Chapter 11: Kings, Councils, and Control

This chapter is part of the book The Sacred Editors: Buddhism.

View the entire book

Buy on Amazon

Political Power and Sacred Texts

"When kings take an interest in scripture, the Buddha's words may be heard louder—but not always more clearly."

The monsoon rains had ended, and the palm groves around Aluvihāra in central Sri Lanka rustled with unusual activity. In the first century BCE, according to the Mahāvaṃsa chronicle, King Vaṭṭagāmaṇi Abhaya had returned from fourteen years of exile to find his kingdom devastated by famine and foreign invasion. But his first concern was not rebuilding palaces or armies—it was preserving the Dharma. For four centuries, the Pāli Canon had lived only in the memories of monks, passed down through oral recitation from teacher to student. Now, with so many learned elders dead from starvation and warfare, that precious inheritance seemed perilously close to extinction.

The king summoned five hundred monks to Aluvihāra and issued an unprecedented decree: the words of the Buddha would be written down for the first time. Under royal patronage, scribes prepared palm leaves, sharpened iron styluses, and began the monumental task of transcribing what had previously existed only in human memory. As the monks recited passages from the Vinaya, Sutta, and Abhidhamma piṭakas, scribes carefully inscribed each word into the prepared leaves, creating permanent records that would outlast any individual memory.¹

Yet this moment of preservation carried profound implications that the participants may not have fully grasped. By commissioning the first written version of the Pāli Canon, King Vaṭṭagāmaṇi was not merely preserving ancient teachings—he was fundamentally altering their nature. Oral traditions possess fluidity; they adapt naturally to changing circumstances and audiences. Written texts, by contrast, become fixed in particular forms, their authority now tied to specific words in specific sequences. Moreover, the very act of royal sponsorship established a precedent that would echo throughout Buddhist history: political authority could serve as theological arbiter, determining not only which texts deserved preservation but also which versions would be considered authentic.

This intersection of political power and scriptural authority represents one of the most significant yet underexamined dynamics in Buddhist textual history. From Emperor Aśoka's promotion of particular Buddhist values to the Tang dynasty's systematic cataloging of authentic versus spurious sutras, rulers throughout Asia have played crucial roles in shaping which Buddhist teachings survived, how they were interpreted, and which communities would be granted authority to preserve them. Understanding this political dimension of canonical formation reveals how deeply intertwined religious and temporal power have always been in Buddhist societies.

The Emperor as Editor: Aśoka and the Precedent of Royal Intervention

The relationship between Buddhist scripture and political authority begins with the most famous royal patron in Buddhist history. Emperor Aśoka (r. ca. 268-232 BCE) did not simply support Buddhism—he actively shaped its development through edicts, councils, and institutional reforms that established enduring patterns for how rulers would engage with Buddhist textual traditions.

Aśoka's rock and pillar edicts, carved throughout his vast empire, represent the earliest datable Buddhist literature, predating the written versions of most canonical texts by centuries. These inscriptions reveal a ruler who saw himself not merely as Buddhism's protector but as its interpreter. In the Bairāṭ Edict, Aśoka addresses the monastic community directly, recommending specific texts for study and reflection: "These Dhamma texts—Vinaya-samukase, Aliya-vasani, Anagata-bhayani, Muni-gatha, Moneyya-sute, Upatisa-pasine, Laghulovada—I desire that many monks and nuns may constantly listen to these and reflect on them."²

This recommendation carries enormous historical significance. Here was an emperor not merely supporting monastic education but actively curating which teachings deserved emphasis. While scholars debate the precise identification of these texts, the broader implication is clear: Aśoka claimed authority to distinguish essential Buddhist teachings from those of lesser importance. This represented a fundamental shift from viewing royal authority as external supporter of the saṅgha to understanding it as internal participant in defining authentic Dharma.

The Third Buddhist Council, allegedly convened by Aśoka at Pāṭaliputra under the presidency of Moggaliputta-tissa, established an even more direct precedent for royal involvement in canonical formation. According to Theravāda accounts preserved in the Mahāvaṃsa and Dīpavaṃsa, this council addressed widespread infiltration of the saṅgha by non-Buddhists seeking to benefit from royal patronage. The assembly reportedly examined the credentials of all monks, expelled those found lacking, and established clear criteria for authentic Buddhist teaching.³

Whether these accounts preserve accurate historical details remains disputed among scholars, but their significance for later Buddhist development cannot be overstated. The idea that royal authority could convene councils to determine doctrinal orthodoxy, expel heterodox teachers, and establish canonical boundaries became a template that rulers throughout Asia would follow for the next two millennia. Even more significantly, these precedents established the principle that preserving authentic Dharma might require active intervention rather than passive support.

