WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS MAHAYANA BUDDHISM? PROBLEMS …buddhismandsocialjustice.com/SILK/Silk_what if anything is Mahayana... · PROBLEMS OF DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS JONATHANA.SILK

WHAT IF ANYTHING IS MAHAYANA BUDDHISMcurren

PROBLEMS OF DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

JONATHAN A SILK

Summary

This study investigates some problems regarding the de nition of MahayanaBuddhism Tracing the history of the notion in modern scholarship it pays particularattention to the question of the relation between Mahayana and so-called H otilde nayanaor Sectarian Buddhism Finding the commonly used methods of classi cation whichrely on necessary and suf cient conditions to be inadequate to the task it suggeststhe alternative employment of polythetic classi cation a method which permits aconstantly variable set of questions and data to be taken into account in the most exible and accommodating manner

Any attempt to focus on a given object of study presupposes inthe very rst place the ability to recognize that relevant object todistinguish it from the surrounding world that is to de ne the objectAnd any attempt to sort or order more than one object requires us toclassify those multiple objects Thus our very attempts to perceive theworld around us require us to de ne and to classify

Usually of course we have no need to consciously re ect on the de- nitions and classi cations we employ But when we are unsure of thestatus of an object when we think there may be some errors in the wayobjects are organized when we encounter some apparent disagreementwith those with whom we are attempting to communicate concerningan object or when the very identity or even existence of an object isin question then we must resort to explicit strategies of de nition andclassi cation in order to clarify the discussion

I wish to express my sincere thanks to my erstwhile student Ms Bonnie Gulaswhose insights into taxonomy from the viewpoint of paleontology have been veryhelpful to me Thanks also to Profs Kenneth Bailey and Richard Ethridge for theirencouragement

copy Koninklijke Brill NV Leiden (2002) NUMEN Vol 49Also available online ndash wwwbrillnl

356 Jonathan A Silk

The identity and the status of Mahayana Buddhism are points verymuch in question and it is virtually self-evident that communica-tion concerning Mahayana Buddhism occasions many disagreementsTherefore the need for the de nition and classi cation of MahayanaBuddhism is obvious But how we should approach such de nitionand classi cation is somewhat less plain For it is basically true thatin order to de ne an object one must have some fundamental sense ofwhat it is I cannot know that my de nition of apples must accommo-date MacIntosh Red Delicious and Fuji but not navel oranges unlessI know beforehand that the former are apples and the latter is not Andyet this process must be more than circular I must be able to re nemy understanding and my de nition to correct misclassi cations oreven alter entirely the basis of the classi catory scheme as my famil-iarity with my object of study grows How this process may begin inthe rst place is a question primarily for cognitive scientists and neednot concern us here We may accept as an irreducible given that anobject of study exists which has been labeled ldquoMahayana Buddhismrdquoand that certain senses of its de nition and classi cation are and havebeen held by students of this object We may therefore fruitfully beginby examining some of these ideas1

An apparently fundamental presupposition in at least most of theconceptualizations of Mahayana Buddhism so far is that it is onepole of a binary set that is it is seen in opposition to somethingelse some other form of Buddhism The question then arises howthe two are related Depending on who is talking the opposite polemay sometimes or even usually be called ldquoH otilde nayanardquo or by thosewith somewhat more historical awareness denoted by such namesas Sectarian Buddhism Nikaya Buddhism Conservative BuddhismSravakayana and recently Mainstream Buddhism (or similar terms inother languages) Whatever the names used the conceptualization is

1 One of the terminological issues that might be addressed is whether we aim attypology or taxonomy the former is conceptual and qualitative the latter empiricaland quantitativeI think we will see below that ultimatelywhat we seek is a taxonomySee Bailey 19946ndash7

What if Anything is Mahayana Buddhism 357

often basically as follows First there is an older portion of monasticBuddhism usually felt to be conservative closer to the source whichemphasizes a personal liberation from sam sara accessible only to themonk who can devote himself to intensive meditation practice and soon This is the Buddhism whose modern living representative is theTheravada school and when the term is used it is this which is calledH otilde nayana the small or more literally inferior vehicle

The opposite of this the Mahayana or great superior vehicle isopposite in every way As portrayed by its partisans Mahayana Bud-dhism can be presented as a sort of Reformation in which the decayedparts of the old tradition are rejected in favor of new positive innova-tions although these innovations are of course wholly in concert withthe original and authentic core intentions of Sakyamunirsquos BuddhismThe sel shness of the old monastic world-denying search for escapefrom rebirth is replaced by the bodhisattva ideal The bodhisattva isthe polar opposite of the H otilde nayana monk and this Mahayana Buddhisthero active in the world must work tirelessly for the liberation fromsuffering of all beings because he knows that there is no differencebetween all beings and himself Thus portrayed Mahayana Buddhismis at once both a timeless universal truth a path to liberation for allmonk and layperson (man or woman) alike and a replacement for theolder limited indeed inferior H otilde nayana path

It almost goes without saying that there are too many objectionsto this picture this caricature really of Mahayana and H otilde nayana tolist them all Among the problems we might number the question ofwhether this account claims to be history History happens in time ofcourse and Mahayana Buddhism so presented seems to be timelessHow can the timeless occur in history Another objection might besimply that the picture of H otilde nayana presented here is not accurate aview taken by many modern partisans of Theravada Buddhism forexample who nevertheless may accept the basic binary scenario Thatsuch views are prevalent is easily demonstrated

The late Professor Andreacute Bareau in his article on ldquoH otilde nayanaBuddhismrdquo in the Encyclopedia of Religion promoted as a newstandard reference wrote

358 Jonathan A Silk

The term Hotildenayana refers to the group of Buddhist schools or sects that appearedbefore the beginning of the common era and those directly derived from themThe word Hotildenayana is pejorative It was applied disdainfully to these earlyforms of Buddhism by the followers of the great reformist movement that arosejust at the beginningof the common era which referred to itself as the Mahayana

It would be more correct to give the name ldquoearly Buddhismrdquo to what is calledH otilde nayana for the term denotes the whole collection of the most ancient forms ofBuddhism those earlier than the rise of the Mahayana and those that share thesame inspiration as these and have the same ideal namely the arhat2

Yet other formulations are more abstract less quasi-historical Alook at several standard sources some rather recent is instructive TheBukkyo Daijii says

Daijo Mahayana In contrast to Shojo [Hotilde nayana] The Dharma-gate riddenby people of great disposition Dai means vast Jo means carrying So thisis the Dharma-gate of compassion and wisdom self-bene t and bene t forothers which carries the people who have the bodhisattvarsquos great dispositiondepositingthem on the other-shoreof Bodhi-nirvan a The Mahayana Doctrineis designated as what is preached in order to convert [beings] through thisDharma-gate In opposition to this is the H otilde nayana the Dharma-gate of sel shliberation which carries the Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas to the goal of thenirvan a of destruction This is designated the H otilde nayana Doctrine

3

Nakamurarsquos Bukkyogo Daijiten says4 ldquoGreat Vehicle One of thetwo great schools (ryuha) of Buddhist teachings Arose in the 1stndash2ndcenturies In contrarst to the preceding Buddhism so-called H otilde nayanaIt is especially characterized by practice which saves others ratherthan working for its own bene t and thus emphasizes becoming aBuddha rdquo Odarsquos Bukkyo Daijiten says5 ldquoDai is distinguished fromSho [small] Jo means vehicle and refers to Doctrine that is the GreatTeaching H otilde nayana is the teaching which causes [beings] to seek forthe quiescent nirvan a of the wisdom of destruction of the body withinwhich are distinguished the Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha while the

2 Bareau 19871953 Ryukoku Daigaku 1914ndash192253169c sv4 Nakamura 1981920cd5 Oda 19171144b


Mahayana is the teaching which opens up omniscience within whichare distinguished the One Vehicle and the Three Vehiclesrdquo In hisshort description at the beginning of his long article ldquoDaijordquo in theHobogirin Hubert Durt states that Mahayana is a ldquoMetaphorical termdescribing the soteriological movement divided into many tendencieswhich developed within Buddhism with the aim of promoting theconduct of the Bodhisattva as the ideal of practice for the followers ofthe movementrdquo6 Mochizukirsquos Bukkyo Daijiten says7 ldquoGreat VehicleIn contrast to H otilde nayana That is the Dharma-gate which practicesthe six perfections saves all beings and converts bodhisattvas whoaspire to become buddhasrdquo It is clear from this sample that at least inour standard sources the explicit formulations of the de nition andclassi cation of Mahayana Buddhism almost universally contrast itwith ldquoH otilde nayanardquo

But even if we do not use the term H otilde nayana which withoutquestion is in origin intentionally caluminous is it right to see thestructure of Buddhism as essentially dichotomous (or if we takeanother approach which includes the so-called Vajrayana tripartite)Or from another point of view is the best way to think aboutmdashthatis to try to conceptualize de ne and classifymdashMahayana Buddhismreally to divide things into Mahayana and non-Mahayana at all

This seems to be the way things have always been done withMahayana contrasted either doctrinally or institutionally with H otilde nayanaor Sectarian Buddhism And it might even be possible to trace onesource of this formulation in modern scholarship Most scholars whohave expressed themselves concerning the institutional relations be-tween Mahayana and Sectarian Buddhism seem to have been moti-vated by their interpretations of remarks made in the medieval periodby Chinese pilgrims travellers from Buddhist China to Buddhist In-dia who kept records which report in detail the Mahayana or H otilde nayanapopulations of various monasteries in India and Indian Central Asia It

6 Hobogirin p 767 (published 1994)7 Mochizuki 1932ndash3643248b

360 Jonathan A Silk

is partly on the basis of these accounts that Eacutetienne Lamotte for exam-ple wrote his highly in uential study on the origins of the Mahayana8

Since the general and overall honesty and accuracy of the informa-tion in these pilgrimrsquos records can be veri ed from archaeological andother evidence there seemed prima facie to be little reason to questiontheir accounts But the interpretation of these documents is not alwaysstraightforward and it is perhaps ironic that Auguste Barth basing hisideas of the relationship between the Mahayana and the H otilde nayana onexactly the same accounts reached conclusions diametrically opposedto those of Lamotte

Among the writings of the Chinese traveller-monks Faxian Xuan-zang and Yijing9 that of Yijing the Record of Buddhist Practices dat-ing from 691 is the only one which makes a point of carefully de n-ing its terminology This makes it for us probably the most impor-tant of the available accounts Yijingrsquos crucial de nition runs as fol-lows10 ldquoThose who worship the Bodhisattvas and read the MahayanaSutras are called the Mahayanists while those who do not performthese are called the H otilde nayanistsrdquo In a phrase immediately precedingthat just quoted it seems to be stated that schools or sects may be-long to either vehicle and on this basis Junjiro Takakusu already ob-served over one hundred years ago in the introduction to his transla-tion of Yijingrsquos work that ldquoI-Tsingrsquos statement seems to imply that oneand the same school adheres to the H otilde nayana in one place and to theMahayana in another a school does not exclusively belong to the oneor the otherrdquo11 Only two years later Auguste Barth offered his detailedcomments on Yijing in the form of a review of the work of Takakusuand Chavannes12 Discussing Yijingrsquos statement about the de nition

8 Lamotte 19549 Faxian (mid-late 4th century) Xuanzang (602ndash664) and Yijing (635ndash713)

10 Takakusu 189614ndash15 The text is the Nanhai jigui neifa-zhuan T 2125 (LIV)205c11ndash13

11 Takakusu 1896xxiindashxxiii12 Barth 1898 while actually a detailed study in its own right is written as a review

of Takakusu 1896 and Chavannes 1894


of the Mahayana Barth concluded that ldquothere were Mahayanists andH otilde nayanists in all or in almost all the schoolsrdquo13 He went on to drawout some of the implications of this observation14

The Mahayana thus appears to us as a religious movement with rather vaguelimits at the same time an internal modi cation of primitive Buddhism and aseries of additions to this same Buddhism alongsideof which the old foundationswere able to subsist more or less intact It is thus very probable that there aremany degrees and varieties in the Mahayana and that it is perhaps somethingof an illusion to hope that when we de ne that of Asa Ccedilnga or Vasubandhu forexample we will thereby obtain a formula applicable to all the others All thingsconsidered we can suppose that things here are as they so often are in this sounsteady and murky Buddhism and that the best way of explainingthe Mahayanais to not try too hard to de ne it

At the same time however Barth remained extremely cautious Hesuggested even argued that it was in Yijingrsquos own interests to persuadehis audience that there was little or no fundamental difference betweenthe Mahayana and H otilde nayana since Yijing was trying to propagandizeamong his Chinese compatriots almost all exclusive Mahayanists theVinaya of the Sarvastivada15 This is an insightful observation andillustrates Barthrsquos acute sensitivity to the multiple factors which couldhave been at work in the background of the statements of any of ourwitnesses

Barthrsquos approach and his observations seem to have remained un-noticed by most scholars until Jean Przyluski an extremely creativeand iconoclastic scholar again remarked on the relation between theMahayana and H otilde nayana Having discussed various Mahayana scrip-

