The Question of Mañjuśrī

Notes

See Dharmachakra Translation Committee, trans., The Jewel Cloud (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2019), 1.233–4.

See Jens Braarvig and David Welsh, trans., The Teaching of Akṣayamati, (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2020), 1.102–3.

Skilling (1992), pp. 67–79.

Skilling (1992), p. 68.

Taishō 661 and 662; see n.25.

Currently the manuscript is kept in the Potala. Vinītā’s critical edition is based on a copy of the manuscript that is kept in the China Tibetology Research Center. For further details on the state of this manuscript see Vinītā (2010), pp. xv–xvii.

There is also another text in the Chinese canon similarly called The Question of Mañjuśrī (文殊師利問經, Taishō 468), which is, however, longer and differs thematically from the text translated here. There are no known Sanskrit or Tibetan versions of this longer sūtra.

Denkarma, folio 299.b; see also Herrmann-Pfandt, p. 112 (no. 211). Phangthangma (2003), p. 17. Note also the zhus pa (“question”) used in the title ’phags pa ’jam dpal gyis zhus pa, rather than dris pa found in the majority of the Kangyur recensions’ titles, although zhus pa is found among a few of them.

See n.13, n.15, n.18 and n.23.

Here we followed the Sanskrit, Y, F, S, and U, which have “Dharma conch” (chos kyi dung); C, D, and J have “in the presence of the Tathāgata” (de bzhin gshegs pa’i drung); H, K, and N, have “in the presence of the Dharma of the Tathāgata” (de bzhin gshegs pa’i chos kyi drung). In these cases, drung is likely a scribal error for dung.

Following Sanskrit, Y, F, S, and U. See n.10.

Go. adds several descriptions qualifying this great merit: “it is engendered by skill in means and aspirations, and it is authentically born from special meditation that fully purifies discipline. This great merit is inconceivable to all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas” (thabs la mkhas pa chen po smon lam gyis bskyed pa/ thul khrims dang / ting nge ’dzind shind tu rnam par dag pa bsgoms pa’i khyad par gis yang dag pa grub pa ste/ nyan thos dang / rang sang rgyas thams cad kyis bsam gyis myi khyab pa yin no/). This correlates with the description of the Dharma conch at the end of the sūtra.

"Following this, the Sanskrit text includes an additional stage in the hierarchy of merit not attested in the Tibetan translation. This stage, for a rājā jambudvīpeśvaraḥ (“a king who is lord of Jambudvīpa"), ranks below a cakravārtin king, the first stage in the hierarchy of merit as listed in the Tibetan text.

From here throughout the rest of the text, the numbers for multiplying merit vary in the different sources. Here, for example, Go., Taishō 473, Taishō 662, and the Sanskrit have “multiplied by a thousand”; Taishō 661 has “multiplied by a hundred thousand.” For the sake of simplicity, we have translated the text from D and refrained from annotating these numerical variations from the sources unless they significantly change the meaning.

Taishō 473 adds an additional stage in the hierarchy of merit comparing that of Śakra to that of Nārāyaṇa, before going on to compare Nārāyaṇa to Māra.

The Sanskrit witness of this sūtra abruptly ends here.

D: ’dod pa’i khams su bstan pas go bar byed pa. Our translation here is corroborated by Taishō 662: 教受護持 “who upholds and bears in mind the teachings.” The implication of this remark is not clear. Taishō 473 adds “in the heaven of Paranirmitavaśavartin.” This implies that Māra is the highest deity presiding within the bounds of the desire realm, where Paranirmitavaśavartin is the highest heaven according to Abhidharma cosmology.

The following passage is omitted in Taishō 473, which skips to the next stage in the hierarchy of merit, comparing the merit of Māra to that of a brahmā, sovereign of a dichiliocosm, in the same format.

