Set in Jeta’s Grove in Śrāvastī, The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines starts with the scene of the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī leaving his dwelling at daybreak and standing at the Buddha’s doorstep, after which the venerable Śāriputra and the entire community of śrāvakas follow his example. When the Buddha asks why they have come, Mañjuśrī explains that he has come to provide others the opportunity to see the Tathāgata as he sees him—not in his physical form but in his true nature as suchness itself, beyond any duality. What follows is an extensive discourse about the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom, in which Mañjuśrī brings his nondual understanding of all phenomena into full display through abundant use of paradox and wordplay.
This translation was made by the Bodhinidhi Translation Group. Thomas Cruijsen translated the text from the Tibetan and consulted the extant Sanskrit during the process. Special thanks to Kenshō Satō and Francesco Bianchini for kindly sharing their respective editions of the available palm-leaf manuscripts of the Sanskrit text.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha. Nathaniel Rich edited the translation and wrote the introduction, and Dawn Collins copyedited the text. Martina Cotter was in charge of the digital publication process.
The translation of this text has been made possible through the generous sponsorship of Kris Yao.
The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines is a Perfection of Wisdom scripture in which Mañjuśrī, the bodhisattva of wisdom, takes center stage, both as the Buddha’s primary interlocutor and as one who expounds the perfection of wisdom himself. Set in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, in Śrāvastī, rather than Vulture Peak Mountain near Rājagṛha, the sūtra primarily features a series of dialogues between Mañjuśrī and the Buddha, as well as dialogue between Mañjuśrī and the great śrāvaka disciple known for his wisdom, Śāriputra.
The sūtra opens on the Buddha dwelling in Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park together with a community of one thousand monks and a very large number of bodhisattvas, among them “the youthful Mañjuśrī.” One day, at dawn, Mañjuśrī emerges from his dwelling and goes to the Buddha’s dwelling in order to see and pay homage to him, reverently standing outside his door. Śāriputra then does the same, followed in turn by the other great śrāvaka disciples. Knowing that they have come, the Buddha emerges from his dwelling and takes the seat prepared for him, and then he turns to Śāriputra and asks him why he has come at dawn to stand outside his door. Śāriputra replies that the first one to have come to stand outside the Buddha’s door was none other than the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī himself, and the rest came afterward, out of a desire to see the Buddha. The Buddha then turns to Mañjuśrī and asks him if this is true. Mañjuśrī responds in the affirmative and tells the Buddha that he came to see and venerate him, never getting enough of doing so, and that he did this for the sake of all beings. In that regard, Mañjuśrī says that if the Buddha is to be seen and venerated—presumably by all beings, for whose sake Mañjuśrī has approached the Buddha—then he is to be seen and venerated in the same way that Mañjuśrī sees and venerates him. The Buddha then asks Mañjuśrī how that is, and this begins the dialogue that unfolds over the course of the sūtra, with Mañjuśrī answering that the Buddha is to be seen “in the aspect of suchness, and in the aspect of the nonconceptual, by way of not apprehending anything,” and going on to describe how it is that seeing in this way is to see no “thing” at all.
Proceeding by way of the negations, paradoxes, and wordplay central to the other Perfection of Wisdom sūtras, Mañjuśrī and the Buddha gradually unfold the bodhisattva’s cultivation of the perfection of wisdom over the course of their dialogue. Other important themes in this scripture include the exalted attainments ensured to those who remain unafraid upon hearing this sūtra; nonarising and the lack of real existence; nondifferentiation; the identity of the Buddha, the dharmadhātu, and awakening; inconceivability, and that dharmas and the perfection of wisdom are without duality. In addition, the Buddha describes those, present in the audience of this discourse, who, in future lives, will also uphold it and its teachings.
Unique to this Perfection of Wisdom sūtra is its presentation of a samādhi called the single array. When Mañjuśrī asks the Buddha how bodhisattvas should conduct themselves to attain full awakening swiftly, the Buddha responds that if a bodhisattva conducts themselves in the perfection of wisdom, they will swiftly attain full awakening. However, he then goes on to say that there is a samādhi in which bodhisattvas may conduct themselves to attain full awakening swiftly. Declaring that “single array” refers to “nonarising,” and that the person who would enter the samādhi of the single array must first “inquire about the perfection of wisdom,” the Buddha describes two aspects of the practice. The first takes as its focus the fact of nonarising, the ultimate reality of all phenomena, buddhas included, “by way of not apprehending anything.” The second aspect takes as its focus a specific buddha—any specific buddha, to whom the practitioner, seated in meditation, directs their attention, as well as the name of that buddha. This aspect of the samādhi resonates with a number of popular devotional practices that have been central to Buddhist traditions over the centuries, throughout East Asia and the Tibetan and Mongolian cultural spheres.
The earliest attestation of The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines of which we are aware is the first translation of the text into Chinese (Taishō 232) produced by Mantuoluo 曼陀羅 (or Mantuoluoxian 曼陀羅仙), a translator “active at the beginning of the sixth century.”1 Shortly thereafter, a second Chinese translation was produced (Taishō 233) by Sengjiapuoluo 僧伽婆羅, a collaborator of Mantuoluo. In the seventh century, a third Chinese translation (Taishō 220) was produced by the great translator and scholar Xuanzang as part of his translation of Prajñāpāramitā sūtra literature. The earliest translation was included in the Chinese canon’s Heap of Jewels (Ratnakūṭa) section, which almost certainly explains why the Kangyur contains the text in both the Perfection of Wisdom section (as Toh 24) and the Heap of Jewels section (as Toh 90). In China, The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines was especially noteworthy as the canonical source for the samādhi of the single array (一行三昧), which, variously understood, was of great importance in the Tiantai 天台 tradition of Zhiyi 智顗 (538–97), in the East Mountain 洞山 tradition (circa seventh to early eighth centuries), and thereafter in the developed traditions of Chan and Pure Land.2 As further evidence of the text’s popularity in China, it must be noted that the version translated by Mantuoluo was inscribed in stone between 560 and 580 at Mount Hongding in Shandong, as well as other sites in China.3
The Tibetan translation of The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines was produced in the late eighth or early ninth century, as it is listed in both the Denkarma and Phangthangma imperial catalogues.4 As noted, the text is included in both the Perfection of Wisdom section and the Heap of Jewels section of the Kangyur, but it is listed only as a Perfection of Wisdom scripture in the two imperial catalogues. Intriguingly, the colophons of these two versions are different. The colophon of Toh 90 (Degé), as well as the version of the text found in the Stok Kangyur, identifies the translators of the text as the Indian Surendrabodhi and the Tibetan Yeshé Dé, while the colophon of Toh 24 (Degé) simply says that the text was “revised according to the new language reform and finalized.” In addition, the Tengyur contains two commentaries on the text attributed in their colophons to Indian scholars—An Extensive Commentary on The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines (shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa bdun brgya pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa, Toh 3814), attributed to Vimalamitra, and An Extensive Commentary on The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines (shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa bdun brgya pa’i rgya cher bshad pa, Toh 3815), attributed to Kamalaśīla. These two commentaries are also listed in the two imperial catalogues, so they, too, were translated into Tibetan in the late eighth or early ninth century.5
There are several extant Sanskrit manuscript witnesses of The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines, the earliest being a palm leaf manuscript kept in Lhasa that was produced, according to its colophon, in the Pāla kingdom of northern India in the late eleventh century. Others date as late as the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, all from the Kathmandu Valley. The edition that we have produced and included as an appendix is based on the recently published diplomatic edition of the Pāla manuscript as well as the available editions of the manuscripts from the Kathmandu Valley. A fully annotated critical edition of the extant Sanskrit will be published by the translator in the near future.
There are at least two full English translations of The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines, as well as a partial English translation.6 These were prepared based on either the Sanskrit or the Chinese. There is also a fair amount of Japanese language scholarship on the sūtra, especially on its Sanskrit witnesses and manuscript evidence.7
The present translation, to our knowledge the first from the Tibetan, is based on the Degé Kangyur recension of the sūtra as found in its Perfection of Wisdom section, with reference to the variants recorded in the Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma), and to the version found in the Stok Palace manuscript Kangyur. We have also referred to the two Tengyur commentaries, as recorded in the notes, as well as to several Sanskrit manuscripts and our own edition of the Sanskrit, as noted above. However, it should be noted that where the Tibetan and the extant Sanskrit differ, we have sought to privilege the Tibetan in every case except where noted.
Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was dwelling in Śrāvastī, in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, together with a large monastic community, a full one thousand monks, as well as with one million bodhisattva mahāsattvas armored with the great armor, such as the youthful Mañjuśrī, Maitreya, Asaṅgapratibhāna, and Anikṣiptadhura, all of them irreversible from progress toward unsurpassed, perfectly complete awakening.
Then, at dawn, the youthful Mañjuśrī emerged from his dwelling so as to behold the Tathāgata, venerate him, and reverently attend upon him. He went to the Tathāgata’s dwelling and stood outside the door. The venerable Śāradvatīputra then emerged from his dwelling too so as to see the Blessed One, venerate him, and reverently attend upon him, and he went to the Tathāgata’s dwelling. And also the venerables Pūrṇa Maitrāyaṇīputra, Mahāmaudgalyāyana, Mahākāśyapa, Mahākātyāyana, Mahākauṣṭhila, and the other great śrāvakas emerged from their respective dwellings, went to the Blessed One’s dwelling, and, once there, stood to one side.
Thereupon the Blessed One, having become aware that the great śrāvakas had come and gathered, emerged from his dwelling and sat down to one side on the seat prepared outside the dwelling. Once seated, the Blessed One[F.148.b] knowingly asked the venerable Śāradvatīputra, “Why, Śāradvatīputra, have you come at the break of day, standing at the door of the Tathāgata’s dwelling?”[F.183.b]
When this was asked, the venerable Śāradvatīputra replied to the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, the first among all to be standing at the door of the Tathāgata’s dwelling was youthful Mañjuśrī. We came afterward, wishing to see the Blessed One.”
Then the Blessed One knowingly asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Is it true, Mañjuśrī, that you were the first among all to be standing at the door of the Tathāgata’s dwelling, so as to see the Tathāgata, venerate him, and reverently attend upon him?”
When this was asked, the youthful Mañjuśrī replied to the Blessed One, “It is, Blessed Lord. It is, Well-Gone One. I was the first among all to have emerged from my dwelling so as to see the Blessed One, venerate him, and reverently attend upon him, and to have come to the Tathāgata’s dwelling and stood to one side. Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, I can never see the Tathāgata, venerate him, and reverently attend upon him enough. And, Blessed Lord, I come to see the Tathāgata, venerate him, and reverently attend upon him for the sake of all beings. Blessed Lord, if the Tathāgata is to be seen, venerated, and reverently attended upon,8 he is to be seen, venerated, and reverently attended upon just as I see, venerate, and reverently attend upon him. It is in this way that the Tathāgata becomes seen, venerated, and reverently attended upon. Blessed Lord,[F.149.a] it is for the sake of all beings[F.184.a] that I see the Tathāgata.”
The Blessed One asked, “How, Mañjuśrī, is the Tathāgata to be seen?”9
Mañjuśrī replied, “The Tathāgata is to be seen10 in the aspect of suchness and in the aspect of the nonconceptual, by way of not apprehending anything. Likewise, the Tathāgata is to be seen from seeing him in the aspect of nonarising, up to the aspect of a nonentity.11 Suchness does not come into being—thus is the Tathāgata to be seen. Suchness does not come to exist, nor does it cease to exist—thus is the Tathāgata to be seen. Suchness is not located or situated anywhere—thus is the Tathāgata to be seen. Suchness is not past, not future, not present12—thus is the Tathāgata to be seen. Suchness is not distinguished by duality, nor is it distinguished by nonduality—thus is the Tathāgata to be seen. Suchness is not defiled, nor is it purified—thus is the Tathāgata to be seen. Suchness does not arise and does not cease—thus is the Tathāgata to be seen. It is in this way that the Tathāgata becomes seen, venerated, and reverently attended upon.”
When this was said, the Blessed One asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Seeing in this way, Mañjuśrī, what do you see?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Seeing in this way, Blessed Lord, I do not see anything whatsoever. Similarly, Blessed Lord, I do not see the arising of any dharma whatsoever,[F.184.b] nor do I see the cessation.”
Then the venerable Śāradvatīputra[F.149.b] said to the youthful Mañjuśrī, “You do what is difficult to do, Mañjuśrī—you see the Tathāgata in this way and reverently attend upon him in this way; you13 have established14 great loving kindness for all beings, and yet you have no apprehension of any being or fixation on any being whatsoever; you have practiced for all beings to attain parinirvāṇa, and yet there occurs in you no fixation on any being whatsoever; you have donned the armor for the sake of all beings, by way of not apprehending anything, by way of there being no real entity, and by way of never being dispirited.”15
At this, the youthful Mañjuśrī said to the venerable Śāradvatīputra, “It is just as you say, venerable Śāradvatīputra. This armor has been donned for all beings to attain parinirvāṇa, and yet I have no apprehension of any being or fixation on any being whatsoever. This armor, venerable Śāradvatīputra, has not been donned, thinking, ‘How16 will I bring about the decrease or increase of the mass of beings?’ If, venerable Śāradvatīputra, hypothetically, in each and every buddhafield there were blessed buddhas as numerous as the grains of sand in the Ganges River, and each and every one of those tathāgatas were to remain for as many eons as there are grains of sand in the Ganges River, teaching the Dharma both day and night, and the beings each and every tathāgata would tame through each and every Dharma teaching were as many as the beings that are tamed through each and every teaching of the Dharma by the blessed buddhas as numerous as the grains of sand in the Ganges River—even after this is done, no decrease or increase in the mass of beings is evident.[F.185.a] Why is that? Because it is devoid of beings, because beings are not beings,17 venerable Śāradvatīputra, no decrease or increase in the mass of beings is evident.”
When this was said,[F.150.a] the venerable Śāradvatīputra asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “If, Mañjuśrī, because it is devoid of beings, because beings are not beings,18 no decrease or19 increase in the mass of beings is evident, then to whom will you teach the Dharma having fully awakened to awakening?”
At this, the youthful Mañjuśrī said to the venerable Śāradvatīputra, “When, venerable Śāradvatīputra, there is absolutely no apprehension of any being, then who will be fully awakened, and to whom will the Dharma be taught? Why is that? Because, venerable Śāradvatīputra, there is absolutely no apprehension of any dharmas.”
Thereupon the Blessed One asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, when there is absolutely no apprehension of any dharmas, then how do you even designate a being? And if, Mañjuśrī, someone were to ask, ‘How many beings are there?’ what would you say to them?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “So asked, Blessed Lord, I would say to them, ‘As many as there are dharmas of the Buddha.’ Blessed Lord, if they were to then ask ‘How large is the mass of beings?’ I would say to them, ‘As large as the domain of the Buddha.’ ”
The Blessed One asked, “Mañjuśrī, if someone were to then ask you, ‘What does the mass of beings dwell upon?’ what would you say to him?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “So asked, Blessed Lord, I would say to them, ‘The mass of beings dwells upon what the realm21 of nonarising dwells upon.’ ”
22The Blessed One asked, “Mañjuśrī, when you cultivate the perfection of wisdom, what is it that you dwell upon as you cultivate the perfection of wisdom?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Blessed Lord, when I cultivate the perfection of wisdom, I cultivate the perfection of wisdom without dwelling upon anything.”
