The Sūtra of the Sublime Golden Light (3)
Introduction

The Sūtra of the Sublime Golden Light has held great importance in Buddhism for its instructions on the purification of karma. In particular, much of the sūtra is specifically addressed to monarchs, and thus it has been significant for rulers‍—not only in India but also in China, Japan, Mongolia, and elsewhere‍—who wished to ensure the well-being of their nations. It is understood to be efficacious for personal purification and beneficial for the welfare of a state and of the world.

The work translated here is the twenty-one-chapter version (hereafter referenced as Toh 557) of The Sūtra of the Sublime Golden Light. There is also the twenty-nine-chapter version (hereafter referenced as Toh 556)1 and the thirty-one-chapter version (hereafter referenced as Toh 555).2 Toh 557 and Toh 556 were translated into Tibetan from Sanskrit, so almost the entirety of Toh 557 is present in an identical translation in Toh 556.

This sūtra’s principal chapters are the third and fourth, which describe the lay bodhisattva Ruciraketu having a dream in which he sees a brightly shining golden drum. When a brahmin beats the drum, Ruciraketu hears in the drumbeats a hundred-verse prayer, and he subsequently recites that prayer to the Buddha.

Most of the following chapters are concerned with encouraging the recitation of this prayer and of the sūtra itself. They describe how various divine beings in this world revere the sūtra and promise to protect it and its adherents. These include the Four Mahārājas; Dṛḍhā, who is the goddess of the earth; Sarasvatī, the goddess of wisdom, learning, and music; Śrī, the goddess of good fortune; and the yakṣa general Saṃjñeya.

This sūtra emphasizes its importance for kings. It states that if they honor the reciters of this sūtra and arrange for its recitation and teaching, then their reign and their kingdom will prosper. They will avoid such calamities as invasion, famine, and so on. The sūtra also warns that if they fail to show such devotion, there will be disastrous results for both them and their kingdoms. Chapter 12 is dedicated to the subject of how to be a good king.

There are also chapters that deal with doctrine. Chapter 2 presents the view that a buddha never dies and so never passes into nirvāṇa. Therefore, there is no body and no physical relics of his body after his cremation, and so the Dharma never ceases to be taught. The passing of a buddha and the extinction of the Dharma are solely illusory manifestations, skillful methods to inspire beings to practice and to provide them with relics as objects for their devotion. Chapter 6 teaches the view of emptiness. Toh 555 and Toh 556 also contain chapters describing the nature of the three bodies and the ten bhūmis.

There are two narratives that describe previous lives of the Buddha. Chapter 16 describes the physician Jalavāhana, who, as a result of performing Dharma recitations while standing in a lake, ensured the rebirth of ten thousand fish into the paradise of Trāyastriṃśa. In the preceding chapter these same ten thousand devas receive the prophecy of their buddhahood. When the goddess Bodhisattvasamuccayā objects that they have not accomplished the necessary bodhisattva conduct in past lives to receive such a prophecy, the Buddha explains that this was unnecessary because they had devotion to this Sūtra of the Sublime Golden Light.

The other past-life narrative, which is given in chapter 18, is one of the most famous in Buddhist literature‍—that of the prince who gives his body to a hungry tigress and her cubs. An interesting feature of the story in this sūtra is that much of the narrative is dedicated to an evocative description of the intense grief of parents who have lost their child, emphasizing the sorrow that the prince’s action has brought them.

As with other late Mahāyāna sūtras in which there is an emphasis on ritual, this text is classified in the Kangyur as a tantra, specifically as a Kriyā tantra, a class of tantras in which there is an emphasis on external ritual. The sūtra contains a description of how such rituals should be performed, and there are also passages that include lists of ingredients to place in a bath, along with mantras to recite while bathing, in order to achieve purification.

One can also see that the seed of the later maṇḍalas of the five buddha families is in this sūtra, for in chapters 2 and 3, buddhas of the four directions appear to a layman who has a visionary dream. They include Akṣobhya from the east and Amitābha from the west, both buddhas and their realms already established in the Buddhist tradition with specific sūtras dedicated to them. There also appear the buddhas Ratnaketu from the south and Dundubhisvara from the north, who in later tantras are usually named Ratnasaṃbhava and Amoghasiddhi. In this sūtra, the central buddha in terms of these directions would be Śākyamuni himself. In the Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra he is referred to as Vairocana, as the Buddha Vairocana is the buddha who manifests as all the buddhas throughout this trichiliocosm.

