The Transcendent State of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines is a keystone of the Prajñāpāramitā literature. It presents the Buddha’s teaching on the topic in a relatively compact text that nevertheless covers the entire range of important points he taught, and is therefore considered to be one of the six “mother” works. It has been hugely influential in Mahāyāna Buddhist thought across Asia, and gave rise to many commentaries in India and Tibet.
Translated by the Padmakara Translation Group under the direction of Pema Wangyal Rinpoche and Jigme Khyentse Rinpoche. Greg Seton translated the text, compiled extensive annotations to it from the commentaries, and wrote a preliminary version of the introduction. Charles Hastings contributed valuable editorial help during these stages.
The translation was then completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha. John Canti edited the translation and annotations. He also edited and rearranged the introduction, and added further material to it. Ven. Konchog Norbu copyedited the text. Sameer Dhingra and Celso Wilkinson were in charge of the digital publication process.
The translation of this text has been made possible through the generous sponsorship of AC, AN, C, CHUCKTSOU, CM, CY, Deva-DKSPS, FEN, HCM, JFH, K, KH, LR, NIEHYUPING, NP, SF, SPTF, RW, WAC, WF, Y, YL, YS, YUANSUEN, YY, YUSHUHUI, and the other anonymous members of the Nigrodha team.
The Transcendent State of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines (Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā, hereafter Eight Thousand) is one of the most important, influential, and revolutionary Buddhist scriptures. It presents the Buddha’s second turning of the wheel of Dharma and thus some of the quintessential teachings at the core of the Mahāyāna. It may be close to the earliest textual form of the Prajñāpāramitā literature that, as it blossomed, forever transformed the Buddhist landscape in India and beyond.
The Eight Thousand is revered as one of the six “mother” Prajñāpāramitā texts, so called because they include the complete set of topics identified in the most influential of the Indian commentaries, The Ornament of Clear Realization (Abhisamayālaṃkāra), as comprising the full range covered by the Prajñāpāramitā teaching. But for those without the time, interest, stamina, or need to study the other, longer “mother” texts, the lesser level of detail with which the Eight Thousand covers that full range of topics makes it more accessible. The Eight Thousand seems to have been extensively read and studied in India, and was translated into Chinese and Tibetan more times than virtually any other scripture.
The Prajñāpāramitā sūtras are widely seen as presenting the Buddha’s core teaching on the emptiness of phenomena and their ultimate lack of defining characteristics. Yet as scriptures they are not easy to understand fully, and gave rise to a very large commentarial literature, starting with Nāgārjuna’s treatises and in a later period Maitreya-Asaṅga’s Ornament of Clear Realization and its many subcommentaries. Of those subcommentaries, the ones composed by Haribhadra and Ratnākaraśānti, from their different viewpoints, are renowned for their elucidation of the difficult points in the text, of its implicit structure, and of how its underlying themes are crucial for a full understanding of the Buddhist path in general and for the practice of a bodhisattva in particular.
This translation therefore includes substantial notes drawing on these two commentaries, in order to allow as full an appreciation as possible of the depth and breadth of the scripture itself, and to point out some of the ways in which its style and wordplay—difficult to convey in a translation—are integral to how it conveys its intended message.
There is nevertheless an established tradition, mentioned in the text itself, of simply reading or reciting the sūtra respectfully without analysis, allowing its words to bring about their subtle effect by themselves.
This English rendering, made principally from the Sanskrit but with reference to the Tibetan translation, is the first full translation of the Eight Thousand. It is presented here so that readers of all kinds may read or study it, with or without guidance from the notes, in whatever way they wish. In particular, we hope that the Eight Thousand’s own interpretable but playful use of language may amuse, intrigue, and inspire.
What follows in this introduction is a more detailed presentation of contextual and historical material, and some explanations of the approaches taken in translating the text.
Two synopses of the content, one according to the topics of The Ornament of Clear Realization and one set out chapter by chapter, can also be found at the end of the introduction. Although in many respects the Eight Thousand is less similar to the longer Prajñāpāramitā sūtras than they are to each other, it follows almost the same order as them in terms of narrative events, appearances of different interlocutors, topics discussed, and so forth. Some remarks and links to the passages paralleled in the Eighteen Thousand, Twenty-Five Thousand, and Hundred Thousand have been included so that interested readers may compare all these closely related accounts of the same material.
According to tradition, when the Buddha taught the Prajñāpāramitā scriptures, he entrusted their preservation to Ānanda and Vajrapāṇi, who initiated their oral transmission from an early date. But it was only centuries later, after Nāgārjuna (ca. 150–250
While the Tibetan and Chinese traditions consider the Hundred Thousand to be the source of the other twenty-two because it contains the most detailed exposition, traditional scholars in Nepal see the Eight Thousand as the original scripture. Western historians, too, based on the available philological evidence, have concluded that the Eight Thousand probably represents the earliest form of the multiplicity of Prajñāpāramitā texts. Whichever the case, since all the “mother” scriptures follow the same outline, there are many similarities between them, and not only the topics discussed and the order in which they are discussed, but also the principal narrative events, appearances of different interlocutors, and other features are clearly paralleled across the texts,1 even if the Eight Thousand is notably less similar to the longer sūtras than they are to each other.2
The view that the Eight Thousand is closest to what may have been the earliest form of the scripture, initially based on analysis of passages in the earliest Chinese translations and translation records, has been supported by the evidence of more recently discovered manuscripts, such as the Kharoṣṭhī manuscript from the Split Collection, which has been carbon-dated to between 47 and 147
Manuscript fragments found near Bamiyan in Afghanistan and dated paleographically to the second half of the third century are more closely comparable to the Eight Thousand, to a degree that could justify their description as the earliest known Sanskrit witnesses of the text.4 Nevertheless, the various versions of the scripture that we know today as the Eight Thousand show evidence of significant expansion and evolution over time, as can be seen by comparing the extant Chinese translations made successively between the second and tenth centuries (see below).
Whatever its provenance or its significance, the Eight Thousand stands out as one of the most revered of all Buddhist scriptures. The Eight Thousand is still extant in more ancient Indian manuscripts than virtually any other text, and may have held a central place in many Mahāyāna Buddhist shrines. It also seems to have been among the most closely studied of all Prajñāpāramitā scriptures. Its level of detail made it complete but also accessible for those without the time, interest, stamina, or need to study the longer versions. This too may be the reason why it was translated into Chinese and Tibetan more times than virtually any other scripture—a total of seven times into Chinese beginning with Lokakṣema (179
The complete Sanskrit text is available in three successive editions, made by Mitra (1888), Wogihara (1932–35), and Vaidya (1960), from Nepalese manuscripts.5 The manuscripts themselves are of relatively recent date but are based on recensions dated to the eleventh or twelfth century.
Despite this late dating, the Sanskrit matches closely the fragmentary third-century manuscripts from Bamiyan mentioned above, even if the latter show more linguistic features characteristic of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. It therefore appears to have been relatively stable over many centuries.
There are suggestions in the Tibetan accounts of the various stages by which the successive Tibetan translations reached their present form that the numerous Sanskrit manuscripts consulted by successive translators may have not only been slightly different but also fell into two broad groups: those made before and after a revision of the text to conform to The Ornament of Clear Realization.6 However, the extant Sanskrit versions show no evidence of belonging to more than one principal lineage.
The extant Sanskrit text was used as the principal basis for this English translation, for reasons explained below. It corresponds quite closely to the Tibetan translation.
The seven Chinese translations, made from the second through the tenth century
The Daoxing jing (道行經) or Daoxing banruo jing (道行般若經), Taishō 224, translated by Lokakṣema and others, probably from a Gāndhāri original, and dated by its colophon to 179
The Da mingdu jing (大明度經), Taishō 225, translated in the early third century, for the most part by Zhi Qian except for its rather different first chapter, which is thought to be the work of another translator.8
The Mohebanruo chaojing (摩訶般若鈔經), Taishō 226, canonically attributed to *Dharmapriya and Zhu Fonian and dated to 382
The Mohebanruo boluomi jing (摩訶般若波羅蜜經) or Xiaopin banruo boluomi jing (小品般若波羅蜜經), Taishō 227, translated by Kumārajīva in the early fifth century.
Two of the sections or “assemblies” of the Da banruo boluomiduo jing (大般若波羅蜜多經), Taishō 220, the great compilation of Prajñāpāramitā texts translated by Xuanzang in the seventh century:
the fourth in 29 chapters (vol. VII, 763b–865a), from an original in eight thousand lines, and
the fifth in 24 chapters (vol. VII, 865c–920b), similar in content but much shorter.
The Fo shuo fomu chusheng san fazang banruoboluomi jing (佛說佛母出生三法藏般若波羅蜜多經), Taishō 228, translated by *Dānapāla in the late tenth or early eleventh century.
Although this translation has been made principally from the Sanskrit, many readers may wish to read it along with the Tibetan text. It would therefore be an omission not to include here some mention of the complex history of the Tibetan translation.
The colophon of the version of the Tibetan text in the Degé Kangyur records seven consecutive stages in its evolution from the earliest translation:
1. in the early, imperially sponsored translation period (late eighth or early ninth century), translation, revision, and verification by Śākyasena, Jñānasiddhi, and the editor-lotsāwa Dharmataśīla (Chönyi Tsültrim);
2. in the late tenth century, harmonization with “the commentary” by Subhāṣita and Rinchen Zangpo;
3. in the early eleventh century, revision, correction, and editing by Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna and Rinchen Zangpo on the basis of “a commentary from Magadha”;
4. verification of a passage by Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna and the translator Dromtön Gyalwai Jungné;
5. verification by Dromtön Gyalwai Jungné, twice, against three Indian manuscripts;
6. further verification of some minor points by Dromtön Gyalwai Jungné; and
7. in the late eleventh or early twelfth century, verification by Ngok Loden Sherab against a number of manuscripts from Kashmir and Magadha.
To these stages, the colophons in the Narthang and Lhasa Kangyurs add an eighth:
8. in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century, further corrections by the Zhalu translator Pal Rinchen Chökyong Zangpo, who edited and verified the text from the earlier versions compared with several Tibetan and Indian manuscripts.
The colophons in two of the Kangyurs of the Themphangma line, the Stok Palace (stog pho brang) and Zhey (shel mkhar) Kangyurs, and of one version of the text in the Phukdrak (phug brag) Kangyur, add further names and details, seemingly to this same stage of editing, and date it to an Iron Tiger year (possibly 1471 or 1531).
In parallel to these details recorded in the colophons, traditional Tibetan scholarship identifies three textual traditions for the Eight Thousand, differing only in minor stylistic phrasing, but distinguished—and named—according to how they render in Tibetan the Sanskrit name of the wandering ascetic Śreṇika, who is mentioned in the first chapter (1.23) as having firm conviction in the Buddha’s teaching. The names of these three versions of the text are ’phreng ba can (pronounced “Trengwachen”), bzo sbyangs (“Zojang”), and sde can (“Dechen”). The extant Sanskrit manuscripts use only the name Śreṇika for the wandering ascetic in this passage, but one of the greatest Sanskrit scholars in Tibet, Rinchen Chökyong Zangpo, the last recorded reviser of the text (see the stage numbered 8 above), is said to have mentioned witnessing three different versions of the Sanskrit name (set out below) in different Indian manuscripts of the Eight Thousand, each corresponding to the three renderings in Tibetan. He is also said to have confirmed that between these different manuscripts there were no other variants with a significant impact on meaning.10 Olkha Lelung Jedrung disagrees with earlier scholars who thought that these were three entirely different names for the same person, and expresses the opinion that the three Sanskrit names mentioned by Rinchen Chökyong Zangpo are in effect no more than variants of the same name.11
Although the Degé Kangyur catalog seems to say that the three versions correspond to different Sanskrit source manuscripts,12 the most likely explanation for the existence of these three textual traditions, differing principally in this minor distinction alone, is that they represent the sequential results of specific revisions made (along with many others) over time to the original Tibetan translation. A study by Torricelli and Dudka, and another by Shōji, suggest that the earliest translation may have rendered the name as bzo sbyangs, that the name sde can may be characteristic of a revision made by Kamalaśīla and Kawa Paltsek, and that ’phreng ba can was a revision introduced at a later stage in the editorial history of the text, perhaps with the coming to Tibet of Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna. Shōji does go so far as to divide the hypothetical Sanskrit manuscript traditions into two, A and B, with the bzo sbyangs and sde can Tibetan versions derived from A, and the ’phreng ba can from B. Both of the studies mentioned assume that the commentary used by Subhāṣita and Rinchen Zangpo for their revision of the sūtra (stage 2 above) was that of Haribhadra, the Abhisamayālaṃkārāloka (see below), and the integration of the name change from the commentary may suffice to explain the origin of the B lineage.13 The use of all three names in the different sūtras and commentaries (see below) supports that view.
The details in the available Tibetan sources and modern studies on these three traditions can be summarized as follows:
sde can: taken by Rinchen Chökyong Zangpo to render the Sanskrit Seniṣka. The rarest of the three traditions, only one extant witness is known, an independent thirteenth-century manuscript in the LTWA collection.14 Thought to have been a version resulting first from revisions made by Kamalaśīla and Kawa Paltsek in the eighth century to the very earliest translation, and then from further revisions made to that version by Dharmaśrībhadra and Rinchen Zangpo in the early eleventh century, before Atiśa’s arrival in Tibet.
bzo sbyangs: taken by Rinchen Chökyong Zangpo to render the Sanskrit Śaniṣka. Witnesses of this version are found in the Toyo Bunko and the London (shel dkar) Kangyurs, as one (F 11b) of the three versions of the sūtra in the Phukdrak Kangyur, and as some independent manuscripts. One of the latter15 has a colophon mentioning only the names of the early translators, suggesting that this version may represent the early translation in its unrevised form.
’phreng ba can: taken by Rinchen Chökyong Zangpo to render the Sanskrit Praniṣka. This is the most widespread version of the sūtra in Tibetan and is the one witnessed in most independent versions of the text and in all Tshalpa and mixed Kangyurs, in the Stok Palace and Zhey Kangyurs among those of the Themphangma line, and the two other versions in the Phukdrak Kangyur. The two forms of the colophon found appended to such versions detail the full set of eight or more translation and revision stages, as outlined above.
It should be noted in this context that in the other Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, the name of the same wandering ascetic, Śreṇika, is rendered in Tibetan as ’phreng ba can in the Hundred Thousand (Toh 8) and the Twenty-Five Thousand (Toh 9), but as bzo sbyangs in the Eighteen Thousand (Toh 10), the Ten Thousand (Toh 11), and the Verse Summary (Toh 13). Furthermore, in the Tengyur, the Tibetan translations of Bhadanta Vimuktisena’s commentary (Toh 3788) on The Ornament of Clear Realization (see below) and of Ratnākaraśānti’s commentary (Toh 3803) on the present text (much referred to in the notes to this translation) both render the name as sde can, while those of Dharmaśrī’s commentary (Toh 3802) on the Hundred Thousand and the commentary on the three long sūtras attributed to Vasubandhu or Daṃṣṭrasena (Toh 3808) both render the name as bzo sbyangs. It is therefore intriguing that the classification of Tibetan translations based on the threefold variants of this name seems only to be mentioned with regard to translations of the Eight Thousand.
In any case, the Tibetan translation found in most Kangyurs is closely aligned with the extant Sanskrit and may be read with it, as will be seen using the bilingual view in the present translation as published online, which uses the text from the Degé Kangyur. Minor variants between different Kangyurs are comparatively infrequent and have not been recorded in the notes, given that the translation is based principally on the Sanskrit. Among the many available versions of the Tibetan text, of particular note is the magnificent volume in the Lhasa (zhol) Kangyur, printed from woodblocks made in the early 1930s, with two line drawings—each depicting a notable figure in the transmission of the sūtra—on the recto of every single one of its 523 folios.
In summary, the Tibetan translation seems to have been very carefully checked, edited, revised, and verified against a number of Sanskrit manuscripts, and indeed with the help of one or more of the Indian commentaries (although there is no record of which16), by many generations of scholars.
Readers of this translation of the Eight Thousand will not necessarily be making use of the treatises and commentaries to help them understand how the tradition understands the esoteric meaning of the Prajñāpāramitā scriptures, for much in these works can indeed be understood on its own. Nevertheless, the selected material from the commentaries that we have included in the notes is quite extensive, and it may therefore be helpful to sketch out the historical background and ongoing role of the commentarial tradition.
The Prajñāpāramitā scriptures themselves were much read and studied throughout the Mahāyāna Buddhist world, yet as standalone works they were almost certainly no less difficult to understand fully than we find them today.
If we extrapolate from the scriptures themselves, their intended audience includes two distinct spiritual types, namely, (a) the “faithful type” (śraddhānusārin), those who have enough faith in the Mahāyāna teachings that they can enter the path of preliminary practice through faith alone, and (b) the “intellectual type” (dharmānusārin), those who have faith in the Mahāyāna teachings but require explanations that seem true to them analytically before they enter the path of preliminary practice.17 For the faithful type, it is just revering or reciting the scripture—even without any understanding of the esoteric meaning—that is said to have immediate worldly benefits and to set them quickly on the path to complete awakening. For the intellectual type, on the other hand, it is studying the esoteric meaning of the scripture that is supposed to have immediate worldly benefits and to lead eventually to complete awakening. The Prajñāpāramitā scriptures are aimed at both types, since hearing or reading them is a necessary condition for awakening, but on its own is not a sufficient condition for a clear understanding of the Transcendent State of Wisdom itself or its related practices.
Those wishing to practice the teachings were explicitly said to require the guidance of a teacher and to devote themselves wholeheartedly to study. As the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras spread across the Indian subcontinent and beyond, the direct guidance of teachers does not seem to have been enough. Out of the need for more extensive guidance, the commentarial tradition was born.
The complexity of interpreting the language and meaning of these scriptures is witnessed by the large number of different commentaries and treatises composed over the centuries, and the variety of interpretive traditions.18 Schematically, these can be seen as arising in three phases.
First, Nāgārjuna’s treatise, The Root Verses on the Middle Way (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Toh 3824), clarified their explicit teachings on emptiness, and the commentary attributed to him by the Chinese tradition, Treatise on the Great Virtue of Wisdom (Dazhidu lun, *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa), unpacked their terminology and general implications.19
Next, according to some traditions, the great master Asaṅga (fourth century
Finally, The Long Explanation of the Noble Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand, Twenty-Five Thousand, and Eighteen Thousand Lines (Toh 3808), attributed by some to Vasubandhu (fourth to fifth century) and by others to Daṃṣṭrasena (eighth to early ninth century), presents the structure of the larger scriptures as involving three approaches to the topic: brief, intermediate, and detailed.21
Against this background of the Prajñāpāramitā treatises in general, Dignāga (480–540
For this reason, in the ninth century
In the eleventh century, Ratnākaraśānti composed The Quintessence of the Eight Thousand (Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāpañjikāsārottamā, hereafter Quintessence). It has been preserved in Tibetan translation in the Tengyur (Toh 3803), and incompletely in a Sanskrit edition by Padmanabh Jaini, published in 1979.23 As the only other commentary on the Eight Thousand, it addresses matters that Haribhadra had not covered and disputes some things that he had. But aside from unpacking the scripture, Ratnākaraśānti aimed to show—through his many commentaries—how central the Transcendent State of Wisdom is to both Mahāyāna and tantric practice, as in the concluding lines of his opening verses to The Instructions on the Perfection of Wisdom (Prajñāpāramitopadeśa, Toh 4079):
- “By cultivating this blessed supreme Perfection every day,
- One succeeds in the (methods of) the mantras
- And one holds the (methods of) the five transcendent states in the palm of one’s hand.”
In this way, through the efforts of Indian scholars, the Eight Thousand came to be understood as one of the foundational scriptural authorities for the practice of both the Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna. Furthermore, since each commentator attempted to prove that the scripture aligns with his own philosophical position, it slowly became the interpretive battleground for different scholastic attempts to systematize the Indian Mahāyāna Buddhist logic of practice.24 Despite their different philosophical perspectives, the commentaries provide excellent access to the scripture’s meaning. Yet even when a commentary explains the esoteric meaning, the relevance and application of this meaning is not always perfectly clear in the words in the scripture itself. So serious scholastic study began to focus more on individual treatises than on the actual scriptures.
From the eighth century onward, Indian scholastic study of the Transcendent State of Wisdom seems to have increasingly read the scriptures through the lens of one particular treatise, namely the Ornament. The Ornament itself is a brief independent treatise that provides a versified outline of topics within the mother Prajñāpāramitā scriptures themselves.25 The outline has eight chapters, which include a total of seventy main topics and twelve hundred subtopics to be realized along the path. But the Ornament neither expands on these topics, nor explains how they are to be interpolated into the Mother Prajñāpāramitā scriptures themselves. Commentaries on the Ornament are required to show where exactly the individual Ornament headings should be inserted into the scriptures and how those headings shed light on each stage of Mahāyāna practice.
Since the Ornament’s outline of topics seems to be designed for the Twenty-Five Thousand, the first commentary on the Ornament by Ārya Vimuktisena simply matched its seventy topics to that scripture. Among the twenty-one different Indian commentaries on the Ornament still extant in Tibetan translations, only two commentaries matched its seventy topics to the much shorter Eight Thousand. First, in the ninth century, Haribhadra’s Light (Ālokā) did so from the philosophical perspective of the Madhyamaka school, and in the eleventh century, Ratnākaraśānti’s Quintessence (Sāratamā) did so from the perspective of the Yogācāra school. In both these commentaries, the study of the Prajñāpāramitā is presented largely as a comparative theory of practice. That is to say, the commentaries show (a) how the Eight Thousand implicitly refers to the stages of the different paths of practice in the vehicle of bodhisattvas, and (b) how these compare to the stages of the different paths of practice in the vehicles of the disciples and solitary realizers. The comparison presents the different theories of practice in the different vehicles, in detail, from multiple perspectives, at every stage of the path. This comparison seeks not just to prove the superiority of the Mahāyāna approach to practice, but also to clarify how it differs from other approaches to practice within the different vehicles—which might seem quite similar, but actually are not.
Although the Ornament’s outline fits the Eight Thousand to some degree, on occasions Haribhadra and Ratnākaraśānti themselves fail to connect one or another of the seventy topics to any passage at all in the Eight Thousand. Whether or not one regards this “fit” problem as stemming from an anachronistic attempt to read later doctrines and practices into the earlier Eight Thousand, Haribhadra’s and Ratnākaraśānti’s commentaries still offer what is probably the best window into the Eight Thousand’s early terminology and otherwise almost inaccessible esoteric meaning.
So helpful was the guidance of these two commentators that when the seven (or eight, see above) different teams of Tibetan translators each translated or retranslated the Eight Thousand into Tibetan between the eighth and sixteenth centuries, they all based their translations on the glosses and explanations that the two commentaries provided. Later, when the Ornament became the focus of Tibetan scholastic education in the different schools and lineages of Tibet, the Tibetans made direct reference to these same two commentaries in their own subcommentaries, sub-subcommentaries, and textbooks. In this way, the Tibetan tradition absorbed the Indian Prajñāpāramitā literature into its own works and continued to expand upon the topics. Over time, the Tibetans came to focus mainly on studying the Ornament without making any reference to the scriptures themselves, since to achieve a serviceable understanding of the Ornament alone is said to take years of dedicated, single-pointed study.26
From this focus on the Ornament came the notion that reading the treatise was the equivalent of reading the scriptures. This may be true in the sense that the seventy topics are indeed said to be the most relevant points made by the scriptures. However, it may lead to distortions of understanding in that (a) the scriptures themselves present the topics in a literary style and genre very different from those of the Ornament and aim to affect the reader in different ways; (b) there are many things in the scriptures not mentioned at all in the Ornament; and (c) the function of the Ornament itself is an intertextual one of illuminating the words of the scriptures, rather than of being understood on its own. Thus, anyone interested in learning more about the Prajñāpāramitā would do well to read the scriptures in conjunction with the commentarial tradition and to keep in mind that the Prajñāpāramitā scriptures have their own value.
Another reason for reading the Eight Thousand is that despite the widespread reverence for it, relatively few Buddhists outside the scholastic setting have any knowledge even of its contents, not to mention its meaning. In the Himalayas today, devoted Buddhists still occasionally perform or sponsor monastic recitations of the Eight Thousand. But a far more common practice, across the modern Mahāyāna Buddhist world, is to chant aloud daily—or occasionally write out—the one-page Heart Sūtra.27 Since the Heart Sūtra focuses on the topic of emptiness and is held to be a condensed version of all Prajñāpāramitā scriptures, many modern Buddhists—and even Western Buddhist Studies scholars with limited exposure to traditional scholastic studies—have erroneously come to believe that “emptiness” is the central topic of all the Prajñāpāramitā scriptures, too. In fact, emptiness is barely mentioned by name in the Eight Thousand and is not even included in the Ornament’s list of the seventy main topics or twelve hundred subtopics, which are considered so central and important to Tibetan Buddhist practice that some monastic universities focus solely on them for up to six years before turning to classical texts on philosophy, logic, and debates related to emptiness.28
Given the sūtra’s seminal role in the development of Mahāyāna Buddhism outlined above, modern readers eager to explore the Eight Thousand may be surprised to learn that it does not seek to convey the “wisdom” mentioned in its title in the manner that they might expect from works belonging to other well-known literary or religious genres—including the Pali Buddhist suttas. Instead, it is the way the very words of the Eight Thousand are crafted that is designed to provide, to those who revere, recite, and study them, a performative and provocative means for achieving complete, perfect awakening.
Some of the scripture’s Mahāyāna themes—such as how a bodhisattva transcends cyclic existence through engendering a mindset of awakening “free of duality and free from creating duality”—will certainly be familiar to many readers; these themes will be summarized chapter by chapter below. But the way that the scripture communicates these subjects may come as a surprise. That is to say, the meaning is often communicated only indirectly through the repartee of the dialogues, the negations of opposites, elusive implications, paradoxical statements, esoteric references to unspecified practices, play on words, and the use of heuristic etymologies.29
Furthermore, the reason for which this literature is primarily studied in the Indian and Tibetan scholastic traditions is the understanding it brings not so much of the emptiness with which the Prajñāpāramitā is often associated, but rather of the framework it sets out for the “path,” the implicit meaning behind the texts’ explicit statements.
The few translations of the Eight Thousand into modern languages that have been made are mostly incomplete and not readily available. The first and most complete was a French translation made by Eugène Burnouf between 1837 and 1839 from two of the manuscripts sent from Nepal by B. H. Hodgson. Burnouf lamented that he had been unable to consult any commentarial works, but nevertheless produced a painstaking and remarkable translation, comparing his manuscripts with others of the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand-Line sūtras and with the Tibetan text. Of the Eight Thousand’s thirty-two chapters, he completed the first twenty-seven and most of the twenty-eighth, but apart from a few extracts his translation remained unpublished until recently.30
Eleven chapters were translated into German by Max Walleser in 1914, and a number of single chapters or other short excerpts in French and German were published in the first half of the twentieth century. A complete translation of the Sanskrit into Japanese by Kajiyama and Teruyoshi was published in 1974.
Meanwhile, in 1958, the great pioneer of Prajñāpāramitā studies in English, Edward Conze, first published his influential and widely read translation of the text. Although it is complete in the sense that it covers all thirty-two chapters, Conze chose to omit or paraphrase much of the repetitive detail that is characteristic of the original, but that he considered would be an impediment to modern readers. As we shall discuss further below, in this respect, valuable though it has been, his translation is significantly less than a complete one.
Given the Eight Thousand’s significance, it is perhaps surprising that this is the first complete English translation.31 It is based primarily on the Sanskrit text (edited by Mitra in 1888 and reproduced by Vaidya and Wogihara),32 and only secondarily on the Tibetan version in the Degé Kangyur. We have nevertheless consistently consulted the Tibetan and have recorded in the footnotes all substantial inconsistencies between the Sanskrit and Tibetan, mentioning which of the two readings was translated and why it was followed. Our reasons for relying more on the extant Sanskrit than on the Tibetan stem from considerations of history, meaning, and usefulness.
From the historical perspective, Sanskrit is of course closer to the original Indic language in which the text was written. Fortunately, too, the Tibetan translation matches Mitra’s edition much more closely than is the case for Tibetan translations of some other canonical texts compared to their extant Sanskrit parallels.
Second, translating the Eight Thousand from the Sanskrit has also helped produce a more meaningful translation, because the Sanskrit terminology is more transparent in its etymology and semantic range. The Tibetan translation sometimes limits or alters the sense of original terms, inadvertently obfuscates relationships between them, and renders opaque or invisible the Eight Thousand’s Sanskrit wordplay.
Third, we hope that having a translation of the Eight Thousand made primarily from the Sanskrit will make it easier to study the text through English translations of the two Sanskrit commentaries by Haribhadra and Ratnākaraśānti. Without reference to the Sanskrit text, English translations of the Sanskrit commentaries would make little sense, because what they both clarify is the terminological and syntactic ambiguities of the sūtra’s original Sanskrit text, and not any ambiguities introduced by the choices made in the Tibetan translation. The extant Tibetan translation of the Eight Thousand did indeed follow Ratnākaraśānti’s and Haribhadra’s commentaries on many points, but a translation of the Sanskrit still provides a better starting point than the Tibetan for understanding the commentarial tradition.33
The primary concern in this English translation of the Eight Thousand has been to create a text that can serve as a basis for the traditional study that it deserves, while still being accessible to those who wish, as Paul Harrison puts it, “to read the English as English and make some sense of it.”34 For Sanskrit prose, the Eight Thousand is stylistically clunky and repetitive at the sentence level. But to facilitate in-depth study with Haribhadra and Ratnākaraśānti’s commentaries, which take the text sentence by sentence, the translation must match the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions sentence by sentence too, even if this has led to a style that could also be considered clunky for English prose.
A secondary concern has been to use consistent Buddhist terminology, rather than different translations of the same words, to bring out the range of meanings or to produce more elegant prose. The Eight Thousand makes use of many different rhetorical devices that require such consistency—meaningful plays on words, paradoxical statements, recoding of similar terms to challenge reader assumptions, and so on—all of which play a role in conveying the scripture’s tone and ultimate intent.
The Eight Thousand’s repetitive style, too, has been preserved. Even if repetition is less a major feature of this text than it is of the longer sūtras, it is still very evident. Repetition was clearly used for its effect on reciters and their audience, or individual readers. For instance, some chapters include multiple repetitions of long passages with only one word or phrase change. Where repetition is either the point itself or central to that point, it would be a mistake to eliminate it.
Edward Conze, in his 1958 rendering of the text in English, chose to paraphrase rather than fully translate it, with the idea that this would make it available to a wider readership. The justification he used is worth analyzing, at least to highlight the different stylistic approach of this present translation. In his own preface, Conze states:
“The Sūtra itself was meant to be memorized, the translation is meant to be read. Lengthy repetitions, stereotyped phrases, and the piling up of synonyms were of great assistance to memory, but they irritate and distract the modern reader, and obscure from him the meaning of the text.…The reproduction of the literary conventions and of the stylistic peculiarities of Buddhist Sanskrit diction was not one of my aims. It would be of little, or no, value to scholars, and it bewilders the general reader.”35
Here, Conze states several things that deserve closer scrutiny. First, he assumes that “the Sūtra was meant to be memorized, the translation is meant to be read.” Yet throughout its history, it seems quite likely that the scripture itself has been read far more than it has been memorized. Second, he assumes that “lengthy repetitions, stereotyped phrases, and the piling up of synonyms” obscure the meaning of the text. Yet the scripture’s overall meaning is not merely contained in certain individual words. It is also conveyed through those very stylistic devices, repetitions, and “piled-up” synonyms. What is valuable in this book, Conze assumes with his modern bias, cannot be what comes from the verbal performance of chanting it aloud. Finally, when Conze eliminates or paraphrases repetitions that the commentators find meaningful but he himself finds meaningless, he neglects the needs of those who might wish to read the translation along with the two main Indian commentaries.