Imperial Canonization: Chinese State Sponsorship and Textual Control

The most systematic examples of royal editorial control emerged in China, where imperial bureaucracy and Confucian scholarly traditions provided both the motivation and the mechanisms for comprehensive textual management. From the Northern Wei dynasty (386-534 CE) through the Song (960-1279 CE), Chinese emperors treated Buddhist canonical formation as a matter of state policy, creating elaborate systems for determining textual authenticity, regulating translation projects, and controlling which texts could be copied or circulated.

The Kaiyuan Shijiao Lu (Kaiyuan Era Catalog of Buddhist Teachings), compiled under imperial sponsorship in 730 CE, represents perhaps the most ambitious attempt in history to systematically catalog and evaluate Buddhist literature. This massive bibliographical project, overseen by the monk Zhisheng but authorized by Emperor Xuanzong, examined over 5,000 Buddhist texts and classified them into detailed categories: authentic translations, spurious compositions, texts lost but historically attested, and works of questionable provenance.⁴

The Kaiyuan catalog was not merely descriptive but prescriptive. Texts classified as "spurious" (wei 偽) were effectively banned from official circulation, while those deemed authentic gained imperial sanction for copying and study. This created a system of state-sponsored canonicity that determined which Buddhist teachings would be available to Chinese practitioners for centuries. The catalog's influence extended far beyond China—Korean, Japanese, and Vietnamese Buddhist collections were organized according to its classifications, spreading Chinese imperial editorial decisions throughout East Asia.

The mechanisms of imperial control extended beyond mere cataloging to active oversight of translation projects. The translation workshops established at major temples like Da Ci'en operated under official supervision, with court-appointed administrators monitoring which texts were selected for translation and reviewing the accuracy of completed work. When the monk Xuanzang returned from his seventeen-year journey to India with 657 Buddhist texts, Emperor Taizong not only provided resources for translation but also influenced which texts received priority treatment.⁵

This imperial involvement was not merely administrative but reflected genuine theological concerns. Chinese emperors, influenced by Confucian ideals of textual authenticity and governmental responsibility for moral instruction, believed they had obligations to ensure that Buddhist teachings reaching their subjects were both accurate and beneficial. The Tang emperor Wuzong's persecution of Buddhism (841-845 CE) targeted not only monastic institutions but also Buddhist texts, ordering the destruction of sutras and commentaries deemed dangerous to state interests.⁶

Korean and Tibetan Models: Canon as National Project

The influence of Chinese approaches to canonical control extended throughout East and Central Asia, but local adaptations reflected distinctive political and cultural circumstances. The Korean Goryeo dynasty's creation of the Tripiṭaka Koreana represents perhaps the most spectacular example of treating canonical formation as a national undertaking with explicit political objectives.

Begun in 1011 CE and completed in 1087 CE, the first Goryeo Tripiṭaka was conceived as both spiritual practice and military defense. King Hyeonjong initiated the project in response to Khitan invasions, hoping that the merit generated by preserving the complete Buddhist canon would provide divine protection for his kingdom. When Mongol invasions destroyed the original printing blocks in 1232, King Gojong immediately ordered the creation of a new edition, which ultimately required 81,258 wooden printing blocks and took sixteen years to complete.⁷

The Tripiṭaka Koreana was not simply a reproduction of existing Chinese collections but represented sophisticated editorial work. Korean scholars compared multiple versions of texts, corrected scribal errors found in Chinese editions, and made deliberate choices about which variant readings to preserve. The colophons attached to various texts reveal extensive consultation of sources from China, Japan, and Central Asia, creating what scholar Lewis Lancaster calls "one of the most accurate and comprehensive Buddhist canons ever produced."⁸

