a scribed sutra copy. These match with the final margin of
previous pressmark, demonstrating that rolls 25 and 26 were once part of a single roll.
202 Same hand as previous. These use mgon bar dga' 'o instead of mngon.
203 Red-and-white sticker mounted on brown paper on back of booklet: “78.XII. No 310”; and in pencil: “29,” referring to number of rolls.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
86.VII 3,7-12 141 3 6 20 A lI ben tshe x2
86.VII 3,13-18 142 3 6 21 A lI ben tshe x2
86.VII 3,19-24 143 3 6 21 A lI ben tshe x2 See footnote204
86.VII 3,25-30 144 3 6 20 A lI ben tshe x2
86.VII 3,31-36 145 3 6 20 A lI ben tshe x2
86.VII 3,37-40 146 3 6 20 A lI ben tshe
86.VII 3,41-45 147 3 6 21 A cont: lI ben tshe x2
86.VII 4,1-6 148 3 6 19 A snyal stag snya x2
86.VII 4,7-12 149 3 6 19 A snyal stag snya x2
86.VII 4,13-16 150 3 6 19 A snyal stag snya
86.VII 4,17-21 151 3 6 19 A cont: unsigned; 2: snyal stag snya
86.VII 5,1-6 152 3 6 19 A+ 'go le'u le'u x2 Conservator’s paper covers final margin
86.VII 6,1-6 153 3 6 19 A+ lha lod x2
86.VII 6,7-12 154 3 6 19 A+ lha lod x2
86.VII 6,13-16 155 3 6 19 A+ lha lod
86.VII 6,17-21 156 3 6 19 A+ cont: lha lod x2
86.VII 7,1-3 157 3 6 19 A+ unsigned Maybe Lha lod’s hand
86.VII 8,1-4 158 3 6 19 A+ unsigned
86.VII 8,5-9 159 3 6 19 A+ cont: unsigned x2


204 1: hand is small, square, with long spaces before and after each iteration of the dhāraṇī. Not the same hand as other copies in this roll; 2: back to
hand of above three pressmarks and the following pressmarks.
In lieu of a catalogue  301
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
86.VII 9,1-6 160 3 6 19 A+ 1: unsigned; 2: tse weng See footnote205
86.VII 9,7-12 161 3 6 19 A+ 1: zhIm tshir; 2: unsigned See footnote206
86.VII 10,1-3 162 3 6 19 A 'go le'u le'u
86.VII 11,1-3 163 3 6 19 A 'go le'u le'u
86.VII 12,1-6 164 3 6 19 A she'u klu legs x2
86.VII 13,1-5 165 3 6 19; 18,19 A+ unsigned Copies in this roll are in the same hand207
86.VII 13,6-9 166 3 6 19 A+ cont: unsigned; 2: jIn lha bzher Conservator’s paper on final margin
86.VII 14,1-3 167 3 6 21 A- stag chab
302  Documenting Limitless Life

86.VII 15,1-6 168 3 6 21 A+ cang snang legs x2 See footnote208

86.VII 16,1-3 169 3 6 19 A+ cang rgya ta Same hand as previous. Name is rubbed out of
colophon: [xxx xxx] <gyI bris>/
86.VII 17,1-3 170 3 6 20 A+ cang snang legs Same hand as previous


205 1: In lieu of colophon: zhus/ yang zhus /; 2: after colophon: zhus/ yang zhus/. Only the second of the four sutra copies from this roll is in a different
hand. On front of booklet (verso of a): kha. This kha is also found on verso of the end of the third copy and start of the fourth copy of this roll.
206 After colophon in first copy: zhus lags / yang zhus /; in lieu of colophon in second copy: zhus/ yang zhus/. A kha on verso of 1:f and 2:a. Not the same
hand as ITJ 310.517–310.522, also ascribed to Zhim Tshir tshir. Glue on final margin, showing it was part of a longer roll.
207 1: nineteen ruled lines (scribe adds one line at the bottom of cols d and e, and two lines at the bottom of final col. f); 2: eighteen ruled for cols a, b, c,
d (scribe adds one line at the bottom of each column); nineteen ruled for cols e and f (scribe adds one line at the bottom of e and two lines at the bottom
of final col. f).
208 1: scribe writes blon(?) and then crosses it out before his name (was he going to write what he did below but for councilors, as in the St. Petersburg
Ap copy Dkh. Tib. 142?); 2: scribe writes rje lha sras gyI sku yon du bsngos the / / before writing his name. Conservator's paper on final margin.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
86.VII 18,1-3 171 3 6 19 A cang se'u hvan See footnote209
86.VII 19,1-4 172 4 6 21 A+ ding ^eng tshe Panels proceed ab, c, de, f210
86.VII 20,1-3 173 3 6 21 A+ dIng ^Ing tse Different, squarer hand from above211
86.VII 21,1-3 174 3 6 20 A- ban de la li Conservator’s paper on final margin
86.VII 22,1-6 175 3 6 20 A- sag zhun zhun x2 1: first dhāraṇī repeats na mo bha ga ba te212
86.VII 22,7-12 176 3 6 20 A- sag zhun zhun x2 In both colophons another name seems to have
been rubbed out but original bris left
86.VII 23,1-4 177 3 6 19 A+ lu tshe hing
86.VII 23,5-9 178 3 6 19 A+ cont: lu tshe hing x2 Conservator’s paper on final margin
86.VII 24,1-6 179 3 6 20 A+ 1: khang tig tig; 2: khang tIg tig 2: first dhāraṇī: <na> tad dya tha
86.VII 25,1-6 180 3 6 20 A khang tIg tig x2 See footnote213
86.VII 25,7-10 181 3 6 20 A khang tIgi tIg
86.VII 25,11-15 182 3 6 20 A+ cont: khang tIg tig x2
86.VII 26,1-6 183 3 6 20 A+ 1: khang tig tig; 2: khang tIg tig


209 Traces of three Chinese characters on crossover between panels (right hand side of verso of c and e).
210 At bottom of final panel are three upside-down lines starting the sutra. Probably abandoned due to errors, e.g. bya bcub sems dpa', then paper re-
used for panel 3.
211 In colophon, a name has been completely rubbed out beneath scribal attribution, but gis bris / / is retained.
212 In both colophons another name seems to have been rubbed out but original bris left.
213 Among the copies attributed to Khang Tig tig, there are some differences between those that use the A+ dhāraṇī and those that use A. The latter open
with $/./ or even $/../ instead of $/:/; they begin bod skad du on l. 2, rather than on the far right of l. 1; their colophons read khang tig tig gis briso, or khang
tig tig, whereas A+ colophons read khang tig tig bris, or khang tig tig; and their explicits end rdzogso rather than rdzogs sO. The hands are fairly similar.
In lieu of a catalogue  303
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
86.VII 27,1-3 184 3 6 20 A+ khang tIg tig
86.VII 28,1-3 185 3 6 20 A+ sag lug nyeng Very square script214
86.VII 29,1-3 186 3 6 20 A 'go gyu len
86.VII 30,1-4 187 3 6 20 A khang tig tig See footnote215
86.VII 30,5-10 188 3 6 20 A cont: khang tig tig; 2: khang tIg tig
86.VII 30,11-15 189 3 6 20 A khang tIg tig x2

Vol. 94: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to fifty-five, following the numbers penciled on the top left of each spine. There is an inverse set of
304  Documenting Limitless Life

penciled numbers, (fifty-five to one) on the back of each booklet’s lower left corner, which corresponds to the upper-right corner when the stack of booklets
was upside-down and numbered in that way. A note card on top of these booklets reads, in pencil: “34 Rolls of M.S.S. Each roll in separate lot. [Underlined:]
Binder. Aparamitayur.”
86.IX 1,1-6 190 3 6 19 A gzangs lha sto x2
86.IX 1,7-12 191 3 6 19 A gzangs lha sto x2
86.IX 1,13-16 192 3 6 19 A gzangs lha sto
86.IX 1,17-21 193 3 6 19 A cont: gzangs lha sto x2
86.IX 2,1-6 194 3 6 19 A gzangs lha sto x2
86.IX 2,7-12 195 3 6 19 A gzangs lha sto x2
86.IX 2,13-18 196 3 6 19 A gzangs lha sto x2


214 Upside down, below scribe’s name in final column, f: $ / : / rgya gar skad du ^a pa ri mi ta/ ^a yu na ma ma ha na ya. Scribe realized mistake and
stopped, rotated the roll 180 degrees, and started over.
215 Twenty lines ruled, but scribe writes five lines in space lined for three at the bottom of col. f. Incipit of second copy: $/./ rgya gar skad du ^a pa rI mi
ta ^a yu <gnya' ga> na <ga> ma ma ya na su tra/ /.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
86.IX 2,19-22 197 3 6 19 A gzangs lha sto
86.IX 2,23-27 198 3 6 19 A cont: gzangs lha sto x2
86.IX 3,1-6 199 3 6 19 A+ lu ju ju x2
86.IX 3,7-10 200 3 6 19 A+ lu ju ju
86.IX 3,11-15 201 3 6 19 A+ cont: lu ju ju x2
86.IX 4,1-3 202 3 6 19 A+ cang shib tig
86.IX 5,1-6 203 3 6 19 A+ cang shIb tig x2
86.IX 5,7-10 204 3 6 19 A+ cang shIb tig
86.IX 5,11-15 205 3 6 19 A+ cont: cang shib tig 2: cang shIb tig See footnote216
86.IX 6,1-3 206 3 6 19 A+ cang shib tig
86.IX 7,1-6 207 3 6 19 A+ cang stag rma x2
86.IX 8,1-6 208 3 6 19 A+ 1: cang ^i tse; 2: cang ^I tse
86.IX 8,7-10 209 4 7 (no h) 19 A+ unsigned See footnote217
86.IX 9,1-3 210 3 6 19 A+, A- cang jung jung See footnote218
86.IX 10,1-6 211 3 6 19 A+ 'go le'u le'u x2
86.IX 11,1-4 212 4 7 (no h) 19 A bam rma bzher Incipit: brgya gar skad du
86.IX 12,1-4 213 3 6 19 A+ cang stag rma
86.IX 12,5-9 214 3 6 19 A+ cont: cang stag rma x2


216 Cont: three Chinese characters in changeover (they would have been under glue) between panels 10 and 11.
217 Writing changes on cols e and f to become very large and lax. Returns to tight dbu can on col. g.
218 First instance of dhāraṇī: tad tya ^om / na mo [...] and omits tad dya tha in the middle. Rest are standard type A.
In lieu of a catalogue  305
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
86.IX 13,1-6 215 3 6 19 A+ cang stag rma x2
86.IX 14,1-4 216 3 6 19 A mchims g.yu gzIgs
86.IX 14,5-9 217 3 6 19 A cont: mal gzIgs kong; 2: mchims 2: col. d is 0.75 width219
g.yu gzIgs
86.IX 15,1-6 218 3 6 19 A- cang shib tig x2
86.IX 16,1-6 219 3 6 19 A- 1: unsigned; 2: cang shib tig Both copies in same hand
86.IX 17,1-6 220 3 6 19 A- 1: cang shIb tig; 2: cang shib tig
86.IX 18,1-3 221 3 6 19 A- khang btsan bzher Uses /:/
306  Documenting Limitless Life

86.IX 19,1-3 222 3 6 19 A- khang btsan bzher

86.IX 20,1-6 223 3 6 20 A+ 1: le'u le'u; 2: cang stag skyes See footnote220
86.IX 21,1-6 224 3 6 19 A+ jIn lha bzher x2 See footnote221
86.IX 22,1-6 225 3 6 19 A+ stag mdo snang x2 Begins first dhāraṇī tad thya tha ^om ...
86.IX 23,1-3 226 3 6 19 A+ lha legs
86.IX 24,1-3 227 3 6 19 A+ unsigned
86.IX 25,1-3 228 3 6 19 A+ lha legs
86.IX 26,1-4 229 4 7 (no h) 19 B lha legs See footnote222
86.IX 27,1-6 230 3 6 19 A mchims g.yu gzIgs x2


219 The final copy is not in an obviously different hand. Resembles ITJ 310.230–231 below. A similar situation with same scribes is found in PT 3653 and 3932.
220 Cang Stag skyes’ name is written rather messily, but then so is latter half of this second copy.
221 The second colophon reads: $// jIn lha bzher gyis bris / blon g.yu bzang gis zhus. There are no signs of editing.
222 Name of Lha legs given in a thicker black ink, closer to the ink and style of the preceding sutra copy.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
86.IX 27,7-12 231 3 6 19 A mchims g.yu gzIgs x2
86.IX 28,1-3 232 3 6 19 A+ cang snang legs
86.IX 29,1-3 233 3 6 19 A+ cang jung jung
86.IX 30,1-6 234 3 6 19 A- 1: unsigned; 2: cang shib tig Both copies in same hand
86.IX 31,1-4 235 3 6 19 A- cang shIb tig
86.IX 31,5-9 236 3 6 19 A- cont: unsigned; 2: cang shib tig Both copies in same hand
86.IX 32,1-6 237 3 6 19 A gzangs lha sto x2
86.IX 33,1-4 238 3 6 19 A gzangs lha sto
86.IX 33,5-9 239 3 6 19 A cont: gzangs lha sto x2
86.IX 34,1-6 240 3 6 19 B heng je’u x2
86.IX 34,7-10 241 3 6 19 B heng je’u Uses /:/
86.IX 34,11-15 242 3 6 19 B cont: heng je’u x2
86.IX 35,1-6 243 3 6 19 A+ bam rma bzher x2
86.IX 35,7-12 244 3 6 19 A+ bam rma bzher x2

Vol. 96: the booklets in this volume are numbered one to twenty-nine. A red-and-white sticker in center of first booklet’s cover reads: “86. XIII. 4” and “No.
310.” A blue pencil has crossed out the “4.” Another red-and-white sticker, mounted on brown paper, gives the site number and pressmark. A blue pencil has
added “24,” referring to the number of rolls. In pencil, also on booklet’s cover: “86. XIII. 4,” and “310.” No site numbers are marked on any of the other
booklets. Evidently the first three rolls from this bundle were misplaced, probably after the blue pencil’s annotation. There is water damage found in the top
margins of some copies and the bottom margins of others, which becomes more severe in the higher-numbered rolls (that were presumably closer to the
outside of the bundle).
In lieu of a catalogue  307
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
[86.XIII.1] none 1208 4 7 (no h) 17 A+ be hing tse See footnote223
[86.XIII.2] none 1209 4 7 (no h) 17 A+ yang kog cung See footnote224
[86.XIII.3] none 1210 3 6 20 A+ khang btshan bzher See footnote225
86.XIII.4 4,1-6 300 3 6 19 A+ cang lha legs x2 1: in first dhāraṇī: tad dya tha <^om sa rba sang
ska ra pa rI shud> na mo
[86.XIII.4] 4,7-12 301 3 6 19 A+ cang lha legs x2
[86.XIII.4] 4,13-18 302 3 6 19 1: A-; 2: A+ cang lha legs x2 Colophon of second copy has blotted out name
[86.XIII.4] 4,19-24 303 3 6 19 A+ cang lha legs x2 1: name rubbed out and written over in colophon
308  Documenting Limitless Life

[86.XIII.5] 5,1-7 304 4; 3 7 (no h); 6 19 B+; A+ 1: unsigned; 2: hvA hva hva Final panel of first copy is 0.5 width226
[86.XIII.6] 6,1-4 305 4 7 (no h) 19 A+ bye hing tse 28 cm high. Very square writing. First dhāraṇī
lacks tathāgataya


223 There is a large diagonal cut that removed the lower right corner of the end of the roll (col. f). The slice starts from the left column gutter at the
bottom of f and then travels up and to the right to end at the right margin adjacent line 8. The pressmark ITJ 310.1208 is written in pencil by Sam van
Schaik on the verso of the final col., perpendicular, adjacent to a purple India Office Library Stamp, dated 10 Oct 1929 (Fig. 27). Nearby, also in pencil is
the site number “Chien. 0698.”
224 There is a large diagonal cut that removed the lower right corner of the end of the roll (col. f). The slice starts from a third of the way across col. f
and then travels up and to the right to the right margin adjacent line 7. The pressmark ITJ 310.1209 is written in pencil by Sam van Schaik on the verso of
the final col., perpendicular, adjacent to a purple India Office Library Stamp, dated 10 Oct 1929.
225 Third panel is a different, darker paper, which doesn’t lie flush with the second panel, or its cols. The pressmark ITJ 310.1210 is written by Sam van
Schaik perpendicular in pencil on the verso of the final col.
226 1: first dhāraṇī begins tad thya tha ^om na mo; others are B+. 1: upside-down struck-through line at bottom of final column. Water damage across
top of manuscript.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
[86.XIII.7] 7,1-4 306 4 7 (g 0.75 19 A- yang kog cung Square style, midline tshegs
width)
[86.XIII.8] 8,1-4 307 3 6 19 A+ unsigned Copies in this roll are in the same hand
[86.XIII.8] 8,5-9 308 3 6 19 A+ cont: hvA hva hva x2 Water damage along top of verso of final panel
[86.XIII.9] 9,1-6 309 3 6 19 A+ leng ho zhun tse x2 Water damage along bottom margin
[86.XIII.9] 9,7-12 310 3 6 19 A+ leng ho zhun tse x2 Water damage along bottom margin
[86.XIII.10] 10,1-3 311 3 6 20 A 'go lang End title repeated227
[86.XIII.11] 11,1-3 312 3 6 20 A+ unsigned Writing becomes small and cramped on final
col., crams in 22 ll.228
[86.XIII.12] 12,1-3 313 3 6 21 A unsigned
[86.XIII.13] 13,1-3 314 3 6 20 A shig 'gi tig Colophon hand does not match sutra hand
[86.XIII.14] 14,1-3 315 3 6 21 A baM stag slebs Square script, midline tshegs
[86.XIII.15] 15,1-6 316 3 6 20 A unsigned x2 At end of 2: upside down on last line: $/:/ rgya gar sku
[86.XIII.15] 15,7-12 317 3 6 20 A unsigned x2 2: Pha on col. a verso
[86.XIII.16] 16,1-3 318 3 6 20 A smon legs Writing becomes smaller, compact at end, scribe
fits final two lines below l. 20
[86.XIII.17] 17,1-6 319 3 6 19 A gu rib lha lung brtsan x2


227 First ends in ^om sA bA bha. Final margin cut, with remnants of attached panel glued into final margin.
228 Paper is absorbent, bleeds onto verso.
In lieu of a catalogue  309
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310. P. Cols Ll. Dh. Scribe(s) Notes
[86.XIII.17] 17,7-12 320 3 6 19 A gu rIb lha lung brtsan x2 See footnote229
[86.XIII.17] 17,13-19 321 4; 3 7 (g 0.5 19 A; A+ 1: gu rib lha lung brtsan; 2: mchims See footnote230
with); 6 g.yu gzIgs
[86.XIII.18] 18,1-3 322 3 6 17 A+ lyang sha tse 28 cm high. Very square writing
[86.XIII.19] 19,1-3 323 3 6 19 A sag legs bzang
[86.XIII.20] 20,1-4 324 4 7 (no h) 17 A+ cang hing tse 28 cm high. Col. g 28 cm wide. Very square
writing; midline tshegs.
[86.XIII.21] 21,1-3 325 3 6 19 A shig tIg tIg
310  Documenting Limitless Life

[86.XIII.22] 22,1-3 326 3 6 20 A shig 'gI tig

[86.XIII.23] 23,1-3 327 3 6 19 A shig 'gI tig
[86.XIII.24] 24,1-3 328 3 6 19 A leng ho zhun tse Water damage along top margin


229 1: dhāraṇī divided into fifteen sections; 2: the first two panels are written in small, cramped letters. The final two are written in huge, spaced letters.
Seems to be the same hand.
230 Colophon of the second copy reads: gu rib lha lung brtsan gyi bam po mchims g.yu gzIgs gyis brIs / /. Second copy could be in a different hand from
ITJ 310.319, 310.320 and 310.321, copy 1, but difficult to say.
 In lieu of a catalogue  311

4.2.3 Other copies or fragments

The rolls and fragments documented here are essentially of three types. First there
are the forty-five fragments, running from just one panel to five panels. Second,
there are those complete Ap copies that come from bundles that include a variety
of texts rather than predominantly Ap copies. Third, there are those copies that
seem to have originally come from a bundles of single-sutra rolls or from mixed
bundles of Ap, but which have been mislaid during the conservation and catalogu-
ing processes. Our documentation above already virtually reunited three of these –
ITJ 310.1208 to 1210, with the mixed bundle from which they were separated, 86.XIII.
Inversely, we have virtually removed four booklets (site nos 87.XIII, subpressmarks
ITJ 310.415 to 418) from Vol. 98, where they have been mistakenly kept with booklets
that have the site number 86.XV. As noted in Chapter Three, many of the rolls that
bear simple serial numbers like “10” or “fr. 33,” or “fragment 39” seem to have come
from a bundle of single-sutra rolls. However, they only bear these deficient site
numbers, and it is possible that the sequence with these site numbers was grouped
together when roll numbers were assigned.
Ordering these manuscripts by site number, the fragments are mixed in with the
complete copies, and edited copies are together with the unedited copies. This renders
the data a bit less wieldy than the documentation of the two types of bundles above.
In Chapters One and Three we noted a few groups of these copies that belonged
together under an existing site number. In these cases our documentation places
the site number we have inferred in brackets, and gives the existing, deficient site
number in bold, e.g. “[I.1.a] 54.” In our reconstructions we have been guided by La
Vallée Poussin’s record in his catalogue and by the marks and numbers on the man-
uscripts themselves. It may be possible to make further reconstructions using our
data, but we have stopped short of grouping every complete copy by roll number,
mostly out of caution for creating a “quasi-bundle” where none may have existed.
As we saw in Chapter Three, there is some variation in terms of the scribes and
editors one finds in a given bundle. One could not, for example, accurately recon-
struct the bundles of Ap copies kept at the Bibliothèque nationale de France by
sorting these according to their editors. The same is true of these “orphaned” Ap
copies in the Stein collection, notwithstanding their deficient quasi-site numbers
and their useful, albeit vexing roll numbers.
In the case of fragments, we have identified a dhāraṇī based only on what is
visible. In cases where we do not have the first dhāraṇī in the sutra and at least one
subsequent dhāraṇī, “B” or “A” is a basic identification, since one cannot specify var-
iants, e.g. A+ or B+. If there is no complete dhāraṇī, but one can see that tadyathā is
in the middle, this could be A, or it could be B+. In such cases, we have entered “A?”
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310.x P Cols Ll. Dh Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
73.VI.1 1,1-3 1041 3 6 20 B myeg le g.yu Square style, midline tshegs,
bzang /:/ No tshegs in colophon
73.VI.7 n/a ITJ 309 n/a n/a 4 A n/a 9 pothī-format leaves,
incomplete
73.VI frag. 1-3 3,1-3 1042 3 6 20 B cang stag lod See footnote231
73.VII? 3,1-3 1043 3 6 19 A dang smon legs See footnote232
73.VII.3 4,1-4 1044 4 8 19 B mgar klu mthong See footnote233
73.XIII.12 none 967 1 2 n/a B? je'u hva 'do phug 'gi [phug ']gi? pab dzang See footnote234
312  Documenting Limitless Life

“FRAGMENT”
73.XV.001 none IOL Khot S 17 3 4 18 B bam stag slebs lI phab weng phug 'gI ha jing See footnote235
73.XV.2 5,1-3 968 3 6 20 A+ wang hva tse See footnote236


231 First dhāraṇī is about to end, but then goes: ma ha na ya/ ^om sa rba sang ska ra [...]. Top and bottom left of col. a are torn. Original sticker on front of
booklet (with lots of scribbles) ripped off; pencil: “?73.VII”; back cover has: “73.VI frag. 1-3.” On front of booklet,”aparimitāyur,” in black ink and underlined.
232 Site number in blue pencil: “?73.VII” Given its roll number is the same as the previous item, the doubt is warranted.
233 lha written on verso of col. a; ^om written after scribe’s name. Remedial square style. Pencil amends site number “73.VII.3” to “1-3,” blue pencil adds
“?” Given that this is roll 4, it probably should be 73.VII.4.
234 Verso of penultimate col. has Chinese in red (three larger characters) and black (ten smaller characters) written on it. Three lines of a Tibetan prayer
on verso of right side of the final col., running up the page: (1)$ / / sang rgya gtso la phyag 'tshal lo / / skyab (/sgyab) pa'I chos la phyag 'tshal lo dge 'dun
tshe las phyag 'tshal (2) lo / / yang dag par bzhug pa'I rnam la phyag 'tshal lo / / rgyun du zhug (interline <) pa'I (> interline) rnam la phyag 'tshal lo / lan
cig byo[xxx] (3) ba' 'I rnam la <'>ph[ya]g lo / /.
235 Includes the final four cols of the sutra. Cols have been separated and mounted onto conservator’s paper, still in scroll format. Site number given in black
pen: “Ch.00120 (73.XV.001)” with pencil crossing out the “1.” Further pencil clarifies that these site numbers, 00120 and 0020, are equated. See Figs 11a and 11b.
236 The non-correspondence of site numbers and roll numbers in this and the next copy suggest confusion.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310.x P Cols Ll. Dh Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
73.XV.8 2,1-3 969 3 6 19 A stag lod
74.V 15,1-4 430 4 8 (h blank) 19 B sag dge legs phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog
75.IV.1 none 1205 1, torn 2 (g, part of h) 18 B? cang zhun Fragment is 30 ✕ 32 cm
75.IX.5 1,4 431 1 2 19 A? lha lod After colophon: zhus lags so / /
77.VIII.1 1,1-3 432 3 6 19 B ^im stag rma
79.VIII.5 none 3 1 2 20 B? n/a
79.XIII.1 2,1-3 4 3 6 19 B lu dze shing shes rab jI ^i na dpal mchog See footnote237
79.XIV.3 none 1206 1, torn 1 (a) 19 A n/a 31.5 ✕ 22 cm
79.XVI.6 2,1-5 5 5 (a 8 19 B, A+ cang zhun zhun See footnote238
incipit)
79.XVI.9 none ITJ 514 1, torn 1, torn n/a A n/a
80.II.1 1,1; 2,2; 2,3 ITJ 1588 3 6 19 B cang stag lod
80.II none 1201 1, torn 2 (ab) n/a n/a n/a First 9 lines of a; 7.5 ✕ 13.5 cm
80.II none 1202 1, torn 2 (ab) n/a A? n/a Last 3 lines of cols; 5.7 ✕ 12 cm
80.II none 1203 1, torn 1 n/a B n/a Last 11 lines of cols; 18.5 ✕ 17 cm
80.IV 4,1 ITJ 1589 1 2 19 B wang rma snang


237 Does not correspond to IDP image of ITJ 310.4, which depicts the wrong item as of 12 July 2024.
238 After scribal colophon: (red <) zhuso (> red) / yang zhus / / sum zhus / bzhi zhuso. This same hand amends first instance of the dhāraṇī alone (col. 2
ll. 6–8) from B to A+ in thinner black ink, with the interlinear insertions marked with a cross. There is an extra page at front of booklet with the final line
of sutra written vertically from bottom to top, seemingly in a different hand to the main text: $ / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bye ba theg pa chen po<n?>'i
mdo rdzogs so /.
In lieu of a catalogue  313
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310.x P Cols Ll. Dh Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
80.V 3,1 ITJ 1590 3 6 19 B 'go mdo brtsan shin dar sgron ma chos brtan See footnote239
80.V.2 5,1-4 ITJ 1488 4 8 (a blank) 19 A+ dvan heng dar phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog Pressmark “777” crossed
out in pencil for “310”
80.V.3 6,1-4 ITJ 1489 4 8 (h blank) 19 B dge legs phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog See footnote240
80.VIII.4 1,1-3 6 3 5 19 B? cang klu legs Pencil amends “80.VIII.1”
to “80.VII.4”
80.VIII.5 7,1-3 ITJ 1591 4 8 (a, h blank) 19 B bam kim kang See footnote241
80.VIII.2 8,1-2 ITJ 1592 2 4 20 B? khang tIg tig Pencil strikes through
314  Documenting Limitless Life

pressmark “99,” adds “310”

80.IX.1 1-2 7 2 4 19 B? dge slong dam See footnote242
^ing
81.V.1 none 2 4 7 (no a) 19 B n/a See footnote243
81.VIII.8 1,1-3 8 3 6 19 B phan <b>phan phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog Pencil adds “8” to site no.
81.VIII.9 2,1-3 9 3 6 19 A dza'u dge la rton Pencil adds “9” to site no.


239 Pressmark “777” crossed out in pencil and replaced with “310.” This appears to be the second of the two Dunhuang manuscripts used by Konow. He
claims it includes “an invocation of Amitabha in barbaric Sanskrit.” This was not observed, and it makes the identification uncertain.
240 Panels 2 and 3 (containing cols c–f) have become displaced and are marked in pencil in the wrong order (as 6,3 and 6,2 respectively). Pressmark
“777” crossed out in pencil and replaced with “310.”
241 Jottings/invocations on recto of col. a. Pencil amends “80.VIII.1” to “80.VII.5,” strikes through pressmark “778,” and adds “310.”
242 Final (fragmentary) panel reads rdzogs so / [further down col.:] $/:/dge slong dam ^ing gis [xxx] [further down col.:] $/ / [r?]e[xxx]. On red-and-white
sticker with site number and pressmark, pencil adds “B,” making it “80.IX.B1.” On the manuscript itself, in pencil: “80.IX.1.”
243 Does not correspond to IDP image of ITJ 310.2 as of 12 July 2024. Jotting of opening of sutra on verso of the first panel, perpendicular, top to bottom.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310.x P Cols Ll. Dh Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
82.II.4? 2,1-2 10 2 4 19 A? so hva hva Site no.: “82.II.4?6”
82.XVI none ITJ 1593 1 2 n/a B? n/a Sign of editing in red.
Pressmark “184b” struck
through for “310.”
83.V.1 9,1-4 11 4 7 (no a) 19 A+ jIn lha bzher phab weng phab shin dar Pressmark “230” struck
weng through for “310”
83.VI.2 10,1-3 12 3 6 19 B 'bye mdo snang dpal mchog phug 'gI phab dzang Site no. “80” struck through
for “83”
83.IX.10 none 1200 1, torn 2 n/a A? n/a
84.XIV.5 none ITJ 930 1, torn 1 (h) 19 B n/a dpal mchog phug 'gI vacat
85.IV.2 1-3 13 3 6 19 B bam kim kang
85.IX.1 1-3 14 3 5 (a 1.5 width) 20 B klu legs dam 'gi leng pe 'u ci keng
85.IX.2 none ITJ 1497 2 3 19 B 'phan la brtan dge slong shin dar leng che'u Pencil adds “2” to site no.,
cang chos adds “310”
brtan
[85.IX.3] none ITJ 1501 1 2 20 C n/a See footnote244


244 As above (a missing middle panel of the same sutra copy, col. a, l. 5, corresponds to ITJ 310.645 line c8, explicit to d15), dhāraṇī includes te dzo and
^a ri ha te sam(/M) myag sam(/M) bud d+ha (/bud+ha) ya in the same places consistently. First complete instance of dhāraṇī (not first of the once-complete
copy), panel 1, ll. 14–16, reads: na mo b+ha ga ba te a pa ri mI ta ^a yu gnya' / na su bi ni shci ta te dzo ra dza ya ta tha ga ta ya / ^a ri ha te saM myag saM
bud d+ha ya / tad ya tha ^om sa rba sang skar / pa ri shu de d+har ma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sva b+ha bi shu d+he ma ha na ya pa ri ba re sva h'a / / and
explicit (col. b, l. 20, corresponding to ITJ 310.645 d15) ends ’drir ’jug pa’i sa phyogs de yang mtshorten dang /. ITJ 1499 and 1501 appear to be fragments of
the same copy, which justifies our assigning a site number here.
In lieu of a catalogue  315
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310.x P Cols Ll. Dh Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
85.IX.4 none ITJ 1499 3 4 20 C n/a Pencil adds “4” to site no.,
adds “310”
85.IX.5 none ITJ 1500 1 2 19 B khang 'go 'go [le]ng ce'u ci keng shin dar Pencil adds “5” to site no.,
adds “310”
87.XIII.a 11,1-3 415 3 6 19 B chos gyi ye shes phab weng See footnote245
87.XIII.b 12,1-4 416 4 8 (h blank) 19 B cI king phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog See footnote246
87.XIII.d 13,1-3 417 3 6 19 B kvag stag rtsan phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog See footnote247
87.XIII.f 14,1-4 418 4 8 (h blank) 19 B chos gyi ye shes phab weng See footnote248
316  Documenting Limitless Life

[87.XIII] 50 15,1-4 ITJ 1608 4 7 (h blank) 19 B cI king phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog By site no., in pencil: “310”
[87.XIII] 51 16,1-4 ITJ 1609 4 7 (a blank) 19 B ban de cI king leng pe'u By site no., in pencil: “310”
[87.XIII] 35 17,1-4 ITJ 1599 4 7 (a blank) 19 B sag dge legs phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog By site no., in pencil: “310”
[87.XIII] 36 18,1-4 ITJ 1600 4 7 (no a) 19 B dpal mchog de['u] ^ing dam ^ing de'u ^Ing By site no., in pencil: “310”


245 Red-and-white sticker upside-down in middle of verso of final col.: “87.XII.a, No. 310.” All in black ink except for “a,” which is in pencil. It partly
covers writing in pencil, “Aparimitayur.” Site number “87.XIII” in large letters, black pen, upside down at bottom of verso of final col. On spine, lower
right, upside-down: “39.” Across, on left, “4” is struck through.
246 Red-and-white sticker in middle of verso of col. a: “87.XII.b, No. 310.” All in black ink except for “b,” which is in pencil. On spine, in pencil: “40”; on
upper right, struck-through: “2.” Red-and-white sticker in middle of verso of final col.: “87.XIII, No. 310.” Writing in pencil: “Aparimitayur.” Site number
“87.XIIIb” in large letters, black pen, at top of verso of final col.
247 Red-and-white sticker in middle of verso of col. a: “87.XII, No. 310.” On spine, in pencil: “41”; on upper right, struck-through: “1.” Under site number,
in pencil: “310.” In middle of verso of final col., in pencil,: “Aparimitayur.”
248 Red-and-white sticker in middle of verso of col. a: “87.XII.f, No. 310.” All in black ink except for “f,” which is pencil. On spine, in pencil: “42”; on upper
right, struck-through: “3.” Perpendicular, under site number, and in pencil: “Aparimitayur.”
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310.x P Cols Ll. Dh Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
[87.XIII] 19,1-3 1038 3 6 19 B wang klu legs See footnote249
Fragment 38
[87.XIII] 20,1-3 1037 3 6 19 B unsigned See footnote250
Fragment 38
[87.XIII] 21,1-3 1040 3 6 20 B? stag lod See footnote251
Fragment.39.b
[87.XIII] 22,1-3 1039 3 6 n/a B n/a See footnote252
Fragment.39.c
[87.XIII] 23,1-4 422 4 7 (no h) 19 B cang stag ra leng pe'u ci keng sgron ma By site no., in pencil: “310”
Fragment 41
87.XIII none 1204 1, torn (a) 1 19 n/a n/a See footnote253
[I.1.a] 54 9,1-3 ITJ 1611 3 6 18 A+ 'gu khong brtan See footnote254


249 Nine Chinese characters on verso of col. f (similar to ITJ 310.1040 below). Site number in pencil: “fr. <38 40> 39c”; sticker: “Fragment 39c.” The quasi-
site numbers of this and the following three rolls do not follow their roll numbers. This and the next roll were probably La Vallée Poussin’s “Fragment
38,” which he listed as including three copies. (We only identify these two, which at least have “38” struck through).
250 In pencil, on front cover: “fr. 38”; in pen, on back cover: “fragment 39b”; same on sticker.
251 Final 2 ll. damaged in similar way as the next roll; both have ragged edge. Nine Chinese characters on verso of col. f (similar to ITJ 310.1038 above).
Site number in pen: “Fragment 39e”; on sticker: “Fragment 39<d>e.” This and the next roll probably correspond to La Vallée Poussin’s “Fragments 39b-c.”
252 Bottom 4 ll. of scroll torn off or damaged; this is where colophon would have been. Quasi-site number in pencil: “39.D”; in pen, on back cover: “Frag.39d.”
253 The letter “d” was added below the site number on this fragment, as seen in Fig. 22.
254 28.5 cm high; nice square script and midline tshegs until the final four lines (g13, bha ga ba te onwards) when script becomes smaller, less square
with no midline tshegs, and this hand matches scribal attribution. PT 3957 (also attributed to ’Gu Khong brtan) shares this square style throughout sutra
copy, even at end and in the colophon. Might this suggest how scribes can change their styles? By site number, in pencil:”310.”
In lieu of a catalogue  317
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310.x P Cols Ll. Dh Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
[I.1.b] 53 10,1-3 423 3 6 19 A+ dze'u weng tse 28 cm high. Very nice
square script
[I.1.c] 49 11,1-3 ITJ 1607 3 6 20 A+ khang btshan By site no., in pencil: “310”255
bzher
[I.1.d] 47 12,1-3 ITJ 1605 3 6 21 A+ leng ho shing tse By site no., in pencil: “310”
I.1[.e] 13,1-4 1034 4 7 (no h) 19 A+ unsigned See footnote256
XV n/a ITJ 478 4 A n/a Torn pothī-format leaf;
belongs with ITJ 308
318  Documenting Limitless Life