13 Barth 189844814 Barth 1898449ndash45015 Barth 1898450 It is actually the Vinaya of the Mula-Sarvastivada that Yijing

translated into Chinese Although the relation between these two sects is not yetentirely clear it would be well to avoid con ating the two whenever possible Iconfess that I remain unconvinced by the arguments of Enomoto 2000 that the twoSarvastivada and Mula-Sarvastivada are the same

362 Jonathan A Silk

tures in his seminal study on the early Buddhist Councils Przyluskiconcluded16

As rapid and as incomplete as it is this discussion of the Mahayanist canons al-lows us at least to recognize the insuf ciency of the theorieswhich have prevaileduntil now in European learning The Mahayana has long been represented as aunique school which developed from the rst in the regions of North-west Indiafrom whence it spread to Central and East Asia It is a subdivision of ldquoNorth-ern Buddhismrdquo But this so-called ldquoNorthern Buddhismrdquo is only a geographicalexpression It already appeared to open minds like a shower of diverse sects ori-ented toward the North East or West and more preciselyeach sect resolves itselfin its turn into two distinct parts one Mahayanist the other H otilde nayanist Withoutdoubt one cannot negate the existence of aspirationsof great dogmas common toall the Mahayana factions But these convergent tendenciesdo not cause us to failto recognize the remoteness of the original groupsOur analysis of the canons hasshown us that there had not been a sole Mahayana issued from the Sarvastivadaschool One can also speak up to a certain point of a Dharmaguptaka Mahayanaa Mahasa Ccedilmghika Mahayana and so on The establishment of this fact in addi-tion to its obvious historical interest has the advantage of allowing us on manypoints a new and more precise interpretation of documents and of facts

Noting the opinion of Louis Finot that there is some contradictionbetween Yijingrsquos description of Buddhism in Champa and the epi-graphical evidence Przyluski responded as follows17

The contradiction between the testimony of Yijing and epigraphy is only appar-ent It seems inexplicable that for such a long time the Mahayana has been takenas a 19th sect separate from the H otilde nayanistic 18 sects But all dif culty disap-pears at the moment when one admits the existence of a Sarvastivadin Mahayanaand a Sammitotilde ya Mahayanamdashthat is to say of groups the canon of which wasformed out of one or many baskets consistent with the doctrine of the GreatVehicle and the many Sravakapitakas belonging to the Mulasarvastivada or Sam-mit otilde ya proper

Soon after the publication of Przyluskirsquos remarks they and the earlierobservations of Barth were noticed by Louis de La Valleacutee PoussinLa Valleacutee Poussin observed that the question of ldquosectrdquo is a matterof Vinaya of monastic discipline and that the designation ldquoschoolrdquo

16 Przyluski 1926ndash28361ndash36217 Przyluski 1926ndash28363


is a matter of Abhidharma or doctrine ldquoThere were in all the sectsin all the groups subject to a certain archaic Vinaya adherents ofthe two schools H otilde nayana and Mahayana schools which are furthersubdivided into Sautrantikas and so onrdquo18

La Valleacutee Poussin has clari ed a very important distinction herealthough later scholars have not always followed his lead Sincesome confusion seems to have been caused heretofore by a certaininconsistency in vocabulary it is perhaps best to clarify our terms Bythe term ldquosectrdquo I follow La Valleacutee Poussin and intend a translation orequivalent of the term nikaya A nikaya is de ned strictly speaking notby any doctrine but by adherence to a common set of monastic rulesa Vinaya One enters a nikaya or sect through a formal ecclesiasticalact of ordination an upasampada karmavacana My use of the termldquosectrdquo here differs therefore from at least one established modernusage A common presumption of Western uses of the term ldquosectrdquoposits a Weberian dichotomy even an antagonism between Churchand sect19 This is not the case for the sects of Indian Buddhismas I use the term All independent institutional groups in IndianBuddhism as de ned by their (at least pro forma) allegiance to theirown governing Vinaya literature are sects The Buddhist Church inIndia is constituted by the sects20 There is no implication here of

18 La Valleacutee Poussin 1929234 In what is perhaps an isolated case in Japan thesame position was espoused by Tomomatsu Entai 1932332 There can be little doubtthat Tomomatsu who studied in France was deeply in uenced by Przyluskirsquos thought

19 van der Leeuw 1938I261 goes even farther ldquo[T]he sect severs itself notonly from the given community but from the ldquoworldrdquo in general [T]he sect isnot founded on a religious covenant that is severed from another religious communitysuch as the church it segregates itself rather from community in general Thecorrelate of the sect is therefore not the church but the community it is the mostextreme outcome of the covenantrdquo

20 The only meaningful candidate for a ldquoBuddhist Churchrdquo in India is the so-calledUniversal Community the sa Ccedilmgha of the four directions However it appears thatthis was a purely abstract and imaginary entity with no institutional existence (Butit is not known for example how gifts to this universal community often recordedin inscriptions were administered) It may in this sense be something like the

364 Jonathan A Silk

schism of an old and established institution set off against a new andinnovative one21

The term ldquoschoolrdquo on the other hand refers to the notion designatedin Sanskrit by the word vada Schools are de ned primarily bydoctrinal characteristics and are associations of those who hold tocommon teachings and follow the same intellectual methods but theyhave no institutional existence A Buddhist monk must belong to asect that is to say he must have one unique institutional identi cationdetermined by the liturgy according to which he was ordained22

There is no evidence that there was any kind of Buddhist monk otherthan one associated with a Sectarian ordination lineage until someChinese Buddhists began dispensing with full ordination and takingonly ldquobodhisattva preceptsrdquo23 To break the ordination lineage in theseterms would be to sever oneself from the ephemeral continuity which

ldquoBrotherhood of Manrdquo This Brotherhood though it may exist has no of cers notreasurer no meeting hall no newsletter

21 It is this latter type of de nition however which was assumed by TW RhysDavids 1908307a when he wrote about ldquoSects (Buddhist)rdquo for the Encyclopedia ofReligion and Ethics Rhys Davids assumed the meaning of ldquosect in the Europeansensemdashie of a body of believers in one or more doctrines not held by the majoritya body with its own endowments its own churches or chapels and its own clergyordained by itselfrdquo He went on to say 308b ldquoThere were no lsquosectsrsquo in India in anyproper use of that term There were different tendencies of opinion named after someteacher or after some locality or after the kind of view dominant All thefollowers of such views designated by the terms or names occurring in any of the listswere members of the same order and had no separateorganizationof any kindrdquo I thinkthis view is also questionablebut in any case the point is that Rhys Davids is applyinghere a very different de nition of the term ldquosectrdquo than I am

22 This point and the terminological distinctionhas been noticed and reiterated byHeinz Bechert a number of times recently Bechert however refers in his notes only toLa Valleacutee Poussinrsquos discussion

23 La Valleacutee Poussin 193020 wrote ldquoI believe that in the India of Asa Ccedilnga as in thatof Santideva one could not have been a Buddhist monk without being associated withone of the ancient sects without accepting one of the archaic Vinayasrdquo On the otherhand I mean exactly what I say by the expression ldquothere is no evidence rdquo Thisdoes not mean that there absolutely were no monks other than those associated withSectarian ordination lineages It means we have no evidence on this point


guarantees the authenticity of onersquos ordination by tracing it back toa teacher ordained directly by the Buddha in an unbroken line ofteachers each of whom had in turn received ordination from such aproperly ordained teacher Thus the mythology is such that if onersquosordination cannot be traced back in a line which begins at Sakyamuniit is not valid It is again La Valleacutee Poussin who offers a crucialobservation24

All the Mahayanists who are pravrajita [renunciants] renounced the worldentering into one of the ancient sectsmdashA monk submitting to the disciplinarycode (Vinaya) of the sect into which he was received is lsquotouched by gracersquo andundertakes the resolution to become a buddha Will he reject his VinayamdashlsquoIf hethinks or says ldquoA future buddha has nothing to do with learning or observing thelaw of the Vehicle of Sravakasrdquo he commits a sin of pollution (klis ta apatti)rsquo

In the same study La Valleacutee Poussin concluded thus25

From the disciplinary point of view the Mahayana is not autonomous Theadherents of the Mahayana are monks of the Mahasa Ccedilmghika DharmaguptakaSarvastivadin and other traditions who undertake the vows and rules of thebodhisattvas without abandoning the monastic vows and rules xed by thetradition with which they are associated on the day of their Upasampad [fullordination] In the same way at all times every bhiksu was authorized toundertake the vows of the dhutagun as

The Mahayana in principle and in its origins is only a lsquoparticular devotionalpracticersquo precisely a certain sort of mystical life of which the center is thedoctrine of pure love for all creatures this mystical life like the mystical lifeof ancient Buddhism which was oriented toward Nirvan a and personal salvationhas for its necessary support the keeping of the moral laws the monastic codeThe Mahayana is thus perfectly orthodox and would have been able to recruitadepts among those monks most attached to the old disciplinary rule

24 La Valleacutee Poussin 193025 The reference at the end of this quotation is atranslation although without any mention of the source from the Bodhisattvabhumi(Wogihara 19361735ndash10) La Valleacutee Poussin had in fact quoted this passage yearsearlier 1909339ndash40 there giving the Sanskrit in note 1 At that time he also notedthe dif culty of translating klis ta apatti suggesting ldquoun peacutecheacute mortelrdquo

25 La Valleacutee Poussin 193032ndash33 In his preface to Dutt 1930viindashviii La ValleacuteePoussin expressed exactly the same sentiments

366 Jonathan A Silk

After the time of La Valleacutee Poussin few indeed are the scholarswho seem to have noticed these observations or pursued the study ofthe Mahayana with an eye on this hypothesis One scholar who hashowever paid attention to the hypotheses of La Valleacutee Poussin is HeinzBechert26 I think however that Bechert has gone beyond where hisevidence leads him He writes for example27

We learn from the accounts of Chinese pilgrims and from the Indian Buddhistsources themselves that there had been Mahayanic groups in various nikayasThus a late text like the Kriyasangrahapantildejika still emphasizes that the adherentsof Mahayana must undergo the ordination or upasampada as prescribed by theirnikaya before being introducedas Mahayana monks by another formal act Thusthe outside forms of the old nikayas were preserved though they did not retaintheir original importance

The claim that the old nikayas did not retain their original impor-tance is not defended and as far as I know there is little evidence thatwould suggest this is true What is more without specifying what wethink ldquotheir original importancerdquo was how would we begin to inves-tigate whether this may or may not have been retained In anotherformulation Bechert has suggested the following28

For those who accepted Mahayana their allegiance to their nikaya was of quitea different nature from that of a H otilde nayanist it was the observance of a vinayatradition which made them members of the Sangha but it no longer necessarilyincluded the acceptance of the speci c doctrinal viewpoints of the particularnikaya In the context of Mahayana the traditional doctrinal controversies of thenikayas had lost much of their importance and thus as a rule one would not giveup allegiance to onersquos nikaya on account of becoming a follower of Mahayanisticdoctrines originating with monks ordained in the tradition of another nikaya

26 Bechert has repeatedly published more or less the same remarks sometimes inthe same words See for example 1964530ndash31 197312ndash13 197636ndash37 1977363ndash64 198264ndash65 and 199296ndash97 Hisashi Matsumura 199082ndash85 note 53 has alsooffered some bibliographic notes which indicate his awareness of the opinions ofBarth and his successors

27 Bechert 197312 The reference to the KriyasaCcedilngrahapantildejika is evidently to Dutt1931263

28 Bechert 199296ndash97 virtually identical with 1977363ndash64


Whether or not this is partially or even totally true I know of noevidence which might decide the matter either way and neither doesBechert provide any It is worth keeping rmly in mind that we almostalways wish to say more than the available evidence actually allowsThese are urges which if not resisted will almost surely lead ourstudies astray29

One thing that the approaches mentioned above have in commonis their implicit assumption that the concept of Mahayana movementsis meaningful but only in the context of some contrast with what isnot Mahayana This is generally understood to refer to pre-MahayanaBuddhism although it need not and I think in very many cases infact certainly does not This non-Mahayana Buddhism is often desig-nated in modern writing ldquoH otilde nayanardquo I think it is quite certain how-ever that the referent of the term ldquoH otilde nayanardquo when it occurs in Bud-dhist texts themselves is never any existent institution or organizationbut a rhetorical ction We can say rather freely but I think quite ac-curately that ldquoH otilde nayanardquo designates ldquowhomever we the speakers donot at the present moment agree with doctrinally or otherwise herein our discussionrdquo30 Although the example is not from the earliestperiod the scholar Asa Ccedilngarsquos comment in his Mahayanasutrala CcedilmkaraldquoThat which is inferior (namely the H otilde nayana) is truly inferiorrdquo31

can hardly be construed as referring to an actual speci c and in-stitutionally identi able group of H otilde nayana Buddhists In additionthe rhetorical context in which we nd such references suggests thatsuch ldquoenemiesrdquo were imagined to be contemporary which in turn isa strong indication that whatever ldquoH otilde nayanardquo might refer to it is notpre-Mahayana Buddhism as such A fundamental error is thus made

