ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ་སྟོང་ཕྲག་ཉི་ཤུ་ལྔ་པ།
The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines
Notes
Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā
འཕགས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ་སྟོང་ཕྲག་ཉི་ཤུ་ལྔ་པ།
’phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag nyi shu lnga pa
The Noble Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines
Āryapañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā
Toh 9
Degé Kangyur, vol. 26 (shes phyin, nyi khri, ka), folios 1.b–382.a; vol. 27 (shes phyin, nyi khri, kha), folios 1.b–393.a; and vol. 28 (shes phyin, nyi khri, ga), folios 1.b–381.a
Imprint
Translated by the Padmakara Translation Group
under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha
First published 2023
Current version v 1.1.14 (2024)
Generated by 84000 Reading Room v2.26.1
84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha is a global non-profit initiative to translate all the Buddha’s words into modern languages, and to make them available to everyone.
This work is provided under the protection of a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND (Attribution - Non-commercial - No-derivatives) 3.0 copyright. It may be copied or printed for fair use, but only with full attribution, and not for commercial advantage or personal compensation. For full details, see the Creative Commons license.
Table of Contents
Summary
The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines is among the most important scriptures underlying both the “vast” and the “profound” approaches to Buddhist thought and practice. Known as the “middle-length” version, being the second longest of the three long Perfection of Wisdom sūtras, it fills three volumes of the Kangyur. Like the two other long sūtras, it records the major teaching on the perfection of wisdom given by the Buddha Śākyamuni on Vulture Peak, detailing all aspects of the path to enlightenment while at the same time emphasizing how bodhisattvas must put them into practice without taking them—or any aspects of enlightenment itself—as having even the slightest true existence.
Acknowledgements
Translation by the Padmakara Translation Group. A complete draft by Gyurme Dorje was first edited by Charles Hastings, then revised and further edited by John Canti. The introduction was written by John Canti. We are grateful for the advice and help received from Gareth Sparham, Greg Seton, and Nathaniel Rich.
This translation is dedicated to the memory of our late colleague, long-time friend, and vajra brother Gyurme Dorje (1950–2020), who worked assiduously on this translation in his final years and into the very last months of his life. We would also like to express our gratitude to his wife, Xiaohong, for the extraordinary support she gave him on so many levels.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
The generous sponsorship of Kris Yao and Xiang-Jen Yao, which helped make the work on this translation possible, is most gratefully acknowledged.
Text Body
The Translation
The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines
Colophon
It is said in the original Jangpa manuscript:
This [Tibetan translation of] The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines has been edited twice on the basis of the original “gold manuscript,” which had been [commissioned as] a commitment of the spiritual mentor Nyanggom Chobar, and it has also been edited on the basis of the manuscript kept at Yerpa. Since it is extant, scribes of posterity should copy [the text] according to this version alone.
In the [recast] version of The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines [Toh 3790] that was edited by master Haribhadra, and in some [other] manuscripts, the text ends with the seventy-first chapter entitled “Unchanging Reality.” In certain [other] manuscripts, including the original (phyi mo) [Toh 9], there are seventy-six chapters, with [F.380.b] the addition of the [seventy-second] chapter entitled “Distinctions in the Training of a Bodhisattva,” the [seventy-third] chapter entitled “The Attainment of the Manifold Gateways of Meditative Stability by the Bodhisattva Sadāprarudita,” the [seventy-fourth] chapter entitled “Sadāprarudita,” the [seventy-fifth] chapter entitled “Dharmodgata,” and the [seventy-sixth] chapter entitled “Entrustment.” This accords with earlier accounts and the authentic records of teachings received. Insofar as there are distinctions in the translation of these five later chapters, I have seen a few manuscripts where the terminology is slightly dissimilar, although there are no differences in meaning.
In general, throughout the present text there are all sorts of unique allusions and variations in the elaboration of the points that are expressed. In particular, in the chapter entitled “The Introductory Narrative,” there are some passages where the text corresponds to The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines.
OṂ SVĀSTI
The supreme guides, best of humankind, embodying the three buddha bodies,
Are supreme in liberation, the path of liberation, and the provisions—
Objects of homage for all embodied beings and lord protectors.580
In the perspective of the divine path where emptiness and compassion are indivisible,
May the conquerors and their heirs again bestow excellent merits,
Causing a downpour of nectar of spiritual and temporal well-being
From the dense accumulating clouds of enlightened activity!
The supreme source of the marvelous attributes of existence and quiescence,
Monarch of supreme eloquence who reigns over needs and wants,
Is a manifestly high support, like the pinnacle of a victory banner—
May this supreme support enhance the glory of the Buddhist teaching!581
Although the sequences of the manifold vehicles are infinite
Owing to distinctions between disciples, who are low and high,
They are subsumed in the three definitive piṭakas,
Among which are the profound middle turning precepts
Concerning the absence of defining characteristics.582
Among these, the billion-line version extant in the domain of the gandharvas,
The ten-million-line version extant in the domain of Śatakratu,
Were established as the long, middle-length, and abridged versions of the extensive text.
Are known as the long, middle-length, and abridged versions of the intermediate text.
Many scholars profess that the eight-thousand-line version and the verse summation
Are respectively the abridged and extremely abridged texts.
Alternatively, the versions in one hundred thousand lines,
Are respectively known as the long, medium, and short texts.
Among these, the long version fell as a downpour of kingly power,
Inexhaustible as an offering lamp for living beings, without partiality.
In order that the excellent merit of the teaching and living beings might yet again increase,
Lord [Tenpa Tsering], who bestows the good fortune of resources
For the sustenance of spacious Degé—
A great community endowed with the ten virtuous actions—
Instantly opened countless doors of the inexhaustible treasure-store of space,
Acting in service of the entire teaching impartially,
In the great palace of Lhundrubteng,
A seminary triumphant over all directions,
Bastion of the twofold tradition [of sūtra and tantra]
Enveloped by the white parasol of the glorious Sakya school,
During the water tiger year, also known as Śubhakṛta,
At the time when the youthful face of the Jyeṣṭha moon made her appearance,
Her surface resembling translucent crystal,
He completed this task with two hundred and fifty elite [wood] carvers
Through the excellence of meritorious circumstances.
By this virtuous action I dedicate merit
That king [Tenpa Tsering] might have a long life and stable rule,
Sustaining the spacious kingdom with the bliss of the perfect age,
And that living beings, exemplified by those with auspicious connections,
Might attain the rank of liberation, the four buddha bodies!
At the time when the carving of the xylographs of this very text, along with those of the Multitude of the Buddhas (Buddhāvataṃsaka), was completed, in the presence of King Tenpa Tsering, the ruler of Degé, the beggar monk Tashi Wangchuk composed these verses at Sharkha Dzongsar Palace, where the wood-carving workshop was based. May they be victorious!
ye dharmā hetuprabhavā hetun teṣāṃ tathāgato bhavat āha teṣāṃ ca yo nirodho evaṃ vādī mahāśramaṇaḥ [ye svāhā]
“Whatever events arise from causes, the Tathāgata has told of their causes, and the great ascetic has also taught their cessation.”
Notes
In Tibetan, as well as its official title as on our title page, it is also known by the shortened name Sherchin Nyitri Ngatong (sher phyin nyi khri lnga stong); or by the moniker Nyitri (nyi khri), which is sometimes misunderstood to mean “in twenty thousand lines,” but is instead simply an even more truncated version of the title. Another moniker sometimes used to indicate the source of a citation from it in Tibetan commentarial works is Yum Barma (yum bar ma), “the middle length ‘mother’ [sūtra],” and a similar moniker Yum Dringpo (yum ’bring po), with the same meaning, is found in the Degé dkar chag. It should be noted, too, that the customary honorific “Noble” (’phags pa, corresponding to Skt. ārya) is not appended to the title, nor to the colophon or chapter colophons, in any Kangyurs; nor is the text called a “sūtra” or “Mahāyāna sūtra.”
See Gareth Sparham, trans., The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines (Toh 8), 2024.
See Gareth Sparham, trans., The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines (Toh 10), 2022.
These numbers of volumes vary across different Kangyurs according to the density of the folios.
See Butön chos ’byung F.73.b, where Butön attributes as his sources Trophu Lotsāwa Jampa Pal (khro phu lo tsA ba byams pa dpal), Chim Jampé Yang (mchims ’jam pa’i dbyangs), Chak Lotsāwa Drachom (chag lo tsA ba dgra bcom), and “some others.”
That is, among the six “mother” Prajñāpāramitā sūtras (so called because they include all eight implicit topics of the Abhisamayālaṅkara, see below), the five long sūtras (in one hundred thousand, twenty-five thousand, eighteen thousand, ten thousand, and eight thousand lines, Toh 8–12). The sixth “mother” is the Verse Summary (Ratnaguṇa-saṅcayagāthā, Toh 13), which is said to have been taught subsequently in the Magadha dialect.
Some accounts place the occasion relatively late in the Buddha’s life, perhaps in his mid or late fifties, on the grounds that Subhūti, the leading arhat protagonist, according to some biographies, attained the state of arhat just after the Buddha had returned to the human world after his stay in the Trāyastriṃsa god realm to teach his mother; Subhūti, reflecting on impermanence, had decided to remain meditating in retreat instead of joining the crowd receiving the Buddha and was acknowledged by the Buddha as having been the first to have come to meet him. See n.74.
See Butön chos ’byung F.73.b–74.a. The prophecy in question is the one for Gaṅgadevī, related in chapter 44 of the present text, chapter 43 of The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines (Toh 8), chapter 53 of The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines (Toh 10), and chapter 19 of The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines (Toh 12). It is not, however, found in The Perfection of Wisdom in Ten Thousand Lines (Toh 11).
See Falk (2011); Falk and Karashima (2012) and (2013); and Salomon (2018), pp. 335–58.
See below i.40 for more detail on the extant Sanskrit versions, most of which are considerably more recent than the Tibetan and the even older Chinese translations, the exception being the Gilgit manuscripts.
Conze (1978), pp. 3–16.
For a more complete account of the history of the Prajñāpāramitā texts as a whole, see Gyurme Dorje’s introduction in Padmakara Translation Group trans., The Transcendent Perfection of Wisdom in Ten Thousand Lines (Toh 11), i.6–i.10.
Since the longer texts are prose works, “line” (śloka) in this context is simply a unit of measure of thirty-two syllables, rather than implying a verse couplet as in some other contexts.
According to Zacchetti (2015), p. 176, the mentions come in a list of Prajñāpāramitā scriptures at the beginning of the Jin’gang xian lun (金剛仙論, Taishō 1512).
This point was emphasized by Zacchetti (2005), pp. 42–50, and is further discussed in Zacchetti (2015), pp. 185–87.
In BHS, written in Early Turkestan Brāhmī type b script: (1) the Petrovsky fragments kept in St. Petersburg, and (2) the Crosby fragment 254/255 found in Khotan, kept in the Library of Congress. In Sanskrit: (3) the Gilgit manuscript no. 24, in Gilgit/Bāmiyān type 1 rounded Gupta script. See Bongard-Levin and Hori (1996).
Both were probably in Sanskrit, and it is known that one of the source texts (the one translated by Mokṣala, see below) was written in one of the Brāhmī-derived scripts that were by then becoming more widespread. In earlier centuries texts circulating in Khotan were often in Gāndhārī, written in Kharoṣṭhī script. See Salomon (2014), pp. 7–8.
道行般若經 (Daoxing bore jing, Taishō 224).
放光般若經 (Fang guang bore jing, Taishō 221); the surviving text is probably the revised redaction made in Cangyuan in 304 ᴄᴇ (see Zürcher 2007, p. 64).
光讚經 (Guangzan jing, Taishō 222).
Martini (2013), pp. 20–21; Zürcher (2007), pp. 61–70.
For more on Dharmarakṣa’s life and translations, see Boucher (2006).
摩訶般若波羅蜜經 (Mohe bore boluomi jing, Taishō 223).
大智度論 (Dazhidu lun, Taishō 1509). Kumārajīva did not claim to have translated the complete text, but only the first fifty-two chapters in full and then selections from the rest.
Zacchetti’s masterful, posthumously published study of the Dazhidu lun (Zacchetti 2021) explores the possible interactions of a limited set of elements of the commentary’s content with the expansion of the Long Sūtras in their Indic versions, while also pointing to the tendency of Mahāyāna texts to evolve by incorporating explanations from the oral commentarial tradition that accompanies their transmission.
大般若波羅蜜多經 (Da boreboluomiduo jing, Taishō 220).
Zacchetti (2015), p. 190, citing Hikata (1958).
The “Three Treatises” are Kumārajīva’s renderings of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, a Madhyamaka text called the Bai lun (*Śataśāstra) attributed to Āryadeva, and a work on emptiness called the Shi’ermen lun (*Dvādaśamukhaśāstra) attributed to Nāgārjuna. However, the Dazhidu lun is often considered the fourth text of the corpus.
The five texts are the Abhisamayālaṃkāra (Toh 3786), the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra (Toh 4020), the Madhyāntavibhāga (Toh 4021), the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga (Toh 4023), and the Ratnagotravibhāgottaratantraśāstra (Toh 4024). Asaṅga’s numerous works also include important texts of which Maitreya’s direct authorship is not claimed, such as the Abhidharmasamuccaya, the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra corpus, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, and several sūtra commentaries. Authorship statements of the “Five Teachings of Maitreya” refer to Maitreya using the ubiquitous epithet nātha (Tib. mgon po), “Lord” or “Protector,” and some modern scholars have assumed that there must have been a human teacher called Maitreyanātha from whom Asaṅga received them, simply on the basis that nonhuman teachers do not exist. While no such assumption has any basis in the traditional accounts, it is true that the traditional accounts themselves are of uncertain, if ancient, provenance. They do not seem to have been written down in any Indic language, nor in Tibetan before the eleventh or twelfth century. If it is presumed that they accompanied the texts of the corpus in oral form as they were transmitted to Tibet (at different periods), it remains uncertain which particular texts they accompanied. Nonetheless there are mentions in Vasubandhu’s works of the double authorship of at least one of the texts, and in other Sanskrit works of the five texts as a whole. Chinese tradition, with mentions dating as early as the sixth century, agrees that Asaṅga received certain texts from Maitreya, but includes among them the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra corpus, excludes the Ratnagotravibhāga (which it attributes to a Sāramati), and omits both the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga and the Abhisamayālaṃkāra, neither of which were known in China.