Taishō 662 adds that this is a brahmā “of the first dhyāna.” This is consistent with the cosmology presented in the sūtra. As Māra represents the highest deity of the desire realm, “a brahmā, sovereign of a chiliocosm,” represents a god in one of the three lowest strata of the form realm, which is associated with the first dhyāna, while the brahmās of a dichiliocosm and trichiliocosm represent gods of the higher strata associated with the second and fourth dhyānas respectively. There are some sources that seem to give the dhyānas and the spatial locations they encompass in the form realm progressively greater dimensions. For instance, the Abhidharma­kośa­bhāṣya states that while each chiliocosm contains a thousand sets of four continents, along with a thousand suns, moons, Mount Merus, and so forth up to the desire realms, there is one position that states that the first dhyāna encompasses a single world system, the second dhyāna a chiliocosm, the third dhyāna a dichiliocosm, and the fourth dhyāna a trichiliocosm. The text goes on to state that there is a differing opinion in which the first dhyāna encompasses a chiliocosm, the second dhyāna a dichiliocosm, and the third dhyāna a trichiliocosm, and the fourth dhyāna is without measure. The first of these two opinions would seem to be validated by the context of this sūtra, where the sequential brahmās are described as being “sovereign” of exponentially larger domains. See Vasubandhu, Abhidharma­kośa­bhāṣya, in Sangpo (2012), pp. 1075–6.

Taishō 662 adds “a brahmā of the second dhyāna.”

Taishō 662 adds “a brahmā of the fourth dhyāna.”

All the Chinese versions of the sūtra describe this moment as the destruction of the world through fire rather than water, and then, following this, the great brahmā commands the rain to come down and fill the trichiliocosm up to the brahmā heavens in the form realm. Go. has the phrase “when the eon of incineration arises” (’sreg pa’i bskal pa ’byung ba de’i tshe), and following this it also describes the trichiliocosm filling up with rain and drops of water. The Abhidharma­kośa­bhāṣya describes the destruction of the world through water up to the top of the first dhyāna, through fire up to the top of second dhyāna, and through wind up to the top of the third. See Vasubandhu, Abhidharma­kośa­bhāṣya, in Sangpo (2012), pp. 1109–15.

Go. adds an additional stage in the hierarchy of merit, comparing the merit of a great brahmā, sovereign of a trichiliocosm, to that of a great śrāvaka with great miraculous powers (nyan thos chen po rdzu ’phrul chen po dang ldan pa). Then, in the next passage, the śrāvaka’s merit is compared to that of a pratyekabuddha, and it continues in the same form as in the other versions.

This is a truly all-inclusive list of possible beings found in Buddhist cosmology. The latter categories, including those with and without forms or perceptions all the way up to those with neither perceptions nor the absence of them, is representative of beings abiding in formless realms. See also the glossary entry for “beings with neither perception nor nonperception.”

Taishō 661 and Taishō 662 provide a list of the eighty excellent signs here.

There are many minor spelling variations found among the Kangyur recensions for the eighty designs. For the sake of clarity, variant readings have not been noted unless they affected the meaning or interpretation of the term; however, all the attested spelling variations have been represented in the glossary. For a detailed analysis of the eighty designs compared across various sources see Skilling (1992), pp. 67–79.

Go. has dbyig tog; all other Tibetan recensions have dbyig to. The meaning of “staff” is derived from correlation with Taishō 473 and from consultation with a series of dictionary entries. The meaning of dbyig to(g) could also be “jewel” or “crest jewel.” For more details on this see Vinītā (2010), p. 741, note d. Also see Skilling (1992), p. 73.

Go. omits.

Go.: bil shing ba; F: bil ba dang; C, D, H, J, K, Y, N, S, and U: bil ba dang / shing dang / (“a bilva fruit, a tree” as two items). In addition to Go., F and the Saṃskṛtāsaṃskṛta­viniścaya also omit “a tree” as a separate item. We have chosen to translate this as one item, “bilva fruit tree,” following Go., as this results in a list of exactly eighty items, and the “wish-granting tree” already appears as item number 79 in the list.

F omits.

C, D, H, J, N, and U: ’khor srung. This form is listed as an alternate spelling for Dhṛtarāṣṭra in the Mahāvyutpatti (the imperial period Sanskrit–Tibetan dictionary), no. 3381. K and Y: ’khor bsrung; S: ’khor bsrungs; Go.: yul ’khor srung.

Go. omits.

F and S: mri tang ga (transliteration of the Sanskrit mṛdaṅga). Go. and the Saṃskṛtāsaṃskṛta­viniścaya have rdza rnga, which has the same translated meaning as the former transliteration. D, H, J, and N: smri ga; K: smri dang ga/ ga dang /; Y: smri dang ga; C and U: smrig.

Go.: rna cha gdub ’khord (“round earring”).

Translated from Go. and the Saṃskṛtāsaṃskṛta­viniścaya: ’khor lo’i dbus kyi seng ge. C, D, H, K, Y, J, N, and U: ’khor lo dang / dpung gi seng ge; F and S: ’khor lo dpung gi seng ge.