The Blessed One asked, “For one who does not dwell upon anything, Mañjuśrī, what is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom?”23
Mañjuśrī replied, “Blessed Lord, not dwelling upon anything whatsoever is itself the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.”
The Blessed One asked, “When you cultivate the perfection of wisdom,24 Mañjuśrī, which of your wholesome roots are then increased or decreased?”25
Mañjuśrī replied, “Blessed Lord, there are no wholesome roots of mine whatsoever that are increased or decreased. Blessed Lord, if one26 has any dharma that is increased or decreased, that is not the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. Blessed Lord, one should know that approaching27 it for the sake of increasing or decreasing any dharma is not the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“Blessed Lord, neither abandoning the dharmas of an ordinary person nor taking hold of the dharmas of a buddha is[F.186.a] the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. Why is that?[F.151.a] Because, Blessed Lord, the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom is not dwelling upon any dharma whatsoever because of not apprehending28 a dharma to be abandoned or taken hold of.
“Blessed Lord, neither proceeding toward the faults of saṃsāra nor toward the virtues of nirvāṇa is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, I do not even see saṃsāra, let alone look for the faults of saṃsāra; I do not apprehend nirvāṇa, let alone look for the virtues of nirvāṇa.
“Blessed Lord, not taking up, grasping, or being rid of any dharma whatsoever is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“Blessed Lord, not apprehending the diminishment or growth of any dharma whatsoever is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, nonarising has neither diminishment nor growth. It is such cultivation, Blessed Lord, that is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“Blessed Lord, not causing any dharma whatsoever to arise or cease is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“Blessed Lord, not causing any dharma whatsoever to diminish or expand is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. It is such cultivation, Blessed Lord, that is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“Furthermore, Blessed Lord, not aspiring for any dharmas whatsoever that are inconceivable, nor for those that are limited, but rather, Blessed Lord, there being nothing to aspire for and nothing by which to aspire – it is that that is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. When one cultivates in that way, Blessed Lord, it is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.[F.186.b]
“Blessed Lord, one does not approach the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom in this way, thinking, ‘These dharmas are superior,’ ‘These dharmas are inferior.’ Rather, one does not apprehend those dharmas that would be superior or inferior. The child of good family who is engaged in the practice of cultivating the perfection of wisdom in that way does not apprehend any dharmas. Blessed Lord, the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom does not imagine any dharma as superior or inferior. Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, nonarising does not have any ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’ whatsoever,[F.151.b] nor do suchness, the very limit of reality, up to, all dharmas have any ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’ whatsoever. When one cultivates in that way, Blessed Lord, it is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.”
When this was said, the Blessed One asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Are the dharmas of a buddha not superior, Mañjuśrī?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “It is because they are ungraspable, Blessed Lord, that the dharmas of a buddha are superior.29 Is it, Blessed Lord, that the Tathāgata has fully awakened to all dharmas being empty?”
The Blessed One said, “So it is, Mañjuśrī. The Tathāgata has fully awakened to all dharmas being empty.”
Mañjuśrī asked, “Blessed Lord, does emptiness have any ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’?”30
The Blessed One said, “Excellent, Mañjuśrī, excellent! So it is, Mañjuśrī. It is as you say. Are the dharmas of a buddha not unsurpassed, Mañjuśrī?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “So it is31—the dharmas of a buddha are unsurpassed. Why is that?[F.187.a] For thus, Blessed Lord, even the slightest dharma among them does not exist and is not apprehended. Hence those dharmas of a buddha are unsurpassed.32
“Furthermore, Blessed Lord, neither accomplishing the dharmas of a buddha nor abandoning the dharmas of an ordinary person, neither training in33 the dharmas of a buddha nor upholding them, is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.34
“Furthermore, Blessed Lord, not thinking about or cognizing any dharma whatsoever is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.”
The Blessed One asked, “Mañjuśrī, do you not think about the dharmas of a buddha?”[F.152.a]
Mañjuśrī replied, “Blessed Lord, if I were to see the actualization of the dharmas of a buddha, I would think about35 the dharmas of a buddha. Blessed Lord, the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom is not approached by the conceptualization of any dharma whatsoever, thinking, ‘These are the dharmas of an ordinary person,’ ‘These are the dharmas of a śrāvaka,’ ‘These are the dharmas of a pratyekabuddha,’ or ‘These are the dharmas of a perfect buddha.’ Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, the child of good family who is engaged in the practice of cultivating the perfection of wisdom does not apprehend those dharmas. The dharmas that are called ‘the dharmas of an ordinary person,’ ‘the dharmas of one in training,’ ‘the dharmas of one no longer in training,’ ‘the dharmas of a pratyekabuddha,’ or ‘the dharmas of a perfect buddha’ are the reality that is beyond extremes,36 so I neither apprehend nor observe those dharmas. When one cultivates in that way, Blessed Lord, it is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.[F.187.b]
“Blessed Lord, a child of good family who is engaged in the practice of cultivating the perfection of wisdom does not think, ‘This is the desire realm,’ ‘This is the form realm,’ ‘This is the formless realm,’ up to, ‘This is the element of cessation.’37 Why is that? For thus, Blessed Lord, he does not observe any dharma whatsoever that is the dharma of cessation.38 Such cultivation, Blessed Lord, is to be known as the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“Furthermore, Blessed Lord, neither benefiting nor harming any dharma whatsoever is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. Blessed Lord, the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom is not a bestower of the dharmas of a buddha,[F.152.b] nor a severer of the dharmas of an ordinary person.39 Blessed Lord, when there is no cessation of the dharmas of an ordinary person and no attaining the dharmas of a buddha, it is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.”
When this was said, the Blessed One said to the youthful Mañjuśrī, “It is excellent, Mañjuśrī, excellent that you have taught such a profound Dharma as this. Mañjuśrī, you have placed this seal in order to cause bodhisattva mahāsattvas, those in the Śrāvaka Vehicle who are conceited, and those in the Bodhisattva Vehicle who engage in apprehension to realize how it really is.
“Mañjuśrī, the sons or daughters of good family who, upon hearing this teaching on the profound perfection of wisdom, will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear are not those who have reverently attended upon a single buddha, are not those who have planted wholesome roots with a single buddha.”40
When this was said, the youthful Mañjuśrī said to the Blessed One,[F.188.a] “Blessed Lord, I am inspired to teach extensively on the perfection of wisdom.”
“May you be so inspired, Mañjuśrī,” the Blessed One replied.
Mañjuśrī said, “Blessed Lord, neither apprehending the continuation of any dharma41 nor apprehending its noncontinuation is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. Why is that? One does not apprehend it because all dharmas do not continue. Blessed Lord, not approaching it in order to take as support42 any dharma whatsoever is to be known as the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. Why is that? For thus, Blessed Lord, all dharmas are without support.43 Such cultivation, Blessed Lord, is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“Furthermore, Blessed Lord, when even the dharmas of a buddha do not become manifest, let alone the dharmas of a pratyekabuddha, and when even the dharmas of a śrāvaka[F.153.a] do not become manifest, let alone the dharmas of an ordinary person, that should be seen as the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“Furthermore, Blessed Lord, the cultivation on which one depends, not conceptualizing even the inconceivable dharmas of the buddhas as ‘the inconceivable dharmas of the buddhas,’ is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. This cultivation of the perfection of wisdom, Blessed Lord, should be seen as the bodhisattva mahāsattvas’ nonconceptualization of any dharmas.
“Furthermore, Blessed Lord, the cultivation on which one depends and, without seeing, sees all dharmas as the dharmas of the buddhas and sees all dharmas as inconceivable dharmas is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.[F.188.b] The sons and daughters of good family who, upon hearing this teaching on the perfection of wisdom,44 will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear are those who have reverently attended upon many thousands of buddhas.
“Furthermore, Blessed Lord, not observing any dharma as that is defiled or purified is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. When one cultivates in that way, Blessed Lord, it is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“And, Blessed Lord, the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom does not differentiate between ordinary people, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, or perfect buddhas. That, Blessed Lord, is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.”
The Blessed One then asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, how many tathāgatas have you reverently attended upon?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Blessed Lord, as many as an illusory person’s minds and mental factors that have ceased—that many tathāgatas, Blessed Lord, have I reverently attended upon.”
The Blessed One asked,[F.153.b] “Mañjuśrī, did you not set out for the dharmas of a buddha?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Is there, Blessed Lord, any dharma whatsoever that has set out for the dharmas of a buddha that can be apprehended?”
The Blessed One asked, “Who then, Mañjuśrī, has these dharmas of a buddha?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “If even for the Blessed One himself not even the names of these ‘dharmas of a buddha’ exist or are apprehended, how then could others come to have them?”
The Blessed One asked, “Mañjuśrī, have you attained the state of nonattachment?”
Mañjuśrī replied,[F.189.a] “Blessed Lord, when in fact I am the state of nonattachment, would I also attain the state of nonattachment?”
The Blessed One asked, “Are you seated, Mañjuśrī, at the seat of awakening?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “If one takes as the measure of authority45 the very limit of reality, when even the Blessed One himself is not seated at the seat of awakening, how then could I be?”46
The Blessed One asked, “Mañjuśrī, what does ‘the very limit of reality’ refer to?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Lord, ‘the very limit of reality’ refers to the perishing collection.”47
The Blessed One asked, “What do you mean, Mañjuśrī, when you say that?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Since that collection does not exist, Blessed Lord, it is not a perishing collection.48 It neither passes on nor is it free from passing on. Hence this collection is not a perishing collection.”
49Then the venerable Śāradvatīputra said to the Blessed One,[F.154.a] “Blessed Lord, those bodhisattva mahāsattvas who, upon hearing this teaching on the perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear—they will be destined for awakening.”
Then the bodhisattva mahāsattva Maitreya said to the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, those bodhisattva mahāsattvas who, upon hearing this teaching on the perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear—they will be close to awakening. Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, understanding50 these dharmas is itself supreme awakening.”
Then the youthful Mañjuśrī said to the Blessed One,[F.189.b] “Blessed Lord, those bodhisattva mahāsattvas who, upon hearing this teaching on the perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear—they should be seen as buddhas. Why is that? Because ‘buddha’ ultimately refers to nonarising.”
Then the woman51 Nirālambā said to the Blessed One, “Lord, those bodhisattva mahāsattvas who, upon hearing this perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear—they will not take as support the dharmas of ordinary people, the dharmas of śrāvakas, the dharmas of pratyekabuddhas, or the dharmas of perfect buddhas. Why is that? For thus, Blessed Lord, all dharmas are without support,52 because they do not exist. Hence there is no support for them.”
Thereupon the Blessed One said to the venerable Śāradvatīputra, “So it is, Śāradvatīputra, so it is. Those sons or daughters of good family who, upon hearing this teaching on the profound perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear—they will be destined for awakening. You should know, Śāradvatīputra, that those sons and daughters of good family who, upon hearing this teaching on the perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, will not fall into fear, and will receive it on the crown of their head—they will dwell on the level of irreversibility.
“Śāradvatīputra, those who,[F.154.b] upon hearing this teaching on the perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear—they will each become supreme benefactors, they will each become great benefactors, they will each become most excellent benefactors.
“Śāradvatīputra, they will each become accomplished in ethical conduct, they will each come to possess supreme ethical conduct,[F.190.a] they will each come to have the most excellent ethical conduct, they will each attain the path of the virtues of ethical conduct.
“Śāradvatīputra, those who, upon hearing this teaching on the perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear—they will each come to possess supreme patience, supreme diligence, supreme meditation, and supreme wisdom without equal.
“Śāradvatīputra, those bodhisattva mahāsattvas who, upon hearing this teaching on the perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear—they will each come to possess the knowledge of an omniscient one in all its excellent aspects.”
The Blessed One asked the youthful Mañjuśrī further, “What aim, Mañjuśrī, do you have in view as you wish to fully awaken to unsurpassed perfect awakening?”53
Mañjuśrī replied, “If, Blessed Lord, I had set out for awakening, I would thus wish to fully awaken to it.54 But I do not, Blessed Lord, aspire for awakening. Why is that? Because this youthful Mañjuśrī is in fact awakening.”
When this was said, the Blessed One said to the youthful Mañjuśrī, “It is excellent, Mañjuśrī, excellent, that you teach such very profound points as these. You have thus served past victorious ones and for a long time you have practiced the spiritual life55 without apprehending anything.”
Mañjuśrī said, “Blessed Lord, if I practiced without apprehending anything, a dharma[F.155.a] would be obtained.”
When this was said, the Blessed One asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, [F.190.b]“Do you see, Mañjuśrī, these accomplished śrāvakas of mine?” Mañjuśrī replied, “I see them, Blessed Lord.”
The Blessed One asked, “How56 do you see them?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “I see in such a way, Blessed Lord, that I do not see ordinary people, I do not see those who are in training, and I do not see those who are no longer in training – I neither see them, nor do I not see them. I see in such a way that I neither see many nor do I see few; I neither see those who are disciplined, nor do I see those who are undisciplined.”
Then the venerable Śāradvatīputra asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, when you see those who are in the Śrāvaka Vehicle in this way, then how do you see those who are in the Vehicle of Perfect Buddhas?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Venerable Śāradvatīputra, I do not observe any dharma called ‘bodhisattva.’ I do not observe any dharma called ‘set out for awakening.’ I do not observe any dharma called ‘practice for the sake of awakening.’ I do not observe any dharma called ‘fully awakened to it.’ In that way, venerable Śāradvatīputra, do I see those in the Vehicle of Perfect Buddhas.”
Śāradvatīputra then asked, “How, Mañjuśrī, do you see the Tathāgata?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Leave the great elephant be, venerable Śāradvatīputra. Do not disturb57 the great elephant.”
When this was said, the venerable Śāradvatīputra asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, what does ‘the Buddha’ refer to?”
Mañjuśrī said, “Venerable Śāradvatīputra, what does ‘the self’ refer to?”
Śāradvatīputra replied, “Mañjuśrī, ‘the self’ refers to nonarising.”[F.155.b]
Mañjuśrī said, “So it is, venerable Śāradvatīputra – ‘the self’ refers to that which ‘the Buddha’ refers to. Moreover, venerable Śāradvatīputra, ‘the Buddha’ is a referent without basis. It is difficult, venerable Śāradvatīputra, to make known ‘the Buddha’ through speech. If even speech, venerable Śāradvatīputra, is difficult to delineate as ‘speech,’ what to say, then, of ‘the Buddha’?
“Venerable Śāradvatīputra, you ask what it is that ‘the Buddha’ refers to. What does not really exist, has not arisen, and will not cease, what does not possess any dharma whatsoever – there is in that case no basis whatsoever, no basis for separation, what is baseless.59 This, venerable Śāradvatīputra, is what ‘the Buddha’ refers to.
“Venerable Śāradvatīputra, one who wants to search for the Tathāgata should search for the self. Venerable Śāradvatīputra, ‘the self’ refers to the Buddha. Just as the self is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, just so the Buddha, too, is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended. Just as the self cannot be spoken about by way of any dharma, just so the Buddha, too, cannot be spoken about by way of any dharma. That in which there is nothing to be reckoned60 is ‘the Buddha.’ The referential designation61 ‘the self,’ venerable Śāradvatīputra, is not easy to understand. Likewise, venerable Śāradvatīputra, the referential designation ‘the Buddha’ is not easy to understand.”
Then the venerable Śāradvatīputa said to the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, this youthful Mañjuśrī does not teach in a way that beginners62 would understand.”
