Property:TileDescription
From Bodhicitta
This is a property of type Text.
B
A critical Sanskrit edition of the ''Bhaiṣajyagurusūtra'', edited by F. Hassnain and T. Sumi, with introduction and commentary in English. +
This is a critical Sanskrit edition of the ''Bhaiṣajyaguruvaiḍūryaprabhasya pūrvapraṇidhānaviśeṣavistarasūtra'', edited by Nalinaksha Dutt et al., published in 1939. +
A critical Sanskrit edition of the ''Bhaiṣajyaguruvaiḍūryaprabhasya pūrvapraṇidhānaviśeṣavistarasūtra'', edited by P. L. Vaidya in the book ''Mahāyāna-Sūtra-Saṁgraha'', Part 1. Published by The Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning, 1961. +
A facsimile edition of the manuscript of the ''Bhaiṣajyaguruvaiḍūryaprabhasya pūrvapraṇidhānaviśeṣavistarasūtra'', by Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra. Contains English introduction. +
The ''Bhikṣuprakīrṇaka'' ("Miscellany Concerning Monks") is a lost Mahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravādin Vinaya text, known directly only through a fragmentary Sanskrit citation preserved in Śāntideva's ''Śikṣāsamuccaya'' (Ch. 7, ed. Bendall 154.17–155.3). The cited passage recounts the Buddha instructing Ānanda to wash the soiled robes of a sick monk, illustrating the duty of monks to care for one another. Parallel accounts of the same episode survive independently in the Chinese Mahāsāṃghika-Vinaya (Taishō 1425) and the Pāli Mahāvagga (VIII.26.2), though neither is a direct witness to the ''Bhikṣuprakīrṇaka'' itself. A companion text for nuns, the ''Bhikṣuṇīprakīrṇaka'', survives in abridged form (headings only) within a Sanskrit manuscript of the Bhikṣuṇī-Vinaya recovered from Tibet, edited by Gustav Roth (1970); no comparably abridged or complete witness of the ''Bhikṣuprakīrṇaka'' itself has been identified. Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana reported deciphering a fuller manuscript of the ''Bhikṣuprakīrṇaka'' among materials he photographed in Tibet (c. 1954), but this has not been traced or published since. +
The present manuscript Bhikṣuṇī-Vinaya is a part of the Code of Disciplines of the Mahāsāṁghika-Lokottaravādin. Mahāsāṁghika-Lokottaravādin were an ancient Buddhist school which originated either in the reign of Kālāśoka in the first half of the 4th Century B.C. or in that of Aśoka in the 3rd Century B.C. Dr. Roth thinks that the Vinaya of the Mahāsāṁghika-Lokottaravādins may have been composed in the 3rd or 2nd Century B.C. What is more significant is that our manuscript is the only surviving purely Indian version of it. (Sinha, introduction) +
The ''Bhāvanākrama'' trilogy, composed by the eighth-century Indian Buddhist scholar Kamalaśīla, is a systematic presentation of graduated meditation practice. These three interconnected texts articulate a comprehensive path integrating compassion cultivation, bodhicitta development, and the conjunction of meditative calm (''śamatha'') with analytical insight (''vipaśyanā''). Composed around 792–794 CE in Tibet, the texts address debates between gradualist Indian and subitist Chinese Chan approaches to awakening, establishing a causal framework where correct conceptual understanding precedes and produces nonconceptual direct realization. While no Sanskrit manuscript of the Second Bhāvanākrama survives, partial Sanskrit manuscripts of the First and Third exist, though both are damaged. The Tibetan translations have been preserved with remarkable fidelity across the Derge, Peking, Narthang, and Chone editions. The trilogy achieved canonical status across all major Tibetan Buddhist schools, shaping meditation curricula, philosophical debate, and contemplative practice for over twelve centuries.
(See also: "Bhāvanākrama." In ''The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism'', 112-13. Princeton University Press, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n41q.27.)