XXXIII.003 8,1-4 1035 4 7 (no h) 19 B stag slebs he jing phug 'gi he jing
XL.004 9,1-4 1036 4 7 (no h) 19 B cang stag lod phug 'gi dpal mchog pab dzang
XLIII.002 none 420 1 2 19 A? se thong pa phab dzang phab ci dpal mchog Next to site no.: “fragment
(Fragment 29) 29, no. 310”
CXLVII.2 none 419 1 2 15 A? n/a See footnote257
CCC.2 n/a ITJ 308 4 A n/a Three torn pothī-format
leaves; belongs with ITJ 478


255 At end of scribal colophon, in separate hand: “zhus.”
256 In pencil on verso of col. a: “aparamitayur, 5 copies, incomplete, Ch.I.1. Part of a bundle numbered Ch.I from sorted Chinese bundles.” We have
located what we believe are the other four copies, immediately above. There are ten Chinese characters in black on the verso of col. c.
257 On top of this fragment, which is the first in Vol. 99, is a note written on back of India Office memo paper: “85 IX.3 Usnisa vyaya dhāraṇī =322 same.”
Type-written document is headed “Miss A.F. Thompson, India Office Library, King Charles Street.” Ends with date “18th September, 1964.” Many of the
fragments in this volume are mounted on Kraft paper, essentially glued onto it so that one cannot see their versos for jottings, etc. At the bottom of col. 2,
beginning of text written upside down ([...] ma ha yan na). No guidelines or margins. Manuscript measures 27.5 ✕ 49.5 cm.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310.x P Cols Ll. Dh Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
10 2–3 ITJ 1594 2 4 19 B? n/a See footnote258
13 none ITJ 1595 2 3 20 B? n/a
14 none ITJ 1596 1 2 n/a B? n/a
23 none ITJ 1597 2 3 19 A? n/a Square script, midline tshegs
fr. 33 none 421 1 2 18 B+? n/a Pencil has struck though
“77.XV.10 no. 769”
34 5,1-3 ITJ 1598 3 5 20 B? n/a See footnote259
Fragment 39.a 1-6 1 3 6 20 B; A* cang lha legs See footnote260
44 10,1-2 ITJ 1602 2 19 B? jin legs kong By site no., in pencil: “310”261
45 8,1-3 ITJ 1603 3 6 19 B jIn lha bzher By site no., in pencil: “310”262
46 7,1-3 ITJ 1604 3 6 19 B n/a By site no., in pencil: “310”
48 6,1-3 ITJ 1606 3 6 19 B legs rtsan phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog By site no., in pencil: “310”263


258 The site numbers for this and the following three fragments are in pencil, with “310” adjacent in black ink.
259 Two Chinese characters written on verso of col. e (last extant col.). In pen, on front of booklet: “aparimitāyur.” By site number, in pencil: “include in 310.”
260 On the verso corresponding to cols e and f we find the first part of the sutra, essentially col. a, perpendicular (scroll, rather than roll format), in a
separate hand. A small paper fragment is also glued to col. f at the end, which contains two Chinese characters. Verso dhāraṇī contains su bi ni ci ta te
tso ra tsa ya, also some errors: na mo ba ga ba te/ ^a pa ra myi ta / ^a yu gnya na/ su bi ni ci ta te tso ra tsa ya / ta tha ga tha ya/ tad ya tha / ^om sa rva
sang ska ri/ pa ri shud de / da ma te / ga ga na sa mud ga te / sva ba wa bi shud de / ma ha ya na pa ri ba re sva ha.
261 Upper right of front cover (verso of col. a), in pencil: “10” and “53.” The latter number suggests that this may belong with “Fragment 53.”
262 Upper right of front cover (verso of col. a), in pencil: “8.” On back of booklet: “aparimitāyur.”
263 Upper right of front cover (verso of col. a), in pencil: “6.” Underneath, perpendicular and in ink: “aparimitāyur.” Traces of faded red ink in upper
right corner, probably site number.
In lieu of a catalogue  319
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310.x P Cols Ll. Dh Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
52 6,1-3 ITJ 1610 3 6 19 B lIng ho hing je'u By site no., in pencil: “310”264
Fragment 53 1,1-4 426 4 7 (no a) 19 B cI king phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog See footnote265
Fragment 53 2,1 427 1 2 19 B khang tIg tig he jIng leng pe'u pab weng See footnote266
Fragment 53 3,1-3 424 3 6 19 B n/a Last panel(s) missing267
Fragment 53 4,1-4 425 4 8 19 B bam stag See footnote268
bz<i>ang
55 14,1-3 ITJ 1612 3 6 20 B heng je'u phab dzang phab cI dpal mchog By site no., in pencil: “310”
56 17,1-2 ITJ 1613 3 6 20 A+ n/a End missing269
320  Documenting Limitless Life

57 16,1-3 ITJ 1614 3 5 19 A jeng legs rtsan See footnote270

58 18,1-2 ITJ 1615 2 4 19 B n/a By site no., in pencil: “310”
Fragment 59 7,1-4 428 4 7 (a blank) 19 B cI king phab cI phab dzang dpal mchog By site no., in pencil: “310”
Fragment. 81 none ITJ 1569 1 1 n/a n/a n/a First 10 ll. of col. a
fragment 84-85 19,1-3 429 3 6 20 B ser thong thong By site no., in pencil: “310”


264 By site number, in pencil: “310.” Upper right of front cover (verso of col. a), in pencil: “6.” Chinese on the verso of col. f. Appears to include Jiang numbers.
265 Chinese characters at top right corner of verso of col. b in black and red, next to “53.” These are tallies or Jiang numbers. Pencil adds “.4” after site
number, and “no. 310.”
266 This could be the end of the sutra copy ITJ 310.424, to judge by the handwriting, but if so there is still a missing panel in between. At g18 dga' go is
corrected to dga'o. Pencil adds “.5” after site number, and “no. 310.” On verso: “53.”
267 Pencil adds “.2” after site number, and “no. 310.” On verso of panel d: “53.”
268 Smaller manuscript: panel measures 46.5 ✕ 27.5 cm. Pencil adds “.3” after site number, and “no. 310.”
269 First instance of dhāraṇī has tad dya ta added below the line in a less square script than the script of the main text. By site number, in pencil: “310.”
270 The first col. of this fragment is missing. Col. e contains nineteen lines drawn but scribe has written six lines in the space for four lines at the bottom.
Site No. Roll No. ITJ 310.x P Cols Ll. Dh Scribe Editor 1 Editor 2 Editor 3 Notes
Fragment.99 none ITJ 1234 1, torn 1 n/a B? n/a See footnote271
Fragment.99 none ITJ 1235 1, torn 1 (a) n/a n/a n/a See footnote272


271 Five lines of fragment; 7.5 ✕ 15 cm; one partial dhāraṇī (ll. 4–5) reads: na mo bA ga [ba t]e [xxx] (l. 5:) shcI ta / ra dza ya ta tha ga ta ya ^om sa rba
sang ska ra pa rI shud d+ha / d[xxx].
272 Six lines of fragment; 12 ✕ 10 cm; represents opening lines of the sutra (l. 1: [xxx s]u tra / / bod skad [d]u [xxx]).
In lieu of a catalogue  321
5 Correcting Limitless Life
“The Sutra of Limitless Life is complete. Copied by Cang Snang legs. Not
edited by Chos btan. Third edited by Ci keng. Copied by [illegible].
Edited by Chos brtan, re-edited by Sgron ma, third edited by Shin dar.
There are omissions and hands [sic] in it.
$/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po 'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
cang snang legs brIs / / <chos btan myI zhus / / cI keng sum zhus />
<[xx x]ing gis briso / /> $/:/ chos brtan zhus / / sgron ma yang zhus
shIn dar sum zhus / / 'de la chad lag mchis so /.
ITJ 310.720

There are many sorts of corrections in these Ap copies. Scribes corrected their own
mistakes as they wrote and sometimes after. Editors corrected a scribe’s copy, often
in red ink. Scribes also “corrected” colophons by rubbing out or striking through
one name and adding another. Later, curators and cataloguers corrected site num-
bers, booklet numbers, and pressmarks. The practice of having an Ap copy edited
by between one and three editors suggests a concern for their quality and their
“correctness,” even if this ethic apparently only held in the initial phase of the
project and was abandoned in its second phase. Some of these “corrections,” such
as the effaced colophons, offer windows into the social history of scribes and editors
in Dunhuang, as described in Chapter Three. Others, such as a type-B dhāraṇī cor-
rected into a type-A dhāraṇī, pertain to the history of the dhāraṇī and of the sutra
and of their transmission(s), documented in Chapter Two. Corrected site numbers
and pressmarks help to reconstruct a history of conservation, as documented in
Chapter One. Turning to the more pedestrian corrections of spelling and grammar
by scribes and editors, these sutra copies also contribute to the study of the develop-
ment of orthographic norms for written Tibetan in the mid-ninth century, and offer
a snapshot of how the difference between a variant and an error was negotiated in
the mid-to-late 820s in Dunhuang. In order to gauge this contribution, we have at-
tended to corrections and to the various (mis)spellings of names in colophons, and
we have transcribed explicits to form a searchable database. This represents just
one use to which the data of our augmented catalogue might be put.

5.1 Corrections
As noted in Chapter Three, the editors of the Tibetan Ap in Dunhuang generally did
not engage in rigorous corrections. Scribes produced copies based on their exemplars,

Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550-009
 Corrections  323

and editors corrected these based on their exemplars. In many cases, an editorial
colophon names up to three editors, but no corrections are found in the sutra copy.
More often, editors focused their work on a few common mistakes, found in the
same passages in each sutra copy they edited. Anchoring these according to the line
numbers of the transliterated Ap copy PT 3901 at the end of this chapter, some of
the most common corrections are as follows:

In dhāraṇī: de to dhe; insertion of na mo when scribe forgot it

a7: de na to de nas
a9: stsogs pa to la stsogs pa
a11: bzhugs ’tsho to bzhugs shing ’tsho
b7, c11, e15, f2: gang zhig to gang la la zhig
b10: ’gyur ro to ’gyur to
c16: myI ’gyur te to myI ’gyur to
c16: myI ’gyur ro to myI ’gyur to
e6 and e12: mdo to mdo sde
f7: rin che to rin p(h)o che
f11: rgyal po chen po bzhi to rgya mtsho chen po bzhi
f13: nus kyi to nuso

Less frequently, editors corrected the sutra’s title. In one case the scribe corrected
himself at brgya dkar skad du (ITJ 310.111), but in another the same error goes un-
corrected (ITJ 310.212). In several cases the Sanskrit title had to be corrected. In a
few instances we have the mistake na ma ma ha na ya corrected to na ma ma ha ya
na (ITJ 310.788; ITJ 310.1119). This is an understandable mistake when one remem-
bers that the dhāraṇī ends “ma ha na ya pa ri ba re sva ha,” and the scribe must
write this multiple times. A similar, but even graver error is evident from this
struck-through incipit at ITJ 310.1167: $/:/ rgya gar skad du ^a pa rI mi ta ^ yur nya
na su bI ni sci ta ra dza ya ta tha ga ta ya tad thya tha ^om sa rba sang ska ra pa ri
shud dha/ dhar ma te ga ga na sa mu dga’ te sba bha ba bi shud de ma ha na ya pa rI
ba re sva hA/ / $/:/ rgya gar skad du ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yur na ma ma ha ya na su tra
/. The Tibetan title, too, often required correction: in ITJ 310.523, tshe dpa zhes bya
ba’ is corrected to tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba’.
From the scribe’s perspective, the most challenging aspect of copying this text is
its repetition, and a few instances of difficult grammar. Because of the nature of the
text and the recurrence of the dhāraṇī, it is very easy to skip a short passage, due to
eyeskip either by the scribe or by a reader giving dictation. The rendering of foreign
place names (e.g. Dza’ ta’i tshal for Jetavana) and foreign terms (e.g. ka sha ni
’ga ’ for kārṣāpaṇa, an Indian coin) is by comparison only a minor annoyance. The
324  Correcting Limitless Life

content and vocabulary of the sutra are elementary, apart from two sentences that
make use of the contrastive or adversative use of the genitive, and which consist-
ently gave the scribes problems. The second of these two sentences is as follows:

’dI lta ste rgya mtsho chen po bzhI’i chus yongs su gang ba’I thIgs pa re re nas bgrang bar nus
gyI tshe dpag du myed pa’i mdo ’di bsod nams gyI phung po’i tshad ni bgrang bar myI nus so /
(Adversative gyI in bold).

One may be able to count each drop of water that fills the four great oceans, but one cannot
count the extent of the heaps of merit of this Aparimitāyuḥ-sūtra.

The most common error was to end the sentence with a second, redundant, myi nus
gyi instead of closing it with myi nus so. In some cases, as in our sample copy PT
3901 transliterated at the end of this chapter, the editors missed this error. Another
common mistake was to insert a negation in the first clause, e.g. myi bgrang bar nus
gyi, in which case many a dutiful editor struck through the myi. A third, less gram-
matical but no less common error in this particular passage was to write rgyal po
chen po bzhi (“the four great kings”) instead of rgya mtsho chen po bzhi (“the four
great oceans”). The four great kings occur elsewhere in the text and may also be an
understandable substitution based on their comparative ubiquity in a ninth-centu-
ry Dunhuang milieu, and based also on their association with sutra copying, as not-
ed in Chapter Three.
It is also instructive to examine what the editors have either introduced or left
to stand. One consequence of the light-touch model of editing that operated here is
that in nearly every sutra copy we could find errors that have been overlooked. In
the sample sutra copy PT 3901, for example, ’jig rten is spelled ’jin rten in line a8, ri
rab is rib rab in line d4, and the negation myed is misspelled myis at line f9. More
interesting are those cases where editors have corrected a word, but done so in a
way that allows for spelling variations. To name a few examples taken from our
data, we observed that in correcting bzhugs ’tsho’ to bzhugs shing ’tsho’, the editor
did not strike through the suffix at the end of ’tsho’ (ITJ 310.104). Similarly, in this
same passage in a separate sutra copy, an editor has corrected tso to ’tso, rather
than ’tsho (ITJ 310.248). At a9, between yon tan dpag du myed pa and zhes bya, an
editor inserted in red lastsogs pa, and not la stsogs pa or las stsogs pa (ITJ 310.343).
In another copy, in the final sentence at g18, ’ga’ go is corrected to ’ga’o, rather than
dga’o (ITJ 310.1030).
There is no doubt that editors sometimes introduced errors. To note one of the
worst, an editor “corrects” sangs rgyas to sang rgyas at line f16, ITJ 310.554, thus
 Names and their spellings  325

misspelling the word for Buddha. Our epigraph is another such example, where chad
lhag (“omissions and additions”) is misspelled chad lag (“omissions and hands”).1
There were precious few cases where editors have corrected grammatical par-
ticles. One editor corrected tshe’ang to tshe yang at b1 (ITJ 310.694). Another, in the
passage from g1–g13, thrice corrected stobs gis to stobs gyis; and corrected rten gI
to rten gyI at both e17 and g17 (ITJ 310.694). Incidentally, the scribe uses kyi(s) else-
where in this copy, and the editor lets it stand. Another correction that concerns
the use of the ma ya btags is that of bud med to bud myed at e13 (ITJ 310.1116).
Editorial thoroughness varied from one copy to another, and individual teams
of editors had their own respective modi operandi and favorite passages to correct.
This was probably dictated in large part by the editorial exemplar that they used to
check and correct sutra copies.

5.2 Names and their spellings

It appears to be customary that one editor performed the corrections, even if two
or three editors are named in the editorial colophon. In many cases this meant that
one editor wrote the names of one or two colleagues alongside their own, and this
created another opportunity for misspellings. The dynamic of scribes and client
scribes produced a parallel situation where one scribe wrote another scribe’s name
in the scribal colophon. As a consequence, scribes’ and editors’ names are not spelled
the same way every time. Fellow scribes and editors have written down another
scribe’s or editor’s name phonetically. In many cases this is a Chinese name ren-
dered in Tibetan script. These misspellings helpfully provide us with an inventory
of the sorts of errors of hearing (aural or sub-aural) to which scribes and editors
were prone. Also, this type of phonemic spelling is an apt introduction to Old Ti-
betan orthography in that it pushes one to abandon a rigid adherence to fixity and
morphemic norms. The names are non-lexical items, and so they display a purer
fluidity than a proper noun would. Because of this, they can aid the study of his-
torical phonology and consideration of the types of phonemic variation that one
might also find in lexical items. We list some of these variations below.

Alternation between voiced and voiceless consonants:

Leng ho Be’u tshvon / Leng ho Pe’u tshven
Lu Dze shing / Lu Tshe hing / Lu Tse shing
Tshe’u Dge la rton / Dza’u Dge la rton


1 We are aware that its use in this compound could motivate the de-aspiration of lhag here.
326  Correcting Limitless Life

CI keng / Ci keng / JI keng / Ce king / CI king

He jing / Heg cing / He jeng

Alternation between aspirated and unaspirated consonants:

Se thong pa / Se tong pa
Phug ’gi / Phu ’gi / Phag ’gI / PIg gi’

Other consonant alternations:

j /dz:
Je’u Hva ’do / Dza’u Hva ’do
Tshe’u Dge la rton / Dza’u Dge la rton

dz / z:
Phab dzang / Pab dzang / Pab zang

^ / y:
Dam ^Ing / Dam ying
^I do / Yi 'do

^ / k:
^Im Lha bzher / Kim Lha bzher

sh / h:
Lu Dze shing / Lu Tshe hing / Lu Tse shing

b / w:
’E bam Khyi brug / ’E wam Khyi brug2

’ / w:
De'u ^ing / De wu ^ing

o / e vowel alternation:
Leng ho Be’u tshvon / Leng ho Pe’u tshven


2 Another variation pertinent to the Tibetan consonants ba and wa comes from Ma De’s catalogue
and the scribal colophons to the two-sutra roll Db. t. 151, and adds aspiration into the mix: Rje'u Hva
’do/ Rje’u Rba ’do; Ma 2011, 131.
 Explicit orthography  327

i / e vowel alternation:
Ding ^ing tshe / DIng ^eng tshe
Heng je’u / Hing je’u
Leng ho Zhun tse / Ling ho Zhun tse
CI keng / Ci keng / JI keng / Ce king;
He jing / Heg cing / He jeng
Se thong pa / Si thong pa’ / Se thong pA
Weng yir / Wang yer

a / e vowel alternation:
Yam Lha sbyin / Yem Lha sbyin
Je’u Hva ’do / Dza’u Hva ’do
Tshe’u Dge la rton / Dza’u Dge la rton
Brtan legs / Brten legs
Weng yir / Wang yer

Other variations include alternation between gi gu (-i) and gi log using the reversed
diacritic (here “-I”) in names such as Khang tig tIg / Khang tIg tIg / Khang tIg tig, and
the equivalence of a’ suffixes and subscribed a’, for instance Se thong pa’ / Se thong
pA. The widest variation occurs in one name that is written with a, i, and u vowels:
Phug ’gi / Phu ’gi / Phag ’gI / PIg gi’.

5.3 Explicit orthography

The transcribed explicits provide a searchable dataset that includes information
relevant to orthography. In all cases, scribes are copying from exemplars and ed-
itors are editing from exemplars, so little variation would be expected. On the other
hand, this comes at the end of the sutra – a sutra that scribes have copied many
times before – so it is perhaps here that errors are most likely to creep in. Our
sample explicits are of two types. The first is taken from approximately every tenth
pressmark from Tibetan Ap copies in the British Library. The second is taken from
twenty-two additional copies that appear to the editors’ exemplars due to their being
scribed by prolific editors. These are held in the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Among the editors’ exemplars are copies written by the prolific editors Ci keng,
Shin dar, Dpal gyi Sgron ma, and Dpal mchog. Analyzing these copies, and com-
paring the groups of copies attributed to a single editor, we find no false attrib-
utions. That is to say, all of the copies “signed” by Dpal gyi Sgron ma, for example,
are of the same hand, and the same principle holds true for all the fifty-two example
328  Correcting Limitless Life

copies in this group. 3 Apart from paleographic features, we noted orthographic

practices that are generally consistent across the copies written by a single editor.
Ci keng, for instance, places the shad punctuation mark after thams chad, and some-
times after gsung ba la, and prefers cen po to chen po; Shin dar consistently writes
de dag thams cad instead of de thams cad; Dpal gyi Sgron ma prefers dga’ go to dga’
’o. This latter point is relevant to the matter of whether or not dga’ go was viewed
as an incorrect form; to judge from the exemplars written by the editor Dpal gyi
Sgron ma, it was not.
When taken together as a group, the editors’ copies display an orthography re-
markably similar to that of the representative sample of explicits. This justifies the
grouping together of these explicits with those of the representative sample taken
from approximately every tenth pressmark. It is also unsurprising, if we assume
that the former copies served as models for the latter. The corpus also demonstrates
that the sort of variation that we have observed, e.g. dga’o versus dga go, is not
simply a product of poorly edited copies, but represents variations beyond the
simple dichotomy of correct and incorrect forms.
In versions one, two, and three of the sutra, the final part (just before the
colophon) reads: “and all were truly pleased at what the bhagavan said. The Apari-
mitāyur-nāma mahāyāna-sūtra is complete.” One more or less “correct” version of
this reads de thams chad / bcom ldan ’das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga’o /:/ / tshe
dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po ’i mdo rdzogs so / / (ITJ 301.1). To the
uninitiated, there might seem to be little room for variation in this ending. Howev-
er, in 188 searchable explicits, we find omissions and additions, and we find vari-
ants or errors for nearly every syllable. We will now outline some of the major ones.

“And all”:
The explicit begins de thams chad. The word immediately preceding is ’khor. In a
few cases (e.g. ITJ 310.150 and PT 3951), scribes omit de, and in one case it is inserted
interline (ITJ 310.426). In one case, it is misspelled te (ITJ 310.1011). A more accepta-
ble variant is the plural de dag, and we find twenty of these against 165 de. There is
some interesting orthographic variation in the word “all.” The spelling thams cad
as in Classical Tibetan is only one of three acceptable forms in our corpus. There
are eighty-six thams cad, seventy-nine thams chad, and eight thams shad. One of
the latter is spelled without tshegs, dethamsshad (ITJ 310.981). In three cases, we
find the anusvāra, e.g. thaMs chad (ITJ 310.140 and 776) and thaMs shad (ITJ 310.258).
We find subscribed suffixes, e.g. tham+s chad, twice (ITJ 310.1021 and PT 3812).


3 One exception is PT 3648, which appears to be the scribe Dang Tse tse’s defective copy of the
editor Dam ’gi’s exemplar.
 Explicit orthography  329

Among misspellings, we have two thams can (ITJ 310.1044 and ITJ 1658), one thams
cadu (ITJ 310.449), one thaMs shas (ITJ 310.649), one thams cas (ITJ 310.523), and one
thams (ITJ 1687). We also find the correction thams bchad (ITJ 310.94). The most
egregious misspelling is tha ced at PT 3648.

“Bhagavan”:
The word bcom ldan ’das may also be spelled with a medial ’a, e.g. bcom ldan ’da’s.
The aspirated bchom is also a variant. We find 170 bcom and eleven bchom. We also
find three pcom, two brcom, and one mchom. In terms of corrections, we find two
mbcom, and one bmcom. Twice we find an anusvāra used, i.e. bcoM (ITJ 310.258 and
1094). We find the form ldan 185 times, and ldand twice. There is also one ltan (ITJ
1707), one ltaldan (ITJ 310.177), one ldag (ITJ 310.124), and once ldan is elided, i.e.
bcom ’da’s (ITJ 310.310). We also find five instances where the word is corrected to
ldan, e.g. ltdan (ITJ 310.1084) or ldadn (ITJ 310.111). There are 116 ’da’s, seventy ’das,
one ’da (ITJ 310.352), and one ’da’ (ITJ 310.666). In one case, ’da is inserted interline,
below the s suffix (ITJ 310.517). In another case, we find ’da’ sa for ’das (ITJ 1488).

Ergative (gyis):
Besides the ergative kyis or gyis, we also find here the genitive kyi or gyi. This error
is not surprising, given the sentence structure. Still, the vast majority of scribes
were correct, as we find 146 ergative against thrity-five genitive, and five instances
where no particle is used, e.g. bcom ldan ’da’s gsungs pa. As for the form of sandhi,
and disregarding whether it is ergative or genitive or whether there is a gi gu or gi
log – e.g. counting both kyI and kyis under the rubric “kyi(s)” – we find fifty-seven
kyi(s), 120 gyi(s), three gi(s), two yi(s) and one kis (ITJ 310.612).

“What he said” (gsungs pa):

The verb gsungs is found as such 176 times, ten times as gsung, and once as stsungs
(ITJ 310.228). In two of the above cases we count gsung sa as gsungs. In 159 cases the
nominal particle is pa, in thirteen cases it is ba, in one case pa’ (ITJ 310.730), and in
two cases it is absent (in ITJ 310.533 naturally and in ITJ 310.44 by being crossed out).
In one case it is an interlinear insertion (ITJ 310.94). In 167 cases we find la, and in
fifteen cases las. In one case we find pa pa instead of pa la (PT 3865).

“Truly”:
In 171 cases we find mngon bar, as opposed to nine mngon par, four mgon bar, one
mngond bar (ITJ 310.324), and one mngon du (ITJ 310.798). We once find mngor cor-
rected to mngon (ITJ 310.517).
330  Correcting Limitless Life

“Were pleased”:
In thirty-eight cases we find the dga’o one would expect in Classical Tibetan. In
sixty-nine cases, a tsheg intervenes, e.g. dga’ ’o, in eleven cases we find dga’’o, and
we find eight dga ’o. In forty-three cases, we find the unexpected dga’ go. Where the
verb’s suffix is left off we find eight dga go, one dgago (ITJ 310.241), two dga ga’o (ITJ
310.248), and one dga ’go’ (ITJ 310.592). Intriguingly, we find seven cases where the
sentence final particle go is struck through and replaced with ’o. Once we find the
misspelling gda’o (ITJ 1609).

“The Aparimitāyur (tshe dpag du myed pa):”

This part of the sutra’s end is missing from nine copies of our sample, and is written
twice in one (ITJ 310.428, the first crossed out). The sample size is thus different from
above. We find 174 tshe, four tse, one dtshe, and one che. There are 167 dpag, eleven
dphag, one dbag, and one pag. We never find the expected tu, but rather have 181
du, and one omission (e.g. dpag myed; ITJ 310.318). We find 179 of the expected myed,
and not a single med. In a few cases, myid is corrected to myed. Among the myed pa
we include the correction myed pa’I mdo ’di b pa (ITJ 310.235). There are 160 pa,
eleven pa’, six pa’i, and one omission, myed pa’I zhes (ITJ 310.971). In seven cases,
we find pa’i.

“nāma” (zhes bya ba):

We find 171 zhes, two shes, two zhe – one of which is zhes (ITJ 310.967) – and one
omission (e.g. myed pa bya ba; ITJ 310.582). There are others that skip even more
text, e.g. tshe dpag du myed pa’i mdo at ITJ 1697. We find one instance of the cor-
rection shzhes (ITJ 310.34). For the bya of bya ba we find 165 bya, twelve bye, one
byas (ITJ 310.241), and two missing (zhes theg in ITJ 310.563, and zhes ba in ITJ
310.649). In a few cases this is corrected, byea (ITJ 1600), and byas (ITJ 310.967). Once
we also find the reverse “correction,” bya bye (ITJ 310.772). The nominal particle
varies as follows: 171 ba, three ba’, two ba ’I (ITJ 310.825 and ITJ 310.825), and one pa
(ITJ 310.196).

“Mahāyāna-sūtra” (theg pa chen po ’i mdo)”:

For the theg of theg pa we find 168 theg, four thig, two thegs, two then, one them,
and several omissions (e.g. zhes bya ba’i mdo). For the nominal particle there are
172 pa and two pe. We also find the corrections thoeg pa (ITJ 310.177) and thieg pa
(PT 3520). For chen po’i the results are 158 chen, eleven ched, eight cen, and one ced
(ITJ 310.839). There are 110 po’i, thirty po’I, nineteen po ’i, seven po ’I, four pho’i, two
pho’I, one pho and three po. We find 178 mdo, two mdo’, one ’do, one mo, one ma,
one mdo’o, and one omission (e.g. dga’o / / rdzogs so). We also find the correction
 Explicit orthography  331

bdmdo. In two instances we find the determinative “this sutra” mdo ’di, but in just
as many cases we find this struck through.

“Is complete”:
We find 114 rdzogs so, nineteen rdzogs so+’, fifteen rdzogs s+ho, four rdzogsso, one
rdzogso+’, one rdzogs+ho, one rdzogso’, one rdzogs stso, three rdzogs, and one
skipped (mdo’o).

Orthography in Dunhuang’s scriptoria in the 820s

From this sample it is possible to make a number of observations. Assuming that

this is representative of these officially sponsored sutra copies, it provides a fairly
good baseline for the orthographic principles of its time and place, namely the mid-
to-late 820s in Dunhuang. Some results are not particularly surprising, but others
help to establish a relative chronology of orthographic change during this period.
To begin, medial ’a are licit. This is evident from the 116 ’da’s as against seventy ’das
in the word bcom ldan ’da’s. The ma ya btags is normative with i and e vowels, e.g.
myi and mye. The one exception to this comes in the name ^a mi ta phur, but this can
be explained as a special case pertaining to the transcription of a foreign word. In
the sutra’s title given in the explicit, we find only myed and not a single med. Our
sample sentences do not include any words where the da drag is expected, although
we do find the odd over-eager scribe adding these at ldand and mngond. Had we
applied the same methods to the SP, we would have found a sufficient proportion of
pha rold du phyind pa to demonstrate that da drag are licit, perhaps even expected.4
The sample also demonstrates another common feature of early Tibetan writ-
ing, the alternation of n and d suffixes. This is attested in the ratio of 164 c(h)en :
twelve c(h)ed, showing a clear preference for c(h)en. The gi log is also common.
Making a ratio from the appearance of the i vowel in our sample explicits – mostly,
but not exclusively, limited to ergative and genitive particles – we get 272 gi gu : 147
gi log. By comparison, the ratio is 100 : 86 in the north and south faces of the Sri
Pillar (c. 764), and 229 : 287 in the Dbon zhang Inscription of 823. 5
Our sample provides fairly ample data on the variation between aspirated and
unaspirated voiceless consonants. Here one must take account of whether or not


4 For confirmation, see the transcriptions in Lalou 1961.
5 For transcriptions of, and bibliographic data on, these two inscriptions, see Iwao, Hill, and
Takeuchi 2009, 4–9 (“The Zhol inscription”) and 32–42 (“The Sino-Tibetan treaty inscription of 821–
822”) respectively.
332  Correcting Limitless Life

the aspiration occurs in an initial position, word-internally, or otherwise. For exam-

ple, in the initial position we find a ratio of 167 chen and ched to nine cen and ced in
the word chen po, and a ratio of 174 tshe : 4 tse. Word-internally, we have 169 po : 7
pho in c(h)en po/ c(h)ed po. These results are not far from Classical Tibetan stand-
ards, where one expects an aspirated initial and an unaspirated second syllable,
e.g. chen po. Theg pa in fact fully accords with such standards, with 168 theg : 0 teg
and 172 pa : 0 pha. If we consider the use of the sentence final particle in the same
context, we find the second syllable mostly unaspirated: 118 rdzogso/ rdzogs so : 16
rdzogs s+ho/ rdzogs+ho.6 Yet there is significant divergence from Classical Tibetan
standards in the ratio 167 dpag : 11 dphag, where the consonant in question is not
in the onset position. This is almost identical to the ratio of 170 bcom : 11 bchom. Our
sample’s relative alignment of aspiration with Classical Tibetan norms is further
complicated by the ratio of 86 thams cad : 79 thams chad, where the former became
the standard Classical form. Compared with the other ratios, this is the most anom-
alous. Precisely this phenomenon has already been discussed, however, by Nathan
Hill: “the use of aspirated spellings word-internally may be credited to a morpho-
phonemic tendency in the orthography. Since these morphemes were most fre-
quently spelled as aspirated, the aspirated spellings were generalized, despite the
unaspirated pronunciation word-internally.”7 In other words chad, as in the phrase
chad lhag (“omissions and additions”), was sufficiently frequent to override the
“correct” form thams cad in favor of the “popular” form thams chad.
Our transcribed explicits also measure the fluidity of syllable margins. We find
a ratio of 128 dga’ ’o/ dga’ go/ dga ’o/ dga go : 50 dga’o/ dga’’o/ dgago. The preference
for separated syllables is more pronounced in the ratio of 148 rdzogs so/ rdzogs so+’/
rdzogs s+ho/ rdzogs stso : 7 rdzogso/ rdzogso’ rdzogso+’/ rdzogs+ho. Absent or exces-
sive syllable margins, (e.g. dethamsshad and gsung sa pa, respectively) are rare.
In the case of the ’i(s) forms of the genitive and ergative particles, the prefer-
ence for separated syllables is reversed. In our sample, we found twenty-six sepa-
rated p(h)o ’i or p(h)o ’I : 146 attached p(h)o’i or p(h)o’I. This latter ratio is 0 : 1 in all
imperial-period inscriptions (e.g. 0 : 29 in the north and south faces of the Sri Pillar
and 0 : 94 in the Dbon zhang Inscription). This appears to be part of a general move-
ment from the mid-eighth century to the late-tenth century, whereby attached ’i(s)


6 We omit here nineteen rdzogs so+’, one rdzogso+’, one rdzogso’ and one rdzogs stso. It also re-
mains to be confirmed that the distinction between so and s+ho is one of aspiration, particularly
given that such alternation is rare for sibilants. (We are indebted to Nathan Hill for this observa-
tion.) It may be the case that s+ho represents, for example, a lengthened vowel. On a related matter,
Yoshiro Imaeda contends that subscribed ’a, as in rdzogs so+’, is used to “emphasize the terminal
particle,” but that it cannot lengthen the vowel; Imaeda 2011, 40–41.
7 See Hill 2007, 480 and cf. 477, n. 7.
 Explicit orthography  333

or ’I(s) gave way to separated ’i(s) or ’I(s). In PT 44, for example, which dates to
either 966 or 978, the ratio of separated to attached ’i(s) or ’I(s) is 37 : 0.8 In a Guiyijun
administrative document, PT 1097, the ratio is 26 : 0. Of course there are outliers,
and ratios are less stark in many documents, such as the mid-to-late ninth-century
Guiyijun legal document PT 1081, which, in an admittedly small sample, has a ratio
of 6 : 6. Moreover, the trend would reverse itself when separated ’i(s) and ’i(s) were
replaced with yi(s), generally employed causa metri. Nevertheless, making allow-
ance for such outliers, and understanding that the ratios did not all flip in the same
place at the same time, the gradual separation of ’i(s) from the preceding syllable
appears to be one of the few features one can fairly reliably use to distinguish early
ninth-century orthographies from mid- to late-tenth-century orthographies. Our
sample includes one example each of yis and yI as an ergative and genitive particle
(ITJ 310.196 and ITJ 310.373, respectively), suggesting that this convention may have
been just edging its way into Dunhuang in the 820s.
As for the sandhi of grammatical particles, the data turned up a few surprises.
The first is the use of go as a sentence final particle following dga’. Here one expects
’o, and indeed ’o was far more prevalent. Additionally, several instances of dga’ go
were corrected to dga’ ’o. This suggests that dga’ go was viewed, at least by some
editors, as incorrect. For many of the Chinese scribes of Dunhuang, dga’ ’o and dga’
go must have been phonologically equivalent. We see this also in the spelling mthag
dag for mtha’ dag, found in numerous Ap copies, a point that demonstrates that the
sandhi in dga’ go was not the result of an agreement with the root letter ga. This
adds some further support for Nathan Hill’s conclusions concerning the status of
the consonant ’a as a velar fricative.9 There are several examples in the colophons
that bear this out, ranging from the spellings of personal names to the use of ’is
following a suffix.
The forms of the genitive and ergative particles, like the use of attached versus
separated ’i(s), appear to have been in a state of flux between the eighth and ninth
centuries. In some texts one finds a distinct preference for gyi(s) where, following
d, b, and s suffixes, one would expect kyi(s). This is true of the east face of the Sri
Pillar (c. 784), the Bsam yas Inscription (c. 779), and many other texts (e.g. Old Ti-
betan Annals, Shangshu Paraphrase, PT 999, PT 1111, and PT 1132).10 On the other hand,
the Dbon zhang inscription uses kyi(s) where it would be expected by Classical