When this was said, the youthful Mañjuśrī said to the venerable Śāradvatīputra, “I do not teach the Dharma, venerable Śāradvatīputra, in a way that even realized arhats will understand.[F.156.a] I do not teach in a way that anyone will understand. Why is that? Because awakening has not been understood by anyone, it has not been cognized by anyone, it has not been fully realized by anyone, it has not been seen, it has not been heard, it has not been recollected, it has not been produced, it has not been obstructed, it has not been described, and it has not been taught. Awakening, venerable Śāradvatīputra, is like that. That awakening is not an entity. Why is that? Because there is nothing whatsoever to be fully awakened to by awakening, and awakening does not become fully awakened to awakening.”
Śāradvatīputra asked, “Mañjuśrī, did the Blessed One not become fully awakened to the dharmadhātu?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “He did not, venerable Śāradvatīputra.65 Why is that? Because, venerable Śāradvatīputra, the dharmadhātu is in fact the Blessed One. If, venerable Śāradvatīputra, the Blessed One were to have become fully awakened to the dharmadhātu, then it would be opposed to the element66 of nonarising.
“Venerable Śāradvatīputra, that dharmadhātu is in fact awakening. Why is that? Because the dharmadhātu is without any being. ‘All dharmas have no real existence’67 refers to awakening—it is this which is reckoned ‘the dharmadhātu.’ Why is that? Because all dharmas are without differentiation in the Buddha’s sphere of experience. ‘Without differentiation,’ venerable Śāradvatīputra, is without making anything known.68 ‘Without making anything known,’ venerable Śāradvatīputra, means not being able to make anything known—from not making anything known as being conditioned, up to not making anything known as being unconditioned. There is no making known anything whatsoever therein.[F.192.a] Hence it is without making anything known. All dharmas, venerable Śāradvatīputra, are without making anything known. Why is that? Because all dharmas are without arising, dwelling somewhere, and making themselves known.69
“Those who set out for the immediate[F.156.b] set out for the inconceivable. Those who set out for the inconceivable set out for reality.70 Why is that? Because ‘reality,’ venerable Śāradvatīputra, is not a basis for separation.
“Those who are endowed with the inconceivable71 do not go to the heavens, they do not go to the hells, and they do not go to nirvāṇa.72 Why is that? Because the inconceivable is not attended from by going or not going,73 up to is not attended by going or not going to nirvāṇa.
“Venerable Śāradvatīputra, those who are engaged in the four root offenses are engaged in the rootless. Why is that? Because, venerable Śāradvatīputra, nonarising does not have a so-called ‘root or tip.’ ‘Rootless monk’ refers to a nonabiding monk. ‘A dispute’ refers to surpassing superimposition.74 Conducting oneself in surpassing superimposition, venerable Śāradvatīputra, one is worthy of offerings in the world. Why is that? Because that surpassing superimposition is the same.75 A monk who has faith, venerable Śāradvatīputra, is not worthy to enjoy a gift given out of faith. A monk who has no faith, venerable Śāradvatīputra, is worthy to enjoy a gift given out of faith. A monk who is proper,76 venerable Śāradvatīputra, is not worthy to enjoy a gift given out of faith. A monk who is not proper, venerable Śāradvatīputra, is worthy to enjoy a gift given out of faith. A monk77 whose manner is unimpaired is called an ‘arhat whose contaminants are exhausted.’ ”[F.192.b]
Śāradvatīputra asked, “What do you mean, Mañjuśrī, when you say that?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Sameness does not impair sameness, and that is in fact the manner.78 That is what I mean, venerable Śāradvatīputra, when I say that a monk whose manner is unimpaired is called an ‘arhat whose contaminants are exhausted.’ ‘One who has not transcended fear,’ venerable Śāradvatīputra,[F.157.a] refers to an arhat whose contaminants are exhausted.”
Śāradvatīputra asked, “What do you mean, Mañjuśrī, when you say that?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “If even the slightest of their fears does not exist,79 what will they transcend?”80
Śāradvatīputra asked, “Mañjuśrī, who does ‘one for whom patient acceptance has not arisen’ refer to?”81
Mañjuśrī replied, “Venerable Śāradvatīputra, one who has not given rise to even the slightest dharma is called ‘one for whom patient acceptance has not arisen.’ ”82
Śāradvatīputra asked, “Mañjuśrī, who does ‘an undisciplined monk’ refer to?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Venerable Śāradvatīputra, ‘an undisciplined monk’ refers to an arhat whose contaminants are exhausted. Why is that? Because being undisciplined is being disciplined, but being disciplined is being undisciplined.83 That is what I mean, venerable Śāradvatīputra, when I say that ‘an undisciplined monk’ refers to an arhat whose contaminants are exhausted. Venerable Śāradvatīputra, ‘enjoys the higher mind’ refers to an ordinary person.”84
Śāradvatīputra asked, “What do you mean, Mañjuśrī, when you say that?”
Mañjuśrī said, “It is because, venerable Śāradvatīputra, that one surpasses.”85
When this was said, the venerable Śāradvatīputra said to the youthful Mañjuśrī, “It is excellent, Mañjuśrī, excellent that you speak about how an arhat is one whose contaminants are exhausted.”[F.193.a]
Mañjuśrī replied, “So it is, venerable Śāradvatīputra. It is just as you say. I am one whose contaminants are exhausted, yet I am not an arhat. Why is that? Because, venerable Śāradvatīputra, my hope for the level of a śrāvaka or the level of a pratyekabuddha has been exhausted. For that reason, venerable Śāradvatīputra, I am one whose contaminants are exhausted, yet I am not an arhat.”
Thereupon the Blessed One asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Is there any reason, Mañjuśrī, why a bodhisattva mahāsattva[F.157.b] would be seated at the seat of awakening but unable to become fully awakened to unsurpassed perfect awakening?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “There is, Blessed Lord, a reason why a bodhisattva mahāsattva would be seated at the seat of awakening but unable to become fully awakened to unsurpassed perfect awakening. Why is that? Because, in awakening, not even the slightest dharma86 exists nor is apprehended. Hence it is called ‘unsurpassed perfect awakening,’87 and that awakening is unarisen. Upon it, there is nothing that exists and nothing that is apprehended that is seated at the seat of awakening, or anyone who becomes fully awakened to awakening, or anything by which awakening is fully awakened to, or any awakening that is fully awakened to,88 or any rising from the seat of awakening. For this reason, Blessed Lord, a bodhisattva mahāsattva is seated at the seat of awakening but unable to become fully awakened to unsurpassed perfect awakening.”
When this was said, the Blessed One asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, what does ‘awakening’ refer to?”[F.193.b]
Mañjuśrī replied, “Blessed Lord, ‘awakening’ refers to the five acts with immediate retribution. Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, they have no real existence, those five acts with immediate retribution in fact have the nature of awakening. Hence89 that awakening has the nature of the five acts with immediate retribution. To fully realize the acts with immediate retribution is not awakening,90 and the direct perception of all dharmas is also not awakening. Why is that? Because all dharmas are absolutely not directly perceived. They are not fully realized by anyone—[F.158.a] they are not seen, they are not heard, they are not known, and they are not understood. Thus, it is awakening. However, Blessed Lord, those who are conceited posit them from having been fully awakened, to up to having been directly perceived.”
When this was said, the Blessed One asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Do you think of me, Mañjuśrī, by thinking ‘The Tathāgata is my tathāgata’?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “No, Blessed Lord. Why, Blessed Lord, would I think, ‘The Tathāgata is my tathāgata?’91 Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, thusness is the Tathāgata himself,92 so, Blessed Lord, thusness does not make the Tathāgata known, nor does the Tathāgata make thusness known. Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, thusness ultimately has no real existence, and the Tathāgata has no real existence. Therefore, Blessed Lord, I do not think,93 ‘The Tathāgata is my tathāgata.’ Blessed Lord, ‘tathāgata’ is just a name.[F.194.a] So in case I should think ‘The Tathāgata is my tathagata,’ what is the tathāgata?”
The Blessed One asked, “Do you have doubts, Mañjuśrī, about the Tathāgata?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “No, Blessed Lord. If, Blessed Lord, there were any perfect tathāgatas, whether tathāgatas who have arisen or tathāgatas who have attained parinirvāṇa, I would have doubts.”
When this was said, the Blessed One[F.158.b] asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Do you not think, Mañjuśrī, that the Tathāgata has arisen?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “If the dharmadhātu had an arising, Blessed Lord, I would think that the Tathāgata had arisen.”
The Blessed One asked, “Do you not believe, Mañjuśrī, that blessed buddhas as numerous as the grains of sand in the Ganges River have attained parinirvāṇa?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Blessed Lord, is it not94 that the blessed buddhas are a single sphere, as the inconceivable sphere?”95
The Blessed One said, “So it is, Mañjuśrī. The blessed buddhas are a single sphere, as the inconceivable sphere.”
Mañjuśrī asked, “Blessed Lord, is it now present?”
The Blessed One said, “So it is, Mañjuśrī.”
Mañjuśrī said, “Hence, Blessed Lord, those blessed buddhas, as numerous as the grains of sand in the Ganges River, have not attained parinirvāṇa. Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, the blessed buddhas are a single sphere, as the inconceivable sphere,[F.194.b] and inconceivability does not arise, nor does it cease. Therefore, Blessed Lord, with the Blessed One having fully awakened to it,96 those who will be tathāgatas, arhats, perfect buddhas in the future will also have fully awakened to it. Why is that? Because the inconceivable97 has no past, future, or present. Therefore, Blessed Lord, those who think from‘The Tathāgata has arisen,’ up to ‘He will attain parinirvāṇa’—their engagement with the world98 is erroneous.[F.159.a] Blessed Lord, they mentally proliferate engagement with the world.”
When this was said, the Blessed One then said to the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Hence, Mañjuśrī, when you speak before99 a tathagata, or an irreversible bodhisattva mahāsattva, or an arhat whose contaminants are exhausted, you should declare that tathāgatas are inconceivable, unthinkable, unfathomable,100 beyond thought.101 Why is that? Because, upon hearing it, they will neither praise nor reject it. Why is that? Because it is inconceivable, unthinkable, and unfathomable.”102
Mañjuśrī said, “Blessed Lord, all dharmas are inconceivable and unthinkable—who would praise or reject them?”
The Blessed One asked, “Mañjuśrī, just as the Tathāgata is unfathomable, are ordinary people also unfathomable?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Blessed Lord, ordinary people are also unfathomable.”
The Blessed One said, “So it is, Mañjuśrī.[F.195.a] Why is that? Because all thought is unfathomable.”103
Mañjuśrī said, “Blessed Lord, why is it that the Blessed One asked, ‘Just as the Tathāgata is unfathomable, are ordinary people also unfathomable? Blessed Lord, are not ordinary people in fact unfathomable? Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, all dharmas are unfathomable. If someone, Blessed Lord, has set out for nirvāṇa,104 they will be bereft,105 Blessed One. Why is that? Because[F.159.b] the unfathomable is in fact nirvāṇa. Therefore, Blessed Lord, there is no differentiation in the unfathomable. Blessed Lord, to those who say, ‘These are the dharmas of ordinary people,’ or, ‘These106 are the dharmas of noble ones,’ one should say this: ‘First you should reverently attend upon virtuous friends, and then you should come to know, “These are the dharmas of ordinary people,” or, “These are the dharmas of noble ones.” ’ ”
Set in Jeta’s Grove in Śrāvastī, The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines starts with the scene of the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī leaving his dwelling at daybreak and standing at the Buddha’s doorstep, after which the venerable Śāriputra and the entire community of śrāvakas follow his example. When the Buddha asks why they have come, Mañjuśrī explains that he has come to provide others the opportunity to see the Tathāgata as he sees him—not in his physical form but in his true nature as suchness itself, beyond any duality. What follows is an extensive discourse about the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom, in which Mañjuśrī brings his nondual understanding of all phenomena into full display through abundant use of paradox and wordplay.
This translation was made by the Bodhinidhi Translation Group. Thomas Cruijsen translated the text from the Tibetan and consulted the extant Sanskrit during the process. Special thanks to Kenshō Satō and Francesco Bianchini for kindly sharing their respective editions of the available palm-leaf manuscripts of the Sanskrit text.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha. Nathaniel Rich edited the translation and wrote the introduction, and Dawn Collins copyedited the text. Martina Cotter was in charge of the digital publication process.
The translation of this text has been made possible through the generous sponsorship of Kris Yao.
The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines is a Perfection of Wisdom scripture in which Mañjuśrī, the bodhisattva of wisdom, takes center stage, both as the Buddha’s primary interlocutor and as one who expounds the perfection of wisdom himself. Set in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, in Śrāvastī, rather than Vulture Peak Mountain near Rājagṛha, the sūtra primarily features a series of dialogues between Mañjuśrī and the Buddha, as well as dialogue between Mañjuśrī and the great śrāvaka disciple known for his wisdom, Śāriputra.
The sūtra opens on the Buddha dwelling in Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park together with a community of one thousand monks and a very large number of bodhisattvas, among them “the youthful Mañjuśrī.” One day, at dawn, Mañjuśrī emerges from his dwelling and goes to the Buddha’s dwelling in order to see and pay homage to him, reverently standing outside his door. Śāriputra then does the same, followed in turn by the other great śrāvaka disciples. Knowing that they have come, the Buddha emerges from his dwelling and takes the seat prepared for him, and then he turns to Śāriputra and asks him why he has come at dawn to stand outside his door. Śāriputra replies that the first one to have come to stand outside the Buddha’s door was none other than the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī himself, and the rest came afterward, out of a desire to see the Buddha. The Buddha then turns to Mañjuśrī and asks him if this is true. Mañjuśrī responds in the affirmative and tells the Buddha that he came to see and venerate him, never getting enough of doing so, and that he did this for the sake of all beings. In that regard, Mañjuśrī says that if the Buddha is to be seen and venerated—presumably by all beings, for whose sake Mañjuśrī has approached the Buddha—then he is to be seen and venerated in the same way that Mañjuśrī sees and venerates him. The Buddha then asks Mañjuśrī how that is, and this begins the dialogue that unfolds over the course of the sūtra, with Mañjuśrī answering that the Buddha is to be seen “in the aspect of suchness, and in the aspect of the nonconceptual, by way of not apprehending anything,” and going on to describe how it is that seeing in this way is to see no “thing” at all.
Proceeding by way of the negations, paradoxes, and wordplay central to the other Perfection of Wisdom sūtras, Mañjuśrī and the Buddha gradually unfold the bodhisattva’s cultivation of the perfection of wisdom over the course of their dialogue. Other important themes in this scripture include the exalted attainments ensured to those who remain unafraid upon hearing this sūtra; nonarising and the lack of real existence; nondifferentiation; the identity of the Buddha, the dharmadhātu, and awakening; inconceivability, and that dharmas and the perfection of wisdom are without duality. In addition, the Buddha describes those, present in the audience of this discourse, who, in future lives, will also uphold it and its teachings.
Unique to this Perfection of Wisdom sūtra is its presentation of a samādhi called the single array. When Mañjuśrī asks the Buddha how bodhisattvas should conduct themselves to attain full awakening swiftly, the Buddha responds that if a bodhisattva conducts themselves in the perfection of wisdom, they will swiftly attain full awakening. However, he then goes on to say that there is a samādhi in which bodhisattvas may conduct themselves to attain full awakening swiftly. Declaring that “single array” refers to “nonarising,” and that the person who would enter the samādhi of the single array must first “inquire about the perfection of wisdom,” the Buddha describes two aspects of the practice. The first takes as its focus the fact of nonarising, the ultimate reality of all phenomena, buddhas included, “by way of not apprehending anything.” The second aspect takes as its focus a specific buddha—any specific buddha, to whom the practitioner, seated in meditation, directs their attention, as well as the name of that buddha. This aspect of the samādhi resonates with a number of popular devotional practices that have been central to Buddhist traditions over the centuries, throughout East Asia and the Tibetan and Mongolian cultural spheres.