29 As an example see Cohen 199516 who says without a shred of evidenceldquoMahayanists might come from all nikayas yet there is an expectation that priornikaya af liations are moot once a yanic conversion is maderdquo

30 It is in this sense formally similar to the designation totilderthika or totilderthya the formerde ned by Monier-Williams1899 sv quite well as ldquoan adherent or head of any otherthan onersquos own creedrdquo The terms are of course derogatory (It is perhaps also worthnoting that as far as I know Buddhist texts do not refer to other Buddhists as totilderthika)

31 Leacutevi 1907I10d yat hotildena Ccedilm hotildena Ccedilm eva tat

368 Jonathan A Silk

when we imagine references to ldquoH otilde nayanardquo in Mahayana literatureto apply to so-called Sectarian Buddhism much less to Early Bud-dhism32

It may be largely due to the numerous vitriolic references inMahayana literature to the ldquoinferior vehiclerdquo that some scholars suchas Stephen Kent have found it hard to believe that there could be anysort of continuity between Sectarian Buddhism and the Mahayana33

This misunderstanding is based on a series of erroneous identi cationswhich we can encapsulate as the equation H otilde nayana = Sravakayana= actual identi able nikayas Sasaki Shizuka points to the equallyerroneous equation sravakayana = sravaka = bhiks u34 While it is

32 An example of a scholar led into just such an error is Cohen 199520 whosays ldquoOf all the categories through which to reconstruct Indian Buddhismrsquos historyMahayana and H otilde nayana are the most productive Nevertheless our reconstructionshave a secret life of their own Each yana can be de ned positively through a nec-essary and suf cient characteristic for individualsrsquo membership within that taxonMoreover because these two yanas are logical opposites each can also be de nednegatively through its lack of the otherrsquos necessary and suf cient characteristicHow-ever in both cases these positive and negative de nitions are not conceptually equiv-alent That is the Mahayana is positively characterized by its membersrsquo pursuit ofthe bodhisattva path the H otilde nayana is negatively characterized as the non-Mahayanaie its members do not necessarilypursue Buddhahood as their ideal However whenpositively characterized the H otilde nayana is de ned by membersrsquo af liation with one oranother nikaya which of course means that the Mahayana is known negativelyby itsmembersrsquo institutional separation from those same nikayasrdquo

33 See Kent 1982 Kent a specialist in sectarian movements but not terriblyknowledgeable about Buddhism suggested that the rhetoric of Mahayana sutrasresembles the rhetoric common to embattled sectarian groups in various religionsHe portrayed the contrast between Mahayana and H otilde nayana monks as one of greathostility and emphasized the role of the laity as a force in forming the Mahayanacommunities and their outlook Notice here that Kentrsquos use of the term ldquosectrdquo followsthe standard dichotomous Weberian de nition and essentially differs from the way Iuse the term

34 I will discuss below the views of Lamotte who considers the Mahayana to beanti-clericalHirakawa also believes that Mahayana texts are anti-clericalHis reason-ing as Sasaki has pointed out is based on the idea that the so-called Sravakayanais heavily criticized in that literature But attacks on the Sravakayana are not attacks


probably true that all sravakas are bhiks us35 the reverse certainlydoes not follow The polemical attacks on sravakas that we nd insome although certainly far from all Mahayana scriptures shouldbe understood as a criticism not of all monks but of those who donot accept the Mahayana doctrines Since the term H otilde nayana is notan institutional label but an ideological one we might even looselytranslate it as ldquosmall-mindedrdquo The term embodies a criticism ofcertain types of thinking and of certain views but does not refer toinstitutional af liations I therefore strongly doubt pace Kent thatthe Mahayana literature which criticizes the H otilde nayana is a productof sectarians who isolated themselves or were isolated physically orinstitutionally Rather I would suggest that it is a product of groupswhich doctrinally opposed other groups quite possibly within one andthe same community or group of communities

If Mahayana Buddhism is not institutionally separate from thesects of Sectarian Buddhism and if it might exist in some formmore tangible than a set of abstract doctrinal ideas how then canwe de ne it how can we locate it Let us posit that MahayanaBuddhists were the authors of Mahayana scriptures and a Mahayanacommunity was a community of such authors One immediate andfundamental result of this formulation is that we must stop referringat the very least provisionally to ldquothe Mahayanardquo in the singular Untiland unless we can establish af nities between texts and thereforebegin to identify broader communities we mustmdashprovisionallymdashsuppose each scripture to represent a different community a differentMahayana36 We should note here that if each Mahayana scripture

on monasticism in general (that is sravaka bhiks u) but attacks on those who holddoctrinal positions which are worthy of criticism that is anti-Mahayana positionsThere is nothing ldquoanti-clericalrdquo about it Nevertheless as Sasaki has emphasized thismisunderstandingpervades Hirakawarsquos work on the subject See Sasaki 1997

35 At least in Mahayana literature as far as I know On this point however see theinteresting study of Peter Mase eld 1986

36 Quite obviously in the case of some texts as Shimoda 1991 has argued forthe Mahayana Mahaparinirvan a-sutra for instance a given literary work may bethe product of more than one community as it grew over time I do not necessarily

370 Jonathan A Silk

represents a different Mahayana community we have gone farther inthe direction of diversity than Barth Przyluski La Valleacutee Poussin andothers who suggested that we think in terms of Sectarian Mahayanas aSarvastivada Mahayana a Dharmaguptaka Mahayana and so forth Infact theoretically speaking we might even go farther still and say withmodern theorists that each reading of a work which produces a newinterpretation allows although it does not necessitate the creation ofa new community Radical re-readings which amount to re-writingsmay indeed create new communities but access to this level of thetradition(s) is certainly impossible to obtain and so from a practicalpoint of view we are surely justi ed in accepting the generalities of agiven text as an integral unit at least as a starting point

If each Mahayana scripture denotes a Mahayana community wemust next ask ourselves What then is a Mahayana scripture Asagain only a starting point a very practical and reasonable answer isto posit that those scriptures identi ed by tradition for instance in theTibetan and Chinese canonical collections as Mahayana sutras shouldbe so considered37 In fact efforts to second-guess such traditionalattributions are virtually always based on preconceptions modernscholars hold concerning the nature of the Mahayana and almost neveron a considered and methodologically sophisticated approach to thesources

agree completely with the details of Shimodarsquos analysis of the case of the MahayanaMahaparinirvan a-sutra but the general point is beyond dispute

37 This should not be taken to mean that with a certain hindsight we may not nd traditional attributions to be occasionally wrong We do nd for example thatChinese scripture catalogues sometimes designate alternate translations of Mahayanascriptures as non-Mahayana We may note for example the cases of T 1469 infact a section of the Kasyapaparivarta or T 170 in fact a translation of theRas t rapalaparipr ccha Neither text is recognizedby traditionalChinese classi cationsas a Mahayana scripture I am of course aware of the fact that the classi cation ofscriptures in China and Tibet (and doubtless in India too) was a polemical activitymotivated by a multitude of forces These sources are not ldquoobjectiverdquo of course atrait they share with every other type of source


I have mentioned that I think it more helpful if not more accu-rate to refer to multiple Mahayana groups to communities of the earlyMahayana rather than to employ the de nite article ldquotherdquo before theword Mahayana Since I have de ned these communities by the textsthey produced which are of course multiple it is natural that we shouldspeak of these Mahayanas in the plural It is a possible but not cer-tain hypothesis that there were actual people perhaps monks arrangedin multiple groups sharing Mahayanistic ideologies It is again pos-sible but not certain that various monastic communities distributedgeographically over India on the one hand and associated with differ-ent sects of Sectarian Buddhism on the other produced different vari-eties of early Mahayana Buddhism If this is so almost certainly thenlater on there was a kind of leveling perhaps by the time of Nagarjunaleading to a more generalized ldquoMahayanardquo in which originally distinctsources were treated and utilized equally38 The suggestion of this typeof diversity in the early stages of the movement is in harmony withthe fact that while apparently having some characteristics in commonvarious early Mahayana sutras express somewhat and sometimes rad-ically different points of view and often seem to have been written inresponse to diverse stimuli For example the tenor of such (apparently)early sutras as the Kasyapaparivarta and the Ras trapalaparipr ccha onthe one hand seems to have little in common with the logic and rhetoricbehind the likewise putatively early Pratyutpannasam mukhavasthitaAs tasahasrika Prajntildeaparamita or Saddharmapun d arotildeka on the other

When we read this sutra literature we should make an attempt topay particular attention to its lateral internal strati cation By this Iintend an analogy to archaeology and would suggest that we shouldbe able to distinguish not only vertical which is to say chronologicallayers one text being later than another but different horizontal strataof texts which may be more or less contemporaneous Texts dating

38 I think as a clear case of the Siks asamuccaya dating from a rather later periodto be sure in which diverse sutras are quoted together without apparent regard fortheir initial source or provenance I think that the approach of this text to its materialsre ects a sort of ldquolevelingrdquo

372 Jonathan A Silk

to the same period may still belong to different lineages and may bethe products of distinct communities Many scholars seem perhapswithout properly having considered the matter to have tried to tall Mahayana literature (or more honestly the small portion of itwith which they are familiar) into one chronological progressionwith little regard for the possibility that we may be dealing not withone tradition but with many A con ation of the multiple traditionsof Mahayana literature into ldquotherdquo Mahayana that is into a unitaryand monolithic entity inevitably produces considerable confusion andapparent contradiction39

The very nature of this approach letting the many texts de ne thecommunities which are grouped together under the general rubric ofMahayana means on the one hand that the community of concernswhich we may extract from a single text cannot represent more thanone aspect of the many faceted Mahayana On the other hand itsuggests that a simultaneous study of multiple texts might detectgeneralized patterns but is unlikely to uncover the worldview of aparticular community of authors It seems reasonable then that wemight speak about the Mahayana ideology imagined by one text orgroup of texts without prejudicing the Mahayana ideology we may beable to extract from other sources Where there is overlap between thisideology and that found in other (early) Mahayana scriptures we maydare to speak of these overlapping features as characteristic of somegeneralized Mahayana doctrine There will be other features whichwhile allowing us to group our texts together into and as representinga community of concerns at the same time set this community apartfrom others

In addition to the problem of the multiplicity of texts we must alsoconfront the problem of the inherently uid state of any single text it-self If we insist upon the vertical and horizontal strati cation of thesutra literature are we justi ed in treating admittedly diverse sources

39 The comparable situation in studies of the ldquotree of liferdquo is critiqued in Gordon1999


such as late Sanskrit manuscripts multiple Chinese and Tibetan trans-lations and other types of evidence as a single unit Must we notrather treat each and every element in isolation One practical solutionto the potential in nite regress we confront here is to treat as represen-tative of an imagined authorial community those materials which havea community of character or of value To treat as a unit materials whichwe may identify with each other conceptually means that we may wellbe dealing occasionally with chronologically and geographically het-erogeneous materials and we must keep this fact in mind40

Given that the sources through which we might locate IndianMahayana Buddhism and its communities are by de nition its textsit is natural that in investigating the origins and early history of theMahayana movement we should wish to avail ourselves of the earliestaccessible evidence Unfortunately we have absolutely no reliableway of determining in just what that might consist For despite arather facile application of the designation ldquoearly Mahayanardquo thisusage is rather disingenuous The reason lies in the fact that wehave very little idea about either what sources belong to the earliestperiod of the Mahayana movement or even how we might nd thatout There may in fact be good circumstantial grounds for assumingas Paul Harrison has suggested41 that none of the extant examplesof Mahayana literature date in the form in which we have themto the period of the movementrsquos rise and so even the very earliestrecoverable materials must in some sense be called ldquomedievalrdquo (in thechronological sense)42 Almost the only hint we get to the relative

40 I am quite aware that there is a certain circularity to this suggestionbut as I saidabove I would prefer to see the logic as spiral rather than as a closed circle progressbeing possible

41 Harrison 1993139ndash14042 I do not know if this is what Mochizuki 1988157 means when he says that

ldquoThe Maharatnakuta viewed from the point of view of its establishment may becalled a Medieval Mahayana scripturerdquo He may be referring to the compilationof the collection by Bodhiruci in the eighth century but at the end of the sameparagraph Mochizuki asserts that these Maharatnakuta texts are certainly older thanthe Mahayana Mahaparinirvan a-sutra

374 Jonathan A Silk

chronology of comparatively old Mahayana materials comes fromtheir Chinese translations dating back to roughly the second and thirdcenturies CE What makes us suspect that the literature is older stillis the impression we get from this material (which is admittedly notalways easy to understand) that it already represents a considerabledegree of sophistication and development rather than recording the rst few rough steps toward an expression of a new and raw set ofideas If this impression is right we will probably never have accessto the oldest stratum of the Mahayana traditionrsquos literary expressionsThis is a crucial point since in fact the traditionrsquos literary remains arevirtually all we have Whatever archeological or other evidence wemight wish to employ can be contextualized and given meaning onlythrough an examination of the traditionrsquos literature