Thirteen if a lost commentary said (from some interpretations of a statement by Haribhadra) to have been written by Asaṅga, and possibly called the Tattvaviniścaya, is included (see Kongtrul book 3, Ngawang Zangpo 2010, p. 257; Tāranātha’s History in Chimpa et al 1980, p. 161; and Brunnhölzl 2010, vol. 1, p. 695 n103); fourteen if the Tengyur version of The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines (Toh 3790) is included. Although the latter is sometimes described as a commentary and attributed to Haribhadra, it is really a version of the sūtra, slightly edited and with some passages reordered, with inserted mentions of the Ornament’s structural outline. See i.35–i.39 below.
Nevertheless, of the “four great cahariot traditions of interpretation” (shing rta chen po’i srol bzhi) into which it divides Prajñāpāramitā commentarial works, the catalog (dkar chag) of the Degé Tengyur (F.432.b) classifies Nāgārjuna’s works on reasoning (rigs pa’i tshogs) as the second, even if at that point instead of listing them it simply contains a reference to the Madhyamaka section. See also n.43.
One of the two texts mentioned, The Long Explanation of the Noble Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand, Twenty-Five Thousand, and Eighteen Thousand Lines (Toh 3808), also known as the “longer” Bṛhaṭṭīkā, just the Bṛhaṭṭīkā, Paddhati, gzhung ’grel, or yum gsum gnod ’joms, is attributed variously to Vasubandhu and to Daṃṣṭrāsena; as its full title makes clear it comments on all three of the long sūtras. The other, The Long Explanation of the Noble Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines (Toh 3807), also known as the “shorter” Bṛhaṭṭīkā, the ’bum kyi gnod ’joms or gnod ’joms chung ba, is attributed mostly to Daṃṣṭrāsena, and even the Tibetan king Tri Songdetsen; it comments on The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines alone. For a recently published English translation of the first, see Sparham (2022b), and for details of both see Sparham’s introduction, i.1 and Brunnhölzl (2010), vol. 1, pp. 42 and 692–94 n99. Other Prajñāpāramitā treatises composed without reference to the topics of The Ornament of Clear Realization may include, somewhat doubtfully, a lost commentary thought by some to have been written by Asaṅga himself (see Obermiller 1999 p. 10 and n7).
See, for example, Kongtrul book 3, pp. 258–59, and the account in Tendar Lharampa’s Heart Sūtra commentary translated in Lopez (1988), p. 145.
See Denkarma F.295.a.3 and Phangthangma, p. 2.
See Denkarma F.305.a.6 and Herrmann-Pfandt, pp. 294–97.
One reading of the ambiguous entries in the Denkarma that Herrmann-Pfandt numbers 516A would suggest an early translation of Haribhadra’s Āloka (or rgyan snang, Toh 3791), a commentary that applies The Ornament of Clear Realization to The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines, while entry 517 is his Vṛtti or Vivṛti (don gsal, Toh 3793).
The Saṃcayagāthāpañjikā (Toh 3798).
Ngok Lotsāwa Loden Sherab (rngog lo tsA ba blo ldan shes rab, 1059–1110), one of the principal founding figures of the Tibetan scholastic tradition, who spent seventeen years in Kashmir and in Nepal.
Sangphu Neuthok (gsang phu ne’u thog) was an important study center of the early Kadampa tradition, founded in 1073 by Ngok Lekpai Sherab (rngog legs pa’i shes rab), uncle of Ngok Loden Sherab.
See Brunnhölzl (2010), vol. 1, pp. 68–69.
Tibetan authors speak of four great “chariot” traditions (shing rta chen po’i srol bzhi), as in the Tengyur dkar chag F.431.a, of commentary on the Prajñāpāramitā. The first is that of The Ornament of Clear Realization, the third that of the two bṛhaṭṭīka commentaries, and the fourth that of Dignāga’s Yogācāra-based explanations. The second of the four, however, is essentially the entirety of Nāgārjuna’s reasoning on emptiness that forms the Madhyamaka tradition. Thus although Prajñāpāramitā studies as such were and are, in Tibet, focused almost entirely on the The Ornament of Clear Realization, the influence of the Prajñāpāramitā in the form of the much more widely studied Madhyamaka system has been very far reaching. See also i.25 above, and n.33.
The two Hemis Kangyurs are alone in adding that the translators were “Zhang Yeshé Dé and others, in the time of me khri srid sde btsan” (Hemis I) and “… time of mes khri srong (?lnga) btsan” (Hemis II). These possibly corrupted spellings, although they do not correspond to the usual names of the Tibetan kings of the period, may perhaps refer to the king Tridé Songtsen (khri sde srong btsan), also known as Senalek (sad na legs), who reigned 800–815 ᴄᴇ.
Unequivocal confirmation of the Tibetan translators responsible for surviving versions of The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines is incomplete. The recorded details of its early translations are nevertheless quite complex. The versions in the Degé and most other Kangyurs (which differ among each other in several respects) lack a translators’ colophon, but those in the Narthang and Lhasa Kangurs have colophons that name Jinamitra, Surendrabodhi, Yeshé Dé, “and others” as responsible. The Degé catalog (dkar chag) affirms that the sūtra was translated in the early period as well as mentioning the additions made later by Ngok Lotsāwa. Traditional histories mention more than one early translation, by Lang Khampa Gocha (rlangs khams pa go cha); by Wé Mañjuśrī (dbas ma.ny+ju shrI) and Nyang Indrawaro (nyang indra wa ro); a version with all repetitions in full made by Vairotsana (pa gor vai ro tsa na); and a revised version made during the reign of Ralpachen by Surendrabodhi, Kawa Paltsek (ka ba dpal brtseg), and Chokro Lu’i Gyaltsen (cok ro klu’i rgyal mtshan). See Kongtrul book 3 in Ngawang Zangpo (2010), pp. 258–59. See also The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines, i.22 for a more complete discussion.
See Sparham trans., The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines (Toh 10). A colophon attributing the translation to Jinamitra, Surendrabodhi, Yeshé Dé, and others appears in the Stok Palace, Ulaanbaatar, and Phukdrak Kangyurs but not in the Degé or other Kangyurs, while a similar colophon in the Hemis and Gangteng Kangyurs lists Prajñāvarman in the place of Surendrabodhi.
Conze mentions the possibility that the lineage of such a Sanskrit manuscript may extend back to the fifth century when, according to Tāranātha’s History, Ārya Vimuktisena found discrepancies between the sūtra and The Ornament of Clear Realization, but had his doubts resolved when, following the instructions of Maitreya in a dream, he met the upāsaka Śāntivarman in Vārāṇasī and obtained from him a version of The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines that Śāntivarman had brought from South India and that corresponded with the order of the Ornament. See Conze (1978), p. 37, and Tāranātha’s History in Chimpa et al, p. 189.
Conze (1975), pp. 37–38, provides a brief summary of the principal differences between the texts. Lethcoe (1976) compares part of the “revised” Sanskrit text and the Ornament itself with the “unrevised” Chinese translations, but without reference to either Tibetan version. Zacchetti (2015) notes that a comparative study is also to be found in Watanabe (1994), but we have not yet been able to consult that article.
See Zacchetti (2015), p. 188.
See Degé Tengyur vol. 84 (shes phyin, ca), F.342.a.
The Degé catalog entry for The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines states that Ngok Lotsāwa made some revisions to the early translation of that text (i.e., in the late eleventh century) based on a Sanskrit manuscript kept in a temple in Phamting (Pharping) in Nepal. The revisions he made are not all listed but include the names of three meditative stabilities (samādhi) that he added to the list in chapter 8. Two of those meditative stabilities are listed in the present text of The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines, so it may possibly be that this text, too, bears traces of some later revisions. On the other hand, the lists of meditative stabilities are anyway not identical between the two texts, whether in number or content, so no solid conclusion can be reached on this basis.
Zacchetti (2021), pp. 23–26, places the Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts of the Hundred Thousand and the Tibetan text of the present, Kangyur version of the Twenty-Five Thousand in the same broad recensional grouping as the Bajaur manuscript (see also n.56). He does not mention the Tibetan text of the Hundred Thousand but, given its close correspondence noted above to that of the Twenty-Five Thousand, it may presumably be placed in the same grouping.
See von Hinüber (2014) and Zacchetti (2015), p. 187. Critical editions of parts of the manuscript have been published by Conze (1962) and (1974), Zacchetti (2005), and Choong (2006).
See Conze (1978), pp. 34–35 and 40, and Conze (1974).
See Zacchetti (2005), pp. 19–22. Furthermore, Zacchetti (2021), pp. 23–26, places the Tibetan text of the present, Kangyur version of the Twenty-Five Thousand in the same broad recensional grouping as the Bajaur manuscript and hypothesizes that this may possibly be atributed to cultural exchanges between Tibet and the Gilgit valley facilitated by the documented Tibetan presence there in the eighth century.
See Suzuki and Nagashima (2015).
See Bhattacharya (1943–44) and Paranavitana (1933).
See von Hinüber (1983).
See von Hinüber (1983); Zacchetti (2005), pp. 43–44 and n178; and Zacchetti (2015), pp. 188–89.
The sole exception being that chapter 56 corresponds to two chapters, 56 and 57, in the longer text.
The colophon of the present Degé Kangyur version (while not clear on this point) suggests that these chapters may perhaps have been absent, too, from some early manuscripts. It does nevertheless state that they were included in the “original” (phyi mo), presumably referring to the Sanskrit from which the earliest translation was made. The Degé catalog (F.117.a.5–6) for the Hundred Thousand mentions that when Nāgārjuna brought the text from the nāga realm, the Maitreya chapter and these other final chapters were missing from the text because the nāgas had withheld them from him, but that there was a tradition for some versions of the text (though not in the Degé) of adding them, as a supplement from the Twenty-Five Thousand and the Eight Thousand.
The three approaches provide much of the framework for the commentary on the three long sūtras, The Long Explanation of the Noble Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand, Twenty-Five Thousand, and Eighteen Thousand Lines (Toh 3808). A very brief summary is given here but for more details see Sparham (2022b), i.46. The term “three approaches” is also applied in other commentaries, e.g. Haribhadra’s Abhisamayālaṃkārāloka (Toh 3791), to the sūtras being of three different lengths; see Brunnhölzl (2010), vol. 1 p. 35.
Kimura’s Sanskrit edition is divided into eight sections corresponding to the eight topics, as is the Tibetan “eight-chapter” Tengyur version. See Introduction i.41 above.
It should be noted that only the three long sūtras start with the Buddha’s statement to Śāriputra and the subsequent teaching to him (and in the Ten Thousand, Toh 11, the same material prompted by an initial question from Śāriputra). In contrast, in the Eight Thousand, Toh 12, the Buddha’s request to Subhūti is the initial passage and the briefer equivalent of the Śāriputra chapter only comes afterward.
The distinction is found in Pali in the Aṅguttaranikāya (AN 1.89) and in Sanskrit and Tibetan in several Mahāyāna sūtras including the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra (Toh 132, Degé Kangyur vol. 55, mdo sde, da, F.305.b). Detailed accounts of how Sāriputra became a disciple of the Buddha are to be found in The Chapter on Going Forth (Toh 1-1) and The Ratnaketu Dhāranī (Toh 138). Interestingly, The Chapter on Going Forth (1.401) adds a “foremost” distinction that we have not identified elsewhere, that of being foremost among those with great pratibhāna (“confidence” or “inspired speech”).
See Lamotte 2001, p. 508.
The second of these distinctions is mentioned in the present sūtra (4.23, 6.30). Both distinctions are found in Pali in the Aṅguttaranikāya (AN 1.201–2) and in Sanskrit and Tibetan in several Mahāyāna sūtras including the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra (Toh 132, Degé Kangyur vol. 55, mdo sde, da, F.305.b). The first of the two is dakṣineyānām agryaḥ in Sanskrit, and the second usually araṇavihāriṇām agryaḥ, rendered in Tibetan (Mvy 6366) as nyon mongs pa med par gnas pa rnams kyi mchog, “foremost among those dwelling free of afflicted mental states,” but also sometimes araṇyavihāriṇām agryaḥ, interpreted as “dwelling in seclusion.”
Ekottarāgama (Taishō 125) and other works detailed in Lamotte 1962, p. 155 n27.
The Majjhimanikāya (MN 139) mentions his dwelling in nonconflict at the end of an explanation of that topic. He and his nephew Saddha are mentioned in the Aṅguttaranikāya (AN 11.14); and his meditation is commended by the Buddha in the Udāna (Ud 6.7). The Theragāthā (1.1) contains a verse on him that is said to refer to his practicing in retreat in Rājagṛha, and the prose legend associated with it in Dhammapāla’s commentary, the Paramatthadīpani (see Rhys Davids 1913, pp. 1–6), states that he was the younger brother of the benefactor Anāthapiṇḍada, that he was inspired to go forth during the dedication of the Jetavana presented to the Buddha by his brother, and that he attained the state of arhat through the practice of loving kindness. The legend also includes the story of how King Bimbisara promised him a hermitage but then forgot to build it, causing a drought since the gods did not want to let him suffer in the open as he meditated.
The story is in the Vinayakṣudrakavastu (Toh 6, Degé Kangyur vol. 11, ’dul ba, da, F.92.a), and relates the story of Subhūti remaining in meditative seclusion in Rājagṛha instead of coming to greet the Buddha in Sāṃkāśya on his descent from Trāyastrimśa. The narrative is reproduced in the Dazhidu lun 137a (see Lamotte 2001, pp. 208, et seq.) and is also mentioned in Lamotte 1962, p. 155 n27; it appears in abridged form in Tāranātha’s biography of the Buddha compiled from Vinaya sources. On MSV works in Chinese, see previous note n.72.
For examples, see The Ratnaketu Dhāraṇī (Toh 138, 3.66); The Dharma Council (Dharmasaṅgīti, Toh 238, 1.399); The Acceptance That Tames Beings with the Sky-Colored Method of Perfect Conduct (Toh 263, 7.37); and especially chapter 4 of Unraveling the Intent (Toh 106), in which Subhūti discusses with the Buddha the ultimate single nature common to all dharmas. But see also n.79.
See The White Lotus of the Good Dharma (Toh 113), chapter 6.
As in The Prophecy Concerning Strīvivarta (Toh 190), most of which comprises a discussion between the bodhisattva Strīvivarta and Subhūti, drawing on the latter’s two characterizations as a worthy recipient of offerings and a specialist in the profound; and in Subhūti’s reasons for not wishing to call on Vimalakīrti in chapter 3 of The Teaching of Vimalakīrti (Toh 176), drawing on his role as a recipient of offerings.
The stories in Pali commentaries (and alluded to in some Kangyur texts, too) that outline Subhūti’s other distinction, of being “foremost among those worthy of receiving offerings,” relate that when on his alms round he would stop outside each house and meditate deeply and at length on loving kindness for the householder before receiving any donation of food. This other detail, according to which—even in a quite different area than his unceasing pursuit of emptiness and the ultimate view—it is again apparent that he is uncompromisingly ready to take the Buddha’s teachings to their utmost limits, nicely rounds out what we can glean of his personal character.