The earliest attestation of The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines of which we are aware is the first translation of the text into Chinese (Taishō 232) produced by Mantuoluo 曼陀羅 (or Mantuoluoxian 曼陀羅仙), a translator “active at the beginning of the sixth century.”1 Shortly thereafter, a second Chinese translation was produced (Taishō 233) by Sengjiapuoluo 僧伽婆羅, a collaborator of Mantuoluo. In the seventh century, a third Chinese translation (Taishō 220) was produced by the great translator and scholar Xuanzang as part of his translation of Prajñāpāramitā sūtra literature. The earliest translation was included in the Chinese canon’s Heap of Jewels (Ratnakūṭa) section, which almost certainly explains why the Kangyur contains the text in both the Perfection of Wisdom section (as Toh 24) and the Heap of Jewels section (as Toh 90). In China, The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines was especially noteworthy as the canonical source for the samādhi of the single array (一行三昧), which, variously understood, was of great importance in the Tiantai 天台 tradition of Zhiyi 智顗 (538–97), in the East Mountain 洞山 tradition (circa seventh to early eighth centuries), and thereafter in the developed traditions of Chan and Pure Land.2 As further evidence of the text’s popularity in China, it must be noted that the version translated by Mantuoluo was inscribed in stone between 560 and 580 at Mount Hongding in Shandong, as well as other sites in China.3
The Tibetan translation of The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines was produced in the late eighth or early ninth century, as it is listed in both the Denkarma and Phangthangma imperial catalogues.4 As noted, the text is included in both the Perfection of Wisdom section and the Heap of Jewels section of the Kangyur, but it is listed only as a Perfection of Wisdom scripture in the two imperial catalogues. Intriguingly, the colophons of these two versions are different. The colophon of Toh 90 (Degé), as well as the version of the text found in the Stok Kangyur, identifies the translators of the text as the Indian Surendrabodhi and the Tibetan Yeshé Dé, while the colophon of Toh 24 (Degé) simply says that the text was “revised according to the new language reform and finalized.” In addition, the Tengyur contains two commentaries on the text attributed in their colophons to Indian scholars—An Extensive Commentary on The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines (shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa bdun brgya pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa, Toh 3814), attributed to Vimalamitra, and An Extensive Commentary on The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines (shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa bdun brgya pa’i rgya cher bshad pa, Toh 3815), attributed to Kamalaśīla. These two commentaries are also listed in the two imperial catalogues, so they, too, were translated into Tibetan in the late eighth or early ninth century.5
There are several extant Sanskrit manuscript witnesses of The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines, the earliest being a palm leaf manuscript kept in Lhasa that was produced, according to its colophon, in the Pāla kingdom of northern India in the late eleventh century. Others date as late as the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, all from the Kathmandu Valley. The edition that we have produced and included as an appendix is based on the recently published diplomatic edition of the Pāla manuscript as well as the available editions of the manuscripts from the Kathmandu Valley. A fully annotated critical edition of the extant Sanskrit will be published by the translator in the near future.
There are at least two full English translations of The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines, as well as a partial English translation.6 These were prepared based on either the Sanskrit or the Chinese. There is also a fair amount of Japanese language scholarship on the sūtra, especially on its Sanskrit witnesses and manuscript evidence.7
The present translation, to our knowledge the first from the Tibetan, is based on the Degé Kangyur recension of the sūtra as found in its Perfection of Wisdom section, with reference to the variants recorded in the Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma), and to the version found in the Stok Palace manuscript Kangyur. We have also referred to the two Tengyur commentaries, as recorded in the notes, as well as to several Sanskrit manuscripts and our own edition of the Sanskrit, as noted above. However, it should be noted that where the Tibetan and the extant Sanskrit differ, we have sought to privilege the Tibetan in every case except where noted.
Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was dwelling in Śrāvastī, in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, together with a large monastic community, a full one thousand monks, as well as with one million bodhisattva mahāsattvas armored with the great armor, such as the youthful Mañjuśrī, Maitreya, Asaṅgapratibhāna, and Anikṣiptadhura, all of them irreversible from progress toward unsurpassed, perfectly complete awakening.
Then, at dawn, the youthful Mañjuśrī emerged from his dwelling so as to behold the Tathāgata, venerate him, and reverently attend upon him. He went to the Tathāgata’s dwelling and stood outside the door. The venerable Śāradvatīputra then emerged from his dwelling too so as to see the Blessed One, venerate him, and reverently attend upon him, and he went to the Tathāgata’s dwelling. And also the venerables Pūrṇa Maitrāyaṇīputra, Mahāmaudgalyāyana, Mahākāśyapa, Mahākātyāyana, Mahākauṣṭhila, and the other great śrāvakas emerged from their respective dwellings, went to the Blessed One’s dwelling, and, once there, stood to one side.
Thereupon the Blessed One, having become aware that the great śrāvakas had come and gathered, emerged from his dwelling and sat down to one side on the seat prepared outside the dwelling. Once seated, the Blessed One[F.148.b] knowingly asked the venerable Śāradvatīputra, “Why, Śāradvatīputra, have you come at the break of day, standing at the door of the Tathāgata’s dwelling?”[F.183.b]
When this was asked, the venerable Śāradvatīputra replied to the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, the first among all to be standing at the door of the Tathāgata’s dwelling was youthful Mañjuśrī. We came afterward, wishing to see the Blessed One.”
Then the Blessed One knowingly asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Is it true, Mañjuśrī, that you were the first among all to be standing at the door of the Tathāgata’s dwelling, so as to see the Tathāgata, venerate him, and reverently attend upon him?”
When this was asked, the youthful Mañjuśrī replied to the Blessed One, “It is, Blessed Lord. It is, Well-Gone One. I was the first among all to have emerged from my dwelling so as to see the Blessed One, venerate him, and reverently attend upon him, and to have come to the Tathāgata’s dwelling and stood to one side. Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, I can never see the Tathāgata, venerate him, and reverently attend upon him enough. And, Blessed Lord, I come to see the Tathāgata, venerate him, and reverently attend upon him for the sake of all beings. Blessed Lord, if the Tathāgata is to be seen, venerated, and reverently attended upon,8 he is to be seen, venerated, and reverently attended upon just as I see, venerate, and reverently attend upon him. It is in this way that the Tathāgata becomes seen, venerated, and reverently attended upon. Blessed Lord,[F.149.a] it is for the sake of all beings[F.184.a] that I see the Tathāgata.”
The Blessed One asked, “How, Mañjuśrī, is the Tathāgata to be seen?”9
Mañjuśrī replied, “The Tathāgata is to be seen10 in the aspect of suchness and in the aspect of the nonconceptual, by way of not apprehending anything. Likewise, the Tathāgata is to be seen from seeing him in the aspect of nonarising, up to the aspect of a nonentity.11 Suchness does not come into being—thus is the Tathāgata to be seen. Suchness does not come to exist, nor does it cease to exist—thus is the Tathāgata to be seen. Suchness is not located or situated anywhere—thus is the Tathāgata to be seen. Suchness is not past, not future, not present12—thus is the Tathāgata to be seen. Suchness is not distinguished by duality, nor is it distinguished by nonduality—thus is the Tathāgata to be seen. Suchness is not defiled, nor is it purified—thus is the Tathāgata to be seen. Suchness does not arise and does not cease—thus is the Tathāgata to be seen. It is in this way that the Tathāgata becomes seen, venerated, and reverently attended upon.”
When this was said, the Blessed One asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Seeing in this way, Mañjuśrī, what do you see?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Seeing in this way, Blessed Lord, I do not see anything whatsoever. Similarly, Blessed Lord, I do not see the arising of any dharma whatsoever,[F.184.b] nor do I see the cessation.”
Then the venerable Śāradvatīputra[F.149.b] said to the youthful Mañjuśrī, “You do what is difficult to do, Mañjuśrī—you see the Tathāgata in this way and reverently attend upon him in this way; you13 have established14 great loving kindness for all beings, and yet you have no apprehension of any being or fixation on any being whatsoever; you have practiced for all beings to attain parinirvāṇa, and yet there occurs in you no fixation on any being whatsoever; you have donned the armor for the sake of all beings, by way of not apprehending anything, by way of there being no real entity, and by way of never being dispirited.”15
At this, the youthful Mañjuśrī said to the venerable Śāradvatīputra, “It is just as you say, venerable Śāradvatīputra. This armor has been donned for all beings to attain parinirvāṇa, and yet I have no apprehension of any being or fixation on any being whatsoever. This armor, venerable Śāradvatīputra, has not been donned, thinking, ‘How16 will I bring about the decrease or increase of the mass of beings?’ If, venerable Śāradvatīputra, hypothetically, in each and every buddhafield there were blessed buddhas as numerous as the grains of sand in the Ganges River, and each and every one of those tathāgatas were to remain for as many eons as there are grains of sand in the Ganges River, teaching the Dharma both day and night, and the beings each and every tathāgata would tame through each and every Dharma teaching were as many as the beings that are tamed through each and every teaching of the Dharma by the blessed buddhas as numerous as the grains of sand in the Ganges River—even after this is done, no decrease or increase in the mass of beings is evident.[F.185.a] Why is that? Because it is devoid of beings, because beings are not beings,17 venerable Śāradvatīputra, no decrease or increase in the mass of beings is evident.”
When this was said,[F.150.a] the venerable Śāradvatīputra asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “If, Mañjuśrī, because it is devoid of beings, because beings are not beings,18 no decrease or19 increase in the mass of beings is evident, then to whom will you teach the Dharma having fully awakened to awakening?”
At this, the youthful Mañjuśrī said to the venerable Śāradvatīputra, “When, venerable Śāradvatīputra, there is absolutely no apprehension of any being, then who will be fully awakened, and to whom will the Dharma be taught? Why is that? Because, venerable Śāradvatīputra, there is absolutely no apprehension of any dharmas.”
Thereupon the Blessed One asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, when there is absolutely no apprehension of any dharmas, then how do you even designate a being? And if, Mañjuśrī, someone were to ask, ‘How many beings are there?’ what would you say to them?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “So asked, Blessed Lord, I would say to them, ‘As many as there are dharmas of the Buddha.’ Blessed Lord, if they were to then ask ‘How large is the mass of beings?’ I would say to them, ‘As large as the domain of the Buddha.’ ”
The Blessed One asked, “Mañjuśrī, if someone were to then ask you, ‘What does the mass of beings dwell upon?’ what would you say to him?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “So asked, Blessed Lord, I would say to them, ‘The mass of beings dwells upon what the realm21 of nonarising dwells upon.’ ”
22The Blessed One asked, “Mañjuśrī, when you cultivate the perfection of wisdom, what is it that you dwell upon as you cultivate the perfection of wisdom?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Blessed Lord, when I cultivate the perfection of wisdom, I cultivate the perfection of wisdom without dwelling upon anything.”
The Blessed One asked, “For one who does not dwell upon anything, Mañjuśrī, what is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom?”23
Mañjuśrī replied, “Blessed Lord, not dwelling upon anything whatsoever is itself the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.”
The Blessed One asked, “When you cultivate the perfection of wisdom,24 Mañjuśrī, which of your wholesome roots are then increased or decreased?”25
Mañjuśrī replied, “Blessed Lord, there are no wholesome roots of mine whatsoever that are increased or decreased. Blessed Lord, if one26 has any dharma that is increased or decreased, that is not the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. Blessed Lord, one should know that approaching27 it for the sake of increasing or decreasing any dharma is not the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“Blessed Lord, neither abandoning the dharmas of an ordinary person nor taking hold of the dharmas of a buddha is[F.186.a] the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. Why is that?[F.151.a] Because, Blessed Lord, the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom is not dwelling upon any dharma whatsoever because of not apprehending28 a dharma to be abandoned or taken hold of.
“Blessed Lord, neither proceeding toward the faults of saṃsāra nor toward the virtues of nirvāṇa is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, I do not even see saṃsāra, let alone look for the faults of saṃsāra; I do not apprehend nirvāṇa, let alone look for the virtues of nirvāṇa.
“Blessed Lord, not taking up, grasping, or being rid of any dharma whatsoever is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“Blessed Lord, not apprehending the diminishment or growth of any dharma whatsoever is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, nonarising has neither diminishment nor growth. It is such cultivation, Blessed Lord, that is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“Blessed Lord, not causing any dharma whatsoever to arise or cease is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“Blessed Lord, not causing any dharma whatsoever to diminish or expand is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. It is such cultivation, Blessed Lord, that is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“Furthermore, Blessed Lord, not aspiring for any dharmas whatsoever that are inconceivable, nor for those that are limited, but rather, Blessed Lord, there being nothing to aspire for and nothing by which to aspire – it is that that is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. When one cultivates in that way, Blessed Lord, it is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.[F.186.b]
“Blessed Lord, one does not approach the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom in this way, thinking, ‘These dharmas are superior,’ ‘These dharmas are inferior.’ Rather, one does not apprehend those dharmas that would be superior or inferior. The child of good family who is engaged in the practice of cultivating the perfection of wisdom in that way does not apprehend any dharmas. Blessed Lord, the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom does not imagine any dharma as superior or inferior. Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, nonarising does not have any ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’ whatsoever,[F.151.b] nor do suchness, the very limit of reality, up to, all dharmas have any ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’ whatsoever. When one cultivates in that way, Blessed Lord, it is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.”
When this was said, the Blessed One asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Are the dharmas of a buddha not superior, Mañjuśrī?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “It is because they are ungraspable, Blessed Lord, that the dharmas of a buddha are superior.29 Is it, Blessed Lord, that the Tathāgata has fully awakened to all dharmas being empty?”
The Blessed One said, “So it is, Mañjuśrī. The Tathāgata has fully awakened to all dharmas being empty.”
Mañjuśrī asked, “Blessed Lord, does emptiness have any ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’?”30
The Blessed One said, “Excellent, Mañjuśrī, excellent! So it is, Mañjuśrī. It is as you say. Are the dharmas of a buddha not unsurpassed, Mañjuśrī?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “So it is31—the dharmas of a buddha are unsurpassed. Why is that?[F.187.a] For thus, Blessed Lord, even the slightest dharma among them does not exist and is not apprehended. Hence those dharmas of a buddha are unsurpassed.32
“Furthermore, Blessed Lord, neither accomplishing the dharmas of a buddha nor abandoning the dharmas of an ordinary person, neither training in33 the dharmas of a buddha nor upholding them, is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.34
“Furthermore, Blessed Lord, not thinking about or cognizing any dharma whatsoever is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.”