Because the content of Mahayana texts shows a very high degreeof familiaritymdashwe might say a total familiaritymdashwith virtually allaspects of Sectarian Buddhist thought and literature it is very dif cultto believe that the authors of these texts the de facto representativesof the Mahayana communities were other than educated monks It isdif cult to imagine that the Mahayana sutras could have been writtenby anyone other than such monks or more likely communities ofsuch monks If we follow the classical reasoning as expressed in thenormative Vinaya literature the only way to become a monk wouldhave been through an orthodox ordination lineage one which tracesits imprimatur directly back to Sakyamuni Buddha At a very earlyperiod perhaps by the time of the so-called Second Council (althoughwe cannot be sure about this) there would have been no way to becomea monk except through orthodox ordination into one of the sectarianVinaya traditions Unless there existed a tradition of which we aretotally ignorantmdashand this is far from impossiblemdashthe only way for oneto become a monk (or nun) in the Indian Buddhist context was throughorthodox ordination If we follow the assumptions just articulated theimmediate implication is that all authors of Mahayana sutras that isto say all those who made up the communities we have de ned asrepresentative of the early Mahayana were at one time members of


orthodox ordination lineages members of sects as I have de ned themabove

Could the monk-authors of these texts our prototypical early Maha-yanists have split from those ordination lineages and the sects theyde ned What would it mean to leave such a sect and start anothersect given that the normatively de ned ordination lineage could notmdashin its own termsmdashbe broken Without a Vinaya of their own the break-away monks would have been unable to carry out further ordinationsof new monks in their own lineage If correct this suggests thatmost probably it would not have been possible in an Indian Buddhistcontext for one to become a Buddhist monk at all without ordinationin an orthodox ordination lineage Again if this is true Mahayanacommunities could not have become institutionally independent ofSectarian communities for they would have had no way of effectingthe continuity of the movement other than by conversion of alreadyordained monks Such an approach to the maintenance of a religiouscommunity while not uninstanced in world religions is relatively rareand dif cult to maintain Moreover if these Mahayanists were eitherdoctrinal rebels or reactionariesmdashwhich is also far from suremdashhowcould they have coexisted with their sectarian brethren Would it havebeen necessary to establish a new sect in order to freely profess theirnew doctrines and beliefs It would not if dissent in matters of doctrinewas permissible

The way in which sectarian af liations are decided is not nec-essarily connected with questions of doctrine An institutional splitin a Buddhist community is technically termed sa Ccedilmghabheda It hasbeen suggested at least since the time of the Meiji period Japanesescholar Maeda Eun that early and fundamental Mahayana doctrineshave much in common with the teachings of the Mahasa Ccedilmghika sect43

It is therefore of great interest to notice the Mahasa Ccedilmghika de nition ofsa Ccedilmghabheda as offered in the Mahasa Ccedilmghika Vinaya Sa Ccedilmghabhedais constituted by a failure of all the monks resident in the same sacred

43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk

enclosure (sotildema) to communally hold the uposatha rite44 Differencesover doctrine are not grounds for sa Ccedilmghabheda in the Mahasa CcedilmghikaVinaya In fact what appears to be a contrast with the views of othersects some of which allow doctrinal disputes to split the community(cakrabheda) has been shown by Shizuka Sasaki to be in reality a vir-tual universality of opinion that the only true cause of schism at leastin the times after the Buddharsquos nirvan a is failure to hold joint rituals(karmabheda)45 On the other hand this virtual uniformity of opinionsuggests that the explicit position of the Mahasa Ccedilmghika in this regardcannot serve as evidence for its particular connection with a nascentMahayana movement

We have been concerned so far mostly with generalities of receivedwisdom accepted ideas which I suggest can no longer be acceptedIt might be helpful to brie y indicate here in particular why I havefound myself unable to accept many of the ideas of perhaps the twomost in uential recent scholars of Mahayana history Hirakawa Akiraand Eacutetienne Lamotte The most characteristic ideas of Hirakawa andLamotte are respectively that stupa worship implies a lay communityat the heart of the earliest Mahayana and that Mahayana texts areanti-clerical At least for Lamotte moreover these two ideas are notunrelated

According to Buddhist canon law the putatively normative stipu-lations of the Vinayas the distinction between laity and monastics isde ned by the difference in the precepts they take A monk has takenthe primary and secondary initiations (pravrajya and upasampada)and has vowed to uphold a set of monastic rules (the pratimoks a) Alay follower of Buddhism has taken the three refuges (in the BuddhaDharma and Sa Ccedilngha) and perhaps ve or eight vows In addition the

44 The situation is nuanced by the existence of the categories of samanasa Ccedilmvasakaand nanasa Ccedilmvasaka monks See Kieffer-Puumllz 199352ndash54 and Chung and Kieffer-Puumllz 199715 The constellation of sa Ccedilmghabheda nikayabheda cakrabhedakarmabheda samanasa Ccedilmvasaka and nanasa Ccedilmvasaka deserves to be thoroughly(re)investigated

45 Sasaki 1992 1993


layman or laywoman may vow to give up not only forbidden sexualactivity but all sexual activity whatsoever One who takes the threerefuges or more is called an upasaka (male lay disciple) or upasika(female lay disciple)46 There would in addition of course be those whocasually gave alms and so forth but these are not considered or recog-nized to be Buddhist lay supporters in any formal way In spite of theavailability of this terminology many Mahayana sutras generally seemto prefer the set of terms pravrajita and gr hastha that is renunciantand householder a distinction that requires separate discussion

Richard Robinson has suggested that rather than these technical andstrict categories a more useful distinction is that between ldquolaicizingrdquoand ldquomonachizingrdquo and ldquosecularizingrdquo and ldquoasceticizingrdquo47 By thisRobinson means to emphasize tendencies toward lay participation orlay control as opposed to monastic control or a greater concern withworldly activities or values as opposed to the values of renunciationand ascetic practice There is quite a bit of grey space in Robinsonrsquosde nition but it serves to highlight the fact that a strict distinctionbetween lay and monastic regardless of the roles the individuals playin the social life of the community can be misleading His distinctionallows us to speak of an asceticized laity for example a householderwho vows to give up sex with his wife altogether or secularizedmonastics for example a monk who lives at a royal court

Lamotte who strongly advocated the idea that the Mahayana repre-sents the triumph of lay aspirations in Buddhism48 used the expressionldquoanti-clericalrdquo to characterize early Mahayana sutras pointing speci -cally in his in uential paper on the subject to the Ras trapalaparipr ccha

46 Let us recall the words of La Valleacutee Poussin yet again 192520 ldquoScholars setup between monk novice and lay people a difference of degree not of nature Allthree are samvarikas people who have accepted a samvara [vowmdashJAS] All threepossess the lsquomorality of engagementrsquo samadantasotildela the morality which consists notin the simple avoidance of sin but in the resolution to refrain from itrdquo

47 Robinson 1965ndash6625ndash2648 He atly stated this in Lamotte 195586 ldquoThe advent of the Mahayana conse-

crated the triumph of lay aspirationsrdquo

378 Jonathan A Silk

which he calls an ldquoanti-clerical tractrdquo49 It is true that the single versehe quotes appears to be a violent criticism of monks50 but a glance atthe context makes it quite clear that the Ras trapalaparipr ccha is notcriticizing monks in general and is far from anti-clericalmdashrather quitethe opposite The text is concerned with (future) evil and degeneratemonks and the decay of the true teaching In this sense the text mightbe considered more a reactionary document than a revolutionary oneWhat we see here is not anti-clericalism but again rather the oppositea concern with the puri cation of the clergy and the related assertionof its superiority and rightful place as the sole legitimate representativeof Buddhist orthodoxy I have addressed this theme in another paper51

and observe there how pervasive this ideology is in Buddhism not onlyin Mahayana sutras but even in earlier canonical texts belonging to theNikayaAgama corpus

If as I have argued the Mahayana came into existence and per-sisted within pre-existing Buddhist social and institutional structures itwould follow that all monastic members of the Mahayana should havebeen associated with a traditional ordination lineage I have furthersuggested that the Mahayana texts must have been written by monksand have de ned my notion of a Mahayana community as one consti-tuted by the authors of these texts There may of course have also (orinstead) been another type of Mahayana community but it would beincumbent upon whomever asserted this to be the case to show howthis could have been so Hirakawa Akira is probably the most in uen-tial of those who do not believe the earliest Mahayana to have been amonastic movement and he suggests that formal Mahayana Buddhistsocial units did exist independently of the traditional sectarian sa CcedilnghasHe has offered an alternative solution to our questions centering on thesuggestion that what made such non-monastic Mahayana groups pos-sible was their orientation around stupa worship

49 Lamotte 195437950 He gives no reference but the verse is in fact to be found in Finot 19012817ndash1851 See Silk forthcoming


Hirakawa holds the Mahayana to have been a movement promotedin contrast to Nikaya communities by non-ordained people who de-voted themselves to stupa worship52 One of the main presuppositionsbehind Hirakawarsquos thinking on this subject is the contrast betweenNikaya Buddhism and the Mahayana in which he was perhaps in u-enced by the writings of Nalinaksha Dutt53 The importance of thisshould be clear If we compare as we inevitably must Mahayana Bud-dhism with its ubiquitous background mistaken ideas about that back-ground or pre-existing Buddhism will lead to erroneous conclusionsabout the situation of the Mahayana In one particular regard I think itis precisely here that Hirakawa has gone astray

Hirakawarsquos ideas are based on a very wide reading in the Vinayaliteratures Agamas and Mahayana sutras Basically stated his posi-tion is that the Mahayana grew out of lay communities institutionallyexternal to the Nikaya Buddhist communities These lay communitiesgrew up around stupas not associated with any Nikaya Buddhist sectand the lay groups managed and administered the stupas Graduallythey in ltrated the monastic communities and in response to this therewas a transformation within the monastic communities in which someof these outside ideas and practices were adopted This is the genesisof the Mahayana

Hirakawarsquos argument for this theory runs as follows According tothe Mahaparinirvan a sutra just before the death of the Buddha heforbade monastic participation in the stupa cult ruling that this was

52 I translate as ldquoNikaya communityrdquo Hirakawarsquos Japanese expressionbuha kyodanAlthough Hirakawa has published a certain number of articles in English and anEnglish translationof one half of his popular survey of Indian Buddhism has appeared(Hirakawa 1990) I refer in all cases to his latest Japanese publications on theassumption that these present his most recent and consideredviews He has moreoverbeen publishing a series of Collected Works in which many of his older studies arereprinted sometimes with some modi cations When newer versions of old papersare available I generally refer to the more updated publication In the main the ideasdiscussed in the present context are found in Hirakawa 1954 (rpt 1989)

53 Hirakawa seldom refers to Western scholarly works but does occasionally takenote of Dutt 1930mdashnot however in Hirakawa 1954

380 Jonathan A Silk

the domain of the laity In addition since the cult of the stupa consistsin worship offered with owers perfumes dance and music it wouldnot have been possible for monks to participate since such activitieswere forbidden to them by the Vinaya In addition the fact that thereare no inscriptions on stupa sites identifying a stupa as belonging to aparticular sect proves that stupas were not the domain of the monasticcommunity All of this shows that despite some suggestions that theMahayana grew up from within speci c sects of Nikaya Buddhism itcould not have been Nikaya sect monks who created the Mahayana Itmust have been lay people who were the managers of the stupas54

Gregory Schopen has shown conclusively that the standard interpre-tation of the Mahaparinirvan a sutrarsquos prohibition of monastic stupaworship is wrong55 The sutra is far from prohibiting monastic wor-ship of stupas since the prohibition applies only to participation in theactual funeral ceremony and moreover may apply not to all monks butonly to Ananda and not to all funerals but only to that of the Bud-dha Be that as it may it is clear that there are no doctrinal groundsat least in earlier literature for the idea that monks were prohibitedfrom participation in stupa rites Schopen has also shown elsewherethat in fact stupas were a common if not central feature of Indian Bud-dhist monastery life and that the main stupas of monastic sites did infact belong to speci c sects of Sectarian Buddhism56 As far as the

54 I believe we can lay out Hirakawarsquos argument rather clearly almost in his ownwords Hirakawa 1954 (1989)377 Because lay believers (zaike shinja) erected thestupa of the Buddha and distributed his sarotildera (relics) therefore (yue ni) in the timewhen the Mahaparinirvan a sutra was redacted in the primitive Sa Ccedilngha the believers(shinja) were responsible for the administration of the stupas (butto no keiei iji) andbhiksus were not directly involved Because Vinayas of the sects (buha) discuss stupasthey were taken care of by the Nikaya Buddhist communities (buha kyodan) in theNikaya Buddhist Age (buha bukkyo jidaimdashwhatever that is) At the same time therewere many independent stupas not connected with sects (buha) The many stupas withdedicatory inscriptions which do not record a sect name proves there were stupas notconnected to a sect