8 On the date, see Akagi 2011.
9 Hill 2005; Hill 2009; and Hill 2011. Cf. Róna-Tas 1992, 699.
10 A transcription of the Bsam yas Inscription and bibliographic data on further studies, are found
in Iwao, Hill, and Takeuchi 2009, 11–12; and many of these other texts are found on https://otdo.aa-
ken.jp/archives.
334  Correcting Limitless Life

Tibetan standards. Furthermore, one finds idiosyncratic uses such as in the late
Guiyijun administrative text, PT 1082, where only gi(s) is used. In the Ap sample, the
ergative following bcom ldan ’da’s should, by the Classical Tibetan standards, be
kyis. The results, however, are 120 gyi(s) : 57 kyi(s).
More decisive is the terminative particle. In the title of the text we invariably
find dpag du, and not the Classical-Tibetan-mandated dpag tu. The ratio of the for-
mer to the latter is 181 : 0. In fact, this is representative of other Old Tibetan texts
generally datable to the ninth century, and may apply to Tibetan Dunhuang manu-
scripts more generally. Du is consistently used where Classical Tibetan standards
expect tu in the Dbon zhang Inscription and in the vast majority of official imperial
Tibetan letters, the Old Tibetan Annals, the Old Tibetan Chronicle, the Rāmāyaṇa,
etc. Occurrences of tu in Old Tibetan documents are so rare as to be suspect: if they
are not mistranscriptions or written in error by a sloppy or barely literate scribe,
they should cause one to query the date and provenance of the document in which
they are found. This is not, however, to claim that tu simply did not exist in eighth-
and ninth-century Tibetan. Indeed, one does find the occasional bona fide tu, as in
the case of a few unequivocal rab tu interspersed with rab du in a pothī-format SP
(type 1), PT 1321, r1. Here one must also take into account the graphic variations in
the consonant t when it is joined with the u vowel. In most cases its descender is
shortened such that tu can resemble du. The obvious way to reduce this judgment
from a matter of opinion to an informed and verifiable statement based on visible
evidence is to compare closely any ambiguous du / tu of a given manuscript with un-
ambiguous du / tu as they appear in the same manuscript within words such as dus
or btus. So, while it is indicative, there are exceptions, and the presence of tu cannot
be taken, by itself, as proof that a given manuscript is late (e.g. post-tenth century).
Two features, the anusvāra and the a’ suffix, are hardly attested. Only three of
153 thams c(h)ad/ thams shad use the anusvāra, and we find a similar ratio of 2 bcoM :
179 bc(h)om. Were one to include the scribal and editorial colophons, the ratios
would likely even out, as we find a preponderance of suM zhus. As for the a’ suffix,
we could conceivably find it in our sample as gsungs pa’, myed pa’, and theg pa’.
Only the former two are attested. This follows a more general pattern observed
elsewhere, according to which the a’ suffix is more common in nominalized verbs
or in a prepausal position than it is in a noun such as theg pa. Even so, its occurrence
in our sample is rare: we find 172 gsungs pa / gsungs ba against one gsungs pa’, and
160 myed pa to eleven myed pa’.
Our results are limited by the size and nature of our sample. As a fairly rep-
resentative sample of the orthography employed by sutra-copying scribes in the
820s in Dunhuang, it flattens out and averages the data, drawing out the generalized
standards of the sutra-copying scribes. At the same time, certain scribes might
 Explicit orthography  335

consistently use orthographic forms that are in the statistical minority, or forms
that some editors correct. This is true, for example, of Dpal gyi Sgron ma’s use of
dga’ go. Such is the nature of how orthographic norms coalesce. In this context,
however, our sample also reveals an editorial process in which some exemplars to
be copied themselves contained forms that were on the borderline between ac-
ceptable variant and unacceptable error. These are relevant both to the process by
which orthographic norms coalesced, and also to the mode of editing applied to
copies of the Ap in the sutra-copying project. Nonetheless, the aggregate data point
to the existence of certain clear orthographic standards. These, taken together with
studies of other Dunhuang documents and early Tibetan writings, help us to estab-
lish some of the prevailing orthographic norms of Old Tibetan at this time.
Our sample explicit contains information about syllable margins, aspiration,
forms of genitive and ergative particles, d/n suffix variation, the use of my with i
and e vowels, and the use of medial ’a, anusvāra, and a’ suffixes. The sample tells
us nothing of several other interesting features, including the semi-final particle
(ste, te, de), the presence or absence of the genitive preceding the pluralizer rnams,
and the forms of the concessive (yang, kyang, ’ang), co-ordination (cing, zhing,
shing), or quotation particles (ces, zhes). Two features, ’i(s) and tu, were identified
as fairly reliable indicators for dating certain orthographies. Mid-eighth and early-
ninth-century documents from both central Tibet and Dunhuang tend to attach the
’i and ’is forms of the genitive and ergative particles to the preceding syllable.
Tenth-century Dunhuang manuscripts, on the other hand, usually insert a tsheg to
mark ’i(s) as a separate syllable. For the period from the late Tibetan Empire to the
early Guiyijun, that is, mid-ninth to late-ninth century, the data tends to be mixed.
It remains to be determined when and where the ’i(s) rejoined the preceding sylla-
ble, and when yi(s) – probably by analogy with ’ang and yang – replaced the stand-
alone form ’i(s). Here one must look to materials from Turfan, Tabo and elsewhere.11
Clues may also lie in the Dga’ thang ’bum pa texts from southern Tibet, which, while
preferring attached ’i(s), do include some separated ’i(s) and show no knowledge of
the form yi(s).12
The absence of tu in our sample is striking. At the same time, we find une-
quivocal tu in copies of imperial-period SP and in a few other texts. If these are not
phonemic misspellings – which is a real possibility, given the variation between
voiced and voiceless consonants, e.g. te thams cad in ITJ 310.1011 – then they consti-
tute evidence that this form of the case particle was not unknown in Tibetan at this


11 See, e.g. Durkin-Meisterernst et al. 2004 on Turfan; and Scherrer-Schaub 1999 on Tabo.
12 See the images and transcriptions in Pa tshab Pa sangs dbang ’dus and Glang ru Nor bu tshe
ring 2007.
336  Correcting Limitless Life

time. The uncertainty in this matter stems from both the graphic similarity of du
and tu, and the alternation between voiced and voiceless consonants. In our sam-
ple, gyi(s) and kyi(s) are almost interchangeable following the s suffix. Morphemic
norms seem to have developed in a piecemeal manner, with the norms governing
the morphology of one case particle offering easy analogies for the standardization
of another. Such seems to have happened, for example, with the innovation of yi(s)
by analogy with the concessive particle yang, which enjoyed widespread use for
centuries before yi(s) came into common use. The same principle stands behind
forms such as thams shad, which probably owes its existence to an analogy with
the morphology of the coordination particle (cing, zhing, shing), where shing fol-
lows the s suffix. To consider the emergence of tu, then, one might look to the use
of unaspirated voiceless consonants in other case particles, such as ces, cing, kyi(s),
kyang, and te. These are all attested in eighth- and early ninth-century Tibetan writ-
ing. The relative absence of tu in the corpus of searchable Old Tibetan documents
might be taken to suggest, however, that these were secondary developments from
their voiced counterparts and part of the same process that would eventually nor-
malize tu. Indications that this process was still being settled include the prepon-
derance of forms like ches and ching, but more especially the use of gyang, de, and
gyi(s) where kyang, te, and kyi(s) are expected.

5.4 Transcribed explicits, colophons, and corrections

The explicits, colophons, and corrections have been recorded for just over ten per-
cent of the Tibetan Ap sutra copies in the Stein Collection. In the case of the explicits
and colophons, this is straightforward in a single-sutra roll. Where one explicit and
colophon is recorded for a pressmark that includes more than one sutra copy, the
transcription is always for the first copy, whether this be a continuation from one
that began on the previous pressmark, or the first copy beginning a pressmark.

ITJ 310.1: de thams chad / bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o /:/ /
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po 'i mdo rdzogs so / /; /
cang lha legs bris / / $// sangs rgyas dang byang chub sems dpa' thams cad
la phyag 'tshal lo / / kyim phan sum gi g.yar dam lags so / cha yod par gyis
shig ya[x] 'bri mkhan nI ga cu ba [xx]u[x] [x]o[x] mkhan yin no /. Correc-
tions: few.
ITJ 310.7: de thams chad / / bcom ldan 'das gyi gsungs pa chen po'I mdo rdzogs
so /; $/:/dge slong dam ^ing gis [xxx] $/ / [d?]e[xxx]. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.14: l. 17: de thams cad / bcom ldan 'da's kyI gsungs pa la mngon bar dga
<go> / 'o /; l: 19: dtshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo
 Transcribed explicits, colophons, and corrections  337

rdzogs so / /; l. 18: $/./ dam 'gI zhus leng pe 'u yang zhus ci keng sum zhus /
/; l. 20, right side: klu legs bris so /. Corrections: mostly in dhāraṇī.
ITJ 310.24: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's kyis gsungs pa las mngon bar dga'o /
/ tshe dpag du myed pa' zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /; lI
brtan legs / (2 lines below:) $/:/ dge slong shin dar zhus / / leng ce'u yang
zhus / ci keng sum zhus / /. Corrections: in dhāraṇī, e.g. dhe; also a7: de na
to de nas.
ITJ 310.34: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's kyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o /
/ $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa'<I> <sh>zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo
rdzogs so / /; lI brtan legs bris / / (three lines below:) $/ / dge slong shin dar
zhus / / dge slong dam tsheng gi yang zhuso / ce king gI sum zhuso / /.
Corrections: gang zhig gi<s>; <sh>zhes bya.
ITJ 310.44: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's kyis gsungs <pa> las mngon bar dga'
go / / tshe dpag du myed pa' zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogs so /
/; lI brtan legs bris / dge slong daM tsheng gI zhuso / dge slong leng ce'u
yang zhus / cI keng sum zhus/ /. Corrections: gsungs <pa> las.
ITJ 310.54: de thams cad <nI> bcom ldan 'da's gyIs gsung pa la mngon bar dga'
'o / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba 'I mdo 'di rdzogs sO /:/ na mo dyi
dzang bo sar /; / ^an dge brtan bris / phab dzang zhus / phab cI yang zhus /
dpal mchog suM zhus. Corrections: in dhāraṇī e.g. dhe, or dzA.
ITJ 310.55: de thams cad / bcom ldan 'da's gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o /
/ tshe dpag dumyed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /; phug
'gI bris / shin dar zhus / sgron ma yang zhus / leng ce'u sum zhus / /. Correc-
tions: none.
ITJ 310.64: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o / /
$/./ tshe dpag du myed pa shes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /; lI
brten legs bris / / (next panel:) $/:/ dge slong shin dar zhus / / dge slong daM
tsheng gI yang zhus / ce king gi sum zhuso / /. Corrections: a11: bzhugs 'tsho
to bzhugs shing 'tsho; c16: myI 'gyur the to myI 'gyur tho; mdo to mdo sde.
ITJ 310.68: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go /
/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / / ^a
mo ta bur na mo ^a mI ta phur / /; / dpal gyI sgron ma bris / / (red <) leng
pe'u zhus / phab ting yang zhus / dpal mchog sum zhus / / (> red). Correc-
tions: none.
ITJ 310.74: de thams cad / / bcom ldan 'das gyi gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o / /
$/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba' theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
cang shIb tig bris. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.75: de thams chad bcom ldan 'das kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o / /;
^an dge brtan bris / phab dzang zhus / phab cI yang zhus / dpal mchog sum
338  Correcting Limitless Life

zhus. Corrections: snying rje grong khyer to snying rje'i grong khyer; mdo
to mdo sde.
ITJ 310.84: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's gyIs gsungs pa las mngon bar dga' go
/ / tshe dbag du myed pa zhes bya ba thIg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogs so /; phan
phan brIs so / / (next line:) sgron mas zhus / jI keng yang zhus / leng pe'u
sum zhus / /. Corrections: d4: phung po re rab mtsham to re rib tsham.
ITJ 310.90: de thams chad / / bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga 'o
/ / $ / : / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so
/ /; ban de deng dam ^ing bris / / shes rab zhus / / (red <) dpal mchog yang
zhus / / phug 'gI sum zhus / / (> red). Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.93: de thams chad / / bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga 'o
/ / $ / : / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so
/ /; ban de deng dam ^ing gis bris / / (red <) dpal mchog zhus / / phug 'gI yang
zhus / / phab dzang sum zhus / / (> red). Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.94: de thams <b>chad bchom ldan 'das gyis gsungspa (interline pa) la
mngon bar dga' 'o / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i
mdo rdzogso /; bam thong thong bris / shes rab dang zhus / jI ^in yang zhus
[x]/ suM zhus /. Corrections (in red): a7: de na to de nas; a15: 'dri 'am to 'dri
ba'am; (in black, in title:) na ma ma ma ha ya to na ma ma ha ya.
ITJ 310.96: de thams chad bcom ldan 'das gyi gsungs pa la mngon bar dga 'o / /
tshe dpag du my<i>ed pa zh<I>es bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so /
/; ban de daM ^ing bris / shes rab gyis zhus / (red <) phug 'gi gyis yang zhus
dpal mchog gyis sum zhus / / (> red). Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.104: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o /
/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po 'i mdo rdzogs sO / /;
lha lod gyis bras / dam 'gI zhus / / leng pe'u yang zhus / cI keng sum zhus /.
Corrections: typical: mdo to mdo sde, gang zhig to gang la la zhig, bzhugs
'tsho to bzhugs shing 'tsho (though here it is tsho').
ITJ 310.111: de thams cad bcom lda<d>n [self-correction] 'da's gyis gsungs pa la
mngon par dga 'o / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'I
mdo rdzogs stso /; / dam 'gI gyis bri s+ho / / (red <) dam ^ing zhus / / de'u
^Ing yang zhus / / dam ^ing sum zhus / / (> red). Corrections: title, self
correction: <b>rgya gar skad du.
ITJ 310.114: de thams cad bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o / /
tse dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs+ho / /; $/ /
dge legs bris / / phab dzang zhus / phab cI yang zhus / ben ceng sum zhus /.
Corrections: typical, but in black, and signe de renvoi looks like an dbu med
anusvāra or a small gi log.
 Transcribed explicits, colophons, and corrections  339

ITJ 310.124: de thams chad / bcom ldag 'da's kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o
/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba / theg pa chen po’I mdo rdzogs sO / /;
sag klu gzigs bris / / dpal mchog zhus / phug ’gI yang zhus / cI shan sum
zhus. Corrections: few, typical.
ITJ 310.126: de thams cad bcom ldan ’da’s kyis gsungs pa la / / mngon bar dgo’o
/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bye ba theg pa chen po’i mdo rdzogs s+ho / /;
^an phab dzang kyis bras / (red <) dam ’gI gis zhus / / cI keng yang zhus /
daM ’gI sum zhus te gtan la phab (/bab) / (> red); “te gtan la phab” perhaps
written in a different hand from final two editors' names. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.134: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga go /
/ $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /
^a myI da phur na mo ^a myI da phur / /; do lhas sbyin bris / ban de dam
yu dang heng tsi zhus (in red, next line:) yang zhuso. Corrections: editor
inserts ten shads in red into the dhāraṇī, dividing it into twelve sections.
ITJ 310.140: de dag thaMs shad / / bchom ldan 'da's gyIs gsungs pa las mngon bar
dga' go / / $ / / tshe dphag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'I mdo
rdzogs so / /; lI ben tshe. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.145: de dag thams shad / / bcom ldan 'da's gyIs / / gsungs pa la mngon bar
dga' go / / $ / : / tshe dphag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pe chen po'I mdo
rdzogso / /; lI ben tshe. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.150: 2: thams chad / bchom ldan 'da's kyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o
/ /; snyal stag snyas briso /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.156: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga''o /
/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pe chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
lha lod bris /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.163: de thams chad bchom ldan 'das kyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga''o
/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po <rda?> mdo rdzogs
so / /; / / 'gole'u le'u bris /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.170: de thams cad bchom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o
/ / $ / : / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs s'o
/ /; cang snang legs bris / /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.177: 2: de thams cad bcom <lta>ldan (lta should be omitted) 'das gyis
gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go / / $ / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba
th<o>eg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /; lu tshe hing bris / /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.190: 2: de thams chad / pcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la / mngon bar
dgaA'o / / tshe dphag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo
rdzogso; 2: gzangs lha stos bris. Corrections: none.
340  Correcting Limitless Life

ITJ 310.196: 1: de thams shad pcom ldan 'da's yis gsungs pa la mngon par dga'o
/ / tshe dphag du myed pa zhes bya pa theg pa chen po'i mdo' rdzogso / /; 1:
gzangs lha stos bris. Corrections: few, typical.
ITJ 310.202: de thams cad / <m>bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'
'o / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
cang shib tig bris. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.208: 2: de thams cad bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o
/ $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po 'I mdo rdzogso /; 2:
cang ^I tse bris. Corrections: 2: very few, typical.
ITJ 310.215: 2: de thams chad bcom / ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'
go / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
2: cang stag rma bris /. Corrections: 2: few, by rubbing out and writing over.
ITJ 310.221: de thams cad bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o /
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogso /; khang
btsan bzhe+r bris /. Corrections: few, by scribble.
ITJ 310.228: de thams chad / / bcom ldan 'das kyIs gscungs (/gstsungs) pa la
mngon bar dga'o / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'I
mdo'; lha legs brIs /. Corrections: very few.
ITJ 310.235: 1: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o
/ / tshe dpag du myed <pa'I mdo 'di b> pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo
rdzogs so /; cang shIb tig bris. Corrections: 1: by rubbing, probably with
water; few, typical.
ITJ 310.241: de / thams cad / / bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dgago
/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes byas ba thegs pa chen po 'I mdo rdzogs so /:/;
heng je'u bris. Corrections: few, horizontal strikethoughs.
ITJ 310.248: de dag thams cad bcom ldan 'das gyi gsungs pa la mngon bar dga
ga'o / / $ / : / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba thIg pa chen po 'i mdo
rdzogss'o / /; dvan snang gis bris / / pab zang zhus / phab cI yang zhus / dpal
mchog sum zhus /. Corrections: a11: tso corrected to 'tso.
ITJ 310.258: de dag thaMs chad <m>bcoM ldan ‘das gyis gsungs pala mngon bar
dga’o / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo rdzogs so
/ / ^a mI ta bur / na mo ^ mI ta bur / /; $ / / dpal kyI sgron ma brIs / / (red <)
leng pe’u zhus / / sgron ma yang zhus / / leng pe’u suM zhus / /(> red). Correc-
tions: none.
ITJ 310.268: de thams chad / bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o
/ / / $ / : tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so
/ /; dze'u hIn tsin bris s+ho / / / phab weng zhus / ci keng yang zhus leng pe'u
sum zhus. Corrections: a9: stsogs pa corrected to la stsogs pa.
 Transcribed explicits, colophons, and corrections  341

ITJ 310.278: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs <so> pa las mngon par
dga' 'o / / $ / : / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo
rdzogs so / /; cang stag lod gis bris / phab dzang zhus / phab cI yang zhus /
dpal mchog sum zhus / /. Corrections: a9: stsogs pa corrected to la stsogs pa.
ITJ 310.285: de thams chad / bcom ldan 'da's gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go / /
$ / / tshe dpag du myed pa'I zhes bya ba theg pa chen pho'i mdo rdzogs so /
/ ^a mI t<i>a bur / na mo ^a mI ta bur / /; / dpal gyI sgron ma bris / (red <)
leng pe'u zhus / sgron ma yang zhus leng pe'u sum zhus / (> red). Correc-
tions: few.
ITJ 310.287: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa las mngon bar dga'
go / / tshe dpag du myed pa' zhes bya ba thIg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so /
^a mi ta phur / na mo ^a myI ta phur; phan phan brIs so / dpal kyI sgron
mas zhus / ci keng yang zhus leng pe'u suM zhus / /. Corrections: a9: stsogs
pa to la stsogs pa.
ITJ 310.295: de dag thams cad / / bcom ldan 'da's gyi gsungs pha la mngon bar
dga' 'o / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs
s+ho / : /; shIn dar gyis bris so / / $ / : / shes rab zhus / dzeng the'I yang zhus
/ (red <) sum zhus / (> red). Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.298: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon ba (interline
<) r (> interline) dga' go / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen
po mdo rdzogs so / /; phan phan bris so / / (red <) sgron mas zhus / jI keng
yang zhus / leng pe'u sum zhus / / (> red). Corrections: few, typical.
ITJ 310.304: 1: de thams chad bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'
'o / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po 'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
1: unsigned. Corrections: 1: few, vertical strikethrough.
ITJ 310.310: 2: de thams cad / bcom 'da's gyis / gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o / /
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bye ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs s+ho / /; 2:
leng ho zhun tse bris / /. Corrections: 2: few, blotted.
ITJ 310.318: de thams cad bchom ldan 'da's gyi gsungs ba la mgon bar dga' go / /
tshe dpag myed pa shes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogso / /; smon legs
bris. Corrections: few, blotted.
ITJ 310.324: de thams chad bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngond bar dga''o
/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so /; cang
hing tse bris so / /. Corrections: few, horizontal strikethough.
ITJ 310.333: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o /
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po 'i mdo rdzogs so /; cang
^i tse bris. Corrections: few.
ITJ 310.343: de thams cad / bcom ldan 'da's kyis gsung pa la mngon bar dga' <go>
'o / / $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so
342  Correcting Limitless Life

/ /; leng ho zhun tse bris / / (red <) he jing zhus / pIg gi' bar zhus / li phab
weng sum zhus (> red). Corrections: usual; end: dga' go to dga'o; c16: 'gyurd
ro to 'gyurd to; de na to de nas; a9: between yon tan dpag du myed pa and
zhes bya, inserted in red: lastsogs pa.
ITJ 310.352: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o / /
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bye ba theg pa chen po 'i mdo rdzogso / /; je'u
brtan kong bris / phab dzang zhus / (red <) phab cI yang zhus dpal mchog
sum zhus / (> red). Corrections: few, mostly in dhāraṇī.
ITJ 310.362: de thams cad / bcom ldan 'das kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga go /
/ $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs sO / /;
bam kIm kang bris /. Corrections: few.
ITJ 310.373: de thams chad bcom ldan 'das yI gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o / /
$// tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bye ba theg pa ched po 'I mdo rdzogso / /;
je'u brtan kong bris / phab dzang zhus / phab cI yang zhus / dpal mchog
sum zhus / /. Corrections: virtually none.
ITJ 310.382: de thams chad bchom ldan 'da's gyis / gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'
'o / / / tshe dpag du <ch>myed pa'I <myi> mdo zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i
mdo rdzogso / / (on g, in red:) $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg
pa chen po'i mdo 'di rdzogs so /; khang 'go 'gos bris / / (in red:) $/: shin dar
zhus / cI keng <su>yang zhus / leng pe+u 'u sum zhuso /. Corrections:
insertion on col. c of §15, interlinear, up gutter, and upside-down around
top margin to left margin, but it inserts this between §18 and §17. Another
insertion in right margin of col. d starts under l.4, loops up to top; long
insertion in col. e interlinear of §32, which curves up middle margin, then
curves around the top to the left, upside down. At bottom of e: $/:/ dar ma
'di le'u gchig gi ro 'byung ba 'di ni / khang 'go 'go gi lagso / / (see Fig. 55).
ITJ 310.392: de thams cad bcom ldan 'das gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o / /
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba thegs pa chen po 'i mdo rdzogs sO / na
mo ^a mye da phur / /; cang cI dam bris / / leng pe'u zhus / /. Corrections: f7:
rin che to rin pho che; e10: rdzogs pa'I sangs rgyas su mngon rdzogs to
rdzogs pa'i byang cub du mngon rdzogs.
ITJ 310.402: de thams chad / bcom ldan 'das kyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o
/ / $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so /
/; cang lha legs gyIs bris / / phug 'gi zhus / / dpal mchog yang zhus / / pab
dzang sum zhus / /. Corrections: few, vertical strikethrough.
ITJ 310.412: de thams cad / / bcom ldan 'das gyI gsung ba la mngon bar dga' 'o / /
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes / bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /; /
chos gyi ye shes brIs / / phab weng zhus. Corrections: de na to de nas; few
others.
 Transcribed explicits, colophons, and corrections  343

ITJ 310.416: de thams cad / / bcom ldan 'das kyI gsungs ba la / / mngon bar dga''o
/ $ / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogsso / /;
/ cI king bris / phab cI zhus / phab dzang yang zhus / dpal mchog sum zhus
/ /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.420: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa mngon bar dga' 'o / /
$ / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
phab dzang zhus / phab ci yang zhus / dpal mchog suM zhus / se thong pa.
Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.422: de thams chad / bcom ldan / 'da's kyis gsungs pa la / mngon bar dga'
go / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogso / /;
cang stag ras briso / / len pe'u zhus / ci keng yang sgron ma suM zhus. Cor-
rections: a12: ston / corrected to ston to /; f13: nus kyi / corrected to nuso /.
ITJ 310.426: (interline <) de (> interline) thams cad / / bcom ldan 'das gyI gsung
ba la / mngon bar dga'o / / $ / / tshe pag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa cen
po'i mdo rdzogsso /; / cI king bris / phab cI zhus / phab dzang yang zhus /
dpal (interline <) m (> interline) chog sum zhus / /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.428: de thams cad / / bcom ldan 'das kyI gsung ba la / mngon bar dga''o /
/ $ / / <tshe dpag du myed pa'I mdo 'di> $ / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya
ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /; cI king bris / / phab cI zhus / phab
dzang yang zhus / dpal mchog gsum zhus /. Corrections: very few.
ITJ 310.429: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go /
/ $ / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen <'a>po'i mdo rdzogs so
/ /; bdag cag sha cu yig po che / / ser thong thong bris / /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.430: de thams chad bcom ldan 'das gyis g<ng>sungs pa las mngon bar
dga' 'o / / $ / : / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo
rdzogs so / /; sag dge legs bris / phab cI zhus / phab dzang yang zhus / dpal
mchog sum zhus /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.435: de thams cad / bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o / /
$/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po 'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
$/:/ gzIgs kong gyis bris / /. Corrections: few, by blottiing.
ITJ 310.441: de thams chad / / bchom ldan 'da'skyi+s gsungs pa la mngon par dga'
go (next line:) tshe dphag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i 'do
rdzogso /; nyal kha ba skyes bris. Corrections: few by blotting and vertical
strikethrough.
ITJ 310.449: de thams cadu / / bcom ldan 'da's kyIs gsungs pa la pa mngon bar
dga'o / / / tshe dpag du myed pa'I zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo'o / /;
cang lha legs kyis bris / /. Corrections: none.
344  Correcting Limitless Life

ITJ 310.461: de thams cad bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go' /
/ $/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
lu tshe hing bris. Corrections: few, blotted.
ITJ 310.471: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's gyi gsungs pa la mngon bar dga 'o / /
$/:/ tse dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so /:/;
cang legs rtsan bris /:/. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.497: de thams chad bcom ldan 'das gyI gsungs pa / la mngon bar dga'o /
/ rdzogs so / . /; cang kong tses bris (in lighter ink to text). Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.517: de thams chad bcom ldan '(interline <) da (> interline) s<s> gyIs
gsungs pa la mngo <r> (interline <) n (> interline) / bar dga’o / : / $ / / mdo
rdzogs zhim tshir tshIr bris / : /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.523: de thams cas / b<m>com ldan 'das kyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'
go /:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so' /
/ ^a myI ta phur / na mo ^a myi ta phur /; (red <) shes rab yang zhus so'/
dzeng the'i sum zhuso'/ $/:/ jI ^in zhuso'/ (> red) / bam thong thong bris so'/ /.
Corrections: few; in title: tshe dpa zhes bya ba' is corrected with g du myed
pa inserted below line.
ITJ 310.533: de thams cad / / bcom ldan 'da's kyis gsungs la mngon bar dga' go / /
$/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
phan la brtan bris / 'od snang zhus dzeng the yang zhus / phab dzang sum
zhus /. Corrections: very few.
ITJ 310.540: de dag thams chad / bcom ldan 'da's gyI gsungs pa la mgon bar dga'
'o / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
shin dar gIs bris so / / shIn dar zhus / / sgron ma yang zhus / leng pe'u suM
zhus /. Corrections: few, mostly deletions.
ITJ 310.543: de thams cad / bcom ldan 'da's kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go
/ / $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa' zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so’/
/ ^a myi ta phur / na mo ^a myI ta phur /; (red <) shes rab zhus so’ / / jI ^in
yang zhus / (> red) lu tse shing bris so / / (red <) dpa+l chog suM / zhus so’.
Corrections: very few.
ITJ 310.553: de thams chad / bcom ldan 'da's kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'
go / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so'/ /
^a myi ta phur / na mo ^a myi ta phur /; bam lha legs bris / (red <) leng pe'u
zhus / sgron ma yang zhus ci keng suM zhus / (> red). Corrections: two gi
struck through.
ITJ 310.563: de thams chad bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o /
/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /; jang zhun
tshe bris (red <) $// cI keng zhus / dam 'gI yang zhus ci keng sum zhus
[space] shig (> red). Corrections: usual dh and mdo sde.
 Transcribed explicits, colophons, and corrections  345

ITJ 310.573: de thams cad brcom ldan 'da's kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar <dga'
go'> dga'o / / tshe dpag du myed pa / /; je'u hva 'do gyis bris / (red <) phug 'gi
zhus dpal mchog gyis yang zhus / / pab dzang gyis sum zhus / / (> red).
Corrections: dga' go' to dga'o; otherwise usual.
ITJ 310.574: de thams cad / bcom ldan 'da's kyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go
/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so /; (red
<) leng pe'u zhus/ / sgron ma zhus (> red) bam lha legs brIs / (red <) cI keng
suM zhus/ (> red). Corrections: few.
ITJ 310.582: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon ba (interline
<) d (> interline) g<d>a' 'o / / tshe dpag du myed pa bya ba theg pa chen po'i
mdo rdzogs so / /; lu tshe hing bris / / dam ^Ing zhus de'u ^Ing yang zhus / /
weng sum zhus / /. Corrections: a7: de na corrected to de nas; f13: nus gyi
corrected to nus so.
ITJ 310.583: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's gyIs gsungs pa las mngon bar dga<'I>
go// / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogs so///;
phan phan brIs so/ / (red <) leng pe'u zhus/ / dpal kyI sgron mas zhus/ leng
pe'u sum zhus/ (> red). Corrections: gang la la zhig gi to gang la la zhig.
ITJ 310.592: de thams cad brcom(?) ldan 'da's kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga
'go' / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes byab (=bya ba) theg pa chen po'i mdo
rdzogs so / /; (red <) pa [xxx] $ / : / dpal mchog zhus / phug 'gI yang zhus /
phab dzang sum zhus / (> red) je'u hva 'do bris /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.593: de thams chad/ / bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'
'o/ / tshe dpag du <bya ba> myed pa bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs
so/ /; cang zhun tshe bris/ (red <) $// cI keng zhus/ dam 'gI yang zhus ci keng
sum zhus/ shig (> red). Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.602: de thams cad bcom <l>ldan 'da's gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar <d>
(interline <) dga’ (> interline) 'o / $/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg
pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so /; lu tshe hing bris / dam ^Ing zhus / de'u ^Ing
zhus / / phab weng suM zhus /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.603: de thams chad / bcom ldan 'das kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'
go / /tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so /
/^a myi ta phur / na mo ^a myi ta phur /; (red <) leng pe'u zhus / (> red) bam
lha legs bris / (red <) leng pe'u zhus / (> red) dpal kyI sgron mas yang zhus/
jI keng sum zhus. Corrections: rin chen to rin po che.
ITJ 310.612: de thams chad bchom ldan 'da's kis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o
/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen pho'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
snal stag legs briso. Corrections: none.
346  Correcting Limitless Life

ITJ 310.627: de thams chad / / bcom ldan 'da's gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dgA'o
/ / (SHAPE: g+') $/ / tshe dpag du myed pa <I> zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'I
mdo rdzogs s+ho / /; sI tong pa. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.637: de thams cad / pcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o
/ / $/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa ched po'I mdo rdzogs so /;
/ se tong pA /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.649: de / thams shas / bcom ldan 'da's kyis gsungs pa la / mngon bar dga'o
/ /tshe dphag du myed pa zhes ba / theg pa ched po theg pa chen po 'i mdo
rdzogs so / /; <rma kong gyis briso> se thong pa. Corrections: by blotting
and strikethrough.
ITJ 310.666: de / thams chad bcom ldan 'da' gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o
/ $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so;
kong tshe bris. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.678: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go
/ / $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba thig pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so /
/; phan phan bris / /. Corrections: very few.
ITJ 310.688: de dag thams cad bcom ldan 'da's kyi gsungs pa la / mngon bar dga'
'o / / $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa ched po'i mdo rdzogs
so+’ / /; (red <) heg cing yang zhu sum so / (> red) bam zhun tse kyis zhus/ /
(red <) heg cing yang zhus / (> red) ser thong thong bris. Corrections: few.
ITJ 310.694: de thams cad bcom ldan 'das gIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o / /
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa ched po'i mdo rdzogs so / /; wang
rma snang gI bris so / / (red <) dge slong shin dar zhus / / leng cI'u yang
zhuss cI keng sum zhus / / (> red). Corrections: genitive: stobs gis to stobs
gyis (3 times); rten gI to rten gyI (twice). Incidentally, the scribe does use
kyi elsewhere in this copy.
ITJ 310.703: de thams cad bcom ldan 'das kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o / /
/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogso / /; chos
grub bris / phab ci zhus / / (red <) phab dzang yang zhus / phab cI sum zhus
/ / (> red). Corrections: very few.
ITJ 310.713: de thams cad bcom ldan 'das gis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o tshe
dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa cen po'I mdo rdzogs so /; / wang rma
snang bris / (red <) shin dar zhus / leng ce'u yang zhus / ci keng sum zhus /
/ (> red). Corrections: mdo sde, etc.
ITJ 310.720: de / thams chad bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o
/ / $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po 'i mdo rdzogs so /
/; cang snang legs brIs / / <chos btan myI zhus / / cI keng sum zhus /> <[xx
x]ing gis briso / /> $/:/ chos brtan zhus / / sgron ma yang zhus shIn dar sum
zhus / / 'de la chad lag mchis so /. Corrections: few, usual.
 Transcribed explicits, colophons, and corrections  347