Tibet's approach to canonical formation under royal patronage followed a different model but reflected similar concerns with state authority over textual authenticity. The imperial period of Tibetan Buddhism (7th-9th centuries CE) saw systematic efforts to establish translation standards, regulate which Indian texts could be rendered into Tibetan, and create institutional mechanisms for maintaining textual accuracy. The Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa (Mahāvyutpatti), a Sanskrit-Tibetan lexicon compiled under royal sponsorship around 830 CE, standardized technical terminology for Buddhist philosophical concepts, ensuring consistency across all official translations.⁹

King Ralpachen's (r. 815-838 CE) edict establishing fixed rates of compensation for translators based on the length and difficulty of texts reveals the extent of royal micromanagement in canonical formation. The decree specified that translators would receive different amounts of gold for ślokas (verses) versus prose passages, with bonus payments for particularly challenging philosophical works. This system incentivized translators to work on comprehensive coverage of Indian Buddhist literature while maintaining royal oversight of which texts received priority attention.¹⁰

Mechanisms of Control: Councils, Catalogs, and Censorship

The methods by which political authorities exercised control over Buddhist textual traditions varied considerably across time and region, but certain patterns emerge that illuminate the systematic nature of such intervention. Royal councils represent perhaps the most direct form of political involvement in canonical formation, establishing precedents that legitimized ongoing imperial oversight of doctrinal matters.

The Fourth Buddhist Council, reportedly convened by the Kushan emperor Kaniṣka in Kashmir during the first or second century CE, exemplifies how royal sponsorship could fundamentally alter textual traditions. According to later accounts, this council undertook comprehensive review of Sarvāstivāda scriptures, possibly producing the first systematic commentaries on Abhidharma literature and authorizing translation of key texts into Sanskrit for broader circulation throughout Central Asia.¹¹

While historical details of this council remain disputed, its alleged outcomes illuminate the potential scope of royal editorial influence. The standardization of Sarvāstivāda doctrine that emerged from Kashmir during this period established intellectual foundations for Buddhist philosophical development throughout the Kushan Empire and beyond. The decision to promote Sanskrit as a vehicle for Buddhist literature—rather than maintaining exclusive reliance on Prakrit dialects—reflected imperial concerns with creating prestigious, pan-regional religious culture that could compete with Brahmanical traditions.

Chinese imperial cataloging systems provided more subtle but equally pervasive mechanisms of textual control. The Datang Neidian Lu (Catalog of Buddhist Texts of the Great Tang), compiled in 664 CE, not only classified texts by authenticity but also regulated their circulation by establishing official libraries where approved works could be consulted and copied. Texts excluded from these imperial collections effectively disappeared from mainstream Chinese Buddhist culture, preserved only in remote monasteries or private collections that escaped official oversight.¹²

The Tibetan experience during the Later Diffusion period (10th-12th centuries CE) demonstrates how royal authority could exercise editorial control even without direct textual intervention. The Kadampa and early Sakya traditions that emerged during this period developed under the patronage of regional kings who had specific preferences about which Indian teachers to invite, which texts to translate, and which interpretive traditions to emphasize. The famous debate at Samyé (ca. 792-794 CE), while occurring during the earlier imperial period, established precedents for royal arbitration of doctrinal disputes that continued to influence Tibetan Buddhism throughout the medieval period.¹³

Silencing Voices: Suppression and Marginalization

Political control over Buddhist textual traditions operated not only through positive selection of preferred teachings but also through systematic exclusion of alternative voices. The mechanisms of such suppression varied from direct persecution to more subtle forms of marginalization that gradually erased non-orthodox traditions from canonical memory.

The Tang dynasty's treatment of Buddhist texts deemed politically dangerous illustrates direct state censorship of religious literature. During Emperor Wuzong's persecution, imperial edicts specifically targeted texts associated with esoteric traditions, popular religious movements, and teachings that challenged Confucian social hierarchies. The Da Yun Jing(Great Cloud Sutra), which had been used to legitimize Empress Wu Zetian's rule, was banned and copies destroyed throughout the empire.¹⁴

More subtle forms of suppression operated through the systematic exclusion of texts associated with defeated schools or marginalized communities. The decline of Indian Buddhism after the twelfth century resulted in the loss of vast bodies of Mahāsāṅghika, Mahīśāsaka, and other non-Theravāda literature that had once circulated widely throughout South and Southeast Asia. While Islamic invasions destroyed major monastic libraries, the prior failure of these traditions to secure sustained royal patronage meant that few copies survived in other regions.