Since no one would feel equipped to draw firm conclusions about the scripture without the full text or a traditional commentary on its meaning, a new English translation of both the scripture and its commentaries should help correct the historical, philosophical, and religious misunderstandings that have inadvertently arisen from Conze’s translation style and comments about the scripture. To illustrate this point simply, it may be helpful to give a brief example where Conze’s assumptions and his paraphrase obfuscate both the literal meaning and the traditional interpretation of even just a single passage. At the conclusion of a meaningful passage, Conze’s translation reads:
“A Bodhisattva who does not become afraid when this deep and perfect wisdom is being taught should be recognized as not lacking in perfect wisdom.”36
Consider now how much more meaning might be found in a literal translation that would read as follows:
“O Blessed One, when this profound transcendent state of wisdom is being discussed, taught, and expounded in this way, if a bodhisattva great being’s mindset does not become deflated, depressed, dejected, or sunk in despondency, and his or her mental attitude does not become discouraged, shattered, frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror, then that bodhisattva great being has firm conviction with an altruistic disposition. Hence, one should recognize him or her to be never lacking the transcendent state of wisdom.”37
It is easy to see that Conze’s paraphrases were not merely eliminating words that “irritate and distract the modern reader, and obscure from him the meaning of the text.” Conze’s paraphrase is also missing many words that Ratnākaraśānti’s commentary refers to. For instance, consider Ratnākaraśānti’s comments on the above literal translation:
“These sentences (in the above passage) accord with the way that the meditative object and meditative perspective are explained. Here, the word ‘profound’ means difficult to understand. This ‘transcendent state of wisdom’ refers to [a bodhisattva’s knowing on the path of preliminary practice] in the intermediate and advanced stages of warming up. First, ‘discussed’ concerns the words; then, ‘taught’ and ‘expounded’ concern the meaning. By understanding that meaning (in practice), the bodhisattva develops tranquility (śamatha; zhi gnas). The [nine] words beginning with ‘does not become deflated’ and so on [correspond to nine emotional difficulties that are progressively overcome through the nine stages of meditation practice aimed at tranquility,] as explained previously. The ‘altruistic disposition’ refers to a bodhisattva’s motivation [for practice], which indicates single-pointed determination [to awaken through practice]. ‘Firm conviction’ is generated by force of the tranquility meditation and the insight meditation. The phrase ‘never separate’ means that, through this [meditation], a bodhisattva’s transcendent state of wisdom will only increase.”38
The words Conze omits in his paraphrase are thus ones that the commentarial tradition holds to be meaningful. Omitting them forecloses the possibility that in English translation Ratnākaraśānti’s commentary could clarify the scripture’s esoteric meaning according to the received tradition. Where Ratnākaraśānti comments on the nine experiences (i.e., “deflated,” “depressed,” and so on, up to “stricken with terror”), Conze saw nothing but a “repetition” or “piling up of synonyms,” and abbreviated them all into the single word “afraid.” Yet according to Ratnākaraśānti these nine words correspond to nine emotional difficulties progressively overcome through the nine stages of meditation practice. Furthermore, Ratnākaraśānti situates the particular degree of tranquility and insight achieved here with a specific stage and level of the bodhisattva’s path.39
This is just one example of how Conze’s mixture of translation and paraphrase, pioneering though it was, distorts the meaning to be gleaned from certain esoteric passages, misrepresents the scripture’s use of language, and cannot be read alongside Ratnākaraśānti’s commentary. Among many other such instances, his rendering of chapter 5 omits the multiple repetitions of very long refrains, completely altering the nature of the chapter and its performative effect on a reader.40 Needless to say, general readers, Buddhist practitioners, and scholars who unwittingly rely on Conze’s paraphrases—as though they are full translations—are being misled.
Stylistically, the present new, complete English translation may not match the tastes of modern readers seeking concision. On the contrary, it preserves all sentence-level repetitions, piling up of synonyms, stock phrases, and so on, so that the traditional commentaries can easily be linked to it in the future, and so that an appreciation of the tradition can inform conclusions about the scripture itself. However, it makes no attempt to translate one word with only one word or to preserve syntactical relations between words. Many long sentences have been cut into shorter ones, adding words without brackets wherever necessary for clarity. The stylistic repetitions of words within a particular sentence have been eliminated only when it would make the English text too clumsy or difficult to understand. Thus, all language has been translated in a simple, straightforward way with a few key notes to make the scripture relatively accessible.
The Eight Thousand can be fruitfully read even with less than a full understanding of its content. The scripture itself often states that simply by reading it the faithful will gain inconceivable merit. To read the scripture alone—without the Ornament’s table of contents or the explanations of the commentaries—may thus offer readers much to explore. But for those with the time and interest it can be explored far more deeply by reading it with the aid of the Ornament and its explanatory commentaries. Complete translations of the commentaries are not yet available, but to provide some help for difficult passages, arcane metaphors, esoteric passages, and ambiguous words, we have provisionally included in the notes some translations of selected key comments from Haribhadra’s Light (abbreviated “Hari”) and Ratnākaraśānti’s Quintessence (abbreviated “Ratnākara” or “RK”).
To get the most use out of these notes and not feel overwhelmed by the commentarial detail, readers would do well to understand what purposes the commentator’s comments aim to serve, the types of comments that have been selected for inclusion, and how the comments have been translated.
Haribhadra’s and Ratnākaraśānti’s commentaries generally aim to provide five services:
to clarify ambiguous Sanskrit word divisions (padaccheda);
to paraphrase the meaning of ambiguous words and syntactical relations (padārthokti);
to present etymological and grammatical analysis (vigraha) of ambiguous Sanskrit terms;
to interpret the meaning of ambiguous sentences (vākyayojanā); and
to address possible confusion or doubts about the intended meaning of the text (ākṣepasamādhāna).
The first four mostly concern issues in the Sanskrit that the English translation already accounts for. Some of these comments contain tidbits that would be interesting to the average English reader but are submerged in points that only a Sanskrit reader would understand or care about.
The fifth service concerns the logic and meaning behind the theory and practice implied in the text. To this end, Haribhadra’s and Ratnākaraśānti’s commentaries are centered on demonstrating, section by section, the correlations between the Eight Thousand and the Ornament, and they seek to provide enough philosophical, religious, and historical context so that an uninformed reader can understand the meaning of both texts. But comments of this type can be long and written in a style that requires additional explanation, so it is not always easy to extract the most relevant parts to include in a note. The notes to this translation therefore include no more than a minuscule portion of all the material held by Indo-Tibetan tradition as the theoretical underpinning of the text.41 Many of the comments that are included require, at least, a working knowledge of the stages of the five Mahāyāna paths that would normally be explained orally by a teacher. In selecting comments for the notes, our main aim was to provide Haribhadra’s or Ratnākaraśānti’s briefer comments where the scripture is difficult to understand on its own. The notes thus focus on the most easily extractable comments whose purposes fall under the second, fourth, and fifth categories listed above. The selection process was inevitably idiosyncratic, but was influenced by several further limiting factors.
First, comments that might be relevant to the interests of readers of any of several possible kinds—Buddhists, non-Buddhists, or academics of various disciplines—were included. In this regard, some footnotes might be interesting only to some readers.
Second, wherever a choice was necessary for brevity or clarity, Ratnākaraśānti’s comments, which have never been translated before, took precedence over Haribhadra’s comments, because an English translation of Haribhadra’s commentary already exists and can be independently consulted.42 But when Ratnākaraśānti’s comments are extant only in Tibetan translation rather than in Sanskrit,43 Haribhadra’s commentary is often provided, since the Tibetan translation of Ratnākaraśānti’s commentary systematically excludes information concerning Sanskrit grammar and etymologies that are helpful for understanding his overall comments.
[F.1.b]Homage to all buddhas, bodhisattvas, noble disciples, and solitary realizers.66
Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was dwelling at Vulture Peak near Rājagṛha together with a great monastic gathering of one thousand two hundred and fifty monks.67 They were all worthy ones68—that is, they had eliminated the worldly influences,69 they had no emotional defilements,70 they had become self-controlled,71 they had utterly liberated their mindsets, they had utterly liberated their discernment,72 they were noble,73 they were exemplary,74 they had completed the work to be done, they had accomplished the tasks,75 they had laid down their burdens,76 they had attained the benefits for themselves,77 they had completely exhausted the ties to worldly existence,78 they had the mindset utterly liberated through accurate understanding,79 and they had succeeded in reaching the supreme perfection of mastery over all their mental faculties80—with the exception of one single person, the venerable Ānanda.81[F.2.a]
82At that time, the Blessed One addressed the elder, the venerable Subhūti: “Subhūti, starting from the transcendent state of wisdom, please illuminate for the bodhisattva great beings the way that bodhisattva great beings should go completely beyond cyclic existence in the transcendent state of wisdom.”83
Then, indeed, the venerable Śāriputra wondered to himself, “Will the elder, the venerable Subhūti, expound the transcendent state of wisdom to bodhisattva great beings on his own—by virtue of his previously developed reserve of strength in wisdom and illumination, that is to say, by virtue of his being blessed with the power of wisdom and illumination—or through the Buddha’s miraculous power?”84
Then, through the miraculous power of the Buddha, the venerable Subhūti knew in his mind that the venerable Śāriputra was having mental ruminations of these kinds and said to the venerable Śariputra, “O Venerable Śāriputra, everything that the Blessed One’s disciples say, teach, expound, express, clarify, or elucidate should be known as the Tathāgata’s personal doing.85 Why is that? It is because those disciples who train in the Dharma taught by the Tathāgata actualize the true nature of things and keep it in mind. Once they have actualized the true nature of things and kept it in mind, absolutely nothing that they say, teach, expound, express, clarify,[F.2.b] or elucidate is in conflict with the true nature of things.86 O Śāriputra, it is a natural outcome87 of the Tathāgata’s Dharma teaching itself that those noble scions, when expounding the true nature of things, do not contradict the true nature of things.”
Then, due to the miraculous power of the Buddha, Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “The Blessed One said, ‘Subhūti, starting from the transcendent state of wisdom, please illuminate for the bodhisattva great beings the way that bodhisattva great beings should go completely beyond cyclic existence in the transcendent state of wisdom.’ O Blessed One, when you say ‘bodhisattva’ here, to what thing does the term bodhisattva refer? O Blessed One, I do not identify any thing called a ‘bodhisattva.’88 Nor do I identify any thing called a ‘transcendent state of wisdom.’89 Since I myself do not find, mentally perceive, or identify a bodhisattva or any thing called a ‘bodhisattva,’ and I also do not find, mentally perceive, or identify a ‘transcendent state of wisdom,’ what bodhisattva shall I instruct and guide, in what transcendent state of wisdom?90 Nonetheless, O Blessed One, when this is being described, taught, and expounded in this way, if the mindset of a bodhisattva great being does not become deflated, depressed, dejected, or sunk in despondency, and his or her mental attitude does not become discouraged, shattered, frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror, then this very bodhisattva great being should be guided in the transcendent state of wisdom.91[F.3.a] Precisely this state should be understood as that bodhisattva great being’s transcendent state of wisdom. Precisely this state is the instruction in the transcendent state of wisdom. When a bodhisattva great being is abiding in such a mindset, that alone is his or her instruction and guidance.92
“Furthermore, O Blessed One, by going about life in the transcendent state of wisdom and cultivating it,93 a bodhisattva great being should train in such a way that, while being trained, he or she would not develop conceits even about that mindset of awakening.94 Why is that? It is because that mindset is free of a mindset, which is to say, it is the luminously clear essential nature of a mindset.”95
Then the venerable Śāriputra asked the venerable Subhūti, “But, Venerable Subhūti, if that mindset is free of a mindset, does that mindset exist?”96
In response, the venerable Subhūti asked the venerable Śāriputra, “Well, Venerable Śāriputra, in the state free of a mindset, is an existence or a nonexistence found or mentally perceived?”
“Definitely not, Venerable Subhūti,” replied the venerable Śāriputra.
The venerable Subhūti continued, “O Venerable Śāriputra, if, in that state free of a mindset, an existence or a nonexistence is neither found nor mentally perceived, then is your questioning of my statement reasonable as you expressed it, saying, ‘If that mindset is free of a mindset, does that mindset exist?’ ”97
In response, the venerable Śāriputra asked the venerable Subhūti, “What then, Venerable Subhūti, is the state free of a mindset?”98
The venerable Subhūti then said this: “O Venerable Śāriputra, the state free of a mindset is free of changing and free of conceptualization.”99
The venerable Śāriputra then said to the venerable Subhūti, “Excellent,[F.3.b] Venerable Subhūti, excellent. You are explaining just the way that the Blessed One indicated you would, that is to say, as the foremost among those who abide free of conflict!100 So, from this, we should understand a bodhisattva great being to be beyond regressing from unsurpassed, perfect awakening. Also, we should know a bodhisattva great being never to be lacking the transcendent state of wisdom.101
“Furthermore, anyone who wishes to train for the level of a disciple must listen to this very transcendent state of wisdom, take it in, keep it in mind, chant it, master it, and pass it on.102 He or she must train and engage in meditation in this very transcendent state of wisdom.103
“Furthermore, anyone who wishes to train for the level of a solitary realizer must listen to this transcendent state of wisdom, take it in, keep it in mind, chant it, master it, and pass it on. He or she must train and engage in meditation in this very transcendent state of wisdom.
“Furthermore, anyone who wishes to train for the level of a bodhisattva must listen to this very transcendent state of wisdom, take it in, keep it in mind, chant it, master it, and pass it on. Anyone endowed with skill in means must engage in meditation in this very transcendent state of wisdom in order to achieve all the bodhisattva qualities.104 Why is that? It is because all the bodhisattva qualities are expounded in detail in this very transcendent state of wisdom in which a bodhisattva must train and engage in meditation.
“Finally, anyone who wishes to train even in unsurpassed, perfect awakening must listen to this transcendent state of wisdom, take it in, keep it in mind, chant it, master it, and pass it on. Why is that? It is because all the buddha qualities [F.4.a]are expounded in detail here in this very transcendent state of wisdom in which a bodhisattva must train and engage in meditation.”
105The Venerable Subhūti then said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, I myself do not find, do not mentally perceive, and do not identify this very designation bodhisattva. Nor do I find, mentally perceive, or identify the transcendent state of wisdom. Given that I myself am not finding, not mentally perceiving, and not identifying the very designation bodhisattva, and given that I am also not finding, not mentally perceiving, and not identifying a transcendent state of wisdom, what bodhisattva am I supposed to instruct and guide in what transcendent state of wisdom? O Blessed One, it would certainly be unconscionable of me if I myself—while not finding, not mentally perceiving, and not identifying any actual thing—were to make one appear and disappear by means of the mere designation bodhisattva.106 Furthermore, O Blessed One, that designation is neither something dwelling, nor something not dwelling, nor something free of dwelling, nor something not free of dwelling.107 Why is that? It is because that designation is not being found to exist. Thus, the designation is neither something dwelling, nor something not dwelling, nor something free of dwelling, nor something not free of dwelling.108
“O Blessed One, when this profound transcendent state of wisdom is being described, taught, and expounded in this way, if a bodhisattva great being’s mindset does not become deflated, depressed, dejected, or sunk in despondency, and his or her mental attitude does not become discouraged, shattered, frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror, then that bodhisattva great being has firm conviction with an altruistic disposition. Also, one[F.4.b] should recognize him or her to be never lacking the transcendent state of wisdom, to dwell on the level of a bodhisattva beyond regressing, and to dwell with ease by means of freedom from dwelling.109
“Furthermore, O Blessed One, a bodhisattva great being who goes about life in the transcendent state of wisdom and cultivates the transcendent state of wisdom would not dwell on physical forms, feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, or consciousness.110 Why is that? It is because, if he or she were to dwell on physical forms, he or she would go about life in the cumulative construction of physical forms.111 He or she would not go about life in the transcendent state of wisdom. Likewise, if he or she were to dwell on feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness, he or she would go about life in the cumulative construction of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness, and would not go about life in the transcendent state of wisdom. Why is that? It is because, while going about life cumulatively constructing these, he or she would not apprehend the transcendent state of wisdom, would not engage in meditation, and would not accomplish the transcendent state of wisdom. By not accomplishing the transcendent state of wisdom, he or she would not go beyond cyclic existence in the state of complete knowing by means of apprehending the inapprehensible.112 Why is that? It is because, in the transcendent state of wisdom, physical forms are not apprehended. Likewise, in the transcendent state of wisdom, feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are not apprehended.
“Furthermore, the nonapprehending of physical forms is not the same as physical forms.113 Likewise, the nonapprehending of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is not the same as feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness. And this transcendent state of wisdom is not something apprehended in addition to those.[F.5.a]
“Therefore, it is in this transcendent state of wisdom that a bodhisattva great being should go about life. Also, the bodhisattva great being’s meditative concentration—called the meditative concentration free of anything apprehended—is vast, highly esteemed, focused on what is beyond measure, and unshared by the disciples and solitary realizers.114 Furthermore, this state of complete knowing is not apprehended, since it cannot be grasped through conventional signs.
“If it were something to be grasped through conventional signs, then the wandering ascetic Śreṇika115 would never have gained faith in this teaching of the Buddha.116 Indeed, as someone who proceeded based on faith, the wandering ascetic Śreṇika had firm conviction in the knowing of someone who has complete knowing and he entered into it through a knowing limited in scope.117 After entering it, he did not apprehend physical forms.118 Likewise, he did not apprehend feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, or consciousness. In that state, he did not even identify that knowing as delight or ease.119 Nor did he identify that knowing as inside physical forms. Nor did he identify that knowing as outside physical forms. Nor did he identify that knowing as both inside and outside physical forms. Nor did he identify that knowing as other than physical forms. Likewise, he did not identify that knowing as inside feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, or consciousness. Nor did he identify that knowing as outside feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, or consciousness. Nor did he identify that knowing as both inside and outside feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, or consciousness. Nor did he identify that knowing as something other than feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, or consciousness.
“The wandering ascetic Śreṇika had firm conviction in this way of proceeding.120 Everywhere along this way, he was someone who proceeded based on faith in the knowing of someone who has complete knowing. Hence, it is said, ‘He took the true nature of Dharma to be authoritative in this way and had firm conviction in it.’121 For this reason,[F.5.b] he neither apprehended nor mentally perceived any thing that he could grasp or let go of.122 He did not develop conceits even about nirvāṇa.123
“O Blessed One, this too should be known as the transcendent state of wisdom of a bodhisattva great being, insofar as he or she does not apprehend physical forms, feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, or consciousness. Nor does a bodhisattva great being pass into nirvāṇa in the interval without having realized the ten powers of a tathāgata,124 the four grounds for self-confidence of a tathāgata,125 and the eighteen distinctive qualities of a buddha.126 Therefore, O Blessed One, this should also be known as the transcendent state of wisdom of a bodhisattva great being.
“Furthermore, a bodhisattva great being who goes about life in the transcendent state of wisdom and cultivates it should reflect and meditate upon it in the following way: ‘What is that transcendent state of wisdom? To whom does the transcendent state of wisdom belong? Is that thing that is neither found nor mentally perceived the transcendent state of wisdom?’ If, reflecting and meditating upon it in this way, a bodhisattva great being’s mindset does not become deflated, depressed, dejected, or sunk in despondency, and if his or her mental attitude does not become discouraged, shattered, frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror, then such a bodhisattva great being should be known as a bodhisattva who never lacks the transcendent state of wisdom.”
Then the venerable Śāriputra asked the venerable Subhūti, “Subhūti, given that physical forms themselves lack the inherent nature of physical forms; given that feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness [F.6.a]themselves lack the inherent nature of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness; given that the transcendent state of wisdom itself lacks the inherent nature of a transcendent state of wisdom; and given that the state of complete knowing itself lacks the inherent nature of a state of complete knowing, why should a bodhisattva great being be known as never lacking the transcendent state of wisdom?”
The venerable Subhūti replied to the venerable Śāriputra, “You are right, Venerable Śāriputra, you are right. Physical forms themselves lack the inherent nature of physical forms. Likewise, feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness themselves lack the inherent nature of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness. The transcendent state of wisdom itself lacks the inherent nature of a transcendent state of wisdom. The state of complete knowing itself lacks the inherent nature of a state of complete knowing. Even the transcendent state of wisdom lacks the defining characteristic of a transcendent state of wisdom. Even a defining characteristic lacks the inherent nature of a defining characteristic. Even what is to be characterized [by a defining characteristic] lacks the inherent nature of being characterized. Even an inherent nature lacks the defining characteristic of an inherent nature.”
The venerable Śāriputra then asked the venerable Subhūti, “Subhūti, will a bodhisattva great being who trains in this go beyond cyclic existence to the state of complete knowing?”
The venerable Subhūti replied to the venerable Śāriputra, “Yes, that bodhisattva great being will go. Venerable Śāriputra, yes, that bodhisattva great being will go. A bodhisattva great being who trains in this will go beyond cyclic existence to the state of complete knowing. Why is that? Because, Venerable Śāriputra,[F.6.b] all things are never even born and are not gone beyond.127 Hence, Venerable Śāriputra, a bodhisattva great being, in going about life in such a manner, approaches the state of complete knowing.128 In whatever manner he or she approaches the state of complete knowing, in that same manner he or she—for the sake of causing beings to mature—refines his or her body and mind, refines his or her particular appearance, refines his or her buddhafield, and meets with the buddhas.129 Thus, a bodhisattva great being who goes about life in the transcendent state of wisdom is approaching the state of complete knowing.”
130Moreover, the venerable Subhūti said the following about a bodhisattva great being: “If a bodhisattva great being goes about life in physical forms, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the conventional sign of physical forms, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the notion ‘physical forms are a conventional sign,’ then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the arising of physical forms, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign.131 If he or she goes about life in the cessation of physical forms, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the dissolution of physical forms, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the notion ‘physical forms are empty,’ then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the notion ‘I am going about my life,’ then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the notion ‘I am a bodhisattva,’ then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. This is because he or she is going about life in nothing but his or her mental perception of ‘I am a bodhisattva.’132
“Likewise, if he or she goes about life in feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the conventional sign of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the arising of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the cessation of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the dissolution of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If [F.7.a]he or she goes about life in the notion ‘feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are empty,’ then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the notion ‘I am going about my life,’ then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the notion ‘I am a bodhisattva,’ then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. This is because he or she is going about life in nothing but his or her mental perception of ‘I am a bodhisattva.’ Furthermore, if it occurs to him or her, ‘Those who go about life in this way are going about life in the transcendent state of wisdom and are cultivating it,’ then he or she is going about life in nothing but a conventional sign. Such a bodhisattva should be known as someone who is not skilled in means.”133
Then the venerable Śāriputra asked the venerable Subhūti, “If a bodhisattva great being were to go about life in the transcendent state of wisdom, then how, Venerable Subhūti, would he or she do so?”
At this, the venerable Subhūti said to the venerable Śāriputra, “O Venerable Śāriputra, a bodhisattva great being does not go about life in physical forms, does not go about life in the conventional sign of physical forms, does not go about life in the notion ‘physical forms are a sign,’ does not go about life in the arising of physical forms, does not go about life in the cessation of physical forms, does not go about life in the dissolution of physical forms, does not go about life in the notion ‘physical forms are empty,’ does not go about life in the notion ‘I am going about my life,’ and does not go about life in the notion ‘I am a bodhisattva.’
“Likewise, he or she does not go about life in feelings, conceptions, or conditioning factors. He or she does not go about life in consciousness, does not go about life in the conventional sign of consciousness, does not go about life in the notion ‘consciousness is a conventional sign,’ does not go about life in the arising of consciousness, does not go about life in the cessation of consciousness, does not go about life in the dissolution of consciousness, does not go about life in the notion ‘consciousness is empty,’ does not go about life in the notion ‘I am going about my life,’ and does not go about life in the notion ‘I am a bodhisattva.’ If [F.7.b]he or she does not think, ‘Those who go about life in this way are going about life in the transcendent state of wisdom and are cultivating the transcendent state of wisdom,’ then a bodhisattva great being who is going about life in this way is going about life in the transcendent state of wisdom. For he or she never goes close to the thoughts, ‘I am going about my life,’ ‘I am not going about my life,’ ‘I am going about my life and not going about my life,’ or ‘I am neither going about my life nor not going about my life.’134 Nor does he or she arrive at the thoughts, ‘I will be going about my life,’ ‘I will not be going about my life,’ ‘I will both be going about my life and not be going about my life,’ or ‘I will neither be going about my life nor not be going about my life.’ Why does he or she not come to think that? It is because no things are either arrived at or taken hold of. This meditative concentration of a bodhisattva great being—called the meditative concentration free of anything apprehended—is vast, highly esteemed, focused on what is beyond measure, and unshared by the disciples and solitary realizers. By abiding in this very meditative concentration, a bodhisattva great being quickly realizes unsurpassable, completely perfect awakening.”
Through the miraculous power of the Buddha, the elder, the venerable Subhūti, continued: “O Blessed One, a bodhisattva great being whom the previous worthy, perfectly and completely awakened tathāgatas have foreordained for unsurpassable, perfect awakening abides in precisely this meditative concentration.135 Yet, he or she does not identify that meditative concentration and does not develop conceits about it, thinking, ‘I am concentrated,’ ‘I will attain the meditative concentration,’ ‘I am attaining the meditative concentration,’ or ‘I have attained the meditative concentration.’ Never are such thoughts as these experienced by that bodhisattva great being in any form [F.8.a]or any manner.”136
At this, the venerable Śāriputra asked the venerable Subhūti, “O Venerable Subhūti, in what meditative concentration is a bodhisattva great being—whom the previous worthy, perfectly and completely awakened tathāgatas have foreordained for unsurpassable, perfect awakening—abiding? Is that meditative concentration something that can be demonstrated?”
“Definitely not, Venerable Śāriputra,” replied Subhūti. “Why is that? It is because even such a noble son or daughter does not perceive that meditative concentration, nor does he or she conceive of it.”
The venerable Śāriputra asked, “Venerable Subhūti, are you saying that neither do they perceive it nor do they conceive of it?”
The venerable Subhūti replied, “O Venerable Śāriputra, I am saying that neither do they perceive it nor do they conceive of it. Why not? Because, insofar as that meditative concentration is not found to exist, they neither perceive it nor do they conceive of it.”137
Then the Blessed One commended the venerable Subhūti: “Excellent, Venerable Subhūti, excellent. It is exactly so, Subhūti, exactly so. Just as it is illuminating to you through the Tathāgata’s miraculous power and just as you are expounding it through the Tathāgata’s blessings, just so a bodhisattva great being should train in this meditative concentration. Why is that? It is because a bodhisattva great being who trains in this way trains in the transcendent state of wisdom.”
The venerable Śāriputra then asked the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, is it that a bodhisattva great being who trains in this way trains in the transcendent state of wisdom?”138
At this, the Blessed One said to the venerable Śāriputra, “Śāriputra,[F.8.b] a bodhisattva great being who trains in this way is training in the transcendent state of wisdom.”
At this, the venerable Śāriputra asked the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, in what thing does a bodhisattva great being train?”
At this, the Blessed One said to the venerable Śāriputra, “O Śāriputra, while training in this way a bodhisattva does not train in any things whatsoever.139 Why is that? It is because, Śāriputra, those things are not experienced by him or her in the same manner that they are fixated upon by immature, uninformed, ordinary persons.”140
“How then are those things experienced?”141 asked the venerable Śāriputra.
The Blessed One replied, “O Śāriputra, insofar as those things are not experienced as existing, they are experienced. And, since those things are not known to exist as such by that bodhisattva great being, they are called ignorance.142 Those things are habitually fixated upon by immature, uninformed, ordinary persons. But all things—insofar as they are not actually experienced—are just imagined by them.143 After imagining them, those immature, ordinary beings become entangled in the two extremes, and neither perceive nor see those things.144 Hence, they imagine all the things not being experienced, and after imagining those, they become habitually fixated on the two extremes. After habitually fixating on those extremes, they resort to their mental perception as a foundation, and imagine things as past, things as future, and things as present.145 After imagining those, they become fixated on names and physical forms.146 These things are also imagined by them. While they are imagining all these things not being experienced, they neither perceive nor do they see the path in accordance with reality. Since they are not perceiving or seeing the path in accordance with reality, they neither go beyond the three realms nor awaken to the pinnacle of reality.147 For this reason, those beings are considered immature. They [F.9.a]do not place their trust in the true Dharma.148 On the other hand, Śāriputra, bodhisattva great beings do not fixate upon anything at all as the Dharma.”149
At this, the venerable Śāriputra asked the Blessed One, “But, O Blessed One, does a bodhisattva great being who trains in this way train in the state of complete knowing?”
The Blessed One said, “O Śāriputra, a bodhisattva great being who trains in this way does not train even in the state of complete knowing. Śāriputra, a bodhisattva great being who trains in this way trains in all things. Śāriputra, a bodhisattva great being who trains in the state of complete knowing in this way is approaching that state and will go beyond cyclic existence in that [knowing].”
150Then the venerable Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, someone might ask me, ‘Is it the case that [a bodhisattva great being who is like an] illusory person would train in the state of complete knowing, approach that state, and go beyond cyclic existence in it?’ O Blessed One, if one were questioned in this way, how should one explicate the topic?”
In response, the Blessed One said to the venerable Subhūti, “To explain, Subhūti, I will ask you some questions about this topic in return. Answer them however you please.”
The venerable Subhūti assented to the Blessed One by saying, “Very well, Blessed One.”
The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, [regarding a magical, illusion-like bodhisattva great being,] what do you think? Are his or her physical forms one thing and the magical illusion a different thing? Are his or her feelings one thing and the magical illusion a different thing? Are his or her conceptions one thing and the magical illusion a different thing? Are his or her conditioning factors one thing and the magical illusion a different thing?[F.9.b] Subhūti, is his or her consciousness one thing and the magical illusion a different thing?”
“Definitely not, Blessed One,” replied Subhūti. “For, O Blessed One, it is not that physical forms are one thing, and the magical illusion a different thing. Physical forms themselves, Blessed One, are the magical illusion, and the magical illusion itself is the physical forms. Likewise, O Blessed One, feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are not one thing, and the magical illusion a different thing. O Blessed One, feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness themselves are magical illusion, and the magical illusion is the feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness.”
The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, what do you think? Is this so-called ‘bodhisattva’ here a conception, a name, a designation, and a conventional expression for the constituents underlying the clinging to existence?”
In response, Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, yes. O Sugata, yes it is. O Blessed One, the reason is that a bodhisattva great being who trains in the transcendent state of wisdom is like an illusory person being trained in unsurpassable, perfect awakening. Why is that? It is because, O Blessed One, it should be kept in mind that a bodhisattva great being is him- or herself an illusory person, that is to say, the five constituents underlying the clinging to existence. Why is that? It is because, O Blessed One, that is how the Blessed One has taught: that physical forms are like a magical illusion, and what is so for physical forms is also so for the six sense organs and all five constituents. Likewise, it is because, O Blessed One, that is how the Blessed One has taught: that feelings, conceptions, and conditioning factors [F.10.a]are like a magical illusion, and likewise the Blessed One has taught that consciousness is like a magical illusion, and what is so for feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is also so for the six sense organs and all five constituents. O Blessed One, if those bodhisattva great beings have just begun to set out on the path and have heard this explication, would they not be frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror?”
The Blessed One said, “Subhūti, if those bodhisattva great beings who have just begun to set out on the path fall into the hands of unvirtuous friends, they will be frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror.151 But, Subhūti, if the bodhisattva great beings who have just begun to set out on the path fall into the hands of virtuous friends, they will not be frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror.”152
At this, Subhūti asked the Blessed One, “Who then, O Blessed One, should be known as virtuous friends for a bodhisattva great being?”
The Blessed One said, “Virtuous friends are those who instruct and guide a bodhisattva great being in the transcendent states and expound to him or her the activities of Māra like this: ‘The corruptions of Māra should be recognized as such; these are the corruptions of Māra. These activities of Māra should be recognized as such; these are the activities of Māra. Once you have recognized them, you should abandon them.’153 Subhūti, such people should be known as the virtuous friends of a bodhisattva great being, who has donned the great armor, has set out on the great journey, and has embarked on the great vehicle.”154
At this, Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “What the Blessed One has said [F.10.b]is as follows: ‘Such people should be known as the virtuous friends of a bodhisattva great being, who has donned the great armor, has set out on the great journey, and has embarked on the great vehicle.’
155“And yet, O Blessed One, regarding that which you call ‘a bodhisattva great being,’ what is the referent of the word bodhisattva?”156
At this, the Blessed One said to Subhūti, “Subhūti, the referent of the word bodhisattva is free of any referent. Why is that? Subhūti, it is because a bodhisattva great being trains to be free of being entangled with any things. Subhūti, when a bodhisattva great being is free of being entangled with the objective of comprehending all things, he or she realizes unsurpassable, perfect awakening. But, Subhūti, since he or she has the objective of awakening, he or she is called a bodhisattva great being.”157
Subhūti said, “But the Blessed One has called him or her ‘a bodhisattva great being.’ For what reason, O Blessed One, is he or she called a bodhisattva that is a ‘great being’?”
The Blessed One said, “It is because he or she will cause a great number of beings and a great gathering of beings to achieve the greatest goal. Since he or she has this objective, he or she is called a ‘great being’ bodhisattva.”158
159Then the venerable Śāriputra said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, I too will venture to illuminate the objective due to which a bodhisattva is called a ‘great being.’ ”
The Blessed One said, “O Śāriputra, please illuminate what you are thinking right now.”