:''Bhāvanākrama''. (T. ''Sgom rim''). In Sanskrit, "Stages of Meditation," the title of three separate but related works by the late eighth century Indian master Kamalaśīla (RKTST 4228, RKTST 4229, and RKTST 4230). During the reign of the Tibetan king Khri srong lde btsan at the end of the eighth century, there were two Buddhist factions at court, a Chinese faction led by the Northern Chan (Bei zong) monk Heshang Moheyan (Mahāyāna) and an Indian faction of the recently deceased Śāntarakṣita, who with the king and Padmasambhava had founded the first Tibetan monastery at Bsam yas (Samye). According to traditional accounts, Śāntarakṣita foretold of dangers and left instructions in his will that his student Kamalaśīla should be summoned from India. A conflict seems to have developed between the Indian and Chinese partisans (and their allies in the Tibetan court) over the question of the nature of enlightenment, with the Indians holding that enlightenment takes place as the culmination of a gradual process of purification, the result of perfecting morality (''śīla''), concentration (''samādhi''), and wisdom (''prajñā''). The Chinese spoke against this view, holding that enlightenment was the intrinsic nature of the mind rather than the goal of a protracted path, such that one need simply to recognize the presence of this innate nature of enlightenment by entering a state of awareness beyond distinctions; all other practices were superfluous. According to both Chinese and Tibetan records, a debate was held between Kamalaśīla and Moheyan at Bsam yas, circa 797, with the king himself serving as judge. According to Tibetan reports (contradicted by the Chinese accounts), Kamalaśīla was declared the winner and Moheyan and his party banished from Tibet, with the king proclaiming that thereafter the Madhyamaka school of Indian Buddhist philosophy (to which Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla belonged) would have pride of place in Tibet. According to Tibetan accounts, after the conclusion of the debate, the king requested that Kamalaśīla compose works that presented his view, and in response, Kamalaśīla composed the three ''Bhāvanākrama''. There is considerable overlap among the three works. All three are germane to the issues raised in the debate, although whether all three were composed in Tibet is not established with certainty; only the third, and briefest of the three, directly considers, and refutes, the view of "no mental activity" (''amanasikāra'', cf. ''wunian''), which is associated with Moheyan. The three texts set forth the process for the potential bodhisattva to cultivate bodhicitta and then develop ''śamatha'' and ''vipaśyanā'' and progress through the bodhisattva stages (''bhūmi'') to buddhahood. The cultivation of vipaśyanā requires the use of both scripture (''āgama'') and reasoning (yukti) to understand emptiness (''śūnyatā''); in the first ''Bhāvanākrama'', Kamalaśīla sets forth the three forms of wisdom (''prajñā''): the wisdom derived from leaming (''śrutamayīprajñā''), the wisdom derived from reflection (''cintāmayīprajñā''), and the wisdom derived from cultivation (''bhāvanāmayīprajñā''), explaining that the last of these gradually destroys the afflictive obstructions (''kleśāvaraṇa'') and the obstructions to omniscience (''jñeyāvaraṇa''). The second ''Bhāvanākrama'' considers many of these same topics, stressing that the achievement of the fruition of buddhahood requires the necessary causes, in the form of the collection of merit (''puṇyasaṃbhāra'') and the collection of wisdom (''jñānasaṇbhāra''). Both the first and second works espouse the doctrine of mind only (''cittamātra''); it is on the basis of these and other statements that Tibetan doxographers classified Kamalaśīla as a Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Madhyamaka. The third and briefest of the ''Bhāvanākrama'' is devoted especially to the topics of ''śamatha'' and ''vipaśyanā'', how each is cultivated, and how they are ultimately unified. Kamalaśīla argues that analysis (''vicāra'') into the lack of self (''ātman'') in both persons (''pudgala'') and phenomena (''dharma'') is required to arrive at a nonconceptual state of awareness. The three texts are widely cited in later Tibetan Buddhist literature, especially on the process for developing ''śamatha'' and ''vipaśyanā''.