55 Schopen 199156 See for example Schopen 1979 and 1985


prohibition to participate in dance the offering of owers and so onSasaki Shizuka has shown that this rule is not in the oldest stratum ofthe Vinaya tradition and that even once introduced a speci c excep-tion was made for offerings to the Buddha including stupa offerings57

Given this Hirakawarsquos argument against the monastic basis of stupaworship can be shown to lack evidence and with this falls the mainpillar of his argument for the lay origins of the Mahayana We maymention in addition the idea that only lay people would have been ableto afford to endow such expensive structures as stupas Here againSchopen has repeatedly demonstrated that contrary to the impressiontraditionally derived from a reading of the Vinayas monks were notat all the completely penniless renunciants we sometimes romanticallylike to imagine them to have been Some monastics seem to have beenwealthy patrons and perfectly capable of endowing expensive struc-tures and moreover of recording this fact in inscriptions carved onthose structures58

To be fair Hirakawa has in fact repeatedly offered extremelydetailed and learned arguments for the theories I have summarilycritiqued here A full critique worthy of his arguments would beinvolved and lengthy and I am happy to refer here to the detailedstudies of Sasaki in this regard59 Moreover the model Hirakawasuggests is not necessarily his alone A sociological study of a newreligious movement has clearly stated the presuppositions as follows60

New movements in religion tend in the nature of things to be the product oflay initiative They have often arisen as responses to what have been perceivedas de ciencies in the clergy and often as a challengemdashexpressed or implicitmdashto priestly dominance In effect that challenge has usually been a demand foropportunitiesof more open access to spiritual resources accompaniedby distrustof complicated liturgies and elaborate doctrines which the priests alone are

57 Sasaki 199158 That monks and nuns of high status made many endowments was already pointed

out for example by Njammasch 1974281ndash282 However she seems to resist theconclusion that such monks possess personal wealth (p 283)

59 Most accessible is his English article Sasaki 199760 Wilson and Dobbelaere 1994232

382 Jonathan A Silk

permitted to claim fully to understand The lay impulse has been to seek moreimmediate spiritual help with less of the manipulativeapparatus in which priestlyclasses tend to invest Consciously or unconsciously the lay movement seeks areorientation concerning the vital focus of spiritual endeavor (for example byemphasis on faith rather than on ritual performances) Priests seek to preserveorthodoxy and become custodians of sacred objects and places They mark offtheir purportedpiety by distinctivemeans of trainingby tonsure dress and ritualroutines all of which lead them to distance themselves from ordinary people andeveryday affairs which not infrequently they see as mundane and perhaps evenas a source of pollution In such circumstances laymen are sometimes promptedto seek new means by which to acquire protection from the untoward and fornew sources of reassurance about salvation (in whatever form salvation may intheir culture be conceived) Such a growing divergence of orientation is likelyto be exacerbated if a priesthoodmdashpurporting to offer indispensable servicemdashinitself becomes cynical corrupt and self-indulgentA process of this kind leads adisenchanted laity either to have recourse to competing agents who claim to offerassistance toward salvation or to take spiritual affairs into their own hands61

I do not mean to imply that Hirakawa has knowingly borrowed amodel from the sociology of religion but rather I want to suggest thatthis model is fundamentally taken for granted in much of the thinkingconcerning religious history especially that which is seen to relateto the evolution of ldquosectsrdquo There is little point in speculating on thegeneral applicability of the model in religious studies as a whole buteven if the model were generally applicable it would remain true thatit need not necessarily apply to each and every case

61 The authors go on in the following paragraph to make explicit the applicationof their remarks ldquoThe process outlined in the abstract applies to various historicalinstances conspicuously to the history of Protestantism The Reformation whist notan initially lay movement met with its doctrine of the priesthood of all believersthe aspirations of the laity whilst subsequent dissenting and schismatic movementssought more direct access to saving grace and wider opportunities for lay spiritualexperience Such struggles between priests and laity are by no means con ned toChristian history they have occurred in various religious contextsrdquo The authorscontinue in an overly credulous manner I believe to discuss the issue of the schismbetween the Nichiren Shoshu and the Soka Gakkai relying almost entirely it seemson polemical materials (in English) published by the respective parties primarily thelatter


Now even if we posit Mahayana Buddhism as a movementmdashorI should prefer to say at least for the early Mahayana movement-spluralmdashwhich has doctrinal but no institutional existence as suchwhich is neither a nikaya an orthodox ordination lineage nor a vada aschool de ned by doctrines but rather a sort of meta-level movementwhich drew its adherents from monastic Buddhism but adherence towhich in no way contradicted the established sectarian identi cationof its followers and which was co-local compatible with and existedwithin the complex of these Buddhist communities distinguishedfrom non-Mahayana primarily on the level of philosophical doctrine orldquosystematicsrdquo some emphases in practice forms of literary or artisticexpression and some aspects of mythology and cosmology and evenif we accept that it was only in this realm of doctrine and rhetoric thatH otilde nayana Buddhism existed without any real-world existence in Indiaor elsewhere I think our quest for de nition has still fallen into a mazefrom which it might not escape

Even if we accept that the distinction between Mahayana andnon-Mahayana we nd in the works of Indian authors has from adescriptive rather than a polemical point of view been ill-drawnthe existence of the very distinction itself xes the basic and hencefollowing questions in a dichotomous frame setting Mahayana againstnon-Mahayana In other words the question ldquoWhat is MahayanaBuddhismrdquo still means more or less the same thing as ldquoWhat is therelation between Mahayana and the Buddhism of the sectsrdquo

By failing to question the very framework which lies behind thedualistic distinction which we recognize as very likely nothing morethan polemical we are casting the whole question of the identity ofMahayana Buddhism in entirely the wrong terms

Another way to look at the problem is to suggest that an examinationof the underlying models of de nition and classi cation which havealbeit no doubt subconsciously guided scholars so far may revealfailures of their theories to adequately account for all the relevant dataSince a theory is nothing more than a structure or construct withinwhich to organize data such failures are fatal An examination of the

384 Jonathan A Silk

possible models for de nition and classi cation may likewise suggestnew approaches to the problem

Philosophers of language distinguish between two basic types ofde nitions ldquoStipulativerdquo de nitions and ldquoLexicalrdquo de nitions In theformer one stipulates exactly what one means by a certain termwhether or not that sense is intuitive or even acceptable to othersIn many cases we must rely on stipulative de nitions and in eldslike science and law they are usually essential For instance laws orcontracts without stipulated de nitions are unenforceable and oftenmeaningless On the other hand for many uses stipulative de nitionsare obviously not what are needed In most cases in fact we couldnot carry out ordinary communication if we were to rely on stipulativede nitions What we are concerned with in these cases is ldquolexicalrdquode nition

Lexical de nition is what a dictionary aims for How is a word mostgenerally used What do most users of a word intend by it Whatdo they intend it to mean A dictionary aims among other things toformalize for us the consensus of a wordrsquos usage One problem ofcourse is that this meaning is often extremely hard to pin down TheAmerican Heritage Dictionary of the English Language for examplede nes ldquoredrdquo as

Any of a group of colors that may vary in lightness and saturation whose hueresembles that of blood the hue of the long-wave end of the spectrum one of theadditive or light primaries one of the psychological primary hues evoked in thenormal observer by the long-wave end of the spectrum

It is clear how deeply contextualized this de nition is ldquoRedrdquoresembles blood How close does something have to be to ldquoresemblerdquosomething else What is the ldquolong-waverdquo end of the light spectrumHow long is long62 The same dictionary says that a ldquoherordquo is ldquoanyman noted for feats of courage or nobility of purposerdquo or ldquoa personprominent in some event eld period or cause by reason of his special

62 It may be that there are technical de nitions of ldquolong wave lightrdquo in optics statedfor instance in terms of a range of Aringngtroumlms This simply makes this part of thede nition into a virtual tautology however


achievements or contributionsrdquo But what is ldquonobility of purposerdquo Arenot villains also ldquoprominentrdquo What is the problem here

One problem is that this type of de nition aims at identifying anessence These de nitions aim to locate one or a very few characteris-tics that are de nitive And this is very problematic A de nition is adescription of a class All members of a class are included in that classbecause the de nition applies to them Classes are de ned by de ni-tions and what de nitions do is de ne classes63 But a de nition willnot only qualify a given particular for inclusion in a class it must alsoexclude other instances A de nition tells us what quali es as a mem-ber of a class and also what does not qualify That is one reason thatthe de nition of ldquoherordquo has a problem The word ldquoprominentrdquomdashwhichthe same dictionary de nes as ldquowidely knownrdquomdashdoes not exclude vil-lains And of course our common usage tells us that villains are notheroes While this de nition is perhaps suf ciently inclusive it is notsuf ciently exclusive

And what of essences A good de nition lets us make explicitthe implicit character of the object of the de nition and establishits unity as an object In other words it allows us to include andexclude appropriately Generally speaking we ordinarily assume thatwe can do this by locating the de nitive features or characteristics ofthe object of our de nition the feature or group of features whichare necessary and suf cient to determine membership in the classThis is what we generally mean by essence If such features exist wecan establish what is called a Monothetic Class (see below) Whenwe are using real language however we generally do not functionin this way We work as the dictionary quoted above recognizes byassociating resemblances We work by analogy Something is ldquoredrdquoif it resemblesmdashin the appropriate waysmdashother things we think of as

63 It is worth stressing here that while individuals may evolve classes do not Thecharacteristicsof an individual may change such that the individual may no longer beincluded as a member of a certain class but the class itself cannot change

386 Jonathan A Silk

ldquoredrdquo64 But how can we formalize that understanding Or rst whywould we want to formalize it

Of course we generally donrsquot need to formalize de nitions Mostreaders have probably never looked up the word ldquoredrdquo in a dictionaryWhy should one We usually only need to resort to de nitions inborderline cases or when there is a problem But sometimes it isimportant to resort to a de nition and so we sometimes do want toformalize our understanding How can we do this when we cannot ndan essence a feature or set of features which is both necessary andsuf cient to qualify an object for inclusion in a class

In developing his philosophy of language Ludwig Wittgensteinspoke about what he called ldquoFamily Resemblancesrdquo [PhilosophicalInvestigations sect67]65 How do we know Wittgenstein wondered thatsomething is a ldquogamerdquo What ties all sorts of games together intoa class Wittgenstein of course was not concerned to formalize thesimilarity he spoke about being primarily interested in logical andnatural language problems But a coincidence of intellectual historybrought together these ideas of Wittgenstein with those of scholarswho are concerned to formalize such ldquoFamily Resemblancesrdquo namelythe biological taxonomists The problem for such scholars is reallyquite simple What animals (or for some plants) are related to othersWhat forms a species The connection between Wittgensteinrsquos ideasand those of the biological taxonomists led to the suggestion ofutilizing a different approach to classi cation which does away withthe requirement for necessary and suf cient conditions This approachis that of the Polythetic Class The Polythetic Class of course contrastswith the Monothetic Class mentioned above

64 I leave out of consideration here the fact that all humans very closely agree onwhat is a good example of ldquoredrdquo and what is not The psychology and neuroscienceof this is rather complicated but the result is a well established fact See VarelaThompson and Rosch 1996157ndash171 esp 168 the classic study is Berlin and Kay1969

65 Wittgenstein 195832


In a Polythetic Class to be considered a member of the class eachobject must possesses a large (but unspeci ed) number of features orcharacteristics which are considered relevant for membership in thatclass And each such set of features must be possessed by a largenumber of members of the class Butmdashand this is the keymdashthere isno set of features which must be possessed by every member of theclass There is no one feature or set of features necessary and suf cientfor inclusion in the class When a class has no single feature or set offeatures common to all its members it is called Fully Polythetic

This may be expressed in over-simpli ed form graphically66

Individuals

1 2 3 4 5 6Characteristics A A A

B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H

Here individuals 1 2 3 4 form a fully polythetic class while 5 and6 form a monothetic class

One can see how this is an attempt to formalize the notion of FamilyResemblances We can think about it this way How does one de nea ldquofamilyrdquo We might want to consider features such as marriageor blood relation but what of adopted children We might want toconsider cohabitation but of course many family members live apartAnd so on Any single feature is open to the challenge of counter-example but at the same time our classi cation must also exclude sowe cannot simply rely on exhaustive listing of possible features lest webe forced therefore to include individuals we want to exclude So while

66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk

rejecting the ldquonecessary and suf cient featuresrdquo model by collectinga large number of features we can establish a pattern a resemblancebetween individuals And in fact many numerical taxonomists try toformalize this process to the point where it is almost automatic that iswhere the degree of resemblance can be calculated numerically

There is of course a difference between natural sciences and socialor humanistic studies While for the most part natural scientists tryto select features which are themselves discrete empirical particulars(for instance does an animal have an internal or external skeleton)even for them an element of the ad hoc remains67 Neverthelessdespite a certain ambiguity in many cases natural scientists can selectmonothetically de ned features But for those of us interested instudying social phenomena the very features which we must considerwill themselves often constitute polythetic classes68