The venerable Śāriputra said, “The objective due to which a bodhisattva is called a ‘great being’ is that he or she [F.11.a]is going to teach the Dharma to eliminate the numerous erroneous beliefs—such as the erroneous beliefs in a self, the erroneous beliefs in a being, the erroneous beliefs in a soul, the erroneous beliefs in a person, the erroneous beliefs in existence, the erroneous beliefs in dissolution, the erroneous beliefs in nihilism, the erroneous beliefs in eternalism, and the erroneous beliefs in individuality—and so on.”160
Then the venerable Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, I too will venture to be illuminating about why a bodhisattva is called a ‘great being.’ ”
The Blessed One said, “Subhūti, please venture to illuminate what you are thinking right now.”
Subhūti then said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, he or she is called ‘a bodhisattva great being’ because he or she is neither entangled nor enmeshed in even that mindset—namely, that mindset of awakening, which is the mindset with complete knowing, the mindset free from worldly influences, the unequaled mindset, the mindset equal to the unequaled, and the mindset not shared by the disciples and solitary realizers.161 Why is that? It is because that mindset with complete knowing is free of worldly influence and free of enmeshment, and also because bodhisattva great beings are neither entangled nor enmeshed in even that mindset that is the mindset with complete knowing free of worldly influence and free of enmeshment. Since he or she has this objective, he or she is considered ‘a bodhisattva great being.’ ”
Then the venerable Śāriputra asked the venerable Subhūti, “Due to what reason, Venerable Subhūti, is he or she neither entangled nor enmeshed in even that mindset?”
Subhūti said, “Due to his or her being free of a mindset, Venerable Śāriputra, he or she is neither entangled nor enmeshed in even that mindset.”
Then the venerable Śāriputra asked the venerable Subhūti,[F.11.b] “But then, Venerable Subhūti, if that mindset is free of a mindset, does that mindset exist?”
At this, the venerable Subhūti asked the venerable Śāriputra, “Well, Venerable Śāriputra, in the state free of a mindset, is an existence or a nonexistence found or mentally perceived?”
“Definitely not, Venerable Subhūti,” replied the venerable Śāriputra.
The venerable Subhūti continued, “O Venerable Śāriputra, if, in that state free of a mindset, an existence or a nonexistence is neither found nor mentally perceived, then is your questioning of my statement reasonable as expressed: ‘If that mindset is free of a mindset, does that mindset exist?’ ”
The venerable Śāriputra then said to the venerable Subhūti, “Excellent, excellent, Venerable Subhūti. You are explaining in just the way that the Blessed One indicated that you would, that is to say, as the foremost among those who abide free of conflict!”
162Then Pūrṇa, son of Maitrāyaṇī, said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, the one described in this context as a ‘great being’ is a sentient being who has donned the great armor, set out on the great journey, and mounted the great vehicle. It is for this reason that he or she is considered a ‘great being.’ ”
Then the venerable Subhūti asked the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, to what extent has a bodhisattva great being—described in this context as having donned the great armor—donned the great armor?”
The Blessed One said, “Here, Subhūti, it occurs to a bodhisattva great being, ‘The sentient beings to be liberated by me are immeasurable. The sentient beings to be liberated by me are innumerable. And yet, there are no sentient beings to be liberated by anyone.’ With this understanding, he or she causes all those sentient beings to be liberated and yet no one is liberating and no one is liberated. Why is that? Subhūti, it is because, in light of the illusory nature of things, this is the true nature of things. Subhūti, it is just as if a skilled magical illusionist [F.12.a]or a magical illusionist’s apprentice were to conjure up a great gathering of people at the intersection of four highways. Then, having conjured them up, if he or she were to make that very gathering of people disappear, Subhūti, what would you think in that case? Would anyone have killed anyone? Would anyone be dead or destroyed? Would anyone have made them disappear?”
“Definitely not, Blessed One,” said Subhūti.
The Blessed One said, “Subhūti, in this very way, a bodhisattva great being liberates immeasurable and innumerable sentient beings, and yet no one is liberating and no one is liberated. If a bodhisattva great being hears this explication being given in this way and is not frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror, then, Subhūti, that bodhisattva great being should be known as having donned the great armor to that extent.”
Then the venerable Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “Indeed, O Blessed One, as far as I have understood the point of the Blessed One’s explication, the bodhisattva great being should be known as not having donned the great armor.”
The Blessed One said, “You are right. Subhūti, you are right. The bodhisattva great being should be known, indeed, as not having donned the great armor.163 Why not? Because, Subhūti, the state of complete knowing is uncreated, untransformed, and unconditioned. Also, those sentient beings for whose sake he or she has donned the great armor are neither created, nor transformed, nor conditioned.”
At this, the venerable Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “So it is, O Blessed One. So it is, Sugata. Why is that?[F.12.b] O Blessed One, it is because physical forms are neither fettered nor liberated.164 Likewise, O Blessed One, feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are neither fettered nor liberated. Also, the actual nature of physical forms is neither fettered nor liberated. Likewise, O Blessed One, the actual nature of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is neither fettered nor liberated.”165
Then the venerable Pūrṇa, son of Maitrāyaṇī, said to the venerable Subhūti, “O Venerable Subhūti, you say that physical forms are neither fettered nor liberated. Likewise, Venerable Subhūti, you say that feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are neither fettered nor liberated. Venerable Subhūti, you say that the actual nature of physical forms also is neither fettered nor liberated. Likewise, Venerable Subhūti, you say that the actual nature of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is neither fettered nor liberated.
“Well then, Venerable Subhūti, what physical forms are neither fettered nor liberated as you say? Likewise, Venerable Subhūti, what feelings, what conceptions, what conditioning factors, and what consciousness is neither fettered nor liberated as you say? Also, Venerable Subhūti, what actual nature of physical forms is neither fettered nor liberated as you say? Likewise, Venerable Subhūti, what actual nature of feelings, what actual nature of conceptions, what actual nature of conditioning factors, and what actual nature of consciousness is neither fettered nor liberated as you say?”
At this, the venerable Subhūti said to the venerable Pūrṇa, son of Maitrāyaṇī, “O Venerable Pūrṇa,[F.13.a] the physical form of an illusory person is neither fettered nor liberated. Likewise, Venerable Pūrṇa, the feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness of an illusory person are neither fettered nor liberated. Venerable Pūrṇa, the actual nature of an illusory person’s physical form is neither fettered nor liberated. Likewise, the actual nature of an illusory person’s feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is neither fettered nor liberated. Why is that? Since the actual nature is not really existent, it is neither fettered nor liberated. Since it is void, it is neither fettered nor liberated. Since it has not arisen, it is neither fettered nor liberated.166 For a bodhisattva great being who has donned the great armor, who has set out on the great journey, and who has mounted the great vehicle, this is the great armor free of any armor.”167
At this, the venerable Pūrṇa, son of Maitrāyaṇī, became silent.
168Then the venerable Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, the bodhisattva great being who has donned the great armor in this way has set out on the great journey and has mounted the great vehicle. But what is that great vehicle? How should someone who has set out on that great journey be recognized? From where will that great path go beyond cyclic existence? By what means has that great vehicle set out? Where will the great vehicle come to dwell? Who will go beyond cyclic existence by means of this great vehicle?”169
At this, the Blessed One [F.13.b]said to Subhūti, “The great vehicle, Subhūti, is the epithet of something immeasurable. Subhūti, it is immeasurable, because it is beyond measure. Subhūti, what you also asked is, ‘How can someone who has set out on the great journey be recognized? From where will that great path go beyond cyclic existence? Who has set out on the great journey? Where will the great vehicle come to dwell? Who will go beyond cyclic existence by means of this great vehicle?’170 Someone who has set out on the journey can be recognized by means of the transcendent states. From whatever belongs to the three realms, the great path will go beyond cyclic existence. He or she who is beyond the scope of perception has set out upon the journey. The great vehicle will come to dwell in the state of complete knowing. The bodhisattva great being will go beyond cyclic existence, but he or she will not go beyond cyclic existence from any location, nor will anyone even set out on a journey. He or she will not come to dwell in any state. But, by not dwelling anywhere, he or she will come to dwell in the state of complete knowing. By means of this great vehicle, no one has gone beyond cyclic existence, no one will go beyond cyclic existence, and no one is going beyond cyclic existence. Why is that? It is because those two things—that is, someone going beyond cyclic existence and some means by which to go beyond it—are neither found nor mentally perceived. Since these two are not to be found as such, what will go beyond cyclic existence by means of what?”171
At this, the venerable Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, it is called a great vehicle because by means of it a bodhisattva great being will surpass the world with its gods, humans, and asuras, and hence will go beyond cyclic existence.172 It is a great vehicle that is equal to space. Just as there is room in space for immeasurable and innumerable beings, just so, O Blessed One, there is room in this vehicle for immeasurable [F.14.a]and innumerable beings.173 It is from this perspective that it is the great vehicle of the bodhisattva great beings. It is not seen coming. It is not seen going. It is not mentally perceived dwelling. Likewise, O Blessed One, the beginning point, the middle point, and the end point of this great path are not mentally perceived. O Blessed One, this path is the same in all three times. Therefore, it is called the great path.”
Then indeed the Blessed One commended Subhūti: “Excellent, excellent, Subhūti. It is as you say, Subhūti, it is as you say. In this way, it is the great path of bodhisattva great beings. Having trained in this, bodhisattva great beings have attained, are attaining, and will attain the state of complete knowing.”
174Then the venerable Pūrṇa, son of Maitrāyaṇī, said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, this elder Subhūti, who was asked about the transcendent state of wisdom, considers that the great path is the topic to be expounded.”
Then the venerable Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, I was not speaking of the great path to the neglect of the transcendent state of wisdom.”175
The Blessed One said, “Absolutely not, Subhūti. You are expounding the great path in conformity with the transcendent state of wisdom, Subhūti.”176
At this, Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, it is through the Buddha’s [F.14.b]miraculous power.177 Nevertheless, O Blessed One, a bodhisattva does not go close to either any beginning point, any end point, or any middle point. Why not? This is because, insofar as physical forms are limitless, a bodhisattva should be known as limitless.178 Likewise, insofar as feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are limitless, a bodhisattva should be known as limitless. He or she does not go close to the thought, ‘Bodhisattvas are physical forms.’ Even this thought is not found and not mentally perceived. Likewise, he or she does not go close to the thought, ‘Bodhisattvas are feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness.’ Even this thought is not found and not mentally perceived. O Blessed One, since I am not mentally perceiving any such thing called a ‘bodhisattva’ anywhere at all or in any way at all, I do not identify this thing designated to be a ‘bodhisattva.’179 Nor do I identify or mentally perceive the transcendent state of wisdom. Nor do I identify or mentally perceive the state of complete knowing. O Blessed One, since I myself am neither mentally perceiving nor identifying that thing anywhere at all by any means at all, what thing should I instruct and guide in what thing by means of what thing? O Blessed One, this ‘buddha’ is a mere designation. O Blessed One, this ‘bodhisattva’ is a mere designation. O Blessed One, this ‘transcendent state of wisdom’ is a mere designation. But these designations have not truly come into being.180 O Blessed One, it is just like the fact that the word self is said, but a self absolutely has not truly come into being.181 Similarly, all things have the inherent nature of lacking any [F.15.a]state of being.182 What are those physical forms that have not truly come into being and cannot be grasped? What are those feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness that have not truly come into being and cannot be grasped? The condition for all these things to be free of inherent nature in this way is their not truly coming into being, and yet those things’ not truly coming into being is not those things themselves. How then shall I instruct and guide someone who is not truly coming into being in the transcendent state of wisdom that also is not truly coming into being?183 O Blessed One, no things—whether they be things constituting buddhas, constituting bodhisattvas, or constituting anyone who might practice to awaken—are mentally perceived anywhere other than in their not truly coming into being.
“O Blessed One, when it is described in this way, taught in this way, and expounded in this way, if a bodhisattva great being’s mindset does not become deflated, depressed, dejected, or sunk in despondency, and if his or her mental attitude does not become discouraged, shattered, frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror, then in this way it should be known that this bodhisattva great being goes about life in the transcendent state of wisdom, this bodhisattva great being cultivates the transcendent state of wisdom, and this bodhisattva great being reflects upon the transcendent state of wisdom. The bodhisattva great being meditates upon the transcendent state of wisdom. Why is that? It is because at the time when a bodhisattva investigates these things in the transcendent state of wisdom, he or she neither goes close to physical forms, nor arrives at them, nor identifies their arising, nor identifies their cessation. Likewise, he or she neither goes close to feelings, conceptions,[F.15.b] conditioning factors, or consciousness, nor arrives at them, nor identifies their arising, nor identifies their cessation.184 Why is that? To explain, the characteristic of not arising that belongs to physical forms is not the same as the physical forms.185 The characteristic of not ceasing that belongs to physical forms is not the same as the physical forms.186 This being said, the characteristic of not arising and the physical forms are something free of duality, and free from creating duality.187 Also, the characteristic of not ceasing and the physical forms are something free of duality, and free from creating duality.188 Again, saying ‘physical forms’ is to quantify something free of duality.189
“Likewise, the characteristic of not arising that belongs to feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is not the same as the so-called feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness. The characteristic of not ceasing that belongs to feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is not the same as the so-called consciousness. This being said, the characteristic of not arising and the feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are something free of duality, and free from creating duality. Also, the characteristic of not ceasing and the feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are something free of duality, and free from creating duality. Again, saying ‘feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness’ is to quantify something free of duality.
“Therefore, O Blessed One, at the time when a bodhisattva is deeply reflecting upon all things as all the aspects in the transcendent state of wisdom, he or she does not go close to physical forms, arrive at physical forms, identify their arising, or identify their cessation. Likewise, he or she does not go close to feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, or consciousness, arrive at them, identify their arising,[F.16.a] or identify their cessation. Why is that? To explain, physical forms’ nature of not arising is not the same as the so-called physical forms. Physical forms’ nature of not ceasing is not the same as the so-called physical forms. This being said, the characteristic of not arising and the physical forms are something free of duality, and free from creating duality. Also, the characteristic of not ceasing and the physical forms are something free of duality, and free from creating duality. Again, saying ‘physical forms’ is to quantify something free of duality.
“Likewise, the characteristic of not arising of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is not the same as the so-called feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness. The characteristic of not ceasing of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is not the same as the so-called feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness. This being said, the characteristic of not arising and the feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are something free of duality, and free from creating duality. Also, the characteristic of not ceasing and the feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are something free of duality, and free from creating duality. Again, saying ‘feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness’ is to quantify something free of duality.”
Then the venerable Śāriputra said this: “To explain the meaning of Venerable Subhūti’s teaching as I understand it, even bodhisattvas are free of arising. That said, Subhūti, if even bodhisattvas are free of arising, then how can they go about life performing difficult noble deeds? How are they able to subject themselves to those sufferings, to which they subject themselves for the sake of beings?”190
At this, the venerable Subhūti [F.16.b]said to the venerable Śāriputra, “I do not hold that a bodhisattva great being is going about life performing difficult noble deeds, or that a bodhisattva great being is someone who goes about life with a conception of any noble deeds as difficult. Why not? To explain, it is not possible to bring about the benefit of immeasurable and innumerable beings after developing the conception of noble deeds as difficult. Rather, it is only after developing the conception of them as easy. That is to say, it is only after developing the conception of all beings—male or female—as mothers, fathers, daughters, or sons that a bodhisattva great being goes about life performing the noble deeds of a bodhisattva. Based on that, a bodhisattva great being should develop the conception of all beings as mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters until finally he or she develops the conception of them as his or her very own self, thinking, ‘Just as I must liberate myself from all sufferings by absolutely every means and in absolutely every way, just so I must liberate all sentient beings from all sufferings by absolutely every means and in absolutely every way. Likewise, I must develop this conception with respect to all sentient beings and I shall not desert any of them. I must liberate all these beings from immeasurable amounts of sufferings and I must not develop a mindset that is hostile toward them, even if I am being cut to pieces a hundred times over!’
“In precisely this way, a bodhisattva great being should develop the proper mindset. Furthermore, if he or she comes to abide with a mindset like this, then he or she will not abide with a conception of noble deeds as difficult.
The Transcendent State of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines is a keystone of the Prajñāpāramitā literature. It presents the Buddha’s teaching on the topic in a relatively compact text that nevertheless covers the entire range of important points he taught, and is therefore considered to be one of the six “mother” works. It has been hugely influential in Mahāyāna Buddhist thought across Asia, and gave rise to many commentaries in India and Tibet.
Translated by the Padmakara Translation Group under the direction of Pema Wangyal Rinpoche and Jigme Khyentse Rinpoche. Greg Seton translated the text, compiled extensive annotations to it from the commentaries, and wrote a preliminary version of the introduction. Charles Hastings contributed valuable editorial help during these stages.
The translation was then completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha. John Canti edited the translation and annotations. He also edited and rearranged the introduction, and added further material to it. Ven. Konchog Norbu copyedited the text. Sameer Dhingra and Celso Wilkinson were in charge of the digital publication process.
The translation of this text has been made possible through the generous sponsorship of AC, AN, C, CHUCKTSOU, CM, CY, Deva-DKSPS, FEN, HCM, JFH, K, KH, LR, NIEHYUPING, NP, SF, SPTF, RW, WAC, WF, Y, YL, YS, YUANSUEN, YY, YUSHUHUI, and the other anonymous members of the Nigrodha team.
The Transcendent State of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines (Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā, hereafter Eight Thousand) is one of the most important, influential, and revolutionary Buddhist scriptures. It presents the Buddha’s second turning of the wheel of Dharma and thus some of the quintessential teachings at the core of the Mahāyāna. It may be close to the earliest textual form of the Prajñāpāramitā literature that, as it blossomed, forever transformed the Buddhist landscape in India and beyond.
The Eight Thousand is revered as one of the six “mother” Prajñāpāramitā texts, so called because they include the complete set of topics identified in the most influential of the Indian commentaries, The Ornament of Clear Realization (Abhisamayālaṃkāra), as comprising the full range covered by the Prajñāpāramitā teaching. But for those without the time, interest, stamina, or need to study the other, longer “mother” texts, the lesser level of detail with which the Eight Thousand covers that full range of topics makes it more accessible. The Eight Thousand seems to have been extensively read and studied in India, and was translated into Chinese and Tibetan more times than virtually any other scripture.
The Prajñāpāramitā sūtras are widely seen as presenting the Buddha’s core teaching on the emptiness of phenomena and their ultimate lack of defining characteristics. Yet as scriptures they are not easy to understand fully, and gave rise to a very large commentarial literature, starting with Nāgārjuna’s treatises and in a later period Maitreya-Asaṅga’s Ornament of Clear Realization and its many subcommentaries. Of those subcommentaries, the ones composed by Haribhadra and Ratnākaraśānti, from their different viewpoints, are renowned for their elucidation of the difficult points in the text, of its implicit structure, and of how its underlying themes are crucial for a full understanding of the Buddhist path in general and for the practice of a bodhisattva in particular.
This translation therefore includes substantial notes drawing on these two commentaries, in order to allow as full an appreciation as possible of the depth and breadth of the scripture itself, and to point out some of the ways in which its style and wordplay—difficult to convey in a translation—are integral to how it conveys its intended message.
There is nevertheless an established tradition, mentioned in the text itself, of simply reading or reciting the sūtra respectfully without analysis, allowing its words to bring about their subtle effect by themselves.
This English rendering, made principally from the Sanskrit but with reference to the Tibetan translation, is the first full translation of the Eight Thousand. It is presented here so that readers of all kinds may read or study it, with or without guidance from the notes, in whatever way they wish. In particular, we hope that the Eight Thousand’s own interpretable but playful use of language may amuse, intrigue, and inspire.
What follows in this introduction is a more detailed presentation of contextual and historical material, and some explanations of the approaches taken in translating the text.
Two synopses of the content, one according to the topics of The Ornament of Clear Realization and one set out chapter by chapter, can also be found at the end of the introduction. Although in many respects the Eight Thousand is less similar to the longer Prajñāpāramitā sūtras than they are to each other, it follows almost the same order as them in terms of narrative events, appearances of different interlocutors, topics discussed, and so forth. Some remarks and links to the passages paralleled in the Eighteen Thousand, Twenty-Five Thousand, and Hundred Thousand have been included so that interested readers may compare all these closely related accounts of the same material.
According to tradition, when the Buddha taught the Prajñāpāramitā scriptures, he entrusted their preservation to Ānanda and Vajrapāṇi, who initiated their oral transmission from an early date. But it was only centuries later, after Nāgārjuna (ca. 150–250
While the Tibetan and Chinese traditions consider the Hundred Thousand to be the source of the other twenty-two because it contains the most detailed exposition, traditional scholars in Nepal see the Eight Thousand as the original scripture. Western historians, too, based on the available philological evidence, have concluded that the Eight Thousand probably represents the earliest form of the multiplicity of Prajñāpāramitā texts. Whichever the case, since all the “mother” scriptures follow the same outline, there are many similarities between them, and not only the topics discussed and the order in which they are discussed, but also the principal narrative events, appearances of different interlocutors, and other features are clearly paralleled across the texts,1 even if the Eight Thousand is notably less similar to the longer sūtras than they are to each other.2
The view that the Eight Thousand is closest to what may have been the earliest form of the scripture, initially based on analysis of passages in the earliest Chinese translations and translation records, has been supported by the evidence of more recently discovered manuscripts, such as the Kharoṣṭhī manuscript from the Split Collection, which has been carbon-dated to between 47 and 147
Manuscript fragments found near Bamiyan in Afghanistan and dated paleographically to the second half of the third century are more closely comparable to the Eight Thousand, to a degree that could justify their description as the earliest known Sanskrit witnesses of the text.4 Nevertheless, the various versions of the scripture that we know today as the Eight Thousand show evidence of significant expansion and evolution over time, as can be seen by comparing the extant Chinese translations made successively between the second and tenth centuries (see below).
Whatever its provenance or its significance, the Eight Thousand stands out as one of the most revered of all Buddhist scriptures. The Eight Thousand is still extant in more ancient Indian manuscripts than virtually any other text, and may have held a central place in many Mahāyāna Buddhist shrines. It also seems to have been among the most closely studied of all Prajñāpāramitā scriptures. Its level of detail made it complete but also accessible for those without the time, interest, stamina, or need to study the longer versions. This too may be the reason why it was translated into Chinese and Tibetan more times than virtually any other scripture—a total of seven times into Chinese beginning with Lokakṣema (179
The complete Sanskrit text is available in three successive editions, made by Mitra (1888), Wogihara (1932–35), and Vaidya (1960), from Nepalese manuscripts.5 The manuscripts themselves are of relatively recent date but are based on recensions dated to the eleventh or twelfth century.
Despite this late dating, the Sanskrit matches closely the fragmentary third-century manuscripts from Bamiyan mentioned above, even if the latter show more linguistic features characteristic of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. It therefore appears to have been relatively stable over many centuries.
There are suggestions in the Tibetan accounts of the various stages by which the successive Tibetan translations reached their present form that the numerous Sanskrit manuscripts consulted by successive translators may have not only been slightly different but also fell into two broad groups: those made before and after a revision of the text to conform to The Ornament of Clear Realization.6 However, the extant Sanskrit versions show no evidence of belonging to more than one principal lineage.
The extant Sanskrit text was used as the principal basis for this English translation, for reasons explained below. It corresponds quite closely to the Tibetan translation.
The seven Chinese translations, made from the second through the tenth century
The Daoxing jing (道行經) or Daoxing banruo jing (道行般若經), Taishō 224, translated by Lokakṣema and others, probably from a Gāndhāri original, and dated by its colophon to 179
The Da mingdu jing (大明度經), Taishō 225, translated in the early third century, for the most part by Zhi Qian except for its rather different first chapter, which is thought to be the work of another translator.8
The Mohebanruo chaojing (摩訶般若鈔經), Taishō 226, canonically attributed to *Dharmapriya and Zhu Fonian and dated to 382
The Mohebanruo boluomi jing (摩訶般若波羅蜜經) or Xiaopin banruo boluomi jing (小品般若波羅蜜經), Taishō 227, translated by Kumārajīva in the early fifth century.
Two of the sections or “assemblies” of the Da banruo boluomiduo jing (大般若波羅蜜多經), Taishō 220, the great compilation of Prajñāpāramitā texts translated by Xuanzang in the seventh century:
the fourth in 29 chapters (vol. VII, 763b–865a), from an original in eight thousand lines, and
the fifth in 24 chapters (vol. VII, 865c–920b), similar in content but much shorter.
The Fo shuo fomu chusheng san fazang banruoboluomi jing (佛說佛母出生三法藏般若波羅蜜多經), Taishō 228, translated by *Dānapāla in the late tenth or early eleventh century.
Although this translation has been made principally from the Sanskrit, many readers may wish to read it along with the Tibetan text. It would therefore be an omission not to include here some mention of the complex history of the Tibetan translation.
The colophon of the version of the Tibetan text in the Degé Kangyur records seven consecutive stages in its evolution from the earliest translation:
1. in the early, imperially sponsored translation period (late eighth or early ninth century), translation, revision, and verification by Śākyasena, Jñānasiddhi, and the editor-lotsāwa Dharmataśīla (Chönyi Tsültrim);
2. in the late tenth century, harmonization with “the commentary” by Subhāṣita and Rinchen Zangpo;
3. in the early eleventh century, revision, correction, and editing by Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna and Rinchen Zangpo on the basis of “a commentary from Magadha”;
4. verification of a passage by Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna and the translator Dromtön Gyalwai Jungné;
5. verification by Dromtön Gyalwai Jungné, twice, against three Indian manuscripts;
6. further verification of some minor points by Dromtön Gyalwai Jungné; and
7. in the late eleventh or early twelfth century, verification by Ngok Loden Sherab against a number of manuscripts from Kashmir and Magadha.
To these stages, the colophons in the Narthang and Lhasa Kangyurs add an eighth:
8. in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century, further corrections by the Zhalu translator Pal Rinchen Chökyong Zangpo, who edited and verified the text from the earlier versions compared with several Tibetan and Indian manuscripts.
The colophons in two of the Kangyurs of the Themphangma line, the Stok Palace (stog pho brang) and Zhey (shel mkhar) Kangyurs, and of one version of the text in the Phukdrak (phug brag) Kangyur, add further names and details, seemingly to this same stage of editing, and date it to an Iron Tiger year (possibly 1471 or 1531).
In parallel to these details recorded in the colophons, traditional Tibetan scholarship identifies three textual traditions for the Eight Thousand, differing only in minor stylistic phrasing, but distinguished—and named—according to how they render in Tibetan the Sanskrit name of the wandering ascetic Śreṇika, who is mentioned in the first chapter (1.23) as having firm conviction in the Buddha’s teaching. The names of these three versions of the text are ’phreng ba can (pronounced “Trengwachen”), bzo sbyangs (“Zojang”), and sde can (“Dechen”). The extant Sanskrit manuscripts use only the name Śreṇika for the wandering ascetic in this passage, but one of the greatest Sanskrit scholars in Tibet, Rinchen Chökyong Zangpo, the last recorded reviser of the text (see the stage numbered 8 above), is said to have mentioned witnessing three different versions of the Sanskrit name (set out below) in different Indian manuscripts of the Eight Thousand, each corresponding to the three renderings in Tibetan. He is also said to have confirmed that between these different manuscripts there were no other variants with a significant impact on meaning.10 Olkha Lelung Jedrung disagrees with earlier scholars who thought that these were three entirely different names for the same person, and expresses the opinion that the three Sanskrit names mentioned by Rinchen Chökyong Zangpo are in effect no more than variants of the same name.11
Although the Degé Kangyur catalog seems to say that the three versions correspond to different Sanskrit source manuscripts,12 the most likely explanation for the existence of these three textual traditions, differing principally in this minor distinction alone, is that they represent the sequential results of specific revisions made (along with many others) over time to the original Tibetan translation. A study by Torricelli and Dudka, and another by Shōji, suggest that the earliest translation may have rendered the name as bzo sbyangs, that the name sde can may be characteristic of a revision made by Kamalaśīla and Kawa Paltsek, and that ’phreng ba can was a revision introduced at a later stage in the editorial history of the text, perhaps with the coming to Tibet of Atiśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna. Shōji does go so far as to divide the hypothetical Sanskrit manuscript traditions into two, A and B, with the bzo sbyangs and sde can Tibetan versions derived from A, and the ’phreng ba can from B. Both of the studies mentioned assume that the commentary used by Subhāṣita and Rinchen Zangpo for their revision of the sūtra (stage 2 above) was that of Haribhadra, the Abhisamayālaṃkārāloka (see below), and the integration of the name change from the commentary may suffice to explain the origin of the B lineage.13 The use of all three names in the different sūtras and commentaries (see below) supports that view.
The details in the available Tibetan sources and modern studies on these three traditions can be summarized as follows:
sde can: taken by Rinchen Chökyong Zangpo to render the Sanskrit Seniṣka. The rarest of the three traditions, only one extant witness is known, an independent thirteenth-century manuscript in the LTWA collection.14 Thought to have been a version resulting first from revisions made by Kamalaśīla and Kawa Paltsek in the eighth century to the very earliest translation, and then from further revisions made to that version by Dharmaśrībhadra and Rinchen Zangpo in the early eleventh century, before Atiśa’s arrival in Tibet.
bzo sbyangs: taken by Rinchen Chökyong Zangpo to render the Sanskrit Śaniṣka. Witnesses of this version are found in the Toyo Bunko and the London (shel dkar) Kangyurs, as one (F 11b) of the three versions of the sūtra in the Phukdrak Kangyur, and as some independent manuscripts. One of the latter15 has a colophon mentioning only the names of the early translators, suggesting that this version may represent the early translation in its unrevised form.
’phreng ba can: taken by Rinchen Chökyong Zangpo to render the Sanskrit Praniṣka. This is the most widespread version of the sūtra in Tibetan and is the one witnessed in most independent versions of the text and in all Tshalpa and mixed Kangyurs, in the Stok Palace and Zhey Kangyurs among those of the Themphangma line, and the two other versions in the Phukdrak Kangyur. The two forms of the colophon found appended to such versions detail the full set of eight or more translation and revision stages, as outlined above.
It should be noted in this context that in the other Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, the name of the same wandering ascetic, Śreṇika, is rendered in Tibetan as ’phreng ba can in the Hundred Thousand (Toh 8) and the Twenty-Five Thousand (Toh 9), but as bzo sbyangs in the Eighteen Thousand (Toh 10), the Ten Thousand (Toh 11), and the Verse Summary (Toh 13). Furthermore, in the Tengyur, the Tibetan translations of Bhadanta Vimuktisena’s commentary (Toh 3788) on The Ornament of Clear Realization (see below) and of Ratnākaraśānti’s commentary (Toh 3803) on the present text (much referred to in the notes to this translation) both render the name as sde can, while those of Dharmaśrī’s commentary (Toh 3802) on the Hundred Thousand and the commentary on the three long sūtras attributed to Vasubandhu or Daṃṣṭrasena (Toh 3808) both render the name as bzo sbyangs. It is therefore intriguing that the classification of Tibetan translations based on the threefold variants of this name seems only to be mentioned with regard to translations of the Eight Thousand.
In any case, the Tibetan translation found in most Kangyurs is closely aligned with the extant Sanskrit and may be read with it, as will be seen using the bilingual view in the present translation as published online, which uses the text from the Degé Kangyur. Minor variants between different Kangyurs are comparatively infrequent and have not been recorded in the notes, given that the translation is based principally on the Sanskrit. Among the many available versions of the Tibetan text, of particular note is the magnificent volume in the Lhasa (zhol) Kangyur, printed from woodblocks made in the early 1930s, with two line drawings—each depicting a notable figure in the transmission of the sūtra—on the recto of every single one of its 523 folios.
In summary, the Tibetan translation seems to have been very carefully checked, edited, revised, and verified against a number of Sanskrit manuscripts, and indeed with the help of one or more of the Indian commentaries (although there is no record of which16), by many generations of scholars.
Readers of this translation of the Eight Thousand will not necessarily be making use of the treatises and commentaries to help them understand how the tradition understands the esoteric meaning of the Prajñāpāramitā scriptures, for much in these works can indeed be understood on its own. Nevertheless, the selected material from the commentaries that we have included in the notes is quite extensive, and it may therefore be helpful to sketch out the historical background and ongoing role of the commentarial tradition.
The Prajñāpāramitā scriptures themselves were much read and studied throughout the Mahāyāna Buddhist world, yet as standalone works they were almost certainly no less difficult to understand fully than we find them today.