The unique feature of The Perfection of Wisdom in Ten Thousand Lines (Toh 11) is that the lists of dharmas are all gathered into the first two chapters, as well as appearing again scattered throughout the sūtra; see Padmakara Translation Group (2018). In all other versions of the long sūtras, they have to be sought individually.
See Dharmachakra Translation Committee, trans., The Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom, the Blessed Mother (Toh 21), 2022.
Sparham (2022a), chapter 83.
Lhasa Kangyur, vol. 34. This appears to be a prestige volume on which the compilers and sponsors spared no expense, as the xylograph has line drawings of buddhas, bodhisattvas, and lineage masters on every single folio. For details of the text by Tsongkhapa (folios 523.b–555.b) see bibliography. A number of other noncanonical texts, including a Bhaiṣajyaguru sādhana, follow in the same volume.
See Padmakara Translation Group (1994), pp. 153–57.
See, for example, The Sūtra on Reliance Upon a Spiritual Friend (Toh 300); or The Jewel Cloud (Toh 231), 1.385 and 1.449.
In this text, we have opted to translate the epithet bhagavat (bcom ldan ’das) as “the Blessed One” when it stands alone in narrative contexts, and as “Lord” when found in dialogue, as in the vocative expressions “Blessed Lord” (bhadantabhagavan, [btsun pa] bcom ldan ’das) and “Lord Buddha” (bhagavanbuddha, sangs rgyas bcom ldan ’das).
bka’ yang dag pas, here and in the Hundred Thousand, is one Tibetan rendering in the canonical texts of Skt. samyagājñā, the other being the more widespread yang dag pa’i shes pas (“by perfect understanding”), as in the equivalent phrase in the Eighteen Thousand, 1.2 and as recommended in Mahāvyutpatti 1087. See also The Jewel Cloud (Toh 231), 1.2 and n.21.
Full explanations of the introductory passage can be found in The Long Explanation (Toh 3808), 1.3. An interpretation of the corresponding introductory paragraph in The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines (Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā) can also be found in Haribhadra’s Mirror Commentary on the Ornament of Clear Realization (Abhisamayālaṃkārālokā). See Sparham 2006: I, pp. 171–81.
The Tengyur version of the sūtra, instead of grangs med pa, here reads koṭīniyutaśatasahasra (bye ba khrag khrig brgya stong), “one hundred billion trillion.”
The various dhāraṇīs are enumerated below at 9.44 and in Dutt 1934: pp. 212–13; also Conze 1975: pp. 160–62. Of the meditative stabilities, there are three enumerations in the present text, respectively comprising 32 (4.5), 119 ( 6.20) and 119 (8.247) meditative stabilities. On the implications and importance of dhāraṇī for the oral transmission of Buddhist teachings, see Davidson (2009): 97–147. The dhāraṇī gateways and gateways of meditative stability are also discussed in Lamotte’s Treatise, vol. IV, pp. 1522–42.
kṣāntisamatāpratilabdha (Dutt 1934, p. 4); the Tengyur version of the sūtra, instead of chos thams cad la mnyam pa nyid kyi bzod pa rab tu thob pa, reads this as chos thams cad la mnyam pa nyid kyis bzod pa rab tu thob pa, which could be interpreted as “acceptance due to the sameness of all phenomena.”
“The dhāraṇī of nonattachment” is not present in the equivalent passage of the Hundred Thousand.
This phrase is absent from the Tengyur version of the sūtra. Of the six extrasensory powers enumerated below at 2.234, the first five are meant here (as specified in the Ten Thousand) since these are the ones attainable by bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas, śrāvakas, and even by non-Buddhists, whereas the sixth is indicative of the termination of all rebirth in cyclic existence and can therefore be attained only by consummate buddhas.
Engaging speech (śravaṇīyapada, mnyan par ’os pa’i tshig). The Ten Thousand, F.1.b, reads gzung ba’i tshig (grahaṇapada), which implies either “captivating speech” or “comprehensible speech,” in contrast to gzung ba med pa’i tshig (agrahaṇapada) or “incomprehensible speech.” See Negi 1993–2005: p. 5505.
These last few phrases, from “they had overcome” to “remained undefeated,” do not appear in the Tengyur version of the sūtra but are in the Tibetan and Sanskrit of the Hundred Thousand.
sngon du smra ba, Skt. (Dutt 1934: p. 3) pūrvālāpin, literally “earliest to speak.” The Hundred Thousand has the equivalent thog mar smra ba, and in the Ten Thousand and other sūtras the same term is rendered gsong por smra ba, meaning “straightforward or honest speech.”
The ambiguity of the translation here is intentional as there are several ways in which this sentence may be interpreted.
Here and in the Hundred Thousand, the Degé reads shes pa phra ba, whereas the Ten Thousand has phra ba mkhyen pa. The Long Explanation (Toh 3808, 1.123) here lists various aspects of this “subtle knowledge” or “knowledge that engages in subtlety” (which it renders as ye shes phra ba) with regard to conduct and so forth. These include the knowledge that engages with subtle transmigration at the time of death, the knowledge that engages with subtle processes of rebirth, and the knowledge that engages with subtle buddha activities—emanation, renunciation, consummate enlightenment, turning the wheel of the Dharma, consecrating the lifespan, passing into final nirvāṇa, etc.
Degé, Stok Palace, and other Kangyurs, not only here but also in the equivalent passages of the Tengyur version and of the Hundred Thousand, all read brten pa (which could be taken as “dependence” in relation to the following phrase, or perhaps interpreted as “the basis”) but Urga reads bden pa (“truth”). The Sanskrit is missing in the Dutt and Kimura editions, which offer an abbreviated version of these initial paragraphs, but the Sanskrit of the Gilgit manuscript (Zacchetti, p. 367) and the Hundred Thousand (Ghoṣa, p. 5) both read pratītyanirdeśakuśalair.
Guhagupta (skyob sbed, sometimes found as Guhyagupta) is found here (but not in Dutt 1934: p. 5), as well as in the Hundred Thousand, 1.3 (ka F.3.a). By contrast the Ten Thousand, 1.6 (ga F.2.a) reads Grahadatta (gzas byin). The Tibetan rendering of Guhagupta in the Eighteen Thousand, 1.2 (ka F.2.b) is phug sbas.
For all the parts of the body mentioned in this paragraph, the Tibetan reads ’ od zer bye ba khrag khrig brgya stong drug cu drug cu. We have interpreted the repeated drug cu (“sixty”) as signifying that sets of that number of rays of light are emitted from each one of the paired parts of his body or individual members in a list. This is consistent with the expanded version of the same passage in the Hundred Thousand, in which the number of light rays is repeated for each individual mention; in the case of nonpaired, single items like the śrīvatsa, throat, and uṣṇīṣa, the Tibetan of the Degé only has one drug cu.
The set of exclamations that follow here is condensed by comparison with the equivalent passage in the Hundred Thousand, 1.22 in which it appears twice, with the explanation that the second time it is repeated by the buddhas in the respective buddhafields. This accords with Dutt 1934: p. 10, line 6: anyabuddhakṣetrasthā buddhā bhagavanta evamudāyanayanti sma.
Dutt 1934: p. 10, line 7: (dge’o).
This reading of bden pa (“truth”) accords with the Degé, Urga, and Stok Palace Kangyurs here and in the Hundred Thousand, but the Yongle, Lithang, Kangxi, Narthang, Choné, and Lhasa Kangyurs all read dben pa (“isolation” or “withdrawal”). The Sanskrit and Tengyur versions do not have a directly comparable list of all the terms here.
Dutt 11 reads ābhāsvarā, as do Ghoṣa 21 and Kimura 1–1:6. Here and elsewhere throughout the text, the Tibetan kun snang dang ba is used instead of the much more frequent ’od gsal for Ābhāsvara, the third of the three divisions of the gods of the second meditative concentration in the realm of form. kun snang dang ba is also used for Ābhāsvara in the Gaṇḍavyūha (ch 45 of Toh 44, the Buddhāvataṃsaka); see Roberts and Bower (2021), The Stem Array. dang ba is perhaps gdangs for svara. That the order here and in two other places is unusual is corroborated by in Lamotte 2001 (Treatise, English translation), pp. 409-412.
This single paragraph summary is the subject of extremely detailed commentary in chapters 16–30 of the Dazhidu lun (*Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra, Taishō 1509), attributed to Nāgārjuna. See Lamotte (2001), vol. 2.
At this point, the Tengyur version of the sūtra (Degé Tengyur, Toh 3790, vol. 82, F.26.a) and the recast Sanskrit manuscript (Dutt 1934: p. 18) add an extra passage detailing the bodhisattva’s aspirations for beings, such that the present paragraph is found in the Tengyur version from F.26.b.7 onward and in Dutt 1934: pp. 19–20.
In place of the recollection of disillusionment (udvegānusmṛti, skyo ba rjes su dran pa), other lists of the ten recollections, including the one in the Ten Thousand (1.36), have the recollection of quiescence ([vy]upaśamānusmṛti, nye bar zhi ba rjes su dran pa), i.e., the quiescence of nirvāṇa, on which see Konow 1941: p. 23; also Bodhi 1993: pp. 333–36.
The faculties endowed with the knowledge of all phenomena (ājñātāvīndriya) are rendered here as kun shes pa rig pa’i dbang po, rather than kun shes pa dang ldan pa’i dbang po as in the Ten Thousand and Eighteen Thousand.
The sense fields of complete suffusion (kṛtsnāyatana) are here rendered as chub pa’i skye mched, rather than the more usual zad par gyi skye mched as in the Ten Thousand and Eighteen Thousand.
The Tengyur version of the sūtra inserts an extra phrase at the beginning of each mention in this paragraph of the six perfections, e.g. here for generosity: “… wish to establish miserly beings in generosity and …”. Similarly for discipline—“… wish to establish undisciplined beings in discipline and …”—and so forth for the others in the same pattern.
The reasons for bodhisattvas wishing to receive the praises of buddhas are set out in the Dazhidu lun, chapter 47; see Lamotte vol. 4, pp. 1620–25.
sems bskyed pa gcig gis. In other instances in the text sems bskyed pa (cittotpāda) has been interpreted as an abbreviated form of byang chub kyi sems bskyed pa, and thus this phrase is rendered “with a single setting of the mind on enlightenment,” but in the present context it seems more likely to mean simply “just by having the thought [of journeying to the buddhafields].”
This paragraph is explained in the Dazhidu lun, chapter 47; see Lamotte vol. 4, pp. 1626–28.
This paragraph is explained in the Dazhidu lun, chapter 47; see Lamotte vol. 4, pp. 1628–30.
byang chub sems dpa’i rigs yongs su bsgrubs par ’dod pa. Here the Stok Palace Kangyur reads byang chub sems dpa’i rigs yongs su bsrung bar ’dod pa, “wishes to protect the family of bodhisattvas,” (ka, F.41.a) as does the Hundred Thousand, 2.37 (ka, F.48.b).
The equivalents of this paragraph in the Chinese translations of both Dharmarakṣa (Taishō 222) and Kumārajīva (Taishō 223) focus on the continuity of the buddhafields, but with similar implications (see Zacchetti 2005, p. 295 and p. 296, note 412), and are explained in the Dazhidu lun, chapter 47; see Lamotte vol. 4, pp. 1628–35.
This important paragraph on the eighteen kinds of emptiness is explained in considerable detail in the Long Explanation (Toh 3808, 4.103), and is contextualized by Lamotte as well as explained in very extensive detail in the Dazhidu lun, chapter 48; see Lamotte vol. 4, pp. 1636–767. See also Zacchetti 2005, pp. 296–99. Among many mentions of these kinds of emptiness in this text, one later list at 8.224 is followed by further statements about each.
This paragraph is found in Dutt 1934: p. 18.
Here and in the Hundred Thousand, 2.71 (ka, F.55.b) the equivalent passages read rgyal rigs che zhing mtho ba, with the equivalent for the other two classes. In the Eighteen Thousand, 2.27 (ka, F.16.a) and in the Tengyur version of the Twenty-Five Thousand (ga, F.30.b), the equivalent passages instead have rigs shing sA la chen po lta bu (“like a great sāla tree”). Dutt 1934: p. 25 has kṣatriyamahāśālakula (etc.) and the two different Tibetan renderings of what was almost certainly the same Sanskrit term demonstrate the interpretative and literal approaches to a standard simile.
This paragraph is found in Dutt 1934: p. 24.
This paragraph is found in Dutt 1934: p. 25.
This paragraph is found in Dutt 1934: p. 26.
This paragraph is found in Dutt 1934: p. 26.
The verbs in this phrase, gnas (stand, dwell, or remain) in the Degé Kangyur, are forms of gnon pa (step or step upon) in the Stok Palace, Yongle, Narthang, and Lhasa Kangyurs, as they are also in the equivalent passage of the Hundred Thousand. The translation here conforms to this latter reading.
Some of these large numbers are specifically quantified in the Treasury of Abhidharma (Abhidharmakośa): grangs med pa at ten to the power of fifty-one, tshad med pa at ten to the power of fifty-two, gzhal du med pa at ten to the power of fifty-seven, bsam gyis mi khyab pa at ten to the power of fifty-eight, and brjod du med pa at ten to the power of fifty-nine.
At this point in the Eighteen Thousand the second chapter ends.
According to the two Bṛhaṭṭīkā commentaries (Toh 3807; Toh 3808, 4.259) the seven emptinesses (saptaśūnyatā, stong pa nyid bdun po) are the emptinesses of the seven separate groups mentioned in the preceding passage—aggregates, sensory elements, sense fields, truths, dependent origination, all conditioned phenomena, and all unconditioned phenomena (or, alternatively for the last two, all phenomena, and then all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena). This set of seven aspects of emptiness is not to be confused with another set enumerated in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra and to be found in Nordrang Orgyan 2008: pp. 1649–50.
The phrase in both the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand is lhan cig kun tu rgyu, literally “move around together.” In the “eight-chapter” Tengyur version of the Twenty-Five Thousand, the Skt. samavasarati is rendered in Tibetan as yang dag par ’du ba, literally “come together.”
Compare the adaptation of this and the following paragraphs in the renowned Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya (The Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom”), Toh 21, 1.6 (Dharmachakra Translation Committee 2022).
This paragraph is found in Dutt 1934: p. 44.
This paragraph is found in Dutt 1934: p. 44.
This paragraph is found in Dutt 1934: p. 44.
This paragraph is found in Dutt 1934: p. 44.