The Blessed One asked, “Mañjuśrī, do you not think about the dharmas of a buddha?”[F.152.a]
Mañjuśrī replied, “Blessed Lord, if I were to see the actualization of the dharmas of a buddha, I would think about35 the dharmas of a buddha. Blessed Lord, the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom is not approached by the conceptualization of any dharma whatsoever, thinking, ‘These are the dharmas of an ordinary person,’ ‘These are the dharmas of a śrāvaka,’ ‘These are the dharmas of a pratyekabuddha,’ or ‘These are the dharmas of a perfect buddha.’ Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, the child of good family who is engaged in the practice of cultivating the perfection of wisdom does not apprehend those dharmas. The dharmas that are called ‘the dharmas of an ordinary person,’ ‘the dharmas of one in training,’ ‘the dharmas of one no longer in training,’ ‘the dharmas of a pratyekabuddha,’ or ‘the dharmas of a perfect buddha’ are the reality that is beyond extremes,36 so I neither apprehend nor observe those dharmas. When one cultivates in that way, Blessed Lord, it is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.[F.187.b]
“Blessed Lord, a child of good family who is engaged in the practice of cultivating the perfection of wisdom does not think, ‘This is the desire realm,’ ‘This is the form realm,’ ‘This is the formless realm,’ up to, ‘This is the element of cessation.’37 Why is that? For thus, Blessed Lord, he does not observe any dharma whatsoever that is the dharma of cessation.38 Such cultivation, Blessed Lord, is to be known as the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“Furthermore, Blessed Lord, neither benefiting nor harming any dharma whatsoever is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. Blessed Lord, the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom is not a bestower of the dharmas of a buddha,[F.152.b] nor a severer of the dharmas of an ordinary person.39 Blessed Lord, when there is no cessation of the dharmas of an ordinary person and no attaining the dharmas of a buddha, it is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.”
When this was said, the Blessed One said to the youthful Mañjuśrī, “It is excellent, Mañjuśrī, excellent that you have taught such a profound Dharma as this. Mañjuśrī, you have placed this seal in order to cause bodhisattva mahāsattvas, those in the Śrāvaka Vehicle who are conceited, and those in the Bodhisattva Vehicle who engage in apprehension to realize how it really is.
“Mañjuśrī, the sons or daughters of good family who, upon hearing this teaching on the profound perfection of wisdom, will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear are not those who have reverently attended upon a single buddha, are not those who have planted wholesome roots with a single buddha.”40
When this was said, the youthful Mañjuśrī said to the Blessed One,[F.188.a] “Blessed Lord, I am inspired to teach extensively on the perfection of wisdom.”
“May you be so inspired, Mañjuśrī,” the Blessed One replied.
Mañjuśrī said, “Blessed Lord, neither apprehending the continuation of any dharma41 nor apprehending its noncontinuation is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. Why is that? One does not apprehend it because all dharmas do not continue. Blessed Lord, not approaching it in order to take as support42 any dharma whatsoever is to be known as the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. Why is that? For thus, Blessed Lord, all dharmas are without support.43 Such cultivation, Blessed Lord, is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“Furthermore, Blessed Lord, when even the dharmas of a buddha do not become manifest, let alone the dharmas of a pratyekabuddha, and when even the dharmas of a śrāvaka[F.153.a] do not become manifest, let alone the dharmas of an ordinary person, that should be seen as the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“Furthermore, Blessed Lord, the cultivation on which one depends, not conceptualizing even the inconceivable dharmas of the buddhas as ‘the inconceivable dharmas of the buddhas,’ is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. This cultivation of the perfection of wisdom, Blessed Lord, should be seen as the bodhisattva mahāsattvas’ nonconceptualization of any dharmas.
“Furthermore, Blessed Lord, the cultivation on which one depends and, without seeing, sees all dharmas as the dharmas of the buddhas and sees all dharmas as inconceivable dharmas is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.[F.188.b] The sons and daughters of good family who, upon hearing this teaching on the perfection of wisdom,44 will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear are those who have reverently attended upon many thousands of buddhas.
“Furthermore, Blessed Lord, not observing any dharma as that is defiled or purified is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom. When one cultivates in that way, Blessed Lord, it is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.
“And, Blessed Lord, the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom does not differentiate between ordinary people, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, or perfect buddhas. That, Blessed Lord, is the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom.”
The Blessed One then asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, how many tathāgatas have you reverently attended upon?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Blessed Lord, as many as an illusory person’s minds and mental factors that have ceased—that many tathāgatas, Blessed Lord, have I reverently attended upon.”
The Blessed One asked,[F.153.b] “Mañjuśrī, did you not set out for the dharmas of a buddha?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Is there, Blessed Lord, any dharma whatsoever that has set out for the dharmas of a buddha that can be apprehended?”
The Blessed One asked, “Who then, Mañjuśrī, has these dharmas of a buddha?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “If even for the Blessed One himself not even the names of these ‘dharmas of a buddha’ exist or are apprehended, how then could others come to have them?”
The Blessed One asked, “Mañjuśrī, have you attained the state of nonattachment?”
Mañjuśrī replied,[F.189.a] “Blessed Lord, when in fact I am the state of nonattachment, would I also attain the state of nonattachment?”
The Blessed One asked, “Are you seated, Mañjuśrī, at the seat of awakening?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “If one takes as the measure of authority45 the very limit of reality, when even the Blessed One himself is not seated at the seat of awakening, how then could I be?”46
The Blessed One asked, “Mañjuśrī, what does ‘the very limit of reality’ refer to?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Lord, ‘the very limit of reality’ refers to the perishing collection.”47
The Blessed One asked, “What do you mean, Mañjuśrī, when you say that?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Since that collection does not exist, Blessed Lord, it is not a perishing collection.48 It neither passes on nor is it free from passing on. Hence this collection is not a perishing collection.”
49Then the venerable Śāradvatīputra said to the Blessed One,[F.154.a] “Blessed Lord, those bodhisattva mahāsattvas who, upon hearing this teaching on the perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear—they will be destined for awakening.”
Then the bodhisattva mahāsattva Maitreya said to the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, those bodhisattva mahāsattvas who, upon hearing this teaching on the perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear—they will be close to awakening. Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, understanding50 these dharmas is itself supreme awakening.”
Then the youthful Mañjuśrī said to the Blessed One,[F.189.b] “Blessed Lord, those bodhisattva mahāsattvas who, upon hearing this teaching on the perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear—they should be seen as buddhas. Why is that? Because ‘buddha’ ultimately refers to nonarising.”
Then the woman51 Nirālambā said to the Blessed One, “Lord, those bodhisattva mahāsattvas who, upon hearing this perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear—they will not take as support the dharmas of ordinary people, the dharmas of śrāvakas, the dharmas of pratyekabuddhas, or the dharmas of perfect buddhas. Why is that? For thus, Blessed Lord, all dharmas are without support,52 because they do not exist. Hence there is no support for them.”
Thereupon the Blessed One said to the venerable Śāradvatīputra, “So it is, Śāradvatīputra, so it is. Those sons or daughters of good family who, upon hearing this teaching on the profound perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear—they will be destined for awakening. You should know, Śāradvatīputra, that those sons and daughters of good family who, upon hearing this teaching on the perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, will not fall into fear, and will receive it on the crown of their head—they will dwell on the level of irreversibility.
“Śāradvatīputra, those who,[F.154.b] upon hearing this teaching on the perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear—they will each become supreme benefactors, they will each become great benefactors, they will each become most excellent benefactors.
“Śāradvatīputra, they will each become accomplished in ethical conduct, they will each come to possess supreme ethical conduct,[F.190.a] they will each come to have the most excellent ethical conduct, they will each attain the path of the virtues of ethical conduct.
“Śāradvatīputra, those who, upon hearing this teaching on the perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear—they will each come to possess supreme patience, supreme diligence, supreme meditation, and supreme wisdom without equal.
“Śāradvatīputra, those bodhisattva mahāsattvas who, upon hearing this teaching on the perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, and will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear—they will each come to possess the knowledge of an omniscient one in all its excellent aspects.”
The Blessed One asked the youthful Mañjuśrī further, “What aim, Mañjuśrī, do you have in view as you wish to fully awaken to unsurpassed perfect awakening?”53
Mañjuśrī replied, “If, Blessed Lord, I had set out for awakening, I would thus wish to fully awaken to it.54 But I do not, Blessed Lord, aspire for awakening. Why is that? Because this youthful Mañjuśrī is in fact awakening.”
When this was said, the Blessed One said to the youthful Mañjuśrī, “It is excellent, Mañjuśrī, excellent, that you teach such very profound points as these. You have thus served past victorious ones and for a long time you have practiced the spiritual life55 without apprehending anything.”
Mañjuśrī said, “Blessed Lord, if I practiced without apprehending anything, a dharma[F.155.a] would be obtained.”
When this was said, the Blessed One asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, [F.190.b]“Do you see, Mañjuśrī, these accomplished śrāvakas of mine?” Mañjuśrī replied, “I see them, Blessed Lord.”
The Blessed One asked, “How56 do you see them?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “I see in such a way, Blessed Lord, that I do not see ordinary people, I do not see those who are in training, and I do not see those who are no longer in training – I neither see them, nor do I not see them. I see in such a way that I neither see many nor do I see few; I neither see those who are disciplined, nor do I see those who are undisciplined.”
Then the venerable Śāradvatīputra asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, when you see those who are in the Śrāvaka Vehicle in this way, then how do you see those who are in the Vehicle of Perfect Buddhas?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Venerable Śāradvatīputra, I do not observe any dharma called ‘bodhisattva.’ I do not observe any dharma called ‘set out for awakening.’ I do not observe any dharma called ‘practice for the sake of awakening.’ I do not observe any dharma called ‘fully awakened to it.’ In that way, venerable Śāradvatīputra, do I see those in the Vehicle of Perfect Buddhas.”
Śāradvatīputra then asked, “How, Mañjuśrī, do you see the Tathāgata?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Leave the great elephant be, venerable Śāradvatīputra. Do not disturb57 the great elephant.”
When this was said, the venerable Śāradvatīputra asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, what does ‘the Buddha’ refer to?”
Mañjuśrī said, “Venerable Śāradvatīputra, what does ‘the self’ refer to?”
Śāradvatīputra replied, “Mañjuśrī, ‘the self’ refers to nonarising.”[F.155.b]
Mañjuśrī said, “So it is, venerable Śāradvatīputra – ‘the self’ refers to that which ‘the Buddha’ refers to. Moreover, venerable Śāradvatīputra, ‘the Buddha’ is a referent without basis. It is difficult, venerable Śāradvatīputra, to make known ‘the Buddha’ through speech. If even speech, venerable Śāradvatīputra, is difficult to delineate as ‘speech,’ what to say, then, of ‘the Buddha’?
“Venerable Śāradvatīputra, you ask what it is that ‘the Buddha’ refers to. What does not really exist, has not arisen, and will not cease, what does not possess any dharma whatsoever – there is in that case no basis whatsoever, no basis for separation, what is baseless.59 This, venerable Śāradvatīputra, is what ‘the Buddha’ refers to.
“Venerable Śāradvatīputra, one who wants to search for the Tathāgata should search for the self. Venerable Śāradvatīputra, ‘the self’ refers to the Buddha. Just as the self is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended, just so the Buddha, too, is absolutely nonexistent and not apprehended. Just as the self cannot be spoken about by way of any dharma, just so the Buddha, too, cannot be spoken about by way of any dharma. That in which there is nothing to be reckoned60 is ‘the Buddha.’ The referential designation61 ‘the self,’ venerable Śāradvatīputra, is not easy to understand. Likewise, venerable Śāradvatīputra, the referential designation ‘the Buddha’ is not easy to understand.”
Then the venerable Śāradvatīputa said to the Blessed One, “Blessed Lord, this youthful Mañjuśrī does not teach in a way that beginners62 would understand.”
When this was said, the youthful Mañjuśrī said to the venerable Śāradvatīputra, “I do not teach the Dharma, venerable Śāradvatīputra, in a way that even realized arhats will understand.[F.156.a] I do not teach in a way that anyone will understand. Why is that? Because awakening has not been understood by anyone, it has not been cognized by anyone, it has not been fully realized by anyone, it has not been seen, it has not been heard, it has not been recollected, it has not been produced, it has not been obstructed, it has not been described, and it has not been taught. Awakening, venerable Śāradvatīputra, is like that. That awakening is not an entity. Why is that? Because there is nothing whatsoever to be fully awakened to by awakening, and awakening does not become fully awakened to awakening.”
Śāradvatīputra asked, “Mañjuśrī, did the Blessed One not become fully awakened to the dharmadhātu?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “He did not, venerable Śāradvatīputra.65 Why is that? Because, venerable Śāradvatīputra, the dharmadhātu is in fact the Blessed One. If, venerable Śāradvatīputra, the Blessed One were to have become fully awakened to the dharmadhātu, then it would be opposed to the element66 of nonarising.
“Venerable Śāradvatīputra, that dharmadhātu is in fact awakening. Why is that? Because the dharmadhātu is without any being. ‘All dharmas have no real existence’67 refers to awakening—it is this which is reckoned ‘the dharmadhātu.’ Why is that? Because all dharmas are without differentiation in the Buddha’s sphere of experience. ‘Without differentiation,’ venerable Śāradvatīputra, is without making anything known.68 ‘Without making anything known,’ venerable Śāradvatīputra, means not being able to make anything known—from not making anything known as being conditioned, up to not making anything known as being unconditioned. There is no making known anything whatsoever therein.[F.192.a] Hence it is without making anything known. All dharmas, venerable Śāradvatīputra, are without making anything known. Why is that? Because all dharmas are without arising, dwelling somewhere, and making themselves known.69
“Those who set out for the immediate[F.156.b] set out for the inconceivable. Those who set out for the inconceivable set out for reality.70 Why is that? Because ‘reality,’ venerable Śāradvatīputra, is not a basis for separation.
“Those who are endowed with the inconceivable71 do not go to the heavens, they do not go to the hells, and they do not go to nirvāṇa.72 Why is that? Because the inconceivable is not attended from by going or not going,73 up to is not attended by going or not going to nirvāṇa.
“Venerable Śāradvatīputra, those who are engaged in the four root offenses are engaged in the rootless. Why is that? Because, venerable Śāradvatīputra, nonarising does not have a so-called ‘root or tip.’ ‘Rootless monk’ refers to a nonabiding monk. ‘A dispute’ refers to surpassing superimposition.74 Conducting oneself in surpassing superimposition, venerable Śāradvatīputra, one is worthy of offerings in the world. Why is that? Because that surpassing superimposition is the same.75 A monk who has faith, venerable Śāradvatīputra, is not worthy to enjoy a gift given out of faith. A monk who has no faith, venerable Śāradvatīputra, is worthy to enjoy a gift given out of faith. A monk who is proper,76 venerable Śāradvatīputra, is not worthy to enjoy a gift given out of faith. A monk who is not proper, venerable Śāradvatīputra, is worthy to enjoy a gift given out of faith. A monk77 whose manner is unimpaired is called an ‘arhat whose contaminants are exhausted.’ ”[F.192.b]
Śāradvatīputra asked, “What do you mean, Mañjuśrī, when you say that?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Sameness does not impair sameness, and that is in fact the manner.78 That is what I mean, venerable Śāradvatīputra, when I say that a monk whose manner is unimpaired is called an ‘arhat whose contaminants are exhausted.’ ‘One who has not transcended fear,’ venerable Śāradvatīputra,[F.157.a] refers to an arhat whose contaminants are exhausted.”
Śāradvatīputra asked, “What do you mean, Mañjuśrī, when you say that?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “If even the slightest of their fears does not exist,79 what will they transcend?”80
Śāradvatīputra asked, “Mañjuśrī, who does ‘one for whom patient acceptance has not arisen’ refer to?”81
Mañjuśrī replied, “Venerable Śāradvatīputra, one who has not given rise to even the slightest dharma is called ‘one for whom patient acceptance has not arisen.’ ”82
Śāradvatīputra asked, “Mañjuśrī, who does ‘an undisciplined monk’ refer to?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Venerable Śāradvatīputra, ‘an undisciplined monk’ refers to an arhat whose contaminants are exhausted. Why is that? Because being undisciplined is being disciplined, but being disciplined is being undisciplined.83 That is what I mean, venerable Śāradvatīputra, when I say that ‘an undisciplined monk’ refers to an arhat whose contaminants are exhausted. Venerable Śāradvatīputra, ‘enjoys the higher mind’ refers to an ordinary person.”84
Śāradvatīputra asked, “What do you mean, Mañjuśrī, when you say that?”