A particularly good case for the application of this method concernsthe notion of religion Religion has been notoriously dif cult to de nethough it is not necessary to recount that history here Rather we shoulddirect our attention to the question of the method of de nition Whatwe want to do in a nutshell is nd a de nition which will allow usto include in the class of religion all those phenomena which we feelare religions or religious and exclude those we feel are not In otherwords we want to formalize our lexical de nitions Many previousattempts have failed because counter-examples could be producedbecause the suggested de nitions excluded individuals we sensed asusers of the word ldquoreligionrdquo to be religions or because they includedindividuals we felt were not religions that is they failed either toproperly include or properly exclude Sometimes this has caused funnypseudo-problems Most people consider Buddhism to be a religion yet

67 For example a researcher might ask is or is not a single-celled creature tolerantto 05 ppm of saline in solution But why pick the number 05 ppm Is it not totallyarbitrary ad hoc Another example is found in the way morphological features arerecognized by those attempting cladistic analyses Holes and bumps on bones (ldquolargefenestrardquo for instance) are recognized as signi cant in basically impressionisticways

68 Needham 1975364


many Buddhists do not consider their object of ultimate concern tobe God or a god So some scholars have suggested that Buddhism isnot in fact a religion but rather a philosophy These scholars triedto impose a stipulative de nition where a lexical de nition belongedBut those who were willing to let the data direct the theory insteadof letting the theory or de nition make them manipulate their datarealized therefore that theism is obviously not a good touchstone forthe de nition of a religion The suggestion that Buddhism is not areligion is an example of failure to properly include an object in theclass

On the other hand if we look to the functionalists those whosuggest that religion is what produces meaning and focus in onersquoslife what organizes onersquos social interactions and so on we haveanother problemmdashnot this time of inclusion but of exclusion A theisticde nition did not enable us to include Buddhism as a religion whichwe want to do A functional de nition on the other hand mayprevent us from excluding American Baseball for example from theclass of religions For of course baseball provides a source of greatperhaps even ultimate meaning for many people it can structuretheir worldview and their social interactions can produce and focusmeaning and so on But we should expect our de nition of religionto exclude baseball and so while the functional features which mightdetermine inclusion in the class are certainly important they cannotbe necessary and suf cient A polythetic approach on the other handallows us to incorporate as many features as we feel necessary withoutmaking any one particular feature decisive This is its great strength

Before we try to apply this all to the problem of Mahayana Bud-dhism let us make the assumption which I think is not radical thatMahayana Buddhism is a kind of Buddhism and that there are kindsof Buddhism which are not Mahayana But this is not necessarily thesame thing as saying that Mahayana is a species of Buddhism an im-portant distinction For what indeed is the relation between MahayanaBuddhism and the rest of Buddhism or between Mahayana and thelarger class of Buddhism of which it is a part

390 Jonathan A Silk

When de ning individual religions or religious traditions we areusually talking about a structurally different type of class than the classof religion The class ldquoreligionrdquo quali es instances for membershippurely on what is called by the biologists phenetic grounds69 Pheneticrelationships are relationships of similarity which are de ned strictlysynchronically since they indicate a product There need be no histori-cal relationship whatsoever between two instances for them to both bemembers of the same class In the study of religion an instance of thistype of relation is what we call phenomenological similarity As vander Leeuw has discussed in such interesting detail70 we can talk aboutinstances of prayer of asceticism and so on in traditions which havehad no historical contact and in the same way we can talk about ldquore-ligionsrdquo without implying in any way a historical connection betweenthe worldrsquos religions In other words we can group together instanceswithout regard for their history Their present similarity is what is ofinterest71

In contrast to this phyletic relationships show the course of evolu-tion and thus indicate a process Two individuals related phyleticallyshare some commonly inherited features from a common ancestor andthey may share this feature even if their evolutionary paths diverged inthe ancient past If the common ancestry is relatively recent we speakof shared derived characteristics72 which link two or more individu-als but separate them from the rest of their common ancestors Suchrecent relations which are de ned diachronically are termed ldquocladis-ticrdquo

So we have two basic categories First are relationships which aresynchronic in which two individuals may be grouped together on thebasis of ancient common inheritances or common chance similarities

69 Bailey 198325670 van der Leeuw 193871 These are termed by the biologists homoplasies similar characteristics indepen-

dently evolved When the origins of the similar characteristics are independently ac-quired they are termed convergent when independently evolved parallel

72 Technically called synapomorphies Gould 1983358


adventitious similarities which have been independently acquired bythe individual Second are relations based on common similarities dueto a genetic and historical link which produced in both individuals ashared innovation not shared with their common ancestor

Pheneticmdashthat is synchronic phenomenologicalmdashclassi cation ispossible for all groups whether or not they have any previous thatis to say historical connection but cladistic or phyletic classi cationrequires historical inference When we talk about the class ldquoreligionrdquowe are of course concerned with phenetic relationships but when westudy a given religious tradition it is usually the cladistic form ofclassi cation that we are interested in which is to say historical linksare vital73

We can certainly relate some traditions within the class ldquoBuddhismrdquoto each other from some perspectives by means of their shared derivedcharacteristicsmdashthat is cladistically Thus broadly speaking Mongo-lian Buddhism can be linked to Tibetan Buddhism by among otherthings their shared derived characteristics or their shared innova-tions We can draw a tree-diagrammdashwhat is called by the biologistsa cladogrammdashillustrating such relations74

But does this same approach apply to the object we call MahayanaBuddhism Does the pair of Mahayana and other-than-Mahayanaform as many writers on Buddhism seem to assume what is tech-nically called in cladistics a ldquosister grouprdquo that is two lineages moreclosely related to each other than to any other lineages75 Or is thewhole question being asked in a misleading way Is it possible thatscholars who have considered the question have somehow assumedsome version of a model which mirrors the biologistrsquos cladistic classication Naturally it is unlikely that their motivation for this is to be

73 This is not true by the way with classi cations of types of religions such asldquoNew Agerdquo Religions Such classi cations like the classi cation ldquoreligionrdquo itselfalmost always rely on phenetic relationships

74 On the application of biological concepts to other elds of study see the veryinteresting essays in Hoenigswald and Wiener 1987

75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk

found in biological classi cation itself and while it is obvious that onepossible source is an analogical extension of the Protestant Reforma-tion idea and the relation between Catholicism and Protestantism itis also far from impossible that general notions of necessary and suf -cient conditions and of species classi cation have led scholars to cer-tain assumptions It is these very assumptions which I think we mustquestion And so we come back to our core question Just what is therelationship of Mahayana to the rest of Buddhism

The de nition we seek of Mahayana Buddhism must be a lexical de- nition It would be pointless for us to suggest a stipulative de nitionalthough such stipulative de nitions offered for example in traditionaltexts like that of Yijing may certainly become data for our quest Wewant to determine what are generally agreed to be the limits of theclass in this case of Mahayana Buddhism And this class should bede ned not monothetically but polythetically through a large numberof features which cumulatively circumscribe the class I suggest theplace we will look for features which will lead us to a de nition ofMahayana Buddhism should in the rst place be the Mahayana sutras

Butmdashand this is not as meaningless as it might at rst soundmdashMahayana sutras are Buddhist texts and all Buddhist texts are Bud-dhist texts In other words we assume that all Buddhist texts areBuddhistmdashbut really without knowing what we mean by this andwithout having formalized this feeling This suggests that rather thanasking what makes a Mahayana Buddhist text Mahayana it might bebetter to ask what makes it both Buddhist and Mahayana Or we mightvisualize the problem in a quite different way is there any way wecan localize Mahayana texts within some imaginary multi-dimensionalspace which we call ldquoBuddhismrdquo

If we imagine Buddhism as a multi-dimensional space and we donot prejudge the locations of different kinds of Buddhismmdashwith forexample Theravada in one corner and Zen far away in anothermdashbutinstead start our thinking on the level of individual texts I think wewould quickly realize that various texts would be located at variouspoints in this multi-dimensional matrix some texts being located moreclosely to each other than to a third type of text Of course there


can be no such thing as an absolute location but only a locationrelative to other objects in the space (just as is the case in the threedimensions of our physical universe) This is related to the ldquodegreeof resemblancerdquo calculations which as I mentioned above numericaltaxonomists employ Slightly more thought would show us that theproblem is more complicated still For what are the criteria by meansof which we would locate our texts in this space In fact there is anin nite number of possible criteria we might want to use to locatethe objects of our study and an in nite number of ways of relatingour data points to each other and thus an in nite number of multi-dimensional matrices For instance we should recognize that eventhe unit ldquotextrdquo is itself amenable to further analysis and localizationLet us consider the example of one sutra the Kasyapaparivarta justfor the sake of argument We have a Sanskrit version (in this caseonly one nearly complete manuscript with a few variant fragmentsbut sometimes we will have more) a Tibetan translation and anumber of Chinese versions not to mention a commentary to thetext extant in several versions quotations in other works and so onFrom one perspective we would expect all of these to be locatedvery closely together in our imaginary space they are all versions ofor intimately related to the ldquosame textrdquo From another perspectivehowever if we are interested in translation vocabulary for instancewe might also have good reasons to want to relate the Chinesetranslation of the Kasyapaparivarta of one translator more closelyto other translations of the same translator than to other Chineseversions of the Kasyapaparivarta and certainly more closely thanto the Tibetan translation of the same text Or again a text withdoctrinal content might from that perspective be related more closelyto another of similar content the Heart Sutra (Prajntildeaparamitahr daya)with the Diamond Sutra (Vajracchedika) for instance while if we wereinterested in the same text used liturgically we might group it withquite another text or texts to which it might be unrelated in terms of itscontent but with which it may be used together or similarly in ritualthe same Prajntildeaparamitahr daya with the Smaller Sukhavatotildevyuhaperhaps So the sorts of groupings the data will produce will depend on

394 Jonathan A Silk

what we are asking of our data There will not be one nal de nitivegrouping that is to say no one unique localization of our objectswithin our imaginary multi-dimensional space And the more exiblethe organization of our data the more comprehensively we will be ableto understand and classify its internal relations To put this anotherway none of the objects we are interested inmdashno matter how we arelikely to de ne those objects singly or as groupsmdashwill be related toanother object or set of objects in a single unique way The relationwill depend on what aspects of the objects we choose to relate everytime we ask a question And if we map the relations between objectswithin our multi-dimensional space the geography of that space willtherefore be determined by the combination of objects and aspects inquestion Since we have multiple objects and virtually limitless aspectsto comparemdashconstrained only by the imagination which generatesour questionsmdashno unique mapping or solution is even theoreticallypossible

There are in fact established techniques available in the so-calledSocial Sciences for thinking about such problems One of the mostimportant numerical techniques is called Cluster Analysis What clus-ter analysis enables one to do is rationally deal with a large amountof data clustering it into more compact forms for easier manageabil-ity The clusters may be de ned in any number of ways It might bepossible for us for instance to select features such as the occurrenceof doctrinal concepts key words stock phrases or the like and codethem 1 or 0 for Mahayana or non-Mahayana But given our goals oneof which is to avoid prejudicing the relationship between Mahayanaand other forms of Buddhism as this monothetic classi cation wouldsuch an approach can be seen to embody the same sort of aw inherentin previous thinking on the subject76 A much better approach wouldbe to cluster discretely rather than cumulatively that is to measurethe presence or absence of given factors and then measure the totalclustered factors individually not additively The clusters which result

76 This is also the same aw to which cladistic analyses are prone


would then allow for the formation of a polythetic class77 Naturallythe mathematics behind such statistical methods of multivariate analy-sis are sophisticated and I do not pretend to have even a rudimentaryunderstanding of the technical details My wish here is to introducethe broadest most general outlines of the procedure and to appeal fora consideration by scholars of Buddhism of this new way of conceptu-alizing the very nature of the problem rather than to offer a de nitivearray of statistical techniques to carry out the details of the project

Let us step back for a moment to the self-evident claim offeredabove Mahayana Buddhism is Buddhism As such not only shouldinstances of Mahayana Buddhism be related and relatable to otherobjects in the same class but to other objects in the larger classldquoBuddhismrdquo as well Just how those Mahayana Buddhist objects arerelated to Buddhist objects will provide us an answer to our questionconcerning the relation between Mahayana Buddhism and Buddhismas a wholemdashthat is to say the question What is Mahayana Buddhism

Another way of putting this is as follows If we start with theassumption that there is something called Mahayana but we do notknow what its features are we will want to look at the objects whichwe think might be de nitive of Mahayana and extract from those thequalities which group or cluster them together Moreover if we thinkthese same or other objects might also belong somehow to anothersetmdasheven on a different logical level for example the set of Buddhismat largemdashwe will want to have a way of determining to what extentthe object is Mahayana and to what extent it is simply BuddhistThat is what we will be looking for is not a presence or absence ofMahayana but a question of degree of identi cation with some clusteror even better of general location within the whole space in this caseof ldquoBuddhismrdquo