If we extrapolate from the scriptures themselves, their intended audience includes two distinct spiritual types, namely, (a) the “faithful type” (śraddhānusārin), those who have enough faith in the Mahāyāna teachings that they can enter the path of preliminary practice through faith alone, and (b) the “intellectual type” (dharmānusārin), those who have faith in the Mahāyāna teachings but require explanations that seem true to them analytically before they enter the path of preliminary practice.17 For the faithful type, it is just revering or reciting the scripture—even without any understanding of the esoteric meaning—that is said to have immediate worldly benefits and to set them quickly on the path to complete awakening. For the intellectual type, on the other hand, it is studying the esoteric meaning of the scripture that is supposed to have immediate worldly benefits and to lead eventually to complete awakening. The Prajñāpāramitā scriptures are aimed at both types, since hearing or reading them is a necessary condition for awakening, but on its own is not a sufficient condition for a clear understanding of the Transcendent State of Wisdom itself or its related practices.
Those wishing to practice the teachings were explicitly said to require the guidance of a teacher and to devote themselves wholeheartedly to study. As the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras spread across the Indian subcontinent and beyond, the direct guidance of teachers does not seem to have been enough. Out of the need for more extensive guidance, the commentarial tradition was born.
The complexity of interpreting the language and meaning of these scriptures is witnessed by the large number of different commentaries and treatises composed over the centuries, and the variety of interpretive traditions.18 Schematically, these can be seen as arising in three phases.
First, Nāgārjuna’s treatise, The Root Verses on the Middle Way (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Toh 3824), clarified their explicit teachings on emptiness, and the commentary attributed to him by the Chinese tradition, Treatise on the Great Virtue of Wisdom (Dazhidu lun, *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa), unpacked their terminology and general implications.19
Next, according to some traditions, the great master Asaṅga (fourth century
Finally, The Long Explanation of the Noble Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand, Twenty-Five Thousand, and Eighteen Thousand Lines (Toh 3808), attributed by some to Vasubandhu (fourth to fifth century) and by others to Daṃṣṭrasena (eighth to early ninth century), presents the structure of the larger scriptures as involving three approaches to the topic: brief, intermediate, and detailed.21
Against this background of the Prajñāpāramitā treatises in general, Dignāga (480–540
For this reason, in the ninth century
In the eleventh century, Ratnākaraśānti composed The Quintessence of the Eight Thousand (Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāpañjikāsārottamā, hereafter Quintessence). It has been preserved in Tibetan translation in the Tengyur (Toh 3803), and incompletely in a Sanskrit edition by Padmanabh Jaini, published in 1979.23 As the only other commentary on the Eight Thousand, it addresses matters that Haribhadra had not covered and disputes some things that he had. But aside from unpacking the scripture, Ratnākaraśānti aimed to show—through his many commentaries—how central the Transcendent State of Wisdom is to both Mahāyāna and tantric practice, as in the concluding lines of his opening verses to The Instructions on the Perfection of Wisdom (Prajñāpāramitopadeśa, Toh 4079):
- “By cultivating this blessed supreme Perfection every day,
- One succeeds in the (methods of) the mantras
- And one holds the (methods of) the five transcendent states in the palm of one’s hand.”
In this way, through the efforts of Indian scholars, the Eight Thousand came to be understood as one of the foundational scriptural authorities for the practice of both the Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna. Furthermore, since each commentator attempted to prove that the scripture aligns with his own philosophical position, it slowly became the interpretive battleground for different scholastic attempts to systematize the Indian Mahāyāna Buddhist logic of practice.24 Despite their different philosophical perspectives, the commentaries provide excellent access to the scripture’s meaning. Yet even when a commentary explains the esoteric meaning, the relevance and application of this meaning is not always perfectly clear in the words in the scripture itself. So serious scholastic study began to focus more on individual treatises than on the actual scriptures.
From the eighth century onward, Indian scholastic study of the Transcendent State of Wisdom seems to have increasingly read the scriptures through the lens of one particular treatise, namely the Ornament. The Ornament itself is a brief independent treatise that provides a versified outline of topics within the mother Prajñāpāramitā scriptures themselves.25 The outline has eight chapters, which include a total of seventy main topics and twelve hundred subtopics to be realized along the path. But the Ornament neither expands on these topics, nor explains how they are to be interpolated into the Mother Prajñāpāramitā scriptures themselves. Commentaries on the Ornament are required to show where exactly the individual Ornament headings should be inserted into the scriptures and how those headings shed light on each stage of Mahāyāna practice.
Since the Ornament’s outline of topics seems to be designed for the Twenty-Five Thousand, the first commentary on the Ornament by Ārya Vimuktisena simply matched its seventy topics to that scripture. Among the twenty-one different Indian commentaries on the Ornament still extant in Tibetan translations, only two commentaries matched its seventy topics to the much shorter Eight Thousand. First, in the ninth century, Haribhadra’s Light (Ālokā) did so from the philosophical perspective of the Madhyamaka school, and in the eleventh century, Ratnākaraśānti’s Quintessence (Sāratamā) did so from the perspective of the Yogācāra school. In both these commentaries, the study of the Prajñāpāramitā is presented largely as a comparative theory of practice. That is to say, the commentaries show (a) how the Eight Thousand implicitly refers to the stages of the different paths of practice in the vehicle of bodhisattvas, and (b) how these compare to the stages of the different paths of practice in the vehicles of the disciples and solitary realizers. The comparison presents the different theories of practice in the different vehicles, in detail, from multiple perspectives, at every stage of the path. This comparison seeks not just to prove the superiority of the Mahāyāna approach to practice, but also to clarify how it differs from other approaches to practice within the different vehicles—which might seem quite similar, but actually are not.
Although the Ornament’s outline fits the Eight Thousand to some degree, on occasions Haribhadra and Ratnākaraśānti themselves fail to connect one or another of the seventy topics to any passage at all in the Eight Thousand. Whether or not one regards this “fit” problem as stemming from an anachronistic attempt to read later doctrines and practices into the earlier Eight Thousand, Haribhadra’s and Ratnākaraśānti’s commentaries still offer what is probably the best window into the Eight Thousand’s early terminology and otherwise almost inaccessible esoteric meaning.
So helpful was the guidance of these two commentators that when the seven (or eight, see above) different teams of Tibetan translators each translated or retranslated the Eight Thousand into Tibetan between the eighth and sixteenth centuries, they all based their translations on the glosses and explanations that the two commentaries provided. Later, when the Ornament became the focus of Tibetan scholastic education in the different schools and lineages of Tibet, the Tibetans made direct reference to these same two commentaries in their own subcommentaries, sub-subcommentaries, and textbooks. In this way, the Tibetan tradition absorbed the Indian Prajñāpāramitā literature into its own works and continued to expand upon the topics. Over time, the Tibetans came to focus mainly on studying the Ornament without making any reference to the scriptures themselves, since to achieve a serviceable understanding of the Ornament alone is said to take years of dedicated, single-pointed study.26
From this focus on the Ornament came the notion that reading the treatise was the equivalent of reading the scriptures. This may be true in the sense that the seventy topics are indeed said to be the most relevant points made by the scriptures. However, it may lead to distortions of understanding in that (a) the scriptures themselves present the topics in a literary style and genre very different from those of the Ornament and aim to affect the reader in different ways; (b) there are many things in the scriptures not mentioned at all in the Ornament; and (c) the function of the Ornament itself is an intertextual one of illuminating the words of the scriptures, rather than of being understood on its own. Thus, anyone interested in learning more about the Prajñāpāramitā would do well to read the scriptures in conjunction with the commentarial tradition and to keep in mind that the Prajñāpāramitā scriptures have their own value.
Another reason for reading the Eight Thousand is that despite the widespread reverence for it, relatively few Buddhists outside the scholastic setting have any knowledge even of its contents, not to mention its meaning. In the Himalayas today, devoted Buddhists still occasionally perform or sponsor monastic recitations of the Eight Thousand. But a far more common practice, across the modern Mahāyāna Buddhist world, is to chant aloud daily—or occasionally write out—the one-page Heart Sūtra.27 Since the Heart Sūtra focuses on the topic of emptiness and is held to be a condensed version of all Prajñāpāramitā scriptures, many modern Buddhists—and even Western Buddhist Studies scholars with limited exposure to traditional scholastic studies—have erroneously come to believe that “emptiness” is the central topic of all the Prajñāpāramitā scriptures, too. In fact, emptiness is barely mentioned by name in the Eight Thousand and is not even included in the Ornament’s list of the seventy main topics or twelve hundred subtopics, which are considered so central and important to Tibetan Buddhist practice that some monastic universities focus solely on them for up to six years before turning to classical texts on philosophy, logic, and debates related to emptiness.28
Given the sūtra’s seminal role in the development of Mahāyāna Buddhism outlined above, modern readers eager to explore the Eight Thousand may be surprised to learn that it does not seek to convey the “wisdom” mentioned in its title in the manner that they might expect from works belonging to other well-known literary or religious genres—including the Pali Buddhist suttas. Instead, it is the way the very words of the Eight Thousand are crafted that is designed to provide, to those who revere, recite, and study them, a performative and provocative means for achieving complete, perfect awakening.
Some of the scripture’s Mahāyāna themes—such as how a bodhisattva transcends cyclic existence through engendering a mindset of awakening “free of duality and free from creating duality”—will certainly be familiar to many readers; these themes will be summarized chapter by chapter below. But the way that the scripture communicates these subjects may come as a surprise. That is to say, the meaning is often communicated only indirectly through the repartee of the dialogues, the negations of opposites, elusive implications, paradoxical statements, esoteric references to unspecified practices, play on words, and the use of heuristic etymologies.29
Furthermore, the reason for which this literature is primarily studied in the Indian and Tibetan scholastic traditions is the understanding it brings not so much of the emptiness with which the Prajñāpāramitā is often associated, but rather of the framework it sets out for the “path,” the implicit meaning behind the texts’ explicit statements.
The few translations of the Eight Thousand into modern languages that have been made are mostly incomplete and not readily available. The first and most complete was a French translation made by Eugène Burnouf between 1837 and 1839 from two of the manuscripts sent from Nepal by B. H. Hodgson. Burnouf lamented that he had been unable to consult any commentarial works, but nevertheless produced a painstaking and remarkable translation, comparing his manuscripts with others of the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand-Line sūtras and with the Tibetan text. Of the Eight Thousand’s thirty-two chapters, he completed the first twenty-seven and most of the twenty-eighth, but apart from a few extracts his translation remained unpublished until recently.30
Eleven chapters were translated into German by Max Walleser in 1914, and a number of single chapters or other short excerpts in French and German were published in the first half of the twentieth century. A complete translation of the Sanskrit into Japanese by Kajiyama and Teruyoshi was published in 1974.
Meanwhile, in 1958, the great pioneer of Prajñāpāramitā studies in English, Edward Conze, first published his influential and widely read translation of the text. Although it is complete in the sense that it covers all thirty-two chapters, Conze chose to omit or paraphrase much of the repetitive detail that is characteristic of the original, but that he considered would be an impediment to modern readers. As we shall discuss further below, in this respect, valuable though it has been, his translation is significantly less than a complete one.
Given the Eight Thousand’s significance, it is perhaps surprising that this is the first complete English translation.31 It is based primarily on the Sanskrit text (edited by Mitra in 1888 and reproduced by Vaidya and Wogihara),32 and only secondarily on the Tibetan version in the Degé Kangyur. We have nevertheless consistently consulted the Tibetan and have recorded in the footnotes all substantial inconsistencies between the Sanskrit and Tibetan, mentioning which of the two readings was translated and why it was followed. Our reasons for relying more on the extant Sanskrit than on the Tibetan stem from considerations of history, meaning, and usefulness.
From the historical perspective, Sanskrit is of course closer to the original Indic language in which the text was written. Fortunately, too, the Tibetan translation matches Mitra’s edition much more closely than is the case for Tibetan translations of some other canonical texts compared to their extant Sanskrit parallels.
Second, translating the Eight Thousand from the Sanskrit has also helped produce a more meaningful translation, because the Sanskrit terminology is more transparent in its etymology and semantic range. The Tibetan translation sometimes limits or alters the sense of original terms, inadvertently obfuscates relationships between them, and renders opaque or invisible the Eight Thousand’s Sanskrit wordplay.
Third, we hope that having a translation of the Eight Thousand made primarily from the Sanskrit will make it easier to study the text through English translations of the two Sanskrit commentaries by Haribhadra and Ratnākaraśānti. Without reference to the Sanskrit text, English translations of the Sanskrit commentaries would make little sense, because what they both clarify is the terminological and syntactic ambiguities of the sūtra’s original Sanskrit text, and not any ambiguities introduced by the choices made in the Tibetan translation. The extant Tibetan translation of the Eight Thousand did indeed follow Ratnākaraśānti’s and Haribhadra’s commentaries on many points, but a translation of the Sanskrit still provides a better starting point than the Tibetan for understanding the commentarial tradition.33
The primary concern in this English translation of the Eight Thousand has been to create a text that can serve as a basis for the traditional study that it deserves, while still being accessible to those who wish, as Paul Harrison puts it, “to read the English as English and make some sense of it.”34 For Sanskrit prose, the Eight Thousand is stylistically clunky and repetitive at the sentence level. But to facilitate in-depth study with Haribhadra and Ratnākaraśānti’s commentaries, which take the text sentence by sentence, the translation must match the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions sentence by sentence too, even if this has led to a style that could also be considered clunky for English prose.
A secondary concern has been to use consistent Buddhist terminology, rather than different translations of the same words, to bring out the range of meanings or to produce more elegant prose. The Eight Thousand makes use of many different rhetorical devices that require such consistency—meaningful plays on words, paradoxical statements, recoding of similar terms to challenge reader assumptions, and so on—all of which play a role in conveying the scripture’s tone and ultimate intent.
The Eight Thousand’s repetitive style, too, has been preserved. Even if repetition is less a major feature of this text than it is of the longer sūtras, it is still very evident. Repetition was clearly used for its effect on reciters and their audience, or individual readers. For instance, some chapters include multiple repetitions of long passages with only one word or phrase change. Where repetition is either the point itself or central to that point, it would be a mistake to eliminate it.
Edward Conze, in his 1958 rendering of the text in English, chose to paraphrase rather than fully translate it, with the idea that this would make it available to a wider readership. The justification he used is worth analyzing, at least to highlight the different stylistic approach of this present translation. In his own preface, Conze states:
“The Sūtra itself was meant to be memorized, the translation is meant to be read. Lengthy repetitions, stereotyped phrases, and the piling up of synonyms were of great assistance to memory, but they irritate and distract the modern reader, and obscure from him the meaning of the text.…The reproduction of the literary conventions and of the stylistic peculiarities of Buddhist Sanskrit diction was not one of my aims. It would be of little, or no, value to scholars, and it bewilders the general reader.”35
Here, Conze states several things that deserve closer scrutiny. First, he assumes that “the Sūtra was meant to be memorized, the translation is meant to be read.” Yet throughout its history, it seems quite likely that the scripture itself has been read far more than it has been memorized. Second, he assumes that “lengthy repetitions, stereotyped phrases, and the piling up of synonyms” obscure the meaning of the text. Yet the scripture’s overall meaning is not merely contained in certain individual words. It is also conveyed through those very stylistic devices, repetitions, and “piled-up” synonyms. What is valuable in this book, Conze assumes with his modern bias, cannot be what comes from the verbal performance of chanting it aloud. Finally, when Conze eliminates or paraphrases repetitions that the commentators find meaningful but he himself finds meaningless, he neglects the needs of those who might wish to read the translation along with the two main Indian commentaries.
Since no one would feel equipped to draw firm conclusions about the scripture without the full text or a traditional commentary on its meaning, a new English translation of both the scripture and its commentaries should help correct the historical, philosophical, and religious misunderstandings that have inadvertently arisen from Conze’s translation style and comments about the scripture. To illustrate this point simply, it may be helpful to give a brief example where Conze’s assumptions and his paraphrase obfuscate both the literal meaning and the traditional interpretation of even just a single passage. At the conclusion of a meaningful passage, Conze’s translation reads:
“A Bodhisattva who does not become afraid when this deep and perfect wisdom is being taught should be recognized as not lacking in perfect wisdom.”36
Consider now how much more meaning might be found in a literal translation that would read as follows:
“O Blessed One, when this profound transcendent state of wisdom is being discussed, taught, and expounded in this way, if a bodhisattva great being’s mindset does not become deflated, depressed, dejected, or sunk in despondency, and his or her mental attitude does not become discouraged, shattered, frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror, then that bodhisattva great being has firm conviction with an altruistic disposition. Hence, one should recognize him or her to be never lacking the transcendent state of wisdom.”37
It is easy to see that Conze’s paraphrases were not merely eliminating words that “irritate and distract the modern reader, and obscure from him the meaning of the text.” Conze’s paraphrase is also missing many words that Ratnākaraśānti’s commentary refers to. For instance, consider Ratnākaraśānti’s comments on the above literal translation:
“These sentences (in the above passage) accord with the way that the meditative object and meditative perspective are explained. Here, the word ‘profound’ means difficult to understand. This ‘transcendent state of wisdom’ refers to [a bodhisattva’s knowing on the path of preliminary practice] in the intermediate and advanced stages of warming up. First, ‘discussed’ concerns the words; then, ‘taught’ and ‘expounded’ concern the meaning. By understanding that meaning (in practice), the bodhisattva develops tranquility (śamatha; zhi gnas). The [nine] words beginning with ‘does not become deflated’ and so on [correspond to nine emotional difficulties that are progressively overcome through the nine stages of meditation practice aimed at tranquility,] as explained previously. The ‘altruistic disposition’ refers to a bodhisattva’s motivation [for practice], which indicates single-pointed determination [to awaken through practice]. ‘Firm conviction’ is generated by force of the tranquility meditation and the insight meditation. The phrase ‘never separate’ means that, through this [meditation], a bodhisattva’s transcendent state of wisdom will only increase.”38
The words Conze omits in his paraphrase are thus ones that the commentarial tradition holds to be meaningful. Omitting them forecloses the possibility that in English translation Ratnākaraśānti’s commentary could clarify the scripture’s esoteric meaning according to the received tradition. Where Ratnākaraśānti comments on the nine experiences (i.e., “deflated,” “depressed,” and so on, up to “stricken with terror”), Conze saw nothing but a “repetition” or “piling up of synonyms,” and abbreviated them all into the single word “afraid.” Yet according to Ratnākaraśānti these nine words correspond to nine emotional difficulties progressively overcome through the nine stages of meditation practice. Furthermore, Ratnākaraśānti situates the particular degree of tranquility and insight achieved here with a specific stage and level of the bodhisattva’s path.39
This is just one example of how Conze’s mixture of translation and paraphrase, pioneering though it was, distorts the meaning to be gleaned from certain esoteric passages, misrepresents the scripture’s use of language, and cannot be read alongside Ratnākaraśānti’s commentary. Among many other such instances, his rendering of chapter 5 omits the multiple repetitions of very long refrains, completely altering the nature of the chapter and its performative effect on a reader.40 Needless to say, general readers, Buddhist practitioners, and scholars who unwittingly rely on Conze’s paraphrases—as though they are full translations—are being misled.
Stylistically, the present new, complete English translation may not match the tastes of modern readers seeking concision. On the contrary, it preserves all sentence-level repetitions, piling up of synonyms, stock phrases, and so on, so that the traditional commentaries can easily be linked to it in the future, and so that an appreciation of the tradition can inform conclusions about the scripture itself. However, it makes no attempt to translate one word with only one word or to preserve syntactical relations between words. Many long sentences have been cut into shorter ones, adding words without brackets wherever necessary for clarity. The stylistic repetitions of words within a particular sentence have been eliminated only when it would make the English text too clumsy or difficult to understand. Thus, all language has been translated in a simple, straightforward way with a few key notes to make the scripture relatively accessible.
The Eight Thousand can be fruitfully read even with less than a full understanding of its content. The scripture itself often states that simply by reading it the faithful will gain inconceivable merit. To read the scripture alone—without the Ornament’s table of contents or the explanations of the commentaries—may thus offer readers much to explore. But for those with the time and interest it can be explored far more deeply by reading it with the aid of the Ornament and its explanatory commentaries. Complete translations of the commentaries are not yet available, but to provide some help for difficult passages, arcane metaphors, esoteric passages, and ambiguous words, we have provisionally included in the notes some translations of selected key comments from Haribhadra’s Light (abbreviated “Hari”) and Ratnākaraśānti’s Quintessence (abbreviated “Ratnākara” or “RK”).
To get the most use out of these notes and not feel overwhelmed by the commentarial detail, readers would do well to understand what purposes the commentator’s comments aim to serve, the types of comments that have been selected for inclusion, and how the comments have been translated.
Haribhadra’s and Ratnākaraśānti’s commentaries generally aim to provide five services:
to clarify ambiguous Sanskrit word divisions (padaccheda);
to paraphrase the meaning of ambiguous words and syntactical relations (padārthokti);
to present etymological and grammatical analysis (vigraha) of ambiguous Sanskrit terms;
to interpret the meaning of ambiguous sentences (vākyayojanā); and
to address possible confusion or doubts about the intended meaning of the text (ākṣepasamādhāna).
The first four mostly concern issues in the Sanskrit that the English translation already accounts for. Some of these comments contain tidbits that would be interesting to the average English reader but are submerged in points that only a Sanskrit reader would understand or care about.
The fifth service concerns the logic and meaning behind the theory and practice implied in the text. To this end, Haribhadra’s and Ratnākaraśānti’s commentaries are centered on demonstrating, section by section, the correlations between the Eight Thousand and the Ornament, and they seek to provide enough philosophical, religious, and historical context so that an uninformed reader can understand the meaning of both texts. But comments of this type can be long and written in a style that requires additional explanation, so it is not always easy to extract the most relevant parts to include in a note. The notes to this translation therefore include no more than a minuscule portion of all the material held by Indo-Tibetan tradition as the theoretical underpinning of the text.41 Many of the comments that are included require, at least, a working knowledge of the stages of the five Mahāyāna paths that would normally be explained orally by a teacher. In selecting comments for the notes, our main aim was to provide Haribhadra’s or Ratnākaraśānti’s briefer comments where the scripture is difficult to understand on its own. The notes thus focus on the most easily extractable comments whose purposes fall under the second, fourth, and fifth categories listed above. The selection process was inevitably idiosyncratic, but was influenced by several further limiting factors.
First, comments that might be relevant to the interests of readers of any of several possible kinds—Buddhists, non-Buddhists, or academics of various disciplines—were included. In this regard, some footnotes might be interesting only to some readers.
Second, wherever a choice was necessary for brevity or clarity, Ratnākaraśānti’s comments, which have never been translated before, took precedence over Haribhadra’s comments, because an English translation of Haribhadra’s commentary already exists and can be independently consulted.42 But when Ratnākaraśānti’s comments are extant only in Tibetan translation rather than in Sanskrit,43 Haribhadra’s commentary is often provided, since the Tibetan translation of Ratnākaraśānti’s commentary systematically excludes information concerning Sanskrit grammar and etymologies that are helpful for understanding his overall comments.
[F.1.b]Homage to all buddhas, bodhisattvas, noble disciples, and solitary realizers.66
Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was dwelling at Vulture Peak near Rājagṛha together with a great monastic gathering of one thousand two hundred and fifty monks.67 They were all worthy ones68—that is, they had eliminated the worldly influences,69 they had no emotional defilements,70 they had become self-controlled,71 they had utterly liberated their mindsets, they had utterly liberated their discernment,72 they were noble,73 they were exemplary,74 they had completed the work to be done, they had accomplished the tasks,75 they had laid down their burdens,76 they had attained the benefits for themselves,77 they had completely exhausted the ties to worldly existence,78 they had the mindset utterly liberated through accurate understanding,79 and they had succeeded in reaching the supreme perfection of mastery over all their mental faculties80—with the exception of one single person, the venerable Ānanda.81[F.2.a]
82At that time, the Blessed One addressed the elder, the venerable Subhūti: “Subhūti, starting from the transcendent state of wisdom, please illuminate for the bodhisattva great beings the way that bodhisattva great beings should go completely beyond cyclic existence in the transcendent state of wisdom.”83
Then, indeed, the venerable Śāriputra wondered to himself, “Will the elder, the venerable Subhūti, expound the transcendent state of wisdom to bodhisattva great beings on his own—by virtue of his previously developed reserve of strength in wisdom and illumination, that is to say, by virtue of his being blessed with the power of wisdom and illumination—or through the Buddha’s miraculous power?”84
Then, through the miraculous power of the Buddha, the venerable Subhūti knew in his mind that the venerable Śāriputra was having mental ruminations of these kinds and said to the venerable Śariputra, “O Venerable Śāriputra, everything that the Blessed One’s disciples say, teach, expound, express, clarify, or elucidate should be known as the Tathāgata’s personal doing.85 Why is that? It is because those disciples who train in the Dharma taught by the Tathāgata actualize the true nature of things and keep it in mind. Once they have actualized the true nature of things and kept it in mind, absolutely nothing that they say, teach, expound, express, clarify,[F.2.b] or elucidate is in conflict with the true nature of things.86 O Śāriputra, it is a natural outcome87 of the Tathāgata’s Dharma teaching itself that those noble scions, when expounding the true nature of things, do not contradict the true nature of things.”
Then, due to the miraculous power of the Buddha, Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “The Blessed One said, ‘Subhūti, starting from the transcendent state of wisdom, please illuminate for the bodhisattva great beings the way that bodhisattva great beings should go completely beyond cyclic existence in the transcendent state of wisdom.’ O Blessed One, when you say ‘bodhisattva’ here, to what thing does the term bodhisattva refer? O Blessed One, I do not identify any thing called a ‘bodhisattva.’88 Nor do I identify any thing called a ‘transcendent state of wisdom.’89 Since I myself do not find, mentally perceive, or identify a bodhisattva or any thing called a ‘bodhisattva,’ and I also do not find, mentally perceive, or identify a ‘transcendent state of wisdom,’ what bodhisattva shall I instruct and guide, in what transcendent state of wisdom?90 Nonetheless, O Blessed One, when this is being described, taught, and expounded in this way, if the mindset of a bodhisattva great being does not become deflated, depressed, dejected, or sunk in despondency, and his or her mental attitude does not become discouraged, shattered, frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror, then this very bodhisattva great being should be guided in the transcendent state of wisdom.91[F.3.a] Precisely this state should be understood as that bodhisattva great being’s transcendent state of wisdom. Precisely this state is the instruction in the transcendent state of wisdom. When a bodhisattva great being is abiding in such a mindset, that alone is his or her instruction and guidance.92
“Furthermore, O Blessed One, by going about life in the transcendent state of wisdom and cultivating it,93 a bodhisattva great being should train in such a way that, while being trained, he or she would not develop conceits even about that mindset of awakening.94 Why is that? It is because that mindset is free of a mindset, which is to say, it is the luminously clear essential nature of a mindset.”95
Then the venerable Śāriputra asked the venerable Subhūti, “But, Venerable Subhūti, if that mindset is free of a mindset, does that mindset exist?”96
In response, the venerable Subhūti asked the venerable Śāriputra, “Well, Venerable Śāriputra, in the state free of a mindset, is an existence or a nonexistence found or mentally perceived?”
“Definitely not, Venerable Subhūti,” replied the venerable Śāriputra.
The venerable Subhūti continued, “O Venerable Śāriputra, if, in that state free of a mindset, an existence or a nonexistence is neither found nor mentally perceived, then is your questioning of my statement reasonable as you expressed it, saying, ‘If that mindset is free of a mindset, does that mindset exist?’ ”97
In response, the venerable Śāriputra asked the venerable Subhūti, “What then, Venerable Subhūti, is the state free of a mindset?”98
The venerable Subhūti then said this: “O Venerable Śāriputra, the state free of a mindset is free of changing and free of conceptualization.”99
The venerable Śāriputra then said to the venerable Subhūti, “Excellent,[F.3.b] Venerable Subhūti, excellent. You are explaining just the way that the Blessed One indicated you would, that is to say, as the foremost among those who abide free of conflict!100 So, from this, we should understand a bodhisattva great being to be beyond regressing from unsurpassed, perfect awakening. Also, we should know a bodhisattva great being never to be lacking the transcendent state of wisdom.101
“Furthermore, anyone who wishes to train for the level of a disciple must listen to this very transcendent state of wisdom, take it in, keep it in mind, chant it, master it, and pass it on.102 He or she must train and engage in meditation in this very transcendent state of wisdom.103
“Furthermore, anyone who wishes to train for the level of a solitary realizer must listen to this transcendent state of wisdom, take it in, keep it in mind, chant it, master it, and pass it on. He or she must train and engage in meditation in this very transcendent state of wisdom.
“Furthermore, anyone who wishes to train for the level of a bodhisattva must listen to this very transcendent state of wisdom, take it in, keep it in mind, chant it, master it, and pass it on. Anyone endowed with skill in means must engage in meditation in this very transcendent state of wisdom in order to achieve all the bodhisattva qualities.104 Why is that? It is because all the bodhisattva qualities are expounded in detail in this very transcendent state of wisdom in which a bodhisattva must train and engage in meditation.
“Finally, anyone who wishes to train even in unsurpassed, perfect awakening must listen to this transcendent state of wisdom, take it in, keep it in mind, chant it, master it, and pass it on. Why is that? It is because all the buddha qualities [F.4.a]are expounded in detail here in this very transcendent state of wisdom in which a bodhisattva must train and engage in meditation.”
105The Venerable Subhūti then said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, I myself do not find, do not mentally perceive, and do not identify this very designation bodhisattva. Nor do I find, mentally perceive, or identify the transcendent state of wisdom. Given that I myself am not finding, not mentally perceiving, and not identifying the very designation bodhisattva, and given that I am also not finding, not mentally perceiving, and not identifying a transcendent state of wisdom, what bodhisattva am I supposed to instruct and guide in what transcendent state of wisdom? O Blessed One, it would certainly be unconscionable of me if I myself—while not finding, not mentally perceiving, and not identifying any actual thing—were to make one appear and disappear by means of the mere designation bodhisattva.106 Furthermore, O Blessed One, that designation is neither something dwelling, nor something not dwelling, nor something free of dwelling, nor something not free of dwelling.107 Why is that? It is because that designation is not being found to exist. Thus, the designation is neither something dwelling, nor something not dwelling, nor something free of dwelling, nor something not free of dwelling.108
“O Blessed One, when this profound transcendent state of wisdom is being described, taught, and expounded in this way, if a bodhisattva great being’s mindset does not become deflated, depressed, dejected, or sunk in despondency, and his or her mental attitude does not become discouraged, shattered, frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror, then that bodhisattva great being has firm conviction with an altruistic disposition. Also, one[F.4.b] should recognize him or her to be never lacking the transcendent state of wisdom, to dwell on the level of a bodhisattva beyond regressing, and to dwell with ease by means of freedom from dwelling.109
“Furthermore, O Blessed One, a bodhisattva great being who goes about life in the transcendent state of wisdom and cultivates the transcendent state of wisdom would not dwell on physical forms, feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, or consciousness.110 Why is that? It is because, if he or she were to dwell on physical forms, he or she would go about life in the cumulative construction of physical forms.111 He or she would not go about life in the transcendent state of wisdom. Likewise, if he or she were to dwell on feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness, he or she would go about life in the cumulative construction of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness, and would not go about life in the transcendent state of wisdom. Why is that? It is because, while going about life cumulatively constructing these, he or she would not apprehend the transcendent state of wisdom, would not engage in meditation, and would not accomplish the transcendent state of wisdom. By not accomplishing the transcendent state of wisdom, he or she would not go beyond cyclic existence in the state of complete knowing by means of apprehending the inapprehensible.112 Why is that? It is because, in the transcendent state of wisdom, physical forms are not apprehended. Likewise, in the transcendent state of wisdom, feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are not apprehended.
“Furthermore, the nonapprehending of physical forms is not the same as physical forms.113 Likewise, the nonapprehending of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is not the same as feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness. And this transcendent state of wisdom is not something apprehended in addition to those.[F.5.a]
“Therefore, it is in this transcendent state of wisdom that a bodhisattva great being should go about life. Also, the bodhisattva great being’s meditative concentration—called the meditative concentration free of anything apprehended—is vast, highly esteemed, focused on what is beyond measure, and unshared by the disciples and solitary realizers.114 Furthermore, this state of complete knowing is not apprehended, since it cannot be grasped through conventional signs.