The treatment of women's voices in canonical formation reveals how political and social hierarchies shaped textual preservation. Texts attributed to early Buddhist nuns, lay women teachers, and female patrons were systematically excluded from official collections, despite evidence that such works once existed and circulated within Buddhist communities. The Therīgāthā (Verses of the Elder Nuns) survived within the Pāli Canon, but broader traditions of women's Buddhist literature were largely suppressed or forgotten.¹⁵

Regional and linguistic minorities faced similar marginalization. Central Asian Buddhist traditions that had produced sophisticated philosophical and literary works in Sogdian, Khotanese, and Tocharian languages gradually disappeared as political power shifted toward communities that promoted Persian, Arabic, or Turkic cultural models. The survival of some Central Asian Buddhist literature in Chinese translation reflects the political dominance of Chinese imperial culture rather than the inherent value of these traditions.

What Would Have Changed?

Understanding the extent of political influence on Buddhist canonical formation enables us to imagine how different historical circumstances might have produced very different approaches to scriptural authority and religious orthodoxy. These alternative scenarios, while necessarily speculative, illuminate both the contingent nature of existing traditions and the range of possibilities that political choices either enabled or foreclosed.

Scenario 1: Sustained Political Support for Textual Diversity

Had imperial patronage systems consistently supported multiple Buddhist schools rather than promoting particular traditions, the resulting canonical collections might have preserved far greater doctrinal and textual diversity. Scholar Gregory Schopen argues that the dominance of certain textual traditions reflects not their inherent superiority but rather their success in securing sustained institutional support.¹⁶ If the Chinese imperial system had funded Sarvāstivāda, Dharmaguptaka, and Mahāsāṅghika translation projects equally, rather than gradually privileging Mahāyāna traditions, modern East Asian Buddhism might encompass a much broader range of philosophical approaches and practical methods.

Such diversity could have produced Buddhist cultures more tolerant of doctrinal variation and more capable of adapting to changing historical circumstances without losing essential identity. The Indian experience, where multiple schools coexisted within shared institutional frameworks for centuries, suggests that canonical pluralism need not threaten religious coherence if supported by appropriate political and social structures.

Scenario 2: Monastic Autonomy in Canonical Formation

Alternative historical development might have emerged if Buddhist communities had successfully maintained independence from royal oversight in matters of textual authority. Jan Nattier's research on early Buddhist literature suggests that monastic communities, when free from external political pressure, tended to preserve broader ranges of textual material and maintain more flexible approaches to canonical boundaries.¹⁷

Without royal intervention in council proceedings, canonical formation might have followed more gradual, consensual processes that preserved minority opinions and regional variations. The Theravāda experience in Southeast Asia, where royal patronage was important but less systematically controlling than in China or Tibet, suggests that monastic autonomy could produce coherent canonical traditions without requiring the rigid orthodoxy that characterized state-sponsored systems.

Such development might have produced Buddhist traditions more capable of internal reform and adaptation, since canonical boundaries would remain more permeable to new insights and changing circumstances. The relative success of modern Theravāda communities in adapting to democratic political systems and global religious pluralism may reflect this historical legacy of greater institutional independence.

Scenario 3: Preservation of Regional Buddhist Literatures

The survival of Central Asian, Southeast Asian, and other regional Buddhist traditions might have significantly altered the development of Buddhist thought and practice. Donald Lopez Jr. argues that the loss of these traditions represents "one of the great intellectual tragedies in human history," since they had developed sophisticated approaches to Buddhist philosophy and practice that differed substantially from the traditions that survived in more politically stable regions.¹⁸

Had the Sogdian, Khotanese, and Tocharian Buddhist traditions received sustained political support comparable to that enjoyed by Chinese or Tibetan Buddhism, they might have produced alternative approaches to canonical authority that emphasized cultural adaptation over textual preservation. These traditions showed remarkable creativity in synthesizing Buddhist teachings with local religious and philosophical traditions, potentially offering models for how Buddhism might engage with contemporary global culture.

The preservation of such diversity might have prevented the theological rigidity that characterized some later Buddhist traditions and maintained stronger emphasis on practical adaptation and cultural engagement that marked early Buddhist expansion.

