Collège des sciences des religions

(Anthropole , 5071) Amongst the G?ndh?r? manuscripts from Northern Pakistan which few years ago found their way to western researchers was one manuscript which proved to be the forerunner of one of the most influental texts of early Mah?y?na. The manuscript calls its text Prajñ?p?ramit?, while the earliest Sanskrit version from ca. the 3rd century AD is the A??as?hasrik?prajñ?p?ramit?. The birchbark manuscript dates from the late first century. When compared with the earliest Chinese translation and the Sanskrit A??as?hasrik?prajñ?p?ramit? it becomes evident that the text was substantially enlarged and its message changed considerably. In addition it becomes obvious that even our G?ndh?r? manuscript is the product of a long development, leading back at least to the 2nd century BC. Is it credible that so-called Mah?y?na ideas are that old? Why does art history from Gandh?ra and Mathur? not react to these ideas? The paper will show that art in fact represents Mah?y?na from the beginnings of Gandh?ran and Mathur? art and that a cherished view about the relative modernity of Mah?y?na has obscured the interpretation of Buddha and Bodhisattva statues for too long.

(A déterminer) Colloque international organisé par le Département interfacultaire d'histoire et sciences des religions (DIHSR) et l'Institut Religions, Cultures, Modernité (IRCM) les 28 et 29 novembre 2013.