ITJ 310.730: de dag thams cad bcom ldan 'da's kyi gsungs pa' la / mngon bar dga'
'o / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa ched po 'I mdo rdzogs so+' /;
/ wang rgyal legs brIs so / /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.738: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's gyis / / gsungs pa las mngon bar dga'
'o / / $ / : / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs
so / /; (red <) da [next line:] de'u ^ing zhus dam ^ing yang zhus (> red) /shes
rab gIs bris / [next line:] (red <) de'u ^ing (interline <) suM (> interline) zhus
/ (> red). Corrections: few, usual.
ITJ 310.740: de thams chad / bcom ldan 'da's kyis gsungs pa 'a mngon bar dga'
go / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs / so /;
/ stag ras bris / /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.750: de dag thams chad / bcom ldan 'da's gyi gsungs pa la mngon bar
dga' 'o / / $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa' zhes bye ba theg pa chen po'i mdo
rdzogs s+ho / /; / shIn dar gIs brIs so / / leng pe'u zhus / yang zhus ben ceng
suM zhus. Corrections: very few.
ITJ 310.758: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's gyis / / gsungs pa las mngon bar dga'
'o / / $ / : / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya batheg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogs
s+ho / /; khang dpa+l mchog gis bris / (red <) de'u ^ing zhus / / de'u yang
zhus dam ^ing suM zhus / (> red). Corrections: few, usual.
ITJ 310.760: de thams cad / / bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o
/ / tshe dpag du myed pa<'i> zhes bya ba' theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so /;
/ (red <) phug 'gi zhus / dpal mchog yang zhus / pab dzang sum zhus / / (>
red). Corrections: few.
ITJ 310.770: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa las mngon bar dga'o
<go> /; dpal mchog zhus / (red <) phug 'gi yang zhus / phab dzang sum zhus
(> red). Corrections: dga' go to dga'o; few others.
ITJ 310.772: de<g> dag thams cad / / bcom ldan 'da's gyI gsungs pa la mngon bar
dga' 'o / : / $ / : / tshe dpag du myed pa' zhes <bya> bye ba theg pha chen po'I
mdo rdzogs s+ho / / [both deletions = self-corrections]; /shin dar gIs bris / /
(red <) leng pe'u zhus ben ceng gtan la bab zhuso / / (> red). Corrections:
very few.
ITJ 310.776: de thaMs chad / bcom ldan 'da's kyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'
go / / $/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen pho'i mdo rdzogs
s+ho / / ^a mI ta bur / na mo ^a mi ta bur / /; dpal gyI sgron ma bris / phab
tIng zhus / (red <) dpal mchog yang zhus / leng pe'u gsum zhus / / (> red).
Corrections: very few.
ITJ 310.783: de thams chad bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga ga'o
/ / $ / . / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogsso
348  Correcting Limitless Life

/ /; (red <) dam ^ing zhus / / (> red) dam 'gi gis bris / (red <) de'u ya+ng zhus
dam ^ing suM zhus / (> red). Corrections: few, usual.
ITJ 310.788: de dag thams chad bcom ldan ’das kyi gsungs pa la mngon bar dga’
‘o / / $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’I mdo rdzogs so
/ /; dge slong he k<o>ang brIs / / (red <) dam ^Ing zhus / / dewu ^ing yang
zhus / / dam ^ing sum zhus / / (> red). Corrections: dhāraṇī inserted in
margin; mdo to mdo sde; in title: ma ha na ya to ma ha ya na.
ITJ 310.791: de thams cad bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa las mngon bar dga'o / /
$ / : / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogs s+ho
/ /; (red <) de'u ^ing zhus / / dam ^ing (interline <) ya+ng (> interline) zhus
de'u ^ing sum zhus / / (> red) /shes rab bris /. Corrections: few, usual.
ITJ 310.798: de thams chad / / mchom ldan 'das gsung ba la mngon du dga''o / /
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po 'I mdo rdzogs so / /;
(purple <) 'gi tig bris / / (> purple) (red <) phug 'gi zhus / / dpal mchog yang
zhus / / pab dzang sum zhus / / (> red). Corrections: mdo sde; kyi to so on
adversative; a4: dpal to dpa' by crossing out right half of letter.
ITJ 310.809: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o
<go> / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so
/ / /; $/:/ ldong nyas brIs / /. Corrections: dhāraṇī inserted on col. c, going up
the column gutter.
ITJ 310.819: de thams chad bcom ldand 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o
/ / $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so /
/; /dze'u hIng tsIn bris / / phab weng zhus / leng pe'u yang zhus / shIn cig
sum zhus / /. Corrections: few; mdo sde.
ITJ 310.824: de thams chad / bcom ldan 'da's kyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'
go / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so /;
(red <) leng pe'u zhus / sgron ma yang zhus ci keng suM zhus / (> red) bam
lha legs bris. Corrections: very minor.
ITJ 310.825: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsung sa pa las mngon bar dga'
go tshe dpag du myed pa'zhes bya ba 'I theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
(red <) leng pe'u zhus sgron ma yang (> red) [next line] phan phan brIsso
(red <) zhus ci keng suM zhus / / (> red). Corrections: few, usual.
ITJ 310.829: de thams chad / / bcom ldan 'da's gyi gsungs ba la mngon bar dga'
go / / tshe dpAg du my<i>ed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po 'i mdo rdzogs
so / /; jin legs kong 'gis bris / /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.839: de thams cad bcom ldan 'das gis gsungs pa la mngon par dga go tshe
dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa ced po'I mdo rdzogs so / /; sheg dam
'gI gyis bris / / dam ^ing zhus / / (red <) de'u ^ing yang zhus / dam ^ing suM
zhus / / (> red). Corrections: mdo sde; in title: ched mdo to ched pho'I mdo'.
 Transcribed explicits, colophons, and corrections  349

ITJ 310.849: de thams chad bcom ldan 'das gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o / /
$/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bye ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
(fine/faded ink <) dpal mchog yang zhus / pab dzang sum zhus / (> fine/faded
ink) [next line] wang rma snang gIs bris so / (fine/faded ink <) phug 'gi zhus
(> fine/faded ink). Corrections: some horizontal strikethroughs.
ITJ 310.867: 2: de dag thams chad bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar
dga''o // // tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po <m>'I mdo
rdzogs so /; 'e wam khyI brug gis bris/. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.883: 2: de thams chad bcom ldan 'das gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o
/ mdo rdzogs; khang 'go 'gos bris /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.897: de thams chad bcom ldan 'das gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o /
/ $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
wang rma snang gI bris/. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.914: 2: de dag thams shad / bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar
dga'o / / $/:/ tshe dphag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa cen po'i mdo rdzogs
so+' / /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.923: de / thams cad bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o /
/ $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po mdo rdzogs so /;
snya lha gzigs gyis bris/. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.933: de thams cad bcom ldan 'das gsung pa mngon bar dga' go / /; cang
legs bzang gyi bris / /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.961: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's kyIs gsungs pa las mgon bar dga' 'o / /
$/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhe bya ba theg pa chen po 'i mdo rdzogso / /; yI
’do bris. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.967: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's kyis / gsungs pa la mngon par dga'o
<go'> / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhe<s> bya<s> ba theg pa cen po'i <b?da>mdo
rdzogs /; je'u hva 'do gyis bris / / phug 'gi zhus / / [xxx]gi? gyis yang zhus / /
pab dzang gyis sum zhus / /. Corrections: see final line, zhes byas corrected
to zhe bya dga' go' corrected to dga'o (final 'a of o' not deleted, but its
deletion probably implied).
ITJ 310.971: de thams chad / bcom ldan 'da's kyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o
/ / tshe dpag du myed <pa'I> zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogsso /
/; phab cI zhus / phab dzang yang zhus / dpal mchog suM zhus / / mchims
lha rton bris. Corrections: b1: tshe’ang corrected to tshe yang.
ITJ 310.981: dethamsshad bcom ldan 'da's kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o /
/ tshe dphag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /; se
thong pa / phab cI zhus / phab (interline <) dzang (> interline) ya+ng zhus /
dpal mchog sum zhus / /. Corrections: none.
350  Correcting Limitless Life

ITJ 310.991: de thams shad bchom ldan 'das gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o / /
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa ched po 'i mdo rdzogs so; se
thong pa / phab dzang zhus / phab ci yang zhus / dpal mchog suM zhus /.
Corrections: b12: §7 omitted and added going over panel break (1 and 2), up
right side of page, over the top of col. b (upside down) and down the left
hand side of col. b.
ITJ 310.1001: de thams shad / / bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'
'o / / $ / / tse dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa ched po'i mdo rdzogso /
/; phab cI zhus / phab dzang yang zhus / dpal mchog sum zhus / / se thong
pa. Corrections: a7: de na corrected to de nas.
ITJ 310.1011: te thams cad bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon par dga'o / /
$/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa ched po'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
phab ci zhus / phab dzang (second hand <) lho lha gzigs kyis bris (> second
hand) yang zhus / dpal mchog suM zhus /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.1021: de tham+s chad bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'
go [corrected to dga'o] / / $ / : / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa
chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /; leng ho be'u tshven bris / / (red <) de'u ^i+ng
zhus / / dam ^ing yang zhus / / (> red). Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.1022: de thams cad / bcom ldan 'da's kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go
/ / $ / : / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs
so+’ / /; leng pe'u bris / cI shan zhus / (red <) dpal mchog yang zhus / phug
'gi sum zhus / / (> red). Corrections: the usual, in black.
ITJ 310.1031: de thams cad / / bcom ldan 'das kyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' /
go / / $ / . / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs
s'o / /; bam thong thong bris / (red <) < $ / : / shes rab zhus / / > (next line:) $
/ : / shes rab zhus / dzeng the'I yang zhus / (over the top of another part of
the colophon as was rubbed out above) jI ^in sum zhus (> red). Corrections:
f11: rgyal po chen po bzhi'i corrected to rgya mtsho chen po bzhi'i.
ITJ 310.1035: de thams chad bcom ldan 'das gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o
/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba them pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so /;
/(red <) he jing dang zhus / /pug 'gi bar zhu (> red) stag slebs brIs (red <) he
jing sum zhus / (> red). Corrections: mdo sde, and some filling in lacunae;
'dI tha'i tshal to 'dzI ta'i tshal.
ITJ 310.1044: de thams can bcom ldan 'das gyIs / gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go
/ / / $ / : / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogs
s'o / /; mgar klu mthong gI brIs so / ^OM. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.1045: de thams chad/ bcom ldan 'da's kyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'
go/ / / tshe dpag du myed pa<'I> zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs
so/ / ^a mI ta bur na mo ^a mi ta bur/ /; dpal kyI sgron ma brIs//jI keng zhus/
 Transcribed explicits, colophons, and corrections  351

(red <) sgron ma yang zhus leng pe'u suM zhuste lhag chad bcos nas gtan
phab bo// (> red). Corrections: mdos rgyas to mdo sangs rgyas.
ITJ 310.1046: de dag thams chad/ bcom ldan 'da's gyi gsungs pa la mngon bar
dga' 'o/ / tshe dpag du myed pa' zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs
so/:/; shIn dar gIs brIso / / (red <) sgron ma zhus/ / ben cer yang zhus leng
pe'u suM zhus// (> red). Corrections: few.
ITJ 310.1057: de thams chad / bcom ldan ’da’s kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga’
go / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo rdzogs so /
/; cang weng yir bris / /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.1082: de thams shad / / bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'
'o / / $ / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogs
s+ho / /; gu rIb lha lung brtsan gyIs bris. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.1083: de thams chad / bcom l<t>dan 'das kyis / gsungs pa la mngon bar
dga' 'o / / che d<g>pag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs
so / /; chos grub bris/ (red <) cI keng zhus/ dam 'gI yang zhus ci keng suM
zhus te/ gtan (> red). Corrections: a16: btud pa corrected to btu pa; c16: 'gyur
ro corrected to 'gyur to.
ITJ 310.1085: de/ thams chad bcom ldan 'da's gyIs/ gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'
go/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogs so/ /;
dpal mchog gIs brIs/ / de'u ^ing kyis zhus// (red <) dam ^Ing yang zhus/ /
de'u ^Ing sum zhus// (> red). Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.1094: de thams cad <ch> bcoM ldan 'das kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar
dga'o / / $ / : / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo
rdzogs s'o / /; chos grub bris / (red <) ci keng gIs zhus / dam 'gI yang zhus ci
keng suM zhus / (> red). Corrections: b4: 'cug corrected to bcug; and scribe
self-corrects in explicit.
ITJ 310.1103: de thams chad / bcom ldand 'da's kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'
'o / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
(red <) dpal mchog zhus / / <'>phug 'gI yang zhus / phab dzang sum zhus / /
(> red) gtsug bzang gis bris /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.1113: de thams cad / bcom ldan 'da's gyIs gsungs pal (=pa la) / mngon bar
dga' 'o / / $ / : / tshe d<ng>pag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po 'i
mdo rdzogs so / /; gI tig bris (red <) phab cI zhus / phab dzang yang zhus /
dpal mchog sum zhus / (> red). Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.1116: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's gyIs/ gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go/
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bye ba theg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogs so/ /; dpal
mchog gIs brIs/ / (red <) $/:/ dge slong dam tseng gIs zhus/ / shin dar yang
zhus/ ji keng suM zhus (> red). Corrections: Many. Among them are e13: de
352  Correcting Limitless Life

bud med to de bud myed; f13: nus gyI to nus so; mdo to mdo sde. Editor
scribes this copy, and it appears that all three editors corrected it.
ITJ 310.1117: de thams chad/ / bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'
'o / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so/ /;
cang zhun zhun kyIs bris / / (pink <) zhus so / dar ma gtan la bab te / rdo
rje'i grar zhu / (> pink) (orange <) lI phab weng gyI dar ma gtugs pa'I dpe' /
/ (> orange). Corrections: several gang zhig to gang zhig gi; mdo to mdo sde.
ITJ 310.1122: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's gyI gsungs <s>pa la mngon bar dga'o/
/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogso/ /; cang
tsI dam bris/. Corrections: c6 has been rubbed out and written over. Paper
is thin at this point.
ITJ 310.1132: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mgon (sic) <r>bar
dga' 'o / / $ / : / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg p<o>a chen po 'i mo
(sic) rdzogs so / /; stag slebs bris. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.1142: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go
/ /; ser thong thong bris. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.1152: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's gsungs pa la mngon bar dga''o / / $ / /
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po 'i mdo rdzogso' / /; cang
snang legs bris / /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 310.1199: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o
/ / tshe dphag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /;
snyal lha gzigs bris. Corrections: none.
ITJ 1488: de dag thams cad bcom ldan 'da' sa kyis gsung sa pa mngon bar dga 'o
/ $ / : / tshe dpag du myed <pa> zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs
so / /; dvan h<in>eng dar gyi bris so / / phab cI zhus / phab dzang yang zhus
/ dpal mchog sum zhus /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 1591: de thams cad bcom ldan 'das kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga go / /
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so+’ /:/ ^a
myI ta phur /:/ na mo ^a myi ta phur /: /; bam kim kang bris so /:/ (two lines
below:) bam kim kang gyis bris sa. Corrections: none.
ITJ 1600: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's gyIs / gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go / /
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes by<e>a ba theg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogs so / /;
dpal mchog gIs brIs / / (red <) de['u] ^ing zhus / dam ^ing yang zhus de'u
^Ing sum zhus / / (> red). Corrections: few.
ITJ 1608: de thams cad / / b<c>com l<t?>dan 'das gyI gsung ba la / mngon bar
dga''o / / $ / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa cen po'i mdo rdzogs
so / /; / cI king bris / phab dzang zhus / phab cI yang zhus / dpal mchog sum
zhus /. Corrections: few.
 Transcribed explicits, colophons, and corrections  353

ITJ 1609: de thams cad / / bcom ldan 'das gyI gsung[xxx] la / mngon bar gda'o
(sic) $ / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba' theg pa chen po 'i mdo rdzogs
so / /; ban (interline <) de (> interline) cI king bris / / leng pe'u zhus. Correc-
tions: few.
ITJ 1618: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga''o/ / tshe
dpag du myed pa<'I mdo> zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so/ /;
lha lod bris. Corrections: none.
ITJ 1628: 2: de thams chad / bchom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o/
/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so/ /; mal
gzIgs kong gyis brIs/ /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 1638: 1: de thams cad bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga'o/:/
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogso/; khang
btsan bzher gyis bris/. Corrections: none.
ITJ 1648: 1: de thams cad / / bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o/
/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so/ /;
cang shIb tig bris. Corrections: none.
ITJ 1658: de thams can bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa mngon bar dga'o/ $/:/ tshe
dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so+'/ /; cang
jung jung bris/. Corrections: none.
ITJ 1667: de dag thams cad / / bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon par dga
go / / $ / : / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogs
so / /; jIn lha bzher gyis bris / /. Corrections: none.
ITJ 1677: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o /
tshe dphag tshe dphag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i ma
rdzogso / /; snyal lha gzigs kyis bris. Corrections: none.
ITJ 1687: de thams bcom ldan 'das gyI gsungs pa las mngon bar dga go /; un-
signed. Corrections: none.
ITJ 1697: 1: de thams cad bcom ldan 'das gyi gsung+s pa la mngon bar dga' 'o / /
tshe dpag du myed pa'i mdo rdzogso+’ / /; 1: deng <de'u de'u bris> / / ^ing tsi
bris. Corrections: none.
ITJ 1707: de dag thams cad / / bcom ltan 'da's gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga
go / / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po 'I mdo rdzogs so /;
cang lyang 'gI brIs. Corrections: none.

Explicits from editors’ exemplars

PT 3520: de thams chad/ bcom ldan 'da's kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go/ /
$// tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba th<i>eg pa chen pho'i mdo rdzogs so/
354  Correcting Limitless Life

/; dpal kyi sgron ma brIs/ (red <) leng pe'u zhus/ ben ceng yang zhus leng
pe'u zhus (> red). Corrections: few.
PT 3735: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's/ / kyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar <g>dga'
go/ / $/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen/ / pho'I mdo rdzogs
s+ho/ /; sgrong ma brIs/ / (red <) leng pe'u zhus/ / dpal kyi sgron ma <zhu>
yang zhus/ leng peu suM zhus/ / (> red). Corrections: several 'ang in grong
khyer du 'ang 'jug pa.
PT 3793: de thams chad bcom ldan 'da's kyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go/ /
$/ / tshe dpag du myed pa<'I> zhes bya ba theg pa chen pho mdo rdzogs so/
/ ^a mI ta bur/ na mo ^a mI ta bur/ /; dpal kyI sgron ma brIs/ / ci keng zhus/
(red <) ben ceng yang zhus <[x]>pha+b tIng suM zhus (> red). Corrections:
few.
PT 3812: de tham+s chad/ bcom ldan 'da's gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o/ /
tshe dpag du myed pa'I zhes bya ba then pa chen po'i mdo <b>rdzogs so/ /
^a mI ta bur/ na mo ^a mI ta bur/ /; dpal kyI sgron ma brIs/ / (red <) leng
pe'u zhus/ sgron ma yang zhus leng pe'u suM zhus (> red). Corrections:
none.
PT 3555: de thams chad / / bcom ldan 'das gyI gsungs ba la / mngon bar dga' 'o /
/ $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa cen po'i mdo rdzogs so/ /; cI
king bris leng pe'u zhus. Corrections: none.
PT 3577: de thams cad / bcom ldan 'das gyi gsungs ba la / mngon bar <g>dga' 'o/
/ $// tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa cen po 'i mdo rdzogs so/ /; /
cI king bris/ / phab cI zhus/ phab dzang yang zhus/ dpal mchog sum zhus/.
Corrections: gang gi tshe to gang zhig gi tshe.
PT 3606: de thams cad/ / bcom ldan 'das <g>gyIs gsungs ba la mngon bar dga' 'o/
/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so/ /; cI
king bri s+ho/ / phab cI zhus/ phab dzang yang zhus/ dpal mchog sum
zhus//. Corrections: one inserted na mo.
PT 3726: de thams cad/ / bcom ldan 'das gyI gsungs ba la/ / mngon bar dga' 'o/ /
$/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so/ /; cI
king brIs/ phab dzang zhus/ phab cI yang zhus/ dpal mchog sum zhus/ /.
Corrections: gang gi tshe to gang zhig gi tshe.
PT 3951: 'khor thams cad / bcom ldan 'das gyI gsung ba la/ mngon bar dga' 'o/ /
$/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa cen po'i mdo rdzogs so/ /; / cI
king bris/ phab cI zhus/ phab dzang yang zhus/ dpal mchog sum zhus.
Corrections: gang gi tshe to gang zhig gi tshe; a9: de bzhIn to de na de bzhIn.
PT 3760: de dag thams cad / / bcom ldan 'da's kyI gsungs pa la mngon bar <g>dga'
'o/ / $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa' zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogs
s+ho/ /; shIn dar gyis bris/ (red <) leng pe'u zhus/ pab ting yang zhus leng
 Transcribed explicits, colophons, and corrections  355

pe'u suM zhus (> red). Corrections: few, but notably in the incipit it adds
zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i to tshe dpag du myed pa'I mdo.
PT 3782: de dag thams cad / bcom ldan 'da's gyi gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o/
/ tshe dpag du myed pa <'i mdo>zhes bya ba theg pa ched po'i mdo rdzogsO
/ /; shin dar bris/ (red <) dpal kyI sgron ma zhus/ leng pe'u ya+ng zhus ben
ceng suM zhus/ / (> red). Corrections: a few, and inserts e+e over a pa in de
bzhin gshegs pa rnam par in order to make pa'i.
PT 3790: de dag thams cad / / bcom ldan 'da's gyI gsungs pha la mngon bar dga'
'o/ / $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa' zhes bye (interline <) ba’ (> interline) <b>I
<bzhug> theg pa chen pho'I mdo rdzogs s+ho / 00/; shIn dar gIs brIs s+ho/ /
(red <) cI keng zhus / dam 'gI yang zhus / dam 'gi suM zhustso/ (> red).
Corrections: one, at d1: mtshams myed pa lha to mtshams myed pa lnga.
PT 3601: de thams cad / bcom ldan 'da's kyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go/ /
$/ / <th> tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogs
s+ho/ /; dge slong shes rab bris/ / (second colophon, above, in another
hand:) cang zhIg hing dpe'/ legs so/. Corrections: none.
PT 3842: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's kyIs gsungs po la mngon bar dga' go/ /$/:/
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so/ /; dge
slong shes rab bris/ / cI shan zhus/ (red <) dpal mchog yang zhus / phug 'gi
sum zhus/ / (> red). Corrections: gang gi tshe to gang zhig gi tshe.
PT 3865: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's kyIs gsungs pa pa mngon bar dga' go/ /
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogs so/ /; dpal
mchog gIs brIs/ / (faint ink, editor's hand<) dpal mchog yang zhus/ / pab
dzang sum zhus/ phug 'gi zhus/ /. Corrections: adds yang dag between sangs
rgyas and ’phags in verse.
PT 3921: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's gyIs/ gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go/ /
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bye ba theg pa chen po'I mdo rdzogs so/ /; dpal
mchog gIs brIs/ / dang zhu dang bar zhu sum zhu. Corrections: adds ya to
ra dzA interline in dhāraṇī.
PT 3739: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's gyi gsungs pa la mngon par dga go/ / $/ /
tse dpag du myed pa'I zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so/ /; phab
dzang bris/ phab cI zhus/ phab dzang yang zhus/ dpal mchog sum zhus/.
Corrections: mdo to mdo sde; sha kya to shag kya; gang la zhig to gang la la
zhig; adds na mo to dhāraṇī.
3740: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la / / mngon bar dga' 'o / / tshe
dpag du myed pa zhes bye ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs s+ho / /; ^an
phab dzang gyis brIs so / (red <) dam 'gi gi zhus / cI keng yang zhus dam 'gI
sum zhus (> red). Corrections: several: mdo to mdo sde; myI 'gyur te to myI
'gyur to; gang 'ga'I gleng gyi byi ma to glung gyi bye ma.
356  Correcting Limitless Life

PT 3648 (defective scribal copy of editor’s exemplar): de tha ced bcom ldan
'd<e>as gyi gsung pa la mngon bar dga' 'o/ / tshe dpag du myi pa zhes bye
ba theg pa chen pa'I mdo rdzog so/ /; dam 'ge bres/ /. Corrections: few.
PT 3792: de thams chad bcom ldan 'das gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga 'o/ / $/:/
tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po 'i mdo rdzogs so/ /; bad
de dam ^ing bris/ $/// shes (interline, red <) rab (> interline, red) zhus/ (red
<) pub 'gi gyis yang zhus dpal mchog gyis sum zhus/ / (> red). Corrections:
few: adds na mo to dhāraṇī.
PT 3721: de thams cad bcom ldan 'da's gyis gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' go/ tshe
dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo rdzogs so / /; $/:/ dge
slong ban 'de leng ce'u gyI bris/ / $// ban de cang chos btan gyI zhus/ / shin
dar suM zhus/. Corrections: gang la la zhig gi tshe to gang la la zhig tshe.
PT 4010 (fragment: final panel only 13 ): de thams cad / / bcom ldan 'das gyIs
gsungs pa la mngon bar dga' 'o / / $/:/ tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba
theg pa ched po'i mdo rdzogs so+’/ /; leng pe'u bris/ / phug 'gi zhus/ (red <)
dpag mchog yang zhus/ / cI shan sum zhus so/ / (> red). Corrections: g4: seng
ge stobs rtogs to seng ge tsul khrIms stobs rtogs.

5.5 Transliteration of a sample copy of the Tibetan B1 version,

PT 3901
This is the edited B1 copy that we used for placing corrections we observed in other
copies. We preserve its errors and misspellings without comment. It is in fact a woe-
fully defective copy, since it is missing the second occurrence of §18, with no in-
sertion by an editor. We have inserted this paragraph ourselves, for the sake of
completeness, from PT 3721, a B1 editor’s exemplar. (For reference, this paragraph
appears on ll. c1 to c4 in PT 3721). We number the eight columns a through h. We
have also added paragraph numbers (e.g, “§1”) according to Konow’s parsing of the
sutra, detailed above in Chapter Two.
In two places the scribe begins a syllable at the end of one line and finishes it
at the start of the next. In these cases we’ve used the ampersand (&), e.g. “gra&” at
the end of line e8 and “&gs” at the start of line e9 for grags.

a1: $/:/ rgya gar skad du ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yur na ma ma ha ya na su tra /

a2:


13 This panel was re-used to wrap rolls: its back reads, “packet number fifty-nine” (di wushi jiu zhi
第五十九袟); see above, Fig. 59.
 Transliteration of a sample copy  357

a3: bod skad du tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba’ / theg pa chen po ’I mdo / / sangs rgyas
dang byang cub sem+s
a4: dpa’ thams chad la phyag ’tshal lo / / {§1} ’dI skad bdag gis thos pa dus gcig na / bcom ldan
a5: ’da’s (interline, red <) m (> interline, red) nyan du yod pa na / ’dza’ ta’I tshal mgon myed /
zas sbyin kun dga+’ ’I ra ba na / dge slong gi
a6: dge du chen po / dge slong brgya’ phrag phyed dang bcu gsum dang / byang cub sems dpa’
sems dpa’
a7: chen po rab du mang ba dang / / thabs gcig du bzhugs so / {§2} de na bcom ldan ’da’s kyIs /
’jam dpal
a8: gzho nurd ’gyurd pa la bka’ stsald pa’ / / ’jam dpal steng gI phyogs na / / ’jin rten kyi mkh
a9: khams yon tan dpag du myed pa’ / stsogs pa zhes bya ba / zhig yod de / de na de bzhin
gshegs pa
a10: dgra bcom ba yang dag par rdzogs pa’I sangs rgyas tshe dang / ye shes dpag du myed pa’
/ shin du rnam
a11: par gdon myI za ba’I rgyal po zhes bya ba bzhugs ’tsho skyong ste / sems chan rnams la
’tshos kyang
a12: ston to / / {§3} ’jam dpal gzho nur ’gyur pa nyon cig / / ’dzam bu gling ’dI’i sems chan
rnams nI
a13: tshe thung ba tshe brgya’ she dag ste / / de dag las kyang phal cher dus ma yin ba ’chi bar
brjod do / /
a14: ’jam dpal sems chan gang de dag de bzhin gshegs pa tshe dpag du myed pa’ de’i yon
tan dang
a15: bstsags pa su yongs su brjod pa zhes bya ba’I ’chos kyi rnam ’grangs ’drI gam ’drir ’jug
ga+m
a16: ’chang gam glog gam / men tog dang bdug pa dang / spos dang / ’phreng14 ba dang / bye
ma rnams kyis
a17: mchod par ’gyur ba / de dag nI tshe yongs su zad pa las / / tshe yang lo brgya’ thub par
’gyur ro /
a18: ’jam dpal sems chan kyang de dag de bzhin gshegs pa / tshe dpag du myed pa / shin du
rnam par /
b1: don myi za (interline, red <) ba (> interline, red) ’I rgyal po / / de’I (interline, red <) mtshan
(> interline, red) ’dzin par ’gyur ba de / deg15 gI tshe yang ’phel par ’gyur
b2: ro / / {§4} ’jam dpal de lta bas na / / rIgs kyi bu ’am rigs kyi bu mos tshe ring bar ’dod
b3: pas / / de bzhins gshegs pa tshe dpag du myed pa de ’i mtshan brgya’ rtsa brgyad nyan
b4: tam ’dri ’am ’drir bcug na / / de dag gi yon tan dang legs pa ni ’di dag go / /
b5: {§5} na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI myi ta ^a yu gnya’ su bi ni shci ti ra dzA ya ta tha ga ta
ya^om sarva
b6: sang ska ra pa rI shud dha / dhar ma te ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva hA / / {§6} ’jam dpal
sngags kyI
b7: tshig ’di dag gang la la zhig ’dri ’am ’drir ’jug gam / glegs bam bris ste /
b8: khyim na ’chang ba de / tshe zad pa las kyang lo brgya’ thub par ’gyur te / de nas shi phos
b9: nas / de bzhin gshegs pa / tshe dpag du myed pa’I sangs rgyas kyI zhing / ’jig rten kham+s


14 e inserted in red.
15 e inserted in red.
358  Correcting Limitless Life

b10: yon tan dpag du myed pa+r16 stsogs pa skye bar ’gyur ro / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa ri
b11: myi ta ^a yu gnya’ na su bi nI shci ta ra dzA ya ta tha ga ta ya^om sa rva sang ska ra pa
rI shud
b12: dha / dhar ma te ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha’ / / {§7} yang de ’I tshe sangs rgyas bye ba
phrag
b13: dgu bcu rtsa dgus / / dgongs pa gcIg dang / dbyangs kyI tshe / dpag du myed pa’I mdo
b14: ’dI gsungs so / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya’ na subi nI shci ta
b15: ra dzA ya ta tha ga ta ya ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud dha / dhar ma te ma ha na ya
pa rI
b16: ba re sva ha’ / / {§12} yang de’i tshe sangs rgyas bye ba phrag bzhi bcu rtsa lngas / dgongs
pa gcIg
b17: dang dbyangs gcig gyis / tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’di gsungs so / /
b18: na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya’ na su bI ni shci ta ra dzA ya ta tha ga ta tha
ya ^oM
c1: sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud dha / dhar ma te ma ha na ya pha rI ba re sva hA / / {§13} yang
de ’i tshe sangs rgyas
c2: bye ba phrag sum bcu rtsa drug gis / dgongs pa gcig dang / dbyangs gcig gis / tshe dpag du
myed
c3: pa’I mdo ’di gsungs so / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya’ na su bI ni shcI ta ra
dzA ya
c4: ta tha ga ta ya ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud dha / dhar ma te ma ha na ya pa rI ba re
sva hA / / {§14} yang de ’I
c5: sangs rgyas bye ba phrag nyi shu rtsa lngas / dgyongs pa gcig dang / dbyangs gcig gis tshe
dpag du myed
c6: pa’I mdo ’dI gsungs so / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta a yu gnya’ na su bI ni shcI ta ra
dzA ya
c7: ta tha ga ta ya ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud ta / dhar ma te / ma ha nna ya pa rI ba re
sva hA / {§15} yang de ’I
c8: tshe sangs rgyas bye brag gang ’ga’I slang gi bye ma snyied gyis dgongs pa gcig dang /
dbyangs /
c9: gcIg gyis / tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’di gsungs so / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta
c10: ^a yu gnya’ na su bI ni shcI ta ra dzA ya ta tha ga ta ya ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud
dha dhar
c11: ma te ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha’ / / {§18} gang la la zhig gi tshe dpag du myed pa’i mdo
’dI ’drir
c12: bcug na / / des chos kyi phung po stong phrag brgyad bcu rtsa bzhi ’dris bcug par ’gyur ro
/ / na mo
c13: ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya’ na su bI ni shcI ta ra dzA ya ta tha ga ta ya ^om sa
rva sang ska ra
c14: pa rI shud dha / dhar ma te ma ha na ya ba rI ba re sva hA / / {§17} gang zhig tshe dpag du
myed pa’I mdo ’di ’drir
c15: bcug na / / de sems can dmyal ba dang / byol song (interline <) gI (> interline) skye gnas
dang / gshin rje ’i ’jig rten du nam yang


16 Red interline r.
 Transliteration of a sample copy  359

c16: skye bas myi ’gyur de / / nam du ’ang myi khom bar skye bar myi ’gyur the / gang dang
gang du skye ba tham+s
c17: chad du skye ba dran bar ’gyur ro / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya’ na su bi
nI shci ta /
c18: ra dzA ya / ta tha ga ta ya ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud dha / dhar ma te ma ha na ya
pa rI ba re sva ha’ /
[{§18} (supplied from PT 3721, preserving line breaks)
c1: gang la la zhIg <gI> tshe dpag du myed pa'I mdo ’dI ’drIr bcug na / / des chos kyI phung po
c2: stong phrag brgyad cu rtsa bzhI ’drIr bcug par ’gyur ro / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta
/ ^a yu
c3: gnya’ na su bI ni sh+ci ta / ra dza ya ta tha ga ta ya ^om sa rba sang ska ra pa rI shud da /
dar ma te ma ha na ya
c4: pa rI ba re sva hA /]
d1: {§20} gang gI tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo / ’dI ’drir bcug na / de’I mtsams myed pa lnga /
d2: yongs su byang bar ’gyur ro / / na mo bA ga ba te / ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya’ na su bI ni
shcI ta /
d3: ra dzA ya ra tha ga ta ya ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud dha / dhar ma te ma ha na ya
pa re ba re sva hA
d4: {§21} gang gi tshe dpag du myed pa ’I mdo ’di ’drir bcug na / / de ’I sdig gi phung po rib rab
d5: tsam yang yongs su byang bar ’gyur ro / na mo ba ga ba te pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya’
d6: na su bI ni shcI ta / ra dzA ya ta tha ga ta ya^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud dha / dhar
ma te ma ha
d7: na ya pa rI ba re sva hA / / {§22} gang zhig gi tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo / ’dI ’drir bcug na /
d8: de la bdud kyi ris kyI lha dang / gnod sbyin dang / srin po glags bltas kyang glags
d9: rnyed par myi ’gyiur ro / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya’ na su bI ni shcI ta
d10: ra dzA ya / ta tha ga ta ya ^om sa rva sang ska ra / / pa rI shud dha / dhar ma te ma ha na
ya pa rI
d11: ba re sva hA / / {§23} gang zhig tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI ’drir bcug na / / de’i tshi
ba’i dus
d12: kyI / tshe sangs rgyas bye ba phrag dgu bcu rtsa dgu mrngon du ston par mdzad17 de /
sangs rgyas
d13: stong gis de la phyag rkyong bar ’gyur ro / sangs rgyas gyI zhIng nas / sang rgyas kyI
zhing du
d14: ’gro bar mjad par ’gyur ro / ’dI la the tsom dang / song nyi dang / yId gnyis ma za shIg
d15: na mo bA ga ba te / ^a pa ri mi ta / g^a yu gnya’ na su bI ni shci ta / ra dzA ya ta tha ga ta ya
d16: ^om sa rva sang ska ra / pa ri shud dha / dhar ma te / ma ha na ya pa ri ba re sva ha’ /
{§24} gang zhig
d17: gi tshe dpag du myed pa’i mdo ’di ’drir btsug na / rgyal po chen po bzhi de'i ’phri phya
bzhin
d18: ’brang zhIng bsrung ba dang / bskyab pa dang sbid pa khyed par ’gyur ro / na mo bA gabate
e1: ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu gnya na / su bI ni shci ta / ra dzA ya ta tha ga ta ya / ^om sa rva sang
ska ra