Scenario 4: Female Leadership in Canonical Formation

Perhaps most significantly, sustained political support for female religious leadership might have produced Buddhist canonical traditions that preserved very different approaches to spiritual authority and textual interpretation. Lori Meeks's research on medieval Japanese Buddhist nuns reveals that female monastic communities developed distinctive approaches to scriptural study and religious practice that were largely excluded from official canonical recognition.¹⁹

Had rulers like Empress Wu Zetian in China or Queen Śrī Jayavikrama in Sri Lanka systematically supported female monastic institutions and sponsored preservation of women's religious literature, the resulting canonical traditions might have included substantially more material addressing women's spiritual concerns and alternative approaches to religious authority.

Such development could have produced Buddhist traditions with greater gender inclusivity and more diverse models of spiritual leadership, potentially enabling more effective engagement with contemporary concerns about religious equality and social justice.

Scholar Debate: Power, Authenticity, and Religious Authority

Contemporary scholarship on Buddhist canonical formation increasingly recognizes the central role that political power played in determining which texts survived and how they were interpreted. However, scholars disagree significantly about how to evaluate this political dimension and what implications it carries for understanding Buddhist textual authority.

Critical Approaches to Political Influence

Scholars like Gregory Schopen and Jonathan Silk argue that political involvement in canonical formation was so extensive that it fundamentally compromised the authenticity of received Buddhist traditions. Schopen's influential essay "Archaeology and Protestant Presuppositions in the Study of Indian Buddhism" argues that much of what modern practitioners and scholars accept as "original Buddhism" actually represents the successful marketing of particular sectarian positions by communities that secured political and economic advantages.²⁰

This critical approach emphasizes that canonical boundaries were established not through scholarly evaluation of textual authenticity but through political processes that privileged certain communities over others. From this perspective, treating canonical texts as authoritative religious sources requires acknowledging their status as "political artifacts" rather than neutral preservations of ancient wisdom.

Silk's work on Mahāyāna literature demonstrates how political patronage shaped not only which texts were preserved but also how they were interpreted and applied. The prominence of texts like the Lotus Sutra in East Asian Buddhism reflects imperial support for particular interpretive traditions rather than widespread community recognition of their superior spiritual value.²¹

Defenders of Traditional Approaches

Other scholars maintain that political involvement in canonical formation, while certainly present, did not necessarily compromise the essential authenticity of Buddhist textual traditions. Peter Skilling and Oskar von Hinüber argue that royal patronage often served to preserve and protect authentic teachings rather than distort them, since rulers generally sought to support what they understood as genuine Buddhist doctrine rather than impose alien political agendas.²²

This more traditional approach emphasizes that political authorities typically worked in consultation with learned monastic communities and sought to preserve rather than alter inherited textual traditions. From this perspective, royal councils and imperial catalogs represented attempts to distinguish authentic teachings from later corruptions rather than efforts to impose particular doctrinal interpretations.

Lambert Schmithausen's detailed studies of early Yogācāra literature suggest that even texts that received extensive royal patronage maintained essential philosophical coherence and soteriological effectiveness across different political contexts. The survival of these traditions through various dynastic changes and cultural transitions indicates that their religious value transcended particular political circumstances.²³

Synthetic Approaches to Political and Religious Authority

A growing number of scholars advocate for more nuanced approaches that recognize both the reality of political influence and the genuine religious significance of canonical traditions. Scholars like José Cabezón and Roger Jackson argue for "contextual" approaches that examine how Buddhist communities navigated between political pressures and religious commitments without necessarily surrendering essential spiritual integrity.²⁴

This synthetic approach emphasizes that political involvement in canonical formation was neither completely corrupting nor entirely benign but rather represented complex negotiations between temporal and spiritual authorities that produced mixed results. Some royal interventions clearly served partisan political interests at the expense of religious authenticity, while others genuinely contributed to preserving and clarifying authentic Buddhist teachings.

From this perspective, evaluating the legitimacy of particular canonical traditions requires detailed historical analysis of specific cases rather than broad generalizations about the relationship between political power and religious authority. The goal is not to defend or condemn political involvement categorically but to understand how it operated in particular contexts and with what consequences for religious development.

Contemporary Relevance: Authority, Authenticity, and Democratic Values

The historical relationship between political power and Buddhist textual authority carries important implications for how contemporary Buddhist communities understand scriptural interpretation and religious leadership. As Buddhism continues to adapt to democratic political systems and pluralistic cultural contexts, questions about the legitimacy of traditional canonical boundaries and interpretive authorities become increasingly urgent.