The individual statements introduced in this paragraph and then summarized in this last sentence are set out in full in the Hundred Thousand and fill 38 folios (2.302–2.427).
This paragraph is found in Dutt 1934: p. 66.
This paragraph is found in Dutt 1934: p. 72.
This paragraph is found in Dutt 1934: p. 65.
This paragraph is found in Dutt 1934: p. 66.
This is omitted in the Tibetan, but found in Dutt 1934: p. 83, line 15: udakamapi kāyāt prasuñcati taḍ yathāpi nāma mahāmegha.
This expression is omitted in Dutt 1934: p. 86, line 9.
For “indications” (sanirdeśaṃ), Degé reads ngan rtags, while the variant reading found in the Yongle and Peking (KPD, vol. 26, note 2) suggests don rtags.
Degé and other Kangyurs here read thugs su byon cing dben par bya ba (or, less honorific in the next sentence, yid du ’ong zhing dben par bya ba). Dutt 1934: p. 90 line 14 reads priyo bhavati manaāpas ca, and this is followed by Conze 1975: p. 83, “dear and pleasing.” It is therefore quite possible that dben pa (“set apart,” “isolated”) should be read dpen pa (“useful,” “pleasing”) but there seems to be no Kangyur with this reading.
Dutt 1934: p. 91, line 6, and throughout this and the following paragraph, suggests that these were nuns (bhikṣuṇī, dge slong ma) rather than monks. Conze 1975: p. 83 concurs.
The corresponding Sanskrit is found in Dutt 1934: pp. 93–94.
Our text reads la, but Dutt 1934, p. 98, line 6 suggests the genitive.
The Tibetan text here and in the next two instances of this recurring statement reads btags pa’i chos, which we have rendered “something that is a designation.” In other contexts this term could be understood to refer instead to the thing or dharma that is designated. However, starting from 3.9, the term used in the rest of the instances in this passage is chos su btags pa, which we have rendered “a designation for something.” The meaning seems intended to be the same and both Tibetan terms are matched in the Sanskrit by dharmaprajñapti.
The Buddha’s statement here concludes his first response to the question put by Subhūti at the end of 3.4.
In all cases in this paragraph the emphatic particle yang is not translated.
The Degé here reads ma mchis pa. However, Yongle, Peking, Urga, and Lhasa (KPD 26: p. 237, line 1) read mchis pa. This construction is missing in Dutt 1934: pp. 112–13, which instead mentions the “real nature” (tathatā, de kho na nyid) of physical forms etc.
In the Tibetan corresponding to this paragraph, both for this text and the Hundred Thousand, 3.745) the many instances of Sanskrit dhātu have been translated as the Tibetan dbyings, rather than khams as would be much more usual in the context of the basic constituents of a sentient being including the sensory elements, etc. We have nevertheless interpreted chos kyi dbyings (dharmadhātu) in this passage as referring to the sensory element of mental phenomena rather than to the “realm of phenomena” in its wider sense; see the glossary definition for “realm of phenomena.” It is not clear why the Tibetan translators preferred the dbyings terminology here.
The last two are reversed in the Degé F.119.a–b.
Degé here reads mnyam pa med pa for nyams pa med pa, but see Dutt 1934: p. 118, line 4.
This is an extremely abbreviated listing of only 32 meditative stabilities, as found in Dutt 1934: pp. 117–18. The two longer enumerations of 119 meditative stabilities are found below, 6.20 and 8.247, corresponding to Dutt 1934: pp. 142–44 and pp. 198–203. In the present abbreviated list, there are a number of divergences from the two longer lists.
See also Conze 1975: p. 97, and the interpretation in Sparham 2006 I: p. 57.
See Conze 1975: p. 98, note 9.
Subhūti’s question here, compared to his original question to the Buddha at the beginning of chapter 3 (3.4), is rephrased with less reference to designation, even though the “naming” of dharmas continues to be an important element in the passage that follows. Note also that the Eighteen Thousand and Hundred Thousand, as well as the Sanskrit (Dt.123) and the Tengyur version of the sūtra (Toh 3790 vol.82, F.129.a) both include at this point an additional question: “Blessed Lord, I do not apprehend, do not find, and do not observe an entity (vastu, dngos po). Blessed Lord, since I do not apprehend, do not find, and do not observe an entity, to what phenomenon (dharma, chos) should I give teaching and instruction, and about what phenomena?”
These three terms, which are repeated in the passage that follows, we have tentatively translated according to the Tibetan (gnas pa ma mchis/ thug pa ma mchis/ byin gyis brlabs pa ma mchis). In the Sanskrit (Drt.124) there are four terms (na sthitaṃ nāsthitaṃ na viṣṭhitaṃ nāviṣṭhitam and in the Tengyur version of the sūtra (Toh 3790 vol.82, F.129.a), these are rendered gnas pa ma lags/ mi gnas pa ma lags/ gnas pa dang bral ba ma lags/ gnas pa dang bral ba ma lags pa ma lags, “not having a location, not lacking a location, not devoid of a location, and not not devoid of a location.” The terms sthita and gnas pa could also be translated as “abiding” or “remaining” in the sense of stable or lasting. The Hundred Thousand has the same three terms as here in the Tibetan (F.333.a), and only three in the Sanskrit (Ghoṣa 504): na sthitaṃ na viṣṭhitaṃ nādhiṣṭhitam. The Tibetan byin gyis brlabs pa, “transformative power” (sometimes rendered “blessings”) is a standard translation of adhiṣṭhāna in one of its senses (See Edgerton p. 16), and we have here used the term “influence” in deference to the original translators, even though later interpretations seem to have favored a more basic sense.
As in classical Greek, Sanskrit nouns and verbs are conjugated according to singular, dual, and plural forms.
This alludes to the anecdote of a non-Buddhist mendicant named Śreṇika Vatsagotra (Pali: Vacchagotta); his name in Tibetan here is phreng ba can, and is found rendered as bzo sbyangs and sde can in Tibetan in other Prajñāpāramitā texts. Despite his narrow and limited scope, Śreṇika accepted the Buddha’s overall omniscience through faith, and because he did not perceive or appropriate anything at all. The anecdote is mentioned as significant in all the long Prajñāpāramitā sūtras in passages discussing the Buddha’s overall omniscience, e.g. (as well as here) in chapter 1 of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā (Toh 12); chapter 8, 8.35–8.38 of the Aṣṭadaśasāhasrikā (Toh 10); chapter 11, 11.31–11.33 of the Daśasāhasrikā (Toh 11); and in chapter 5 of the Śatasāhasrikā (Toh 8). The Prajñāpāramitā sūtras themselves give little further detail, and Śreṇika Vatsagotra’s questioning of the Buddha does not seem to appear in full in any canonical text in Tibetan translation. It is, however, related in a number of Pali texts and āgamas in Chinese; see particularly Majjhimanikāya, 71–73, and Saṃyuktāgama, SA 962–64 and SA2 196–98. Nāgārjuna’s Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra gives further details; see Lamotte 2010 vol. 1, p. 58, note 119. A useful summary is set out in Conze’s introduction to the long sūtra; see Conze 1975: pp. 12–13.
In theory this meditative stability could be counted as first of the list that follows. However, in the passage introducing the second, parallel list in chapter 8 below, it is not mentioned; moreover, the two lists correspond more closely if this one is not taken as the first.
The listing of the 119 meditative stabilities that follows corresponds to Dutt 1934: pp. 142–44. The similar list (with exegesis) given below, 8.247 corresponds to Dutt 1934: pp. 198–203 (see also Conze 1975: pp. 148–52). By contrast, in the Ten Thousand, 12.12, there appears to be a unique listing, which in many instances partakes of the list found here, but which sometimes adopts instead the readings found in the exegetical list (Dutt 1934: pp. 198–03). The following notes n.173–n.243 will be of interest only to specialists. At some point it would be worthwhile to produce a comprehensive table, juxtaposing the listings of these meditative stabilities, as found in all texts within the genre.
This meditative stability is omitted in Dutt 1934: p. 142, line 10, but found in the other list on p. 198.
This meditative stability is omitted in Dutt 1934: p. 142, line 10, but found in the other list in Dutt 1934: p. 198.
The Sanskrit is attested in Dutt 1934: p. 142 and pp. 198–99. The Mahāvyutpatti reads vilokitamūrdha, which has the same meaning; the seventh meditative stability in the Ten Thousand, unseen pinnacle (spyi gtsug bltar mi mthong ba), is clearly related but means the opposite.
This meditative stability is found in the other list, Dutt 1934: p. 199, but replaced in the short list, p. 142, with samāhitāvasthāpratiṣṭha.
This meditative stability is found in the other list, Dutt 1934: p. 199, but replaced in the short list, p. 142, with seal of the king (rājamudrā, rgyal po’i phyag rgya).
This also occurs in the form balavīrya (Dutt 1934: p. 142). The other list, p. 199, reads balavyūha.
This meditative stability is found in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 142, but is replaced in the other list, p. 199, with niruktinirdeśapraveśa.
This meditative stability is attested in the other list, Dutt 1934: p. 199, whereas the short list, p. 142, replaces adhivacanasaṃpraveśa with anointment (āsecanakapraveśa).
The Sanskrit digvilokita is attested in the other list (Dutt 1934: p. 199), whereas the short list, p. 142, reads digavalokana.
This meditative stability is found in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 142, but replaced in the other list, p. 199, with ādhāraṇamudrā. In the Ten Thousand, it is rendered as gzungs kyi phyag rgya.
In the Ten Thousand, this is rendered as brjed pa med pa.
In the Ten Thousand, this is rendered as nam mkha’ khyab par byed pa.
This meditative stability is found in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 142, but replaced in the other list, p. 199, with tejovati.
This meditative stability is found in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 142, but replaced in the other list, p. 199, with apramāṇamāvabhāsa. In the Ten Thousand it is rendered as rgyal mtshan rtse mo’i tog.
This meditative stability is found in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 142, but replaced in the other list, p. 199, with asaṅgānāvaraṇa.
This meditative stability is found in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 142, but replaced in the other list, p. 199, with sarvadharmapravṛttisamuccheda.
This meditative stability is found in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 142, but omitted in the other list, p. 200.
This meditative stability is found in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 142, line 17. In the corresponding passage in the Ten Thousand, it is replaced with establishment of the array (bkod pa sgrub pa).
In the Ten Thousand, this is replaced with rin chen ’byung gnas (precious source).
This meditative stability is found in the other list, Dutt 1934: p. 200, but replaced in the short list, p. 142, with vipulapratipanna.
In the Ten Thousand, this is rendered as snang ba mtha’ yas pa.
In the Ten Thousand, this is rendered as snang ba byed pa.
This meditative stability is found in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 142, but replaced in the other list, p. 200, with śuddhasāra.
This meditative stability is found in the other list, Dutt 1934: p. 200, but replaced in the short list, p. 143, with aratikara.
This meditative stability is found in the other list, Dutt 1934: p. 200, but omitted in the short list, p. 143.
This meditative stability is omitted in Dutt 1934: p. 143—perhaps conflated with number 46: free from extinction (kṣayāpagata, zad pa dang bral ba).
This is rendered in the Ten Thousand as nges par rgyal ba.
This meditative stability is found in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 143, but replaced in the other list, p. 200, with akṣayāpagata.
In the Ten Thousand, this is rendered as rnam par ’joms pa (overwhelming). In the other list, it is rendered as imperishable (’jig pa med pa).
This meditative stability is omitted in the short list Dutt 1934: p. 143, and also omitted in the Ten Thousand.
This accords with the short list (Dutt 1934: p. 143), whereas the other list, p. 200, suggests śuddhaprabhāsa. In the Ten Thousand it is rendered as snang ba dag pa.
In the Ten Thousand, this is replaced with mchog gi ’byung gnas (supreme source).
This meditative stability is omitted in the other list (Dutt 1934: p. 201). In the Ten Thousand it is rendered as ye shes tog.
This meditative stability is omitted in Dutt 1934: p. 143, and presumably conflated with number 11 in the series.
This accords with the short list (Dutt 1934: p. 143), whereas the other list, p. 201, suggests samantāloka.
This accords with the other list (Dutt 1934: p. 201). It is omitted in the short list (p. 143).
The short list, Dutt 1934: p. 143, reads dharmaṅgata, but suggests dharmodgata in note 8. The other list, p. 201, reads sarvadharmodgata. In the Ten Thousand, this is rendered as chos kyi gnas pa’i spyi gtsug.
In the Ten Thousand, this is rendered as tshig thams cad rab tu ’byed pa.
The other list (Dutt 1934: p. 201) reads only samākṣara.
This meditative stability is found in the other list, Dutt 1934: p. 201, but replaced in the short list, p. 143, with anigara.
This meditative stability is found in the other list, Dutt 1934: p. 201, where it is immediately followed by aprakāra. The latter is replaced in the short list, p. 143, with prabhākara.
This meditative stability is found in the other list, Dutt 1934: p. 201, but omitted in the short list, p. 143.
This accords with the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 143, whereas the other list, p. 201, suggests nāmanimittapraveśa.
This accords with the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 143, whereas the other list, p. 201, suggests only timirāpagata.
This is attested in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 143, but omitted in the other list (p. 202).
This accords with the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 143, whereas the other list (p. 202) reads cittasthitiniścitta.
This accords with the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 143, whereas the other list (p. 202) reads anantaprabhāsa.
This accords with the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 143, whereas the other list (p. 202) reads sarvadharmātikramaṇa.
This meditative stability is found in the short list, though out of order (Dutt 1934: p. 143), and replaced in the other list (p. 202) with paricchedakara. In the Ten Thousand, the initial chos is omitted.
This meditative stability is found in the short list, though out of order (Dutt 1934: p. 143), and omitted in the other list (p. 202). In the Ten Thousand it is rendered as shin tu brtags pa med pa.
This meditative stability is found in the other list, Dutt 1934: p. 202, but omitted in the short list (p. 143).
This meditative stability is found in the other list, Dutt 1934: p. 202, but omitted in the short list (p. 143). In the Ten Thousand it is rendered as bkod pa gcig pa.
This meditative stability is found in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 143, and rendered in the other list (p. 202) as ākārābhinirhāra.
This meditative stability is found in the other list, Dutt 1934: 202, as ekākāravyūha, but omitted in the short list (p. 143).
This meditative stability is found in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 143, but replaced in the other list (p. 202) with nirvedhikasarvabhāvatalādhikāra. In the Ten Thousand, this is rendered as srid pa ’dam bu thams cad phung po med par rnam par ’thor ba.
This meditative stability is found in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 143, but replaced in the other list (p. 202) with nirghoṣo / kṣaravimukta. At this point the short list also inserts tejovatī.