17 Editor has added missing dza btags to scribe’s mjad.
360  Correcting Limitless Life

e2: ma ha pa rI shud dha / dhar ma te ma ha na ya pa rI ba ri sva ha’ / / {§25} gang zhIg tshe
dpag du myed pa’i
e3: m’do ’drir bcug na / de de bzhIn gshegs pa 'od (interline <) d (> interline) pag du myId pa’i
sang rgyas kyI zhing ’jig
e4: rten kyI khams bde ba can du skye bar ’gyur ro / ^om bA ga ba te / ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu
e5: gnya na / su bI ni shci ta / ra dzA ya ta thA ga ta ya / ^om sa rva sang ska ra / pa rI shud dha /
e6: dhar ma te / ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha’ / {§26} sa phyog su dkon mchog mdo sde
’di ’drir
e7: bar ’gyur ba’i sa phyogs de yang mchod rten du ’gyur te / phyag ’tshal bar ’gyur ro
e8: gal te byol song gI skye gna’ su song bya dang / rI dags gang dag gi rna lam du sgra gra&
e9: &gs par ’gyur ba de de dag thams chad bla na / myed pa yang dag par rdzogs pa’i byang
e10: cub du mngon bar rdzogs par ’tshang rgya bar ’gyur ro / na ma bA ga ba te / ^a pa ri mi ta
e11: ^a yu gnya na su bI ni shci ta / ra dzA ya ta thA ga ta ya / ^om sa srva sang ska ra / pa ri shud
e12: dha / dhar ma te / ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha’ / {§27} gang zhig tshe dpag du myed pa’i
mdo sde
e13: ’dI ’drI bar bcug na / de bud myed kyi dngos posr nam du yang myi ’gyur ro / na mo bA ga
ba te
e14: ^a pa ri mi ta / ^a yu gnya na / su bi ni shci ta / ra dzA ya (interline <) ta (> interline) tha
ga ta ya / ^om sa rva sang ska ra /
e15: pa rI shud dha / dhar ma te / ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha’ / {§28} gang la la zhig chos
kyi rnam
e16: grangs ’dI’i phyir / ka sha ni ’ga’ zhIg sbyIn ba byein18 na / des stong gsum gyI stong chen
e17: po’i ’jig rten gyi khams rin po chen sna bdun kyis yuong19 su bkang ste / sbyin ba
e18: byein20 bar ’gyur ro / / na mo bA ga ba te / ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu gnya na su bi ni
f1: shcI ta / ra dzA ya ta tha ga ta ya ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud dha / dhar ma te ma ha
na ya pa rI ba re
f2: sva hA / / {§29} gang la la zhig chos kyi rnam grangs de la mchod pa byed par ’gyur ba de /
dam pa’I chos /
f3: mthag dag bcub par mchod par ’gyur ro / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na
su bi
f4: nI shci ta ra dzA ya ta tha ga ta ya ^om sa rva sang ska ra / pa rI shud dha / dhar ma te ma
ha na ya ba rI ba re sva ha /
f5: {§30} de ltas te / de gzhin gshegs pa rnam par gzigs dang / gtsug thod+r21 dang / thams cad
skyo sba dang
f6: log par dad stsel dang / gser thub dang ’od srungs dang / sheg kya thub pa la sa/ stsogs
f7: pa la rin chen sna bdun kyis / mchod pa rnams kyis mchod par byas pa’I gsod nams kyI
f8: phung po de ’i tshad ni bgrangs bar myi nus kyi / tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo de ’i bsod
f9: nams kyi phung po’I tshad ni bgrang ba myis so / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a
yu gnya’


18 Red ink crosses out e, writes i.
19 Red ink crosses out u, writes o.
20 Red ink crosses out e, writes i.
21 Red ink crosses out d, writes r.
 Transliteration of a sample copy  361

f10: na su bI ni shcI ta ra dzA ya ta tha ga ta ya ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud dha / dhar
ma te ma ha na ya
f11: pa rI ba re sva hA / / {§32} ’dI lta ste rgya mtsho chen po bzhI’i chus yongs su gang ba’I
thIgs pa re re
f12: nas bgrang bar nus gyI tshe dpag du myed pa’i mdo ’di bsod nams gyI phung po’i tshad ni
f13: bgrang bar myI nus kyI / na mo bA ga ba te / ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na / su bI ni shci ta
/ ra dzA ya
f14: tatha ga ta ya / ^Om sa rva sang ska ra / pa rI shud dha / dhar ma te / ma ha na ya pa rI ba
re sva ha’
f15: {§33} gang zhIg tshe dpag du myed pa’i mdo ’di ’drir bcug gam mchod pa byed par ’gyur
ba des
f16: phyogs bcu’I sangs rgyas kyI zhIng thams chad du de bzhin gshegs pa thams chad la phyag
f17: byas pa dang / mchod pa byas pa yIn no / / na mo bA ga ba te / ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu gnya
na su
f18: bI ni shci ta’ / ra dzA ya ta thA ga ta ya / ^om sa rba sang ska ra / parI shud dha / dhar ma
te ma ha
g1: na ya pa rI ba re sva ha’ / / {§34} sbyIn ba’I stobs kyIs sangs rgyas yang dag ’phags
g2: myI ’i seng ges sbyIn ba’I stobs rtog ste / snying rje grong khyer du ’ang ’jug pa na / sbyIn ba’i
g3: stobs kyI sgra ni grags par ’gyurd / {§35} btsul khrIms stobs kyIs sangs rgyas yang dag ’&
g4: &phags / myI’i seng ges tshul khrIms stobs rtogs te / snyIng rje grong khyer du ’ang ’jug pa na
g5: tshul khrIms stobs kyI sgra ni grags par ’gyurd / {§36} bzod pa’i stobs kyis / sangs rgyas yang
g6: dag ’phags / myI ’i seng ges bzod pa stobs rtog ste / snying rje grong khyer du yang ’jug pa na /
g7: bzod pa’I stobs kyi sgra ni grags par ’gyurd / {§37} btson ’grus stobs kyi sangs rgyas yang
g8: dag ’phags / myI’i seng ge brtson ’grus stobs rtomgs te / snyIng rje grong khyer du yang
g9: ’jug pa na / brtson ’grus kyI sgra ni grags par ’gyur / {§38} bsam gtan stobs kyI sangs
g10: rgyas (interline <) yang (> interline) dag ’phags / myI’i seng ges bsam gtan stobs rtomn sa
te / snying rje grong kyer du ’ang
g11: ’jug pa na / bsam gtan stobs kyI sgra nI grags par ’gyurd / {§39} shes rab stobs gyI sangs
g12: rgyas yang dag ’phags / myI’i seng ges shes rab stobs rtogs te / snying rje grong khyer
du ’ang
g13: ’jug pa na / shes rab stobs kyI sgra ni grags par ’gyurd / na mo bA ga ba te / ^a pa ri mi ta /
g14: ^a yu gnya na / su bI ni shci ta / ra dzA ya ta thA ga ta ya / ^om sa rba sang ska ra / pa rI
shud dha /
g15: dhar ma te / ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha’ / / {§40} bcom ldan ’da’s dgyes shIng de skad
g16: ces bka’ stsald to / / ’jam dpald gzho nus gyur pa dang / lha dang / myI dang /
g17: lha ma yin dang drI za bcas pa’i ’jIg rten gyI ’khor / de thams chad bcom ldan /
g18: ’da’s gyIs gsungs par la bmngon bar dgad’ ’o /
h1: tshe dpag du myed pa’I zhes bya ba theg pa’ chen po’i mdo
h2: rdzogs so / /
h3:
h4:
h5:
h6:
h7: phan phan bri so / (red <) dpal kyI sgron mas zhus / jI keng yang zhus / leng pe’u
h8: suM zhus / (> red)
Appendix One: Transliterations of Sample Copies
of the Tibetan A1 and C5 Versions
of the Sutra of Limitless Life
This appendix provides transliterations of an A1 copy, ITJ 310.1209, and a rare C5
copy, ITJ 310.645. The former is arguably redundant, since, apart from its dhāraṇī,
it is largely identical with the B1 copy transliterated in Chapter Five, save for the
fact that the latter skipped an entire paragraph of the sutra. It is nevertheless useful
to have these two transliterations of version one to observe their variations and
errors. The C5 copy, by contrast, is valuable as a rare textual witness to what is
arguably the most complete and least defective Tibetan version of this sutra, and
which was hitherto apparently forgotten. While we do not provide a critical edition,
we have compared it with one of the two other complete C5 copies that we identified
in the Stein Collection, ITJ 310.651.

1 Transliteration of A1 version, pressmark ITJ 310.1209

This is an unedited copy, originally from mixed bundle 86.XIII. As discussed in
Chapter One, it was somehow mislaid and separated from its bundle, and was never
bound. There is some light editing – probably self-correction – also in black ink,
and deletions by strikethrough and by rubbing out. We preserve its errors and mis-
spellings without comment. We number the seven columns a through g. We have
also added paragraph numbers (e.g, “§1”) according to Konow’s parsing of the sutra,
described above in Chapter Two.

a1: $/:/ rgya gar skad du ^a pa rI mi ta/ ^a yur na ma ma ha ya na su tra/ /

a2: bod skad du tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo/ / sangs rgyas dang /
byang cub sems dpa’ thams chad
a3: la phyag ’tshal lo/ / {§1} ’dI skad bdagIs thos pa dus gcig na / bcom ldan ’da’s mnyan du yod
pa na / ’dzI ta ’I gyI tshal
a4: mgon myed za sbyIn kun dga’ ’I ra ba na’/ dge slong gi dge bdun chen po/ dge slong brgya’
phrag phyed dang / bcu gsum
a5: dang / byang cub sems dpa’ chen po rab du mang ba dang / thabs gcIg du bzhugs so/:/ {§2}
de nas bcom ldan ’da’s
a6: ’jam dpal gzho nur gyurd ba la bka’ stsald pa’/ / ’jam dpal steng gI phyogs na / ’jIg rten gyI
khams
a7: yon tan dpag du myed pa la stsogs pa zhes bya ba zhig yod de / / de nas de bzhin gshegs pa
dgra bcom ba ya+ng

Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550-010
364  Appendix One: Transliterations of Sample Copies

a8: dag par rdzogs pa’I sangs rgyas tshe dang / ye shes dpag du myed pa shin du rnam par
gdon myi za ba ’I rgyal po zhes
a9: bya ba bzhugs’tsho skyong ste/ sems can rnams la chos kyang ston to/ / {§3} ’jam dpal gzho
nur gyur ba nyon
a10: cIg/ ’dzam bu glIng ’dI ’i sems can rnams nI tshe thung ba tshe lo brgya’ pa she stagste/ de
dag las kyang phal cher
a11: dus ma yin bar ’chI bar brjod do/ / ’jam dpal sems can gang de dag/ / de bzhin gshegs pa
tshe dpag du
a12: myed pa de’i yon tan dang / bstsags pa yongs su brjod pa zhes bya ba’I chos gyI rnam
grangs ’dI ’drIr ’am
a13: ’drIr ’jug gam/ / ’chang ngam/ glog gam/ men tog dang / bdug ba dang / spos dang / ’phrIng
ba dang / phye ma rnam
a14: gyIs mchod pa byed par ’gyur (interline <) ba (> interline) de dag nI tshe yong su zad pa
las tshe yang lo brgya’ thub par ’gyur ro / / ’jam dpal
a15: sems can kyang de dag/ de bzhin gshegs pa tshe dpag du myed pa shin du rnam par gdon
myI za ba’i rgyal po de ’i mtshan
a16: ’dzIn bar ’gyur ba de daggI tshe yang ’phel par ’gyur ro/ / {§4} ’jam dpal de lta pas na /
rigskyI bu ’am/ rIgskyIbumo
a17: tshe ring bar ’dod pas/ de bzhin gshegs pa tshe dpag du myed pa’ de’i mtshan brgya’ rtsa
brgyad nyan daM ’drIr ’am
b1: ’drIr bcog na / de dagI yon tan dang / legs pa nI ’di daggo/ / {§5} tad tya tha/ na mo ba ga ba
te / ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu gnya
b2: na / su bI ni sh+ci ta/ ra dz+’a ya/ ta tha ga ta ya/ tad thya tha ^om sa rba gsang ska ra / pa
rI shud d+ha / da rma te/ ga ga na sa mu dga’ te/
b3: sva b+ha b+ha byI shud te / ma ha na ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha+’/ {§6} ’jam dpal sngags kyI
tshig ’dI dag gang la la zhig ’drIr ’am
b4: ’drIr ’jug gam/ glegs bam la brIste/ khyIm na ’chang ba de / tshe zad pa las tshe yang lo
brgya’ thub par ’gyurd te/
b5: de nas shI ’phos nas/ de bzhIn gshegs pa tshe dpag du myed pa’I sangs rgyas gyI zhing / ’jIg
rten gyI khams
b6: yon tan dpag du myed pa la stsogs pa skye bar ’gyur ro/ / na mo ba ga ba te / ^a pa rI mi ta
/ ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni
b7: sh+cI ta / ra dza ya/ ta tha ga ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om sa rba sang ska ra / pa rI shud d+ha /
d+ha ra ma te ga ga na sa mu dga’ te/ sva b+ha b+ha byI shud te/
b8: ma ha na ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha+’/ / {§7} yang de’i tshe sangs rgyas bya ba phrag dgu bcu
(interline <) rtsa (> interline) dgus dgongs pa gcIg dang / dbyangs gcIg
b9: gI+s tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI gsungs so/ na mo ba ga ba te/ ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu
gnya na / su bI ni sh+ci ta / ra dza+’ ya/ ta tha ga
b10: ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om sa rba sang ska ra / pa rI shud d+ha / d+har ma te / ga ga na sa mu
dga’ te / sva b+ha b+ha byI shud te/ ma ha na ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha+’/
b11: {§12} yang de’i tshe sangs rgyas bye ba phrag bzhI bcu rtsa lngas dgongs pa gcIg dang /
dbyangs gcIg gi+s tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI
b12: gsungs so/ / na mo ba ga ba te / ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+cita / ra dza+’
ya/ ta tha ga ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om sa rba
b13: sang skar / pa rI shud d+ha/ d+har ma te / ga ga na sa mu dga’ te / sva b+ha b+ha byI shud
te / ma ha na ya / pa rI ba re sva ha+’/:/ {§13} yang de’i tshe
 1 Transliteration of A1 version  365

b14: sangs rgyas bye ba phrag sum bcu rtsa drug gIs dgongs pa gcIg dang / dbyangs gcIg gis
tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’di
b15: gsungs so/ / na mo ba ga ba te / ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+ci ta / ra dza+’
ya/ ta tha ga ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om sarba
b16: sangs ska ra / pa rI shud d+ha / d+har ma te ga ga na sa mu dga’ te / sva b+ha b+ha shu
byI shud te/ ma ha na ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha+’/ / {§14} yang de’I tshe
b17: sangs rgyas bye ba phrag nyI shu rtsa lngas dgongs pa gcIg dang / dbyangs gcig gis tshe
dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI gsungso/
c1: na mo ba ga ba te / ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+ci ta / ra dza+’ ya/ ta tha ga
ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om sa rba sang skar / pa rI shud d+ha /
c2: d+har ma te/ ga ga na sa mu dga’ te/ sva b+ha b+ha byI shud te/ ma ha na ya/ pa rI ba re sva
ha+’/ / {§15} yang ’a de’i tshe sangs rgyas bye ba phrag gang ’ga’I
c3: klung gI bye ma snyed gyIs dgongs pa gcIg dang / dbyangs gcIg gis tshe dpag du myed pa’I
mdo ’dI gsungs so/ / na mo ba ga ba te/
c4: ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+ci ta / ra dza+’ ya/ ta tha ga ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om
sa rba sang skar / pa rI shud d+ha/ d+har ma te ga
c5: ga na sa mu dga’ te/ sva b+ha b+ha byI shud te / ma ha na ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha+’/ / {§18}
yang la la zhIg ga tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI ’drIr
c6: bcug na / des chos (interline <) gyI (> interline) phung po stong phrag brgyad cu rtsa bzhI
’drIr bcug par ’gyur ro/ / na mo ba ga ba te/ ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu
c7: gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+ci ta/ ra dza+’ ya/ ta tha ga ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om sa rba sang skar / pa
rI shud d+ha / d+har ma te ga ga na sa mu dga’ te/
c8: sva b+ha b+ha byI shud te / ma ha na ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha+’/ / {§17} gang zhIg tshe dpag
du myed pa’I mdo ’di ’drir bcug na / de sems can /
c9: dmyal ba dang byol song gI skye gnas gshIn rje’I ’jig rten du nam du yang skye bar myI
’gyur te/ nam du yang myI khom bar
c10: skye bar myI ’gyur to/ / gang dang gang du skye ba thams chad du skye ba dran bar ’gyur
ro/ / na mo ba ga ba te/ ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu
c11: gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+ci ta / ra dza+’ ya / ta tha ga ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om sa rba sang skar /
pa rI shud d+ha / d+har ma te ga ga na sa mu
c12: dga’ te / sva b+ha b+ha byI shud te/ ma ha na ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha+’/ / {§18} gang la la zhIg
tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI ’drIr bcug na
c13: de’I chos gyI phung po stong po stong phrag brgyad cu rtsa bzhI ’drIr bcug par ’gyur ro / /
na mo ba ga ba te / ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu
c14: gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+ci ta / ra dza+’ ya/ ta tha ga ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om sa rba sang skar /
pa rI shud d+ha / dar ma ta ga ga na samudga’ te/
c15: sva b+ha b+ha byI shud te/ ma ha na ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha+’/ / {§20} gang gI tshe dpag du
myed pa’I mdo ’dI bcug na / de’I mtshams myed pa lnga yod
c16: su byang bar ’gyur ro/ / na mo ba ga ba te / ^a pa rI mi ta/ ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+ci ta
/ ra dza+’ ya/ ta tha ga ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om sa rba sang
c17: skar / pa rI shud d+ha / d+har ma te ga ga na sa mu dga’ te / sva b+ha b+ha byI shud te /
ma ha na ya / pa rI ba re sva ha+’/ / {§21} gang gI tshe dpag du myed
d1: pa’I mdo ’dI ’drIr bcug na / de’i sdeigI phung po ri rab tsam ya+ng yong su byang bar ’gyuro/
/ na mo ba ga ba te / ^a pa rI mi ta/
d2: ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+ci ta / ra dza+’ ya/ ta tha ga ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om sa rba sang
ska ra / pa rI shud d+ha / dar ma te ga ga na sa mu
366  Appendix One: Transliterations of Sample Copies

d3: dga’ te / sva ba+’ ba+’ byI shud te/ ma ha na ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha+’/ / {§22} gang zhig gI tshe
dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI ’drIr bcug na /
d4: de la bdud gyI ris gyI lha dang / gnod sbyin dang / srin po glags bltas kyang / glags rnyed
par ’gyur ro/ / na mo ba ga ba te/
d5: ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+ci ta / ra dza+’ ya/ ta tha ga ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om
sa rba sang ska ra / pa rI shud d+ha / d+har
d6: ma te / ga ga na sa mu dga’ te/ sva b+ha b+ha byI shud d+he / ma ha na ya/ pa rI ba re sva
ha+’ / / {§23} gang zhIg gI tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo
d7: ’dI ’drIr bcug na / de’I ’chI ba’I dus kyI tshe sangs rgyas bye ba phrag dgu bcu rtsa dgus
mngon du ston bar mdzad de
d8: sangs rgyas stong gI de la phyag rkyong bar ’gyur ro/ sangs rgyas gyI zhing nas/ sang rgyas
gyI zhing du ’gro bar mdzad
d9: bar ’gyurd te/ ’dI la the tsom dang / sum nyI dang / yId gnyis ma za shIg/ / na mo ba ga ba
te / ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu gnya+’
d10: na / su bI ni sh+ci ta / ra dza+’ ya/ ta tha ga ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om sa rba sang ska ra / pa rI
shud d+ha / dar ma ta ga ga na sa mu dga’
d11: te/ sva b+ha b+ha byI shud te/ ma ha na ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha+’/ {§24} gang g zhig gi tshe
dpag du myeng pa’I mdo ’dI ’drIr bcug na / rgyal po
d12: chen po bzhi de’i phyi bzhin ’brang zhIng bsrung ba dang / bskyeb pa dang / sbed pa byed
par ’gyur ro/ na mo ba ga ba te / ^a pa rI mi
d13: ta / ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+ci ta / ra dz+’a ya / ta tha ga ta ya/ sa tad tya tha ^om sa rba
sang ska ra / pa rI shud d+ha / d+har ma te ga ga na
d14: sa mu dga’ te/ sva b+ha ba+’ byI shud te / ma ha na ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha+’/ / {§25} gang
zhig gI tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI ’drIr
d15: bcug na / de de bzhIn gshegs pa ’od dpag du myed pa’I sangs rgyas gyI zhing / ’jIg rten gyI
khams bde ba can du skye
d16: bar ’gyur ro/ / na mo ba ga ba te / ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+ci ta / ra dza+’
ya/ ta tha ga ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om sa rba sang
d17: ska ra/ pa rI shud d+ha/ dar ma te ga ga na sa mu dga’ te / sva b+ha b+ha byI shud te/ ma
ha na ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha/ / {§26} sa phyogs su dkon
e1: mchog mdo sde/ ’dI ’drIr bar ’gyur ba’I sa phyogs de yang mchod rten du ’gyurd te/ phyag
’tshal bar ’gyur ro/ gal te byol
e2: song gi skye gnas su song dang / rI dag gang dagI rna lam du sgra grag par ’gyur ba/ de dag
thams cad bla na myed par yang dag par
e3: rdzogs pa’I byang cub du mngon bar rdzogs par ’tshang rgya bar ’gyur ro/ / na mo ba ga ba
te / ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni
e4: sh+cI ta / ra dza+’ ya/ ta tha ga ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om sa rba sang skar / pa rI shud d+ha /
d+har ma te ga ga na sa mou dga’ te / sva b+ha b+ha byI shud te / ma ha na
e5: ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha+’/ / {§27} gang zhIg gI tshe dpag du myed pa’I mde ’dI ’drIr bcug na /
de bud myed gyI dngos por nam du yang myI ’gyur
e6: ro/ / na mo ba ga ba te / ^a pa rI ma ta / ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+ci ta / ra dza+’ ya/ ta tha
ga ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om sa rba sang skar / pa rI shud
e7: d+ha/ d+har ma te ga ga na sa mu dga’ te / sva b+ha b+ha byI shud te / ma ha na ya/ pa rI
ba re sva ha+’ / / {§28} ga la la zhig chos gyI rnam grangs
e8: ’dI ’i phyir dkar sha pa nI dga’ zhig sbyIn ba byIn na / / des stong gsum gyI stong chen po’i
’jIg rten gyI khams rIn po
 1 Transliteration of A1 version  367

e9: ce sna bdun gyIs yongsu bkang ste/ sbyIn ba byIn bar ’gyur ro/ / na mo ba ga ba te / ^a pa
rI mi ta / ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+ci ta/
e10: ra dza+’ ya/ ta tha ga ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om sa rba sang ska ra / pa rI shud d+ha / dar ma
te ga ga na sa mu dga’ te / sva b+ha b+ha byI shud te/ ma ha
e11: na ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha+’/ / {§29} gang la la zhIg chos gyI rnam grangs ’dI la mchod pa
byed par ’gyur ba/ des dam pa’I chos mtha’ dag
e12: chub par mchod par ’gyur ro/ / na mo ba ga ba te / ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni
sh+ci ta/ ra dza+’ ya/ ta tha ga ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om sa
e13: rba sang skar / pa rI shud d+ha/ d+har ma te / ga ga na sa mu bdga’ te / sva b+ha b+ha byI
shud te/ ma ha na ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha+’/ / {§30} ’dI lta ste de bzhIn gshegs
e14: pa rnam par gzIgs dang / gtsug tor dang / thams chad skyob dang / logs par dad stse lnga
dang / gser thub dang / ’od srungs dang /
e15: shag kya thub pa la stsogs pI rin cen sna bdun gyIs mchod pa rnam gyIs mchod par byas
pa’I bsod nams gyI phung po’i
e16: tshad nI bgrang bar nus kyI/ tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’di ’I bsod nams kyI phung po’i
tshad nI bgrang bar myI nus so/ /
e17: na mo ba ga ba te/ ^a pa rI mi ta/ ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+ci ta / ra dza+’ ya/ ta tha ga
ta ya/ tad tya tha ^om sa rba sang skar / pa rI shud d+ha/
f1: d+har ma te ga ga na sa mu dga’ te / sva b+ha b+ha byI shud te/ ma ha na ya/ pa rI ba re sva
ha+’/ / {§32} ’dI lta ste rgyam tsho chen po bzhi de’ chus
f2: yong su gang ba’I thegs pa re re nas/ bgrang bar nus kyI/ tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI ’i
bsod nams gyI phung po ’i tshad
f3: nI bgrang bar myI nus so/ / na mo ba ga ba te/ ^a pa rI mi ta / ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+ci
ta/ ra dza+’ ya/ ta tha ga ta ya/ tad tya tha
f4: ^om sa rba sang skar / pa rI shud d+ha / d+har ma te ga ga na sa mu dga’ te / sva b+ha b+ha
byI shud te / ma ha na ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha+’/ /
f5: {§33} gang zhIg gI tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI ’drIr bcug na gam/ mchod pa byed par
’gyur ba des phyogs bcu ’I
f6: sangs rgyas gyI zhing / thams cad du de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad la phyag byas pa dang
/ mchod pa byas pa yIn
f7: no/ / na mo ba ga ba te / ^a rI pa rI mi ta / ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+ci ta/ ra dza+’ ya/ ta
tha ga ta ya/ ta(interline <) d (> interline) thya tha ^om sa rba sang skar
f8: pa rI shud d+ha / d+har ma te / ga ga na sa mu dga’ te / sva b+ha b+ha byI shud te/ ma ha
na ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha+’/ / {§34} sbyIn ba’I stobs
f9: gyI sangs rgyas yang dag ’phags/ myI’i seng ges sbyIn ba’I stobs rtog ste/ / snyIng rje grong
khyer du yang ’jug
f10: ba na / sbyIn ba’I stobs gyI sgra nI grags par ’gyur ro / / {§35} tsul khrims stobs gyI sangs
rgyas yang dag ’phag+s
f11: myI’i seng ges tsul khrIms stobs rtog ste/ snyIng rje grong khyer du ’jug pa na / tsul khrIms
stobs gyI g sgra
f12: nI grags par ’gyur / / {§36} bzod pa’i stobs gyI sangs rgyas yang dag ’phags/ myI’i seng ’ges
bzod ba’I stobs/
368  Appendix One: Transliterations of Sample Copies

f13: rtog ste/ snyIng rje grong khyer du ’ang ’jug pa na / bzod pa’I stobs gyI sgra nI grags ’gyur
/ / {§37} brtson ’grubs1 stobs
f14: gyI sangs rgyas yang dag phags/ myI’i seng ’ges brtson ’grubs stobs rtog steob/ snying rje
grong khyer du yang
f15: ’jug pa na / brtson ’grubs stobs gyI sgra nI grags par ’gyur/ / {§38} bsam gtan stobs gyI sangs
rgyas yang dag
f16: ’phags/ myI’i seng ges bsam gtan stobs rtog ste/ snyIng rje grong khyer du yang ’jug pa na
/ bsam gtan
f17: stobs gyI sgra nI grags par ’gyurd / / {§39} shes rab stobs gyI sangs rgyas yang dag ’phags/
myI’i seng ges
g1: shes rab stobs rtog stoe/ snying rje grong khyer du yang ’jug pa na / shes rab stobs gyI sgra
nI grags par ’gyur
g2: na mo ba ga ba te / ^a pa rI mi ta/ ^a yu gnya’ na / su bI ni sh+ci ta/ ra dza+’ ya/ ta tha ga ta
ya/ tad tya tha ^om sa rba sang
g3: skar / pa rI shud d+ha/ dar ma te / ga ga na sa mu dga’ te/ sva b+ha b+ha byI shud te/ ma ha
na ya/ pa rI ba re sva ha+’/ /
g4: {§40} bcom ldan ’da’s gyI dgyes shing de skad ces bka’ stsald to/ ’jam dpal gzho nur gyurd
pa dang /
g5: lha dang / myI dang / lha ma yin dang / / drI zar bcas pa’I ’jig rten gyI ’khor de thams cad /
bcom ldan
g6: ’da’s gyIs gsungs pa la mngon bar dga’ ’o/ / tshe dpag du myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen
po ’I mdo ’dI rdzogs so/ /
g10: yang kog cung brIs/ /

2 Transliteration of C5 version, pressmark ITJ 310.645

This is an unedited copy from mixed bundle 78.VII. It is one of three C5 copies in
this bundle, all of which have the name Se thong pa in the scribal colophon. We
compare this with the C5 copy at ITJ 310.651, and note differences in the footnotes.
The latter is somewhat defective: it skips §14, has a false start at §27, and has a jum-
bled verse.
There is some light editing – probably self-correction – also in black ink, and
deletions by rubbing out. We preserve its errors and misspellings without com-
ment. We number the five columns a through e. We have also added paragraph
numbers (e.g, “§1”) according to Konow’s parsing of the sutra, discussed above in
Chapter Two.

a1: $/:/ rgya gar skad du ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yur na ma ma ha ya na su tra / / bod skad du2 tshe
dpag myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’I mdo / / sangs rgyas


1 Consistent misspelling of brtson ’grus.
2 ITJ 310.651 inserts ’pags pa.
 2 Transliteration of C5 version  369

a2: dang byang cub sems dpa’ thams chad la phyag ’tsal lo3 / / {§1} ’dI skad bdagis thos pa dus
gcig na / bcom ldan ’da’s mnyan du yod pa na’
a3: rgyal bu rgyal byed gyI tshal4 zas sbyin kun dga’ ra ba na / dge slong stong nyis brgya’ lnga
bcu’I dge slong gyI dge ’dun chen po dang byang cub sems dpa’
a4: sems dpa’ chen po rab du mang po dang thabs gcig du bzhugs ste / {§2} de nas bcom ldan
’da’s gyis / ’jam dpal gzho nurd gyurd pa la bka’ stsal
a5: pa’ / / ’jam dpal steng gyI phyogs na ’jIg rten gyi khams yon tan dpag du myed pa stsogs pa
zhes bya ba yod de / de na5 de bzhIn gshegs pa dgra
a6: bcom ba yang dag par rdzogs pa’I sangs rgyas tshe dang ye shes dpag du myed par / shin
du rnam par gdon myi za ba’I gzi brjid gyI rgyal po zhes bya ba bzhugs ste
a7: ’tso’ ’o gzhes so / sems chan rnams la chos gyang ston to / / {§3} ’jam dpal gzho nurd ’gyurd
pa nyon cig ’dzam bu’I gling gyI myi ’dI rnams ni
a8: tshe thung ba lo brgya’6 she dag7 las kyang phal cher nI dus ma yin bar ’chI ba zhes ston to
/ / ’jam dpal sems can gang dag de dag de
a9: bzhin8 gshegs pa tshe dpag du myed pa de’i yon tan gyI bsngogs9 pa yongs su brjod pa zhes
bya ba’i ’chos kyi rnam grangs / yi ger ’drI’aM yi ger
a10:’drir ’jug gaM mying yang nyan taM ’chang ba ’aM klog pa nas klegs baM la brIs ste khyim
na ’chang ba’am10 men11 tog dang bdug pa dang spos dang preng ba dang phye ma
a11: rnams gyis mchod pa’I bar du byed pa de dag nI tshe yongsu zad pa las tshe yang lo brgya
thub par ’gyur ro / / ’jam dpal sems chan12 dag de bzhin
a12: gshegs pa tshe dang ye shes dpag du myed pa shIn du rnam par gdon myi za ba’I gzi brjId13
rgyal po’I mtsan brgya rtsa brgyad nyan par ’gyur ba de dagI
a13: tshe yang ’pel bar ’gyur ro / / sems chan gang dag tshe zad de mtsan nyan taM ’chang ba
de dag gyang tshe ’pel bar ’gyuro / / {§4} ’jam dpal de lta bas
a14: na rigs gyI bu’am rigs gyI bu mo tshe ring bar don du gnyer ’dod pas / / de bzhins gshegs
pa tshe dpag du myed pa de’i mtsan brgya’ rtsa brgyad nyan taM yi ger
a15:’drI’aM ’drir bcug pa de14 dagI yon tan gyI phan yon ni ’di dag du ’gyuro / / {§5} na mo ba
ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsa ya
a16: ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te sam myag sam bu+’ ta ya / tad tya tha ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa
rI shud da da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de ma ha na ya pa rI ba re
sva ha /


3 ITJ 310.651: btsalo.
4 ITJ 310.651 inserts mgon myed.
5 ITJ 310.651: nas.
6 ITJ 310.651: brgya pa.
7 ITJ 310.651 inserts ste de dag.
8 ITJ 310.651: gang dag de bzhin.
9 ITJ 310.651: bsngags.
10 ITJ 310.651: ’changaM.
11 ITJ 310.651: me.
12 ITJ 310.651 inserts gang.
13 ITJ 310.651 inserts gyi.
14 ITJ 310.651 omits from a14 de’i mtsan up to here.
370  Appendix One: Transliterations of Sample Copies

a17: {§6} ’jam dpal de bzhin gshegs pa’I mtsan brgya rtsa brgyad pho ’dI dag gang15 la la zhig
yI ger ’drI’aM yI ger ’drir ’jugaM glegs baM la brIste ’chang ngaM
a18: klog ba de tshe zad pa las gyang tshe lo brgya’ <[xxx]>16 thub par ’gyuro / ’di nas shi ’phos
nas gyang <[xxx]>17 (interline <) de (> interline) bzhIn gshegs pa tshe dpag du myed pa’I sangs
rgyas kyI zhing
a19: ’jig rten gyI kham+s yon tan dpag du myed par stsogs par skye bar ’gyuro / / na mo ba ga
ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsa ya
b1: ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te sam myag sam bu ta ya / tad tya tha ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI
shud da da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de ma ha na ya pa rI ba re svaha /
b2: {§7} yang de’I tshe sangs rgyas bye ba prag dgu bcu rtsa dgus dgongs pa gcIg dang gsung
gcIgis tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI gsungs so / /
b3: na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta
ya ^a ha rI ha te saM myag sam bu+’ ta ya tad tya tha ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da
b4: da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§8}
yang de’I tshe sangs rgyas bye ba phrag brgyad bcu rtsa bzhis dgongs pa gcig dang
b5: gsung gcIgis tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI gsungso / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a
yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te
b6: sam myag sam bu+’ ta ya tad tya tha ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga na
sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§9} yang de’I tshe sangs rgyas
b7: bye ba prag bdun cu rtsa bdun gyis : dgongs pa gcig dang gsung gcIgis tshe dpag du myed
pa’I mdo ’dI gsungso / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a
b8: yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya : ^a rI ha te sam myag sam bu+’
ta ya / tad tya ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud de da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba ba
b9: bI shud de ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§10} yang de’I tshe sangs rgyas bye ba prag
drug cu rtsa lngas dgongs pa gcIg dang gsung gcigIs / tshe dpag du myed
b10: pa’I mdo ’dI gsungso / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci tha te
dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te sam myag saM b+hu ta ya / tad tya tha ^om
b11: sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud de da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de ma
ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§11} yang de’I tshe sangs rgyas bye ba prag lnga bcu rtsa lngas
b12: dgongs pa gcIg dang gsung / gcig gIs / tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI gsungso / / na mo ba
ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsa ya
b13: ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te sam myag sam bu ta ya tad tya ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud
da da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de ma ha na ya pa rI
b14: ba re sva ha / / {§12} yang de’I tshe sangs rgyas bye ba phrag bzhi bcu rtsa lngas dgongs
pa gcIg dang gsung gcIgis tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’di gsungso /
b15: na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta
ya ^a rI ha te sam myag saM b+hu ta ya / tad tya tha ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI
b16: shud da da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva
ha / / {§13} yang de’I tshe sangs rgyas bye ba <[xxx]>18 phrag sum cu rtsa drugis