Read the full text of this work here on our website. +
Kamalaśīla is one of those distinguished acharyas who went to Tibet from India, stayed there and wrote scholarly treatises on Buddha dharma. The present work is the first-ever English rendering from original Sanskrit, suggested by the Dalai Lama. [https://www.amazon.com/Bhavanakrama-Kamalasila-Parmanad-Sharma/dp/8186471154/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Bh%C4%81van%C4%81krama+of+Kamala%C5%9Bila&qid=1589774008&sr=8-1 Amazon.com] +
[I]n the first ''Bhāvanākrama'', Kamalaśīla sets forth the three forms of wisdom (prajñā): the wisdom derived from learning (śrutamayīprajñā), the wisdom derived from reflection (cintāmayīprajñā), and the wisdom derived from cultivation (bhāvanāmayīprajñā), explaining that the last of these gradually destroys the afflictive obstructions (kleśāvaraṇa) and the obstructions to omniscience (jñeyāvaraṇa). (Source: "Bhāvanākrama." In ''The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism'', 113. Princeton University Press, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n41q.27.) +
Read the full text of this work here on our website. +
The second ''Bhāvanākrama'' considers many of [the] same topics [as the first], stressing that the achievement of the fruition of buddhahood requires the necessary causes, in the form of the collection of merit (puṇyasaṃbhāra) and the collection of wisdom (''jñānasaṃbhāra''). Both the first and second works espouse the doctrine of mind only (''cittamātra''); it is on the basis of these and other statements that Tibetan doxographers classified Kamalaśīla as a Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Madhyamaka. (Source: "Bhāvanākrama." In ''The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism'', 112–13. Princeton University Press, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n41q.27.) +
Read the full text of this work here on our website. +
The third and briefest of the ''Bhāvanākrama'' is devoted especially to the topics of śamatha and vipaśyanā, how each is cultivated, and how they are ultimately unified. Kamalaśīla argues that analysis (vicāra) into the lack of self (ātman) in both persons (pudgala) and phenomena (dharma) is required to arrive at a nonconceptual state of awareness. The three texts are widely cited in later Tibetan Buddhist literature, especially on the process for developing śamatha and vipaśyanā. (Source: "Bhāvanākrama." In ''The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism'', 112–13. Princeton University Press, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n41q.27.) +
Read the full text of this work here on our website. +
This is a scholarly introduction and biographical essay about E.E. Obermiller (1901-1935) and his work on a Sanskrit manuscript from Tibet. The document consists of two main parts:
1. Biography of E.E. Obermiller (by E.N. Pishcheramov and E.N. Telkin)<br>
This section details the life of Obermiller, a brilliant Russian scholar of Buddhism and Tibetan literature. Despite suffering from a progressive illness that left him paralyzed and bedridden, he produced an impressive body of scholarly work between 1927-1935, including 19 published works and 11 manuscripts prepared for publication. He became one of the foremost experts on Indo-Tibetan Buddhist literature, working under the renowned academician F.I. Shcherbatskoy. Obermiller made multiple difficult journeys to Buryatia to study Buddhist texts in monasteries, and was honored as a member of the Greater India Society before his premature death at age 34.
2. Introduction to the Bhavanakrama Manuscript<br>
This section discusses a Sanskrit manuscript of Kamalaśīla's ''Bhāvanākrama'' (''Stages of Meditation'') held in the Leningrad Museum. The text describes a famous 8th-century debate in Tibet between two Buddhist factions during King Khri-srong-lde-btsan's reign: one following Śāntarakṣita's gradual path combining meditation with philosophical analysis, and another following Mahayānadeva's doctrine of sudden quietism (complete cessation of thought). Kamalaśīla defeated Mahayānadeva in this debate, which established the Madhyamika-Paramita tradition as orthodox in Tibet. The manuscript is the source text that Bu ston used in his ''History of Buddhism'' when describing this pivotal debate. (Description generated by Claude Oct 14, 2025) +
The 2020 edition of ''Bhāvanākramaḥ of Ācārya Kamalaśīla'' is the 3rd edition published by the Central University of Tibetan Studies (formerly Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies) in Sarnath, India.