This meditative stability is found in the other list, Dutt 1934: p. 202, but replaced in the short list (p. 143) with rakṣānupariśodhaṇa. In the Ten Thousand, the final syllable is rendered as dag pa rather than sbyong ba.
This meditative stability is found in the other list, Dutt 1934: p. 202, but replaced in the short list (p. 143) with anāvilakṣānti.
This meditative stability is attested in the short list Dutt 1934: p. 143, but replaced in the other list (p. 202) with sarvākaravaropeta. In the Ten Thousand this is rendered as rnam pa thams cad kyi mchog dang ldan pa.
In the Ten Thousand, this is rendered simply as rnam pa zad mi shes pa.
This meditative stability is found in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 143, but replaced in the other list (p. 203) with dhāraṇīpratipatti.
This meditative stability is omitted in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 143, but found in the other list (p. 203) as sarvarodhanirodhapraśamana and followed immediately by anusārapratisāra. In the Ten Thousand it is rendered as ’gal ba dang ’gog pa med pa.
See Negi 1998: p. 2118, following MVT 608: anurodhapratirodha.
This is rendered in the Ten Thousand as zla ba nya ba’i ’od dri ma med pa.
This is rendered in the Ten Thousand as bkod pa chen po.
This meditative stability is attested as such in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 144, and rendered in the other listing (p. 203) as sarvākāraprabhākara. In the Ten Thousand it is rendered as ’jig rten thams cad la ’od byed pa.
This meditative stability is not attested in Sanskrit in either list. The short list (Dutt 1934: p. 144) instead reads anayavinayanayavimukta.
This meditative stability is attested in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 144, but rendered in the other list (p. 203) as araṇasamavasaraṇa. The Ten Thousand here reads nyon mongs pa med pa nyon mongs pa dang bcas pa thams cad yang dag par ’du ba (convergence of all mental afflictions in nonaffliction).
This meditative stability is not attested in either list, though rendered in the other list, Dutt 1934: p. 203, as anilāniketa, and in the short list (p. 144) as anilaniyata. The Ten Thousand reads g.yo ba med cing gnas pa med pa la dga’ ba (engaged without departing and without remaining).
The Ten Thousand omits … s rab tu ’dul ba (“tamed by”).
This meditative stability is attested in the short list, Dutt 1934: p. 144, which also suggests that they comprise two distinct meditative stabilities. The other list (p. 203) omits the suffix gaganakalpa. In the Ten Thousand, the final syllables med pa are omitted.
This reading follows Dutt 1934: p. 148, line 11: te abhiniviṣṭāḥ. Cf. Conze 1975: p. 108. Degé, however, reads de dag ni mngon par zhen pa ma yin te, suggesting that they are not fixated.
Cf. Dutt: p. 155: na rūpaśūnyatayā rūpaṃ śūnyaṃ.…
According to the Ten Thousand, 7.11, the subject of this paragraph is “inner forms” (nang gi gzugs) rather than the five aggregates.
In the passage that starts here the Sanskrit terms padārtha and its negative or opposite apadārtha are crucial to an understanding of the text. Sanskrit pada, starting from its basic meaning of a footstep or track, also means a mark, standpoint, token, portion, sign, a matter, or a word; while artha (or ārtha) has an even wider range of meanings including aim, purpose, cause, motive, use, object, and meaning. The Tibetan translators of this text and of the Hundred Thousand have rendered the two compounds as tshig gi don and tshig gi don med pa, of which the literal translations in English might be “the meaning of the word” and “the absence of meaning of the word.” However, don here must be understood as referring not to “meaning” in the sense of a definition of some kind, but rather to the actual thing denoted by the word. Here we have followed that interpretation, which is not unreasonable given the clear association with the “word” in question, bodhisattva. Note that the Tibetan of the Eighteen Thousand (11.2 et seq.) renders the two compounds gzhi’i don and gzhi med pa’i don, i.e., using a different interpretation of pada and a different analysis of the second compound.
sems can as the Tibetan rendering of the sattva in Skt. bodhisattva rather than from the Tibetan sems dpa’. The Sanskrit of this whole passage in the “recast” Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā (Dutt 160–161) is substantially different but can be followed in the equivalent passage of the Śatasāhasrikā (Ghoṣa 1.7).
Dutt 1934: p. 160 reads padaṃ na vidyate. The present translation of gnas med as “without any basis,” rather than “without abiding,” accords with the Ten Thousand, F.54.b, line 5 and so on, where the Tibetan gzhi med occurs throughout.
The lists of phenomena in the following breakdown of phenomena into their different categories, though not their order or their more detailed categorization are paralleled in the first two chapters of the Ten Thousand (Toh 11) 1.11 et seq. In the following footnotes references are provided to Konow’s (1941) translation and reconstruction of the Sanskrit of these chapters of the Ten Thousand as well as to Conze’s synoptic translation of the “Large Sūtra.”
Konow 1941: p. 85 and the reconstructed Sanskrit on p. 111. Cf. Conze 1975: p. 121.
Konow 1941: p. 85 and the reconstructed Sanskrit on p. 111. Cf. Conze 1975: p. 121.
Konow 1941: pp. 85–86 and the reconstructed Sanskrit on pp. 111–12. Cf. Conze 1975: p. 121.
That is to say, by bringing about release from those pleasant states. See the Ten Thousand, 1.33.
This listing of the eight aspects of liberation, the nine serial steps of meditative absorption, and the nine contemplations of impurity is also translated in Konow 1941: pp. 19–23, with Sanskrit reconstruction on pp. 98–99. On the eight aspects of liberation, see also Sparham 2012 IV: pp. 68–69.
Konow 1941: p. 86 and the reconstructed Sanskrit on p. 112. Cf. Conze 1975: pp. 121–22.
Konow 1941: p. 86 and the reconstructed Sanskrit on p. 112. Cf. Conze 1975: p. 122.
Konow 1941: pp. 86–87 and the reconstructed Sanskrit on p. 112. Cf. Conze 1975: p. 122.
Cf. Conze 1975: pp. 122–23, and for a different translation of these terms, see Konow 1941: p. 87.
See Konow 1941: pp. 87–88, and the reconstructed Sanskrit on p. 112. Cf. Conze 1975: p. 123.
sems can gyi phung po chen po nges pa renders the Sanskrit (mahāsattvarāśiniyata, in Ghoṣa) but misses some of the wordplay. This is almost certainly a reference to the category of “those whose [receptivity] to the correct is certain” (samyaktvaniyatam, yang dag pa nyid du nges pa, or in this text just nges pa’i phung po) of the three categories or groupings of beings (trīn sattvarāśin, sems can gyi phung po gsum) mentioned later in the text (in 42.24 and 53.140 et seq.), and also in the Lalitavistara (see the Play in Full 25.47), the Mahāvastu, and Mahāvyutpatti 7137. This passage reads somewhat differently in the Tibetan of the Tengyur version and of the Eighteen Thousand, as well as in the equivalent Sanskrit (which doubles the phrase to mahāsattvarāśir mahāsattvanikāya). See also n.515 and n.562.
This point in the text corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 12 in the Eighteen Thousand.
This point in the text corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 13 in the Eighteen Thousand.
Dutt 1934: p. 176 replaces this term with vyupaparīkṣaṇā (“scrutiny”). See also Conze 1975: p. 129.
This reading corresponds to Skt. asamucchita (gtsugs med pa). The alternative asneha (gcugs med pa) could be rendered as “without ties.”
The repetition of bsam gtan gi yan lag here in Degé, line 2 may possibly be a misprint for tshad med dang gzugs med kyi snyoms ’jug.
The Sanskrit term bhāvanāvibhāvanā, as attested in Kimura and Ghoṣa, is rendered as bsgom pa rnam par ’jig pa, literally “the destruction of cultivation,” in the Tibetan translations of the Ten Thousand (Toh 11), Eighteen Thousand (Toh 10), and the Tengyur version of the Twenty-Five Thousand (Toh 3790). In this version of the Twenty-Five Thousand and in the Hundred Thousand (Toh 8), however, it is rendered bsgom pa rnam par bsgom pa, suggesting more an analysis or investigation of cultivation rather than its destruction or negation. The Mahāvyutpatti (6360) includes both renderings of the vibhāvanā part of the compound, which we have chosen to translate, here and in chapter 37 ( 37.19) as well as in chapter 53 (53.96) where the compound is found in reverse order, as “breaking down,” in order to retain the widest range of possible meanings: “examination,” “analysis,” “exposure,” “deconstruction,” “destruction,” “annihilation,” “elimination,” or “unraveling” with respect to false appearances. Cf. Kimura IV: p. 109; also Conze 1975: p. 135 n12. Ratnākarakṣānti also reads avibhāvitam aprahīṇam. no hīti nāprahīṇam| prahīṇam evety arthaḥ|. Thanks to Greg Seton for this observation. See also n.454.
This point in the text corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 14 in the Eighteen Thousand.
Note the emphatic repetition of the phrase “they should don the great armor” (go cha chen po bgos so).
These six ways in which the trichiliocosm is said to shake are as follows: when the eastern side rises up the western side sinks low, when the western side rises up the eastern side sinks low, when the southern side rises up the northern side sinks low, when the northern side rises up the southern side sinks low, when the edges rise up the center sinks low, and when the center rises up the extremes sink low.
Dutt p. 187, line 5 reads “medications” (bhaiṣajya) for which the Tibetan has: rtsi dang yo byad.
Tib. sgyu ma’i chos nyid nye bar bzung na chos rnams kyi chos nyid de yin pa. Dutt 1934: p. 187, lines 18–19 reads: dharmataiṣā subhūte dharmāṇām māyādharmatāmupadaya. Conze 1975: p. 138 translates: “For such is the true nature of dharmas that in fact they are illusory.”
Our text reads chos nyid (“reality”), whereas Dutt 1934, p. 189, line 13 reads samatā (“sameness”) and Conze 1975: p. 139, follows accordingly.
This reading (“connected with”) follows Dutt 1934, p. 190, line 9: pratisaṃyuktam, and Conze 1975: p. 140. The Tibetan kyis is ambiguous and could also imply “by means of.”
Here the Tibetan reads kyi rather than kyis.
The three verbs here and repeated in the passage that follows are, in the Degé, ma byas, rnam par ma byas, and mngon par ma byas, or mi byed, rnam par mi byed, and mngon par mi byed. Dutt’s and Ghoṣa’s Sanskrit have na … karoti na vikaroti nābhisaṃskaroti. The Ten Thousand and Eighteen Thousand have, instead, ma byas, ma bshig (“not destroyed” or “unmade”), and mngon par ’dus ma byas.
This point in the text corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 15 in the Eighteen Thousand.
While the first question is answered in great detail in what follows of this chapter and of chapter 9, the second question is answered at the beginning of chapter 10 at 10.1 and the third and fourth questions from 10.28 onward.
For variant listings, see Konow 1941: pp. 30–31, and the reconstructed Sanskrit on pp. 102–4. See also the translation in Sparham 2006: I, pp. 107–10, which lists twenty aspects of emptiness.
This phrase is missing in the Tibetan (Degé, F.201.b, line 7).
Since the term “entities” (bhāva, dngos po) specifically denotes the conditioned phenomena of the aggregates, this would seem to preclude Lamotte’s translation (op. cit. p. 1762) of dngos po as “existence,” although “existents” could be an acceptable alternative. Similarly, the term “nonentities” (abhāva, dngos po med pa) denotes unconditioned phenomena and is therefore incompatible with Lamotte’s “nonexistence.”
In the previous list of the 119 meditative stabilities, 6.20, this is named without fear (vivṛta, ’jigs pa med pa). In the Ten Thousand, 12.12 (F.126.a, line 3), it is rendered as rnam par ’joms pa.
Tib. nyon mongs pa dang bcas pa thams cad nyon mongs pa med par yang dag par gzhol ba. Omitted in the previous list of 119 meditative stabilities.
This reading accords with Dutt 1934 p. 201, second to last line, and Conze 1975: p. 151 (no. 70). According to our text (Degé F.230.a, line 2) the verb is negative (yang dag par yongs su mi mthong ba).
The list of eleven aspects of knowledge that follows differs slightly in content, and significantly in order, from the list in the Ten Thousand.
The recollection of disillusionment with cyclic existence (udvegānusmṛti, skyo ba rjes su dran pa), as found at 2.5 (and in Nordrang Orgyan 2008: p. 2157), is the preferred reading here. The text in the Degé and other Kangyurs reads skye ba rjes su dran pa (“recollection of birth”) but the Yongle (see KPD 26: p. 541, note 9) and the Stok Palace (ka F.329.a) have skyo ba, etc. See also n.114.
In most lists of the ten powers, the polysemous term dhātu (khams) is interpreted to mean the constituents or constitution of individual beings rather than the realms of cyclic existence. Here, however, the Tibetan ’jig rten gyi khams ni sna tshogs can te/ ’jig rten gyi khams ni du ma pa’o and the Sanskrit (from the Hundred Thousand) nānādhātuloke ’nekadhātur loke suggest the latter interpretation is emphasized. The word loka is not present in the Sanskrit of the Tengyur version of the Twenty-Five Thousand.
The listing of the ten powers of the tathāgatas is analyzed in Konow 1941, pp. 37–39, with reconstructed Sanskrit on pp. 105–6, even though the list in the Ten Thousand is not identical in all respects. A full explanation of these powers can be found in the passage at 2.257–2.387 in The Teaching on the Great Compassion of the Tathāgata (Tathāgatamahākaruṇānirdeśa, Toh 147, also known as The Sūtra of Dhāraṇīśvararāja, Dhāraṇīśvararājasūtra), in which the ten powers are described as the first ten of thirty-two actions of a tathāgata. Cf. also Dayal 1932: p. 20, and Sparham 2012 (IV): p. 80. Note, however, that the lists vary somewhat in detail.
tshangs pa’i ’khor lo.… ra btu bskor bar bya’o (brāhmaṃ cakraṃ pravartayāmi in the Sanskrit). The wheel is Brahmā’s emblem and the term “wheel of Brahmā” may therefore simply refer to the wheel of the Buddha’s teachings. Alternatively, the Bṛhaṭṭīkā (Toh 3808, 4.1003) glosses this as “turning the wheel like Brahmā” (tshangs pa bzhin du ’khor lo bskor), while the same phrase in the Ratnagotravibhāga is expanded by Dolpopa to “turning the wheel of Dharma in the realm of Brahmā” (tshangs pa’i gnas su chos kyi ’khor lo skor ba).
See the glossary entry “four fearlessnesses” for notes and comparative references to this set.