Mañjuśrī said, “It is because, venerable Śāradvatīputra, that one surpasses.”85
When this was said, the venerable Śāradvatīputra said to the youthful Mañjuśrī, “It is excellent, Mañjuśrī, excellent that you speak about how an arhat is one whose contaminants are exhausted.”[F.193.a]
Mañjuśrī replied, “So it is, venerable Śāradvatīputra. It is just as you say. I am one whose contaminants are exhausted, yet I am not an arhat. Why is that? Because, venerable Śāradvatīputra, my hope for the level of a śrāvaka or the level of a pratyekabuddha has been exhausted. For that reason, venerable Śāradvatīputra, I am one whose contaminants are exhausted, yet I am not an arhat.”
Thereupon the Blessed One asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Is there any reason, Mañjuśrī, why a bodhisattva mahāsattva[F.157.b] would be seated at the seat of awakening but unable to become fully awakened to unsurpassed perfect awakening?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “There is, Blessed Lord, a reason why a bodhisattva mahāsattva would be seated at the seat of awakening but unable to become fully awakened to unsurpassed perfect awakening. Why is that? Because, in awakening, not even the slightest dharma86 exists nor is apprehended. Hence it is called ‘unsurpassed perfect awakening,’87 and that awakening is unarisen. Upon it, there is nothing that exists and nothing that is apprehended that is seated at the seat of awakening, or anyone who becomes fully awakened to awakening, or anything by which awakening is fully awakened to, or any awakening that is fully awakened to,88 or any rising from the seat of awakening. For this reason, Blessed Lord, a bodhisattva mahāsattva is seated at the seat of awakening but unable to become fully awakened to unsurpassed perfect awakening.”
When this was said, the Blessed One asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, what does ‘awakening’ refer to?”[F.193.b]
Mañjuśrī replied, “Blessed Lord, ‘awakening’ refers to the five acts with immediate retribution. Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, they have no real existence, those five acts with immediate retribution in fact have the nature of awakening. Hence89 that awakening has the nature of the five acts with immediate retribution. To fully realize the acts with immediate retribution is not awakening,90 and the direct perception of all dharmas is also not awakening. Why is that? Because all dharmas are absolutely not directly perceived. They are not fully realized by anyone—[F.158.a] they are not seen, they are not heard, they are not known, and they are not understood. Thus, it is awakening. However, Blessed Lord, those who are conceited posit them from having been fully awakened, to up to having been directly perceived.”
When this was said, the Blessed One asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Do you think of me, Mañjuśrī, by thinking ‘The Tathāgata is my tathāgata’?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “No, Blessed Lord. Why, Blessed Lord, would I think, ‘The Tathāgata is my tathāgata?’91 Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, thusness is the Tathāgata himself,92 so, Blessed Lord, thusness does not make the Tathāgata known, nor does the Tathāgata make thusness known. Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, thusness ultimately has no real existence, and the Tathāgata has no real existence. Therefore, Blessed Lord, I do not think,93 ‘The Tathāgata is my tathāgata.’ Blessed Lord, ‘tathāgata’ is just a name.[F.194.a] So in case I should think ‘The Tathāgata is my tathagata,’ what is the tathāgata?”
The Blessed One asked, “Do you have doubts, Mañjuśrī, about the Tathāgata?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “No, Blessed Lord. If, Blessed Lord, there were any perfect tathāgatas, whether tathāgatas who have arisen or tathāgatas who have attained parinirvāṇa, I would have doubts.”
When this was said, the Blessed One[F.158.b] asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Do you not think, Mañjuśrī, that the Tathāgata has arisen?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “If the dharmadhātu had an arising, Blessed Lord, I would think that the Tathāgata had arisen.”
The Blessed One asked, “Do you not believe, Mañjuśrī, that blessed buddhas as numerous as the grains of sand in the Ganges River have attained parinirvāṇa?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Blessed Lord, is it not94 that the blessed buddhas are a single sphere, as the inconceivable sphere?”95
The Blessed One said, “So it is, Mañjuśrī. The blessed buddhas are a single sphere, as the inconceivable sphere.”
Mañjuśrī asked, “Blessed Lord, is it now present?”
The Blessed One said, “So it is, Mañjuśrī.”
Mañjuśrī said, “Hence, Blessed Lord, those blessed buddhas, as numerous as the grains of sand in the Ganges River, have not attained parinirvāṇa. Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, the blessed buddhas are a single sphere, as the inconceivable sphere,[F.194.b] and inconceivability does not arise, nor does it cease. Therefore, Blessed Lord, with the Blessed One having fully awakened to it,96 those who will be tathāgatas, arhats, perfect buddhas in the future will also have fully awakened to it. Why is that? Because the inconceivable97 has no past, future, or present. Therefore, Blessed Lord, those who think from‘The Tathāgata has arisen,’ up to ‘He will attain parinirvāṇa’—their engagement with the world98 is erroneous.[F.159.a] Blessed Lord, they mentally proliferate engagement with the world.”
When this was said, the Blessed One then said to the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Hence, Mañjuśrī, when you speak before99 a tathagata, or an irreversible bodhisattva mahāsattva, or an arhat whose contaminants are exhausted, you should declare that tathāgatas are inconceivable, unthinkable, unfathomable,100 beyond thought.101 Why is that? Because, upon hearing it, they will neither praise nor reject it. Why is that? Because it is inconceivable, unthinkable, and unfathomable.”102
Mañjuśrī said, “Blessed Lord, all dharmas are inconceivable and unthinkable—who would praise or reject them?”
The Blessed One asked, “Mañjuśrī, just as the Tathāgata is unfathomable, are ordinary people also unfathomable?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Blessed Lord, ordinary people are also unfathomable.”
The Blessed One said, “So it is, Mañjuśrī.[F.195.a] Why is that? Because all thought is unfathomable.”103
Mañjuśrī said, “Blessed Lord, why is it that the Blessed One asked, ‘Just as the Tathāgata is unfathomable, are ordinary people also unfathomable? Blessed Lord, are not ordinary people in fact unfathomable? Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, all dharmas are unfathomable. If someone, Blessed Lord, has set out for nirvāṇa,104 they will be bereft,105 Blessed One. Why is that? Because[F.159.b] the unfathomable is in fact nirvāṇa. Therefore, Blessed Lord, there is no differentiation in the unfathomable. Blessed Lord, to those who say, ‘These are the dharmas of ordinary people,’ or, ‘These106 are the dharmas of noble ones,’ one should say this: ‘First you should reverently attend upon virtuous friends, and then you should come to know, “These are the dharmas of ordinary people,” or, “These are the dharmas of noble ones.” ’ ”
See the contributions by Daniel B. Stevenson (“The Four Kinds of Samādhi in Early T’ien-t’ai Buddhism”) and Bernard Faure (“The Concept of One-Practice Samādhi in Early Ch’an”) in Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism (Peter N. Gregory, ed., 1986). See also Wen Zhao’s “The eka-vyūha-samādhi in the Saptaśatikā Prajñāpāramitā” (2024).
Cf. Ledderose, Lothar and Yongbo Wang, eds. Buddhist Stone Sutras in China: Shandong Province, vol. 1, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2014.
The two full English translations were produced by Edward Conze (1963 and 1973) and the translation team headed by Garma C.C. Chang (1983). The partial English translation is found in the third volume of Paul Swanson’s translation of Zhiyi’s Mohezhiguan (Clear Serenity, Quiet Insight: T’ien-T’ai Chih-i’s Mo-Ho Chih-Kuan, 2017).
Following N and S: bsnyen bskur bgyi na; D: bsnyen bskur bgyi ba. The Narthang and Stok reading is preferable in connection with gal te at the beginning of the sentence.
All extant Sanskrit manuscripts except the Pāla manuscript here add yāvat paryupāsitavyaḥ, thus including—by implication—both of the other two verbs of the preceding passage. As with the Tibetan, Mantuoluo’s and Saṅghapāla’s Chinese translations indicate that their underlying Sanskrit only read draṣṭavyaḥ, “should be seen,” which is the reading of the Pāla manuscript. Xuanzang’s Chinese translation appears to lack this sentence altogether.
Throughout this passage, as in the preceding passages, the Tibetan reads de bzhin shegs pa la blta bar bgyi’o (“The Tathāgata is to be seen”), but all extant Sanskrit manuscripts, including the Pāla manuscript, have tathāgataṃ paśyāmi, “I see the Tathāgata.” In view of the statements made by Mañjuśrī in the passage immediately preceding the Buddha’s question, in which he emphasizes the way he sees the Tathāgata, the Sanskrit reading would be more natural here. All three Chinese translations also read “I see the Tathāgata.” Nevertheless, we have followed the Tibetan.
Following H, N, and S: dngos po ma mchis pa’i rnam pa’i bar du; D: dngos po ma mchis pa’i bar du. H, N, and S are in agreement with the Sanskrit yāvad abhāvākāreṇa.
This follows the reading in H, N, and S: ’das pa ma lags/ ma ’ongs pa ma lags/ da ltar byung ba ma lags te. D: ’das pa la ma lags/ ma ’ongs pa la ma lags/ da ltar byung ba la ma lags te.
All extant Sanskrit manuscripts lack an equivalent aviṣādayogena (or aviṣaṇṇayogena) for the Tibetan sgyid lug pa med pa’i tshul gyis (“by way of never being dispirited”), but the Pāla manuscript has a lacuna of about six akṣaras here. It might therefore have contained this word, especially in view of the fact that this manuscript does not have yāvad before abhāvayogena, which is likewise absent in the Tibetan translation (as well as in the citations in the commentaries).
Following H, N, and S: ji ltar; D: ’di ltar. The H, N, and S reading is in agreement with the Sanskrit kathaṃ.
The Tibetan here is sems can sems can ma yin pa’i phyir, though none of the extant Sanskrit manuscripts appear to have this phrase here. However, two of the Sanskrit manuscripts (T4 and C2) here read sattvāt sacet, which might be a later corrupted reading of an earlier sattvāsattvāt that possibly underlies the Tibetan rendering. It should be noted, however, that this phrase in the Sanskrit could have been an added gloss. See also the following note.
The two oldest Sanskrit manuscripts (P and T4) here again lack an equivalent sattvāsattvāt for the Tibetan sems can sems can ma yin pa’i phyir. However, the Kyōto manuscript here reads satvāt satvāt and in one of the later manuscripts (C1) we find the reading sattvāsattvāt, which might also be translated as “because beings have no existence.”
This section, where the perfection of wisdom is first introduced, up to “Lord, when it is attended by an accumulation or depletion of any dharma, one should know it is not the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom,” is cited, without significant variations, in the Sūtrasamuccaya (Toh 3934, F.199.a.3–6).
Following H, N, and S: mi gnas pa la shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa sgom du yang/’ang ci yod; D: mi gnas pa la shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa la sgom du yang ci yod.
Following H, N, S, and Y: gang gi tshe shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa sgom pa; D: gang gi tshe shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa la sgom pa.
Following H, N, and S: de’i tshe khyod kyi dge ba’i rtsa ba gang ’phel ba’am ’bri bar ’gyur; D: de’i tshe khyod kyis dge ba’i rtsa ba ’phel ba’am ’bri bar ’gyur. The H, N, and S reading is in better agreement with the Sanskrit katarat te kuśalamūlaṃ tasmin samaya upacayaṃ gacchaty apacayaṃ vā.
Following H, N, S, and U: gang la; D: gang las. The former reading is in better agreement with the Sanskrit yasya.
“Approaching” renders the Tibetan nye bar gnas pa. Our Sanskrit edition reads pratyupasthitā. Above, the same word was rendered “established.”
This follows the reading in S: mi dmigs pas; D: dmigs pas. The Comparative Edition reports no variants here, but in context the reading in S is preferable.
What we have here in the Sanskrit is an instance of wordplay between agrāhya (“ungraspable”) and agrā (“superior”).
D: zhes bgyi ba mchis sam; H, N, and S: zhes bgyi ba mchis lags sam. Our Sanskrit edition reads prajñāyate, in which case the translation would be “Blessed Lord, does emptiness have any superior or inferior that one can discern?”
Our Sanskrit edition includes bhagavan here, which we might expect, given the pattern established in the text thus far, but which is missing from all the Tibetan versions consulted.
In the Sanskrit we have here another instance of wordplay between aṇu (literally “atom” but here rendered “slightest,” following the Tibetan cung zad) and anuttara (“unsurpassed”). The common adjective anuttara, the etymology of which is anuttara, “without anything higher,” is thus read as the pun anuttara, “passing beyond atoms.” This particular pun also occurs in the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā (Toh 16, F.130.b).
“Training in” renders the Tibetan ’dul ba. In our Sanskrit edition, this corresponds to vinayitrī.
In the last two phrases, the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom—in Sanskrit prajñāpāramitābhāvanā, a word of feminine gender—is personified through the use of the feminine agent nouns vinayitrī (“one who guides”) and saṃdhārayitrī (“one who holds,” “one who keeps in check”). The entire passage is thus suggestive of a motherly image.
Following H and S: sems lags so; D: sems pa lags so; N: mi sems lags so (“I would not think about”). The Tibetan here omits rendering the Sanskrit no bhagavan, “No, Blessed Lord,” which is present in all the extant Sanskrit manuscripts. The Narthang reading appears to preserve a rendering of the Sanskrit negation no, though erroneously taken with the verb cintayeyam. It seems that the negation mi was removed by later editors in order to convey the proper meaning.
Note that “realm” renders the Tibetan khams and “element” renders the Tibetan dbyings, but these render the same underlying Sanskrit word, dhatu.
Following D: ’di ltar des; S: ’di ltar de. The citation in Vimalamitra’s commentary reads des, whereas Kamalaśīla cites this with de. The Tibetan rendering appears to be based on a Sanskrit reading that is attested in the Kyōto manuscript, tathā hi sa bhagavan na kaṃcid dharmaṃ yan nirodhadharmaṃ samanupaśyati. All the other Sanskrit manuscripts, including the Pāla manuscript, read tathā hi sa bhagavan na kaścid dharmo yo nirodhadharmaṃ samanupaśyati, which translates quite differently, referring to the absence of both subject and object: “For thus, Blessed Lord, there is not any dharma that observes the dharma of cessation.”
Again here, the cultivation of the perfection of wisdom is personified, this time with the feminine agent nouns dātrī (“one who gives” or “bestower”) and ācchetrī (“one who cuts off” or “severer”).
Several Sanskrit manuscripts (T4, C1, and C2) here add: “Rather, Mañjuśrī, it will be those who have planted wholesome roots with thousands of buddhas who, after hearing this teaching on the profound perfection of wisdom, will be firmly convinced, will not be frightened, will not be terrified, and will not fall into fear.” The Pāla and Kyōto manuscripts lack this sentence, as is the case in the Tibetan translation.
Following H, N, and S: chos gang gi; D: chos gang gis. The reading in H, N, and S reflects the Sanskrit kasyacid dharmasya found in our Sanskrit edition.
“Without support” renders the Tibetan dmigs pa ma mchis pa (Sanskrit nirālamba). Note that there is wordplay here that is lost in translation, since “apprehend” also renders dmigs pa.