“If it were something to be grasped through conventional signs, then the wandering ascetic Śreṇika115 would never have gained faith in this teaching of the Buddha.116 Indeed, as someone who proceeded based on faith, the wandering ascetic Śreṇika had firm conviction in the knowing of someone who has complete knowing and he entered into it through a knowing limited in scope.117 After entering it, he did not apprehend physical forms.118 Likewise, he did not apprehend feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, or consciousness. In that state, he did not even identify that knowing as delight or ease.119 Nor did he identify that knowing as inside physical forms. Nor did he identify that knowing as outside physical forms. Nor did he identify that knowing as both inside and outside physical forms. Nor did he identify that knowing as other than physical forms. Likewise, he did not identify that knowing as inside feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, or consciousness. Nor did he identify that knowing as outside feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, or consciousness. Nor did he identify that knowing as both inside and outside feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, or consciousness. Nor did he identify that knowing as something other than feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, or consciousness.
“The wandering ascetic Śreṇika had firm conviction in this way of proceeding.120 Everywhere along this way, he was someone who proceeded based on faith in the knowing of someone who has complete knowing. Hence, it is said, ‘He took the true nature of Dharma to be authoritative in this way and had firm conviction in it.’121 For this reason,[F.5.b] he neither apprehended nor mentally perceived any thing that he could grasp or let go of.122 He did not develop conceits even about nirvāṇa.123
“O Blessed One, this too should be known as the transcendent state of wisdom of a bodhisattva great being, insofar as he or she does not apprehend physical forms, feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, or consciousness. Nor does a bodhisattva great being pass into nirvāṇa in the interval without having realized the ten powers of a tathāgata,124 the four grounds for self-confidence of a tathāgata,125 and the eighteen distinctive qualities of a buddha.126 Therefore, O Blessed One, this should also be known as the transcendent state of wisdom of a bodhisattva great being.
“Furthermore, a bodhisattva great being who goes about life in the transcendent state of wisdom and cultivates it should reflect and meditate upon it in the following way: ‘What is that transcendent state of wisdom? To whom does the transcendent state of wisdom belong? Is that thing that is neither found nor mentally perceived the transcendent state of wisdom?’ If, reflecting and meditating upon it in this way, a bodhisattva great being’s mindset does not become deflated, depressed, dejected, or sunk in despondency, and if his or her mental attitude does not become discouraged, shattered, frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror, then such a bodhisattva great being should be known as a bodhisattva who never lacks the transcendent state of wisdom.”
Then the venerable Śāriputra asked the venerable Subhūti, “Subhūti, given that physical forms themselves lack the inherent nature of physical forms; given that feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness [F.6.a]themselves lack the inherent nature of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness; given that the transcendent state of wisdom itself lacks the inherent nature of a transcendent state of wisdom; and given that the state of complete knowing itself lacks the inherent nature of a state of complete knowing, why should a bodhisattva great being be known as never lacking the transcendent state of wisdom?”
The venerable Subhūti replied to the venerable Śāriputra, “You are right, Venerable Śāriputra, you are right. Physical forms themselves lack the inherent nature of physical forms. Likewise, feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness themselves lack the inherent nature of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness. The transcendent state of wisdom itself lacks the inherent nature of a transcendent state of wisdom. The state of complete knowing itself lacks the inherent nature of a state of complete knowing. Even the transcendent state of wisdom lacks the defining characteristic of a transcendent state of wisdom. Even a defining characteristic lacks the inherent nature of a defining characteristic. Even what is to be characterized [by a defining characteristic] lacks the inherent nature of being characterized. Even an inherent nature lacks the defining characteristic of an inherent nature.”
The venerable Śāriputra then asked the venerable Subhūti, “Subhūti, will a bodhisattva great being who trains in this go beyond cyclic existence to the state of complete knowing?”
The venerable Subhūti replied to the venerable Śāriputra, “Yes, that bodhisattva great being will go. Venerable Śāriputra, yes, that bodhisattva great being will go. A bodhisattva great being who trains in this will go beyond cyclic existence to the state of complete knowing. Why is that? Because, Venerable Śāriputra,[F.6.b] all things are never even born and are not gone beyond.127 Hence, Venerable Śāriputra, a bodhisattva great being, in going about life in such a manner, approaches the state of complete knowing.128 In whatever manner he or she approaches the state of complete knowing, in that same manner he or she—for the sake of causing beings to mature—refines his or her body and mind, refines his or her particular appearance, refines his or her buddhafield, and meets with the buddhas.129 Thus, a bodhisattva great being who goes about life in the transcendent state of wisdom is approaching the state of complete knowing.”
130Moreover, the venerable Subhūti said the following about a bodhisattva great being: “If a bodhisattva great being goes about life in physical forms, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the conventional sign of physical forms, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the notion ‘physical forms are a conventional sign,’ then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the arising of physical forms, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign.131 If he or she goes about life in the cessation of physical forms, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the dissolution of physical forms, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the notion ‘physical forms are empty,’ then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the notion ‘I am going about my life,’ then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the notion ‘I am a bodhisattva,’ then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. This is because he or she is going about life in nothing but his or her mental perception of ‘I am a bodhisattva.’132
“Likewise, if he or she goes about life in feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the conventional sign of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the arising of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the cessation of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the dissolution of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness, then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If [F.7.a]he or she goes about life in the notion ‘feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are empty,’ then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the notion ‘I am going about my life,’ then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. If he or she goes about life in the notion ‘I am a bodhisattva,’ then he or she is going about life in a conventional sign. This is because he or she is going about life in nothing but his or her mental perception of ‘I am a bodhisattva.’ Furthermore, if it occurs to him or her, ‘Those who go about life in this way are going about life in the transcendent state of wisdom and are cultivating it,’ then he or she is going about life in nothing but a conventional sign. Such a bodhisattva should be known as someone who is not skilled in means.”133
Then the venerable Śāriputra asked the venerable Subhūti, “If a bodhisattva great being were to go about life in the transcendent state of wisdom, then how, Venerable Subhūti, would he or she do so?”
At this, the venerable Subhūti said to the venerable Śāriputra, “O Venerable Śāriputra, a bodhisattva great being does not go about life in physical forms, does not go about life in the conventional sign of physical forms, does not go about life in the notion ‘physical forms are a sign,’ does not go about life in the arising of physical forms, does not go about life in the cessation of physical forms, does not go about life in the dissolution of physical forms, does not go about life in the notion ‘physical forms are empty,’ does not go about life in the notion ‘I am going about my life,’ and does not go about life in the notion ‘I am a bodhisattva.’
“Likewise, he or she does not go about life in feelings, conceptions, or conditioning factors. He or she does not go about life in consciousness, does not go about life in the conventional sign of consciousness, does not go about life in the notion ‘consciousness is a conventional sign,’ does not go about life in the arising of consciousness, does not go about life in the cessation of consciousness, does not go about life in the dissolution of consciousness, does not go about life in the notion ‘consciousness is empty,’ does not go about life in the notion ‘I am going about my life,’ and does not go about life in the notion ‘I am a bodhisattva.’ If [F.7.b]he or she does not think, ‘Those who go about life in this way are going about life in the transcendent state of wisdom and are cultivating the transcendent state of wisdom,’ then a bodhisattva great being who is going about life in this way is going about life in the transcendent state of wisdom. For he or she never goes close to the thoughts, ‘I am going about my life,’ ‘I am not going about my life,’ ‘I am going about my life and not going about my life,’ or ‘I am neither going about my life nor not going about my life.’134 Nor does he or she arrive at the thoughts, ‘I will be going about my life,’ ‘I will not be going about my life,’ ‘I will both be going about my life and not be going about my life,’ or ‘I will neither be going about my life nor not be going about my life.’ Why does he or she not come to think that? It is because no things are either arrived at or taken hold of. This meditative concentration of a bodhisattva great being—called the meditative concentration free of anything apprehended—is vast, highly esteemed, focused on what is beyond measure, and unshared by the disciples and solitary realizers. By abiding in this very meditative concentration, a bodhisattva great being quickly realizes unsurpassable, completely perfect awakening.”
Through the miraculous power of the Buddha, the elder, the venerable Subhūti, continued: “O Blessed One, a bodhisattva great being whom the previous worthy, perfectly and completely awakened tathāgatas have foreordained for unsurpassable, perfect awakening abides in precisely this meditative concentration.135 Yet, he or she does not identify that meditative concentration and does not develop conceits about it, thinking, ‘I am concentrated,’ ‘I will attain the meditative concentration,’ ‘I am attaining the meditative concentration,’ or ‘I have attained the meditative concentration.’ Never are such thoughts as these experienced by that bodhisattva great being in any form [F.8.a]or any manner.”136
At this, the venerable Śāriputra asked the venerable Subhūti, “O Venerable Subhūti, in what meditative concentration is a bodhisattva great being—whom the previous worthy, perfectly and completely awakened tathāgatas have foreordained for unsurpassable, perfect awakening—abiding? Is that meditative concentration something that can be demonstrated?”
“Definitely not, Venerable Śāriputra,” replied Subhūti. “Why is that? It is because even such a noble son or daughter does not perceive that meditative concentration, nor does he or she conceive of it.”
The venerable Śāriputra asked, “Venerable Subhūti, are you saying that neither do they perceive it nor do they conceive of it?”
The venerable Subhūti replied, “O Venerable Śāriputra, I am saying that neither do they perceive it nor do they conceive of it. Why not? Because, insofar as that meditative concentration is not found to exist, they neither perceive it nor do they conceive of it.”137
Then the Blessed One commended the venerable Subhūti: “Excellent, Venerable Subhūti, excellent. It is exactly so, Subhūti, exactly so. Just as it is illuminating to you through the Tathāgata’s miraculous power and just as you are expounding it through the Tathāgata’s blessings, just so a bodhisattva great being should train in this meditative concentration. Why is that? It is because a bodhisattva great being who trains in this way trains in the transcendent state of wisdom.”
The venerable Śāriputra then asked the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, is it that a bodhisattva great being who trains in this way trains in the transcendent state of wisdom?”138
At this, the Blessed One said to the venerable Śāriputra, “Śāriputra,[F.8.b] a bodhisattva great being who trains in this way is training in the transcendent state of wisdom.”
At this, the venerable Śāriputra asked the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, in what thing does a bodhisattva great being train?”
At this, the Blessed One said to the venerable Śāriputra, “O Śāriputra, while training in this way a bodhisattva does not train in any things whatsoever.139 Why is that? It is because, Śāriputra, those things are not experienced by him or her in the same manner that they are fixated upon by immature, uninformed, ordinary persons.”140
“How then are those things experienced?”141 asked the venerable Śāriputra.
The Blessed One replied, “O Śāriputra, insofar as those things are not experienced as existing, they are experienced. And, since those things are not known to exist as such by that bodhisattva great being, they are called ignorance.142 Those things are habitually fixated upon by immature, uninformed, ordinary persons. But all things—insofar as they are not actually experienced—are just imagined by them.143 After imagining them, those immature, ordinary beings become entangled in the two extremes, and neither perceive nor see those things.144 Hence, they imagine all the things not being experienced, and after imagining those, they become habitually fixated on the two extremes. After habitually fixating on those extremes, they resort to their mental perception as a foundation, and imagine things as past, things as future, and things as present.145 After imagining those, they become fixated on names and physical forms.146 These things are also imagined by them. While they are imagining all these things not being experienced, they neither perceive nor do they see the path in accordance with reality. Since they are not perceiving or seeing the path in accordance with reality, they neither go beyond the three realms nor awaken to the pinnacle of reality.147 For this reason, those beings are considered immature. They [F.9.a]do not place their trust in the true Dharma.148 On the other hand, Śāriputra, bodhisattva great beings do not fixate upon anything at all as the Dharma.”149
At this, the venerable Śāriputra asked the Blessed One, “But, O Blessed One, does a bodhisattva great being who trains in this way train in the state of complete knowing?”
The Blessed One said, “O Śāriputra, a bodhisattva great being who trains in this way does not train even in the state of complete knowing. Śāriputra, a bodhisattva great being who trains in this way trains in all things. Śāriputra, a bodhisattva great being who trains in the state of complete knowing in this way is approaching that state and will go beyond cyclic existence in that [knowing].”
150Then the venerable Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, someone might ask me, ‘Is it the case that [a bodhisattva great being who is like an] illusory person would train in the state of complete knowing, approach that state, and go beyond cyclic existence in it?’ O Blessed One, if one were questioned in this way, how should one explicate the topic?”
In response, the Blessed One said to the venerable Subhūti, “To explain, Subhūti, I will ask you some questions about this topic in return. Answer them however you please.”
The venerable Subhūti assented to the Blessed One by saying, “Very well, Blessed One.”
The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, [regarding a magical, illusion-like bodhisattva great being,] what do you think? Are his or her physical forms one thing and the magical illusion a different thing? Are his or her feelings one thing and the magical illusion a different thing? Are his or her conceptions one thing and the magical illusion a different thing? Are his or her conditioning factors one thing and the magical illusion a different thing?[F.9.b] Subhūti, is his or her consciousness one thing and the magical illusion a different thing?”
“Definitely not, Blessed One,” replied Subhūti. “For, O Blessed One, it is not that physical forms are one thing, and the magical illusion a different thing. Physical forms themselves, Blessed One, are the magical illusion, and the magical illusion itself is the physical forms. Likewise, O Blessed One, feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are not one thing, and the magical illusion a different thing. O Blessed One, feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness themselves are magical illusion, and the magical illusion is the feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness.”
The Blessed One asked, “Subhūti, what do you think? Is this so-called ‘bodhisattva’ here a conception, a name, a designation, and a conventional expression for the constituents underlying the clinging to existence?”
In response, Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, yes. O Sugata, yes it is. O Blessed One, the reason is that a bodhisattva great being who trains in the transcendent state of wisdom is like an illusory person being trained in unsurpassable, perfect awakening. Why is that? It is because, O Blessed One, it should be kept in mind that a bodhisattva great being is him- or herself an illusory person, that is to say, the five constituents underlying the clinging to existence. Why is that? It is because, O Blessed One, that is how the Blessed One has taught: that physical forms are like a magical illusion, and what is so for physical forms is also so for the six sense organs and all five constituents. Likewise, it is because, O Blessed One, that is how the Blessed One has taught: that feelings, conceptions, and conditioning factors [F.10.a]are like a magical illusion, and likewise the Blessed One has taught that consciousness is like a magical illusion, and what is so for feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is also so for the six sense organs and all five constituents. O Blessed One, if those bodhisattva great beings have just begun to set out on the path and have heard this explication, would they not be frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror?”
The Blessed One said, “Subhūti, if those bodhisattva great beings who have just begun to set out on the path fall into the hands of unvirtuous friends, they will be frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror.151 But, Subhūti, if the bodhisattva great beings who have just begun to set out on the path fall into the hands of virtuous friends, they will not be frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror.”152
At this, Subhūti asked the Blessed One, “Who then, O Blessed One, should be known as virtuous friends for a bodhisattva great being?”
The Blessed One said, “Virtuous friends are those who instruct and guide a bodhisattva great being in the transcendent states and expound to him or her the activities of Māra like this: ‘The corruptions of Māra should be recognized as such; these are the corruptions of Māra. These activities of Māra should be recognized as such; these are the activities of Māra. Once you have recognized them, you should abandon them.’153 Subhūti, such people should be known as the virtuous friends of a bodhisattva great being, who has donned the great armor, has set out on the great journey, and has embarked on the great vehicle.”154
At this, Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “What the Blessed One has said [F.10.b]is as follows: ‘Such people should be known as the virtuous friends of a bodhisattva great being, who has donned the great armor, has set out on the great journey, and has embarked on the great vehicle.’
155“And yet, O Blessed One, regarding that which you call ‘a bodhisattva great being,’ what is the referent of the word bodhisattva?”156
At this, the Blessed One said to Subhūti, “Subhūti, the referent of the word bodhisattva is free of any referent. Why is that? Subhūti, it is because a bodhisattva great being trains to be free of being entangled with any things. Subhūti, when a bodhisattva great being is free of being entangled with the objective of comprehending all things, he or she realizes unsurpassable, perfect awakening. But, Subhūti, since he or she has the objective of awakening, he or she is called a bodhisattva great being.”157
Subhūti said, “But the Blessed One has called him or her ‘a bodhisattva great being.’ For what reason, O Blessed One, is he or she called a bodhisattva that is a ‘great being’?”
The Blessed One said, “It is because he or she will cause a great number of beings and a great gathering of beings to achieve the greatest goal. Since he or she has this objective, he or she is called a ‘great being’ bodhisattva.”158
159Then the venerable Śāriputra said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, I too will venture to illuminate the objective due to which a bodhisattva is called a ‘great being.’ ”
The Blessed One said, “O Śāriputra, please illuminate what you are thinking right now.”
The venerable Śāriputra said, “The objective due to which a bodhisattva is called a ‘great being’ is that he or she [F.11.a]is going to teach the Dharma to eliminate the numerous erroneous beliefs—such as the erroneous beliefs in a self, the erroneous beliefs in a being, the erroneous beliefs in a soul, the erroneous beliefs in a person, the erroneous beliefs in existence, the erroneous beliefs in dissolution, the erroneous beliefs in nihilism, the erroneous beliefs in eternalism, and the erroneous beliefs in individuality—and so on.”160
Then the venerable Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, I too will venture to be illuminating about why a bodhisattva is called a ‘great being.’ ”
The Blessed One said, “Subhūti, please venture to illuminate what you are thinking right now.”
Subhūti then said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, he or she is called ‘a bodhisattva great being’ because he or she is neither entangled nor enmeshed in even that mindset—namely, that mindset of awakening, which is the mindset with complete knowing, the mindset free from worldly influences, the unequaled mindset, the mindset equal to the unequaled, and the mindset not shared by the disciples and solitary realizers.161 Why is that? It is because that mindset with complete knowing is free of worldly influence and free of enmeshment, and also because bodhisattva great beings are neither entangled nor enmeshed in even that mindset that is the mindset with complete knowing free of worldly influence and free of enmeshment. Since he or she has this objective, he or she is considered ‘a bodhisattva great being.’ ”
Then the venerable Śāriputra asked the venerable Subhūti, “Due to what reason, Venerable Subhūti, is he or she neither entangled nor enmeshed in even that mindset?”
Subhūti said, “Due to his or her being free of a mindset, Venerable Śāriputra, he or she is neither entangled nor enmeshed in even that mindset.”
Then the venerable Śāriputra asked the venerable Subhūti,[F.11.b] “But then, Venerable Subhūti, if that mindset is free of a mindset, does that mindset exist?”
At this, the venerable Subhūti asked the venerable Śāriputra, “Well, Venerable Śāriputra, in the state free of a mindset, is an existence or a nonexistence found or mentally perceived?”
“Definitely not, Venerable Subhūti,” replied the venerable Śāriputra.
The venerable Subhūti continued, “O Venerable Śāriputra, if, in that state free of a mindset, an existence or a nonexistence is neither found nor mentally perceived, then is your questioning of my statement reasonable as expressed: ‘If that mindset is free of a mindset, does that mindset exist?’ ”
The venerable Śāriputra then said to the venerable Subhūti, “Excellent, excellent, Venerable Subhūti. You are explaining in just the way that the Blessed One indicated that you would, that is to say, as the foremost among those who abide free of conflict!”
162Then Pūrṇa, son of Maitrāyaṇī, said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, the one described in this context as a ‘great being’ is a sentient being who has donned the great armor, set out on the great journey, and mounted the great vehicle. It is for this reason that he or she is considered a ‘great being.’ ”
Then the venerable Subhūti asked the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, to what extent has a bodhisattva great being—described in this context as having donned the great armor—donned the great armor?”
The Blessed One said, “Here, Subhūti, it occurs to a bodhisattva great being, ‘The sentient beings to be liberated by me are immeasurable. The sentient beings to be liberated by me are innumerable. And yet, there are no sentient beings to be liberated by anyone.’ With this understanding, he or she causes all those sentient beings to be liberated and yet no one is liberating and no one is liberated. Why is that? Subhūti, it is because, in light of the illusory nature of things, this is the true nature of things. Subhūti, it is just as if a skilled magical illusionist [F.12.a]or a magical illusionist’s apprentice were to conjure up a great gathering of people at the intersection of four highways. Then, having conjured them up, if he or she were to make that very gathering of people disappear, Subhūti, what would you think in that case? Would anyone have killed anyone? Would anyone be dead or destroyed? Would anyone have made them disappear?”
“Definitely not, Blessed One,” said Subhūti.
The Blessed One said, “Subhūti, in this very way, a bodhisattva great being liberates immeasurable and innumerable sentient beings, and yet no one is liberating and no one is liberated. If a bodhisattva great being hears this explication being given in this way and is not frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror, then, Subhūti, that bodhisattva great being should be known as having donned the great armor to that extent.”
Then the venerable Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “Indeed, O Blessed One, as far as I have understood the point of the Blessed One’s explication, the bodhisattva great being should be known as not having donned the great armor.”
The Blessed One said, “You are right. Subhūti, you are right. The bodhisattva great being should be known, indeed, as not having donned the great armor.163 Why not? Because, Subhūti, the state of complete knowing is uncreated, untransformed, and unconditioned. Also, those sentient beings for whose sake he or she has donned the great armor are neither created, nor transformed, nor conditioned.”
At this, the venerable Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “So it is, O Blessed One. So it is, Sugata. Why is that?[F.12.b] O Blessed One, it is because physical forms are neither fettered nor liberated.164 Likewise, O Blessed One, feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are neither fettered nor liberated. Also, the actual nature of physical forms is neither fettered nor liberated. Likewise, O Blessed One, the actual nature of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is neither fettered nor liberated.”165
Then the venerable Pūrṇa, son of Maitrāyaṇī, said to the venerable Subhūti, “O Venerable Subhūti, you say that physical forms are neither fettered nor liberated. Likewise, Venerable Subhūti, you say that feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are neither fettered nor liberated. Venerable Subhūti, you say that the actual nature of physical forms also is neither fettered nor liberated. Likewise, Venerable Subhūti, you say that the actual nature of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is neither fettered nor liberated.
“Well then, Venerable Subhūti, what physical forms are neither fettered nor liberated as you say? Likewise, Venerable Subhūti, what feelings, what conceptions, what conditioning factors, and what consciousness is neither fettered nor liberated as you say? Also, Venerable Subhūti, what actual nature of physical forms is neither fettered nor liberated as you say? Likewise, Venerable Subhūti, what actual nature of feelings, what actual nature of conceptions, what actual nature of conditioning factors, and what actual nature of consciousness is neither fettered nor liberated as you say?”
At this, the venerable Subhūti said to the venerable Pūrṇa, son of Maitrāyaṇī, “O Venerable Pūrṇa,[F.13.a] the physical form of an illusory person is neither fettered nor liberated. Likewise, Venerable Pūrṇa, the feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness of an illusory person are neither fettered nor liberated. Venerable Pūrṇa, the actual nature of an illusory person’s physical form is neither fettered nor liberated. Likewise, the actual nature of an illusory person’s feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is neither fettered nor liberated. Why is that? Since the actual nature is not really existent, it is neither fettered nor liberated. Since it is void, it is neither fettered nor liberated. Since it has not arisen, it is neither fettered nor liberated.166 For a bodhisattva great being who has donned the great armor, who has set out on the great journey, and who has mounted the great vehicle, this is the great armor free of any armor.”167
At this, the venerable Pūrṇa, son of Maitrāyaṇī, became silent.
168Then the venerable Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, the bodhisattva great being who has donned the great armor in this way has set out on the great journey and has mounted the great vehicle. But what is that great vehicle? How should someone who has set out on that great journey be recognized? From where will that great path go beyond cyclic existence? By what means has that great vehicle set out? Where will the great vehicle come to dwell? Who will go beyond cyclic existence by means of this great vehicle?”169
At this, the Blessed One [F.13.b]said to Subhūti, “The great vehicle, Subhūti, is the epithet of something immeasurable. Subhūti, it is immeasurable, because it is beyond measure. Subhūti, what you also asked is, ‘How can someone who has set out on the great journey be recognized? From where will that great path go beyond cyclic existence? Who has set out on the great journey? Where will the great vehicle come to dwell? Who will go beyond cyclic existence by means of this great vehicle?’170 Someone who has set out on the journey can be recognized by means of the transcendent states. From whatever belongs to the three realms, the great path will go beyond cyclic existence. He or she who is beyond the scope of perception has set out upon the journey. The great vehicle will come to dwell in the state of complete knowing. The bodhisattva great being will go beyond cyclic existence, but he or she will not go beyond cyclic existence from any location, nor will anyone even set out on a journey. He or she will not come to dwell in any state. But, by not dwelling anywhere, he or she will come to dwell in the state of complete knowing. By means of this great vehicle, no one has gone beyond cyclic existence, no one will go beyond cyclic existence, and no one is going beyond cyclic existence. Why is that? It is because those two things—that is, someone going beyond cyclic existence and some means by which to go beyond it—are neither found nor mentally perceived. Since these two are not to be found as such, what will go beyond cyclic existence by means of what?”171
At this, the venerable Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, it is called a great vehicle because by means of it a bodhisattva great being will surpass the world with its gods, humans, and asuras, and hence will go beyond cyclic existence.172 It is a great vehicle that is equal to space. Just as there is room in space for immeasurable and innumerable beings, just so, O Blessed One, there is room in this vehicle for immeasurable [F.14.a]and innumerable beings.173 It is from this perspective that it is the great vehicle of the bodhisattva great beings. It is not seen coming. It is not seen going. It is not mentally perceived dwelling. Likewise, O Blessed One, the beginning point, the middle point, and the end point of this great path are not mentally perceived. O Blessed One, this path is the same in all three times. Therefore, it is called the great path.”
Then indeed the Blessed One commended Subhūti: “Excellent, excellent, Subhūti. It is as you say, Subhūti, it is as you say. In this way, it is the great path of bodhisattva great beings. Having trained in this, bodhisattva great beings have attained, are attaining, and will attain the state of complete knowing.”
174Then the venerable Pūrṇa, son of Maitrāyaṇī, said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, this elder Subhūti, who was asked about the transcendent state of wisdom, considers that the great path is the topic to be expounded.”
Then the venerable Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, I was not speaking of the great path to the neglect of the transcendent state of wisdom.”175
The Blessed One said, “Absolutely not, Subhūti. You are expounding the great path in conformity with the transcendent state of wisdom, Subhūti.”176
At this, Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “O Blessed One, it is through the Buddha’s [F.14.b]miraculous power.177 Nevertheless, O Blessed One, a bodhisattva does not go close to either any beginning point, any end point, or any middle point. Why not? This is because, insofar as physical forms are limitless, a bodhisattva should be known as limitless.178 Likewise, insofar as feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are limitless, a bodhisattva should be known as limitless. He or she does not go close to the thought, ‘Bodhisattvas are physical forms.’ Even this thought is not found and not mentally perceived. Likewise, he or she does not go close to the thought, ‘Bodhisattvas are feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness.’ Even this thought is not found and not mentally perceived. O Blessed One, since I am not mentally perceiving any such thing called a ‘bodhisattva’ anywhere at all or in any way at all, I do not identify this thing designated to be a ‘bodhisattva.’179 Nor do I identify or mentally perceive the transcendent state of wisdom. Nor do I identify or mentally perceive the state of complete knowing. O Blessed One, since I myself am neither mentally perceiving nor identifying that thing anywhere at all by any means at all, what thing should I instruct and guide in what thing by means of what thing? O Blessed One, this ‘buddha’ is a mere designation. O Blessed One, this ‘bodhisattva’ is a mere designation. O Blessed One, this ‘transcendent state of wisdom’ is a mere designation. But these designations have not truly come into being.180 O Blessed One, it is just like the fact that the word self is said, but a self absolutely has not truly come into being.181 Similarly, all things have the inherent nature of lacking any [F.15.a]state of being.182 What are those physical forms that have not truly come into being and cannot be grasped? What are those feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness that have not truly come into being and cannot be grasped? The condition for all these things to be free of inherent nature in this way is their not truly coming into being, and yet those things’ not truly coming into being is not those things themselves. How then shall I instruct and guide someone who is not truly coming into being in the transcendent state of wisdom that also is not truly coming into being?183 O Blessed One, no things—whether they be things constituting buddhas, constituting bodhisattvas, or constituting anyone who might practice to awaken—are mentally perceived anywhere other than in their not truly coming into being.
“O Blessed One, when it is described in this way, taught in this way, and expounded in this way, if a bodhisattva great being’s mindset does not become deflated, depressed, dejected, or sunk in despondency, and if his or her mental attitude does not become discouraged, shattered, frightened, terrified, or stricken with terror, then in this way it should be known that this bodhisattva great being goes about life in the transcendent state of wisdom, this bodhisattva great being cultivates the transcendent state of wisdom, and this bodhisattva great being reflects upon the transcendent state of wisdom. The bodhisattva great being meditates upon the transcendent state of wisdom. Why is that? It is because at the time when a bodhisattva investigates these things in the transcendent state of wisdom, he or she neither goes close to physical forms, nor arrives at them, nor identifies their arising, nor identifies their cessation. Likewise, he or she neither goes close to feelings, conceptions,[F.15.b] conditioning factors, or consciousness, nor arrives at them, nor identifies their arising, nor identifies their cessation.184 Why is that? To explain, the characteristic of not arising that belongs to physical forms is not the same as the physical forms.185 The characteristic of not ceasing that belongs to physical forms is not the same as the physical forms.186 This being said, the characteristic of not arising and the physical forms are something free of duality, and free from creating duality.187 Also, the characteristic of not ceasing and the physical forms are something free of duality, and free from creating duality.188 Again, saying ‘physical forms’ is to quantify something free of duality.189
“Likewise, the characteristic of not arising that belongs to feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is not the same as the so-called feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness. The characteristic of not ceasing that belongs to feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is not the same as the so-called consciousness. This being said, the characteristic of not arising and the feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are something free of duality, and free from creating duality. Also, the characteristic of not ceasing and the feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are something free of duality, and free from creating duality. Again, saying ‘feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness’ is to quantify something free of duality.
“Therefore, O Blessed One, at the time when a bodhisattva is deeply reflecting upon all things as all the aspects in the transcendent state of wisdom, he or she does not go close to physical forms, arrive at physical forms, identify their arising, or identify their cessation. Likewise, he or she does not go close to feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, or consciousness, arrive at them, identify their arising,[F.16.a] or identify their cessation. Why is that? To explain, physical forms’ nature of not arising is not the same as the so-called physical forms. Physical forms’ nature of not ceasing is not the same as the so-called physical forms. This being said, the characteristic of not arising and the physical forms are something free of duality, and free from creating duality. Also, the characteristic of not ceasing and the physical forms are something free of duality, and free from creating duality. Again, saying ‘physical forms’ is to quantify something free of duality.
“Likewise, the characteristic of not arising of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is not the same as the so-called feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness. The characteristic of not ceasing of feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness is not the same as the so-called feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness. This being said, the characteristic of not arising and the feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are something free of duality, and free from creating duality. Also, the characteristic of not ceasing and the feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness are something free of duality, and free from creating duality. Again, saying ‘feelings, conceptions, conditioning factors, and consciousness’ is to quantify something free of duality.”
Then the venerable Śāriputra said this: “To explain the meaning of Venerable Subhūti’s teaching as I understand it, even bodhisattvas are free of arising. That said, Subhūti, if even bodhisattvas are free of arising, then how can they go about life performing difficult noble deeds? How are they able to subject themselves to those sufferings, to which they subject themselves for the sake of beings?”190
At this, the venerable Subhūti [F.16.b]said to the venerable Śāriputra, “I do not hold that a bodhisattva great being is going about life performing difficult noble deeds, or that a bodhisattva great being is someone who goes about life with a conception of any noble deeds as difficult. Why not? To explain, it is not possible to bring about the benefit of immeasurable and innumerable beings after developing the conception of noble deeds as difficult. Rather, it is only after developing the conception of them as easy. That is to say, it is only after developing the conception of all beings—male or female—as mothers, fathers, daughters, or sons that a bodhisattva great being goes about life performing the noble deeds of a bodhisattva. Based on that, a bodhisattva great being should develop the conception of all beings as mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters until finally he or she develops the conception of them as his or her very own self, thinking, ‘Just as I must liberate myself from all sufferings by absolutely every means and in absolutely every way, just so I must liberate all sentient beings from all sufferings by absolutely every means and in absolutely every way. Likewise, I must develop this conception with respect to all sentient beings and I shall not desert any of them. I must liberate all these beings from immeasurable amounts of sufferings and I must not develop a mindset that is hostile toward them, even if I am being cut to pieces a hundred times over!’
“In precisely this way, a bodhisattva great being should develop the proper mindset. Furthermore, if he or she comes to abide with a mindset like this, then he or she will not abide with a conception of noble deeds as difficult.
The exception within the six “mother” sūtras is The Verses that Summarize the Perfection of Wisdom (Prajñāpāramitāsaṃcayagāthā, Toh 13), because it is so condensed.