15 ITJ 310.651 omits gang.
16 One syllable rubbed out and written over with thub.
17 Some syllables rubbed out and written over with bzhIn gshegs pa.
18 One syllable rubbed out and written over with phra of phrag.
 2 Transliteration of C5 version  371

b17: dgongs pa gcIg dang gsung gcig gIs tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI gsungso / / na mo ba
ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci
b18: ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te sam myag saM bu+’ ta ya / tad tya tha ^om sa
rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga na sa mu ga te sba ba ba bI shud de
b19: ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§14}19 yang de’I tshe sangs rgyas bye ba prag nyI shu
rtsa lngas dgongs pa gcIg dang gsung gcIgis tshe dpag du myed pa’I
c1: mdo ’dI gsungso / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra
tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te sam myag saM bu ta ya / tad tya ta
c2: ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de
ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§15} yang de’I tshe sangs rgyas bye ba prag
c3: gang ga (interline <) klung (> interline) bcu’I bye ma 20 snyed gyIs dgongs pa gcIg dang
gsung gchig gIs tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI gsungso / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a
yu gnya na
c4: su bi nI sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te sam myag sam bu+’ ta ya tad tya
tha ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de
c5: ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§16} gang zhIg tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI yi ger ’drir
’jug pa tshe zad pa las tshe lo brgya’ thub par ’gyur te tshe yang rnam pa+r
c6: ’pel bar ’gyuro / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra
tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te sam myag sam bu+’ ta ya tad tya tha ^om
c7: sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de ma
ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§17} gang zhIg tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI yi ger
c8: ’drir ’jug pa de sems chan dmyal ba dang dud ’gro’I skye gnas dang gshin rje’I ’jig rten du
nam du yang skye bar myi ’gyur / nam du yang myI khom
c9: bar skye bar myi ’gyur te21 gang dang gang du skye ba’I skye ba thams chad du skye ba
dran bar ’gyuro / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI
c10: ni sh+cI ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te sam myag sam bu ta ya / tad tya ta
^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga na sa mu ga te sba ba ba
c11: bI shud de ma ha na ya : pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§18} gang zhIg tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo
’dI yi ger ’drir ’jug pa des chos gyI phung po brgyad khrI bzhi
c12: stong ’drir bcug par gyur ro / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci
ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te sam myag sam bu ta ya
c13: tad tya tha ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba
ba bI shud de ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§19} gang zhIg tshe dpag du myed pa’I
c14: mdo ’dI yi ger ’drIr ’jug pa des chos gyi rgyal po mchod rten brgyad khri bzhI stong byed
du bcug cIng rten btsugs par ’gyuro / / na mo ba ga ba te
c15: ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te sam
myag sam bu ta ya / tad tya tha ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma
c16: de ga ga na sa mu ga te sba ba ba : bI shud de ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§20} gang
zhig tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’di yi ger ’drIr ’jug pa de’I


19 ITJ 310.651 skips §14 and its dhāraṇī, corresponding to b19 to c2.
20 ITJ 310.651: ba.
21 ITJ 310.651 omits te.
372  Appendix One: Transliterations of Sample Copies

c17: mtshams myed pa lnga’I las22 yongsu byang bar ’gyuro / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta

^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsha ya ta tha ga ta ya
c18: ^a rI ha te sam myag sam bu ta ya / tad tya tha ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da
rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / /
c19: {§21} gang zhIg tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI yi ger ’drIr ’jug pa de ’I sdig pa23 rib24 rab
tsam yang yongs su byang bar ’gyuro / / na mo ba te ^a pa rI mi ta
d1: ^a yu gnyana su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te sam myag saM bu
ta ya / tad tya ta ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga
d2: sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§22} gang zhig tshe
dpag du myed pa’I mdo / ’dI yi ger ’drIr ’jug pa de la bdud dang
d3: bdud gyI ris gyI lha dang gnod sbyin dang srin po dang dum25 ma yin bar ’ci bas glags rnyed
par myI ’gyuro / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya
d4: na su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te sam myag sam bu ta ya tad
tya tha ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga sa mu ga te sba ba ba bI shud de
d5: ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§23} gang zhIg tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI ’drir ’jug
pa de ’chi ba’i dus gyI tshe : sangs rgyas bye ba prag dgu bcu
d6: rtsa dgu mngon sum ston pa mdzad par ’gyur / sangs rgyas stong de la pyag rkyong bar
’gyur / sangs rgyas kyI zhing nas sang rgyas gyi
d7: zhing du ’gro bar mdzad par ’gyur te / ’dI la som nyis dang yid gyIs ma za shig / / na mo ba
ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta
d8: te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te saM myag saM bu ta ya / tad tya ta ^om sa rva
sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de ma ha na ya
d9: pa rI ba re sva ha / {§24} gang zhIg tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI yi ger ’drIr ’jug pa de’I
pyid26 bzhin rgyal po chen po bzhi ’brang zhIng bsrung ba dang bskyab
d10: pa dang sbed pa [b]yed par : ’gyuro / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI
ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta : tha ga ta : ya : ^a rI ha te sam myag saM
d11: bu ta ya tad tya ta ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te
sba ba ba bI shud de ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§25} gang zhIg tshe dpag du
d12: myed pa’I mdo ’dI yi ger ’drir ’jug pa de / de bzhIn gshegs pa ’od dpag du myed gyi sangs
rgyas gyI zhing ’jig rten gyi khams bde ba can
d13: du skye bar ’gyuro / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te
dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te saM myag saM bu ta ya tad tya tha ^om sa
d14: rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba ba [b]I shud de ma
ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§26}27 sa pyog gang na mdo’dI yi ger ’dri ’aM yi ger


22 ITJ 310.651 inserts rnams.
23 ITJ 310.651: pa’i phung po.
24 ITJ 310.651: ri.
25 ITJ 310.651: dus.
26 ITJ 310.651: pyi.
27 Here, at the bottom of col. d in ITJ 310.651, the scribe appears to make a false start on §27: “gang
zhig tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’di yI ger.” This goes to the end of the bottom right margin, and is
not struck through. It does not continue on the next column.
 2 Transliteration of C5 version  373

d15: ’drIr ’jug pa’I sa pyogs de yang mchod rten dang ’dra bar ’gyuro / pyag bya28 bar ’os par
yang ’gyuro / / dud ’gro’I skye gnasu song ba bya dang
d16: ri dags gang dagI rna lam du grag pa de dag thams chad gyang bla na myed pa yang dag
par rdzogs pa’I byang chub du mngon bar rdzogs
d17: par sangs rgyas par ’gyuro / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+cI
ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te sam myag saM bu+’
d18: ta ya tad tya ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba
ba bI shud de ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§27} gang zhIg tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo
d19: ’dI yi ger ’drir ’jug pa de de bud myed gyI dngos por nam du yang myi ’gyur ro / / na mo
ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsa ya’
d19 interline [no line marked]: ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te saM myag sam bu+’ ta ya / tad tya tha
^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de ma
ha na ya pa rI
e1: ba re sva ha / / {§28} gang zhIg chos gyI rnam grangs ’dI’i phyir kar sha pa ne gcIg sbyin ba
byIn na des stong29 gsum gyI stong chen po’i ’jig rten gyI khaMs rin po che sna bdun
e2: gyis yongsu bkang ste30 / sbyin ba byin bar31 ’gyur ro / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a
yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te saM myag saM bu ta ya
tad tya tha ^om
e3: sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de ma
ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§29} gang dag chos smra ba de la mchod pa byed pa de dagIs
daM pa’i chos mtha’ dag
e4: bcub par mchod par ’gyuro / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+cI
ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te saM myag saM bu ta ya tad tya tha ^om sa rva sang
ska ra
e5: pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de ma ha ya pa rI ba re
sva ha / / {§30} ’dI lta ste32 de gzhin gshegs pa rnam par gzigs dang gtsug pud can dang thams
chad skyob33
e6: dang log par dad sel dang gser thub dang ’od srungs34 dang shag kya thub pa la rin po che
sna bdun gyIs mchod par byas pa’I35 phung po’I tshad36 nI bgrang bar nus gyI tshe dpag
e7: du myed pa’I bsod naMs gyI37 tshad nI bgrang bar myI nuso / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI
mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te saM myag saM
bu+’ ta ya tad tya tha ^om sa rva sang ska ra


28 ITJ 310.651: gya.
29 ITJ 310.651 inserts a second stong.
30 ITJ 310.651 omits yongsu bkang ste.
31 ITJ 310.651: sbyin bar instead of sbyin ba byin bar.
32 ITJ 310.651 inserts dper na.
33 ITJ 310.651 inserts pa.
34 ITJ 310.651: srung.
35 ITJ 310.651 inserts bsod nams kyi.
36 ITJ 310.651 omits: ’I tshad.
37 ITJ 310.651 inserts: pung po’I tshad.
374  Appendix One: Transliterations of Sample Copies

e8: pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de ma ha na ya pa rI ba

re sva ha / / {§31} ’dI lta ste dper na rI’i rgyal po rI rab dang ma nyaM ba’I rin po che phung
por byaste sbyin ba byIn ba’I38 bsod naMs
e9: gyI phung po’I tshad39 ni bgrang bar nus gyI tshe dpag du myed pa’I bsod naMs gyI40 tshad
ni bgrang bar41 myI nuso / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te
dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha
e10: te saM myag saM bu ta ya / tad tya tha ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga
ga na sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud de ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§32} ’dI lta ste dper
na rgya mtsho chen po chus yongs su gang ba’I42 thigs
e10.5 interline: pa nI re re nas bgrang bar nus gyI tshe dpag du43 myed pa’i44 bsod nams gyi45
tshad nI bgrang bar myi nuso / / na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci
ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya
e11: ^a rI ha te sam myag saM bu ta ya / tad tya tha ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa ri shud da da
rma de ga ga na sa mu ga te sba ba ba bI shud de ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§33} gang
dag tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo ’dI yi ger ’drir
e11.5 interline: ’jug gaM gus par byaste mcod pa byed pa de dag pyogs bcu’I sangs rgyas gyI
zhing thaMs chad gyI de bzhin gshegs pa46 pyag byas pa dang mchod pa byas par ’gyuro / / na
mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi ta ^a yu
e12: gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta ya ^a rI ha te saM myag saM bu ta ya
tad tya ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga na sa mud ga te sba ba ba bI shud
de ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva ha / / {§34} snying rje ldan ba grong
e12.5 interline: khyer ’jug pa na sbyin ba’I stobs gyIs sangs rgyas yang dag ’pags / sbyIn ba’i
stobs gyIs myi’I seng ge rnams / lhag pa nyid ces sbyIn ba’I stobs sgra grag / / {§35} snying rje
ldan ba grong khyer ’jug
e13: pa na tsul khrIms stobs gyis sangs rgyas yang dag ’pags / tshul khrims stobs gyIs myI’I
seng ’ge rnams / lhag pa nyId ces tshul khrims stobs sgra grag / {§36} snyIng rje ldan ba grong
khyer
e13.5 interline: ’jug pa na bzod pa’I stobs gyis sangs rgyas yang dag ’pags / bzod pa’I stobs gyis
myI’i seng ’ge rnams / lhag pa nyId ces bzod pa’I stobs sgra grag / {§37} snyIng rje ldan ba
grong khyer
e14: ’jug pa na brtson ’grus stobs gyIs sangs rgyas yang dag ’phags / / brtson ’grus stobs gyIs
myi’I seng ’ge rnams / lhag pa nyId ces brtson : ’grus stobs sgra grag / {§38} snyIng rje ldan ba
grong khyer


38 ITJ 310.651: ba de’i.
39 ITJ 310.651 inserts de.
40 ITJ 310.651 inserts: pung po’i.
41 ITJ 310.651: du.
42 ITJ 310.651: ba bzhI’i.
43 ITJ 310.651 omits du.
44 ITJ 310.651: gyi.
45 ITJ 310.651 omits pung po.
46 ITJ 310.651 inserts thams shad la.
 2 Transliteration of C5 version  375

e14.5 interline: ’jug pa na bsam gtan stobs gyis sangs rgyas yang dag ’pags / bsam gtan stobs
gyIs myI’i seng ge rnams / lhag pa nyId ces bsam gthan stobs sgra grag / / {§39} snyIng rje ldan
ba grong khyer
e15: ’jug pa shes rab stobs gyIs sangs rgyas yang dag ’pags / shes rab stobs gyis myI’i seng ge
rnams / lhag pa nyId ces shes rab stobs sgra grag / /47 na mo ba ga ba te ^a pa rI mi
e15.5 interline: ta ^a yu gnya na su bI ni sh+ci ta te dzo ra tsa ya ta tha ga ta : ya ^a rI ha te saM
myag sam bu ta ya / tad tya tha ^om sa rva sang ska ra pa rI shud da da rma de ga ga na sa
mud ga te sba ba ba’
e16: byi shud d+he ma ha na ya pa rI ba re sva h’a / /
e17: {§40} $. / / bcom ldan ’da’s gyIs de skad ches bka’ stsald pa dang / thams chad dang ldan
ba’I ’khor : de dang lha dang
e18: myi dang lha ma yIn dang dri zar bcas pa’I ’jig rten / bcom ldan ’da’s gyIs gsungs pa la yI
rang ste mngon bar bstod
e19: to’ / / tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo rdzogs so / /
e 19.5 interline: se thong pa


47 ITJ 310.651 has jumbled the verses, probably due to eye skip. The errors are too numerous to
record.
Appendix Two: Concordance of Tibetan
Limitless Life Copies by Pressmarks
The following concordance proceeds in order of the pressmarks that the British Li-
brary has assigned to these Ap copies and fragments. Our augmented catalogue is
ordered instead by site numbers, and it has attempted to rectify some of confusion
that was inevitably brought on by the sheer mass of these rolls and the varying states
of the bundles in which they were kept.
We have annotated this concordance with observations about La Vallée Pous-
sin’s catalogue where it differs from what we have found. Particularly with regard
to numbers of rolls, we place his tally in parentheses next to ours when these differ.
Where he listed only the site number but not the number of copies in the case of
bundles of several copies, we note this with “no #.” His tally is quoted in full in
Chapter One. There are six site numbers in his tally that we did not observe, or
which apply to other manuscripts, namely XIX.003, Ch.0071, 73.XV.frag. 10b, 76.XI.3,
77.XVI (ITJ 1136), and Fragment 28 (fr. 0060). Where we have been able to infer a
site number this is given in brackets, preceded by the existing “quasi-site number”
which is given in bold, as in our documentation above.
We have also in many cases added additional information about the surround-
ing manuscripts and objects in a given bundle. The sigla specify the different types
of bundles, attending in particular to site numbers, and the divergent uses of serial
site numbers with numbers or letters between the British Museum on the one hand
and the British Library on the other. We do not meticulously document each over-
lapping site number between the two collections, but rather note a few among the
many cases of this.

Sigla for Bundles:

M = Mixed bundle of both single- and- multiple-sutra rolls of Tibetan Ap copies.
S = Bundle of single-sutra-rolls of Tibetan Ap copies.
Xa = Bundle includes Tibetan non-Ap materials with no sub-site numbers
Xb = Bundle includes Tibetan non-Ap materials with sub-site numbers
Xc = Bundle includes Tibetan non-Ap materials with and without sub-site numbers
Ya = Bundle includes Chinese non-Ap materials with no sub-site numbers
Yb = Bundle includes Chinese non-Ap materials with sub-site numbers
Yc = Bundle includes Chinese non-Ap materials with and without sub-site numbers
Za = Bundle includes Chinese and Tibetan non-Ap materials with no sub-site numbers
Zb = Bundle includes Chinese and Tibetan non-Ap materials with sub-site numbers
Zc = Bundle includes Chinese and Tibetan non-Ap materials where only the latter lack with
sub-site numbers

Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550-011
 Appendix Two: Concordance of Tibetan Limitless Life Copies  377

Zd = Bundle includes Chinese and Tibetan non-Ap materials where the former use sub-site
numbers and the latter are marked with and without sub-site numbers
Ze = Bundle includes Chinese and Tibetan non-Ap materials, both with and without sub-site
numbers

Table 5: Concordance of Ap pressmarks and site nos, with numbers of booklets, rolls, and copies.

Press- Site No. Vol. and Bundle No. of Booklets No. of Ap No. of Ap
mark(s) Folio No. Type (F = fragment) Rolls Copies

308 CCC.2 31.4-6 Xb 3 leaves n/a: pothī 0.2

b
309 73.VI.7 16.4-12 X 9 leaves n/a: pothī 0.7
310.1 Fragment 39.a 128: scroll n/a n/a 1 1
box
310.2 81.V.11 80.1 Zb 1 1 1
b
310.3 79.VIII.5 88.1 Z F 0.33 0.33
310.4 79.XIII.1 88.2 Zb 1 1 1
310.5 79.XVI.6 88.3 Zd2 1 1 1
310.6 80.VIII.1 89.4 Zb 1 0.83 0.83
310.7 80.IX.B1 89.7 Zd 1 0.66 0.66

310.8-9 81.VIII 89.8-9 Zc 2 2 2

b3
310.10 82.II.6 89.10 Z 1 0.66 0.66
b4
310.11 83.V.1 89.12 Z 1 1 1
b5
310.12 83.VI.2 89.13 Z 1 1 1
d6
310.13 85.IV.2 89.14 Z 1 1 1
d
310.14 85.IX.1 89.15 Z 1 1 1
7 8
310.15-60 86.I 90.1-46 S 46 45 (46) 45


1 Another manuscript, S.2658, shares the site number 81.V.1.
2 This bundle also contained the two-sutra roll of Chinese Ap, S.3844, and the Chinese Ap fragment
S.3842.
3 Tibetan and Chinese sub-site numbers partly overlap. This bundle also contained three Chinese
Ap single-sutra rolls and one fragment: S.5300, S.5314, S.5297, and S.5319.
4 Tibetan and Chinese sub-site numbers partly overlap.
5 Tibetan and Chinese sub-site numbers partly overlap.
6 Site numbers overlap. Also, ITJ 845 is marked “85.IV.”
7 This bundle also contained two Chinese Ap rolls, S.492 and S.503.
8 One roll, ITJ 310.59, is a Tibetan copy of the Heart Sutra.
378  Appendix Two: Concordance of Tibetan Limitless Life Copies

Press- Site No. Vol. and Bundle No. of Booklets No. of Ap No. of Ap
mark(s) Folio No. Type (F = fragment) Rolls Copies

310.61-88 86.III 91.1-28 S 28 28 28

9
310.89-135 86.VI 92.1-47 S 47 47 (46) 47

310.136-89 86.VII 93.1-54 M 54 30 (31) 87

10
310.190-244 86.IX 94.1-55 M 55 35 (12) 88
11
310.245-99 86.X 95.1-55 S 55 55 (56) 55
12
310.300-28 86.XIII 96.1-29 M 29 24 (25) 42

310.329-76 86.XIV 97.1-48 S 48 48 48

13
310.377-414 86.XV 98.1-38 S 38 38 39

310.415-18 87.XIIIa, b, d, f14 98.39-42 Zd 4 4 4

310.419 CXLVII.2 99.1 Xb F 0.33 0.33

310.420 XLIII.002 99.2 Y15 F 0.33 0.33

(Fragment 29)

310.421 Fragment 33 99.7 ? F 0.33 0.33


9 This corresponds to La Vallée Poussin’s 86.VIa, which he listed as having forty-six rolls. He also
listed 86.VI, without specifying the number of rolls. That site number is likely the last roll in this
bundle, ITJ 310.145, which accounts for the discrepancy between our tally and La Vallée Poussin’s.
10 This is the largest discrepancy between La Vallée Poussin’s record of rolls in a site number (12)
and what we observed (35). A.F. Thompson’s inventory also records twelve rolls. A note on the top
of Vol. 94 states it has thirty-four rolls. The rolls are numbered one to thirty-five, and proceed in
order.
11 The first of these are roll numbers one and two. The third then restarts at roll one. On the very
first roll, “80.X” is crossed out for “86.X,” and a further note mentions the duplicate roll numbers.
Evidently, these first two were understood by La Vallée Poussin as 86.X, whereas the fifty-four –
actually fifty-three – other rolls he understood as “86.Xa.”
12 There are two Chinese non-Ap manuscripts with this site number. One wonders whether they
were originally kept in this bundle with the Tibetan Ap rolls, or whether they found their way in
later, either when Cave Seventeen was disturbed, or when its contents were assigned site numbers
in London.
13 This bundle includes one anomalous roll of two Ap copies. In addition to these thirty-eight Ap
rolls, there is apparently one other Tibetan manuscript from this bundle, ITJ 198, which is one folio
of the ’Phags pa ting nge ’dzin mchog dam pa zhes bya ba’i mdo.
14 These edited, single-sutra rolls have roll numbers eleven through fourteen, suggesting that they
were part of a larger bundle that was disturbed.
15 This bundle contained Sanskrit texts and a print of Amitābha.
 Appendix Two: Concordance of Tibetan Limitless Life Copies  379

Press- Site No. Vol. and Bundle No. of Booklets No. of Ap No. of Ap
mark(s) Folio No. Type (F = fragment) Rolls Copies

310.422 Fragment 41 99.12 Zd 1 1 1

[87.XIII]

310.423 53 [I.1.b] 99.22 Zb 1 1 1

310.424-27 Fr. 53 [87.XIII] 99.23-26 Zd 4 4 3.5

310.428 Fragment 59 99.32 ? 1 1 1

310.429 Fragment 84 99.33 ? 1 1 (2) 1

b
310.430 74.V 100.1 Y 1 1 1
b
310.431 75.IX.5 100.3 Z F 0.25 0.25
b16
310.432 77.VII.1 100.4 Y 1 1 1
17
310.433-79 78.I 101.1-47 M 47 24 (23) 74
18
310.480-522 78.II 102.1-42 M 42 26 (no #) 66

310.523-73 78.III 103.1-51 S 51 51 51

310.574-611 78.IV 104.1-38 S 38 38 38

310.612-83 78.VII 106.1-72 M 72 60 (no #)19 89

310.684-737 78.VIII 107.1-54 S 54 54 54

310.738-800 78.IX 108.1-63 S 63 63 (no #)20 63

310.801-50 78.X 109.1-50 S 50 50 50

21
310.851-915 78.XI 110.1-65 M 65 40 (no #) 104

310.916-66 78.XII 111.1-51 M 51 29 (30) 79

22 b
310.967 73.XIII.12 112.1 Y F 0.33 0.33
b
310.968 73.XV.2 112.2 X 1 1 1
b
310.969 73.XV.8 112.3 X 1 1 1


16 This bundle also contained two Chinese Ap rolls: the single-sutra roll S.2950, and the two-sutra
roll S.3281. It also contains the fragment S.3349.
17 A.F. Thompson’s inventory records twenty-four rolls.
18 A.F. Thompson’s inventory records twenty-six rolls.
19 A.F. Thompson’s inventory records sixty rolls.
20 A.F. Thompson’s inventory records sixty-three rolls.
21 A.F. Thompson’s inventory records forty rolls.
22 The British Library and International Dunhuang Programme website have mis-recorded this
site number as 73.XII.12.
380  Appendix Two: Concordance of Tibetan Limitless Life Copies

Press- Site No. Vol. and Bundle No. of Booklets No. of Ap No. of Ap
mark(s) Folio No. Type (F = fragment) Rolls Copies

310.970- 73.XVI.1-64 113.1-64 S 64 64 (no #)23 64

1033

310.1034 I.1[.e] 115-1 Zb 24 1 1 (5) 1

310.1035 XXXIII.003 115.2 X25 1 1 1

26
310.1036 XL.004 115.3 X 1 1 1

310.1037-38 Fragment 38 115.4-5 ? 2 2 (3) 2

[87.XIII]27

310.1039-40 Fragments 115.6-7 ? 2 2 2

39b-c [87.XIII]28

310.1041 73.VI.129 116.1 Xb 1 1 (5) 1

310.1042-44 73.VII.1-3? 116.2-4 Xb 3 3 3

310.1045-82 73.IX.1-19 117.1-38 M 38 19 67

30
310.1083- 73.X.1-38 118.1-38 S 38 38 (no #) 38
1120

310.1121-99 73.XI.1-28 119.1-79 M 79 29 (28)31 79


23 A.F. Thompson’s inventory records sixty-four rolls.
24 This and the next two items come from Stein’s “miscellaneous bundles,” which included paint-
ings and a variety of manuscripts and objects. This one contains Khotanese and Sanskrit manu-
scripts. Note that the site number Ch.i.1 suggests that the first object that Stein documented was a
Tibetan Ap. By his stated method, described above in Chapter One, the absence of any zeros before
the “1” means that he added this number on site, and that this was one of the first bundles he exam-
ined. Thomas listed five rolls with this site number. This roll is numbered thirteen, so the other
four that Thomas indicated were probably ITJ 1611, 310.423, 1607, and 1605, which are also unedited
A1 copies, and whose roll numbers go from nine to twelve.
25 Within this miscellaneous bundle is a painting of Sukhāvatī kept at the British Museum, acces-
sion number 1919,0101,0.70.
26 This bundle contained paintings, along with Tibetan, Chinese, and Khotanese manuscripts. Its
sub-site numbers are either numbers (e.g. Ch.XL.002) or letters (e.g. Ch.XL.b).
27 The British Library’s catalogue and the International Dunhuang Programme website record the
site numbers as Fragments 39b and c, respectively, as of 15 July 2024.
28 The British Library’s catalogue and the International Dunhuang Programme website record the
site numbers as Fragments 39e and d, respectively, as of 15 July 2024.
29 La Vallée Poussin had “73. VI. 1a” and recorded five copies here.
30 A.F. Thompson’s inventory records thirty-eight rolls.
31 There are two rolls numbered “15” in this volume. The second is “15+” and has no site number. La
Vallée Poussin’s catalogue counts twenty-eight rolls, so this one numbered “15+” probably belonged
 Appendix Two: Concordance of Tibetan Limitless Life Copies  381

Press- Site No. Vol. and Bundle No. of Booklets No. of Ap No. of Ap
mark(s) Folio No. Type (F = fragment) Rolls Copies

ITJ 310.1200 83.IX.10 53.44 Ze32 F 0.2 0.2

d
310.1201-03 80.II 54.44 Z F 0.33 x3 0.33 x3
33 d
ITJ 310.1204 87.XIII 54.44 Z F 0.17 (9) 0.17
34
310.1205 75.IV.1 56.40 X F 0.25 0.25
35
310.1206 79.XIV.3 56.50 X F 0.17 0.17
d
310.1207 85.IX.6 70.44 Z Not Ap

310.1208 [86.XIII] M n/a 1 1

310.1209 [86.XIII] M n/a 1 1

310.1210 [86.XIII] M n/a 1 1

478 XV 15.2 n/a36 1 leaf n/a: pothī 0.1

514 79.XVI.9 54.43 X (as F 0.1 0.1

above)

930 84.XIV.5 54.49 Zd37 F 0.1 0.1

1497 85.IX.2 80.13 Zd 1 0.8 (0) 0.8

1499 85.IX.4 80.15 Zd F 0.33 (0) 0.33

1500 85.IX.5 80.16 Zd F 0.33 (0) 0.33

38 d
1501 [85.IX.3] 80.17 Z F 0.33 (0) 0.33


to a separate bundle. On a red and white sticker mounted on brown paper one finds, in pen, “Ch.73.XI
No. 310.” Between these two lines, in pencil: “28.” Next to them, in blue pen: “+73XV.” Below, on brown
mounting paper, in black pen: “+73.XIII, 73.XV.”
32 Site numbers overlap.
33 A “d” is added after this number, in pencil (see Fig. 22), not matching the rest of the site number.
La Vallée Poussin’s catalogue states that there are nine rolls with this site number.
34 There are Tibetan items with the site number 75.IV, and Chinese items with sub-site numbers,
e.g. “75.IV.3.” S.1779, in fact, is numbered 75.IV.1, but one notes that below this “75.VI.1” has been
struck through.
35 There are Tibetan and Chinese items in this bundle. The latter bear sub-site numbers. Only
some of the Tibetan items have sub-site numbers. A Chinese item, S.3824, has apparently been as-
signed the same site number, “79.XIV.3,” as ITJ 310.1206.
36 This is the only manuscript we have identified with the site number XV.
37 Site numbers overlap.
38 ITJ 1499 and 1501 appear to be fragments of the same copy, which justifies our assigning a site
number here; for details see Chapter Four.
382  Appendix Two: Concordance of Tibetan Limitless Life Copies

Press- Site No. Vol. and Bundle No. of Booklets No. of Ap No. of Ap
mark(s) Folio No. Type (F = fragment) Rolls Copies

1588 80.II.139 89.1 Zd 1 1 1

40 d41
1589 80.IV 89.2 Z F 0.33 0.33
b
1590 80.V 89.3 Z 1 1 1
42 b
1591 80.VIII.1 89.5 Z 1 1 1
b
1592 80.VIII.2 89.6 Z 1 0.66 (0) 0.66
d43
1593 82.XVI.4 89.11 Z 1 0.33 (0) 0.33

1594 10 99.3 ? 1 0.66 (0) 0.66

1595 13 99.4 ? 1 0.66 (0) 0.66

1596 14 99.5 ? 1 0.33 (0) 0.33

1597 23 99.6 ? 1 0.66 (0) 0.66

1598 34 99.8 ? 1 0.8 (0) 0.8

1599 35 [87.XIII] 99.9 Zd 1 1 (0) 1

d
1600 36 [87.XIII] 99.10 Z 1 1 (0) 1

1602 44 99.13 ? 1 0.5 (0) 0.5

1603 45 99.14 ? 1 1 (0) 1

1604 46 99.15 ? 1 1 (0) 1

b
1605 47 [I.1.d] 99.16 Z 1 1 (0) 1

1606 48 99.17 ? 1 1 (0) 1

b
1607 49 [I.1.c] 99.18 Z 1 1 (0) 1

1608 50 [87.XIII] 99.19 Zd 1 1 (0) 1

1609 51 [87.XIII] 99.20 Zd 1 1 (0) 1

1610 52 99.21 ? 1 1 (0) 1

1611 54 [I.1.a] 99.27 Zb 1 1 (0) 1

1612 55 99.28 ? 1 1 (0) 1


39 This likely corresponds to La Vallée Poussin’s “80. II. B1.”
40 This likely corresponds to La Vallée Poussin’s “80. IV. 1.”
41 The sub-site numbers on the Tibetan manuscripts use letters rather than numbers.
42 Same site number as ITJ 310.6.
43 The other Tibetan texts, as well as the two Sogdian texts on versos of Chinese texts, appear to
lack sub-site numbers.
 Appendix Two: Concordance of Tibetan Limitless Life Copies  383

Press- Site No. Vol. and Bundle No. of Booklets No. of Ap No. of Ap
mark(s) Folio No. Type (F = fragment) Rolls Copies

1613 56 99.29 ? 1 1 (0) 1

1614 57 99.30 ? 1 0.8 (0) 0.8

1615 58 99.31 ? 1 0.66 (0) 0.66

1617 78.VI 105.1 M 1 1 (0) 1

44
1618-46 78.V 105.2-30 M 29 24 (0) 52
45
1647-65 [78.VI] 105.31-49 M 19 18 (0) 30
46
1666-1714 73.XVII.1-29 114.1-51 M 51 29 (0) 84


44 A.F. Thompson’s inventory records "17 + 24" rolls. We tentatively propose that twenty-four rolls
belong to 78.V, and that seventeen belong to 78.VI, with 78.VI.1 making it eighteen.
45 A.F. Thompson’s inventory records one roll, "78.VI.1."
46 A.F. Thompson’s inventory records twenty-nine rolls.
List of Figures
Fig. 1: An unrolled Tibetan Dunhuang Ap copy kept at the Bibliothèque nationale de France,
pressmark PT 3906; image captured by the authors from https://gallica. bnf.fr, courtesy
of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Fig. 2: Example of the booklet format into which the Tibetan rolls of the Sutra of Limitless Life
were bound, ITJ 310.274; photograph by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 3: Example of booklets stacked within a volume, Vol. 95 (note each booklet’s Kraft paper
spine), ITJ 310.283; photograph by Lewis Doney, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 4: Bundles of rolls from Mogao Cave Seventeen, Stein photograph 392/27(589); after Stein
1912, vol. 2, figure 194.
Fig. 5: Photograph of a stack of SP2 folia (above), and one of the “convolutes” or “library
bundles” (lower right) from Mogao Cave Seventeen (note that the scraps in the image
on the lower left, “Ch.011,” bear no relation to the bundle “Ch.05” to its right). The
bundle is partly unrolled to show that it is a stack of Tibetan Ap copies that have been
rolled up together; after Stein 1921, vol. 4, plate 173.
Fig. 6: Jiang Xiaowan at the end of Stein’s second expedition, Khotan, July 31, 1908; The British
Library, photograph 392/26(831).
Fig. 7: A Chinese roll from Dunhuang bearing Jiang Xiaowan’s numbering, “759,” and title, Lie
guo zhuan; after Stein 1921, vol. 4, plate 166. Now pressmark S.328.
Fig. 8: Verso of ITJ 310.683, showing Stein’s initial site number, “Ch.05,” and the more specific
site number, “78.VII.1”; photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
Figs 9a–b: Final two pages of Stein’s packing list, “Contents of antique cases packed June 19th–July
18th, 1908,” giving the contents of each crate shipped to London; MSS Stein 37/119 and
MSS Stein 37/120, courtesy of the Bodleian Library.
Fig. 10: Or.8212/83 recto, showing two site numbers; image captured by the authors from
http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.
Figs 11a–b: IOL Khot S 17 verso, showing two site numbers; image captured by the authors from
http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 12: Detail of a “library bundle” from Mogao Cave Seventeen; after Stein 1921, vol. 4, plate 173.
Fig. 13: ITJ 310.1149 on its side, rotated ninety degrees – in faded red ink one can read
“Ch.73.XI.19,” adjacent, in pencil, is a “3,” indicating the number of sutras in this
multiple-sutra roll, and in the bottom left of the image (top left of the booklet), a redu-
plication of the site number and then the booklet number “19” is written in pencil;
photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 14: Site number 79.IX.25 on the verso of S.2018, a Chinese Ap copy; photographed by
Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
Figs 15a–b: Site numbers 86.X written on the verso of the start of ITJ 310.256 (upper right of front
cover of the booklet, spine to the left) and on the verso of the end of ITJ 310.253 (upper
left of back cover of the booklet, spine to the right). Note booklet number “12” in pencil
below the site number in Fig. 15a; photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the
British Library.
Figs 16a–b: Paper wrapping in which the Tibetan Ap copies were initially conserved while still in roll
format, Vol. 118; photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.

Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550-012
 List of Figures  385

Figs 16c–d: C.M. Ridding’s annotations on the bundle wrapper, Vol. 118; photographed by Brandon
Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 17: Curator’s stickers on the front of ITJ 1617; photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of
the British Library.
Figs 18a–c: La Vallée Poussin’s roll numbers (denominators) and panel numbers (numerators)
added in pencil to the top right of each panel of paper of ITJ 310.295; photographed by
Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
Figs 19–20: Curator’s red-and-white stickers on ITJ 310.245 and ITJ 310.247; photographed by Lewis
Doney, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 21: Curator’s red-and-white sticker, with blue annotations, on the spine of ITJ 310.245;
photographed by Lewis Doney, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 22: Pagination and possible damage from binding (upper right) in leather-bound “volumes”
from the 1910s; ITJ 310.1204; image captured by the authors from http://idp.bl.uk/,
courtesy of the British Library.
Figs 23a–b: ITJ 310.295, page 1 (cover, originally the verso of the first half of the first panel of the
roll, behind text column a) and pages 2–3 (originally the recto of the first panel of the
roll, containing text columns a and b); photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of
the British Library.
Figs 23c–d: ITJ 310.295, pages 4–5 (originally the verso of the second half of the first panel of the
roll, behind text column b, and the verso of the first half of the second panel of the roll,
behind text column c) and pages 6–7 (originally the recto of the second panel of the roll,
containing text columns c and d); photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the
British Library.
Figs 23e–f: ITJ 310.295, pages 8–9 (originally the verso of the second half of the second panel of the
roll, behind text column d, and the verso of the first half of the third panel of the roll,
behind text column e) and pages 10–11 (originally the recto of the third and final panel
of the roll, containing text columns e and f) – note the colophon with scribes and
editors; photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 23g: ITJ 310.295, page 12 (originally the verso of the second half of the third panel of the roll,
behind text column f) – note the Kraft paper spine; photographed by Brandon Dotson,
courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 24: ITJ 310.296; photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 25: What appears to be newsprint sucked onto the margin of ITJ 310.266, probably occur-
ring when conservators unglued its panels; photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy
of the British Library.
Figs 26a–b: Vol. 93, which contains fifty-four booklets bearing the pressmarks ITJ 310.136 to
ITJ 310.189; photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 27: Stamp and pressmark on the verso of ITJ 310.1208; image captured by the authors from
http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 28: Red-and-white curator’s sticker with Ulrich Pagel’s dated annotations, ITJ 310.1083;
photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 29: Folio of Khotanese Dunhuang Ap copy, IOL Khot 60/1; image captured by the authors
from http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 30: Editor’s corrections of the type-B dhāraṇī into a type-A dhāraṇī, PT 3618; image captured by
the authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
386  List of Figures

Fig. 31: Type-C dhāraṇī as the “heart incantation of Amitāyuḥ” in a short dhāraṇī text from
Dunhuang, PT 4065; image captured by the authors from https://gallica. bnf.fr, courtesy
of Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Fig. 32: Leaf from a pothī-format copy of Ap, PT 4071, with type-D dhāraṇī; image captured by
the authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Fig. 33: The ostensibly first folio of a Tibetan Ap copy in pothī format, ITJ 308, possibly with ink
mixed with blood; image captured by the authors from http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the
British Library.
Fig. 34: Tax document PT 1128, with details about supplies for copying sutras; image captured by
the authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Fig. 35: Amount of paper owed by Dunhuang scribes, with interlinear annotations, ITJ 1359(B);
image captured by the authors from http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 36: Editors’ notes in the margins of a discarded SP2 folio, PT 1332; image captured by the
authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliotèque nationale de France.
Fig. 37: The characters dui “replace” written in brush over a rejected panel of Chinese MP, S.461;
image captured by the authors from http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 38: The characters dui “replace” written in the top margin of a rejected Ap fragment, S.2355;
image captured by the authors from http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 39: The first panel of an edited Chinese Ap copy, S.4088; image captured by the authors
from http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 40: Four-panel, eight-column layout, PT 3901; image captured by the authors from
https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Fig. 41: Three-and-a-half-panel, seven-column layout (column a missing), PT 3905; image
captured by the authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque
nationale de France.
Fig. 42: Three-panel, six-column layout, PT 3906; image captured by the authors from
https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Fig. 43: Two-and-three-quarter-panel, five-column layout (column e is 150 percent wider than
the rest), PT 3793; image captured by the authors from https://gallica. bnf.fr, courtesy
of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Figs 44a–b: ITN 2208, recto and verso; image captured by the authors from http://idp.bl.uk/,
courtesy of the British Library.
Figs 45a–b: PT 1009, recto and verso; image captured by the authors from https:// gallica.bnf.fr,
courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Figs 46–47: Rubbed-out names in colophons of PT 3564 and 3582; image captured by the authors
from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Fig. 48: End of a hire contract, PT 1098 – showing the personal seals of the witnesses, some of
whom were sutra scribes; image captured by the authors from https:// gallica.bnf.fr,
courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Fig. 49: Colophon of what is probably an exemplar sutra copy, PT 3601; image captured by the
authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Fig. 50: Some typical corrections in Tibetan Ap copies, PT 3790; image captured by the authors
from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Fig. 51: Insertion between lines one and two of a Tibetan Ap copy, PT 3920; image captured by
the authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Fig. 52: A panel of a Tibetan Ap, PT 4082, showing ink spill; image captured by the authors from
https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
 List of Figures  387

Fig. 53: A torn fragment of a Tibetan Ap, PT 4026, presumably discarded due to cramped writing
and deviation from the inked guidelines; image captured by the authors from
https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Fig. 54: Final panel of a Tibetan Ap, ITJ 310.645, showing cramped writing on the final column;
photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 55: Editorial note in the lower margin of ITJ 310.382, marking it for discard; photographed
by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
Fig. 56: The verso of a torn fragment of a Tibetan Ap copy, PT 4017, featuring jottings and a draft
Tibetan letter; image captured by the authors from https://gallica. bnf.fr, courtesy of
the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Figs 57–58: A drawing on the verso of a partial Tibetan Ap copy, PT 4012, and punctuation-like
designs on the verso of a Tibetan Ap fragment, PT 4078; images captured by the authors
from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Fig. 59: Verso of a torn Tibetan Ap panel, PT 4010 – the text “packet number fifty-nine” indicates
that this was used as a wrapper for bundles of sutras; image captured by the authors
from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Figs 60–61: Ex-libris on S.115v and S.2611v – the former also includes Jiang’s numbering, its
“translation” into Arabic numbers, and Jiang’s title in red; image captured by the
authors from http://idp.bl.uk/, courtesy of the British Library.
Figs 62–65: Ex-libris on PT 3954v, PT 3632r, PT 3819v, and ITJ 310.1187; images captured by the
authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France,
and photographed by Brandon Dotson, courtesy of the British Library.
Figs 66–68: Possible Tibetan ex-libris, PT 3512v, PT 3818v, and PT 3669v (note also the “modern ex-
libris” in pencil on PT 3818); images captured by the authors from https://gallica.bnf.fr,
courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Abbreviations
Ap Aparimitāyur-nāma mahāyāna-sūtra; the Sutra of Limitless Life.
BD Prefaces a number to form pressmarks of Dunhuang manuscripts kept at the National
Library of China, Beijing.
Db. t. Prefaces a number to form pressmarks of Dunhuang manuscripts kept at the Dunhuang
Museum, Dunhuang.
Dkh. Tib. Prefaces a number to form pressmarks of Tibetan Dunhuang manuscripts kept at the
Institute of Oriental Manuscripts in St. Petersburg.
IOL Khot India Office Library Khotanese; prefaces a number to form pressmarks of Khotanese
material from Central Asia kept at the British Library in London.
IOL Khot S India Office Library Khotanese Scroll; prefaces a number to form pressmarks of Kho-
tanese scroll-format manuscripts kept in the Stein Collection of the British Library in
London.
ITJ India Office Library Tibetan J, or IOL Tib J; prefaces a number to form pressmarks of
Tibetan manuscripts from Dunhuang kept at the British Library in London.
ITN India Office Library Tibetan N, or IOL Tib N; prefaces a number to form pressmarks of
Tibetan wooden slips kept at the British Library in London.
MP Daboreboluomiduo jing 大般若波羅蜜多經 (*Mahā-Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra); the Great
Perfection of Wisdom Sutra.
MS Or. Oriental Manuscript; prefaces a number to form pressmarks of oriental (in this case
Indic) manuscripts kept at the Cambridge University Library.
Or. Oriental Collection; mostly comprising Central Asian manuscripts and fragments, pre-
served at the British Library in London.
P. Pelliot chinois; prefaces a number to form pressmarks of Chinese manuscripts from the
Pelliot Collection of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
PT Pelliot tibétain; prefaces a number to form pressmarks of Tibetan manusripts from the
Pelliot collection of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, according to the catalogue La
Vallée Poussin 1962.
S. Stein Collection; prefaces a number to form pressmarks of manuscripts in the Stein Collec-
tion of the British Library. Prefixed with “Or.8210/” which is omitted here for brevity.
SP Śatasāhasrikā-Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra; 100,000-line Perfection of Wisdom Sutra.
SP1 Tibetan pothī-format SP copy found at Dunhuang comprising folia measuring 75 ✕ 25 cm
with negligible margins and fifteen lines of writing per side.
SP2 Tibetan pothī-format SP copy found at Dunhuang comprising folia measuring 73 ✕ 20 cm
with margins and thirteen lines of writing per side.
SP3 Tibetan roll-format SP copy found at Dunhuang.
T. Taishō; prefaces a number to indicate a text’s location in the Taishō Tripiṭaka, according
to the catalogue Takakusu Junjirō et. al. (1924–1935).
Toh. Derge Tōhoku no.; prefaces a number to indicate a text’s location in the Derge (Sde dge)
Tibetan canon, according to the catalogue Ui Hakuju et al. 1934.

Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550-013
References
Akagi, Takatoshi (2011), “Six 10th Century Royal Seals of the Khotan Kingdom,” in Yoshiro Imaeda,
Matthew T. Kapstein and Tsuguhito Takeuchi (eds), New Studies of the Old Tibetan Documents:
Philology, History and Religion (Old Tibetan Documents Online Monograph Series, 3), Tokyo:
Research Institute for Language and Cultures of Africa and Asia, Tokyo University of Foreign
Studies, 217–229.
Barnard, Mark (1996), “The British Library Stein Collection: its Conservation History and Future
Preservation,” in Susan Whitfield and Frances Wood (eds), Dunhuang and Turfan: Contents and
Conservation of Ancient Documents from Central Asia, London: The British Library, 16–19.
British Library (2006), Connecting...: British Library. Annual Report and Accounts 2005/06, London:
Stationery Office.
Bse chang Sangs rgyas don grub (2016), “Tun hong bod yig gi rgyud gzhung yig cha 《tshe dpag
tu myed pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo》 la dpyad pa /,” Mtsho sngon mi rigs slob chen
rig deb / Qinghai min zu xue yuan xue bao 青海民族学院学报 / Journal of Qinghai Nationalities
Institute, 2016/1: 58–73.
Bushell, S.W. (1880), “The Early History of Tibet. From Chinese Sources,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society, 12: 435–541.
Chen Ruifeng (2020), Informed Textual Practices? A Study of Dunhuang Manuscripts of Chinese Buddhist
Apocryphal Scriptures with Colophons, Ph.D. Dissertation, McMaster University.
Dalton, Jacob and Sam van Schaik (2006), Tibetan Tantric Manuscripts from Dunhuang: A Descriptive Cata-
logue of the Stein Collection at the British Library (Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library, 12), Leiden: Brill.
Davidson, Ronald M. (2009), “Studies in Dhāraṇī Literature I: Revisiting the Meaning of the Term
Dhāraṇī,” Journal of Indian Philosophy, 37: 97–147.
Ding Yi (2019), “By the Power of the Perfection of Wisdom: The “Sūtra-Rotation” Liturgy of the Mahā-
prajñāpāramitā at Dunhuang,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 139/3: 661–679.
Doney, Lewis (2018), “Imperial Gods: A Ninth-Century Tridaṇḍaka Prayer (rGyud chags gsum) from
Dunhuang,” in Lewis Doney, Quentin Devers, and Emanuela Garatti (eds), The Past is a Foreign
Country: Selected Papers From the 4th and 5th Old Tibetan Studies Panels Held at the 13th and 14th
Seminars of the International Association for Tibetan Studies = Central Asiatic Journal, 61/1, 71–101.
Doney, Lewis (2023), “On the Margins: Between Beliefs and Doctrines within Tibetan-Ruled Dun-
huang Scribal Culture,” BuddhistRoad Paper 1.6, 42 pp. <https://omp.ub.rub.de/index.php/
BuddhistRoad/catalog/view/265/242/1349> (accessed 12 Sept. 2023).
Dotson, Brandon (2009), The Old Tibetan Annals: An Annotated Translation of Tibet’s First History.
With an Annotated Cartographical Documentation by Guntram Hazod (Veröffentlichungen zur
Sozialanthropologie, 12), Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Dotson, Brandon (2013-2014), “The Remains of the Dharma: Editing, Rejecting, and Replacing the
Buddha’s Words in Officially Commissioned Sutras from Dunhuang, 820s to 840s,” Journal of
the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 36-37: 5–68.
Dotson, Brandon (2015a), “Popular Wisdom in the Margins of the Perfection of Wisdom: on the Struc-
ture and Date of Tibet’s Oldest Collection of Proverbs,” in Olaf Czaja and Guntram Hazod (eds),
The Illuminating Mirror: Festschrift for Per K. Sørensen on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Contri-
butions to Tibetan Studies, 12), Wiesbaden: Reichert, 119–130.

Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550-014
390  References

Dotson, Brandon (2015b), “Introducing Early Tibetan Law: Codes and Cases,” in Dieter Schuh (ed.),
Secular Law and Order in the Tibetan Highland (Monumenta Tibetica Historica, 13), Andiast:
International Institute Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, 267–314.
Dotson, Brandon, and Agnieszka Helman-Ważny (2016), Codicology, Paleography, and Orthography
of Early Tibetan Documents: Methods and a Case Study (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und
Buddhismuskunde, 89), Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien
Universität Wien.
Doumy, Mélodie and Sam van Schaik (2023), “The Funerary Context of Mogao Cave 17,” in Lewis
Doney, Carmen Meinert, Henrik Sørensen, and Yukiyo Kasai (eds), Buddhism in Central Asia III:
Impacts of Non-Buddhist Influences, Doctrines, Leiden: Brill, 373–400.
Drège, Jean-Pierre (1991), Les bibliothèques en Chine au temps des manuscrits (jusqu’au xe siècle)
(Publications de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 161), Paris: École Française d’Extrême-Orient.
Duan Qing (1992), Das khotanische Aparimitāyuḥsūtra: Ausgabe, Übersetzung, Kommentar und Glossar
(Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik, 3), Reinbek: Dr. Inge Wezler Verlag für Orientalische
Fachpublikationen.
Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond, et al. (eds) (2004), Turfan Revisited: The First Century of Research into
the Arts and Cultures of the Silk Road (Monographien zur indischen Atrchäologie, Kunst und
Philologie, 17), Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
Eubanks, Charlotte (2011), Miracles of Book and Body: Buddhist Textual Culture and Medieval Japan
(Buddhisms, 10), Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fang Guangchang, et al, eds (2013), 中國國家圖書館藏敦煌遺書總目錄: 新舊編號對照卷 /
Zhongguo guo jia tu shu guan cang Dunhuang yi shu zong mu lu : xin jiu bian hao dui zhao juan,
Beijing: Zhongguo ren min da xue chu ban she.
Fujieda, Akira (1969), “The Tunhuang Manuscripts: A General Description. Part II,” Zinbun, 10: 17–39.
Fujieda, Akira / 藤枝晃 and Daishun Ueyama / 上山大峻 (1962), “Tun-huang Mss. of a Tibetan Version
of the Wu-liang shou-tsung yao-ching / Chibetto yaku ‘wuliang shou zong yao jing’” チベット譯
『無量壽宗要經』, in Miscellanea Typographica et Bibliographica dedicata Tominaga Makita Annos
60 Complenti / Tominaga Makita sensei kakō kinen gō kohan shoshi ronsō 富永牧太先生華甲記
念號古版書誌論叢 (Biblia, 23), Tenri / 天理: Tenri Central Library / 天理図書館, 345–356.
Galambos, Imre (2020), Dunhuang Manuscript Culture: End of the First Millennium (Studies in Manuscript
Cultures, 22), Berlin: De Gruyter.
Giles, Lionel (1957), Descriptive Catalogue of the Chinese Manuscripts from Tunhuang in the British
Museum, London: Trustees of the British Museum.
Griffiths, Arlo (2014), “Written Traces of the Buddhist Past: Mantras and Dhāraṇīs in Indonesian
Inscriptions,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 77/1: 137–194.
Hao Chunwen (2020), Dunhuang Manuscripts: An Introduction to Texts from the Silk Road, trans. Stephen
Teiser, Diamond Bar, CA: Portico Publishing Company.
Halkias, Georgios (2013), Luminous Bliss: A Religious History of Pure Land Literature in Tibet (Pure Land
Buddhist Studies), Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Herrmann-Pfandt, Adelheid (2008), Die Lhan-kar-ma: ein früher Katalog der ins Tibetische übersetzten
buddhistischen Texte (Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistgeschichte Asiens, 59), Vienna: Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Hidas, Gergely (2015), “Dhāraṇī Sūtras,” in Jonathan Silk, Oskar von Hinüber, and Vincent Eltschinger
(eds), Brill’s Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Vol. I. Literature and Languages, Leiden: Brill, 129–137.
Hidas, Gergely (2021), Powers of Protection: the Buddhist Tradition of Spells in the Dhāraṇīsaṅgraha,
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Hill, Nathan (2005), “Once more on the letter ’a,” Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 28/2: 107–137.
 References  391

Hill, Nathan (2007), “Aspirated and Unaspirated Voiceless Consonants in Old Tibetan,” Language and
Linguistics, 8/2: 471–493.
Hill, Nathan (2009), “Tibetan <ḥ-> as a Plain Initial and its Place in Old Tibetan Phonology,” Linguistics
of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 32/1: 115–140.
Hill, Nathan (2011), “Alternances entre ḥ et b en tibétain ancien et dans les langues tibétaines
modernes,” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines, 20: 115–122.
von Hinüber, Oscar (2014), “The Gilgit Manuscripts: An Ancient Buddhist Library in Modern Research,”
in Paul Harrison and Jens-Uwe Hartmann (eds), From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in
Buddhist Manuscript Research. Papers Presented at the Conference Indic Buddhist Manuscripts: The
State of the Field, Stanford, June 15–19, 2009 (Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistgeschichte Asiens, 80),
Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 79–135.
Ho Chiew Hui (2019), Diamond Sutra Narratives: Textual Production and Lay Religiosity in Medieval China
(Sinica Leidensia, 144), Leiden: Brill.
Horlemann, Bianca (2002), “A Re-evaluation of the Tibetan Conquest of Eighth-Century
Shazhou/Dunhuang,” in Henk Blezer (ed.), Tibet, Past and Present: Tibetan Studies I, Proceedings of
the International Association of Tibetan Studies 2000 (Brill's Tibetan Studies Library, 2/10), Leiden:
Brill, 49–66.
Huang Wenhuan (1982), “Hexi tufan juan shi xie jing mulu bing houji” 河西吐蕃卷式寫經目錄并
後記, Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 世界宗教研究, 1: 84–102.
Imaeda, Yoshiro (1998), “À propos du manuscrit Pelliot tibétain 999,” in Paul Harrison and Gregory
Schopen (eds), Sūryacandrāya: Essays in Honour of Akira Yuyama on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday
(Indica et Tibetica, 35), Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica, 87–94.
Imaeda, Yoshiro (2008), “The Provenance and Character of the Dunhuang Documents,” Memoirs of the
Research Department of the Tōyō Bunko, 66: 81–102.
Imaeda, Yoshiro (2011), “Towards a Comprehensive and Unambiguous Transliteration Scheme of
Tibetan,” in Yoshiro Imaeda, Matthew T. Kapstein, and Tsuguhito Takeuchi (eds), New Studies of
the Old Tibetan Documents: Philology, History and Religion (Old Tibetan Documents Online
Monograph Series, 3), Tokyo: Research Institute for Language and Cultures of Africa and Asia,
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 39–43.
Iwao, Kazushi (2012), “The Purpose of Sutra Copying in Dunhuang under the Tibetan Rule,” in Irina
Popova and Liu Yi (eds), Dunhuang Studies: Prospects and Problems for the Coming Second Century
of Research, St. Petersburg: Slavia, 102–105.
Iwao, Kazushi (2013), “On the Roll-Type Tibetan Śatasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā sūtra from Dunhuang,”
in Brandon Dotson, Kazushi Iwao, and Tsuguhito Takeuchi (eds), Scribes, Texts, and Rituals in Early
Tibet and Dunhuang (Contributions to Tibetan Studies, 9), Wiesbaden: Reichert, 111–118.
Iwao, Kazushi (2017), “Reusing Sheets of Tibetan Śatasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā in Dunhuang,” The
Annual of Research Institute for Buddhist Culture, Ryukoku University (RIBC) / 龍谷大学仏教文
化研究所所報, 41: 52–50.
Iwao, Kazushi, Nathan Hill and Tsuguhito Takeuchi (eds) (2009), Old Tibetan Inscriptions (Old Tibetan
Documents Online Monograph Series, 2), Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures
of Asia and Africa.
Kapstein, Matthew T. (2000), The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation, and
Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kapstein, Matthew T. (2009), “The Treaty Temple of the Turquoise Grove,” in Matthew T. Kapstein
(ed.), Buddhism Between Tibet and China, Boston: Wisdom, 21–72.
392  References

Keyworth, George (2020), “On Xuanzang and Manuscripts of the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra at

Dunhuang and in Early Japanese Buddhism,” Hualin International Journal of Buddhist Studies, 3/1:
259–317.
Kim, Jinah (2013), Receptacle of the Sacred: Illustrated Manuscripts and the Buddhist Book Cult in South
Asia (South Asia Across the Disciplines), Berkeley: University of California Press.
Konow, Sten (1916), “The Aparimitâyuḥ Sūtra: The Old Khotanese Version together with the Sanskrit
Text and the Tibetan Translation,” in Rudolf Hoernle, Manuscript Remains of Buddhist Literature
Found in Eastern Turkestan, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 289–329.
La Vallée Poussin, Louis de (1962), Catalogue of the Tibetan Manuscripts from Tun-huang in the India
Office Library, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lalou, Marcelle (1939), Inventaire des manuscrits tibétains de Touen-houang conservés à la Bibliothèque
nationale (Fonds Pelliot tibétain). Tome I, Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Lalou, Marcelle (1950), Inventaire des manuscrits tibétains de Touen-houang conservés à la Bibliothèque
nationale (Fonds Pelliot tibétain). Tome II, Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Lalou, Marcelle (1953), “Les textes bouddhiques au temps du roi Khri-sroṅ-lde-bcan: Contribution
à la bibliographie du Kanǰur et du Tanǰur,” Journal Asiatique, 241: 313–353.
Lalou, Marcelle (1954), “Les manuscrits tibétains des grandes Prajñāpāramitā trouvés à Touen-
houang,” in Silver Jubilee Volume of the Zinbun-Kagaku-Kenkyusho Kyoto University, Kyoto: Zinbun
kagaku kenkyusho, 257–261.
Lalou, Marcelle (1956), “Revendications des fonctionnaires du grand Tibet au VIIIème siecle,” Journal
Asiatique, 243: 171–212.
Lalou, Marcelle (1957), “Les plus anciens rouleaux tibétains trouvés à Touen-houang,” Rocznik
Orientalistyczny, 21: 149–152.
Lalou, Marcelle (1961), Inventaire des manuscrits tibétains de Touen-houang conservés à la Bibliothèque
Nationale (Fonds Pelliot tibétain). Tome III, Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Lalou, Marcelle (1964), “Manuscrits tibétains de la Śatasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā cachés à Touen-
houang,” Journal Asiatique, 252: 479–486.
Lancaster, Joan C. (1966), “The India Office Library and the India Office Records,” Archives, 7/35:
172–173.
Lancaster, Joan C. (1969), “The India Office Records and The India Office Library: The Move to a New
Building,” Archives, 9/41: 2–10.
Li Fuhua (2016), “An Analysis of the Content and Characteristics of the Chinese Buddhist Canon,’
Studies in Chinese Religions, 2/2: 107–128.
Liu Xun (2009), Daoist Modern: Innovation, Lay Practice, and the Community of Inner Alchemy in Republican
Shanghai (Harvard East Asian Monographs, 313), Cambridge, MA: Harvard university Press.
Lowe, Bryan D. (2012), “The Discipline of Writing: Scribes and Purity in Eighth-Century Japan,” Japanese
Journal of Religious Studies, 39/2: 201–239.
Lowe, Bryan D. (2017), Ritualized Writing: Buddhist Practice and Scriptural Cultures in Ancient Japan
(Kuroda Studies in East Asian Buddhism, 27), Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Ma De (2011), Gansu cang Dunhuang zang wen wen xian xu lu/ Kan su’u zhing chen du nyer ba’i tun
hong bod kyi yig rnying dkar chag, Lanzhou: Gansu Minzu Chubanshe.
Matko, Marta and Sam van Schaik (2013), Scribal Colophons in the Tibetan Manuscripts at the British
Library (Prajñāpāramitā and Aparimitāyus sūtras), London: International Dunhuang Programme.
<http://idp.bl.uk/database/oo_cat.a4d?shortref=Matko_vanSchaik_2013;random=15506>
(accessed 03 Sept. 2023).
Mirsky, Jeannette (1977), Sir Aurel Stein: Archaeological Explorer, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 References  393

Moretti, Costantino (2021), “Scribal Errors and ‘Layout Genetics’ in Dunhuang Buddhist Manuscripts,”
T’oung Pao, 107: 262–318.
Müller, Friedrich Max, Bunyiu Nanjio and Georg Bühler (1884), The Ancient Palm Leaves Containing the
Pragñâ-Pâramitâ-Hridaya-Sûtra and the Ushnîshavigaya-Dhâranî (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Aryan
Series Vol. I, part III), Oxford.
Nishioka, Soshū / 西岡祖秀 (1984), “A List of the Scribes and Revisers of the Tibetan Versions of the
Wu-liang-shou-tsung-yao-ching in the Pelliot Collection / Berio shūshū Chibetto bun ‘Wuliang
shou zong yao jiao’ no shakyō-kō dōsha ichiran” ベリオ蒐集チベット文『無量寿宗要絞』
の写経・校働者一覧, Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies / Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyū 印度
學佛教學研究, 33/1: 320–314 (= 96–102).
Pa sangs dbang ’dus and Don grub phun tshogs (2011), Spu rgyal bod kyi rdo brkos yi ge phyogs bsgrigs
kyi ma yig dag bsher dang de’i tshig ’grel dwangs sang gangs chu, Lha sa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs
dpe skrun khang.
Pa tshab Pa sangs dbang ’dus and Glang ru Nor bu tshe ring (eds) (2007), Gtam shul dga’ thang ’bum
pa che nas gsar du rnyed pa’i bon gyi gna’ dpe bdams bsgrigs, Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying
dpe skrun khang.
Payne, Richard K. (2007), “Aparimitāyus: ‘Tantra’ and ‘Pure Land’ in Medieval Indian Buddhism?”, in
Leslie Kawamura and Sarah Haynes (eds), Essays Celebrating the Twentieth Anniversary of the
Numata Chair in Buddhist Studies at the University of Calgary = Pacific World, 9, 273–308.
Pelliot, Paul (1961), Histoire ancienne du Tibet, Paris: Librairie d’Amerique et d’Orient.
Qinghai Provincial Institute of Cultural Heritage and Archaeology (2017), “An Archaeological Survey
Report of the Dbus nag byon pa Buddhist Rock Carvings in the Leb ’khog valley in Yul Shul,
Qinghai Province / Qinghai yushu lei ba gou wu na sang ga fojiao moya shike diaocha jianbao”
青海玉树勒巴沟吾娜桑嘎佛教摩崖石刻调查简报, Journal of Tibetology / Bod rig pa’i dus deb /
Zang xue xue kan 藏学学刊, 16: 95–147.
Richardson, Hugh (1981), “Khri Gtsug-lde-brtsan’s Illness,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies, 44/2: 351–352.
Roberts, Peter A. and Emily Bower (2021a), The Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra (1) (Aparimitāyurjñānasūtra,
Toh 674), 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha. <https://read.84000.co/translation/
toh674.html> (accessed 03 Sept. 2023).
Roberts, Peter A. and Emily Bower (2021b), The Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra (2) (Aparimitāyurjñānasūtra,
Toh 675), 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha. <https://read.84000.co/translation/
toh675.html> (accessed 03 Sept. 2023).
Roberts, Peter A. and Emily Bower (2021c), The Essence of Aparimitāyus (Toh 673a), 84000: Translating
the Words of the Buddha. <https://read.84000.co/translation/toh673a.html> (accessed 03
Sept. 2023).
Rong Xinjiang (2013), Eighteen Lectures on Dunhuang, trans. Imre Galambos (Brill's Humanities in China
Library, 5), Leiden: Brill.
Róna-Tas, András (1992), “Reconstructing Old Tibetan,” in Shōren Ihara and Zuihō Yamaguchi (eds),
Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies,
Narita 1989. Volume II (Monograph Series of the Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies, 2),
Narita: Naritasan Shinshoji, 697–703.
Samuel, Geoffrey (2012), “Amitāyus and the Development of Tantric Practices for Longevity and Health
in Tibet,” in István Keul (ed.), Transformations and Transfer of Tantra in Asia and Beyond (Religion
and Society, 52), Berlin: De Gruyter, 263–287.
394  References

Sangji Dongzhi 桑吉东知 (2019), “Dunhuang zang wen xieben ‘dacheng wuliang shou zong yao jing’
zhengli yanjiu de huigu yu zhan” 敦煌藏文写本《大乘无量寿宗要经》整理研究的回顾与展,
Qingzang gaoyuan luntan 青藏高原论坛 / Tibetan Plateau Forum, 7/2: 101–108.
Savitsky, Lev Serafimovich (1984), “Tunhuang Tibetan Manuscripts in the Collection of the Leningrad
Institute of Oriental Studies,” in Louis Ligeti (ed.), Tibetan and Buddhist Studies Commemorating
the 200th Birthday of Alexander Csoma de Kőrös. Vol. II (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica, 19),
Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 281–290.
Savitsky, Lev Serafimovich (1991), Описание тибетских свитков из Дуньхуана в собрании Института
востоковедения АН СССР. Мoscow: Наука, ГРВЛ.
van Schaik, Sam (2013a), “The Naming of the Tibetan Religion: Bon and Chos in the Tibetan Imperial
Period,” Journal of the International Association for Bon Research, 1: 227–257.
van Schaik, Sam (2013b), “Dating Early Tibetan Manuscripts: a Paleographical Method,” in Brandon
Dotson, Kazushi Iwao, and Tsuguhito Takeuchi (eds), Scribes, Texts, and Rituals in Early Tibet and
Dunhuang (Contributions to Tibetan Studies, 9), Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 119–35.
van Schaik, Sam (2016), “Manuscripts and Practices: Investigating the Tibetan Chan Compendium (PT
116),” in Michael Friedrich and Cosima Schwarke (eds), One-Volume Libraries: Composite and
Multiple-Text Manuscripts (Studies in Manuscript Cultures, 9), Berlin: De Gruyter, 287–304.
van Schaik, Sam, Agnieszka Helman-Ważny, and Renate Nöller (2015), “Writing, Painting and
Sketching at Dunhuang: Assessing the Materiality and Function of Early Tibetan Manuscripts
and Ritual Items,” Journal of Archaeological Science, 53: 110–132.
Scherrer-Schaub, Cristina (1991), “Réciprocité du don: une relecture de PT 999,” in Ernst Steinkellner
(ed.), Tibetan History and Language: Studies Dedicated to Uray Géza on his Seventieth Birthday
(Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, 26), Vienna: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische
und Buddhistische Studien, 429–34.
Scherrer-Schaub, Cristina (1992), “Śa cu: ‘Qu’y-a-t-il au programme de la classe de philologie
bouddhique?’,” in Shōren Ihara and Zuihō Yamaguchi (eds), Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the
5th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Narita 1989. Volume 1 (Monograph
Series of the Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies, 2), Narita: Naritasan Shinshoji, 209–221.
Scherrer-Schaub, Cristina (1999), “Towards a Methodology for the Study of Old Tibetan Manuscripts:
Dunhuang and Tabo,” in Cristina Scherrer-Schaub and Ernst Steinkellner (eds), Tabo Studies II
(Serie Orientale Roma, 87), Roma: IsMEO, 3–36.
Schneider, Richard (1996), “Les copies de sūtra défectueuses dans les manuscrits de Touen-houang,”
in Jean-Pierre Drege (ed.), De Dunhuang au Japon: Etudes chinoises et bouddhiques offertes à Michel
Soymié (Hautes Études Orientales, 31), Geneva: Libraire Droz S.A., 141–161.
Silk, Jonathan (1993), “The Virtues of Amitābha: A Tibetan Poem from Dunhuang,” Ryukoko Diagaku
Bukkyō Bunka Kenkūjo Kiyō 龍谷大学仏教文化研究所紀要, 32: 1–109.
Sims-Williams, Ursula (2012), “Aurel Stein’s Correspondence with Paul Pelliot and Lionel Barnett,”
in Helen Wang (ed.), Sir Aurel Stein, Colleagues and Collections, London: The British Museum, 9 pp.
<https://britishmuseum.iro.bl.uk/downloads/6b13156a-c37e-4137-a1d4-48d6b8493a7a?
locale=en> (accessed 04 Sept. 2023).
Skjærvø, Prods O. (2002), Khotanese Manuscripts from Chinese Turkestan in the British Library: A Complete
Catalogue with Texts and Translations, London: The British Library.
Skorupski, Tadeusz (1983), The Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra: Elimination of All Evil Destinies. Sanskrit
and Tibetan Texts, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Sørensen, Henrik H. (2021), “The Buddhist Temples in Dunhuang: Mid–8th to Early 11th Centuries,”
BuddhistRoad Paper 5.2, 100 pp. <https://omp.ub.rub.de/index.php/BuddhistRoad/catalog/
view/186/164/1086> (accessed 04 Sept. 2023).
 References  395

Stein, M. Aurel (1912), Ruins of Desert Cathay: Personal Narrative of Explorations in Central Asia and
Westernmost China. With Numerous Illustrations Colour Plates Panoramas and Maps from Original
Surveys; in Two Volumes, London: Macmillan.
Stein, M. Aurel (1921), Serindia: Detailed Report of Explorations in Central Asia and Westernmost China
Carried Out and Described Under the Orders of H.M. Indian Government, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Stein, Rolf A. (1983), “Tibetica Antiqua I: Les deux vocabularies des traductions Indo-tibétaine et Sino-
tibétaine dans les manuscripts des Touen-houang,” Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient,
72: 149–236.
Strickmann, Michel (2002), Chinese Magical Medicine, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Taenzer, Gertraud (2012), The Dunhuang Region During Tibetan Rule (787–848): A Study of the Secular
Manuscripts Discovered at Dunhuang (Opera Sinologica 24), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Taenzer, Gertraud (2021), “Śatasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā sūtras Discovered at Dunhuang: The
Scriptorium at Thang kar and Related Aspects. A Preliminary Investigation,” Revue d’Etudes
Tibétaines, 60: 239–281.
Takakusu, Junjirō 高順次郎 et. al. (eds) (1924–1935), Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經, Tokyo:
Taishō issaikyō kankōkai.
Takata, Tokio (2019), “Tibetan Dominion over Dunhuang and the Formation of a Tibeto-Chinese
Community,” in Erika Forte (ed.), BuddhistRoad Paper 6.1. Special Issue: Central Asian Networks.
Rethinking the Interplay of Religions, Art and Politics Across the Tarim Basin (5th–10th c.), Bochum:
BuddhistRoad, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 85–106.
Takeuchi, Tsuguhito (1994), “Tshan: Subordinate Administrative Units of the Thousand-Districts in
the Tibetan Empire,” in Per Kvaerne (ed.), Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the
International Association for Tibetan Studies, Fagernes 1992 (Occasional Papers [Instituttet for
Sammenlignende Kulturfoskning], 1), Oslo: Institute for Comparative Research in Human
Culture, 848–862.
Takeuchi, Tsuguhito (1995), Old Tibetan Contracts from Central Asia, Tokyo: Daizo Shuppan.
Takeuchi, Tsuguhito (1998), Old Tibetan Manuscripts from East Turkestan in the Stein Collection of the
British Library. Volume One: Plates (Bibliotheca Codicum Asiaticorum, 12), Tokyo/ London: The
Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies for Unesco, The Tōyō Bunko, The British Library.
Takeuchi, Tsuguhito (2004), “The Tibetan military system and its activities from Khotan to Lop-nor,”
in Susan Whitfield (ed.), The Silk Road: Trade, Travel, War and Faith, London: The British Museum,
50–56.
Takeuchi, Tsuguhito (2012), “Old Tibetan Buddhist Texts from the Post-Tibetan Imperial Period
(mid-9th to late 10th c.),” in Cristina Scherrer-Schaub (ed.), Old Tibetan Studies Dedicated to
the Memory of Professor Ronald E. Emmerick (1937–2001): Proceedings of the 10th Seminar of the
International Association of Tibetan Studies, Oxford 2003 (Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library 10/14),
Leiden: Brill, 205–215.
Takeuchi, Tsuguhito (2013), “Writing Boards of Chinese Scribes in Tibetan-ruled Dunhuang,” in
Brandon Dotson, Kazushi Iwao, and Tsuguhito Takeuchi (eds), Scribes, Texts, and Rituals in Early
Tibet and Dunhuang (Contributions to Tibetan Studies, 9), Wiesbaden: Reichert, 101–109.
Terzi, Paschalia and Susan Whitfield (2024), “Reconstructing a Medieval Library? The Contents of the
Manuscript Bundles in the Dunhuang Library Cave,” Silk Roads Archaeology and Heritage, 1/1: 56–71.
Thomas, Frederick W. (1951), Tibetan Literary Texts and Documents Concerning Chinese Turkestan, Vol II,
London: The Royal Asiatic Society.
Tournier, Vincent (2020), “Buddhist Lineages along the Southern Routes: On Two nikāyas Active at
Kanaganahalli under the Sātavāhanas,” in Vincent Tournier, Vincent Eltschinger, and Marta
Sernesi (eds), Archaeologies of the Written: Indian, Tibetan, and Buddhist Studies in Honour of Cristina
396  References

Scherrer-Schaub (Series Minor [Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale,” Dipartimento di

Studi Asiatici], 89), Naples: Unior Press, 859–912.
Tucci, Giuseppe (1950), The Tombs of the Tibetan Kings (Serie Orientale Roma, 1), Rome: IsMEO.
Uebach, Helga (2015), “Two Indian Loanwords in Old Tibetan: Men-tri and Phra-men,” in Hanna
Havnevik and Charles Ramble (eds), From Bhakti to Bon: Festschrift for Per Kvaerne (Instituttet for
Sammenlignende Kulturfoskning / B, 155), Oslo: Novus Press, 543–549.
Ueyama, Daishun (1990), Tonkō bukkyō no kenkyū, Kyoto: Hōzōkan.
Ui, Hakuju 宇井伯壽 et al. (eds) (1934), Chibetto daizōkyō sōmokuroku 西藏大藏經緫目錄 / Complete
Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canon (Bkaḥ-ḥgyur and Bstan-ḥbyur), Sendai: Tōhoku
Imperial University.
Walker, Annabel (1995), Aurel Stein: Pioneer of the Silk Road, London: John Murray.
Walleser, Max (1916), Aparimitāyur-jñāna-mahāyāna-sūtram: Nach einer nepalesischen Sanskrit-
Handschrift mit der tibetischen und chinesichen Version, Heidelberg: Heidelberg Akademie der
Wissenchaften.
Wang, Helen (1998), “Stein’s Recording Angel: Miss F. M. G. Lorimer,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society, Third Series, 8/2: 207–228.
Wang, Helen and John Perkins (2008), Handbook to the Collections of Sir Aurel Stein in the UK, London:
The British Museum.
Wang Jiqing (1996), “Aurel Stein’s Dealings with Wang Yuanlu and with Chinese Officials in Dunhuang
in 1907,” in Helen Wang (ed.), Sir Aurel Stein, Colleagues and Collections, London: The British
Museum Press, 1–6.
Wang Yao 王尭 and Chen Jian 陈践 (1999), Facang Dunhuang Zangwen wenxian jieti mulu 法蔵敦煌蔵
文文献解題目録, Minzu Chubanshe 民族出版.
Wangchuk, Dorji (2022), “The Syntax of Tibetan Colophons: An Overview,” in Nalini Balbir and
Giovanni Ciotti (eds), The Syntax of Colophons: A Comparative Study across Pothi Manuscripts
(Studies in Manuscript Cultures, 27), Berlin: De Gruyter, 323–346.
Wen Xin (2023), The King’s Road: Diplomacy and the Remaking of the Silk Road, Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Willson, Martin and Martin Brauen (eds) (2000), Deities of Tibetan Buddhism: the Zürich Paintings of the
Icons Worthwhile to See, Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Wood, Frances (2012), “A Tentative Listing of the Stein Manuscripts in Paris 1911–19,” in Helen
Wang (ed.), Sir Aurel Stein, Colleagues and Collections, London: The British Museum, 9 pp.
<https://britishmuseum.iro.bl.uk/downloads/6b13156a-c37e-4137-a1d4-48d6b8493a7a?
locale=en> (accessed 04 Sept. 2023).
Wu Chi-yu (1975), “A Study of four Tibetan sutras of Tun-huang conserved in the National Central
Library of Taipei,” in Bian ji zhe Xianggang xin ya yanjiusuo Dunhuang xuehui 香港新亞研究所
敦煌學會, Studies on Tun-Huang / Dunhuang xue di er ji 敦煌學 第二輯. Vol. II, Hong Kong:
Xianggang xin ya yanjiusuo Dunhuang xuehui 香港新亞研究所敦煌學會, 56–69.
Xia Wucuo 夏吾措 / Shawu Tso and Sanji Dongzhi 桑吉东知 / Sanggye Dundup (2021), “The Classifi-
cation and Variation of the Dunhuang Tibetan Manuscripts ‘Aparimitāyur-nāma mahāyāna-
sūtras’ Preserved in Dunhuang Research Institution / Dunhuang wen xieben ‘dacheng wuliang
shou zong yao jing’ de fenlei yu liu bian guanxi yanjiu” 敦煌文写本《大乘无量寿宗要经》的
分类与流变关系研究, Xi daxue xuebao 西大学学报, 2021/3: 58–64.
Yamaguchi, Zuihō / 山口瑞鳳 et al. (1977-1988), A Catalogue of the Tibetan Manuscripts Collected by Sir
Aurel Stein / Sutain shūshū Chibetto-go bunken kaidai mokuroku スタイン蒐集チベット語文献解
題目録, Tokyo: Tōyō Bunko 東洋文庫.
 References  397

Yamaguchi, Zuihō / 山口瑞鳳 et al. (1977), A Catalogue of the Tibetan Manuscripts Collected by Sir Aurel
Stein / Sutain shūshū Chibetto-go bunken kaidai mokuroku スタイン蒐集チベット語文献解題
目録, Vol. 1, Tokyo: Tōyō Bunko 東洋文庫.
Yamaguchi, Zuihō 山口瑞鳳 et al. (1980), A Catalogue of the Tibetan Manuscripts Collected by Sir Aurel
Stein / Sutain shūshū Chibetto-go bunken kaidai mokuroku スタイン蒐集チベット語文献解題
目録, Vol. 4, Tokyo: Tōyō Bunko 東洋文庫.
Zhang Changhong / 张长虹 (2022), “A Stone Carved Old Tibetan Tshe dpag du myed pa’I mdo Found
in Leb ’khog of Yu shul, Qinghai Province” / Qinghai yushu lei ba gou faxian de zang wen ke jing
‘wuliang shou zong yao jing’” 青海玉树勒巴沟发现的古藏文刻经《无量寿宗要经》, Revue
dʼEtudes Tibétaines, 64: 708–735.
Index
Within this index, the headings are arranged in a word-by-word order. The pri-
mary aim is to assist the reader in finding names and terms of interest, rather
than creating an exhaustive concordance. This is also why names and terms that
appear too frequently (e.g. ‘Stein’, ‘pressmark, ‘roll’), and would therefore be im-
practical as index headings, are omitted.

