Cited by 4Indian and Buddhist StudiesBiblical Studies and InterpretationStudy and Philosophy of Religion

About Ugra and his Friends: a Recent Contribution on Early Mahāyāna Buddhism. A review article.

Pagel, Ulrich·2006·Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland

Abstract

Research in Mahāyāna sūtras is a slow and painstaking process. Typically, it involves a careful study of multiple versions of individual texts, composed in different languages (Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan) as well as immersion in the voluminous but largely unchartered corpus of canonical literature preserved in the bKa' 'gyur and the Chinese ‘Tripiṭaka’. Years may easily go by without any noteworthy publication. Thus, when a new book appears, scholarly expectation tends to be high. Jan Nattier's study of the Ugrapariprcchā is no exception. Eagerly awaited among colleagues for its research on early Mahāyāna Buddhism – the Ugrapariprcchā is widely recognised to rank among the first Mahāyāna sūtras – Nattier's work promised to dispel at least some of the mist that continues to cloud this ill-understood period. Even though hers is not the first study and translation of the Ugrapariprcchā (Nancy Schuster wrote her PhD dissertation on this text, 1976), Nattier managed to produce a remarkable, original piece of scholarship that brims with thought-provoking ideas about the formation of the Mahāyāna, persuasive refutations of old-seated misconceptions, well-conceived approaches to textual interpretation and a competently crafted translation of the Chinese and Tibetan versions. In short, it is a book that needs to be taken seriously.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1356186305005882

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Other recent scholars have not seen the Ugrapariprccha as necessarily being especially early (Dantinne 1991; Pagel 2006).

    “Other recent scholars, however, have not seen the text as necessarily being especially early (Dantinne 1991; Pagel 2006)”

    From Early Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism I: Recent Scholarship (2010) · cites this paper as Pagel 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 10 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pagel, U.
Corresponding author
Pagel, Ulrich
Venue
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland
Published
2006-03-15
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
73-82
ISSN
  • 0035-869X (ISSN-L)
  • 2051-2066
OpenAlex
W1975470243
Cited by
4
References
10
Citations by year
2014: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
7.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland (publishedVersion)
  • SOAS Research Online (SOAS University of London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Indian and Buddhist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
Keywords
Mahayana sutras, textual interpretation, Sanskrit texts, Tripitaka, Buddhist translation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review