co.

Table of Contents

s.

Summary

s.­1

The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines is one version of the Long Perfection of Wisdom sūtras that developed in South and South-Central Asia in tandem with the Eight Thousand version, probably during the first five hundred years of the Common Era. It contains many of the passages in the oldest extant Long Perfection of Wisdom text (the Gilgit manuscript in Sanskrit), and is similar in structure to the other versions of the Long Perfection of Wisdom sūtras (the One Hundred Thousand and Twenty-Five Thousand) in Tibetan in the Kangyur. While setting forth the sacred fundamental doctrines of Buddhist practice with veneration, it simultaneously exhorts the reader to reject them as an object of attachment, its recurring message being that all dharmas without exception lack any intrinsic nature.

s.­2

The sūtra can be divided loosely into three parts: an introductory section that sets the scene, a long central section, and three concluding chapters that consist of two important summaries of the long central section. The first of these (chapter 84) is in verse and also circulates as a separate work called The Verse Summary of the Jewel Qualities (Toh 13). The second summary is in the form of the story of Sadāprarudita and his guru Dharmodgata (chapters 85 and 86), after which the text concludes with the Buddha entrusting the work to his close companion Ānanda.

ac.

Acknowledgements

ac.­1

This sūtra was translated by Gareth Sparham under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.

The Translator’s Acknowledgments

ac.­2

This is a good occasion to remember and thank my friend Nicholas Ribush, who first gave me a copy of Edward Conze’s translation of The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines in 1973. I also thank the Tibetan teachers and students at the Riklam Lobdra in Dharamshala, India, where I began to study the Perfection of Wisdom, for their kindness and patience; Jeffrey Hopkins and Elizabeth Napper, who steered me in the direction of the Perfection of Wisdom and have been very kind to me over the years; and Ashok Aklujkar and others at the University of British Columbia in Canada, who taught me Sanskrit and Indian culture while I was writing my dissertation on Haribhadra’s Perfection of Wisdom commentary. I thank the hermits in the hills above Riklam Lobdra and the many Tibetan scholars and practitioners who encouraged me while I continued working on the Perfection of Wisdom after I graduated from the University of British Columbia. I thank all those who continued to support me as a monk and scholar after the violent death of my friend and mentor toward the end of the millennium. I thank those at the University of Michigan and then at the University of California (Berkeley), particularly Donald Lopez and Jacob Dalton, who enabled me to complete the set of four volumes of translations from Sanskrit of the Perfection of Wisdom commentaries by Haribhadra and Āryavimuktisena and four volumes of the fourteenth-century Tibetan commentary on the Perfection of Wisdom by Tsongkhapa. I thank Gene Smith, who introduced me to 84000. I thank everyone at 84000: Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche and the sponsors; the scholars, translators, editors, and technicians; and all the other indispensable people whose work has made this translation of The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines and its accompanying commentary possible.

Around me everything I see would be part of a perfect road if I had better driving skills.
Where I was born, where everything is made of concrete, it too is a perfect place.
Everyone I have been with, everyone who is near me now, and even those I have forgotten‍—there is no one who has not helped me.
So, I bow to everyone and to the world and ask for patience, and, as a boon, a smile.

Acknowledgment of Sponsors

ac.­3

We gratefully acknowledge the generous sponsorship of Matthew Yizhen Kong, Steven Ye Kong and family; An Zhang, Hannah Zhang, Lucas Zhang, Aiden Zhang, Jinglan Chi, Jingcan Chi, Jinghui Chi and family, Hong Zhang and family; Mao Guirong, Zhang Yikun, Chi Linlin; and Joseph Tse, Patricia Tse and family. Their support has helped make the work on this translation possible.

Text Body

The Translation
The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra
The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines
18.

Chapter 18: The Exposition of Going Forth in the Great Vehicle

18.­1

“Subhūti, in regard to what you have asked‍—‘From where324 will the Great Vehicle go forth?’‍—it will go forth from the three realms and will stand wherever there is knowledge of all aspects, and it will stand, furthermore, by way of nonduality. And why? Because, Subhūti, these two dharmas‍—the Great Vehicle and the knowledge of all aspects‍—are not conjoined and not disjoined, are formless, cannot be pointed out, do not obstruct, and have only one mark‍—that is, no mark. And why? Because, Subhūti, a dharma without a mark is not going forth, nor will it go forth, nor has it gone forth. [F.180.b] Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth325 might as well assert of suchness that it goes forth. Similarly, Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the very limit of reality, the inconceivable element, the abandonment element, the detachment element, and the cessation element that they go forth. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of suchness does not go forth from the three realms. And why? Because suchness is empty of the intrinsic nature of suchness.”

T3808

Connect this in the same way with each, up to the cessation element.

18.­2

“Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the emptiness of form that it goes forth. Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the emptiness of feeling … perception … volitional factors … and consciousness that it goes forth. And why? Because, Subhūti, the emptiness of form will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. The emptiness of feeling … perception … volitional factors … and consciousness will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. And why? Because, Subhūti, form is empty of form, and feeling … perception … volitional factors … and consciousness is empty of consciousness.

18.­3

“Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the emptiness of the eyes that it goes forth. [F.181.a] Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the emptiness of the ears … the nose … the tongue … the body … and the thinking mind that it goes forth. Similarly, Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of the emptiness of a form…, and the emptiness of a sound…, a smell…, a taste…, a feeling…, and a dharma…; the emptiness of the eye consciousness…, and the emptiness of the ear…, the nose…, the tongue…, the body…, and the thinking-mind consciousness…; the emptiness of eye contact…, and the emptiness of ear…, nose…, tongue…, body…, and thinking-mind contact; the emptiness of the feeling that arises from eye contact…, and the emptiness of the feeling that arises from ear…, nose…, tongue…, body…, and thinking-mind contact that it goes forth. And why? Because, Subhūti, the emptiness of the eyes will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. Connect this in the same way with each, up to the emptiness of the feeling that arises from thinking-mind contact will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. And why? Because, Subhūti, eyes are empty of eyes. Connect this in the same way with each, up to because the feeling that arises from thinking-mind contact is empty of the feeling that arises from thinking-mind contact.

18.­4

“Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of a dream that it goes forth. Similarly, Subhūti, someone who would assert that dharmas without marks go forth might as well assert of an illusion, a mirage, an echo, an apparition, or a tathāgata’s [F.181.b] magical creation that it goes forth. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of a dream will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects, and similarly, Subhūti, because the intrinsic nature of an illusion, a mirage, an echo, an apparition, or a tathāgata’s magical creation will not go forth from the three realms, and it will not stand in the knowledge of all aspects. And why? Because, Subhūti, the intrinsic nature of a dream is empty of the intrinsic nature of a dream, the intrinsic nature of an illusion is empty of the intrinsic nature of an illusion, the intrinsic nature of a mirage is empty of the intrinsic nature of a mirage, the intrinsic nature of an echo is empty of the