The only attempt I know of to do anything even remotely like thisis that of Shizutani Masao78 who looked not at Buddhist literaturein general but rather tried to stratify Mahayana sutras chronologically

77 See Bailey 199478 Shizutani 1974

396 Jonathan A Silk

into what he termed Primitive Mahayana (genshi daijo) and EarlyMahayana (shoki daijo) on the basis of the presence or absenceof certain concepts and technical terms Unfortunately as far as Ican see he approached the problem purely impressionistically andwithout any rigorous method Moreover I have grave doubts about thepossibility of establishing even a relative chronology of this literaturepurely on the basis of internal evidence not to mention the backwardmethodology of such an approach Nevertheless careful reading ofShizutanirsquos study might yield valuable clues for future research

What I suggest instead in no way precludes taking into accountthe age or relative age of our sources it simply does not dependon such a determination The comprehensive comparison of multipleaspects of a large number of objects will allow us to see the multiplenatures of these objects their relative similarities and differences ina comparative light Let us again consider an example Individuals donot hold consistent sets of ideological or political viewpoints Not allvegetarians are opposed to the death penalty not all abortion rightsactivists oppose nuclear power and so on The complex make up ofideologies which characterizes any given population however canbe studied statistically It is a similar census which I suggest forthe population of ldquoBuddhismrdquo the objects constituting which includetexts art objects and so on

Once we reject the groundless assumption that Mahayana and non-Mahayana Buddhism are related in the fashion of cladistic classi ca-tion then we are freed to explore other dimensions of the de nitionsof Mahayana Buddhism We are enabled and empowered to think interms of degrees of similarity and relatedness rather than simply thedichotomy relatedunrelated This in turn enables us to think more u-idly about the ways in which for example a Mahayana Buddhist textmay borrow literary conceits of earlier literature or a mythologicalepisode while reformulating the doctrinal content of the episode Itgives us a tool to think about multiple ways that one and the sameobject might be used while the object itself remains essentially un-changed A stone image of Sakyamuni may have different meaningsin different ritual contexts just as a textual pericope may shift its


meaningmdashor we should better say have its meaning shiftedmdashby itschanging context Such an appreciation gives us good tools for re-thinking problems such as the ldquotransfer of meritrdquo or the ldquoperfectionsrdquoclaimed as characteristic of Mahayana Buddhism but found in non-Mahayana literature as well among a host of other possibilities

This also enables us to deal with the problem alluded to above thatvery obviously much of the literature commonly cited in discussionsof Mahayana Buddhism as that of ldquoSectarian Buddhismrdquo and surelynot rarely implied to represent some pre-Mahayana ideas in fact datesfrom a period after the rise of the Mahayana Buddhist movement Ifwe assume that Mahayana Buddhism arose in the rst century of theCommon Eramdasha reasonable dating which in reality we have very littleor no evidence to justifymdashand we simultaneously recognize that noChinese translation of Buddhist material predates that period that thePali canon was not written down before the fth century althoughits redaction clearly predates that time and so on we must cometo appreciate that even if we wish to be much more careful aboutour comparisons of Mahayana and pre-Mahayana materials than wehave been heretofore we will have a very tough time of it To thiswe add the problem of contamination If we revert to the previousassumption of a cladistic classi cation for a moment and borrowhere the model of the philologistsrsquo cladogram the stemma or treediagram he has borrowed from the biologist in the rst place we willhave to recognize that the history of Mahayana Buddhism re ectsa heavily cross-contaminated situation The materials to which weare comparing our extant Mahayana Buddhist literature may wellhave been written or revised in light of that very Mahayana Buddhistmaterial itself and vice versa ad in nitum Even theoretically thereis no way to produce a clean schematic of the relations in questionany more than it would be possible to clarify a mixture in a glass afterorange juice had been poured into soda that mix poured into coffeethen added back into the orange juice and so on The contamination

398 Jonathan A Silk

is complete its history irreversible79 This leaves us only with thepossibility of clarifying various aspects of the phenetic synchronicrelations between objects of our interest But this does not in any waymean that we are to ignore traditional information Yijingmdashand ofcourse he is not the only sourcemdashtells us that worship of bodhisattvasis de nitive of Mahayana Buddhism We need not take this even if heso intended it as a necessary and suf cient condition to accept it as onepoint in our data set one object which is to be brought into conjunctionwith others The same applies to the problem of the identi cation of agiven text as for example a Mahayana sutra Chinese sutra cataloguesdo not give us a de nitive answer but provide one feature to be takeninto account in the process of formulating a polythetic de nition Andso too for features such as the mention of emptiness bodhisattvasthe perfections and so on With such tools in hand we may be ableto approach anew the problem of the de nition and classi cation ofMahayana Buddhism

In conclusion let me explain what is behind the title of my paperwhich I confess to have borrowed from authors more clever thanI I was inspired in the rst place by the title of a paper by thepaleontologist and biologist Stephen J Gould ldquoWhat If Anything isa Zebrardquo Gould in turn had borrowed his title from a paper of AlbertE Wood ldquoWhat if Anything Is a Rabbitrdquo80 What Gould wondersis whether the various stripped horses actually make up a cladisticgroup If they do not then strictly and cladistically speaking there isno such thing as a zebra This line of thought got me thinking aboutMahayana Buddhism I rst thought I could ask ldquoWhat if anything isMahayana Buddhismrdquo because I wanted to know whether MahayanaBuddhism was cladistically related to non-Mahayana Buddhism Butwhat I have come to realize is that what we really want to know ishow to locate Mahayana with respect to Buddhism as a whole and as

79 Of course some history may be recoverable even from highly contaminated orhybridizedexamples Some of the processes which led to an extant complex state maybe tracablemdashbut not all

80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957


a part of that question we want to understand above all how objectsare de ned as ldquoMahayanardquo in the rst place But cladistics cannothelp us here Asking about the relation of Mahayana to Buddhism as awhole is closer to asking about the relation of the zebra to the categoryldquoanimalrdquo (or perhaps ldquomammalrdquo) The tools we must use to approachthe de nition and classi cation of Mahayana Buddhism are much lessrigid and dichotomous than cladistics much more uid variable and exible And so with an aesthetic reluctance but a methodologicalcon dence I concede that this incarnation of Gouldrsquos title does notproperly set the stage for the task facing us as we attempt to confrontthe problem of how to de ne Mahayana Buddhism But after allperhaps form may be permitted to trump content just this once As atitle ldquoThe De nition of Mahayana Buddhism as a Polythetic Categoryrdquoseems suf ciently anaemic to justify the poetic licence

UCLA JONATHAN A SILK

Department of East Asian Languages and CulturesBox 951540Los Angeles CA 90095ndash1540 USAsilkhumnetuclaedu

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D

1983 ldquoSociological Classi cation and Cluster Analysisrdquo Quality and Quantity17251ndash268

1994 Typologies and Taxonomies An Introduction to Classication Techniques(A Sage University Paper Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences102) Thousand Oaks London New Delhi Sage

Bareau Andreacute

1987 ldquoH otilde nayana Buddhismrdquo In Joseph M Kitagawa and Mark D Cummings(eds) Buddhism and Asian History Religion History and Culture Read-ings from The Encyclopedia of Religion New York Macmillan 195ndash214

Barth Auguste

1898 ldquoLe Pegravelerin Chinois I-Tsingrdquo Journal des Savants mai261ndash280juillet425ndash438 and septembre522ndash541 Rpt in Quarante ansdrsquoIndianisme Oeuvres de Auguste Barth 4 Comptes Rendus et Noti-

400 Jonathan A Silk

ces (1887ndash1898) Paris Ernest Leroux 1918 408ndash462 I refer to the reprintedition

Bechert Heinz

1964 ldquoZur Fruumlhgeschichte des Mahayana-Buddhismusrdquo Zeitschrift derDeutschen Morgenlaumlndischen Gesellschaft 113530ndash535

1973 ldquoNotes on the Formation of Buddhist Sects and the Origins of MahayanardquoIn German Scholars on India I Varanasi The Chowkhamba Sanskrit SeriesOf ce 6ndash18

1976 ldquoBuddha-Feld und Verdienstuumlbertragung Mahayana-Ideen im Theravada-Buddhismus CeylonsrdquoAcadeacutemie Royale de BelgiqueBulletinsde la Classedes Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques 5e seacuterie tome 6227ndash51

1977 ldquoMahayana Literature in Sri Lanka The Early Phaserdquo In Lewis Lancaster(ed) Prajntildeaparamita and Related Systems Studies in honor of EdwardConze (Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series 1) Berkeley Berkeley BuddhistStudies Series 361ndash368

1982 ldquoOn the Identi cation of Buddhist Schools in Early Sri Lankardquo In Guumlnther-Dietz Sontheimer and Parameswara Kota Aithal (eds) Indology and LawStudies in Honour of Professor J Duncan M Derrett (Beitraumlge zur Suumld-asienforschung Suumldasien-Institut Universitaumlt Heidelberg 77) WiesbadenFrank Steiner 60ndash76

1992 ldquoBuddha- eld and Transfer of Merit in a Theravada Sourcerdquo Indo-IranianJournal 3595ndash108

Berlin Brent and Paul Kay

1969 Basic Color Terms Their Universality and Evolution Berkeley Universityof California Press

Chavannes Emmanuel Eacutedouard

1894 Meacutemoire Composeacute agrave lrsquoEacutepoque de la Grande Dynastie Trsquoang sur lesReligieux Eacuteminents qui allegraverent chercher la Loi dans les Pays drsquoOccidentpar I-Tsing Paris Ernest Leroux

Chung Jin-il and Petra Kieffer-Puumllz

1997 ldquoThe karmavacanas for the determination of sotildema and ticotildevaren a avip-pavasardquo In Bhikkhu Pasadika and Bhikkhu Tampalawela Dhammaratana(eds) Dharmaduta Meacutelanges offerts au Veacuteneacuterable Thiacutech Huyecircn-Vi agravelrsquooccasion de son soixante-dixiegraveme anniversaire Paris Eacuteditions You Feng13ndash56

Cohen Richard S

1995 ldquoDiscontented Categories H otilde nayana and Mahayana in Indian BuddhistHistoryrdquo Journal of the American Academy of Religion 6311ndash25


Dutt Nalinaksha

1930 Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hotildenayana (CalcuttaOriental Series 23) London Luzac amp Co

1931 ldquoBodhisattva Pratimoksa Sutrardquo Indian Historical Quarterly 7259ndash286

Enomoto Fumio

2000 ldquolsquoMulasarvastivadinrsquo and lsquoSarvastivadinrdquorsquo In Christine Chojnacki Jens-Uwe Hartmann and Volker M Tschannerl (eds) Vividharatnakaran d akaFestgabe fuumlr Adelheid Mette (Indica et Tibetica 37) Swisttal-OdendorfIndica et Tibetica Verlag 239ndash250

Finot Louis

1901 Ras trapalaparipr ccha Sutra du Mahayana (Bibliotheca Buddhica II) StPetersburg Imperial Academy Rpt Indo-Iranian Reprints II The HagueMouton and Co 1957

Gordon Malcolm S

1999 ldquoThe Concept of Monophyly A Speculative Essayrdquo Biology and Philoso-phy 14331ndash348

Gould Stephen J

1983 ldquoWhat If Anything is a Zebrardquo In Henrsquos Teeth and Horsersquos Toes NewYork W W Norton amp Company 355ndash365

Harrison Paul Maxwell

1993 ldquoThe Earliest Chinese Translations of Mahayana Buddhist Sutras SomeNotes on the Works of Lokaksemardquo Buddhist StudiesReview 102135ndash177

Hirakawa Akira1954 ldquoDaijo Bukkyo no kyodanshiteki seikakurdquo In Miyamoto Shoson (ed)

Daijo Bukkyo no Seiritsushiteki Kenkyu Tokyo Sanseido 1954 447ndash482Rpt in Daijo Bukkyo no Kyori to Kyodan (Hirakawa Akira Chosakushu 5)Tokyo Shunjusha 1989 375ndash414 I refer to the reprint edition

1990 A History of Indian Buddhism From Sakyamuni to Early MahayanaTranslated and edited by Paul Groner (Asian Studies at Hawaii 36) HawaiiThe University of Hawaii Press

Hobogirin

1929ndash Dictionnaire Encyclopeacutedique du Bouddhisme drsquoapregraves les Sources Chi-noises et Japonaises Tokyo Maison Franco-Japonaise

Hoenigswald Henry M and Linda F Wiener

1987 Biological Metaphor and Cladistic Classication An InterdisciplinaryPerspective Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press

Kent Stephen A

1982 ldquoA Sectarian Interpretationof the Rise of Mahayanardquo Religion 12311ndash332

402 Jonathan A Silk

Kieffer-Puumllz Petra

1992 Die Sotildema Vorschriften zur Regelung der buddistischenGemeindegrenze inaumllteren buddhistischen Texten (Monographien zur indischen ArchaumlologieKunst und Philologie 8) Berlin Dietrich Reimer