A version of The Sūtra of the Sublime Golden Light existed in India by the early fifth century ᴄᴇ, when it was translated into Chinese by Dharmakṣema (385–433) in 420, in a form that corresponds to the fragments of its translation into old Khotanese. The author of Precious Lamp of the Middle Way3 mentions that The Sūtra of the Sublime Golden Light contains profound teachings in the section on the absence of relics, this passage being within the chapter on the lifespan of the Buddha. The sūtra’s significance in Indian Buddhism is evident from the three tantras4 and ten commentaries5 that specify that it should be the text recited in one of the four directions when performing a maṇḍala rite. There are also five other texts in the Tengyur that emphasize the importance and status of The Sūtra of the Sublime Golden Light and its recitation,6 including Śāntideva’s eighth-century Śikṣāsamuccaya (Compendium of Training) in which he provides two extracts from the sūtra that should be recited. There are also two recitation texts composed of extracts from the sūtra.7

In addition to its importance for rites and recitations, the text is quoted on doctrinal points in Indian commentaries. Passages indicating that the Buddha never dies, leaves no relics, and that the Dharma never ceases are quoted in six texts,8 two of which9 cite the delightful verse that describes the impossibility of there being buddha relics, stating that there will be a buddha relic only when a ladder to the moon is built from rabbit horns.

The descriptions of buddha nature and the nature of the bodies of a buddha, which are only in Toh 555 and Toh 556, are quoted in two texts in the Tengyur, one written in Tibetan and one translated from Sanskrit by Rinchen Sangpo,10 although nothing is known about the author.

In Newar Buddhism, this sūtra became and remains one of the nine principal sūtras called “the nine Dharmas,”11 which are considered to be the most important lengthy sūtras to be recited and offered to.

Sanskrit manuscripts of this sūtra survived as fragments discovered in Chinese Central Asia (Xinjiang) and as entire texts in Nepal, where the title is Suvarṇa­bhāsottama, with bhāsa being a synonym for prabhāsa, both meaning “light.”

The Sanskrit text of the sūtra was first edited in 1898, in Calcutta, India, by S. C. Das and S. C. Shastri. That was followed by the edition by B. Nanjio and H. Idzumi in Japan in 1931, and by the edition by Johannes Nobel (1887–1960) in 1937. This translation refers to the 1967 S. Bagchi edition.

The widespread popularity of this sūtra outside India is also evident from its translation not only into Tibetan and Chinese but also from Sanskrit into Khotanese; from Chinese into Tibetan, Sogdian, Uighur, Tangut, and Manchu; and from Tibetan into Mongolian.

There are three surviving translations of The Sūtra of the Sublime Golden Light in Chinese. The earliest of these was translated by Dharmakṣema (385–433). He was an Indian who came to China in 414, living first in Dunhuang. Then in 420 he went to Guzang, the capital of Northern Liang, one of the sixteen independent states of that time, situated in what is now the Gansu region in China’s northwest. There he studied Chinese and engaged in translation under the patronage of Juqu Mengxun (368–433), the ruler of Northern Liang. He also had the reputation of being “a master of spells.” As a result of that reputation, Juqu Mengxun, toward the end of his reign, became afraid that Dharmakṣema might be used against him by his adversaries and so he had him assassinated.12 Nobel believed that the Sanskrit in its present form is not earlier than the mid-fifth century and that Dharmakṣema translated from an earlier version. This opinion appears to be supported by the Sanskrit manuscript fragments discovered in Khotan.13

The second surviving translation into Chinese is that by Bao Gui in 597. It is an amalgam of earlier translations that no longer exist and four chapters that were translated by Paramārtha (499–569). As there is no surviving Sanskrit for the additional chapters in the Chinese and Tibetan, Michael Radich has examined the evidence as to whether they are Indian or Chinese in origin.