Democratic Approaches to Scriptural Authority

The recognition that political power played crucial roles in determining canonical boundaries raises fundamental questions about whether democratic societies should maintain traditional approaches to religious authority that were established under imperial conditions. Some contemporary Buddhist communities are experimenting with more participatory approaches to scriptural interpretation that involve lay practitioners in decisions about which texts deserve emphasis and how they should be understood.

The Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement in Sri Lanka, for example, has developed educational programs that encourage village communities to engage directly with Pāli canonical texts rather than relying exclusively on monastic interpretive traditions. Similarly, engaged Buddhist movements in Thailand and Myanmar have promoted approaches to scriptural study that emphasize social action and political engagement over traditional meditative and scholastic practices.²⁵

These democratic approaches to scriptural authority reflect broader questions about whether religious traditions that developed under authoritarian political systems can maintain their essential identity while adapting to democratic values of participation, equality, and individual autonomy.

Global Buddhism and Cultural Authority

The spread of Buddhism to Western and other non-Asian cultural contexts raises additional questions about the relationship between cultural authority and textual interpretation. If Asian political authorities played crucial roles in determining which Buddhist texts were preserved and how they were understood, what legitimacy do these traditions possess for practitioners from very different cultural backgrounds?

Some Western Buddhist communities have responded by seeking to identify "universal" Buddhist principles that transcend particular cultural expressions, while others have embraced explicitly hybrid approaches that combine Buddhist teachings with Western philosophical and therapeutic traditions. The growing popularity of "secular Buddhism" reflects attempts to preserve what practitioners see as essential Buddhist insights while abandoning traditional approaches to scriptural authority that depend on historical institutional legitimacy.²⁶

These developments raise fundamental questions about the relationship between cultural authenticity and religious effectiveness that parallel historical debates about the legitimacy of Chinese, Tibetan, and other non-Indian forms of Buddhism.

Digital Archives and Textual Democracy

Perhaps most significantly, digital technologies are enabling unprecedented access to Buddhist manuscripts and textual traditions that were previously available only to specialist scholars. The Buddhist Digital Resource Center, the Dharma Ocean Foundation, and other organizations are making it possible for practitioners throughout the world to consult original sources and alternative textual traditions that were excluded from standard canonical collections.

This technological democratization of textual access enables contemporary practitioners to engage with the full diversity of Buddhist literary traditions rather than accepting the particular selections that resulted from historical political processes. The recovery of Gandhāran manuscripts, Dunhuang texts, and other archaeological discoveries provides resources for understanding Buddhist development that are no longer filtered through traditional institutional authorities.

Such developments may enable contemporary Buddhist communities to develop more inclusive and historically informed approaches to scriptural interpretation that acknowledge both the value of traditional lineages and the limitations that resulted from particular historical circumstances. The challenge lies in maintaining coherent religious identity while engaging constructively with the remarkable diversity that these new resources reveal.

