Was the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā compiled in Gandhāra in Gāndhārī?

Abstract

Each Mahāyāna scripture must have its own complex background and history. Probably, many of the early ones were originally transmitted in Middle Indic or in a mixed language of Middle Indic with Sanskrit elements, and later “translated” gradually into (Buddhist) Sanskrit. This long cherished hypothesis has been proven by newly-discovered fragments of a Gāndhārī version of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā (Falk/Karashima, 2012, 2013), dating back with an 81.1% probability, based on a C14 test, to between 47~147 CE. Even the oldest Sanskrit Buddhist texts, representing the form in which we usually have access to them, are, in other words, the result of constant sanskritisation, wrong back-formations, reductions, additions and interpolations over the centuries. This means that when we attempt to understand early Mahāyāna scriptures properly so as to draw nearer to their original features or trace their transmission, if we restrict ourselves only to extant Sanskrit manuscripts, most of which date from the eleventh century onwards, an acceptance of the form in which they have come to us very much limits our historical awareness. In addition to Sanskrit texts, we should investigate all other available materials in order to flesh out this history. The Chinese translations, particularly those which were made between the second and the sixth century, thus antedating most of the extant Sanskrit manuscripts, are indispensable sources as, in most cases, the exact periods of their translations are known. Apart from these Chinese translations, old Sanskrit and Gāndhārī fragments, discovered in Central Asia and “Greater Gandhāra” (present-day Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan), Khotanese texts, Tibetan translations and so on, may provide substantial clues to trace the origination, development and alternation of Buddhist scriptures. Especially the Gāndhārī manuscripts of Mahāyāna scriptures, dating even back to the first century, which have been discovered in recent years, may change our “common sense” concerning Mahāyāna Buddhism. In addition to written evidence, we should also pay attention to the results of research conducted on archaeological and art historical materials. By doing all this, we might be able to attain new perspectives on early Mahāyāna scriptures and hence, reconsider what we have understood through “eyeglasses”, called common sense, by removing them and looking anew at primary materials. In this way, we may be able to draw nearer to the original features of early Mahāyāna scriptures.