The third translation was by Yijing (635–713), which was published in 703. Because of its clarity and writing style, this version became popular in China and was itself translated into Tibetan in the early ninth century. Yijing’s translation, compared to the Sanskrit and the Tibetan translation from Sanskrit, is freer, to the extent that Emmerick has stated it could not be used to reconstruct the original Sanskrit.14 Yijing spent thirty years in India and Sumatra and returned to China in 695. He brought with him four hundred Sanskrit texts, including The Sūtra of the Sublime Golden Light, and spent the first decade of the seventh century translating them.15

The Mogao caves of Dunhuang, which were sealed in the eleventh century, contained a great number of manuscripts of the sūtra, particularly those of Yijing’s translation into Chinese. The sūtra became popular for its teachings on freeing oneself from the effects of bad karma. For example, Yijing’s Chinese translation (and the Uighur and Tangut versions derived from it) has a preface that states how the sūtra saved Zhang Judao, ruler of Tangut, from going to hell because he had slaughtered cattle for a big feast. This narrative is illustrated in a twelfth-century Tangut woodcut that is preserved in St. Petersburg.16

The sūtra was of particular importance to monarchs, and starting in seventh-century Japan, the ritual of reciting this sūtra was considered important to perform for the benefit of the state.

Toh 557 (the version translated here) does not list its translators in the colophon. Toh 556 was produced by Jinamitra, Śilendrabodhi, and Yeshé Dé in the early ninth century. Almost the entirety of Toh 557 is present word for word in Toh 556, so they either incorporated an earlier translation or extracted the shorter version from the longer.

By contrast, Toh 555 is a translation made by Gö Chödrup of Yijing’s Chinese version in the early ninth century. The Tibetan is clearer and more readable than in the other two versions, perhaps because it is less constrained by conforming to the Sanskrit, but also because the Chinese was a freer translation from the Sanskrit, which was done purposely to enhance its readability.

There are some Tibetan texts included in the Tengyur that were authored by those Tibetan translators active in the early ninth century. The translator Kawa Paltsek quotes from the passages describing the Dharma body and the Buddha not leaving any relics because he has no body with bones and blood.17 Yeshé Dé wrote a text that has a number of references to this sūtra’s teaching on the three bodies of a buddha, buddha nature, and the description of the bhūmis.18

Dīpaṁkaraśrījñāna, also known as Atiśa, whose pupils founded the influential Kadampa tradition in Tibet, is the author of three of the texts in the Tengyur that refer to this sūtra, including his most famous work, A Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, which contains an encouragement to use the sūtra’s prayer both for purification and as a dedication prayer.

The commentary in the Tengyur that quotes from the sūtra more than any other‍—twenty times in all‍—is the translation by Gö Chödrup of An Extensive Commentary on the Sūtra that Elucidates the Profound Intention by the Korean monk Wŏnch’ŭk19 (613–96), who had migrated to China. This commentary by Wŏnch’ŭk in Tibetan translation became a particular influence on the thought of Tsongkhapa, the founder of the Gelukpa school.20 The sūtra has been quoted by great masters in all the schools of Tibetan Buddhism and extracts from it were published in Tibet as numerous standalone texts‍—not only the confession prayer but also other chapters, such as the treatise on kingship. Its continuing significance is indicated by Pema Karpo (1527–92), the hierarch of the Drukpa Kagyü school, composing a confession prayer extracted from The Sūtra of the Sublime Golden Light at the request of Döndrup Dorjé, the ruler of Shigatsé.

An example of the way the sūtra was recited in Tibet is found in a version compiled by Ngawang Lobsang Chöden (1642–1714), the second Changkya Rinpoché.

Toh 556 and Toh 557 were both translated into Tibetan from Sanskrit. Only the Sanskrit that is equivalent to Toh 557 survives. It divides the equivalent of chapter 10 in the Tibetan into two, separating the homage to buddhas and bodhisattvas into its own small chapter. However, its final chapter is divided into two in the Tibetan, resulting in both having twenty-one chapters. Toh 556 appears to preserve passages that were lost from Toh 557. For example, chapter 12, “The King’s Treatise,” begins abruptly: “At that time…,” having evidently lost the introductory narrative‍—present in the equivalent chapter (chapter 20) in the longer version‍—that sets the action in a distant past.

Toh 555 was translated into Tibetan from Chinese.21 The source text was Yijing’s seventh-century translation from Sanskrit into Chinese, and therefore the translation differs throughout, even though the content is essentially the same. There are many passages that are actually shorter versions of those in the translations from Sanskrit. Its greater length compared to Toh 556 is primarily due to the addition of chapters 29 and 30.

In 1958, Nobel published a German translation based on Yijing’s Chinese text. In 1970, Ronald Emmerick produced an English translation of the Sanskrit. In 2007, Zopa Rinpoche’s FPMT (Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition) produced an English translation of Toh 557.