Notes

1. K.R. Norman, Pāli Literature (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983), 10-15; Wilhelm Geiger, trans., The Mahāvaṃsa or the Great Chronicle of Ceylon (London: Pali Text Society, 1912), 33.4-6.
2. D.C. Sircar, Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civilization, 2nd ed. (Calcutta: University of Calcutta Press, 1965), 54-56.
3. Walpola Rahula, History of Buddhism in Ceylon: The Anurādhapura Period (Colombo: M.D. Gunasena, 1956), 82-95.
4. Zhisheng, Kaiyuan Shijiao Lu, T. 2154, 55.477a-714c; Stanley Weinstein, "Imperial Patronage in the Formation of T'ang Buddhism," in Perspectives on the T'ang, ed. Arthur Wright and Denis Twitchett (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), 265-306.
5. Li Rongxi, trans., The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions (Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1996), 1-25.
6. Stanley Weinstein, Buddhism Under the T'ang (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 114-137.
7. Lewis Lancaster, "The Korean Buddhist Canon: A Descriptive Catalogue," in Buddhist Literature, ed. José Cabezón (Albany: SUNY Press, 1992), 187-218.
8. Lewis Lancaster and Sung-bae Park, eds., The Korean Buddhist Canon: A Descriptive Catalogue (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), ix-xxiii.
9. Alexander Vostrikov, Tibetan Historical Literature (Calcutta: Indian Studies Past and Present, 1970), 45-67.
10. Cristina Scherrer-Schaub, "Enactment and Enforcement of Civil Law in Tibet: Methodological Remarks on the Laws Promulgated by Khri lde srong brtsan and Khri srong lde brtsan," in The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism, ed. Helmut Eimer (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 115-147.
11. Nalinaksha Dutt, Buddhist Sects in India (Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 1970), 242-267.
12. Kyoko Tokuno, "The Evaluation of Indigenous Scriptures in Chinese Buddhist Bibliographical Catalogues," in Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, ed. Robert Buswell Jr. (Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 1990), 31-74.
13. Giuseppe Tucci, Minor Buddhist Texts (Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1956), 2:102-141.
14. Antonino Forte, Political Propaganda and Ideology in China at the End of the Seventh Century (Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1976), 234-289.
15. Lori Meeks, Hokkeji and the Reemergence of Female Monastic Orders in Premodern Japan (Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2010), 145-178.
16. Gregory Schopen, Buddhist Monks and Business Matters (Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2004), 1-22.
17. Jan Nattier, Once Upon a Future Time: Studies in a Buddhist Prophecy of Decline (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1991), 234-267.
18. Donald S. Lopez Jr., Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 89-134.
19. Lori Meeks, "The Disappearing Medium: Reassessing the Place of Miko in the Religious Landscape of Premodern Japan," History of Religions 50, no. 3 (2011): 208-260.
20. Gregory Schopen, "Archaeology and Protestant Presuppositions in the Study of Indian Buddhism," History of Religions 31, no. 1 (1991): 1-23.
21. Jonathan Silk, Managing Monks: Administrators and Administrative Roles in Indian Buddhist Monasticism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 234-267.
22. Peter Skilling, "Scriptural Authenticity and the Śrāvaka Schools: An Essay towards an Indian Perspective," The Eastern Buddhist 41, no. 2 (2010): 1-47.
23. Lambert Schmithausen, Ālayavijñāna: On the Origin and the Early Development of a Central Concept of Yogācāra Philosophy (Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1987), 1:345-389.
24. José Cabezón, Buddhism and Language: A Study of Indo-Tibetan Scholasticism (Albany: SUNY Press, 1994), 234-267; Roger Jackson, "The dGe ldan-pa Grub mtha' Corpus: Texts, Editions, Translations," Tibetan Literature, ed. José Cabezón and Roger Jackson (Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 1996), 395-432.
25. George Bond, Buddhism at Work: Community Development, Social Action and Politics in Sri Lanka (West Hartford: Kumarian Press, 1988), 145-189.
26. Stephen Batchelor, Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening (New York: Riverhead Books, 1997), 1-34.

Further Reading

Political Authority and Buddhist Canon Formation

• Cabezón, José Ignacio, ed. Buddhism, Sexuality and Gender. SUNY Press, 1992.
• Schopen, Gregory. Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks. University of Hawaiʻi Press, 1997.
• Strong, John S. The Legend of King Aśoka: A Study and Translation of the Aśokāvadāna. Princeton University Press, 1983.

Chinese Imperial Buddhist Policies

• Ch'en, Kenneth. Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey. Princeton University Press, 1964.
• Weinstein, Stanley. Buddhism Under the T'ang. Cambridge University Press, 1987.
• Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China. 2 vols. Brill, 1959.

Tibetan Buddhist Canon Formation

• Davidson, Ronald M. Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture. Columbia University Press, 2005.
• van der Kuijp, Leonard W.J. "The Tibetan Bstan 'gyur: Prolegomena to a Critical Edition." Central Asiatic Journal25 (1981): 168-229.

Contemporary Buddhist Authority and Democracy

• Batchelor, Stephen. Confession of a Buddhist Atheist. Spiegel & Grau, 2010.
• Queen, Christopher S., and Sallie B. King, eds. Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia. SUNY Press, 1996.
• Wallace, B. Alan. Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge. Columbia University Press, 2007.

Digital Archives and Manuscript Studies

• Buddhist Digital Resource Center: https://www.bdrc.io/
• International Dunhuang Project: http://idp.bl.uk/
• Schopen, Gregory. Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India. University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2005.