Alex Wayman(1921 - 2004)
Wayman joined Columbia in 1966 as a visiting associate professor of religion. In 1967, he was appointed professor of Sanskrit in the Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures, a position he held until his retirement in 1991. During his tenure, Wayman taught classes in classical Sanskrit, Buddhist hybrid Sanskrit, Indian and Tibetan Religions and the history of astrology.
While at Columbia, he was a member of the administrative committee of the Southern Asian Institute. He also served as senior editor of The Buddhist Traditions Series (with 30 volumes to date) published by Motilal Banarsidass in Delhi, India.
Wayman authored 12 books, including Buddhist Tantric Systems, Untying the Knots in Buddhism, Enlightenment of Vairocana, and A Millennium of Buddhist Logic. He co-authored a translation of the 3rd-century Buddhist scripture Lion's Roar of Queen Shrimala with his wife, Hideko. Her knowledge of Chinese and Japanese sources complemented his research and translation of Sanskrit and Tibetan sources.
An honorary volume, titled Researches in Indian and Buddhist Philosophy (essays in honor of Prof. Alex Wayman), edited by Ram Karan Sharma, was published in 1993 to commemorate the many years that Wayman devoted to scholarly research on Indian topics. (Source Accessed Aug 10, 2020)]
Library Items
The Lion's Roar of Queen Śrīmālā
The Lion's Roar of Queen Srimala: A Buddhist Scripture on the Tathagatagarbha Theory by Alex and Hideko Wayman, published in 1974. This work is the chief scriptural authority in India for the theory that all sentient beings have the potentiality of Buddhahood. "The text treats lay Buddhism in terms of the Mahayana hero known as the bodhisattva. It presents unusual difficult problems to the translator because the original Sanskrit version no longer exists except for some citations." (Source Accessed Jan 13, 2022)
Wayman, Alex, and Hideko Wayman, trans. The Lion's Roar of Queen Śrīmālā: A Buddhist Scripture on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory. Buddhist Tradition Series 10. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1990. First published 1974 by Columbia University Press (New York).
Wayman, Alex, and Hideko Wayman, trans. The Lion's Roar of Queen Śrīmālā: A Buddhist Scripture on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory. Buddhist Tradition Series 10. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1990. First published 1974 by Columbia University Press (New York).;The Lion's Roar of Queen Śrīmālā;Śrīmālādevīsūtra;Alex Wayman; Hideko Wayman;The Lion's Roar of Queen Śrīmālā: A Buddhist Scripture on the Tathāgatagarbha Theory
The Mahāsāṃghika and the Tathāgatagarbha (Buddhist Doctrinal History, Study 1)
For the origins of the Mahāyāna we must agree with Hirakawa'"`UNIQ--ref-00000218-QINU`"' that while some Mahāyāna doctrines are derived from the Mahāsāṃghika school, some others are derived from the Sarvāstivādin school. I would add that unless some other source can be pointed to, we may conclude that Mahāyāna Buddhism in its various forms, at least leaving out the special development of Tantrism, can be traced to either the Mahāsāṃghika or the Sarvāstivādin schools.