Lexical explanations (nirukta, nges pa’i tshig) here implies the exact knowledge of the primary and derivative definitions and explanations of names and words. Inspired eloquence (pratibhāna, spobs pa) is the means by which the teachings are expressed. On the philological origins of these four kinds of exact knowledge—the essentials through which the buddhas impart their teachings—see Konow 1941: p. 40, and the reconstructed Sanskrit on p. 107; also Dayal 1932: pp. 259–67, and Sparham 2012 (IV): pp. 78–79.
See the analysis of the eighteen distinct qualities of the buddhas in Konow 1941: pp. 41–44, which discusses the etymology of āveṇika and compares alternative listings; also Dayal 1932: pp. 21–23, and Sparham 2012 (IV): p. 82.
Degé, F.245.b, line 1, reads ṭa, but the Yongle, Peking, Narthang, Urga, and Lhasa all read ḍa (see KPD 26: p. 552, note 3), which is clearly the correct reading here.
Sanskrit stambha may also suggest “rigidity.”
Dutt 1934, p. 212 reads gagana, but see Conze 1975, p. 161.
This follows the Tibetan (vol. 26, p. 553) but for alternative readings see Conze 1975, p. 161. Dutt 1934, p. 212, last line reads taccānulabdhita, suggesting perhaps that “that-ness” is not apprehended.
This is missing in Dutt 1934, whereas Conze 1975, p. 161 suggests mārtya (“mortality”) or artha (“meaning”).
Dutt 1934, p. 213 suggests “aging” (jarā). The Skt. jarā is said to be rendered in the Saka language as ysara. See Conze 1975, p. 161.
Conze 1975, p. 162 suggests unsteadiness (g.yo ba) although the requisite ḍh syllable is absent.
In the Sanskrit (Dutt 1934, p. 214), this mention of beneficial states is an item of its own in the list of ten refinements (see following note), but in this and the other Kangyur versions of the long sūtra, including the Hundred Thousand, 10.2 (ga F.196.b), as well as in the Tengyur version (Toh 3790) it appears to be deliberately associated with equanimity as evidenced by the use of a participle (zhing) between the two in place of the conjunction (dang) used between the other items.
This one of the ten refinements, present in this text, in its Tengyur version (Toh 3790), and in the Hundred Thousand, is omitted in the Sanskrit (Dutt 1934, p. 214), which instead presents the second refinement in this list as two distinct items. See also preceding note n.301.
The Tibetan reads mig for yig.
Missing in Dutt 1934, p. 215, which adds “mendicants” (pravrajita).
Missing in Dutt 1934, p. 215.
This is omitted both in Degé, F.250.a, line 4, and KPD 26: p. 562, but included in Dutt 1934, p. 218. See the previous note.
Omitted in Dutt 1934, p. 218.
Degé F.252.a, line 7, reads yongs su spyod pa (“enjoy”), but see KPD 26: p. 567, note 7 for the preferred reading yong su sbyong ba (“purify”).
Missing in Dutt 1934, p. 220.
The avoidance of doubt (vicikitsā, the tshom) is omitted in Degé F.254.a, line 1, also in KPD 26: p. 572. On this, see the note in Conze 1973, p. 172.
Degé F.254b, line 7, reads kha za yag. Dutt 221, line 18, reads parityajya na durmanasko bhavati, suggesting that bodhisattvas should practice generosity, etc., without ill thoughts of regret, futility, or despondency. The Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitābṛhaṭṭīkā (’bum pa rgya cher ’grel pa, Toh 3807) glosses this rare term as follows: kha za yag gi sems su mi bya zhes bya ba ni stong pa’am don med par mi bya’o zhes bya ba’i don to, suggesting that it denotes futility. Tulku Pema Wangyal (oral communication, 25 January 2018) interprets this to mean that the acts of a bodhisattva, such as generosity, should not be undertaken with regret or second thoughts. According to KPD 26: p. 573, note 4, the Choné xylograph edition suggests the alternative reading: kha gsag (lapana, “flattery”).
Missing in Degé F.257.b, line 6; also in KPD 26: p. 579.
This point in the text is the equivalent of the end of chapter 17 in the Eighteen Thousand, “Level Purification,” and the next passage is comprised in chapter 18, “The Exposition of Going Forth in the Great Vehicle.”
Tib. gnas pa med pa, following KPD 26: p. 600, note 2. Degé F.266.b, line 5, reads gnas pa, which may correspond to Dutt 1934, p. 228, line 17, yāna.
Cf. Dutt 1934: p. 228, line 17; also Conze 1975: p. 180. The latter follows Dutt in reading the conclusion with a negative particle: “will not attain deliverance; will not come to a halt.” Dutt also acknowledges that there are other Sanskrit manuscripts without the negative particle, which would therefore interpret the final line positively, as does the corresponding Tibetan text of the Ten Thousand, 12.42.
This distinctive enumeration of the ten levels (daśabhūmi, sa bcu) is particularly associated with the tradition of the Prajñāpāramitā literature and, as such, it is at variance with other listings of the ten levels found in the sūtras, as well as the list of seven levels found in Asaṅga’s Bodhisattvabhūmi. Note, however, that the other, more widespread set of ten is mentioned as well at this point in the Tengyur version (Toh 3790, ga, F.256.a–b) and in Dutt’s Sanskrit (Dutt: 1934: pp. 230–31; also Conze 1975: p. 181) as well as in the Eighteen Thousand (18.38). Of this distinctive set of ten, the first seven are said to be attainable by śrāvakas (śrāvaka, nyan thos), and they are enumerated separately in the Mahāvyutpatti (1141–47). Among them, the level of the spiritual family is associated with śrāvakas in general. The eighth-lowest level is associated with candidates for entering the stream to nirvāṇa and is so called because it is the first and lowest of eight categories of noble person, though it is sometimes also said to denote the “eightfold receptiveness to the path of insight” (darśanamārgāṣṭakṣānti, mthong lam gyi bzod pa brgyad), which comprises “knowledge of phenomena” (dharmajñāna, chos shes pa) and “subsequent knowledge” (anvayajñāna, rjes su rtogs pa’i shes pa) with respect to each of the four truths of the noble ones. The level of insight is associated with those who have entered the stream to nirvāṇa, the level of attenuated refinement is associated with those who are destined for only one more rebirth, the level of no attachment is associated with those who are not subject to future rebirths, and the level of spiritual achievement is associated with arhats. Cf. Sparham 2006 (I): pp. 296–97, and Conze 1975: pp. 163–78. See also Nordrang Orgyan 2003: p. 2508, and for an analysis of the alternative lists, Dayal 1932: pp. 270–91.
The passage that follows exemplifies a recurring point of importance and contention in the Tibetan translations of the Prajñāpāramitā literature, namely that the expression ma mchis may correspond either to the Sanskrit nāsti (“to be nonexistent”), to navidyate (“to be unknown”), or to na dṛśyate (“to not be discerned”). The same is true of the equivalent non-negative forms true when the verb is not in the negative. In the present context, Dutt 1934 p. 231, line 17 and so on, reads na dṛśyate, and we have therefore opted to translate the term as “not discern.” Incidentally, the Ten Thousand, 13.13, concurs, adopting the equivalent Tibetan expression mi mngon lags.
Two distinct enumerations of the sixty aspects of buddha speech (gsung dbyangs rnam pa drug bcu) are found in Nordrang Orgyan 2003: pp. 3572–74. See also Jamspal et al, 2004: pp. 156–58; and Sparham 2006 (I): 132–33.
This paragraph appears to be missing in Dutt 1934: p. 235, but it is included in Conze 1975: p. 184.
Cf. Dutt 1934: pp. 235–36; also Conze 1975: p. 184.
As indicated in KPD 26: p. 663, note 3, the Yongle, Litang, and Choné woodblock editions all at this point include the incantation ye dharmā hetuprabhavā hetun teṣāṃ tathāgato bhavat āha teṣāṃ ca yo nirodho evaṃ vādī mahāśramaṇaḥ (“Whatever events arise from causes, the Tathāgata has told of their causes, and the great ascetic has also taught their cessation”); and they also end with the benediction maṅgalaṃ bhavantu.
Degé ka, F.296.a, line 2, and KPD 26: p. 669 both omit the level of bright insight.
See Conze 1975: p. 186. Dutt 1934: p. 240 reads na nāma … nānāma—probably a misprint for na māna nānmāna.
Degé ka, F.309.b, line 6 (also KPD 26: p. 701) misreads mi mnyam pa’i chos nyid. See Dutt 1934, p. 243, line 17.
Note that in this paragraph the six perfections are included twice—once in descending order and once in ascending order.
See above, n.317. Here the Tibetan ma mchis renders na vidyate (Dutt 1934, p. 244, line 21).
The word byang chub sems dpa’ is missing in Degé ka, F.312.a, line 4, but see KPD 26: p. 707, note 1.
The question does not seem to match exactly any of the questions put by Śāriputra at the start of this passage.
chos thams cad byed pa med par yang dag par rjes su mthong la. The Eighteen Thousand has mi g.yo bar here instead of byed pa med par. In both cases it is not clear if this negative phrase is a negative property they observe in phenomena (as in the following phrases) or an adverb describing how they observe phenomena.
Cf. Dutt 1934: pp. 256–57; also Conze 1975: p. 194. On the term āratā āramitā see also Sparham 2006 (I): p. 144.
Cf. Sparham 2006 (I): p. 145.
This question and Subhūti’s answers refer back to the passage at the end of chapter 12, 12.203. Note that the Ten Thousand here reads ’grib pa med pa (“imperishable”) instead of gnyis su med pa (“nondual”), in this and the following paragraphs, but see Dutt 1934: p. 259, which reads advaya (“nondual”).
Dutt 1934: p. 259; also Conze 1975: p. 195. The term “five degrees of enlightenment” (byang chub chen po rnam pa lnga) is interpreted by Vimuktisena (Sparham 2006 (I): p. 145) to denote the results such as entering the stream, which are mentioned in the following paragraph. See also the Extensive Explanation (Toh 3808, 4.1313).
The three fetters (trisaṃyojana, kun tu sbyor gsum) comprise the fetter of inertia due to false views about perishable composites (satkāyadṛṣṭi, ’jig tshogs la lta ba), the fetter of attachment to moral and ascetic supremacy (śīlavrataparāmarśa, tshul khrims dang brtul zhugs mchog tu ’dzin pa), and the fetter of doubt (vicikitsā, the tshom). See Nyima & Dorje 2001: p. 33; also Nordrang Orgyan 2003: p. 169. See also above, 2.225.
Degé F.367.a, line 2 reads dga’ ba (“joy”) for dka’ ba (“hardship”), but see KPD 26: p. 828, note 1 for the correct reading.
Degé F.368.b, line 3 reads ’on tam skye ba mi skye (“or does arising not arise”), which is inconsistent with the response that follows. We have followed the reading in the Yongle and Peking Kangyurs, ’on tam mi skye ba (see KPD 26: p. 831, note 3).
This reading follows the Tibetan: khyod chos ma skyes so/ chos ma skyes so/ zhes bya bar brjod par spobs sam. However, Dutt 1934: p. 261, line 14 suggests that the verb is in the third person (pratibhāti), for which reason the passage could be read as, “Is it intelligible to say that phenomena are nonarising?” Cf. Conze 1975: pp. 196–97. The Tibetan could also be read more colloquially: “Do you dare to say that phenomena are nonarising!”
According to the Ten Thousand, he is inspired to do so, and the following sentence too is affirmative. However, the Hundred Thousand (vol. 17, F.247.a) confirms the negative for both statements.
By contrast, the Ten Thousand here reads “without apprehending anything’ (mi dmigs pa’i tshul gyis), as does Conze 1975, p. 198.
In this and the following paragraphs there are significant differences between our text and the “recast” Sanskrit version edited in Dutt 1934, pp. 266–67. Cf. Conze 1975, pp. 199–200.
In Degé F.378.b, line 5, the phrase med pa’i phyir is missing. See KPD 26: p. 852, note 1.
The end of this thirteenth chapter (here and also in the Hundred Thousand) marks the end of the “intermediate teaching” (see Introduction, i.60). Most of the rest of the text from here onward constitutes the “detailed teaching.” In the Eighteen Thousand, the same transition from intermediate to detailed teachings is found at the end of chapter 21. In all three long sūtras, this point also marks the end of the section on the first of the eight topics of The Ornament of Clear Realization, i.e., all-aspect omniscience (sarvākārajñatā, rnam pa thams cad mkhyen pa nyid), and the beginning of the second, knowledge of the path (mārgajñatā, lam gyi rnam pa shes pa nyid). In the Tengyur “Eight-chapter” version of this text (Toh 3790)—the chapters conforming to the eight topics—this point corresponds to the end of the first chapter and is found, in the Degé Tengyur, in volume 83, folio 8a.
The title “Subhūti” in this chapter colophon may be intended to refer not only to this chapter 13 but also to the entirety of the “intermediate teaching,” i.e., chapters 2 through 13, which is referred to as “the Subhūti chapter” (subhūtiparivarta, rab ’byor gyi le’u) in chapter 16 at 16.38. See introduction i.60 and n.362 below.
On the hierarchy of the six god realms within the realm of desire (kāmadhātu), which are all mentioned here, commencing with Trayastriṃśa and Caturmahārājakāyika, and concluding with Yāma, Tuṣita, Nirmāṇarata, and Paranirmitavaśavartin, see the chart in Dudjom Rinpoche 1991: pp. 14–15.
The sixteen Brahmā realms, extending from Brahmakāyika to Bṛhatphala, correspond to lesser, middling, and higher degrees of the four meditative concentrations. See glossary under Pure Abodes.
On the hierarchy of the five pure abodes (śuddhanivāsa) at the pinnacle of the realm of form (rūpadhātu), extending from Avṛha to Akaniṣṭha, see the chart in Dudjom Rinpoche 1991: pp. 14–15.
This refers to the realization of the arhats and those no longer subject to further rebirths within cyclic existence who are incapable of generating the mind of enlightenment that resolves to remain in the world for the sake of beings. Note that our text reads yang dag par for yang dag pa’i. In the passages that follow, the theme of “knowledge of the path” considers how bodhisattvas will view the paths of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.
Our text reads gyi, but see KDP vol. 27, p. 4, note 1 for the preferred reading gyis.
That is to say, although arhats and the like are unable to remain in the world in order to eliminate the sufferings of beings, they may for the remainder of their last life focus on the intent of the Mahāyāna. Cf Kimura II-III: p. 2; also Conze 1975: pp. 203–4, and Sparham 2008 II: pp. 73–77.