Mapping the correspondences between the Eight Thousand and the longer sūtras is complicated by the former’s very different—and sometimes surprising—placing of chapter breaks (see Conze 1978, p.49). Nevertheless, for most of the middle of the text, obvious points of correspondence can be identified, and in this translation have been pointed out in the notes. Nevertheless, at the beginning and toward the end of the text (i.e. its coverage of the first, and of the last three, of the eight main topics of the Ornament), the way the subject matter is covered is markedly more compressed in comparison to the longer sūtras (see notes n.64, n.1296, and n.1299). While the Ornament’s topics and subtopics can still just about be discerned in these parts of Eight Thousand, especially with the help of the commentaries written partly for just that purpose, the notion that the Ornament and its analysis of topics is based rather on the longer sūtras is quite clearly substantiated.
This manuscript, which consists of the 15 cm wide portion of a much longer birch-bark scroll, has on its recto and verso sides portions of text that, although considerably shorter, are comparable to portions of the first and fifth chapters of the Eight Thousand. It shows evidence of having been copied from an earlier manuscript, suggesting that the text itself dates to earlier than its carbon dating, possibly as early as the first or second century
Wogihara and Vaidya did not edit the text themselves, as is sometimes thought; they merely reproduced Mitra’s edition without looking at the manuscripts, occasionally introducing their own typos in the process.
See Jampa Samten 1992, p. 12, where some of this information is set out in a note (in Tibetan) under text no. 10, the first of three versions of the Eight Thousand in the Phukdrak Kangyur. But for a more detailed discussion see Olkha Lelung Jedrung, Lobsang Trinlé (’ol kha / dga’ sle lung blo bzang ’phrin las, 1697–1740), Narthang dkar chag rgyas pa (the extensive Narthang Kangyur catalog), folios 84.b–85.a, or Pedurma vol. 106, pp. 228–29 (the latter being considerably easier to read).
See Olkha Lelung Jedrung. As an analogy, he compares the two expressions “divine flowers and divine fragrant incense” and “divine flowers and incense,” differing only in their degree of contraction.
Degé dkar chag, folio 118.a. However, the statement could be taken to refer only to the name and thus to follow the opinion of Rinchen Chökyong Zangpo as summarized in the preceding paragraph.
These are just two of the twenty types of saṅgha mentioned by the Ornament. But this distinction will hopefully suffice for the limited scope of this introduction.
Atiśa’s Extensive Biography (rnam thar rgyas pa) reports that he received the three traditional streams of interpreting the Transcendent State of Wisdom scriptures—the explanation by Mañjuśrī, the explanation by Maitreya, and the explanation according to sūtra and tantra—from Ratnākaraśānti, but does not specify what they are. In explaining the Eight Thousand’s bodhicitta section, Ratnākaraśānti cites both The Teaching of Akṣayamati (Akṣayamatinirdeśa, Toh 175) and Maitreya’s Ornament, suggesting that these might have been, respectively, the first two streams. It is not clear precisely which commentaries might constitute the “explanation according to sūtra and tantra.”
Although this commentary is not mentioned by name in subsequent Indian sources, it may have been orally transmitted to some degree in India, and might possibly be included in the tradition later attributed to Mañjuśrī. It is the colophon of Kumārajīva’s (fifth century) Chinese translation that attributes it to Nāgārjuna. Lamotte (III, p. ix) argued against this attribution. However, without ruling out Nāgārjuna as a possible originator, Zacchetti (2021, pp. 94–97) suggests that multiple compilers probably contributed to the work we now know today. Importantly, Zacchetti’s analysis raises questions about the application of Western notions of authorship to Indian scriptural and commentarial literature, where subsequent interpolations made in the service of perceived authorial intentions are still attributed to an important founding figure.
The Ornament seems to have been formulated to match most closely the larger Transcendent State of Wisdom sūtras, which in Asaṅga’s time were not as clearly differentiated into recensions named by their length as they were later, but of which the Twenty-Five Thousand (Toh 9) is the representative version usually taken as the “root text” whose content the Ornament summarizes and organizes into topics. The Ornament has been studied in India and Tibet for centuries, but it was never translated into Chinese and is not known in East Asian traditions.
This tradition of explanation is often associated with not just one but two commentaries, both incorporating in their titles the Sanskrit term bṛhaṭṭīkā, the other (Toh 3807) being a commentary on the Hundred Thousand alone, and both using similar approaches. See The Long Explanation of the Noble Transcendent State of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand, Twenty-Five Thousand, and Eighteen Thousand Lines (Āryaśatasāhasrikāpañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāṣṭādaśasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitābṛhaṭṭīkā, Toh 3808). The attribution of both texts was the subject of dispute in Tibet. Some attribute Toh 3808 to Vasubandhu, but others to Daṃṣṭrasena, who lived several centuries after Vasubandhu; Toh 3807 is more often attributed to Daṃṣṭrasena but may possibly have been composed in Tibet. For more information, see the introduction to the translation of Toh 3808. See also Sparham 2001.
Jaini’s (1979) edition was made from two incomplete Sanskrit palm-leaf manuscripts that had been discovered at Sakya Monastery by Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana during his second journey to Tibet in 1936, and photographed by him and Gendun Chöphel during his fourth journey in 1938 (see Sāṅkṛtyāyana 1937, MS nos. 200 and 201 pp. 24–5). While large parts are intact there are numerous missing passages, and in the notes to this translation citations from passages missing in Sanskrit are given from the Tibetan instead.
According to the eleventh-century Indian Buddhist scholar Advayavajra, the three Buddhist philosophical schools—known as Sautrāntika, Yogācāra, and Madhyamaka—all practiced the method of the transcendent states that was introduced in this scripture. In other words, based on its views the followers of Sautrāntika were able to practice Mahāyāna.
The Ornament is attributed in the Indo-Tibetan tradition to Maitreya, who taught it to Asaṅga as one of the “five treatises of Maitreya” (byams chos sde lnga). According to Makransky 1998 (p. 369 n3) and Brunnhölzl 2010 (vol. 1, p. 692 n98), this attribution was first made by Haribhadra (late eighth to early ninth century). For more about the Ornament and its history (especially with regard to its final chapter on the kāyas) see the introduction to Makransky 1998.
Tibetans primarily study the Ornament through Haribhadra’s short Commentary (Vivṛtti, ’grel pa don gsal, Toh 3793) and virtually no one studies the actual Prajñāpāramitā scriptures.
At less than seven hundred words (in English), the Heart Sūtra is one of the genre’s shortest scriptures, a fact that has clearly contributed to its popularity.
In the strictest Tibetan monastic university curricula, the Ornament is studied daily for three to six years. This is a sign of the scripture’s continued relevance today, but is also the reason why few students outside the monastic universities have any real idea about the purpose of studying the Transcendent State of Wisdom literature so seriously.
The wordplay is sometimes difficult to understand, in part because the terms in question were in other early Indic natural languages (Prākrits) rather than the Sanskrit in which the text survives. Some of these are discussed in Schmithausen 1979.
See Ducœur 2022, particularly on Burnouf’s methodology (pp. 5–12). See also Feer 1899 for Burnouf’s manuscript translation.
On Edward Conze’s 1958 English version, see above and, in more detail, below. Mention should also be made here of a recent unpublished English translation of the Chinese translation of an early, abbreviated version of the scripture.
For instance, the translation of pramāṇavantī as mtho zhing tshad dang ldan pa (30.8) could only have come from Ratnākaraśānti’s gloss of that word: pramāṇavantī ti pṛthūni tuṅgāni ca. The earlier Tibetan translation of Ratnākaraśānti’s Quintessence commentary enshrines an earlier translation of this term: tshad dang ldan pa zhes bya ba ni yangs shing mtho ba’o. Since Haribhadra is silent on this term, this earlier Tibetan translation was likely based on a Tibetan translator’s own interpretation, rather than a traditional Indian source.
See Harrison 2006, p. 136. Although this translation agrees with Harrison’s statement here and his general approach in the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā, there are additional concerns in translating the Eight Thousand, because it must coalesce with its long commentarial tradition.
Quintessence (F.19.a–20.b): bcom ldan ’das zhes bya ba la sogs pa la de ltar zhes bya ba ni dmigs pa dang rnam pa ji ltar bshad pa ltar ro| |zab mo zhes bya ba ni mos par dka’ ba’o| |shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa zhes bya ba ni drod ’bring dang chen po’i mtshan nyid do| |bshad pas ni tshig las so| | ston pa ni don las so| | |nye bar ston pa ni don la’o| |de yang shes pa skyes pas zhi gnas skyes par sems ma zhum zhes bya ba la sogs pas don snga ma bzhin du bshad do| |bsams pa ni lhag pa’i bsam pa’o| |des na gcig tu nges pa zhes bya ba’i don to| |mos pa ni zhi gnas dang lhag mthong gi stobs kyis nges par skyes pa’o| |ma bral bar zhes bya ba ni des gong nas gong du ’gro ba yin no.
In a different but comparable context involving the removal of repetitions from the Pali suttas, Lance Cousins (1997, pp. 261–62) writes, “Although there are obvious advantages to having the whole work in one volume, especially for the newcomer, the disadvantage is the systematic elimination of repetition. Many readers may see this as a gain, but it does amount to the deliberate removal of a meditative element from many suttas. In the original language, when the suttas are chanted rather than read, there is an effect upon the mind which is very much part of their traditional purpose. Moreover, the emphasis is often changed quite critically: when a phrase that is repeated in the original ten times is given only once in translation, it ceases to be a central part which is always retained in memory. The result is that what the sutta tries to stress as important becomes much less noticeable in translation.” It is beyond the scope of this introduction to address Conze’s flawed assumptions, which still influence the academic field of Buddhist studies today. For instance, although Conze mentioned the “piling up of synonyms” as aiding memorization, it is dubious whether there are, in fact, any such benefits.
Cherry-picking comments or passages from the commentaries, as we have done in this translation, is certainly not ideal and runs the risk of producing many misconceptions about them. For the time being, however, it must suffice, since it is certainly better than nothing, while the project of translating the commentaries and making them available in full is a daunting one that 84000 may not complete for many years. At the very least, these footnotes may increase readers’ interest in reading the full texts of the commentaries in the future.
Gareth Sparham’s translation of Haribhadra’s Light commentary uses Conze’s translation for the root text without quoting it in extenso, making it difficult sometimes to figure out where the relevant passages are. Since Sparham cites the page numbers from Wogihara’s edition within his translation, the page numbers from Wogihara have been provided in the notes to help English readers navigate Sparham’s translation and to help Sanskrit readers read the edition itself.
The disagreement grew from the fact that the term was used somewhat vaguely within the scripture itself to refer to a path, a goal, a text, and even a mother-like goddess. Hence, the clarification of the term’s meaning became a primary concern for commentators seeking to interpret the rest of its subject matter.
The Sanskrit text in the footnotes has been extracted from Wogihara’s edition of Haribhadra’s Āloka and from Greg Seton’s unpublished Sanskrit and Tibetan edition of Ratnākaraśānti’s Sāratamā. However, the folio numbers given for the Śāratmā citations—whether provided in Sanskrit or (where the Sanskrit is missing) in Tibetan—are those of the Tibetan translation of the Śāratmā (snying po mchog) in the Degé Tengyur (Toh 3803, volume 89).
The notion that all heuristic analysis (nirvacana) involves merely fanciful, folk etymology is a misconception. In fact, heuristic analysis conveys important information about usage that needs to be considered when translating certain terms, especially those whose main referents are disputed.
In brief, Haribhadra breaks down the grammatical etymology of pāramitā as pāram+iḥ+tā—i.e., the state of one who goes to or reaches the other shore—where he explains the compound as consisting in a secondary (kṛt) suffix -iḥ (derived from the verbal root √i) in the sense of “he goes” (eti) to “the other shore” in the accusative case, based on a known exception to the rule that normally dictates all such declined endings be removed when forming a compound. Cf. Wogihara, p
The idea here is that naming a seed “apple” (i.e., apple seed)—even though no apple is perceived in the seed—is a figurative usage of the word “apple” that is based on the fact that a particular seed produces the fruit of an apple.
It should be noted that, although Haribhadra designates a buddha’s nondual knowledge as the true body of knowing (jñānadharmakāya), this body, for him, is only nominally called an “ultimate reality” in that it perceives the ultimate reality (i.e., the svabhāvikakāya). In actuality, it still falls within “conventional reality” (samvṛtisatya), because of its connection to appearances through the enjoyment and creation bodies (i.e. saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya). Cf. Makransky 1998, pp. 235–37.
Like Haribhadra, Ratnākaraśānti clearly suggests that the compound term be split as the “going to + wisdom’s other shore” (prajñāpāram+itā), where the other shore itself consists in wisdom. However, since Ratnākaraśānti’s Sanskrit comments exist only in a relatively imprecise Tibetan translation, it is not entirely clear whether he means that the final itā be interpreted grammatically as (a) a form of the Sanskrit verb √i combined with the abstract suffix -tā (similar to Hari but with different effect) to mean “the state of going” or (b) a feminine form of the past participle meaning “gone” or “set out for” (itā). Either way, Ratnākaraśānti’s additional remarks show that he interprets the itā as “the state of going to” or “the state leading to”—i.e., the path—rather than “the state once one has reached” it, i.e., the goal.
The idea behind naming the fruit (or result) after the seed (or cause) is like saying, after eating an omelet with many ingredients, that one has had “eggs” (a cause of that omelet) for breakfast.
Conze’s translation “they should course in perfect wisdom” gives the opposite impression from the verb (√car + locative), as if bodhisattvas must undertake some special mystical activity called “coursing” that no ordinary being understands how to do.
Although Conze and others translate citta, respectively, as “thought” or as “mind,” “heart,” and so on, these terms exclude either the cognitive or affective aspect of the word, and are often forced to fit unfamiliar contexts that make no sense except in Buddhist-English jargon. For instance, can one “give rise” (utpāda; bskyed) to a mind or heart, except in some metaphorical sense? Yet a mindset, by its nature, is something that can arise, be given rise to, and be developed and expanded. One need only look at how French translates citta as esprit and German as geist to see how much less our words “mind” or “heart” are able to account for both the cognitive and affective aspects of the term.
The scripture also uses the term “mindset” (citta) in the positive sense as a synonym of meditative concentration (samādhi). This usage was common especially in the context of the three trainings, which in early scriptures were listed as discipline, mindset, and wisdom instead of the more usual discipline, meditative concentration, and wisdom.
It is worth keeping in mind that Indian scholars, such as Haribhadra, Ratnākara, Prajñākaramati, Abhayākaragupta, and others, agree about the general usages of the term “mindset of awakening” (bodhicitta). But they disagree about what each usage’s precise referent is and whether it is a type of primary consciousness or a secondary mental state. For more on these different interpretations, see, for example, Padmakara Translation Group 2007, pp. 53–55. For more about the Sanskrit term citta, cf. Skorupski 2009, p. 165, n45, n59. For a taxonomy of various usages of the term bodhicitta, see Wangchuk 2007.
This problem is of far less prominence in the translation of other Prajñāpāramitā scriptures. The three Sanskrit terms used in the Ornament to distinguish the three kinds of sarvajñatā outlined here are hardly found at all in the text of the Eight Thousand. “Knowing of all the aspects” (sarvākārajñatā) occurs only once apart from in the heading of the first chapter (see n.65). “Knowing of the paths” (mārgajñatā) is not found at all. By contrast, in the long Prajñāpāramitā sūtras (the Hundred Thousand, Twenty-Five Thousand, and Eighteen Thousand) the differentiation into three is made much clearer by the very frequent use of distinct terms for them in the source texts. See the introduction to The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines, i.95. In the translation of that text (and of the Hundred Thousand), the term sarvajñatā (thams cad shes pa) by itself has been rendered “knowledge of all the dharmas” whenever (as is mostly the case) it denotes what is here—in the translation of the present text—termed the “complete knowing” of the Disciple Vehicle. The differentiation into three terms, in the longer sūtras, of the Eight Thousand’s single term is sometimes taken as one example of evidence for the longer sūtra’s later evolution.
For a discussion of some of the different Buddhist explanations of this term, see McClintock 2010.
Most Tibetans followed Haribhadra, so they translated the negation here as meaning “without” or “lacking” any mindset (sems med pa/ sems ma chis pa), i.e., as a nonimplicative negation (med dgag). But some Tibetans, inspired by Ratnākara perhaps, translated it as a “nonmindset” (sems ma yin pa)—i.e., something that is “not” a mindset—suggesting an exclusion or implicative negation (ma yin dgag). For an example see F.45.a.4 in the Tibetan translation of Ārya Vimuktisena’s Vṛtti (Toh 3787), where Ngok Lotsāwa translates acittam as “not a mind” (sems ma yin pa).
These four bodies are based on Haribhadra’s explanation, which is more common in Tibetan lists of the seventy topics. Ratnākaraśānti divides these four topics differently, namely (1) natural body, (2) enjoyment body, (3) emanation body and (4) a buddha’s body of qualities and his activity.
In his dissertation, Shì Hùifēng explains the Eight Thousand to have the chiastic rhetorical structure “XY is ~Y” or “XY is not Y.” Shì’s conclusions are well considered and persuasive, but difficult to explain here and not directly relevant to summarizing the content. For ease, a simple rule of thumb for readers might be to regard the internal structure of each different chapter as involving a different rhetorical device, often with humorous undertones, such as its own setup, punchline, and so on, aimed at evoking various insight responses in the readers, rather than laughter, amusement, groans, or other responses.
Here and in what follows, the “Transcendent State of Wisdom” (capitalized) refers to the scripture (or scriptures), while the “transcendent state of wisdom” (lower case) refers to the practice or state.
This first chapter of the Eight Thousand corresponds in content to Chapters 1–13 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and to Chapters 1–21 of the Eighteen Thousand. Some of the points within it that correspond to where new chapters begin in the long sūtras are marked in footnotes below. However, this first chapter is one of the two sections of the Eight Thousand that, compared to the long sūtras, are the most different in length and content—not just because of a different level of repetitive phrasing, but also because of differences in the content and order of the discussions. The other such section is Chapter 29 and the last parts of Chapter 28 (see n.1296 and n.1299), i.e. the end of the scripture apart from the Sadāprarudita narrative and the entrusting. Put succinctly, it is at the beginning and end that the Eight Thousand and the longer sūtras differ most.
Despite this chapter having the term “knowing of all aspects” in its title, only the term “the state of complete knowing” (sarvajñatā) or its counterpart term “the knowing of someone who has complete knowing” (sarvajñajñāna) appear in the body of the chapter. Indeed, the title term “knowing of all aspects” is not to be found either in this chapter or in the main part of the scripture. It appears to have been borrowed from the title of the first chapter of the Ornament—which is used in the commentaries by Haribhadra (Hari) and Ratnākaraśānti (Ratnākara or RK) as an outline for explaining this entire scripture from the perspective of their divergent philosophical positions of, respectively, Mādhyamika and Yogācāra. See also the introduction “State of Complete Knowing” and n.112. In order to show how the Eight Thousand’s single term “state of complete knowing” (sarvajñatā) corresponds, in different parts of the scripture, to only one of the three types of complete knowing to be realized according to the Ornament—namely the “knowing of all aspects” (sarvākārajñatā), the “knowing of all the paths” (mārgajñatā), and the “complete knowing (i.e., of the constituents)” (sarvajñatā)—their comments variously associate the term “state of complete knowing” with the fruition of either a disciple, a worthy one, a solitary realizer, a bodhisattva, or a buddha, as explained in the respective schools. Among these three terms, Hari and Ratnākara agree that “the knowing of all aspects” refers exclusively to a buddha’s knowing of everything, including both the nature of things and their diverse manifestations. But they disagree about the fundamental relationship between the knowing of all aspects and the transcendent state of wisdom. For Hari, the two terms are perfect synonyms. But Hari holds that, like naming an “apple seed” after its fruit, the name “transcendent state of wisdom” can sometimes be applied, in a figurative sense, to wisdom at different stages along the five paths insofar as they are causes of the actual transcendent state of wisdom that is a buddha’s knowing. For Ratnākara, these two terms are not perfect synonyms. The “knowing of all aspects” refers exclusively to a buddha’s knowing, whereas the term “transcendent state of wisdom” refers exclusively to the wisdom of noble ones at different stages, beginning on the path of seeing (darśanamārga) and ending with the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga) just before the attainment of the complete awakening of a buddha. Even though Ratnākara acknowledges that the term transcendent state of wisdom can refer to buddhahood, he says that usage is figurative. Although Hari’s and Ratnākara’s diametric opposition should be kept in mind when reading certain passages and their corresponding footnotes below, the two commentators do not diverge much in their basic reading of this scripture.
This homage (one shared by only a handful of Kangyur texts) appears in the Tibetan, but not the Sanskrit.
According to Ratnākara (F.4.b–5.a), the term “blessed one” (bhagavān) can (be understood through creative etymology to) mean that he conquers the four māras (bhaṅgād; bcom pas na), or his wisdom conquers the four māras (shes rab; prajñā), or else he is the container (āśritatvād) for these blessed qualities. What are they? The Blessed One possesses (vat) the six blessed qualities, beginning with mastery (aiśvaryaḥ; dbang phyug) and so on. As (Vasubandhu’s) Vyākhyāyukti teaches, “Now, his six blessed qualities (bhaga) are (a) mastery, (b) beauty, (c) celebrity, (d) glory, (e) knowing, and (f) effort.” To explain these six “blessed qualities” (bhaga) of a Blessed One (bhagavān): (a) He has the blessed quality of self-mastery, because he is not dependent on anyone and has eliminated the obscurations together with the habitual tendencies. (b) He has the blessed quality of beauty, because his unsurpassable body is adorned with the thirty-two signs and eighty marks. (c) He has the blessed quality of celebrity, because his renown is known in all cardinal and intermediate directions. (d) He has the blessed quality of glory (śṛīḥ) upon which many blessed qualities depend, because the succession of worldly and spiritual blessed qualities depend on his blessed qualities. (e) He has the blessed quality of knowing, because he has the knowing of all aspects of everything knowable, and that knowing is pure, free of entanglement, and free of obstruction. (f) He has the blessed quality of doing heroic deeds, because he uninterruptedly does deeds for the sake of all others in every way. RK: bdud bzhi bcom pas na bcom ldan ’das sam| shes rab kyis bdud bzhi bcom pa dang ldan pas na bcom ldan ’das so| |yang na ’di dag brten pas na bcom ldan ’das te| rgyu nyid byed pa nyid du brjod par ’dod pa’i phyir ro| |de dag gang zhe na? dbang phyug la sogs pa drug ste| ji skad du rnam par bshad pa’i rigs pa las|| |dbang phyug dang ni gzugs bzang dang| |dpal dang grags dang ye shes dang| |brtson ’grus phun sum tshogs pa ste| |drug po de la ldan zhes bya|| zhes bshad pa lta bu ste| de la dbang phyug ni bcom ldan ’das te gzhan dbang ma yin pa’o| |phun sum tshogs pa ni sgrib pa bag chags dang bcas pa spangs pa’i phyir ro| |bcom ldan ’das kyi gzugs phun sum tshogs pa ste| sku bla na med pa’i mtshan dang dpe byad kyis rnam par mdzes pa’i phyir ro| |grags pa phun sum tshogs pa ni phyogs dang phyogs mtshams su sgra rnam par grags pa’i phyir ro| |phun sum tshogs pa mang po gang gis bsten pa de ni dpal te| bcom ldan ’das de’i phun sum tshogs pa dang ’jig rten dang| |’jig rten las ’das pa’i phun sum tshogs pa’i rim pas brten pa yin pa’i phyir ro| |ye shes phun sum tshogs pa ni shes bya thams cad ni rnam pa thams cad la ye shes dag pa chags pa med pa dang| thogs pa med pa’i phyir ro| |brtson ’grus phun sum tshogs pa ni gzhan gyi don rnam pa thams cad la bya ba rgyun mi ’chad par byed pa’i phyir ro. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 20. Note: The above translation omits the Sanskrit grammatical comment.
The Sanskrit term arhat refers to someone who has realized the goal of overcoming emotional defilements through the vehicle of the disciples, and possesses the fifteen qualities that follow in the main text. This term has been translated throughout as “worthy one” or simply “worthy” (when connected with a person). According to Ratnākara (F.5.b), the four main heuristic etymologies for the term arhat are (a) “someone who has eliminated the enemies” (ari+hatavān), which are the emotional defilements (kleśa); (b) “someone who is free of arising” (arohat), i.e., lacking rebirth; (c) “someone who worships” (ārādha ?) the Tathāgata through the perfect offering of practice; and (d) “someone who is worthy,” i.e., worthy of the generosity (niṇḍārha) of others and worthy of the veneration (pūjārha) of others. RK: dgra bcom pa nyid ni nyon mongs pa’i dgra rnams bcom pa dang ldan pas na dgra bcom pa’o| |yang na mi skye zhing yang skye ba med pas na dgra bcom pa’o| |yang na de bzhin gshegs pa la sgrub pa’i mchod pa yang dag par mchod pas mchod par byed pas na dgra bcom pa’o| |yang na lha dang mi rnams kyis mchod pa dang| sbyin gnas su ’os pas na dgra bcom pa’o. Note: This fourth etymology is closer to normal Sanskrit usage of the term arhat and thus has been adopted as the general translation throughout this scripture. However, keep in mind that Tibetan dgra bcom pa is based on the first etymological meaning, i.e., “eliminator of the enemies.” For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, pp. 22–23.
According to Ratnākara (F.5.b–6.a), because of their quality of meriting the generosity and veneration of others, they have “eliminated the worldly influences,” which entail a flow away from the virtuous roots and toward cyclic birth (in the world) and emotional defilements. There are four types of worldly influences: (a) worldly influence from desire, i.e., the five sense pleasures; (b) worldly influence from existence, i.e., the three types of existences; (c) worldly influence from ignorance, i.e., imputed and coemergent ignorance; and (d) worldly influence from wrong views, i.e., the sixty-two wrong views—all these are “eliminated.” Corresponding to those four, when the worldly influences are eliminated, one actualizes (a) the mass of discipline and meditative concentration, (b) the mass of liberation, (c) the mass of seeing the knowing of liberation, and (d) the mass of wisdom. Furthermore, there arise (a) accurate meditative concentration, (b) knowing that what has been eliminated will not arise (again), (c) accurate liberation, and (d) accurate view. Furthermore, there arise (a) full knowing of the cause of desire, (b) full knowing of the cause of the constituents of experience, (c) full knowing of the cause of the conditioning factors, and (d) full knowing of the cause of emotional defilements. Furthermore, there arise (a) the abandonment of the truth of the source of suffering, (b) the actualization of the truth of cessation, (c) the cultivation of the truth of the path, and (d) the full knowing of the truth of suffering. RK: de bas na mchod par ’os pa dang| sbying nas su gyur pa’i yon tan gyis zag pa zad pa ces smos te| skye ba dang| nyon mongs pa’i dge ba’i rtsa ba ni zag pa ste| |de dag ni (a) ’dod pa’i zag pa dang| (b) srid pa’i zag pa dang| (c) ma rig pa’i zag pa dang| (d) lta ba’i zag pa dang| rnam pa bzhi pa’o| |de yang go rims ci lta ba bzhin du (a) ’dod pa’i lnga dang| (b) srid pa’i gsum dang| (c) ma rig pa’i kun brtags pa dang| (d) lhan cig skyes pa dang lta ba drug cu rtsa gnyis te| zag pa ’di rnams zad pas na zag pa zad pa’o| de yang go rims bzhin du (a) tshul khrims dang| ting nge ’dzin gyi phung po gnyis dang| (b) rnam par grol ba’i phung po dang| (c) rnam par grol ba’i ye shes mthong ba’i phung po dang| (d) shes rab kyi phung po zag pa zad pa mngon sum du byed pa’o| yang (a) yang dag pa’i ting nge ’dzin dang| (b) zad la mi skye ba’i ye shes dang| (c) yang dag pa’i rnam par grol ba dang| (d) yang dag pa’i lta ba’o| yang (a) ’dod pa’i rgyu yongs su shes pa dang| (b) phung po’i rgyu yongs su shes pa dang| (c) ’du byed kyi rgyu yongs su shes pa dang| (d) nyon mongs pa’i rgyu yongs su shes pa’o| yang (a) sdug bsngal kun ’byung ba’i bden pa spang ba dang| (b) ’gog pa’i bden pa mngon sum du bya ba dang| (c) lam gyi bden pa bsgom pa dang| (d) sdug bsngal gyi bden pa yongs su shes pa’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 23. Note: Both commentators comment on each of the next fifteen words, but Hari’s interesting comments have not been included because it would make these notes too long and an English translation of them is available in Sparham 2006, i., pp. 177–81. The translation “worldly influences” (āsrava/āśrava; zag pa) derives from the etymology of the Skt./Pali term, in which the prefix ā can be interpreted either as meaning “away” or “toward,” i.e., an “outflux” or “inflow.” Cf. BHSD and PTSD āsrava for more information about the word and the three or four kinds of worldly influence.
According to Ratnākara (F.6.a–b), because of their quality of eliminating worldly influences, they “had no emotional defilements,” which are of four types: (a) emotional defilement associated with karma, which is what brings about suffering through emotional defilement; (b) emotional defilement associated with maturation, which brings about emotional defilement; (c) emotional defilement associated with the emotional defilements themselves, which is what brings about emotional defilements; and (d) emotional defilement associated with birth, which is emotional defilement. In the cessation of those, there is cessation of (a) “emotional defilements associated with karma,” i.e., due to the cessation of ignorance, the karmic conditioning factors cease; (b) “emotional defilements associated with maturation,” i.e., due to the cessation of karmic conditioning factors, consciousness, name and form, the sense organs, contact, and feeling all cease; (c) “emotional defilements associated with emotional defilements,” i.e., due to the cessation of feeling, craving, grasping, and becoming all cease; and (d) “emotional defilements associated with birth,” i.e., due to the cessation of becoming, birth, aging, and death all cease. These “emotional defilements” are (different types of) suffering. RK: de bas na zag pa zad pa nyid kyis rnam par dag pa’i yon tan ni nyon mongs pa med pa zhes bya ba smos te| kun nas nyon mongs pa med pa zhes bya ba’i don to| |kun nas nyon mongs pa med pa ni bzhi ste| (a) las kyi kun nas nyon mongs pa dang| (b) rnam par smin pa’i kun nas nyon mongs pa dang| (c) nyon mongs pa’i kun nas nyon mongs pa dang| (d) skye ba’i kun nas nyon mongs pa’o| |gang gis kun nas nyon mongs shing sdug bsngal bar byed pa dang| gang kun nas nyon mongs par byed pa dang| gang gis kun nas nyon mongs par byed pa dang| gang kun nas nyon mongs pa’o| |de la (a) ma rig pa ’gags pas ’du byed ’gag pa ni las kyi kun nas nyon mongs pa med ces bsam pa’o| (b) |’du byed ’gags pas rnam par shes pa dang| ming dang gzugs dang| skye mched drug dang| reg pa dang| (c) tshor ba ’gag pa ni rnam par smin pa’i kun nas nyon mongs pa med pa zhes bsam pa’o| | tshor ba ’gags pas sred pa dang| len pa dang| sred pa ’gags pa ni nyon mongs pa’i kun nas nyon mongs pa med ces bsam pa’o| (d) |srid pa ’gags pas skye ba dang| rga ba dang| ’chi ba ’gag pa ni skye ba’i kun nas nyon mongs pa med ces bsam pa’o| |kun nas nyon mongs pa ni sdug bsngal te. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, pp. 23–24.
According to Ratnākara (F.6.b), because of their quality of becoming free from suffering due to emotional defilement, these worthy ones “had become self-controlled,” meaning (a) in control over the magical powers, (b) in control over the faculties (dbang po), (c) in control over samādhi, and (d) in control over wisdom (prajñā). In what way are they in control? (a) They have a special control over the world of beings and their environment. (b) Insofar as they are dear to the world, they have control over those beings through achieving control (dbang) of their conduct. (c) They have control over their minds. And (d) they have achieved control over themselves (rang la dbang) in the manner (bzhin du; tathā) of liberation from bondage through eliminating all karma and maturations. RK: de bas na nyon mongs pa med pas sdug bsngal med pa’i yon tan ni dbang du gyur pa zhes smos so |(a) |rdzu ’phrul la dbang ba dang| (b) dbang po la dbang ba dang|(c) ting nge ’dzin la dbang ba dang|(d) shes rab la dbang ba’o| |ji ltar de dag la dbang ba yin zhe na? go rims ji lta ba bzhin du (a) sems can dang snod kyi ’jig rten dag la khyad par du dbang du gyur pa dang|(b) spyod pa la dbang thob pas ’jig rten dga’ ba nyid kyis de dag dbang du ’gyur ba dang| (c) de dag gi sems dbang du gyur pa nyid dang| (d nyon mongs pa dang| las dang rnam par smin pa thams cad bcad pas ’ching ba las grol ba bzhin du rang la dbang thob pa nyid do. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 24.