Following H, N, and S: shes rab kyi rol tu phyin pa bstan pa ’di; D: shes rab kyi rol tu phyin pa ’di bstan pa ’di D. The reading in H, N, and S is in agreement with the Sanskrit imaṃ prajñāpāramitānirdeśaṃ.
Following D and S: brtsan par bgyis na; N: brtsen par bgyis na; Q: brtsun par bgyis na; U: brtson par bgyis na. Of these variants, the Degé and Stok reading appears to best approximate the Sanskrit pramāṇīkṛtya, as found in our Sanskrit edition. Note, though, that the Sanskrit pramāṇa is usually translated into Tibetan as tshad.
The Tibetan here reads lta mchis par ji ltar ’gyur. Note that all extant Sanskrit manuscripts except the Kyōto manuscript read niṣatsyāmi.
The Tibetan ’jig tshogs renders the Sanskrit satkāya, which is here probably used in two ways: in its technical sense as the “perishing collection” (the literal meaning of the Tibetan) of physical and mental components with respect to which an autonomous, permanent self is mistakenly projected, but also, more literally (and perhaps more provocatively), as a “real body” (the most literal meaning of the Sanskrit). In the following passage, too, both interpretations appear to be drawn upon.
In view of the second of the two possible interpretations of the Sanskrit satkāya, one could also translate this sentence as: “Since the body does not exist, Blessed Lord, it is not a real body.” The same goes for the last sentence in this paragraph: “Hence this body is not a real body.”
The following three statements by Śāriputra, Maitreya, and Mañjuśrī are cited in the Sūtrasamuccaya (Toh 3934, F.205.b.5–7, without significant differences).
This follows the reading in S: rjes su rtogs pa. D reads rjes su mi rtog, while H and N read rjes su mi rtogs. The negation mi has no equivalent in any of the extant Sanskrit manuscripts, which all read anubodhanā (as the Tibetan rjes su rtogs pa reflects). It is also not found in the citations by Vimalamitra (F.32.b.7) and Kamalaśīla (F.114.b.1), which both read rjes su rtogs pa.
This renders the Tibetan sring mo (Sanskrit bhaginī), which literally means “sister,” but can also be used to refer to a woman in general.
Following D: mngon par rdzogs par ’tshang rgya bar ’dod; H, N, and S: mngon par rdzogs par ’tshang rgya bar mi ’dod (“as you do not wish to fully awaken to unsurpassed perfect awakening”). The Sanskrit saṃpaśyann icchasi that might underlie the Degé reading is attested in one of the earlier Sanskrit manuscripts (T4) as well as the later manuscripts (C1 and C2). It makes better sense here in view of the preceding passage in which several possible “aims” or “goals” (Sanskrit arthavaśa) for aspiring bodhisattvas are laid out. The Stok reading with the negation mi, however, finds testimony in the Pāla and Kyōto manuscripts, which here read saṃpaśyan necchasy, but this variant reading probably derives from an erroneous scribal emendation based on a misinterpretation of the sandhi-duplicated n in saṃpaśyann icchasy.
We have followed the syntax of the Sanskrit, per our edition, in this passage. The Tibetan reads ’tshal na, thus suggesting that the sentence continues with what follows, but the Sanskrit evam aham iccheyam abhisaṃboddhuṃ here simply forms one sentence with the preceding conditional clause starting with saced.
“Practiced the spiritual life” renders the Tibetan tshangs par spyod pa (Sanskrit brahmacarya). This can also refer more specifically to the practice of maintaining celibacy.
The Tibetan reads ji ltar ci ’dra bar. Both ji ltar and ci ’dra ba can be rendered “how.” Our Sanskrit edition simply reads kathaṃ, which the Tibetan ji ltar reflects.
This renders the Tibetan bskyod. Our Sanskrit edition reads ghaṭṭaya, which suggests a reading such as “touch” or “rub.”
Following H and N: shes par bya bar; S: shes par byar; D: shes par bya.
“No basis whatsoever, no basis for separation, what is baseless” renders the Tibetan gzhi ci yang med cing gzhi dbyer med la gzhi med pa.
“That in which there is nothing to be reckoned” renders the Tibetan gang la grangs su bya ba med pa de. In our Sanskrit edition, what corresponds to the Tibetan grangs is saṃkhyā.
“Referential designation” renders the Tibetan gzhi’i tshig bla dags. Note that tshig bla dags on its own has been rendered by “refer” or “refers.”
Several Sanskrit manuscripts (T4, C1, and C2) here read ādikarmikā bodhisattvā, “beginner bodhisattvas.” The Tibetan is in agreement with the Sanskrit reading ādikarmikā of the Pāla and Kyōto manuscripts.
D: ma bskyed ma bkag; H and N: ma skyes ma ’gag; S: ma skyes ma ’gags. The variant reading would be translated “it has not arisen, it has not ceased.”
Several Sanskrit manuscripts (T4, C1, and C2) here add nāpy abhāvaḥ, “nor a nonentity.”
Several Sanskrit manuscripts (T4, C1, and C2) here read na bhadanta śāradvatīputra bhagavatā dharmadhātur abhisaṃbuddhaḥ, “Venerable Śāradvatīputra, the Blessed One did not become fully awakened to the dharmadhātu.”
Here “real existence” renders the Tibetan ngo bo nyid, which typically renders the Sanskrit svabhāva. Our Sanskrit edition reads abhāva here, however, which is often rendered in Tibetan by dngos pa med pa or, as below, by dngos po ma mchis pa.
We have followed the Tibetan rnam par rig pa med pa’o, which is in agreement with the Sanskrit reading avijñaptikam of the Kyōto manuscript. The other Sanskrit manuscripts, including the Pāla manuscript, here add -padam, thus avijñaptikapadam, “a phrase (or state) without cognitive intimation.” It should be noted that in the next line, in which the word is then taken up, all Sanskrit manuscripts read avijñaptikam iti.
“Without arising, dwelling somewhere and making themselves known” renders the Tibetan gang la gnas te rnam par rig par ’gyur ba’i skye ba med pa.
While the citations in both commentaries are in accordance with the Kangyur reading, all the extant Sanskrit manuscripts here read acintyadharmasamanvāgatāḥ, “endowed with inconceivable qualities,” an expression that recurs further on in the sūtra (rendered as bsam gyis mi khyab pa’i chos dang ldan pa; F.159.b). Note that the literal meaning of the Sanskrit -samanvāgata as “having come together with” is drawn upon in the following statements about the absence of going and coming.
Here and in the following sentence most extant Sanskrit manuscripts, including the Pāla manuscript, read parinirvāṇa. The Kyōto manuscript has nirvāṇa here but then parinirvāṇa in the next sentence. The citations in both commentaries, however, accord with the Kangyur reading mya ngan las ’das pa (nirvāṇa).
“Going or not going” renders the Tibetan ’gro ba dang mi ’gro ba. Our Sanskrit edition here reads gamanāgamanena, which can mean “by going and coming.”
This renders the Tibetan rtsod pa byung ba zhes by aba de nil hag par sgro ’dogs pa zhes bya ba’i tshig bla dags so. The underlying Sanskrit here appears to involve a wordplay on adhikaraṇa (Tibetan rtsod pa byung ba), a term that is used for a legal case or dispute requiring formal adjudication, such as the case of a monk who has committed one of the four root offenses, but which more literally can mean “putting over” or “placing above.” The adverb adhika in the compound adhikasamāropa (lhag par sgro ’dogs pa) also appears to be used with two simultaneous meanings: (1) negatively as “excessive,” with the provocative implication that the bringing up of a severe Vinaya case is just another instance of “adding to” or superimposing onto reality; and (2) positively as “being greater than” or “superior to,” with the compound adhikasamāropa, referring to the state of being beyond superimposition. The choice of “surpassing” is an attempt to capture both these meanings in English.
S: ’di ltar mnyam pa de la lhag par sgro btags pa’i phyir ro; D: ’di ltar mnyam pa la lhag par sgro ’dogs pa’i phyir ro. The Stok reading corresponds to the Sanskrit tathā hi samaḥ so ’dhikasamāropaḥ. However, in both readings the Sanskrit samaḥ is wrongly rendered as the subject in this sentence rather than the predicate. Kamalaśīla (F.125.a.3) follows the reading of the Kangyur translation, but in Vimalamitra’s commentary (F.42.b.5–6) this sentence is correctly rendered as ’di ltar lhag par sgro ’dogs pa de ni mnyam pa yin pa’i phyir ro. This is the reading we have adopted here. In the Sanskrit we have a pun on the prefixes sam-ā of samāropa, “superimposition,” here associatively brought into connection with the word sama, “same,” in reference to the sameness of all phenomena.
“Proper” renders the Tibetan rung ba can. The underlying Sanskrit here may contain a pun on the word kalpiko, which in a Vinaya context typically refers to what is “fit” or “proper” for a monastic in a given situation, but which here might be playfully taken as an adjectival form suggestive of the verb kalpayati, “conceptualize,” thus describing someone who is “conceptual” or “full of conceptualizations.” The negated form akalpiko (“not proper”) in the next sentence may likewise suggest “nonconceptual” or “devoid of conceptualizations.”
Following H, N, and S: dge slong ni; D: dge slong de ni. All extant Sanskrit manuscripts lack a demonstrative pronoun here.
The Tibetan here reads mnyam pa nyid gang mnyam pa nyid yang dag par ’joms par mi byed pa de nyid tshul yin te. Our Sanskrit edition, by contrast, reads na samatā samupahatā samatā caiva sā netrī (“Sameness is not impaired, and it is sameness that is the manner”).
Following H, N, and S: de’i; D: de. Our Sanskrit edition reads tasya, which agrees with the reading in H, N, and S.
Here our Sanskrit edition contains a line we might expect, given the previous: “That is what I mean, venerable Śāradvatīputra, when I say that ‘one who has not transcended fear’ refers to an arhat whose contaminants are exhausted.”
There may be a play on words here. “One for whom acceptance has not arisen” renders the Tibetan ma skyes pa’i bzod pa can (Sanskrit anutpannakṣāntika). Here we have read this colloquially as referring to someone who has no patience, after the previous mention of someone who has not transcended fear. In Mañjuśrī’s reply, however, there is a pun on this that refers instead to “one who has acceptance of nonarising,” the more natural way to read ma skyes pa’i bzod pa can (Sanskrit anutpannakṣāntika).
Here we appear to have another wordplay in the Sanskrit between “slightest” (aṇu, literally “atom”) and “not arisen” (or “unarisen,” anutpanna). The same wordplay occurs a few passages later (F.157.b), where it immediately follows the one with anuttara.
Here our Sanskrit edition reads avinayo hi vinīto na vinayo vinītaḥ. The Tibetan reads ma dul ba ni dul la dul ba ni ma dul bas.
In all extant Sanskrit manuscripts except the Pāla manuscript this sentence is preceded by Śāradvatīputra asking, “Mañjuśrī, who does ‘enjoys the higher mind’ refer to?” The Tibetan is in agreement with the Pāla manuscript in lacking this question. When Mañjuśrī provocatively states that it refers to an “ordinary person,” he might also be drawing on the literal meaning of pṛthagjana as a “person” (jana) who is “separate” or “distinct” (pṛthak).
Following H and N: des lhag par byed pa; D: de la lhag par byed pa; S: de dag lhag par byed pa. The citations by Vimalamitra (F.44.b.5) and Kamalaśīla (F.126.b.2) both read de lhag par byed pa. In our edition the Sanskrit here is so ’dhikaroti, which can be interpreted in a number of different ways, probably intentionally so. Vimalamitra takes it as describing ordinary people who “make it higher” (i.e., they bring their mind to the state of samādhi) and then abide in it (so so’i skye bo de dag lhag par byed cing gnas par byed de). Kamalaśīla explains it as referring to the act of adhering to a “higher” self and imputing it onto the mind (lhag par byed pa ni sems nyid la lhag par bdag tu mngon par zhen nas tha snyad byed do zhes bya ba’i bar du yin no). Both of them thus take the phrase as plainly describing the erroneous mental activity of ordinary people who make something higher or superior. However, it is also possible, given the paradoxical statements of the preceding as well as the earlier pun on adhikaraṇa, that the Sanskrit verb adhikaroti, literally “to do or act (karoti) above (adhi-),” is here used in the positive sense of “surpassing.” Taken in this way, the statement refers to the realized “ordinary person” who “thus” (tathā), through understanding sameness, transcends the notion of a higher mind, and to someone who superiorly conducts themselves in it (i.e., the arhat). Paradoxically, this person who “surpasses” is thereby in fact “one who conducts themselves in the higher mind,” just like Mañjuśrī himself (without being an arhat, as he is about to say). This understanding of this sentence finds support in Xuanzang’s rendering of this passage (T. 220f, 968a5–9).
Again here, we likely have wordplay in the underlying Sanskrit with “slightest” (aṇu, literally “atom”) and with “unsurpassed” (anuttara), which is also found in the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā (Toh 16, F.130.b). In this case the wordplay is extended to “unarisen” (anutpanna), the central term of this sūtra.
The Tibetan agrees with Sanskrit manuscripts T4 and C2 in containing this subclause, but it is lacking in the Pāla and Kyōto manuscripts as well in the other Cambridge manuscript (C1).
Following H, N, and S: de’i slad du; D: de ci’i slad du zhe na /. The H, N, and S reading is in agreement with the Sanskrit tena.
The Pāla manuscript also contains this negation (“is not awakening”), but it is lacking in the other manuscripts (Ky, T4, C1, and C2). Vimalamitra makes mention of both readings in his commentary (F.46.a), though without choosing one over the other. However, the reading with the negation must be the original one, considering the statement made at the end of this passage about those who claim that dharmas are fully awakened to.
Because it fits the context better as a rhetorical question, we have here followed the Sanskrit reading tat kasmād dhetoḥ yena me bhagavann evaṃ bhavet that is found in manuscripts Ky and T4. The Tibetan here reads de ci’i slad du zhe na/ bcom ldan ’das ’di ltar de bzhin gshegs pa ni bdag gi de bzhin gshegs pa’o snyam du mi sems pa’i slad du’o (“Why is that? Because, Blessed Lord, I do not think ‘The Tathāgata is my tathāgata.’ ”). The Tibetan has taken the phrase tat kasmād dhetoḥ in the Sanskrit as a standalone question, which as such is used throughout the text, even just in the next sentence. But the Sanskrit yena, rendered as ’di ltar in the Tibetan, is here used as an adverb connecting the question (tat kasmād dhetoḥ) with the following clause (me bhagavann evaṃ bhavet). It appears, however, that at some point in the transmission of the Sanskrit text, this rhetorical question was not properly understood and erroneously emended, as attested in the Pāla manuscript, which reads bhagavan naivaṃ bhavet instead of bhagavann evaṃ bhavet (probably due to the sandhi-based duplicated n). This erroneous emendation with the negation underlies both the Tibetan mi sems pa and the rendering in Xuanzang’s Chinese translation. The two later Sanskrit manuscripts (C1 and C2) contain another erroneous emendation of yena to na, which then makes for a double negation.