This list, repeated in all the fifteen paragraphs that follow, is described in some commentaries including the Long Explanation (Toh 3808, 5.12) as the “fifteen modes of attention” although the number of items is not clearly limited to fifteen. In other interpretations sixteen items are identified grouped as different aspects of the four truths of the noble ones (see Conze 1975 p. 204). For further interpretations of these terms, see the commentaries in Sparham 2008 II: pp. 5–6 and 83–84.The list is slightly different in the Ten Thousand and Eighteen Thousand in both of which, among other terminological differences, “at peace” (zhi ba) is missing. Note that “without a self” (bdag gi med pa) is duplicated after “vacuous” (śūnyataḥ, stong pa nyid).
Kimura II-III: p. 4, line 8: evaṃ dharmeṇa, chos kho nar zad de.
Cf. Kimura II-III: p. 4, lines 23–25; also Conze 1975: p. 205, and the commentary in Sparham 2008 II: p. 7.
This reading follows the Sanskrit asaṃskṛta-prabhāvitam (Kimura II-III: 8 line 14), on which see Conze 1975: p. 207. The Tibetan here reads ’dus ma byas las gdags—“designated on the basis of unconditioned phenomena.”
See the commentary in Sparham 2008 II: pp. 9–10.
Kimura II-III: p. 13, line 26 na rūpaṃ prajñaptaṃ. Tib. gzugs su btags pa med do.
This address to the gods rather than to the group of elders including Śāradvatīputra, Mahāmaudgalyāyana, Mahākauṣṭhila, Mahākātyāyana, Pūrṇa Maitrāyaṇīputra, and Mahākāśyapa, who asked the original question (see above, 15.9), appears to be misplaced, but it does conform to the Sanskrit (Kimura II: p. 15: line 29) where the devas are included among those posing the question. See also Conze 1975: p. 211.
Kimura II-III: p. 18, line 27, which adds “concentrated intellectual brilliance” (samāhitapratibhāna); also Conze 1975: p. 212.
“The discourse of Subhūti” (subhūteḥ parivarta, rab ’byor kyi le’u) could be taken as a general statement, but may more probably refer to “the Subhūti chapter,” i.e., the first thirteen chapters of this text, identified in commentaries as the “intermediate explanation,” and focused according to The Ornament of Clear Realization on the first of the eight topics, all-aspect omniscience. In the Tengyur “eight-chapter” version of this text (Toh 3790), this passage in the text opens the point at which, having considered the paths of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, the “knowledge of the path” begins to focus on the path of bodhisattvas; however, in that version the sutra conforms more closely to the eight topics than in this one, in which the order is substantially different.
Kimura II: p. 33 line 2 reads: dharmadhātvārambhaṇānantatayā. Note that the Tibetan reads chos kyi dbyings mtha’ yas pa’i phyir instead of chos kyi dbyings dmigs pa mtha’ yas pa’i phyir.
Kimura II: p. 33, line 4 reads tathatārambhaṇānantatayā. The Tibetan de bzhin nyid dmigs pa med pas mtha’ yas pa’i phyir inserts med pas, which would appear to conflict with the sense of the passage.
The reading with the interrogative dam (KPD vol. 27, p. 118, note 4) corresponds to Kimura II-III: p. 33, line 23.
This point corresponds to the end of chapter 24 and the beginning of chapter 25 in the Eighteen Thousand.
Kimura, II-III: p. 35 reads Dīpavatī, as does Conze 1975: p. 220.
Kimura, II-III: p. 35, line 15 reads vidyācaraṇasampanna; Tib. mkhyen pa dang rkang par ldan pa.
The first six of these, extending from Caturmahārājakāyika to Paranirmitavaśavartin, designate the hierarchy of the gods within the realm of desire, whereas the twelve realms subsumed in their threefold strata under the names Mahābrahmā, Ābhāsvara, Śubhakṛtsna, and Bṛhatphala designate the hierarchy of the gods within the realm of form, attainable through the four meditative concentrations. See the chart in Dudjom Rinpoche 1991: pp. 14–15.
For the last mentioned, Kimura II-III: p. 37 reads utpathagata, which Conze 1975: p. 222 interprets as “staying on a highway.”
This reading follows Kimura II-III: p. 38, prajñāyante, for which Conze 1975, p. 222, suggests “are conceived.” The Tibetan translation yod pa (“be present”) seems to be contextually more opaque.
Missing in the Tibetan, but see Kimura II: p. 41, line 15: atha khalu.…
According to traditional Indian cosmology, our human world of Patient Endurance (sahālokadhātu, mi mjed ’jig rten gyi khams) is said to comprise four continents, namely, Pūrvavideha in the east, Jambudvīpa in the south, Aparagodānīya in the west, and Uttarakuru in the north. A single world system (cakravāla) extends from the realms of the hells, pretas, and animals through those human abodes, and through the celestial domains of the six god realms belonging to the realm of desire, the twenty-one god realms of the realm of form (twenty-one in this text, seventeen in others), and the four activity fields of the realm of formlessness. In association with the four meditative concentrations, this single world system multiplies incrementally: the chiliocosm (sāhasralokadhātu, stong gi ’jig rten gyi khams) comprises one thousand such parallel worlds, the medium dichiliocosm (dvisāhasramadhyamalokadhātu, stong gnyis pa ’jig rten gyi khams ’bring po) one thousand of these, and the great trichiliocosm (trisāhasramahāsāhasralokadhātu, stong sum gyi stong chen po’i ’jig rten gyi khams) one thousand of these yet again. For an analysis of the divergent traditions associated with this cosmology, see Kloetzli (1983): pp. 23–90.
The translation here follows the Sanskrit (see n.317). The Tibetan: ’byung ba yod do at the end of the first sentence could also be read as “continue to emerge.”
This follows the reading of slar zhi zhing, found in the Narthang and Lhasa editions (KPD vol. 27, p. 189, note 8). According to Choné (same ref.) the text should read bzlog shing (“they will be averted”). Our text at this point suggests slos shing.
Kimura II: p. 70, line 17 reads mahāvidyeya, which Conze 1975: p. 237 renders as “great lore.” The Tibetan rig sngags may convey the sense of either “gnostic mantra” (vidyāmantra) or simply vidyā—“knowledge,” “lore.”
See above n.317. The Tibetan here reads: yod pa yin, throughout this and the following paragraphs.
Tib. gdags su yod.
Elsewhere (Kimura II-III: p. 79 and Conze 1975: pp. 243–44), this passage is attributed to Śakra.
The Tibetan here reads dben (“isolated”), which could convey the sense of being singled out.
Cf. Kimura II-III: pp. 83–84; also Conze 1975: p. 246. As indicated above, n.369, these seventeen god realms comprise six associated with the realm of desire; twelve, in four groups of three, associated with the realm of form; and the five pure abodes at the summit of phenomenal existence. See the chart in Dudjom Rinpoche 1991: pp. 14–15.
Viśrāntin (viśrāntin, ngal bso po) is an epithet of Vaiśravaṇa. See Negi 1995, vol. 3, p. 945.
This passage in which the Buddha emphasizes the respect due to the Dharma has been studied in Skilling et al (2013), pp. 159–82. The authors demonstrate how, along with a number of parallel passages extant in other Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan sources, it can be traced to the Pali Uruvela Sutta (AN 4.21).
The point here is that the merit accrued from teaching exclusively those bodhisattvas who are irreversible will be of greater extent.
See Conze 1975: p. 267.
The chapter title “Śakra” in this chapter colophon may be intended to encompass not only this chapter but also the entire group of chapters that constitute the first section of the “detailed teaching” (see Introduction i.61), i.e., chapters 14 through 23, in which Śakra (addressed by the Buddha as Kauśika) is among the principal interlocutors. Śakra continues to figure in some of the chapters that follow but in a less prominent role. Note that the content of the short Prajñāpāramitā sūtra The Perfection of Wisdom for Kauśika (Toh 19) does not (in any identifiable way) correspond to the particularities of this section, of which it might be expected to be a summary.
Kimura II-III: p. 142 simply reads dṛṣṭi.
The three times are when the Buddha (1) proclaims what the four truths are; (2) teaches that they must be comprehended, eliminated, realized, and cultivated; and (3) states that he himself has comprehended, eliminated, realized, and cultivated them. The twelve ways are when these three phases are applied to each of the four truths in turn. The twelve are set out in detail in the several canonical passages that recount the Buddha’s first teaching on the four truths; see, for example, The Sūtra of the Wheel of Dharma (Toh 337), 1.3–1.14 and n.21.
Here we have omitted the repetition of bsam gtan bzhi, tshad med bzhi, and gzugs med pa’i snyoms par ’jug pa bzhi.
Kimura II: p. 147, lines 23–28. This passage and the paragraphs that immediately follow (KPD vol. 27, pp. 382–83) appear to suggest that the very act of perception is incompatible with the practice of the perfection of wisdom, even if the perception is accurate. The Ten Thousand inverts the interpretation here.
Tib. don dang tshul las. Skt. arthataś ca nayataś ca (Kimura II-III: p. 149).
Kimura II: p. 149, line 16 correctly reads anupalambhayogena. The Tibetan (KPD vol. 27, line 18), misreads dmigs pa’i tshul gyis.
The Tibetan reads “roast” (bsreg bar ’gyur ro), whereas the Kimura II-III: p. 151 reads prakṣepsyante (“they will be cast into”).
KPD vol. 27, p. 398. The Ten Thousand here suggests that they will have gone forth.
This line is omitted in our text, but see Kimura II: p. 158, lines 32–33: asaṃskṛtaviśuddhyā saṃskṛtaviśuddhir iti; also Conze 1975: p. 294.
Kimura II: p. 164; also Conze 1975: p. 298. This concludes the second abhisamaya.
Kimura II-III: p. 175 reads ca prajñāyate, and KPD, vol. 27, p. 468 reads yang yod, suggesting that in the mistaken thoughts of the monk, these fruitional aggregates and goals are “still discerned” or “still existent.” Conze, 1975: p. 304, on the other hand, reads the expression negatively as “not conceived,” continuing on from na nirudhyate.
Our text (vol. 27, p. 484) misreads ’ gro ba med pa for gos pa med pa. The Ten Thousand correctly reads gos pa med pa; Kimura II-III: p. 179, last line, reads nirupalepa (“unsullied”).
A scribal error here (KPD, vol. 27, p. 488, lines 13–14) inserts “the four meditative concentrations are discerned [in this perfection of wisdom], as are the four immeasurable attitudes, and the four formless absorptions …” (bsam gtan bzhi yod do/ tshad med bzhi dang / gzugs med pa’i snyoms par ’jug pa bzhi yod do). The same terms are correctly found in sequence, in the last two lines of the same page.
Chapter 29 here marks the start of the fourth abhisamaya. Our text concurs with Kimura IV: p. 1, line 1 (and Conze 1975: p. 312) in reading ma mchis pa for asat (“nonexistent”). The Ten Thousand, by contrast, reads mtha’ yas pa / ananta (“infinite”).
Tib. byang zhing zad pa’i phyir. Kimura IV: p. 1, line 25, reads atyanta kṣayakṣīnatāṃ upādāya, which Conze 1975: p. 312 renders as “because all dharmas are extinguished in absolute extinction.”
Tib. ’chi ba dang skye ba dmigs su med pa’i phyir. Cf. Kimura IV: p. 2, which reads cyuty upapattyanupalabdhitāṃ upādāya.
chu ’ bab pa. Cf. Kimura IV: p. 2, line 23 which reads udakaskandha (Conze 1975: p. 313: “mass of water”).
gnas pa. Cf. Kimura IV: p. 2, line 31, which reads ākāśa (Conze 1975: p. 313: “space”).
ma nor ba yang dag pa nyid du mngon par ’tshang rgya bar byed pa’i phyir. Cf. the Ten Thousand: phyin ci log par rtogs pa’i phyir (“owing to incontrovertible realization”). Kimura IV: p. 3, line 5, by contrast reads virāgānupalabdhitāṃ upādāya (Conze 1975: p. 313: “because its dispassion cannot be apprehended”).
“Without obsession” (kun nas ldang ba ma mchis pa; paryupasthāna). Cf. Kimura IV: p. 3, which reads asthāna (Conze 1975: p. 313: “which takes its stand nowhere”).
mtshan ma med cing dmigs su med pa’i phyir. Cf. Kimura IV: p. 3, which reads avitathatā’bhisaṃbhodhitāṃ upādāya (Conze 1975: p. 313: “because the nonfalseness [of all phenomena] is not fully understood”).
rab tu spangs pa (“forsaken”). Cf. the Ten Thousand, which reads: spang du ma mchis pa (“unforsaken”). Kimura IV: p. 3, line 22 reads apramāṇa (Conze 1975: p. 314: “unlimited”).
chags pa med pa’i phyir. Cf. Kimura IV: 4 p., which reads ākāśasvabhāvasamatāṃ upādāya (Conze 1975: p. 314: “because [all dharmas] in their own-being are the same as space”).
dmigs su med pa’i phyir. Cf. Kimura IV: p. 4, which reads sarvaniḥphalārthatāṃ upādāya (Conze 1975: p. 314: “because it brings forth no fruits”).
mngon par grub pa med pa’i phyir. Cf. the Ten Thousand, which reads ldog pa med pa nyid kyi phyir. Kimura IV: p. 4, which ānimittatāṃ upādāya (Conze 1975: p. 314: “because [all dharmas] are signless”).
’dus byas dang ’dus ma byas kyi chos dmigs su med pa’i phyir. Cf. Kimura IV: p. 5, which reads simply prakṛtiśūnyatā’nupalabdhitāṃ upādāya (“owing to the nonapprehension of the emptiness of inherent existence”).
On this entire exchange, compare the variant readings listed above, in Kimura IV: pp. 1–5; also Conze 1975: pp. 312–15.
stong pa nyid kyi rnam pa dang rnam par dben pa’i rnam pa dmigs su med pa’i phyir. Cf. Kimura IV: p. 6, which reads dṛṣṭikṛtānupalabdhitāṃ upādāya (Conze 1975: p. 316: “because no false views are apprehended.”).
zhi ba’i rnam pa dmigs su med pa’i phyir. Cf. Kimura IV: p. 6, which reads vitarkānupalabdhitāṃ upādāya (Conze 1975: p. 316: “because no discoursings are apprehended.”).
gnod sems dang bzod pa dmigs su med pa’i phyir. See Kimura IV: p. 7: vyāpādānupalabdhitāṃ upādāya; also Conze 1875: p. 316: “because no ill will is apprehended.”
chos thams cad thub pa med pa’i phyir. Kimura IV: p. 7: sarvadharmānupalabdhitāṃ upādāya; also Conze 1975: p. 316: “on account of the nonapprehension of all dharmas.”
lam gyi rnam pa shes pa nyid kyi ye shes zhum pa med pa’i phyir. Cf. Kimura IV: p. 7, which reads only mārgajñatā’navalīnatām upādāya (also Conze 1975: p. 316: “on account of the uncowedness in the knowledge of all the modes of the path”).
brjod pa thams cad kyi de bzhin nyid kyi phyir. Cf. the Ten Thousand: skad thams cad du de bzhin du gsung ba’i chos nyid yin pa’i phyir. Kimura IV: p. 8 reads sarvabuddhabhāṣitatathtām upādāya (also Conze 1975: p. 317: “on account of the suchness that is taught by all the buddhas”).