According to Ratnākara (F.6.b), the “liberated mindset” results from having abandoned all emotional defilements (kleśa) connected with the different aspects of craving. And “their discernment is liberated” because they have abandoned all primary and secondary emotional defilements (kleśa) connected with ignorance that hinders it. RK: |sems shin tu rnam par grol ba zhes bya ba ni sems rnam par grol ba’o| |shes rab shin tu rnam par grol ba zhes bya ba ni shes rab rnam par grol ba’o| de la srid pa’i phyogs kyi nyon mongs pa spangs pas ting nge ’dzin dang snyoms par ’jug pa thob pa ni sems rnam par grol ba’o| |ma rig pa’i phyogs kyi nyon mongs pa dang| nye ba’i nyon mongs pa spangs pas thob pa dgra bcom pa thob pa’i lam gyi ye shes ni shes rab rnam par grol ba’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 24. According to Hari (9), generally the liberation of a mindset refers to the attainments of meditative concentration due to the relinquishing of all primary and secondary emotional defilements related to craving and ignorance, whereas the liberation of discernment refers to the knowing of someone on the noble path. Hence, by lacking the aspects of craving and ignorance, the pairing of liberation of mindset and discerment means, respectively, that one lacks attachment and one lacks ignorance. For this reason, after one attains that state, one can say both parts together—namely, they had “utterly liberated their mindset” and “utterly liberated their discernment”—by liberating the emotional obscurations through meditative attainments. Hari: tṛṣṇāvidyāpakṣasarvakleṣopakleśaprahāṇāt samādhisamāpattayaś cetovimuktir, arhanmārgajñānaṃ prajñāvimuktir iti kṛtvā tṛṣṇāvidyāpakṣāṇāṃ abhāvena yathākramaṃ rāgavirāgād avidyāvirāgāc cetaḥprajñāvimuktiḥ. atas tallābhāt samāpattikleśāvaraṇavimuktyā sarvathobhayabhāgavimuktāḥ suvimuktacittāḥ suvimuktaprajñāḥ. Note: In early Buddhist literature, the word “mindset” (citta) was sometimes used as a synonym of meditative concentration (samādhi), in the sense of a mind being set upon an object—especially in the context of the three trainings of the path, namely, ethical conduct (śīla), meditative concentration/mindset (samādhi=citta), and wisdom (prajñā). So one can understand here that when the mind is perfectly set, i.e., settled, it is liberated from craving. Note that here the English translation “discernment” for prajñā is used in place of the rendering “wisdom” that we have (somewhat reluctantly) used elsewhere throughout this translation, and will be used subsequently only when the term refers to the mental faculty that can be afflicted by ignorance.
The Sanskrit term ājāneya (cang shes pa) has been translated as “noble” but can also mean a “good breed” of person or animal. According to Ratnākara (F.6.b–7.a), the term “noble” (ājāneya; cang shes pa) refers to fearlessness (in the face of challenges). There are five types: (a) noble like a bull unafraid of lightning and so on; (b-c) noble like a horse or elephant unafraid in battle; (d) noble like a lion unafraid when attacked by another; and (e) noble like a worthy one (arhat) unafraid of death. In correspondence with these, they possess the four benefits of freedom from fear of anxiety: (a) they gain the ease that is free of the fear of suffering, because they have no misery, complaint, suffering, or distress; (b) they gain freedom from terror, because, without fear of anxiety, they do not fear being disgraced by themselves, others, misfortune, lacking livelihood, loss, misery, or death; (c) they gain freedom from fear itself, because, without anxiety about the eight worldly concerns, they cannot be sullied by seeking or avoiding gain or loss, fame or infamy, praise or blame, or happiness or suffering; and (d) they gain the comfort of freedom from the fear of unknowing, because their knowing is never lacking, uncertain, or mistaken. RK: |cang shes pa zhes bya ba ni ’jigs pa med pa ste| cang shes pa rnam pa lnga’o| |’di ltar (a) thog ’bab pa la sogs pa’i gnod pa’i dogs pa med pas khyu mchog cang shes pa’o| (b-c) |’thab mo’i ’jigs pa med pas rta cang shes dang| glang po cang shes pa’o| (d) |pha rol gyi gnod pa’i ’jigs pa med pas seng ge cang shes so| (e) |’chi ba’i ’jigs pa med pas dgra bcom pa cang shes so| |de bzhin du ’dir yang ’jigs pa’i bag tsha ba bzhi ste| (a) sdug bsngal gyis bag tsha ba dang| (b) ’jigs pas bag tsha ba dang| (c) ’jigs rten gyi chos kyis bag tsha ba dang| (d) mi shes pas bag tsha ba’o| |de dag med pas go rims bzhin du bde ba thob pa dang| mi skrag pa thob pa dang| mi ’jigs pa thob dang| dbugs dbyung ba thob pa zhes brjod do| |de la (a) mya ngan dang| smras sngags ’don pa dang| sdug bsngal ba| dang| yid mi bde ba med pas sdug bsngal gyis bag tsha ba med do| (b) |bdag gis smad pa dang| gzhan gyis smad pa dang| ngan song dang| ’tsho ba med pa dang| chad pa dang| mya ngan dang| ’chi ba’i ’jigs pa med pas ’jigs pa’i bag tsha ba med do| (c) |rnyed pa dang| ma rnyed pa dang| grags pa dang| ma grags pa dang| bstod pa dang| smad pa dang| bde ba dang| sdug bsngal dag gis ma gos pas ’jig rten gyi chos kyis bag tsha ba med do| (a) |mi shes pa dang| the tshom gyi shes pa dang| log pa’i shes pa rnam pa med pas mi shes pa’i bag tsha ba med do| |de bas na bag tsha ba med pa dang bral ba’i phyir cang shes pa’o. For edited Tibetan text, Seton 2016, Aii, pp. 24–25. Note: The translation of RK’s commentary combines each statement and reason into a single sentence for ease, even though these were explained by RK in two blocks.
The Sanskrit term mahānāga (glang po chen) has been translated as “exemplary” based on the commentary, but literally means “elephants.” According to Ratnākara (F.7.a), “elephant” is a figurative expression for the greatest of leaders (gtso bo chen po). Among their great accomplishments, some of these worthy ones possess the threefold knowledge. Others have attained experiential knowledge (pratisaṃvid). Others have realized the six extraordinary knowledges (abhijñā). Others have completely understood how to unpack and explain things. Others have attained independence. At the final point, worthy ones are exemplary because they have accomplished the Sage’s Dharma. RK: glang po chen po zhes bya ba ni gtso bo chen po ste| kha cig ni gsum rig pa dang| kha cig ni so so yang dag par rig pa thob pa| kha cig ni mngon par shes pa drug pa thob pa| kha cig ni kun shes pa brda sprod pa| kha cig ni gcig pur gnas pa thob pa ste| mthar thug pa thub pa’i chos rnyed pa’i phyir glang po chen po’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 25.
According to Ratnākara (F.7.a), these two phrases mean that the worthy ones have perfected the practice in every regard. “The task” is the liberation from all suffering through perfecting ethical discipline, concentration, and wisdom, because this must be ascertained. “The work” is the way of living life—with few desires, with contentment, with ascetic qualities, and amid the causes of joy and so on—because of living life according to one’s deepest wish. RK: bya ba byas pa| byed pa byas pa zhes bya ba ni rnam pa thams cad kyi sgrub pa yongs su rdzogs pa’o| |de’i phyir tshul khrims ting nge ’dzin dang| shes rab yongs su rdzogs pas sdug bsngal thams cad las rnam par thar ba ni bya ba ste nges par bya ba yin pa’i phyir ro| |’dod pa chung bas ’tsho ba dang| chog shes pas ’tsho ba dang| sbyangs pa’i yon tan gyi mig gis ’tsho ba dang| yang dag par mgu bar byed pas ’tsho ba la sogs pa ni byed pa ste| rang dgar spyod pa yin pa’i phyir ro| |de gnyi ga yongs su rdzogs pa ni bya ba byas pa dang byed pa byas pa’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 25.
According to Ratnākara (F.7.a–b), the four types of burdens being laid down by worthy ones indicate the different types of happiness that they enjoy, namely, (a) the burden of the constituents of experience (skandha) that is renounced because they have renunciation through their complete knowing of suffering, and hence they enjoy the happiness of being free of the constituents of experience; (b) the burden of the emotional defilements that is given up because they have given up by eliminating the cause, and hence they enjoy the happiness of liberation; (c) the burden of promises that has been brought to completion because they themselves have been brought to completion through cultivating the path, and hence they enjoy the happiness of full awakening; and (d) the burden of heroic deeds that has been perfected, because they have become perfected through actualizing the cessation, and hence they enjoy the happiness of tranquility. RK: |khur bor ba zhes bya ba la khur ni bzhi ste| (a) phung po’i khur dang| (b) nyon mongs pa’i khur dang| (c) dam bca’ ba’i khur dang| (d) brtson pa’i khur ro| (a) |yongs su dor ba’i phyir dang| (b) rab tu spang ba’i phyir dang| (c) mthar phyin dang| (d) yongs su rdzogs par bya ba’i phyir| de dag go rims bzhin du (a) bor ba ste| yongs su dor ba dang| spangs pa dang| mthar phyin pa dang| yongs su rdzogs pa’o| (b) |de yang sdug bsngal yongs su shes pa dang| kun ’byung pa spangs pa dang| lam bsgoms pa dang| ’gog pa mngon sum du byas pas so| (c) |de bor bas phung po med pa’i bde ba dang| rnam par grol ba’i bde ba dang| rdzogs pa’i byang chub kyi bde ba dang| nye bar zhi ba’i bde ba thob pa’o| (d) |de bas na khur bor ba nyid kyis khur por ba’i bde ba thob pa’i yon tan bstan to. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 26. Note: The translation of RK’s commentary combines the statements, reasons, and benefits into four sentences, even though the Tibetan has RK’s explanation in three separate blocks.
According to Ratnākara (F.7.b), the attainment of one’s own benefit has two aspects, namely, getting rid of what is harmful and attaining the benefit. Among these, the first is when, because of getting rid of ignorance, one gets rid of all the obscurations of emotional defilements. The second is when, because of giving rise to knowledge (rig pa), one achieves nirvāna. RK: |bdag gi don rjes su thob pa zhes bya ba ni rang gi don thob pa la rnam pa gnyis te| gnod pa spangs pa dang| don thob pa’o| |de la dang po ni ma rig pa spangs pas nyon mongs pa’i sgrib pa thams cad spangs pa’o| |gang yang rig pa bskyod pas mya ngan las ’das pa thob pa ste| de ni gnyis pa’o.
According to Ratnākara (F.7.b), these are the causes for persons to have nine types of “worldly ties”: because of their connection with worldly existence, there is (a) wrong view, (b) clinging, (c) doubt, (d) jealousy, (e) miserliness, (f) aversion, (g) pride, (h) ignorance, and (i) desire for the world. “Exhausted” means destroyed. Out of those, the first three (a−c) are “exhausted” (zad pa) by the accurate view without worldly influence (anāsravaḥ). The middle three, (d−f)—and part of the ninth, (i), which concerns the desire realm—are exhausted by concentrating in the samādhi without worldly influence. The remainder, (g−i), are exhausted through knowing on the path of worthy ones. RK: srid par kun tu sbyor ba yongs su zad pa zhes bya ba ni srid par kun tu sbyor ba ni dgu ste| skyes bu srid par sbyor bar byed pa dang| srid par ’ching bar byed pa’i phyir (a) lta ba dang| (b) mchog tu ’dzin pa dang| (c) the tshom dang (d) phrag dog dang|(e) ser sna dang| (f) khong khro dang|(g) nga rgyal dang|(h) ma rig pa dang|(i) srid pa’i ’dod chags so| |lta ba la sogs pa yang yin kun tu sbyor ba yang yin pas lta ba la sogs pa kun tu sbyor ro| |’di dag yongs su zad pa gang yin pa de ni de skad du brjod do| |yongs su zad pa ni rab tu nyams pa’o| (a−c) |de las dang po gsum ni zag pa med pa’i yang dag par lta bas zad pa’o| (d−f) |bar ma gsum dang dgu pa’i phyogs gcig ’dod pa’i khams kyi phyogs ni zag pa med pa’i ting nge ’dzin la snyoms par ’jug pas zad pa’o| (g−i) |lhag ma gsum ni dgra bcom pa’i lam gyi ye shes kyis zad pa’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, pp. 26–27.
According to Ratnākara (F.7.b–8.a), the term “accurate understanding” here indicates their firm belief in the qualities of the Three Jewels, in the teachings of the three vehicles, in the four truths, and in the thirty-seven factors in awakening. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 27.
According to Ratnākara (F.8.a), they were able to concentrate themselves in the nine concentrations (samādhi), to remain in them, to get up from them, and to stop them as they wished, whenever they wished, and to whatever extent they wished, in the order of ascending, descending, and so on. RK: yang dag pa’i shes pas sems shin tu rnam par grol ba zhes bya ba la yang dag pa’i shes pa ni yang dag pa’i rtog pa des sems shin tu rnam par grol ba’o| |yang dag par mos pa ste gang du mos she na dkon mchog gsum gyi yon tan dang| theg pa gsum dang ldan | |pa ston pa dag dang| bden pa bzhi dang| byang chub kyi phyogs kyi chos rnams la’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 27.
The translation “venerable” is based on the Pali āyasmant because it has become somewhat of a standard English term. That said, according to Ratnākara (F.8.a), the Sanskrit term āyuṣmant literally means “full of life” and should be understood as follows: “Life” (āyus), the first part of the Sanskrit compound word, refers to something people want because it brings joy. When someone is “full of” (-mant) that, he or she is cheerful. RK: tshe dang ldan pa zhes bya ba’i khyad par ni dga’ bar bya ba’i phyir te| ’jig rten na tshe ’di ’dod pa yin no| |de bas de dang ldan pa ni dga’ ba yin no. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 27. According to Hari (11), since it refers to someone whose life is desired, the term venerable is an expression venerating the welfare and happiness (of being a monk). Hari: ākāṃkṣitāyur bhavato ity āyuṣmān hitasukhapūjāvācakaḥ. For information on the slightly different understanding of the epithet in Paḷi sources, see, e.g., PTSD āyusmant (“feeling vitality”) with PTSD āyasmant (“old, venerable”).
This point corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 3 in the Twenty-Five Thousand, Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 6 in the Eighteen Thousand. It comes so early in this chapter because the three long sūtras contain a long and detailed scene-setting introduction (nidāna) (here in the Eight Thousand represented only by the opening “Thus did I hear…” statement and a brief description of the qualities of the disciple attendants), followed by the Buddha’s dialogue with Śāriputra and other disciples covered in Chapter 2 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and in Chapters 2–6 in the Eighteen Thousand.
According to Ratnākara (F.8.b–9.a), the word “venerable” is as explained previously. An “elder” is worthy of offerings or veneration, because he or she is a leader (in the community). As a worthy one, Subhūti is foremost among those who abide without conflict. The Blessed One “addressed” him for a purpose. “What is that?” He says, “Please illuminate” and so on. In this sentence, the word “Subhūti” is in the vocative to request something of him alone. “Please illuminate” means make yourself have the presence of mind to explain. Although a request (for teaching) should be made to a guru and not to a disciple, this request is made just to ensure that the disciples respect the Dharma, since it will be explained later that the elder Subhūti stands on the ground of having accomplished the task of the transcendent state of wisdom. Starting with what topic? The Blessed One says “starting with the transcendent state of wisdom.” Here, the transcendent state of wisdom refers to the dharmakāya and its activity (i.e., the final of the Ornament’s eight realizations), because (Subhūti is to start with) the fruit of the transcendent state of wisdom. He should explain “starting with” that fruit—i.e., about it—because it is the supreme goal of persons. One might wonder for whose sake he should “illuminate” this. So the Blessed One says “for the bodhisattva great beings,” meaning for their sake. Then, one might wonder about the nature of what is to be illuminated. So he says “the way that” and so on. “The way that” means the manner in which, i.e., through hearing, contemplating, and cultivating. “In the transcendent state of wisdom” means in the three kinds of complete knowing (i.e., the first three of the Ornament’s eight realizations). It says “in” it because the transcendent state of wisdom is the path and the path is the basis for going. In it, one should “go beyond,” i.e., go completely beyond. One might ask, “Where is one to go?” First, the practice, then the culminating practice, then the successive practice, and the final (instantaneous) practice (i.e., the fourth through seventh of the Ornament’s eight realizations). One should go completely (through those). Thus, the eight realizations are all explained through this pair of terms (i.e., the terms “transcendent state of wisdom” and “going beyond”). “Who should go beyond?” He says the bodhisattva great beings—meaning those who have developed the mindset of awakening… With the Blessed One’s two terms, namely “bodhisattva” and “great being,” he teaches the development of the mindset of awakening (the first subtopic). In the first term, “bodhisattva,” sattva means the person who has the intention, wish, and desire for the highest bodhi, i.e., perfect, complete awakening. In the second term, “great being,” the word “great” refers to any desire to achieve the most supreme awakening on behalf of sentient beings. So “great being” refers to a being of great courage. RK: |tshe dang ldan pa ces bya ba ni snga ma bzhin no| |gnas brtan zhes smos pa ni mchod pa’i don te glang po chen po yin pa’i phyir ro| |de yang dgra bcom pa nyid yod na nyon mongs pa med pa la gnas pa’i mchog yin pa’i phyir ro| |bka’ stsal te zhes bya ba ni rab tu sbyar ba’i phyir ro| |ji ltar zhe na? spobs par gyis shig |ces bya ba la sogs pa gsungs te| rab ’byor zhes bya ba ni bod pa’i tshig go| |de nyid la gsol ba gdab pa’i phyir| spobs par gyis shig ces bya ba ni khyed kyi blo mngon du phyogs par gyis shig pa yin no| |gal te yang bla ma la gsol ba gdab cing slob ma la ma yin pa de lta mod kyis| gsol ba gdab pa de ni chos la gus pa bya ba nyid de| de ltar yang gnas brtan rab ’byor ni shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa la bya ba byas par gnas pa yin no| |zhes ’chad par ’gyur bas so| |gang gis dbang du byas she na| gsungs pa shes rab kyi pha ral tu phyin pa las brtsams te | zhes gsungs te| shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i ’bras bu yin pa’i phyir shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa ste| chos kyi sku | |mdzad pa dang bcas pa’o| |de las btsams pa ni skyes bu dam pa’i don gyi phyir te| thabs las byung ba nyid yin pas de bstan zhes bya ba’i don to| |gang gi phyir spobs par byed ce na| byang chub sems dpa’ sems dpa’ chen po rnams zhes gsungs te| de rnams kyi don zhes bya ba’i don te| |gang gi phyir de’i don gyi phyir rgyu mtshan dang| rgyu mtshan can gyi ’brel ba ste| de bas ’brel ba tsam smra bar ’dod pa’i drug po khyad par brjod par ’dod pa ni bzhi bar ’gyur ro| |de nas gang gi bdag nyid du spobs par bya zhe na? gsungs pa| ci nas zhes bya ba la sogs pa ste| ci nas zhes bya ba ni bar du’o| |thob pa dang bsam pa dang bsgom pa’i rang bzhin gyi shes rab kyi pha rol phyin pa thams cad mkhyen pa nyid rnam pa gsum yin te| gang gi phyir de ni lam yin te| lam yang ’gro ba’i gzhi ste| nges par ’byung ba dang ba dang ma lus pa ’gro bar gyis shig pa’o| |’gro ba des cir ’gyur zhe na? sbyor ba dang| sbyor ba’i rab dang| sbyor ba’i go rims dang| sbyor ba’i mtha’o| |de dag lus pa med par gyis shig pa’o| |de ltar tshig gnyis pi de ni mngon par rtogs pa brgyad rab tu ston cig pa’i| |gang nges par ’byung bar ’gyur zhe na? byang chub sems dpa’ sems dpa’ chen po zhes gsungs so| |byang chub tu sems bskyed pa nyid ces bya ba’i don to|… |de bas na bcom ldan ’das kyis dang po’i tshig gnyis po ’dis sems bskyed pa gsungs so| | byang chub ni yang dag par rdzogs pa’i byang chub| khyad par du gyur pa de la ’dis sems pa dang| bsam pa dang ’dod pa ni sems dpa’o| |sems can thams cad kyi mchog tu byed par ’dod pa gang yin pa de ni chen po ste| sems can chen po ni ’dir sems dpa’ chen pa’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, pp. 28–29. According to Hari, since Subhūti is there, the Blessed One, under the auspices of a Dharma teaching, says to Subhūti “illuminate” and so on. This means come face to face (with the transcendent state of wisdom, so that you can be courageously eloquent about it), in all respects, with the special knowledges of things, meanings, expressions, and illumination. Hari: pratibhātv ityādi. dharmadeśanādhikārād vidyamānatve ’pi he subhūte viśiṣṭadharmārthaniruktipratibhānapratisaṃvit sarvathā te tavābhimukhībhavatu. Note: RK is explaining how this single sentence by the Blessed One is suggesting he explain all eight of the Ornament’s eight realizations. RK’s comments also include a justification of some grammar that has not been translated here. Hari gives an extensive commentary on the entire sentence that is very much worth reading but is too long and complex to include here. The particular manner in which Subhūti will “illuminate” the transcendent state of wisdom provides the crucial context for understanding the first chapter, and arguably the whole scripture. For a brief overview of Ratnākara’s and Hari’s divergent explanations of the scripture’s topic as implied by this opening sentence, see Seton 2016, pp. 235–70. Note: Ratnākara is suggesting that the first sentence introduces the Ornament’s first subtopic, “developing the mindset of awakening,” which he explains in terms of twenty-two similes that can be subdivided into eighty dispositions.
According to Hari (28), illumination (pratibhāna) is coherent, fluid expression. Hari: pratibhānaṃ yuktamuktābhidhānaṃ. Cf. Kośabhāṣya (Pradhan 418, pp. 17–18): “The special knowledge of illumination (pratibhāna) is beyond regressing, intuitive knowing at play in coherent, fluid expressions, and clarifications arising from the mastery of meditative concentration.” (Note that the translation “wisdom (prajñā) and illumination”—rather than the Tibetan interpretation “illumination of wisdom”—is based on Ratnākara’s (D11.b) gloss of the Sanskrit compound term prajñāpratibhāna. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 35.) Yuktamukta (Tib. rigs pa dang grol ba) as a quality of pratibhāna is mentioned in a wide variety of canonical texts, including the Vinayavibaṅgha (Toh 3) and Vinayottaragrantha (Toh 7a) and many of the Vinaya commentaries in the Tengyur. See also Upholding the Roots of Virtue (Toh 101), n.73.
The terms “person’s doing” and “natural outcome” are technical terms for two among the five classifications of results, namely, (1) the result of ripening (vipākaphala), (2) the result that is the natural outcome (niṣyandaphalā), (3) the result that is predominant (adhipatiphala), (4) the result of a person’s doing (puruṣakaraphala), and (5) the result of divestment (visaṃyogaphala). For more on these, see, for instance, the Abhidharmasamuccayabhāṣya (Tatia 1976, p. 110). For edited Tibetan text of Ratnākara’s comments on this section, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 37.
According to Ratnākara (F.11.b–12.a), here, among the six verbs beginning with “say” and so on, the first three are talking about just the words of the scripture. “Say” means talk about the scripture and so on to the Blessed One’s assembly; “teach” means talk about this existence and so on to them; “expound” means talking about it to anyone to be tamed after going (to other assemblies) in the different directions; “express” means teach the Blessed One’s assembly whatever the scripture’s topics are; “clarify” means teach precisely that to others; and “elucidate” means explain it by oneself after going (to other assemblies). RK: |smra ba zhes bya ba la sogs pa’i tshig drug ste| |de la dang po’i gsum gyis ni mdo la sogs pa’i tshig brjod do| |smra ba ni bcom ldan ’das kyi ’khor rnams la mdo la sogs pa smra ba’o| |ston pa ni de nyid du srid pa la sogs pa smra ba’o| |lung ’bogs pa ni phyogs dag tu nye bar song nas gdul bya de dag la smra ba’o| |de ltar gang dang gang nyid kyi dngos po bcom ldan ’das kyi ’khor la brjod pa ni bcom ldan ’das kyi ’khor la bstan pa’o| |’chad pa ni de nyid du gzhan dag la bstan pa’o| |yang dag par rab tu ston pa ni kun tu song nas rang nyid ’chad pa’o| |smra ba la sogs pa de dag thams cad ni de bzhin gshegs pa’i skyes bu byed pa des byin gyis brlabs pa ’am mthu yin pa’i phyir nyan thos kyis ni ma yin te| rang dbang med pas so. Note: This is a well-known early Buddhist principle. For instance, according to the Mahāvibhāṣāśāstra, the Blessed One is said to have specifically allowed abhidharma specialists to teach anything that does not contradict the nature of the truth (dharmatā) and so on. For more on this principle, see Dhammajoti 2015, p. 2.
According to Ratnākara (F.12.b), the different means of valid cognition (pramāṇa; tshad ma) are connected with three verbs used here: The phrase “do not find” means not to detect any real thing, based on the meaning of the word. The meaning is that a so-called bodhisattva is not perceived because, just like a hare’s horns, it is negated by reliable evidence. The phrase “do not mentally perceive” means through direct perception. Here, based on what is born from authoritative testimony, there is nonperception and negation. The phrase “do not identify” means through inference. Undeceived, knowledgeable ordinary and noble persons negate a so-called bodhisattva by correct inference regarding the logical consequences of such a view. RK: ma ’tshal zhes bya ba ni ma dmigs pa’o| |tshad mas gnod pa yin pa’i phyir ri bong gi rva bzhin no zhes bsams so| |de nyid la gnas pa bstan pa ni mi dmigs pa yang dag par rjes su ma mthong zhes bya ba la| mi dmigs zhes bya ba ni yid ches pa’i lung las skyes pa des mi dmigs shing gnod pa yin no| | yang dag par rjes su ma mthong zhes bya ba ni mi slu ba dang mkhas pa’i skye bo dang thun mong yin pa’i phyir dang| lta ba’i rjes su ’gro ba’i rjes su dpag pa’i gnod pas yang dag par rjes su ma mthong ngo. For edited Tibetan text of Ratnākara’s comments on this section, see Seton 2016, Aii, pp. 38–39, 56.
According to Ratnākara (F.13.a), he says “nor…transcendent state of wisdom.” This means the grasper ceases and is not there, because what is (supposedly) grasped by it is not there. But the transcendent state of wisdom itself does not cease, because the denial here is of what is not appearing (i.e., grasper and grasped) in pure self-illumination (i.e., the transcendent state of wisdom itself). RK: shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa yang zhes bya ba ni ’dzin pa bkag cing med de de’i gzung ba med pa’i phyir ro| |de nyid dgag pa med de gsal ba yang dag par de nyid la gsal ba med pa’i gnod pas so. For edited Tibetan text of Ratnākara’s comments, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 39. Note: This explanation is from the perspective of RK’s Yogācāra position, which takes the transcendent state of wisdom to be ultimately real, pure self-illumination. Hari takes the transcendent state of wisdom to be a relatively real perceiver of ultimate reality.
According to Ratnākara (F.12.a–b), the repeated word “bodhisattva” in this sentence marks the transition to the subtopic “practical instructions” (the second subtopic of the first main topic in the Ornament, see introduction, “Synopsis of the Text According to the Ornament”). RK: de nas gdams ngag gi skabs la babs nas| gnas brtan rab ’byor gyis ji skad bshad pa bzhin sdud pa pos| de nas sangs rgyas zhes bya ba la sogs pa smras so| |byang chub sems dpa’ sems dpa’ zhes bya ba’i tshig gnyis ni de dang de yin zhes rtogs par byed pa.
According to Ratnākara (F.14.a–b), (a) in the phrase “the mindset does not become deflated,” the “mindset”—in thinking about the meaning as it has just been described—is “not deflated,” i.e., not especially despondent, because he or she is reflecting upon that meaning (i.e., emptiness) alone; (b) “not depressed” means while subsequently applying him- or herself continuously (to that meaning), even then he or she is not deflated; (c) “not dejected” means when he or she recollects (the meaning) after recognizing that the mind has wandered elsewhere because it was naturally distracted, he or she is not upset; (d) “not sunk in despondency” means as his or her mindset has become very stable, when it gets increasingly subtle because of not proliferating into other coarse understandings, then he or she is not upset; (e) “his or her”—i.e., the bodhisattva’s—“mental attitude does not become discouraged” means with respect to that very state, he or she still pacifies the mind in order to remain neutral even while remaining in meditative concentration, because he or she sees the qualities of meditativate concentration; (f) “not shattered” means he or she does not get distracted by the lack of joy or inclination in the light of the (meaning), because of seeing the faults of distraction; (g) “not frightened” means even when covetousness or dissatisfaction arise, he or she does not get afraid and also overcomes that which arises, because he or she sees the faults of distraction. (h) “not terrified” means he or she is not frightened about the formation of any mental object that occurs of its own accord automatically in his or her mind that is free of faults, and hence he or she does that (i.e., declines to get involved in them); and (i) “not stricken with terror” means his or her mindset becomes perfectly (settled), and without any effort he or she is neither terrified nor totally frightened by any occurrence in the mind, because he or she perceives the occurrences in a natural and spontaneous way. This is the meaning. RK: (a) sems mi zhum pa zhes bya ba ni ji ltar thob pa de nyid la don la sems pa la sems khyad du mi gsod mi zhum ste| de nyid du nges par brtag pa’i phyir ro|| (b) kun tu zhum par mi bgyid ces bya ba ni sems kyi rgyun du ’jug pa la yang rjes su mi ’brang zhing zhum par mi bgyid do| (c) |mi ’gong zhes bya ba ni sems rang bzhin gyis g.yo ba’i phyir| gzhan du song ba la yang kun nas shes par byas nas sdud pa na skyo ba med pa yin no| (d) |mi gsod [F.14v] par mi ’gyur zhes bya ba ni sems shin tu brtan par gyur na yang rang bzhin gyis rtogs pa rags pa gzhan du mi ’phro ba’i phyir gong nas gong du phra mor byed pa na skyo ba med pa yin no| (e) |de’i zhes bya ba ni byang chub sems dpa’o| |yid phyir phyogs par mi bgyid ces bya ba ni ting nge ’dzin la gnas par byas pa yin yang bar mar gnas pa’i phyir te| de lta mod kyi de nyid du sems ’dul bar byed de| ting nge ’dzin gyi yon tan rnams mthong bas so| (f) |bcom zhing phyir phyogs par mi ’gyur zhes bya ba ni de la dga’ ba med pa dang| mos pa med pas rnam par g.yeng ba byed pa med par ’gyur te| rnam par g.yeng ba’i skyon rnams mthong ba’i phyir ro| (g) |mi skrag ces bya ba ni brnab sems dang| yid mi bde ba la sogs pa skyes pa na yang mi skrag pa yin te| ’on kyang de nyid ’joms pa ni yin te| g.yeng ba’i skyon mthong ba’i phyir ro| (h) |mi dngang zhes bya ba ni sems skyon med pa rang gis ngang gis ’byung ba nyid kyi don gang yin pa’i ’du byed de la mi dngang zhing de byed pa zhes bya ba’i don to| (i) |dngang bar mi ’gyur zhes bya ba ni sems yang dag par ’gyur te| ’bad pa med par rang gi ’byung bas dngang ba dang| yang dag par dngang ba de med pa yin te| lhun gyis grub pa nyid ngang gis ’byung ba ’dzin zhes bya ba’i don to. For edited Tibetan text of them, see Seton 2016, Aii, pp. 42–43. Note: Ratnākara is suggesting here that these nine mental states correspond to the nine stages of resting the mind in meditative concentration, which results in tranquility (śamatha). Below, he says that the last four of these nine stages are combined with the four stages of seeing clearly (vipaśyanā).
According to Ratnākara (F.14.b), he says this sentence in order to teach the ultimate bodhisattva and so on. “Precisely this state” refers to meditative concentration, which the bodhisattva has, because it is a particular type of mindset. “Precisely this state” refers to the transcendent state of wisdom that he or she alone is endowed with and “the instruction.” When someone with those two is “abiding in such a mindset”—i.e., when he or she is abiding in meditative concentration—then the “instruction” is not to abandon it and the “guidance” is connected to that. RK: don dam pa nyid kyi byang chub sems dpa’ la sogs pa bstan par bya ba’i phyir ’di nyid ces bya ba la sogs pa gsungs so| |ting nge ’dzin ’di nyid byang chub sems dpa’ yin te| sems kyi khyad par yin pa’i phyir ro| |’di nyid ces bya ba ni de dang ldan pa nyid shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa dang gdams pa yin no| |gang de gnyis dang yang dag par ldan pa ni de ltar gnas na zhes bya ba la ting nge ’dzin ’di nyid la gnas na ’di mi gtong ba yin te| de nyid gdams pa dang rjes su ’brel ba’i rjes su bstan pa’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 43. Note: Schmithausen (1977, pp. 46–47) postulates that these pronouns have problematic antecedents and were later additions to an earlier scripture. But RK treats them as pointing directly to something in a bodhisattva’s immediate experience.