“Thusness is the Tathāgata himself” renders the Tibetan de bzhin nyid ni de bzhin gshegs pa nyid. For this sentence, the extant Sanskrit manuscripts have different readings that bear the signs of scribal emendation: the Pāla and Kyōto manuscripts just read tathā caiva tathatā (without tathāgata); T4 reads tathā caiva tathatā eṣā ca tathatā tathā caiṣā tathāgataḥ; C1 tathā caiva tathatā ca yathā ca tathatā tathā caiṣa tathāgatas; and C2 tathā caivaṃ tathatā caivaṃ tathatā ca yathā ca tathatā tathā caiṣa tathāgatas. On the basis of the Tibetan rendering ’di ltar de bzhin nyid ni de bzhin gshegs pa nyid de, which is how this sentence is cited both by Vimalamitra (F.47.a.5) and Kamalaśīla (F.129.a.1), we would propose to emend the Sanskrit to tathā caiva tathatā, tathā caiva tathāgataḥ. However, considering that this sentence is lacking in all three Chinese translations, it might very well be that this sentence in its entirety is the result of an early erroneous scribal duplication of the first words of the following sentence, tathā hi bhagavan. Throughout the sūtra, these words usually follow immediately after the question tat tasmād dhetoḥ, “Why is that?”, as is the case with the next occurrence of this phrase in this passage.
Following D: snyam du mi sems so; H, N, and S: snyam du mi dmigs so. The Degé reading is in better agreement with the Sanskrit na me evaṃ bhavati.
All extant Sanskrit manuscripts lack a negation and instead start this sentence with kaścit (“is it that?”).
D: bcom ldan ’das nyid kyis mngon par rdzogs par sangs rgyas na; S: bcom ldan ’das nyid kyis mngon par rdzogs par sangs rgyas nas. On the basis of the Tibetan rendering the Sanskrit can here be reconstructed as bhagavataivābhisaṃbuddhena (the Pāla manuscript reads bhagava(tais cchayā) bhisaṃbuddhena; T4 and Ky bhagavato vābhisaṃbuddhena; C1, C2, and N1 read bhagavann evābhisaṃbuddhena).
The Tibetan here just reads bsam gyis mi khyab pa (“the inconceivable”), but the extant Sanskrit has acintyatā, “inconceivability,” which is also the underlying reading of the preceding instance of bsam gyis mi kyab pa nyid.
“Engagement with the world” renders the Tibetan ’jig rten gnas pa. Our Sanskrit edition reads lokasaṃniveśa.
A term for the five grave misdeeds that lead to immediate karmic retribution upon death (or instantly, as was the case for Devadatta), in the form of falling into the lowest of hell. These five actions are: (1) killing one’s mother; (2) killing one’s father; (3) killing an arhat; (4) causing a buddha to bleed; (5) causing a schism in the monastic order.
This was an important early site for the Buddha’s growing community. Anāthapiṇḍada, a wealthy patron of the Buddha, purchased the park, located outside Śrāvastī, at great cost, purportedly covering the ground with gold, and donated it to the saṅgha. It was there that the Buddha spent several rainy seasons and gave discourses that were later recorded as sūtras. It was also the site for one of the first Buddhist monasteries. (Provisional 84000 definition. New definition forthcoming.)
“One Who Does Not Drop His Duty.” A bodhisattva also in attendance in the
According to Buddhist tradition, one who is worthy of worship (pūjām arhati), or one who has conquered the enemies, the mental afflictions (kleśa-ari-hata-vat), and reached liberation from the cycle of rebirth and suffering. It is the fourth and highest of the four fruits attainable by śrāvakas. Also used as an epithet of the Buddha.
“One Who Has Unimpeded Eloquence.” An otherwise unknown bodhisattva.
A type of nonhuman being whose precise status is subject to different views, but is included as one of the six classes of beings in the sixfold classification of realms of rebirth. In the Buddhist context, asuras are powerful beings said to be dominated by envy, ambition, and hostility. They are also known in the pre-Buddhist and pre-Vedic mythologies of India and Iran, and feature prominently in Vedic and post-Vedic Brahmanical mythology, as well as in the Buddhist tradition. In these traditions, asuras are often described as being engaged in interminable conflict with the devas (gods).
In Buddhist literature, this is an epithet applied to buddhas, most often to Śākyamuni. The Sanskrit term generally means “possessing fortune,” but in specifically Buddhist contexts it implies that a buddha is in possession of six auspicious qualities (bhaga) associated with complete awakening. The Tibetan term—where bcom is said to refer to “subduing” the four māras, ldan to “possessing” the great qualities of buddhahood, and ’das to “going beyond” saṃsāra and nirvāṇa—possibly reflects the commentarial tradition where the Sanskrit bhagavat is interpreted, in addition, as “one who destroys the four māras.” This is achieved either by reading bhagavat as bhagnavat (“one who broke”), or by tracing the word bhaga to the root √bhañj (“to break”).
A being who is dedicated to the cultivation and fulfilment of the altruistic intention to attain perfect buddhahood, traversing the ten bodhisattva levels (daśabhūmi, sa bcu). Bodhisattvas purposely opt to remain within cyclic existence in order to liberate all sentient beings, instead of simply seeking personal freedom from suffering. In terms of the view, they realize both the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena.
Literally, “to flow” or “to ooze.” Mental defilements or contaminations that “flow out” toward the objects of cyclic existence, binding us to them. Vasubandhu offers two alternative explanations of this term: “They cause beings to remain (āsayanti) within saṃsāra” and “They flow from the Summit of Existence down to the Avīci hell, out of the six wounds that are the sense fields” (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya 5.40; Pradhan 1967, p. 308). The Summit of Existence (bhavāgra, srid pa’i rtse mo) is the highest point within saṃsāra, while the hell called Avīci (mnar med) is the lowest; the six sense fields (āyatana, skye mched) here refer to the five sense faculties plus the mind, i.e., the six internal sense fields.
The Sanskrit
The lower of the three realms of cyclic existence. It comprises the modes of existence characterized by desire and sense pleasure (
The term dharma conveys ten different meanings, according to Vasubandhu’s Vyākhyāyukti. The primary meanings are as follows: the doctrine taught by the Buddha (Dharma); the ultimate reality underlying and expressed through the Buddha’s teaching (Dharma); the trainings that the Buddha’s teaching stipulates (dharmas); the various awakened qualities or attainments acquired through practicing and realizing the Buddha’s teaching (dharmas); qualities or aspects more generally, i.e., phenomena or phenomenal attributes (dharmas); and mental objects (dharmas).
An early term used to denote the Buddha’s teaching. “Dharma” refers to the sūtras and “Vinaya” to the rules of discipline.
The fourth of the five eyes, the five superior levels of vision experienced by realized beings, the other four being the physical eye (
Interpreted variously—given the many connotations of both
The term can mean “teachings of the Buddha” or “buddha qualities.” In the latter sense, it is sometimes used as a general term, and sometimes it refers to sets such as the ten strengths, the four fearlessnesses, the four discernments, the eighteen distinct qualities of a buddha, and so forth; or, more specifically, to another set of eighteen: the ten strengths; the four fearlessnesses; mindfulness of body, speech, and mind; and great compassion.
The liberative experience of the cessation of karmic formations (
The Tibetan, like the Sanskrit, literally means “confidence” or “courage” but in the Buddhist sūtras it refers specifically to inspired speech, to being perfectly eloquent in expressing the Dharma.
A virtuous person or community who, in receiving food and material support, provide benefactors the opportunity to plant wholesome seeds that will yield karmic benefit in the future.
The middle of the three realms of cyclic existence. It comprises a total of seventeen heavens directly above the heavens of the desire realm, in which the gods only have a subtle “material form” (
The highest of the three realms of cyclic existence. It comprises the four highest kinds of heavens that are entirely “formless” or “immaterial” (
A class of generally benevolent nonhuman beings who inhabit the skies, sometimes said to inhabit fantastic cities in the clouds, and more specifically to dwell on the eastern slopes of Mount Meru, where they are ruled by the Great King Dhṛtarāṣṭra. They are most renowned as celestial musicians who serve the gods. In the Abhidharma, the term is also used to refer to the mental body assumed by sentient beings during the intermediate state between death and rebirth. Gandharvas are said to live on fragrances (gandha) in the desire realm, hence the Tibetan translation dri za, meaning “scent eater.”
The second lowest heaven in the desire realm, located on Mount Meru and ruled over by Indra, the lord of the thirty-three gods who dwell there.
A term that refers to the training in higher meditative concentration (
The eighth level (
The name of the grove to the south of the city of Śrāvastī that was gifted to the Buddha and the monastic community by the wealthy merchant Anāthapiṇḍada. He purchased the grove from its owner, Prince Jeta, by covering almost the entire ground with gold coins. Impressed by Anāthapiṇḍada’s devotion, Prince Jeta donated the remaining part and had a large gate built there with the sum of Anāthapiṇḍada’s gold coins.
The name of a coin in ancient India, which translates as “weighing one
One of the arhat disciples of the Buddha, known for his austerity and asceticism.
One of the arhat disciples of the Buddha, known for his ability to expound in further detail any of the Buddha’s brief teachings.
One of the arhat disciples of the Buddha, known for his analytical knowledge and discernment.
The “great”
One of the two chief disciples of the Buddha, known for his mastery in supernormal powers.
Literally, “great being.” An epithet of a bodhisattva.
The bodhisattva Maitreya is an important figure in many Buddhist traditions, where he is unanimously regarded as the buddha of the future era. He is said to currently reside in the heaven of Tuṣita, as Śākyamuni’s regent, where he awaits the proper time to take his final rebirth and become the fifth buddha in the Fortunate Eon, reestablishing the Dharma in this world after the teachings of the current buddha have disappeared. Within the Mahāyāna sūtras, Maitreya is elevated to the same status as other central bodhisattvas such as Mañjuśrī and Avalokiteśvara, and his name appears frequently in sūtras, either as the Buddha’s interlocutor or as a teacher of the Dharma. Maitreya literally means “Loving One.” He is also known as Ajita, meaning “Invincible.”
For more information on Maitreya, see, for example, the introduction to Maitreya’s Setting Out (Toh 198).
One of the five trees of Indra’s paradise, its heavenly flowers often rain down in salutation of the buddhas and bodhisattvas and are said to be very bright and aromatic, gladdening the hearts of those who see them. In our world, it is a tree native to India,
Mañjuśrī is one of the “eight close sons of the Buddha” and a bodhisattva who embodies wisdom. He is a major figure in the Mahāyāna sūtras, appearing often as an interlocutor of the Buddha. In his most well-known iconographic form, he is portrayed bearing the sword of wisdom in his right hand and a volume of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtra in his left. To his name, Mañjuśrī, meaning “Gentle and Glorious One,” is often added the epithet Kumārabhūta, “having a youthful form.” He is also called Mañjughoṣa, Mañjusvara, and Pañcaśikha.
“Without Basis.” The name of a woman, presumably a bodhisattva, present in the assembly during Mañjuśrī’s teaching on the perfection of wisdom. Elsewhere it is also used as an epithet of the goddess Prajñāpāramitā herself.
A designation for the four types of beings who have attained direct insight into the nature of reality: (1) the śrāvaka who has attained stream-entry (
This refers to what occurs at the end of an arhat’s or a buddha’s life. When nirvāṇa is attained at awakening, whether as an arhat or buddha, all suffering, afflicted mental states (kleśa), and causal processes (karman) that lead to rebirth and suffering in cyclic existence have ceased, but due to previously accumulated karma, the aggregates of that life remain and must still exhaust themselves. It is only at the end of life that these cease, and since no new aggregates arise, the arhat or buddha is said to attain parinirvāṇa, meaning “complete” or “final” nirvāṇa. This is synonymous with the attainment of nirvāṇa without remainder (anupadhiśeṣanirvāṇa).
According to the Mahāyāna view of a single vehicle (ekayāna), the arhat’s parinirvāṇa at death, despite being so called, is not final. The arhat must still enter the bodhisattva path and reach buddhahood (see Unraveling the Intent, Toh 106, 7.14.) On the other hand, the parinirvāṇa of a buddha, ultimately speaking, should be understood as a display manifested for the benefit of beings; see The Teaching on the Extraordinary Transformation That Is the Miracle of Attaining the Buddha’s Powers (Toh 186), 1.32.
The term parinirvāṇa is also associated specifically with the passing away of the Buddha Śākyamuni, in Kuśinagara, in northern India.
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.”
Literally, “perfectly and fully awakened one.” A being who has attained perfect awakening and who teaches the Dharma to others accordingly. An epithet of the Buddha.
A term that refers to the totality of impermanent physical and mental components with which an individual wrongly identifies in terms of a personal self. It is through the abandonment of “the view of the perishing collection” (
Literally, “buddha for oneself” or “solitary realizer.” Someone who, in his or her last life, attains awakening entirely through their own contemplation, without relying on a teacher. Unlike the awakening of a fully realized buddha (samyaksambuddha), the accomplishment of a pratyekabuddha is not regarded as final or ultimate. They attain realization of the nature of dependent origination, the selflessness of the person, and a partial realization of the selflessness of phenomena, by observing the suchness of all that arises through interdependence. This is the result of progress in previous lives but, unlike a buddha, they do not have the necessary merit, compassion or motivation to teach others. They are named as “rhinoceros-like” (khaḍgaviṣāṇakalpa) for their preference for staying in solitude or as “congregators” (vargacārin) when their preference is to stay among peers.
One of the arhat disciples of the Buddha. Born in Kapilavastu in a brahmin family, he was the nephew of Ājñāta Kauṇḍinya, the first arhat among the group of five during the Buddha’s first teaching in Deer Park.
This term denotes the ontological status of phenomena, according to which they are said to possess existence in their own right—inherently, in and of themselves, objectively, and independent of any other phenomena such as our conception and labelling. The absence of such an ontological reality is defined as the true nature of reality, emptiness.
Denkarma (pho brang stod thang ldan dkar gyi chos kyi ’gyur ro cog gi dkar chag). Toh 4364, Degé Tengyur vol. 206 (sna tshogs, jo), folios 294.b–310.a.
Phangthangma (dkar chag ’phang thang ma). Beijing: mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2003.
Conze, Edward.
Conze, Edward.
Gregory, Peter N., ed.
Harrison, Paul M. “Mañjuśrī and the Cult of the Celestial Bodhisattvas.”
Herrmann-Pfandt, Adelheid.
Hidas, Gergely. Powers of Protection: The Buddhist Tradition of Spells in the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha Collections. Beyond Boundaries: Religion, Region, Language and the State, Volume 9, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021.
Lamotte, Étienne. “Mañjuśrī.”
Ledderose, Lothar and Yongbo Wang (eds.).
Li Xuezhu & Franceso Bianchini. “A Diplomatic Edition of the Sanskrit
Li Xuezhu & Francesco Bianchini. “A Diplomatic Edition of the Sanskrit
Masuda, Jiryō. “
Satō, Kenshō. “A Critical Edition of Saptaśatikā Prajñāpāramitā.”
Satō, Kenshō.
Satō, Kenshō. “The Composite Structure of Toyo Bunko’s
Tomabechi, Toru.
Tribe, Anthony. “Mañjuśrī: Origins, Role and Significance. Parts 1 & 2.”
Tucci, Giuseppe. “
Vaidya, P. L.
Vaidya, P. L. “
Zaccheti, Stefano. “Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras.” In
Zacchetti, Stefano.
C Choné
C1 Cambridge Sanskrit MS (ed. Tucci)
C2 Cambridge Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha MS (ed. Hidas)
D Degé
H Lhasa (Zhol)
J Lithang
Ky Kyōto Sanskrit MS (ed. Satō)
N Narthang
P Pāla Sanskrit MS (ed. Li & Bianchini)
Q Peking 1737 (Qianlong)
S Stok Palace MS
T4 Tōyō Bunko Sanskrit MS (ed. Satō)
U Urga
Y Yongle