Only twenty-nine of the thirty-two signs of a great being are listed here, although in other sources (6) and (7) are usually counted as two signs each. There are many instances of the list of thirty-two signs found throughout the Kangyur, and significant differences can be found among them. For other examples of the list complete with thirty-two signs, see Dharmachakra Translation Committee, trans., The Play in Full, Toh 95 (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2013), 7.98; or Padmakara Translation Group, trans, The Transcendent Perfection of Wisdom in Ten Thousand Lines, Toh 11 (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2018), 2.15 (which contains thirty-three signs). In the latter, see also note 61 for further details concerning the various locations of the list found throughout the Kangyur. There is also a standard list found in the Mahāvyutpatti (the imperial period Sanskrit–Tibetan dictionary), entries 235–67. If one looks to the latter as a standard, the missing three can be accounted for by entries 242, “even teeth” (samadanta, tshems mnyam pa), and 243, “close-fitting teeth” (aviraladanta, tshems thag bzang ba), which in the Mahāvyutpatti is separate from the sign of “forty teeth,” whereas in The Question of Mañjuśrī they are joined; 251, “collarbones that are well covered” (citāntarāṃsa, thal gong rgyas pa); and 257 “body hairs that grow upward” (ūrdhvagaroma, sku’i spu gyen du phyogs pa), which is found in Go. (see n.38). Note that here in The Question of Mañjuśrī, the fourth sign in the list, “being adorned with a beautiful complexion,” is not found in the Mahāvyutpatti. Thus by omitting these four and adding one more The Question of Mañjuśrī lists a total of twenty-nine signs.

Go. omits.

Go. adds: “body hairs that grow upward” (sku’i spu gyend du phyogs pa). This is usually included in other lists of the thirty-two signs.

A very similar passage, with the same sequence of meritorious figures and signs culminating in the Buddha’s voice, can be seen in the Ratna­megha­sūtra (Toh 231); see Dharmachakra Translation Committee, trans., The Jewel Cloud (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2019), 1.233–4. A somewhat less similar calculation of merit beginning with the Buddha’s pores, but culminating specifically in the Dharma conch, is found in the Akṣaya­mati­nirdeśa­sūtra: see Jens Braarvig and David Welsh, trans., The Teaching of Akṣayamati, Toh 175, (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2020), 1.103. See also Āryaśūra’s Pāramitāsamāsa (pha rol tu phyin pa bsdus pa, Toh 3944), folios 227a–b.

Go. adds “and samādhi” (dang / ting nge ’dzin).

Go. again adds the passage, “The presence of the Tathāgata’s Dharma completely fulfilling the wishes of beings to be tamed” (de bzhin gshegs pa’i chos kyi mur ’gram gdul bya’i bsam ba yongs su rdzogs par byed par ’gyur ro/).

This following sequence of comparison differs in Go., which first compares the Tathāgata’s body to his voice (gsung sgra), then compares his voice to his “signs” (mtshan), and then compares his signs to the Dharma taught (chos bstan pa). From there the sequence continues in the same manner as D and the other sources, continuing with his light and so forth.

For this sentence Go. has “Mañjuśrī, the Tathāgata’s body is vast through all its marks.” (’jam dpal de bzhin gshegs pa’i sku mtshan thams cad kyis rgyas pa yin).

Abbreviations

C Choné (co ne) Kangyur

D Degé (sde dge) Kangyur

F Phukdrak (phug brag) Kangyur

Go. Gondhla Collection

H Lhasa (zhol) Kangyur

J Lithang (li thang) Kangyur

K Peking (pe cin) or “Kangxi” Kangyur

N Narthang (snar thang) Kangyur

S Stok Palace (stog pho brang bris ma) Kangyur

Sanskrit Sanskrit manuscript found in the Potala Palace (see Introduction and Bibliography)

Saṃskṛtāsaṃskṛtaviniścaya A commentary by Daśabalaśrīmitra found within the Tengyur containing a list of the eighty designs found on the hands and feet of the Tathāgata (see Bibliography)

Taishō 473 4th–5th century Chinese translation by Faxian (法賢)

Taishō 661 7th century Chinese translation by Divākara (地婆訶羅)

Taishō 662 7th century Chinese translation by Divākara (地婆訶羅)

U Urga (ku re) Kangyur

Y Yongle (g.yung lo) Kangyur