According to Haribhadra (37), he or she is “going about life” with unconcentrated knowing (jñāna), and “cultivating” (bhāvanā; sgom) with concentrated knowing (jñāna). Hari: caratety asamāhitena jñānena. bhāvayateti samāhitena.
According to Ratnākara (F.17.b–18.a), “furthermore” means that this paragraph relies (ltos pa) upon the practice instructions (explained in RK’s commentary on the Ornament). When “going about life in the transcendent state of wisdom,” the meditative reference point is the impermanence of the three noble truths and so on. His or her meditative perspective is nonattachment (anabhiniveśa; mngon par zhen pa med pa) and so on. So he or she is “going about life” in the freedom from reference points. When “cultivating” the transcendent state of wisdom—i.e., gradually cultivating it—his or her meditative reference point is the noble truth of the path included within the three former truths, which is the freedom from any reference point. Hence, the meditative perspective is the freedom from “conceit” that is to be known through cultivating that. He or she should “train in such a way that” means he or she should train without conceit and without being enmeshed. In the phrase “even that mindset of awakening,” that “mindset”—which is unequaled, because the disciples and solitary realizers do not share it—is a vast mindset because it is the source of benefiting sentient beings uninterruptedly. The term “mindset of awakening” (bodhicitta) should be understood here as the “mindset” whose nature consists in “awakening” (*bodhyātmakacittam). The word “even” is for emphasis. Therefore, the mindset of bodhisattvas is asserted to possess particular nobility compared to the mindset of all sentient beings. So if a bodhisattva’s mindset “would not develop conceits even about that,” then what need is there to speak of an ordinary mindset. RK: gzhan yang zhes smos pas ni gdams ngag la ltos pa’o| |shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa la spyod ces bya ba ni bden pa gsum dang ’brel ba’i mi rtag pa nyid la sogs pa ni dmigs pa’o| |mngon par zhen pa med pa la sogs pa ni rnam pa ste| mi dmigs par spyod pa’o| | shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa bsgom pas zhes bya ba smos pa ni rim gyis bsgom pa zhes bya ba’i don to| |bden pa gsum gyi ’og tu lam gyi bden pa’i dmigs pa ni dmigs pa med pa’o| |des rlom sems med pa ni rnam pa bsgoms pas shes par bya ba yin no| |de ltar bslab par bgyi’o zhes bya ba ni mngon par zhen pa med cing rlom sems med pa de ltar bslab par bya’o| |des kyang zhes bya bas ni gang de’i sems mnyam pa med pa yin te| nyan thos dang| rang sangs rgyas la sogs pa dang thun mong ma yin pa’i phyir ro| |sems rgya chen po rnam pa thams cad du dus chad pa med par sems can gyi don gyi bya ba rnams kyi ’byung gnas su gyur pa’i phyir ro| |byang chub sems zhes bya ba ni byang chub kyi bdag nyid kyi sems so| |kyang gi sgra ni lhag pa’i don to| |de’i phyir byang chub sems dpa’ rnams kyi sems ni sems can thams cad las khyad par du ’phags pa yod par ’dod de| des kyang rlom sems su mi byed na tha mal pa’i sems kyis lta smos kyang ci dgos zhes bya ba’i don to. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 52. Note: See the introduction to this translation for more on the term “mindset of awakening” (bodhicitta), its translation, and its interpretation in India (see introduction, “Mindset of Awakening”).
According to Ratnākara (F.18.a), “why is that?” asks the question what is the meditative perspective due to which he or she does not develop conceits about that. “It is because” and so on expresses the answer. He says, “That mindset is free of a mindset” because it (de) does not appear as either (gnyis la) the grasped or the grasper. But one might think that the mindset does not exist, so he also states that it is “the luminously clear essential nature of a mindset.” One might ask, “How is that mind luminously clear?” The mind is primordially free of attachment and so on, because those are adventitious by nature. For precisely that reason, the subsequent (phyis) freedom from those (i.e., attachment and so on) does not exist. RK: |de ci’i slad du zhe na? zhes bya ba ni rnam pa gang gis de la rlom sems med pa yin zhe na? ’di ltar zhes bya ba la sogs pas lan smras so| |sems de ni sems ma mchis pa zhes bya ba ni gzung ba dang ’dzin pa gnyis la de mi snang ba’i phyir ro| |gal te sems med na ’on kyang de sems kyi rang bzhin ni ’od gsal ba zhes smos so| |ji ltar ’od gsal ba yin zhe na? gang gi phyir sems ni ’dod chags la sogs pa dang dang po nas mi ldan pa yin te| de dag ni rang bzhin gyis glo bur ba yin pa’i phyir ro| |de nyid kyi phyir phyis kyang bral ba med do. For edited Tibetan text of his broader comments, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 52. According to Hari (38–39), it is a nonimplicative negation. Hence, that (relative) “mindset” of awakening, which is not distinct from the perspective of the freedom from habitual fixation and so on, is ultimately “free of a mindset” since the luminously clear essential nature of a mindset is free of identity that is simple (i.e., partless) or complex (i.e., has parts). Note: In accordance with their respective philosophical positions of Yogācāra and Madhyamaka, Ratnākara and Hari disagree about whether the negation here is an exclusion/implicative negation (paryudāsa; ma yin dgag) or an absolute, nonimplicative negation (prasajyapratiṣedha; med dgag). In his Instructions on the Transcendent State of Wisdom, Ratnākara explains that the negation in this sentence is an exclusion (paryudāsa). Hence, that “mindset” of awakening is, on the one hand, “free of a mindset” insofar as there is no subject grasping or object grasped; on the other hand, it is “a mindset,” insofar as it consists in nothing but reflexively aware illumination.
According to Ratnākara (F.18.a), “Then the venerable Śāriputra said …” thus, he knew, but asked the question to cause Subhūti to explain it. The next sentence is Subhūti’s reply to his question, in which he explains it. RK: |shA ri’i bus ’di skad ces smras so zhes bya ba ni de ltar shes kyang rab ’byor gyis ston par bya pa’i phyir dris so| |de skad ces smras pa zhes bya ba la sogs pas ni rab ’byor gyis dris pa’i lan ston to. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 52.
According to Ratnākara (F.18.a), “definitely not” means (an existence or nonexistence) is “not mentally perceived” because there is no proof of them, and also “not found” because there is disproof of them. Their negation perfectly transcends both existence (bhāva; dngos po) and nonexistence. “Does that mindset exist?” asks the question “does that nonexistence (nāstitā; med pa nyid) exist?” RK: |de ni med do zhes bya ba de ni mi dmigs pa ste| sgrub par byed pa med pa’i phyir ro| |de nyid pa yang ma yin te| gnod par byed pa yod pa’i phyir ro| |dngos po dang| dngos po med pa las yang dag par ’das pa ni gnod par byed pa yin no| |yod dam zhes bya ba ni ci de med pa nyid ces bya ba’i don to. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 52.
According to Ratnākara (F.18.a–b), even just based on Śāriputra’s question, Subhūti thought that Śāriputra was not clear, so to clarify, Śāriputra asks, “What is the state free of a mindset?” RK: de tsam gyis kyang rab ’byor gyis bsams pas gsal por ma gyur nas| gsal bar bya ba’i phyir dris pa ni de gang yin zhes bya’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 52.
According to Ratnākara, Subhūti replies “the state free of a mindset is free of changing” because it is luminously clear by nature and untainted by changes. It is also “free of conceptualization” because all conceptual proliferations have subsided in it and it is not the content of any representational forms (ākāra; rnam pa). Hence, he or she “does not create conceits even about such a mindset” because, in that state, the mindset is simply nonexistent (sems med pa)—in other words, because that mindset is simply the emptiness of a mindset (sems stong pa nyid tsam las). Thus, the meditative reference point is “that mindset is free of a mindset (sems med pa), because it is naturally luminously clear.” The meditative perspective is the freedom from conceits. One should also understand here implicitly that just as the mindset is free of a mindset, so too physical form and so on are free of physical form and so on. RK: |rab ’byor gyi lan ni sems med pa de ni ’gyur ba med pa rnam par rtog pa med pa zhes smos te| sems rang bzhin gyis ’od gsal ba dang| ’gyur ba ma gos pa’i phyir ’gyur ba med pa’o | |spros pa thams cad nye bar zhi ba dang| rnam pa thams cad kyi spyod yul ma yin pa’i phyir rnam par rtog pa med pa’o | |de lta bas na de lta bu’i sems kyis kyang rlom sems su mi bya ste| de la yang sems med pa tsam gyi phyir te| sems stong pa nyid tsam las zhes bya ba’i don to| |de ltar na sems de yang sems med pa yin te rang bzhin gyis ’od gsal ba ni dmigs pa’o| |de la yang rlom sems med pa ni rnam pa’o| |ji ltar sems la sems med pa ste nye bar gzugs la sogs pa la yang gzugs la sogs pa med pa nyid du don gyis shes pa yin no. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, pp. 52–53. According to Hari (40), it is “free of changing” because the freedom from a mindset mentioned here (at the yogi’s conventional level) is a cause, step by step, for the actualization of freedom from change at the level of a buddha. It is “free of conceptualization” because it is a cause of a buddha’s actualization of freedom from error (at that level too).
Seventh of the thirteen god realms of form that correspond to the four meditative concentrations, meaning “Inner Radiance.”
The eastern buddhafield of the Buddha Akṣobhya.
A term meaning acceptance, forbearance, or patience. As the third of the six perfections, patience is classified into three kinds: the capacity to tolerate abuse from sentient beings, to tolerate the hardships of the path to buddhahood, and to tolerate the profound nature of reality. As a term referring to a bodhisattva’s realization, dharmakṣānti (chos la bzod pa) can refer to the ways one becomes “receptive” to the nature of Dharma, and it can be an abbreviation of anutpattikadharmakṣānti, “forbearance for the unborn nature, or nonproduction, of dharmas.”
The third of four stages or experiences of breaking through on the path of preliminary practice.
Fifth and highest of the five pure abodes, meaning “Highest.”
Lit. “Not Disturbed” or “Immovable One.” The buddha in the eastern realm of Abhirati. A well-known buddha in Mahāyāna, regarded in the higher tantras as the head of one of the five buddha families, the vajra family in the east.
The name of one of the four gardens of Dharmodgata’s estate in Gandhavatī.
Eleventh of the thirteen levels of the god realm of form that correspond to the four meditative concentrations, meaning “Cloudless.” In some versions of the longer Prajñāpāramitā sūtras, which list sixteen realms instead of thirteen, this god realm has the name Parīttabṛhat (Tib.
A major śrāvaka disciple and personal attendant of the Buddha Śākyamuni during the last twenty-five years of his life. He was a cousin of the Buddha (according to the Mahāvastu, he was a son of Śuklodana, one of the brothers of King Śuddhodana, which means he was a brother of Devadatta; other sources say he was a son of Amṛtodana, another brother of King Śuddhodana, which means he would have been a brother of Aniruddha).
Ānanda, having always been in the Buddha’s presence, is said to have memorized all the teachings he heard and is celebrated for having recited all the Buddha’s teachings by memory at the first council of the Buddhist saṅgha, thus preserving the teachings after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa. The phrase “Thus did I hear at one time,” found at the beginning of the sūtras, usually stands for his recitation of the teachings. He became a patriarch after the passing of Mahākāśyapa.
The placing of attention, especially on four particular objects: body, feelings, mind, and phenomena. Classified among the dharmas of the path, and figuring among the thirty-seven factors in awakening. See n.218.
Sixth of the thirteen god realms of form that correspond to the four meditative concentrations, meaning “Immeasurable Radiance.”
Ninth of the thirteen god realms of form that correspond to the four meditative concentrations, meaning “Immeasurable Virtue.”
A god realm of form listed in this and other texts between the thirteenth heaven of the form realm, Bṛhatphala, and the five pure abodes of the form realm, known collectively as Śuddhāvāsa. Its name means “Being Without Conception.”
One of the kinds of ascetic practice, usually numbered as thirteen altogether, that were optionally followed by certain renunciant monks. See n.1076 and following notes.
Second of the five pure abodes, meaning “Painless.”
The name that six hundred future buddhas will all take after attaining awakening, as foreordained by the Buddha in chapter 21.
Second lowest of the five pure abodes, meaning “Slightest.”
The name of one of eight lotus pools in each of the gardens of Dharmodgata’s estate in Gandhavatī.
Describes a stage on the path of bodhisattvas (or bodhisattvas who have reached that stage) at which their realization is such that henceforth nothing can ever make them turn back from progressing toward the full awakening of a buddha.
Describes a stage on the path of bodhisattvas (or bodhisattvas who have reached that stage) at which their realization is such that henceforth nothing can ever make them turn back from continuing to make progress toward the full awakening of a buddha. For the sake of brevity our English rendering follows the Sanskrit and Tibetan, but it should not be understood as implying that such bodhisattvas have already attained the full awakening of a buddha.
“Irresistible Thundering Melodious Voice,” the name of the tathāgata in whose buddhafield the bodhisattva Sadāprarudita is said by the Buddha Śākyamuni to be presently residing after attaining his quest for the teachings, as described in the exemplary narrative of the final chapters of this sūtra, found also in the Twenty-Five Thousand but not in the other long Perfection of Wisdom sūtras.
The king of Magadha and a great patron of the Buddha. His birth coincided with the Buddha’s, and his father, King Mahāpadma, named him “Essence of Gold” after mistakenly attributing the brilliant light that marked the Buddha’s birth to the birth of his son by Queen Bimbī (“Goldie”). Accounts of Bimbisāra’s youth and life can be found in The Chapter on Going Forth (Toh 1-1, Pravrajyāvastu).
King Śreṇya Bimbisāra first met with the Buddha early on, when the latter was the wandering mendicant known as Gautama. Impressed by his conduct, Bimbisāra offered to take Gautama into his court, but Gautama refused, and Bimbisāra wished him success in his quest for awakening and asked him to visit his palace after he had achieved his goal. One account of this episode can be found in the sixteenth chapter of The Play in Full (Toh 95, Lalitavistara). There are other accounts where the two meet earlier on in childhood; several episodes can be found, for example, in The Hundred Deeds (Toh 340, Karmaśataka). Later, after the Buddha’s awakening, Bimbisāra became one of his most famous patrons and donated to the saṅgha the Bamboo Grove, Veṇuvana, at the outskirts of the capital of Magadha, Rājagṛha, where he built residences for the monks. Bimbisāra was imprisoned and killed by his own son, the prince Ajātaśatru, who, influenced by Devadatta, sought to usurp his father’s throne.
Mitra, Rajendralala, ed. Aṣṭasāhasrikā. Bibliotheca Indica nos. 603, 620, 629, 645, 671, and 690. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1888.
Wogihara, Unrai, ed. Abhisamayālaṃkār’ālokā Prajñapāramitāvyākhyā (Commentary on Aṣṭasāhasrikā-Prajñāpāramitā) by Haribhadra Together With the Text Commented On. Series D, vols. I and II. Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1932–35.
Vaidya, P. L., ed. Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā: With Haribhadra’s Commentary called Āloka. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts no. 4. Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute, 1960.
Jaini, Padmanabh S., ed. Sāratamā: A Pañjikā on the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra by Ratnākaraśānti. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series, 18. Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1979. (For a Sanskrit critical edition of chapter 1, see Seton 2016, Appendix I.)
shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa brgyad stong pa (Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā). Toh 12, Degé Kangyur vol. 33 (brgyad stong, ka), folios 1.b–286.a.
shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa brgyad stong pa. bka’ ’gyur (dpe bsdur ma) [Comparative Edition of the Kangyur], krung go’i bod rig pa zhib ’jug ste gnas kyi bka’ bstan dpe sdur khang (The Tibetan Tripitaka Collation Bureau of the China Tibetology Research Center). 108 volumes. Beijing: krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang (China Tibetology Publishing House), 2006–9, vol. 33, pp. 33–723.
shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa brgyad stong pa (Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā). H 11, Lhasa Kangyur vol. 29 (brgyad stong pa, a), folios 1.a–523.a. (BDRC: MW26071).
Ārya Vimuktisena. mngon rtogs rgyan gyi ’grel pa (Abhisamayālaṃkāravṛtti). Toh 3787, Degé Tengyur vol. 80 (shes phyin, ka), folios 13.a–212.a.
Haribhadra. shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa brgyad stong pa’i bshad pa mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan gyi snang ba (Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāparamitavyākhyānābhisamayālaṃkārālokā) [“Light”]. Toh 3791, Degé Tengyur vol. 85 (shes phyin, cha), folios 1.b–341.a.
Maitreya-Asaṅga. [shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i man ngag gi bstan bcos] mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan (Abhisamayālaṃkāra-[nāmaprajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstrakārikā]) [Ornament of Clear Realization]. Toh 3786, Degé Tengyur vol. 80 (shes phyin, ka), folios 1.b–13.a; also TPD 49: 3–30.
Ratnākaraśānti (rin chen ’byung gnas zhi ba). ’phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa brgyad stong pa’i dka’ ’grel snying po mchog (Sāratamānāmaaryāṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāpañjikā). Toh 3803, Degé Tengyur vol. 89 (shes phyin, tha), folios 1.a–230.a; also TPD 53: 711–1317. (For a Tibetan critical edition of chapter one, see Seton 2016, Appendix I.)
Ratnākaraśānti. shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i man ngag (Prajñāpāramitopadeśa). Toh 4079, Degé Tengyur vol. 138 (sems tsam, hi), folios 133.b–162.b.
Kasawara, K., F. Max Müller, and H. Wenzel, eds. The Dharmasaṃgraha: An Ancient Collection of Buddhist Technical Terms. Anecdotia Oxoniensia, Aryan Series vol. I, part V. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1885. Online at Internet Archive. For translation and transliteration see Ānandajoti 2017.
Kramer, Jowita (ed.). Sthiramati’s Pañcaskandhakavibhāṣā. Part I: Critical Edition, Part II: Diplomatic Edition. Beijing/Vienna: China Tibetology Publishing House/Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2014.
Chim Namkha Drak (mchims nam mkha’ grags). jo bo rin po che dpal ldan a ti sha’i rnam thar rgyas pa yongs grags [Biography of Atīśa, Zhö edition]. In mkhas dbang rag+hu wIra dang lokesha tsan+dra rnam gnyis kyis nyar tshags byas pa’i dpe tshogs vol. 29, edited by Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra: 49–237 (Roman page numbers). New Delhi, 1982. BDRC: MW1KG26281_EFECD3.
Jampa Samten. phug brag bka’ ’gyur bris ma’i dkar chag: A Catalogue of the Phug-brag Manuscript Kanjur. Dharamsala: LTWA, 1992. BDRC: W1KG15416.
Olkha Lelung Lobsang Trinlé (’ol kha / dga’ sle lung blo bzang ’phrin las). Narthang Catalog (Detailed). bka’ ’gyur rin po che’i gsung par srid gsum rgyan gcig rdzu ’phrul shing rta’i dkar chag ngo mtshar bkod pa rgya mtsho’i lde mig. Scans in: Narthang Kangyur (snar thang bka’ ’gyur), vol. 102, pp. 663–909. BDRC: W22703. Transcribed in: bka’ ’gyur (dpe bsdur ma) [Comparative Edition of the Kangyur], krung go’i bod rig pa zhib ’jug ste gnas kyi bka’ bstan dpe sdur khang (The Tibetan Tripitaka Collation Bureau of the China Tibetology Research Center). 108 volumes. Beijing: krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang (China Tibetology Publishing House), 2006–9, vol. 106, pp. 71–306.
84000. The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines (Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā, shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag brgya pa, Toh 8). Translated by Gareth Sparham. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2024.
84000. The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines (Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā, shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag nyi shu lnga pa, Toh 9). Translated by the Padmakara Translation Group. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2023.
84000. The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines (Aṣṭādaśasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā, shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa khri brgyad stong pa, Toh 10). Translated by Gareth Sparham. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2022.
84000. The Perfection of Wisdom in Ten Thousand Lines (Daśasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā, shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa khri pa, Toh 11). Translated by the Padmakara Translation Group. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2018.
84000. The Chapter on Going Forth (Pravrajyāvastu, rab tu ’byung ba’i gzhi, chapter 1 of Vinayavastu, Toh 1). Translated by Robert Miller. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2018.
84000.The Dhāraṇī “Entering Into Nonconceptuality” (Avikalpapraveśadhāraṇī, rnam par mi rtog par ’jug pa’i gzungs, Toh 142). Translated by the Dharmachakra Translation Committee. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2020.
84000. Distinctly Ascertaining the Meanings (Arthaviniścaya, don rnam par nges pa’i chos kyi rnam grangs, Toh 317). Translated by the Dharmachakra Translation Committee. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2021.
84000. The Sūtra of the Wheel of Dharma (Dharmacakrasūtra, chos kyi ’khor lo’i mdo, Toh 337). Translated by the Dharmachakra Translation Committee. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2018.
84000. The Teaching on the Purification Practices from the Path to Liberation (Vimuktimārgadhutaguṇanirdeśa, Toh 306). Translated by Sue Roach. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, forthcoming.
84000. The Teaching of Vimalakīrti (Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra, dri ma med par grags pas bstan pa’i mdo, Toh 176). Translated by Robert A. F. Thurman. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2017.
84000. The Ten Bhūmis (Daśabhūmika, su bcu pa, Toh 44, ch. 31). Translated by Peter Alan Roberts. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2021.
84000. Upholding the Roots of Virtue (Kuśalamūlasaṃparigraha, dge ba’i rtsa ba yongs su ’dzin pa, Toh 101). Translated by the Dharmachakra Translation Committee. Online publication. 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2020.
Anālayo, Bhikkhu. “The ‘Sixty-two Views’—A Comparative Study.” Fuyan Buddhist Studies no. 5, pp. 23–42. Hsinchu: Fuyan Buddhist Institute, 2010.
Ānandajoti, Bhikkhu (tr.). Dharmasaṅgraha: The Dharma Collection. Online publication. Ancient Buddhist Texts, 2017.
Apte, Vaman Shivram. The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary. First edition, Poona 1890. Fourth revised and enlarged edition, 1965, reprinted 1975–2006. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2022.
Brunnhölzl, Karl. Gone Beyond. 2 vols. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, (vol. 1) 2010 and (vol. 2) 2011.
Burnouf, Eugène. Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā: La perfection de sagesse en huit mille stances. Unpublished manuscript (1837–39) ; see Ducœur 2022 and Feer 1899.
Buswell, Robert E., Jr., and Donald S. Lopez, Jr. The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. Princeton University Press, 2014.
Cone, Margaret. A Dictionary of Pāli. Parts I and II. Bristol: The Pali Text Society, 2010.
Conze, Edward (1958). Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā: The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Ślokas. Bibliotheca Indica, work 284, issue 1592. Calcutta: Asiatic Society, 1958; second impression 1970.
Conze, Edward (1975). The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975.
Conze, Edward (1973). The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines & Its Verse Summary. Bolinas: Four Seasons Foundation, 1973; second printing with corrections, 1975, 1978.
Conze, Edward (1978). The Prajñāpāramitā Literature. 2nd ed. Tokyo: The Reiyukai, 1978.
Cousins, Lance S. “Review of The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha. A New Translation of the Majjhima Nikāya.” Journal of Buddhist Ethics 4 (1997): 260–80.
Dhammajoti, Bhikkhu K. L. Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma. 5th revised ed. Hong Kong: The Buddhadharma Centre of Hong Kong, 2015.
Ducœur, Guillaume (ed.). Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā: La perfection de sagesse en huit mille stances, traduit du sanskrit par Eugène Burnouf (1801–1852) . Publications de l’Institut d’histoire des religions, no. 4. Strasbourg: Université de Strasbourg, 2022.
Edgerton, Franklin. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. Vol. 2, Dictionary (of 2 vols). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.
Engle, Artemus B. (tr.). The Bodhisattva Path to Unsurpassed Enlightenment: A Complete Translation of the Bodhisattvabhūmi. Boulder: Snow Lion, 2016.
Falk, Harry and Seishi Karashima. “A first-century Prajñāpāramitā manuscript from Gandhāra—parivarta 1.” Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology (ARIRIAB) at Soka University 15 (2012): 19–62.
Feer, Léon. Papiers d’Eugène Burnouf conservés à la Bibliothèque nationale. Paris: Fonds Burnouf, 1899.
Harrison, Paul. “Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā: A New English Translation of the Sanskrit Text Based on Two Manuscripts from Greater Gandhāra.” In Buddhist Manuscripts Volume III, edited by Jens Braarvig et al., 133–59. Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection. Oslo: Hermes, 2006.
Harrison, Paul. “Is the Dharma-kāya the Real ‘Phantom Body’ of the Buddha?” JIABS, vol. 15, no. 1, 1992.
Kajiyama, Yūichi, and Teruyoshi, Tanji (trs.). Hassenju Hannyagyō. Daijō Butten 2–3. Tokyo: Chūōkōronsha, 1974–5.
Karashima Seishi (2010). A Glossary of Lokakṣema’s Translation of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā. BPPB 11. Tokyo: International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2010.
Karashima Seishi (2011). A Critical Edition of Lokakṣema’s Translation of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā. BPPB 12. Tokyo: International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2011.
Karashima Seishi (2013). “Was the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Compiled in Gandhāra in Gāndhārī?” Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology (ARIRIAB) at Soka University 16 (2013): 171–188.
Lamotte, Étienne (1970). Le Traité de la Grande Vertu de Sagesse de Nāgārjuna: Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, Université de Louvain, 1970. For an English translation, see Lamotte 2010–11.
Lamotte, Étienne (2010–11). The Treatise of the Great Virtue of Wisdom. Translated from the French by Karma Migme Chodron. Unpublished text, 2010–11. Available online at Wisdom Library.
Macdonell, Arthur A. A Sanskrit Grammar for Students. Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1927.
Makransky, John J. Buddhahood Embodied: Sources of Controversy in India and Tibet. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998.
McClintock, Sara L. Omniscience and the Rhetoric of Reason: Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla on Rationality, Argumentation and Religious Authority (Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism). Cambridge, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2010.
Monier-Williams, Sir Monier. A Sanskrit–English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1872, reprints 1956–1974.
Nattier, Jan. “Who produced the Da mingdu jing 大明度經 (T225)? A Reassessment of the Evidence.” JIABS 31/1–2 (2010): 295–337.
Negi, J. S. Tibetan–Sanskrit Dictionary (bod skad dang legs sbyar gyi tshig mdzod chen mo). 16 vols. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1993–2005.
Orsborn, Matthew (a.k.a. Shì, Hùifēng). “Chiasmus in the Early Prajñāpāramitā: Literary Parallelism Connecting Criticism & Hermeneutics in an Early Mahāyāna Sūtra.” PhD diss., The University of Hong Kong, 2012.
Padmakara Translation Group (tr.). The Nectar of Manjushri’s Speech: A Detailed Commentary on Shantideva’s Way of the Bodhisattva. By Kunzang Pelden. Boston: Shambhala, 2007.
Rhys Davids, T. W., and William Stede (eds.). The Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary. London: Pali Text Society, 1921–25.
Sander, Lore. “Fragments of an Aṣṭasāhasrikā Manuscript from the Kuṣāṇā period.” In Buddhist Manuscripts Volume I,. edited by Jens Braarvig et al. Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection Oslo: Hermes Publishing, 2000.
Sāṅkṛtyāyana, Rāhul. “Second Search of Sanskrit Palm-Leaf MSS. in Tibet.” Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, vol. XXIII, part 1, pp. 1–57, 1937.
Schmithausen, Lambert. “Textgeschichliche Beobachtungen zum 1. Kapitel der Aṣṭāsāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā.” In Prajñāpāramitā and Related Systems: Studies in honor of Edward Conze, edited by Lewis Lancaster. Berkeley: Buddhist Studies Series I, 1977.
Schopen, Gregory. Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism: More Collected Papers. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005.
Schopen, Gregory. Review of The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom with the Divisions of the Abhisamayālaṃkāra, by Edward Conze. Indo-Iranian Journal 19: 135–52, 1977.
Seton, Gregory Max. “Defining Wisdom: Ratnākaraśānti’s Sāratamā.” PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2016.
Seton, Gregory Max. “Ratnākaraśānti: The Illumination of False Forms.” In The Routledge Handbook of Indian Buddhist Philosophy, edited by William Edelglass, Pierre-Julien Harter, and Sara McClintock. London and New York: Routledge, 2022.
Shì, Hùifēng. “An Annotated English Translation of Kumārajīva’s Xiaŏpĭn Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra.” In Asian Literature and Translation 4, no. 1 (2017): 187–238. https://doi.org/10.18573/issn.2051-5863
Shōji Fumio (庄司史生). “Chibetto ni tsutaerareru sanshu Hassen ju hannyakyō ni tsuite,” (チベットに伝えられる三種『八千頌般若』について [“On the Threefold Textual Tradition of the Aṣṭasāhaśrikā in Tibet”]). IBK 63/1 (2014): 460–455.
Skorupski, Tadeusz. “The Buddhist Perceptions of Consciousness.” Rocznik Orientalistyczny 62, 1 (2009): 146–74.
Sparham, Gareth (tr. 2006). Abhisamayālaṃkāra with Vṛtti and Ālokā: First Abhisamaya. Vimuktisena and Haribhadra, vol. 1. Fremont: Jain Publishing, 2006.
Sparham, Gareth (tr. 2008). Abhisamayālaṃkāra with Vṛtti and Ālokā: Second & Third Abhisamaya. Vimuktisena and Haribhadra, vol. 2. Fremont: Jain Publishing, 2008.
Sparham, Gareth (tr. 2009). Abhisamayālaṃkāra with Vṛtti and Ālokā: Fourth Abhisamaya. Vimuktisena and Haribhadra, vol. 3. Fremont: Jain Publishing, 2009.
Sparham, Gareth (tr. 2011) Abhisamayālaṃkāra with Vṛtti and Ālokā: Fifth to Eighth Abhisamaya. Vimuktisena and Haribhadra, vol. 4. Fremont: Jain Publishing, 2011.
Sparham, Gareth (2001). “Demons on the Mother: Objections to the Perfect Wisdom Sūtras in Tibet.” In Changing Minds: Contributions to the Study of Buddhism and Tibet in Honor of Jeffrey Hopkins, edited by Guy Newland. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 2001. Reprint, 2017.
Torricelli, Fabrizio, and Nickolai N. Dudka. “Manuscript LTWA No. 23476: A ‘sDe can’ Sample of the brGyad stong pa.” The Tibet Journal 24, no. 2: 29–44.
van der Kuijp, Leonard. “Dating the Two Lde’u Chronicles of Buddhism in India and Tibet.” Études asiatiques: Revue de la Société Suisse-Asie 46 (1992): 468–91.
Walleser, Max G. L. “Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā.” In Prajñāpāramitā, die Vollkommenheit der Erkenntnis, nach indischen, tibetischen und chinesischen Quellen. Quellen der Religionsgeschichte, Band 6, Gruppe 8, pp. 32–139. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche, 1914.
Wangchuk, Dorji. The Resolve to Become a Buddha: A Master of the Bodhicitta Concept in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series 23. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 2007.
Xing, Guan. The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikāya Theory. London and New York: Routledge, 2004.
Zacchetti, Stefano. The Da zhidu lun 大智度論 (*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa) and the History of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā. Hamburg Buddhist Studies 14. Bochum and Freiburg: Projekt Verlag, 2021.
AA Sanskrit text citations from Maitreya-Asaṅga’s Abhisamayālaṃkāra, otherwise referred to as Ornament
AKBh Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Toh 4090)
Apte Apte’s Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary (see bibliography)
Aṣṭa Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā
BHSD Edgerton’s Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary
DOP Cone’s A Dictionary of Pāli.
Hari/Haribhadra Haribhadra, and citations from his Abhisamayālaṃkārāloka
Kāś. Kāśika’s commentary on Pāṇini’s Grammar.
MSABh Vasubandhu’s Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkārabhāṣya (Toh 4026)
MW Monier-Williams’ A Sanskrit-English Dictionary
PTSD Rhys Davids and Stede’s The Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary
Ratnākara/RK Ratnākaraśānti, and (RK) citations from his Sāratamā