The earlier 1984 edition by Namdol has been widely used by scholars - it served as the basis for digital editions used in projects like the Sanskrit Buddhist Input Project. This 3rd edition is particularly valuable because it presents: a critically edited Tibetan version; a Sanskrit restoration (since some Sanskrit texts survive primarily through Tibetan translations); and a Hindi translation. This edition has been supervised by Ram Shankar Tripathi. +
Bhāviveka (ca. 500–560 CE) lived at a time of unusual creativity and ferment in the history of Indian Buddhist philosophy. The Mahayana movement was emerging as a vigorous and self-conscious intellectual force, while the earlier traditions of the eighteen "schools" (''nikaya'') resisted the authority of the Mahayana and continued to elaborate the fundamental concepts of Buddhist thought.
Bhāviveka’s "Verses on the Heart of the Middle Way" (''Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā'') with their commentary, known as "The Flame of Reason" (''Tarkajvālā''), give a unique and authoritative account of the intellectual differences that stirred the Buddhist community in this creative period.
''Bhāviveka and His Buddhist Opponents'' gives a clear and accessible translation of Chapters 4 and 5 of this text: the chapters on the Śrāvakas, or eighteen schools, and the Yogācāra, Bhāviveka’s most important Mahayana opponents. The translation is introduced by an essay that situates Bhāviveka in the intellectual context of sixth-century India, and it is accompanied by copious notes, commenting on Bhāviveka’s sources and explaining his controversial method. The book also contains a critical edition of the Sanskrit text of Bhāviveka’s verses and the Tibetan translation of the verses and commentary. (Source: [https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674032743 Harvard University Press]) +
Whether or not the Buddha really died from eating a rotten pork dish, it appears certain that, during the earliest period of the Buddhist tradition in India, meat was not comprehensively prohibited for ordained monks and nuns. Certain restrictions were applied in their partaking of meat, but the Buddhist canon unambiguously records that the Buddha refused to adopt vegetarianism when it was proposed by his cousin, or the saṅgha-splitter, Devadatta. The most commonly cited permission for meat-eating for the ordained is epitomized in the concept of "pure in three aspects" (''trikoṭiśuddha'') according to which a Buddhist monk or nun can eat donated meat unless she or he has directly seen, heard, or suspected that an animal was killed specifically for his or her own sake. This conditional allowance of a meat diet came to be completely banned, however, in several Mahāyāna sūtras that appeared in the first half of the first millennium, including most famously, the ''Laṅkāvatāra''.
Nearly all of the Indic materials that record discussions of meat-eating are canonical, that is, believed to have been spoken by the Buddha himself and therefore of a prescriptive nature. The one exception is the anti-vegetarian polemic that consists of seven verses accompanied by auto-commentary in the ninth Mīmāṃsā chapter of the ''Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā'' composed by the sixth-century Madhyamaka scholar, Bhāviveka (500-570 CE). This text is noteworthy because it documents an active defense of a Buddhist meat diet against others' censure. However, while he refutes his non-Buddhist opponent's claims, Bhāviveka eventually contradicts a pro-vegetarian Mahāyāna sūtra, the ''Laṅkāvatāra''. This paper argues that Bhāviveka's anti-vegetarian discourse cannot avoid being read as a critique, even though he did not intend for it to be so.
Read this article [https://journal.kabs.re.kr/articles/article/bqJM/ here]. +
This article explores Śāntideva's argument for eschewing anger. The author explores Śāntideva's reasoning, asserting that Śāntideva's argument is best read as practical advice. +