Imre Galambos

108 syllables 83, 97–98, 100, 128 Arabic numbers 34–35, 40, 50–51, 56, 65, 198
a’ suffixes 327, 335 archeology 29, 37, 41, 213
abbreviations 200, 224 “archive of errors” 143
abrupt ending 283–284 Asia, Pacific and Africa Collections 67
abstinence 173 Aśoka, Emperor 114
accounting 11, 20, 153–154, 169, 209 aspirated and unaspirated consonants
additions (lhag) and omissions (chad) 143, 240n60, 326, 329, 331–332, 335–336
178, 183n103, 186, 325, 328, 332 Avalokiteśvara 156
administrative unit (tshan) 171
aesthetics 18, 113, 185, 219 ’Ba Tse syong 84
alcohol 172–173 Bam Stag bzang 134, 168, 191, 205, 250, 262–
Amitābha 156, 166, 221, 378n15 263, 286
invocation to 19, 79, 218, 314n139 Bam Stag slebs 87n15, 247, 263, 309, 312
Pure Land of 83, 102 gift to 169, 285n173
Amitāyus, Buddha 4, 82, 89, 95, 110 seal of 172
Anāthapiṇḍada 83 bathing 173
Andrews, Fred 36–38, 40, 43, 52, 201 Batu Bedil stone inscription 97
anecdotes about sutra copying 173–174, 176 Bde blon 9, 138, 197
animals hearing the sutra 84, 102 Bde gams 172, 200
annotations 15, 58, 62, 64, 81, 307 “Beehive” 25, 36, 46, 52–53, 201
interlinear 104n52, 141, 169 Beijing 3, 5, 88, 95, 98
Pagel’s 66, 77 Belgium 37
Ridding’s 54 benefits 4, 82–85, 100, 107, 136, 174–175, 206
Thomas’s 62, 77 to the emperor and the realm 84, 175, 211
anusvāra 328–329, 334–335, 338 bhagavan 123–124, 328–329
Aparimita-guṇa-saṃcaya 83, 101 Bibliothèque nationale de France 10, 87, 107,
Aparimitāyurjnāna-suviniścita(tejo)rāja 82– 187, 311, 327
83, 91, 93–98, 101, 110–111 digitization 200n125, 221
Aparimitāyus, Buddha 1, 4, 82, 95, 97–98, bifolios 17, 59, 67, 139, 245n77
101, 110 bilingualism 25, 112, 127, 130, 210
apotropaic function 8, 136n14, 165, 200

Open Access. © 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569550-015
400  Index

bindery (British Museum and India Office Buddhist festival see festivals
Library) 16, 60–61, 66–67, 73, 273n142 Buddhist Studies 3–5, 25
binders 18, 59–79 passim, 229, 268, 300, “butterfly binding” 17, 27, 66
304
binding of manuscripts into “volumes” 16– Cambridge University Library 15, 36, 53, 65,
18, 25, 27, 53–81 passim, 217, 222–223, 88
268 Cannon Row, London 65
binding strings 138, 143, 145 case particles 166, 184, 335, 336
birth and death, escaping 4 Cave of One Thousand Buddhas 35
Bka’ ’gyur Central Asian languages 37
dhāraṇī 82, 95, 98–100 chainlines 139, 298
Sutra of Limitless Life 20, 86, 105, 108, 113– Chan Buddhism 3
116, 127–128 chanting sutras 4, 12, 82, 135
blessings 1, 12 Chen Jian 219
blood ink 107–108, 118, 125 Chiang Ssŭ-yeh see Jiang Xiaowan
BnF sanscrit 1815 98, 105–106, 116n71 Chicago 37
bodhisattvas 4, 83, 101, 112, 124, 170–171 China 6, 173, 221
Avalokiteśvara 156 Buddhist practices 25
Kṣitigarbha 168 history of 2, 7n12
Mañjuśrī 4, 83, 124 National Library of 88, 93n30, 95, 100, 104,
Brahmā 131 106
Brāhmī manuscripts 39 Chinese Buddhism 3
Bran ce’u’s team 147, 153, 155 Chinese characters 92–93, 277, 296,
brewing beer 172 303n209, 305n216, 319n260
British Museum 18, 35–36, 39, 41, 61, 376 on verso 231n36, 270, 272, 275, 277n153,
basement of 15, 20, 25, 36, 52, 201 280, 317–320
vs. India Office Library 36–37, 47–48, 52– Chinese names 165–166, 181–183, 219, 325
53, 60n50, 66 Classical Tibetan 240n60, 328, 330, 332–334
painting of Sukhāvatī 380n25 clean copy 8, 143, 179, 185, 203–205, 209
Bsam yas Inscription 333 codex, bias for 16, 68
Btsan mo ’phan, Queen 12 codicology 218, 221–222
Buddha Amitāyus see Amitāyus collapse of Tibetan rule 13, 131, 206
Buddha Maitreya 86 collating 61, 87, 89, 125, 219, 221
Buddha Vairocana 85, 156 “commitment text” (g.yar dam) 170
Buddha’s names 4, 82, 90, 108, 110 compassion 4, 117–122, 136
Aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita(tejo)rāja 97, concertina 84, 98, 106, 113, 170
101, 111 concordance 22–23, 73, 225, 376–383
Aparimitāyus 1, 82, 89, 101 in La Vallée Poussin’s catalogue 34, 38,
Sutra of the Buddhas’ Names (Fo ming jing 41n33, 50, 57, 66–67
佛名經) 34 consecration
Buddha’s teachings 8, 83, 123–124, 130 of stupas 102–103, 114, 116
84,000 101, 103, 112–115, 117 of sutras 12, 142, 167, 176, 197, 206
Buddhafields 4, 102 conservation 19–28 passim, 41–67 passim,
Buddhism 2–3 80–81, 232, 311, 322
Mahāyāna 8, 83, 135 India Office Library 74n63
“state protection” 6, 84, 130, 137, 200 Paris, St. Petersburg, and Gansu 213, 221
Buddhist cult of the book 84 conservator’s adhesive 17, 67
 Index  401

contamination 115, 125 digitization 187, 200n125, 221

contracts 7, 21–22, 140, 169–172, 208 direction of translation 111–112, 125
“convolutes” 30–31, 34 direction of writing 45, 74, 78
coordination particle 336 dispersal of manuscripts 2, 6, 14
corpse, exposure to 173 dissolution/fall of the Tibetan Empire 131,
cosmology 4, 137 165
cramped writing 126, 143, 188–190, 278n155, distribution of sutra copies 12–13, 208
309–310 divine armies 136
critical edition 86, 104, 363 donations 9, 174
Csoma de Kőrös Symposium 218 donors and recipients 25, 176–178; see also
cultural bias 16, 68 patrons
dragons 136
damage 93, 99, 107, 157, 170, 173, 317 drawings 156, 183n103, 194–195
binding 45n36, 65 Drège, Jean-Pierre 140, 155, 173, 197
discards 9, 129, 140–144 Droop, John Percival 36–37
repair of 68 Duan Qing 87, 89, 104, 121n83
stone inscription 97 Dunhuang Academy 218
from unrolling and rerolling rolls/bundles Dunhuang Museum 218
43, 45–46, 80, 212 duplicate site numbers 162
water 45, 307–310
Daoism 3, 120n78 eastern Tibetan Empire 85, 127, 197, 200
Daoist monk 2, 28 economizing on paper 11, 150, 209
Darjeeling 88 editorial norms/standards 131, 190, 202,
dating manuscripts/scribal hands 183, 219, 204–207, 209, 211
335 lax 161, 203–204
Dbon zhang Inscription 331–334 rigorous 8–9, 193, 204
death 1, 4, 83, 102, 176 editorial notes 8, 143, 146–147, 174, 186, 190–
on the battlefield 136 192, 205
debts of paper 9, 129, 141, 169–170, 210 eight kinds of supernatural beings 136
dedication 83–85, 131–132, 167 eighteen lines per column 22, 87n15, 152,
deletions 116, 344, 347, 349, 368 287n182
rubbing out 175, 350, 352 emptiness 4, 8
mistakes 186, 322, 340, 363, 368, 370 end title (weiti 尾題) 90, 93, 107, 109, 246,
names 167–169, 210, 227n27, 243–283 263n121
passim, 302–303, 308 omitted 187, 246
strikethroughs 224, 363 repeated 309
Delhi 2 England 6, 19, 28–29
demons 8, 102, 136 Esoteric Buddhism 3
descent to hell 176 “Essence of Ārya Aparimitāyus” (Tshe dpag
devotional cosmology 4 med kyi snying po) 95, 98
Dga’ thang ’bum pa texts 335 ethnicity 130–131, 165, 183, 219
Dhāraṇīsaṅgraha 98 Eurocentric form of conservation 80
“Dharma colleges” 130 Europe 2–3, 37
dharma teachings see Buddha’s teachings European explorers 3
“dharmarājikā stupas” 114–116 Evelyn-White, Hugh Gerard 36
Diamond Sutra 2, 135 ex-libris 197–200, 221
dietary taboos 173
402  Index

exemplars for copying 22, 92, 137, 159, 170, Griffiths, Arlo 97
179–181, 203–204, 322–323, 325, 327– Guazhou 127
328, 353–356 as scribal center 130–131, 136, 140, 170,
expeditions 3 200, 211
Aurel Stein’s 33, 75–76 sutras sent to 8, 172, 197, 200
expenditures 132–133, 138 guidelines 10, 150, 164, 188, 212
expiation for sins 85 absence of 318n157
explorers 2–3 Guiyijun (歸義軍) period 165n62, 197, 201,
extraction of manuscripts from bundles 39, 333–334
42–43
Ha Stag slebs 134, 159, 167, 205, 272, 287–
Facheng/ ’Go Chos grub 86, 127, 134, 226, 300 passim
239–240, 253, 259 handwriting 21, 223, 238n53, 241n64, 278–
Lingtu si 靈圖寺 12, 197 279, 320n166
false starts 186–187, 223, 237n52, 368, contrast with colophon 168–169, 174–175
372n27 square style 222, 283n166
Fang Guangchang 88, 104, 106 haplography 113
Fatian 86, 111n63, 113, 115, 117, 119–120 head title (shouti 首題) 108–109
Fayuan Zhulin 176 “heart incantation” (xin zhou 心咒) of
festivals 12–14, 132n5, 197, 206, 208 Amitāyus 94–95
fingerprints 248, 259, 261 Heart Sutra 2, 156, 183n103
First World War see World War I ITJ 310.59 19, 79, 156, 164, 252, 380n8
fixed text 86 length of 127n89, 135
fluid text 82, 86, 90, 104, 128 Heian period 142
foliation 104n52, 107, 149 height of manuscripts/sheets 196, 248n87,
four heavenly kings 8, 131, 136, 138 251n87, 274n145, 296
Francke, A.H. 36 Chinese manuscripts 29
Fujieda, Akira 9–10, 87–88, 90, 100, 131, 208 non-standard 222, 243, 254
recording 215, 218, 222
Gandharī language 116 heinous acts 83, 102
Ganges, sands of the 101, 103 hell 102, 176
German translation 10 Hidas, Gergely 98
“ghostscribing” 169, 210 Hill, Nathan 332–333
Giles, Lionel 36–37, 101n48, 149 historical phonology 181, 325
numbers 78–79, 163n57 Hoernle, Rudolf 52, 55, 88
Gilgit fragment 99–100, 120, 128 holding and storing, significance of 12
glue residue 239, 241–242, 259n110, 287n181, Huama 花碼 see Suzhou numerals
302n206 Huang Wenhuan 218
reason for 164, 202, 223 Huayan jing zhuanji 173
’Go Chos grub see Facheng humidification 71
gods 85, 123–124, 136, 166
son of 13, 129, 132–133, 151, 167 incantation/ spell (zhou 咒) 4, 89–90, 94–95
good rebirth 1, 83–85, 101–102, 136 incipits 283–285, 304–305, 313, 323, 355
grain 138, 169n72, 171–172, 194 cataloguing 72, 215, 219, 222–223
grammar 19, 118, 169n72, 174–175, 192, 322– India 28, 130, 135
323 India Office Library 16, 64–67, 73–74,
in colophon 166, 174–175, 178–179 318n157
 Index  403

vs. British Museum 18, 36–37, 48, 52, Khotanese 42, 86, 88, 95, 118, 121
60n50, 66 manuscripts 2, 51n41, 86–87, 126, 380
stamp 34, 75, 293n189, 308 version 20, 25, 86, 88, 95, 105–125 passim
Thomas 15, 34n17, 53, 60, 76 Khri Gtsug lde brtsan, Emperor 7, 13, 132–
Indian pandits 116 133
Indian religious tradition 89 Khri Lde srong brtsan, Emperor 85, 137
ink mixed with blood see blood ink Khri Srong lde brtsan, Emperor 6–7, 137
ink spill 187–188 Khurasan 6
Institute of Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg Kim, Jinah 174
166–167, 218–219 knives 152, 164, 170
interlinear insertions 143, 187, 205, 313n138, Konow, Sten 83, 87–90, 101, 121n83, 263n121,
329, 342 314n139
annotations 141, 169 Kraft paper 67
glosses 116 spines 17–18, 27, 62, 67, 69, 73
International Dunhuang Programme 76–77, fragments glued onto 318n157
200n125, 379–380 Kṣitigarbha, bodhisattva 166
inventory Kyoto 218–219
La Vallée Poussin’s 15, 50, 55
Ridding’s 53 laidlines 149, 298
Stein’s 32, 40, 48 Lalou, Marcelle 3, 145n34, 154n44, 217–218
Thompson’s 16, 66–67, 378–380, 383 languages 2, 37, 88, 125, 130
invocation to Amitābha 19, 79, 218, 314n239 of Mahāyāna Buddhism 83, 86
item vs. text vs. manuscript 68, 71, 79, 191 Tibetan 7, 130, 165
ITJ 310.1209 22, 123, 308n224, 362–368 Lanzhou Library 218
ITJ 310.651 1, 363, 368–375 Laufer, Berthold 37
Iwao, Kazushi 219–220 lawsuits 8, 132, 172, 208
Ldan dkar ma Catalogue 7, 8n15, 90, 126
Japan 21, 142, 200, 208 Leb khog inscription 85, 96–97, 107
manuscript collections 2–3, 221 legal documents 7, 21, 171–172, 201, 219, 333
Japanese explorers 3 ITJ 1359 129, 140–141, 154, 169, 171
Jetavana 83, 323 punishment of scribes 132, 208
Jiang Xiaowan 25, 33, 45 length (of rolls) 8, 149–150, 212, 222
examination of manuscripts 2, 28–29, 32, varying 44, 47, 67, 149–150, 153, 202, 209
36, 40–41, 201 letters 7, 21–22, 171, 194
numbering 32–34, 41, 51, 198, 320 official 7, 12, 138, 334
Jinguangming si 金光明寺 12, 197, 201 from Stein 37, 53
Jiu Tangshu (Old Tang Annals) 145n34 Lha bo 147, 154
Jiuquan Museum 218 “library bundles” 23n30, 29–32, 44, 71, 213
Jyekundo 85 site numbers 15, 39–42, 47, 50–51, 161
“library cave” 2, 28
Kaiyuan Catalogue 7 lines per column 142, 152–153, 218, 274n144
karma 137 eighteen 22, 287n182
kārṣāpaṇa 323 nineteen 152, 221, 274n144, 287n182
Kashmir 36 twenty 152, 274n144, 296n193
keeper (rub ma pa) 129, 144–146, 169, 176– Lingtu si 靈圖寺 12, 197, 201
177 Linked Discourses (Za ahan jing 雜阿含經) 131
Khotan 15–16, 25, 32–33, 41
404  Index

“lion among men” (ren zhong shizi 人中 師子) and bodhisattvas 83, 101, 112
118–120, 122 and nuns 13, 127, 130, 135
“liturgical script” (zhaiwen 齋文) 136, 138 sutra-copying project 84, 130, 138, 146,
loan contracts 140, 169–172, 208 165, 172, 182–183, 197
loans of paper 132, 140, 170, 172 Moretti, Costantino 95
Longxing si 龍興寺 12–14, 45, 145n34, 197, Mt. Meru 102–103
201 Müller, F. Max 1, 3, 5
looting of the royal tombs 13, 201 multi-lingual empire 6
Lorimer, Florence 36–37, 43, 52
lost bundle 160 nāgas 166
lost/missing paper 25, 132, 140, 208 Nanzhao 85
Lotus Sutra 2, 142, 173, 176 Nara 135, 138n23
Lowe, Bryan 142, 173 scriptorium 21, 142, 154, 173, 208
Lu Dze shing/ Lu Tse shing (Lü Rixing 吕日興 National Library of China 95, 100
) 134, 159–160, 171, 269, 277–278, 294– catalogue 88, 92n30, 104, 106
295, 313 Nepal 98
alternation between voiced and voiceless Nepalese paper manuscript 88–89
consonants 325–326 “nervous genre” 4
newsprint 70–71, 241, 259–260
Ma De 219–220, 326n2 nicknames 165
Macdonald, Lena 36 Nishioka Soshū 182, 218–220
Madame Chen’s descent to hell 176 nominal particle 329–330
Mahāyāna Buddhism 4, 8, 83, 86, 135–136 note cards 61, 78, 227n26, 229, 304
Mahāyāna sutras 4–5, 86
Mañjuśrī, bodhisattva 1, 4, 83, 101, 123–124 offerings 82, 102–103, 206
mantra (sngags) 4, 85, 89–90 officially sponsored sutra copies 87, 94, 104,
“mantric verses” (sngags gyi tshigs) 89 126, 217, 331
manuscript studies 5, 20, 25 Old Tibetan Annals 333–334
material culture 130 Old Tibetan Chronicle 143, 333
Matko, Marta 220 Old Tibetan Manuscripts from East Turkestan in
meat, abstinence from 173 the Stein Collection of the British Library
meditation 4, 102 66–67
merit economy 174, 176–177 Oldenburg, Sergey 3
meritorious acts 12, 176–177, 212 Orbit House 67
microfilm 67, 217 Oriental and India Office Collections (OIOC)
millet 172 67
Mingbao ji 173 “Oriental Collection” (OC) 67
Mīrān 12, 94, 103, 118, 122, 200 orphaned manuscripts 43, 50–51, 160, 162,
administrative documents 211 225, 311
“miscellaneous bundles” 56, 380 orthography 19, 219, 221–223, 240n60, 325,
vs. “library bundles” 15, 23n30, 29–30, 39– 331–335
41, 161 explicit 22, 327–328
mise-en-page 94, 104, 126, 147–149, 200 norms 215, 222, 322, 335
Mogao 28, 35 variation 21, 181, 268, 284n172, 328
Cave Seventeen 2, 30–31, 44, 155, 211
monastic titles 181, 183 packing list, Stein’s 37–39
monks 2, 28, 84, 201 Pagel, Ulrich 16, 62, 66, 67, 77–78
 Index  405

pagination 60, 65, 78, 276 reading and chanting as secondary function
paintings 32, 156 12
contained in “miscellaneous bundles” 15, rebirth 105
29, 39, 380 good 1, 83–85, 101–102, 136
paleography 218, 221–223, 328 as a woman 83, 102, 104
palm leaf manuscript 98, 104 receipts of paper/sutras 12, 129, 133, 154,
paper re-use 138, 140, 143, 206, 303n210, 201, 212
356n13 recitation 4, 83–85, 101, 107, 170, 197
paper taxation 25, 140 of the entirety of 84,000 scriptures 85, 114
patrons 6–7, 84, 130–132, 174; see also to increase one’ lifespan 1, 85
donors and recepients of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra 84, 135–
payment to scribes and editors 138, 208 136
Pelliot Collection 3, 154, 182, 187, 199–200, sponsorship of 130, 135
217–220 reconstruction 97, 162–163, 165, 222
Pelliot, Paul 2–3, 5, 37 of bundles 41n34, 47n38, 164, 213, 311
perfumed/fragrant water 173 of cataloguing and conservation history
personal names 7, 165, 333 19, 25, 322
phonemic spelling 181, 325, 335 of production process 9, 25, 28, 142
phoneticization 90, 118, 181 rejecting folia and panels 141–149, 184, 186–
photographs 3, 200n125 187, 190–193, 202, 209
microfilm 67, 217 repair see conservation
Stein’s 30–31, 33, 39 repetition 63, 143, 303, 309, 323
pothī-format manuscripts of the Sutra of of dhāraṇī 82, 89, 91, 106, 184, 217
Limitless Life 57, 79, 85–87, 96–97, 100, of paragraphs 10, 20, 103–104, 106, 113, 116
104, 107–125 passim, 161, 312, 318, 377 replacement
prayer 85n9, 138, 166, 193, 312n134 boxes 17, 71
for long life 1 copies/folia 13, 143, 209
preservation of life 5 scribes/teams 143–144
printing 98, 100, 378n15 repurposing 13, 206
protection 1, 83–85, 102, 122, 136, 138 fragments/panels 161, 195–197
of places 8, 12, 83–84, 131, 200 Ridding, Caroline Mary 20, 52–55, 60–61
punctuation 93, 194, 224, 283–284, 328 Cambridge 15, 36, 49, 53, 65, 80, 201
punishment 131, 142, 145n34 rock/stone inscriptions 85–86, 97
for lost or missing paper 9, 25, 132, 141, “roll bundle” (bam thum) 12, 14, 20, 153, 155,
145, 169, 208 183, 201, 212–213
Pure Land of Amitābha see Sukhāvatī single-sutra- 156–159, 163, 166, 180, 193,
purification through copying 85, 102 202–203, 210
purity practices 21, 141, 173–174, 208 Roman numerals 39–40, 51n41, 56
royal patronage 130
quasi-site numbers 50–51, 161–162, 311, 317, royal sutras 8, 211
376 royal tombs 13, 201
quotas of copying 169 rub ma pa see keeper
rubbings 85, 96–97
Ral pa can see Khri Gtsug lde brtsan, Ruins of Desert Cathay 2n4, 28–29, 217
Emperor Russia 3, 221
Rāmāyaṇa 334
Rañjanā script 98 s suffix 329, 333, 336
406  Index

sacred objects 12 sigla 91, 223, 376

Śakra 131 “signature” 169
Śākyamuni 94 silk 8, 37, 137–139, 156
sale contracts 171–172, 208 Silk Roads 6
sanctification of places 8, 83–84, 141, 201, “Sinophone” interventions 127
206, 212 sins, removal of 85
Tibetan Empire 13, 200 six perfections, verses of 83, 99, 107, 117
sandhi 329, 333 sketches of Vajrapāṇi 156
Sangha 130, 136 skillful means 4
Sanjie si 45, 197, 201, 221 slack hand 166, 174–175, 192, 232n37, 256,
Sanskrit 89–90, 92, 96, 118–121, 130, 314 269, 299
edition 86–88, 98, 101 social history 6, 106, 322
manuscripts 2, 82–109 passim, 115–117, Sogdian manuscripts 2, 42, 382n43
128, 380n24 Sogdians 165
syllables 89, 93 South Asia 6
texts 98, 378n15 southern Tibet 6, 335
title 55, 107–109, 186, 223, 323 spacing 93, 143, 190, 240
translation from 86, 117, 125, 130 spelling 172, 178, 180, 332–333
version 20, 25, 86–99 passim, 106, 111–112, corrections 168, 322
117, 175 misspelling 23, 93, 167–191 passim, 322–
E4 104, 106, 110, 113, 115, 122, 124 335 passim, 356, 363, 368
E5 106, 110, 113, 116–117, 122, 128 variant 181–182, 291n187, 324, 328–329
Savitsky, Lev 167n69, 191, 218–220 spells 4, 89–90
scarcity of paper 140 sponsorship 83, 130, 136, 176
van Schaik, Sam 62, 67, 224, 240n59, 308 imperial 126, 130
cataloguing and assigning pressmarks 16, state 8, 135, 197, 331
27, 66, 74–76, 78–80, 217, 220 by unknown patron 6–7
scriptorium/scriptoria Śrāvastī 83
Dunhuang 10, 106, 133, 144, 152, 154, 159, Sri Pillar 331–333
160, 164, 184, 200, 205, 213, 219 stamp of India Office Library 34, 75–76,
Jinguangming si 197 293n189, 308
Lingtu si 197 “state-protection Buddhism” 6, 84, 130, 137,
official scriptorium (jingzang 經藏) 130, 147 200
sku yon sa 129, 141, 147 state religion 6
as site for punishment 210 state sponsorship 135, 197
Nara 21, 142, 154, 173, 209 Stein, Rolf 191
seals 133, 138, 169, 171–172 stencil of the Buddha 156
secular documents 3, 5 Stong sar thousand-district 169
self-reproduction 4–5, 23, 107, 175 storing sutras 137, 212–213
Serindia 2n4, 15, 27–29, 34–35, 55 in bundles 11–14, 45, 67, 135
seventeen characters per line 8, 126, 142, ease of 16–17, 27, 68, 71
147–148 in modern collections 14, 47, 61, 67–68, 80,
Shangshu Paraphrase 333 213
Shazhou 6, 167, 197 in temple libraries 12–14, 27, 45, 48, 155,
copying of sutras 130, 133, 140, 192 195, 206, 212
shorthand 156, 178, 223–224 strikethroughs 193, 224, 245n79, 260n111,
Shōsōin 142 322–323, 346, 363
 Index  407

horizontal 246n81, 349 thousand-districts (stong sde) 141, 169

desultory 169, 210, 246n81 “three-Oṁ version” 90, 98n42, 99, 127; see
vertical 341–343 also “two-Oṁ version”
string hole 143 Tibetan Empire 85, 127, 130, 335
stupas 115–117, 183n103 dissolution of 131, 165
84,000 102–103, 106, 112, 114–117 distribution of sutra copies 6, 9, 12–14, 197,
suffixes 255n95, 324, 327–331, 333–336 200, 204, 211
Sukhāvatī 83, 102, 380n25 sutra-copying projects 12, 130, 217
Sukhāvatīvyūha sūtra 47n38, 93n31, 109 Tibetan names 7, 165
Sumatra 97 Tibetan rule in Dunhuang 7, 130–131, 140,
“sutra economy” 21, 25, 139, 173, 176–177, 165
223 after the 200–201
Sutra of the Buddhas’ Names (Fo ming jing 佛 Tibetan translators 86, 113, 115–116, 125, 127
名經) 34 tie 帖 / theb 140, 164, 202, 212
sutra rotation (zhuan jing 轉經) rituals 8, 12, tomes (Tib. dum bu) 8, 138–139, 144
135–137, 197 Tōyō Bunko 217–218
Suzhou numerals 蘇州碼子 (Huama 花碼) translators 20, 23, 89, 111, 115–117, 119
34 Facheng/ ’Go Chos grub 12, 86, 127
symbolic acts 13, 201 using multiple source texts 112–113, 116,
124–125, 127
Tabo 335 Xuanzang 136
taboos 173, 175 transmission of the Sutra of Limitless Life 107,
Taenzer, Gertraud 219–220 116, 127–128, 322
Taipei 218 Chinese 20, 86, 89, 113, 125
Taishō Canon 86, 100, 106 dhāraṇī 25, 82, 86, 96, 100, 127, 322
Taiwan 2 Khotanese 20, 25, 86, 113
Takeuchi, Tsuguhito 16, 40n32, 56, 66–67, Sanskrit 89, 106, 116
131 Tibetan 20, 86, 89–90, 96, 100, 113, 125
Taklamakan Desert 6 transportation of manuscripts 2, 16, 53, 65
Tang 85, 126, 147 treaties 85, 331n5
Tangut language 88 Turfan 335
tantric practices 83 Tuyuhun scribes 165
tantric texts/diagram 55–56, 156 “two-Oṁ version” 90, 96, 100, 127; see also
taxation 8–9, 25, 132, 137, 139–140 “three-Oṁ version”
tears 67, 159, 163
textual witnesses 125, 363 Ueyama, Daishun 10, 86–88, 90, 100
absence of 106 unaspirated consonants 326, 331–332, 336
theb see tie unintentional preservation 68
theft of paper 140, 208 United States 2
Thomas, F.W. 27, 36, 66–67, 76, 80, 383n24 Uṣṇīṣavijayā 82
annotation by 15, 60, 62, 64, 75, 77–78, 163 Uyghurs 2, 6, 85
binding of manuscripts 16, 65
dating of sutra-copying project 131 Vaiśravana 131, 138
and Stein 34, 53, 78 Vajrapāṇi 156
wooden slip 153 Vajrasattva 156
Thompson, A.F. 16, 50, 57, 65–67, 318n157, variant readings 88, 113
378–380, 383
408  Index

variant spellings 21–22, 180–181, 268,

284n172, 291n187, 324–329
vidyā 89
Vienna 218
Vimalakirti Nirdeśa Sūtra 173
voiced and voiceless consonants 325, 335–
336

Walleser, Max 86–89, 98, 104, 116

Wang Yao 219
Wang Yuanlu 2, 28–29, 201
warfare 138
water damage 45, 307–310
wheat starch paste 17, 67
whipping scribes 9, 129, 141, 146, 172, 177
publicly 141, 209–210
saving a scribe 169, 176
White Tārā 82
woman, rebirth as 83, 85, 102, 104
wooden book covers 138
wooden rollers 212
wooden slips 153–155
World War I 50, 53, 64
World War II 67
worshipping 4, 82–83, 102
wrappers 8, 29, 129, 138, 142, 226
conservators’ 53–54, 65
repurposed 195–197, 200, 206, 356n13
writing boards 8, 170, 172
Wu Chi-yu 218
Wu Facheng see Facheng/ ’Go Chos grub

Xin Tangshu (New Tang Annals) 7, 84n6

Xuanzang 28, 136

Yamaguchi, Zuihō 27, 217

Yarlung Valley 6
Yorkshire 67
Yuan Rong 元榮 131

Zhang Changhong 96, 100, 111

Zhang Khri sum rje 136
Zhangye Museum 218
About the Authors
Brandon Dotson largely researches seventh to tenth century Tibet and Dunhuang, and the circulation
of rituals and narratives in and out of Tibet during this period. He completed his DPhil in 2007 at the
University of Oxford and wrote a dissertation on administration and law in Tibetan Buddhist historiog-
raphy. He has worked and taught at the School of Oriental and African Studies, the University of Oxford,
and Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, where he led the “Kingship and Religion in Tibet” re-
search group. He is currently professor and Thomas P. McKenna Chair of Buddhist Studies in the De-
partment of Theology and Religious Studies at Georgetown University, where he has served since 2016.
His books include The Old Tibetan Annals: An Annotated Translation of Tibet’s First History (2009), Codicology,
Paleography, and Orthography of Early Tibetan Documents (2016), and Dice and Gods on the Silk Road (2021).

Lewis Doney is since 2021 Professor of Tibetan Studies at the Rheinische Friedrich- Wilhelms-Universität
Bonn. Doney received his PhD (Study of Religions) from SOAS, University of London, in 2011 and was
then engaged in postdoctoral research on early Tibetan kingship and religion under Brandon Dotson.
He has since studied Tibetan connections with South Asia and their impact on the social history of Sino-
Tibetan communities around Dunhuang, and later southern Tibetan Buddhist historiography and ritual
and their relations to cultural identities and ecologies in the Himalayas. Doney’s publications include a
monograph titled The Zangs gling ma: The First Padmasambhava Biography (Andiast: International Insti-
tute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, 2014), the solo-edited volume, Bringing Buddhism to Tibet: History
and Narrative in the dBa’ bzhed Manuscript (Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2021), and the conference pro-
ceedings, Buddhism in Central Asia III: Impacts of Non-Buddhist Influences, Doctrines (Leiden, Boston: Brill,
2024), edited with Carmen Meinert, Henrik H. Sørensen, and Yukiyo Kasai.