It is well recognized by Buddhologists that the Mahāsāṃghika sect arose by a schism from the previously undivided Buddhist saṃgha in the second century after the Buddha's Nirvāṇa (A.N.), leaving the other part of the saṃgha to be called Sthavira. As to precisely when the schism occurred, there was a difference of opinion as to whether it happened as a result of the Second Buddhist Council (about 110 A.N.) over a laxity of Vinaya rules by some monks, or happened later in the century (137 A.N.) over the five theses about Arhats and which occasioned a 'Third Buddhist Council' sponsored by the Kings Nanda and Mahāpadma. There were some other possibilities, as summarized by Nattier and Prebish,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000219-QINU`"' who conclude that the schism occurred 116 A.N. over Vinaya rules, while the argument over Arhat attainment provoked a further split within the already existing Mahāsāṃghika sect. It is immaterial for our purposes whether the 'five theses of Mahādeva' downgrading the Arhat occasioned the schism between the Mahāsāṃghikas and the Sthaviras, or whether this downgrading was an internal argument within the Mahāsāṃghika. What is important here is that the downgrading of the Arhat continued into a Mahāyāna scripture called the Śrīmālā-sūtra, and that the five theses are a characteristic of the Mahāsāṃghika, to wit: 1. Arhats are tempted by others, 2. they still have ignorance, 3. they still have doubt, 4. they are liberated by others; and 5. the path is accompanied by utterance. The fifth of these seems explainable by other Mahāsāṃghika tenets, in Bareau's listing:'"`UNIQ--ref-0000021A-QINU`"' No. 58 'morality is not mental'; No. 59 'morality does not follow upon thought'; No. 60 'virtue caused by a vow increases'; No. 61 'candor (vijñapti) is virtue'; No. 62 'reticence (avijñapti) is immoral.'
Part I of this paper attempts to relate the Śrīmālā-sūtra and the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine to the Mahāsaṃnghika school. Part II discusses the terms dharmatā and svabhāva so as to expose an ancient quarrel. (Wayman, introduction, 35–36)
It is well recognized by Buddhologists that the Mahāsāṃghika sect arose by a schism from the previously undivided Buddhist saṃgha in the second century after the Buddha's Nirvāṇa (A.N.), leaving the other part of the saṃgha to be called Sthavira. As to precisely when the schism occurred, there was a difference of opinion as to whether it happened as a result of the Second Buddhist Council (about 110 A.N.) over a laxity of Vinaya rules by some monks, or happened later in the century (137 A.N.) over the five theses about Arhats and which occasioned a 'Third Buddhist Council' sponsored by the Kings Nanda and Mahāpadma. There were some other possibilities, as summarized by Nattier and Prebish,'"`UNIQ--ref-00000219-QINU`"' who conclude that the schism occurred 116 A.N. over Vinaya rules, while the argument over Arhat attainment provoked a further split within the already existing Mahāsāṃghika sect. It is immaterial for our purposes whether the 'five theses of Mahādeva' downgrading the Arhat occasioned the schism between the Mahāsāṃghikas and the Sthaviras, or whether this downgrading was an internal argument within the Mahāsāṃghika. What is important here is that the downgrading of the Arhat continued into a Mahāyāna scripture called the Śrīmālā-sūtra, and that the five theses are a characteristic of the Mahāsāṃghika, to wit: 1. Arhats are tempted by others, 2. they still have ignorance, 3. they still have doubt, 4. they are liberated by others; and 5. the path is accompanied by utterance. The fifth of these seems explainable by other Mahāsāṃghika tenets, in Bareau's listing:'"`UNIQ--ref-0000021A-QINU`"' No. 58 'morality is not mental'; No. 59 'morality does not follow upon thought'; No. 60 'virtue caused by a vow increases'; No. 61 'candor (vijñapti) is virtue'; No. 62 'reticence (avijñapti) is immoral.'
Part I of this paper attempts to relate the Śrīmālā-sūtra and the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine to the Mahāsaṃnghika school. Part II discusses the terms dharmatā and svabhāva so as to expose an ancient quarrel. (Wayman, introduction, 35–36)
Wayman, A. "The Mahāsāṃghika and the Tathāgatagarbha (Buddhist Doctrinal History, Study 1)." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 1, no. 1 (1978): 35–50. https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/8454/2361.
Wayman, A. "The Mahāsāṃghika and the Tathāgatagarbha (Buddhist Doctrinal History, Study 1)." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 1, no. 1 (1978): 35–50. https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/8454/2361.;The Mahāsāṃghika and the Tathāgatagarbha (Buddhist Doctrinal History, Study 1);tathāgatagarbha;Śrīmālādevīsūtra;svabhāva;dharmatā;Alex Wayman; 