Lamotte Eacutetienne Paul Marie

1954 ldquoSur la formationdu Mahayanardquo In JohanneseSchubert and Ulrich Schnei-der (eds) Asiatica Festschrift Friedrich Weller Leipzig Otto Harras-sowitz 377ndash396

1955 ldquoLe bouddhisme des Laiumlcsrdquo In Nagao Gajin and Nozawa Josho (eds)Yamaguchi Hakase Kanreki Kinen Indogaku Bukkyogaku Ronso Studiesin Indology and Buddhology Presented in Honour of Professor SusumuYamaguchi on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday Kyoto Hozokan 73ndash89

La Valleacutee Poussin Louis de

1909 ldquoNotes sur le Grand Veacutehiculerdquo Revue de lrsquoHistoire des Religions 59338ndash348

1925 ldquoNotes Bouddhiques VI sect3 Notes sur le chemin du Nirvan a Les FidegravelesLaiumlcs ou Upasakasrdquo Acadeacutemie Royale de Belgique Bulletins de la Classedes Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques 5e seacuterie tome 1115ndash34

1929 ldquoNotes Bouddhiques VII Le Vinaya et la Pureteacute drsquoIntentionrdquo and ldquoNoteAdditionnellerdquo Acadeacutemie Royale de Belgique Bulletins de la Classe desLettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques 5e seacuterie tome 15201ndash217and 233ndash234

1930 ldquoNotes Bouddhiques XVIII Opinions sur les Relations des deux Veacutehiculesau point de vue du Vinayardquo Acadeacutemie Royale de Belgique Bulletins dela Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques 5e seacuterie tome1620ndash39

Leacutevi Sylvain

1907 Mahayana-Sutrala Ccedilmkara Exposeacute de la Doctrine du Grand Veacutehicule Selonle Systeacuteme Yogacara Tome I Texte (Bibliothegraveque de lrsquoEacutecole des HautesEacutetudes Sciences Historiques et Philologiques 159) Paris Librairie HonoreacuteChampion Rpt Kyoto Rinsen Book Company 1983

Maeda Eun1903 Daijo Bukkyo Shiron Tokyo Bunmeido

Mase eld Peter

1986 Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism Colombo The Sri Lanka Institute ofTraditional Studies London George Allen amp Unwin

Matsumura Hisashi

1990 ldquoMiscellaneous Notes on the Upalipariprccha and Related Textsrdquo ActaOrientalia 5161ndash113


Mochizuki Ryoko

1988 Daijo Nehangyo no Kenkyu Tokyo ShunjushaMochizuki Shinko

1932ndash1936 Bukkyo Daijiten Tokyo Sekai Seiten Kanko KyokaiMonier-WilliamsMonier

1899 A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and PhilologicallyArranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European LanguagesOxford The Clarendon Press

Nakamura Hajime

1981 Bukkyogo Daijiten Tokyo Tokyo ShosekiNeedham Rodney

1975 ldquoPolythetic Classi cation Convergence and Consequencesrdquo Man103349ndash369

Njammasch Marlene

1974 ldquoDer navakammika und seine Stellung in der Hierarchie der buddhistischenKloumlsterrdquo AltorientalischeForschungen 1279ndash293

Oda Tokuno1917 Bukkyo Daijiten New corrected ed Tokyo Daizo shuppan 1974

Przyluski Jean

1926ndash1928 Le Council de Rajagr ha Introductionagrave lrsquoHistoire des Canons et desSectes Bouddhiques (Buddhica Premiegravere seacuterie Meacutemoires tome 2) ParisLibrairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner

Rhys Davids Thomas William

1908 ldquoSects (Buddhist)rdquo In James Hastings (ed) The Encyclopedia of Religionand Ethics (New York Charles Scribnerrsquos Sons) 11307ndash309

Robinson Richard

1965ndash1966 ldquoThe Ethic of the Householder Bodhisattvardquo Bharatotilde Bulletin of theCollege of Indology 9225ndash56

Ryukoku Daigaku

1914ndash1922 Bukkyo Daijii Rpt Tokyo Fuzambo 1940Sasaki Shizuka

1991 ldquoBiku to gigakurdquo [Monastic worship of stupas with music and dance invinaya texts] Bukkyo Shigaku Kenkyu 3411ndash24

1992 ldquoBuddhist Sects in the Asoka Period (2) Sa Ccedilmghabheda (1)rdquo BukkyoKenkyu 21157ndash176


1997 ldquoA Study on the Origin of Mahayana Buddhismrdquo The Eastern Buddhist30179ndash113

404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory

1979 ldquoMahayana in Indian Inscriptionsrdquo Indo-IranianJournal 211ndash19

1985 ldquoTwo Problems in the History of Indian Buddhism The Layman MonkDistinction and the Doctrines of the Transference of Meritrdquo Studien zurIndologie und Iranistik 109ndash47

1991 ldquoMonks and the Relic Cult in the Mahaparinibbanasutta An Old Mis-understanding in Regard to Monastic Buddhismrdquo In Koichi Shinohara andGregory Schopen (eds) From Benares to Beijing Essays on Buddhism andChinese Religion in Honour of Prof Jan Yuumln-hua Oakville Canada Mo-saic Press 187ndash201

Shimoda Masahiro1991 ldquoGenshi Nehangyo no sonzai Daijo Nehangyo no seiritsushiteki kenkyu

sono ichirdquo [The Urtext of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvan a-sutra] ToyoBunka Kenkyujo Kiyo 1031ndash126

Shizutani Masao1974 Shoki Daijo Bukkyo no Seiritsu Katei Kyoto Hyakkaen

Silk Jonathan A

Forthcoming ldquoConservative Attitudes Toward Practice in Early Mahayana Bud-dhismrdquo

Takakusu Junjiro

1896 A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in Indian and the MalayArchipelago (AD 671ndash695) by I-Tsing Oxford The Clarendon Press

Tomomatsu Entai1932 Bukkyo Keizai Shiso Kenkyu Indo kodai bukkyo jiin shoyu ni kansuru

gakusetsu Tokyo Toho shoin

van der Leeuw Gerardus

1938 Religion in Essence and Manifestation Rpt New York Harper Torch-books 1963

Varela Francisco J Evan Thompson and Eleanor Rosch

1996 The Embodied Mind Cognitive Science and Human Experience Cam-bridge Mass The MIT Press

Wilson Bryan and Karel Dobbelaere

1994 A Time to Chant The Soka Gakkai Buddhists in Britain Oxford ClarendonPress

WittgensteinLudwig

1958 Philosophische Untersuchungen Philosophical Investigations TransGEM Anscombe 3rd ed New York Macmillan


Wogihara Unrai

1936 Bodhisattvabhumi A Statement of [the] Whole Course of the Bodhisattva(Being [the] Fifteenth Section of [the] Yogacarabhumi) Rpt TokyoSankibo Buddhist Bookstore 1971

Wood Albert E

1957 ldquoWhat if Anything Is a Rabbitrdquo Evolution 114417ndash425

356 Jonathan A Silk

The identity and the status of Mahayana Buddhism are points verymuch in question and it is virtually self-evident that communica-tion concerning Mahayana Buddhism occasions many disagreementsTherefore the need for the de nition and classi cation of MahayanaBuddhism is obvious But how we should approach such de nitionand classi cation is somewhat less plain For it is basically true thatin order to de ne an object one must have some fundamental sense ofwhat it is I cannot know that my de nition of apples must accommo-date MacIntosh Red Delicious and Fuji but not navel oranges unlessI know beforehand that the former are apples and the latter is not Andyet this process must be more than circular I must be able to re nemy understanding and my de nition to correct misclassi cations oreven alter entirely the basis of the classi catory scheme as my famil-iarity with my object of study grows How this process may begin inthe rst place is a question primarily for cognitive scientists and neednot concern us here We may accept as an irreducible given that anobject of study exists which has been labeled ldquoMahayana Buddhismrdquoand that certain senses of its de nition and classi cation are and havebeen held by students of this object We may therefore fruitfully beginby examining some of these ideas1

An apparently fundamental presupposition in at least most of theconceptualizations of Mahayana Buddhism so far is that it is onepole of a binary set that is it is seen in opposition to somethingelse some other form of Buddhism The question then arises howthe two are related Depending on who is talking the opposite polemay sometimes or even usually be called ldquoH otilde nayanardquo or by thosewith somewhat more historical awareness denoted by such namesas Sectarian Buddhism Nikaya Buddhism Conservative BuddhismSravakayana and recently Mainstream Buddhism (or similar terms inother languages) Whatever the names used the conceptualization is

1 One of the terminological issues that might be addressed is whether we aim attypology or taxonomy the former is conceptual and qualitative the latter empiricaland quantitativeI think we will see below that ultimatelywhat we seek is a taxonomySee Bailey 19946ndash7






358 Jonathan A Silk





3








360 Jonathan A Silk















362 Jonathan A Silk













364 Jonathan A Silk
















366 Jonathan A Silk















368 Jonathan A Silk













370 Jonathan A Silk









372 Jonathan A Silk











374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E







358 Jonathan A Silk





3








360 Jonathan A Silk















362 Jonathan A Silk













364 Jonathan A Silk
















366 Jonathan A Silk















368 Jonathan A Silk













370 Jonathan A Silk









372 Jonathan A Silk











374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


358 Jonathan A Silk





3








360 Jonathan A Silk















362 Jonathan A Silk













364 Jonathan A Silk
















366 Jonathan A Silk















368 Jonathan A Silk













370 Jonathan A Silk









372 Jonathan A Silk











374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E







360 Jonathan A Silk















362 Jonathan A Silk













364 Jonathan A Silk
















366 Jonathan A Silk















368 Jonathan A Silk













370 Jonathan A Silk









372 Jonathan A Silk











374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


360 Jonathan A Silk















362 Jonathan A Silk













364 Jonathan A Silk
















366 Jonathan A Silk















368 Jonathan A Silk













370 Jonathan A Silk









372 Jonathan A Silk











374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E









362 Jonathan A Silk













364 Jonathan A Silk
















366 Jonathan A Silk















368 Jonathan A Silk













370 Jonathan A Silk









372 Jonathan A Silk











374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


362 Jonathan A Silk













364 Jonathan A Silk
















366 Jonathan A Silk















368 Jonathan A Silk













370 Jonathan A Silk









372 Jonathan A Silk











374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E








364 Jonathan A Silk
















366 Jonathan A Silk















368 Jonathan A Silk













370 Jonathan A Silk









372 Jonathan A Silk











374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


364 Jonathan A Silk
















366 Jonathan A Silk















368 Jonathan A Silk













370 Jonathan A Silk









372 Jonathan A Silk











374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E










366 Jonathan A Silk















368 Jonathan A Silk













370 Jonathan A Silk









372 Jonathan A Silk











374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


366 Jonathan A Silk















368 Jonathan A Silk













370 Jonathan A Silk









372 Jonathan A Silk











374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E









368 Jonathan A Silk













370 Jonathan A Silk









372 Jonathan A Silk











374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


368 Jonathan A Silk













370 Jonathan A Silk









372 Jonathan A Silk











374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E








370 Jonathan A Silk









372 Jonathan A Silk











374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


370 Jonathan A Silk









372 Jonathan A Silk











374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E






372 Jonathan A Silk











374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


372 Jonathan A Silk











374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E








374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


374 Jonathan A Silk








43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E







43 Maeda 1903

376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


376 Jonathan A Silk





45 Sasaki 1992 1993








378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E









378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


378 Jonathan A Silk











380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E








380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


380 Jonathan A Silk













382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E










382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


382 Jonathan A Silk









384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E







384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


384 Jonathan A Silk












386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E







386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


386 Jonathan A Silk









Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E





Individuals


B B BC C C

D D DF FG GH H



66 Needham 1975357

388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


388 Jonathan A Silk





68 Needham 1975364





390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E






390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


390 Jonathan A Silk














75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E









75 Cf Gould 1983357

392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


392 Jonathan A Silk







394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E




394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


394 Jonathan A Silk










396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E








396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


396 Jonathan A Silk







398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E





398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


398 Jonathan A Silk




80 Gould 1983 Wood 1957





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E






BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey Kenneth D



Bareau Andreacute


Barth Auguste


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


400 Jonathan A Silk


Bechert Heinz













Cohen Richard S



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E



Dutt Nalinaksha



Enomoto Fumio


Finot Louis


Gordon Malcolm S


Gould Stephen J







Hobogirin




Kent Stephen A


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


402 Jonathan A Silk











Leacutevi Sylvain



Mase eld Peter


Matsumura Hisashi



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E



Mochizuki Ryoko




Nakamura Hajime



Njammasch Marlene



Przyluski Jean




Robinson Richard


Ryukoku Daigaku






404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


404 Jonathan A Silk

Schopen Gregory







Silk Jonathan A


Takakusu Junjiro










WittgensteinLudwig



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E



Wogihara Unrai


Wood Albert E


Documents

WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS MAHAYANA BUDDHISM? PROBLEMS …buddhismandsocialjustice.com/SILK/Silk_what if anything is Mahayana... · PROBLEMS OF DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS JONATHANA.SILK