Cf. Kimura IV: p. 8: sarvadharmasarvākārabhisaṃbodhanatām upādāya; also Conze 1975: p. 317.
Conze 1975: p. 319 follows Kimura IV: p. 11, line 21: rūpe na yogam āpadyate (“they do not persevere with regard to physical forms”). Our text, which reads gzugs la brtson par byed pa yin no …, mistakenly omits the negative particle here, and throughout this paragraph.
de bzhin nyid du. This expression could mean either “in an authentic manner,” or “in accordance with the real nature.”
Here we have followed the Sanskrit dātrī (Kimra IV: p. 24, line 26) rather than the Tibetan sgrub pa (“achieves”).
de bzhin du. The alternative reading, de bzhin nyid du which is found in the Narthang, Choné and Lhasa editions, could be rendered “in accordance with the real nature.”
lnga brgya tha ma. This specific phrase is missing in Kimura IV: p. 29. According to traditional calculations, the duration of the Buddhist teaching promulgated by the Buddha Śākyamuni is held to be five thousand years, divided into ten periods of five hundred years each. In the first period there was a profusion of arhats, so it was called the period of arhats. The second is called the period of those no longer subject to rebirth, and the third the period of those entering the stream to nirvāṇa. These three periods together are called the Age of Fruition or enlightenment. In the fourth period there is a predominance of wisdom, therefore it is so called. The fifth is called the period of meditative stability, and the sixth the period of ethical discipline. These three periods together are called the Age of Attainment. The next three periods of Abhidharma, Sūtra, and Vinaya are collectively known as the Age of Transmission. The tenth and final period is called the Age of Convention or Symbols because at that point the actual practice of the path will be lost, and only conventional tokens of going forth will remain. See also Stein and Zangpo (2013), pp. 209–15.
Our text reads yongs su ’dzin pa (“occupy”), but see Kimura IV: p. 34, pariśodhayiṣyanti.
Our text reads ’dri na (“if they question”), but see Kimura IV: p. 34, likhiṣyanti.
This reading (glang po’i rjes) appears to make better sense than Kimura IV: hastipadaṃ (Conze 1975: p. 334), unless the latter implies “the footprint of an elephant.”
Builder (phywa mkhan, or in Yongle and in the Degé Hundred Thousand, phya mkhan) usually renders Skt. sthapati. Kimura IV: p. 29, line 15 reads palagaṇḍa (“mason”). The Eighteen Thousand (40.37) has Tib. shing mkhan.
Kimura IV: p. 44 reads saṃtuṣtaḥ pravivikta (“contented and withdrawn”). Cf. Conze 1975: p. 338.
Kimura IV: p. 44 reads saṃtuṣtaḥ pravivikta (“contented and withdrawn”). Cf. Conze 1975: p. 338.
On these ascetic virtues, see Dudjom Rinpoche 1991 vol. 2: p. 169.
Kimura IV: p. 54 reads na rūpaṃ saṃvidyate (“physical forms are not discerned”).
Our text (KPD, p. 609, lines 5–6) suggests they “will not encounter obstacles” (bar chad tu ’gyur ba med do), which runs counter to the sense of this passage.
At this point in the text the Eighteen Thousand has a chapter division, between the end of chapter 41 and the beginning of chapter 42.
Our text (KPD, p. 614) omits the negative particle in this and the following statements., but see Kimura IV: p. 57; also Conze 1975: p. 344.
By contrast, Kimura IV: p. 61 lines 17–19 reads more simply: yā cittasya vigatarāgatā na sā cittasya sarāgatā. tat kasya hetor? na hi dvayoś cittayoḥ samavidhānam asti. (Conze 1975: p. 348: “A thought marked by the absence of greed is not a thought marked by its presence. And why? Because there can be no meeting of two thoughts.”)
sdug bsngal sel ba. Kimura IV: p. 70: line 4 reads anābhoga, i.e., don du gnyer ba med pa (“nonstriving”).
The krośa (rgyang grags, “earshot”) is a measurement traditionally equivalent to five hundred arm spans.
de dag sbyin pa rlom sems su byed/ sbyin pa des rlom sems su byed/ spyin pa la slom sems su byed do. Cf. Kimura IV: 91, which reads: sa tena dānena manyate| tad dānaṃ manyate| dānaṃ mameti manyate.
The four modes of blessing (byin gyi rlabs bzhi) are omitted in Kimura IV: p. 100, line 2. As stated in Nordrang Orgyan 2008: p. 798, they comprise (1) the blessing of truth (bden pa’i byin rlabs) consequent on having understood the truth of suffering, (2) the blessing of renunciation (gtong ba’i byin rlabs) consequent on having renounced the cause of suffering, (3) the blessing of being at peace (nye bar zhi ba’i byig rlabs) consequent on having actualized the truth of cessation, and (4) the blessing of wisdom (shes rab kyi byin rlabs) consequent on having cultivated the truth of the path.
The four modes of improper perspective (caturgamana, tshul ma yin pa bzhi) are not enumerated in Kimura IV: p. 100, line 10. They are said to be equivalent to the four misconceptions (phyin ci log bzhi), namely the perception of impermanence as permanence, the perception of suffering as happiness, the perception of nonself as self, and the perception of unpleasant phenomena as pleasant. See Nordrang Orgyan 2008: p. 730.
This reading accords with the Ten Thousand, 22.29, which would seem to be correct in the present context. By contrast, Kimura IV: p. 103 omits the negative particle and reads ātmagatika, as does our text (KPD vol. 27, p. 722, lines 15–16: chos thams cad ni bdag gi ngang tshul can). Conze, following Kimura, reads “they are situated in the self.”
Omitted in our text but included in Kimura. See previous note.
Sanskrit bhāvanāvibhāvanā, rendered as bsgom pa rnam par ’jig pa, literally “the destruction of cultivation,” in the Tibetan translations of the other long versions of the sūtra except here and in the Hundred Thousand, where it is is bsgom pa rnam par bsgom pa, suggesting more an analysis or investigation of cultivation rather than its destruction or negation. See n.267 for further details. Cf. Kimura IV: p. 109; also Conze 1975: p. 135 n12 and p. 373. Ratnākarakṣānti also reads avibhāvitam aprahīṇam. no hīti nāprahīṇam| prahīṇam evety arthaḥ|. Here the double negative suggests a reading akin to the sense of deconstruction, etc.
The expression “calm, subtle, and delicate” (zhi zhing phra ba zhib mo) is omitted in Kimura IV: p. 115, but is found two pages later, p. 117, lines 1–2.
The expression phrin las chung ba la thugs gzhol te, here rendered as “mind inclined toward carefree inaction,” corresponds to Kimura: IV: p. 115, which reads alpotsukatāyāṃ cittaṃ. Edgerton 1953: p. 69 interprets this to mean “unconcerned mind,” “unworried mind,” or “indifferent mind.” In any case, it denotes the silence and stillness of the Lord Buddha during the weeks that immediately followed his attainment of buddhahood, as he considered whether to teach or not to teach.
bdag gi gzugs so. Cf. Kimura IV: p. 118, mama rūpaṃ, which Conze 1975: p. 377, renders as “mine is form.”
This reading follows the Tibetan: de dag ’du shes sna tshogs kyis spyod pas tha mi dad pas ma dmigs pa’i phyir. Kimura IV: p. 125, line 25 reads nānātvasaṃjñānāṃ caranto nānātvopalabdhyā (“they engage with diverse notions owing to their apprehending of differentiation”). Conze (1975: p. 379), on the other hand, interprets this as nānātmasaṃjñānāṃ caranto nānātmopalabdhyā, “coursing in the notion of not-self and the nonapprehension of not-self.”
This reading follows the Yongle, Peking, and Choné versions, in which the negative particle ma is omitted. Kimura IV: p. 128, last line, and p. 129, first line, concurs, as does Conze 1975: p. 382. Our text (KPD vol. 27, p. 780, line 15) by contrast reads: the tshom ma mchis pa lags.
As explained in the paragraphs that follow, they comprise those who follow the vehicle of the śrāvakas, those who follow the vehicle of the pratyekabuddhas, and those who follow the vehicle of the buddhas.
Kimura IV: p. 135, line 10, reads puruṣa (“manly”) for paruṣa (“coarse”).
On the eight great hells (aṣṭamahāniraya, dmyal ba chen po brgyad), see Patrul Rinpoche (1994): pp. 63–69.
The four norms of behavior (catvāra īryāpathāḥ, spyod lam bzhi) are walking, standing, sitting, and lying down. See Nordrang Urgyen 2008, pp. 718–19.
While the Ten Thousand, 31.47, speaks of five hundred attendants of Vajrapāṇi’s family, more generally, the Sanskrit reference is to the “five families of Vajrapāṇi” (pañcavajrapāṇikulāni).
This passage is missing in Kimura IV: p. 162; but see Conze 1975: p. 403. The first of these, the akṣayakaraṇḍadhāraṇī (mi zad pa’i za ma tog gi gzungs) and its benefits are discussed in a long passage comprising chapters 3 and 4 of The Questions of the Nāga King Sāgara (1) (Sāgaranāgarājaparipṛcchā, Toh 153), from 3.8 to 4.53, with the actual Sanskrit syllables of the dhāraṇī in 4.11. Another interpretation of its inexhaustible applications in terms of all phenomena is found in The Teaching on the Great Compassion of the Tathāgata (Tathāgatamahākaruṇānirdeśasūtra, Toh 147), at 2.546–2.554. The corresponding meditative stability is numbered twenty-nine in the list presented above, 8.247. The second has the full title sarvadharmasamavasaraṇasāgaramudrā (chos thams cad yang dag par ’du ba rgya mtsho’i phyag rgya). It comprises the forty-three arapacana syllables or letters, embracing all nuances of the Dharma, which are explained individually in The Teaching on the Great Compassion of the Tathāgata, at 2.558–2.561. The corresponding meditative stability is numbered twenty-one in the aforementioned list. The third is the padmavyūhādhāraṇī (padma bkod pa’i gzungs). We have not yet located the actual Sanskrit syllables of this dhāraṇī in the Kangyur, but its purport in highlighting the diversity of the twelve branches of the scriptures and so forth is described in The Teaching on the Great Compassion of the Tathāgata, at 2.562–2.564. All three dhāraṇīs are listed in the Mahāvyutpatti (nos. 750, 752, and 753). For an analysis of the relationship between the Mahāvyutpatti entries and the relevant sūtra sources, especially The Teaching on the Great Compassion of the Tathāgata and The Jewel Cloud (Ratnameghasūtra, Toh 231), see Pagel 2007, pp. 151–91.
Kimura IV: p. 176, reads “would become the very limit of reality” (bhūtakoṭir bhaviṣyati).
Our text suggests that this is a statement rather than a question, but here we have followed Kimura IV: p. 178, lines 2–3, where Lord Buddha clearly asks how bodhisattvas annihilate the perception of conceptual images or nonconceptual images. Cf. Conze 1975: p. 414.
Here we have followed the Peking edition, which omits the second instrumental phrase gang gis lan glan pa. See KPD vol. 27, p. 880, note 2. Kimura IV: p. 180, lines 18–20 also presents only these three alternatives.
Tib. zla ba dang yud du yan man. Kimura IV: p. 187, line 5 reads “fortnight” (ardhamāsa). Cf. Conze: p. 420 and the Ten Thousand, 24.37.
Kimura IV: p. 192, reads parijaya kartavyaḥ—hence “make a complete conquest of” (Conze 1975: p. 424).
The sixty-four crafts (catuḥṣaṣṭikalā, sgyu rtsal drug cu rtsa bzhi) and what are usually known as the “eighteen great topics of knowledge” (aṣṭādaśavidyāsthāna, rigs gnas chen po bco brgyad) are all enumerated by Jamgon Kongtrul in Dorje (trans.) 2012: pp. 313–315 and 311, respectively. Here the Tibetan for the latter set reads las kyi gnas (karmasthāna) while the Ten Thousand reads “eighteen great topics of knowledge” with the Tibetan as above.
Cf. Kimura IV: p. 201; also Conze 1975: p. 430. This paragraph marks the end of the fourth abhisamaya.
Kimura V: p. 5: tvam āgato. Missing in KPD vol. 28, p. 41.
The negative is missing in KPD, vol. 28, p. 46, but see Kimura V: p. 8, line 15, na.
Cf. Kimura V: p. 30; also Conze 1975: p. 454. This paragraph refers to the eight states lacking freedom for Buddhist practice.
The equivalent passage in the Ten Thousand, 26.9 (F.289.b), reads sems su mi ’gyur zhing sems las gzhan du spyod par mi ’gyur ba.
At this point the Tibetan and “recast” Sanskrit diverge—the immediately following paragraphs correspond to Kimura V: pp. 44–50, and the paragraphs corresponding to Kimura V: pp. 38–44 follow later.
The Tibetan in this and the immediately following paragraphs corresponds to Kimura V: pp. 38–44.
Unlocated in Kimura V: p. 44, but see Conze 1975: p. 466.
The ending of this paragraph corresponds to Kimura V: p. 44, line 26.
KPD vol. 28 p. 186, line 20 reads bdag las ci zhig bcad do, corresponding to Kimura V, p. 91, line 16: ko me cchinnatti.
Cf. Kimura V: p. 100; also Conze 1975: p. 501. On these eight aspects of liberation, see 8.36.
Cf. Kimura V: pp. 100–1; also Conze 1975: p. 501. On the nine serial steps of meditative absorption, see 8.37.
From this point the corresponding Sanskrit text is found in Kimura V: p. 50, commencing on line 12 and continuing through to Kimura V: p. 66, line 16.
Conze 1975: p. 470 reverses this in a way that contradicts the Tibetan (KPD, p. 214, lines 11–13).
Note that Kimura V: pp. 60–61 presents these in a slightly dissimilar sequence, with all the attributes of physical forms preceding those of the other aggregates, etc.
The Tibetan here follows Kimura V: p. 61, lines 8–9 (na hi svabhāvaḥ svabhāvena sākyo’bhinirharaṇāya). Cf. Conze 1975: p. 477: “An own being which is empty of own being is incapable of consummation.”
This follows Kimura V: p. 62, line 27.
The expression kelāyitavyam, gnod pa gsal could also imply that they should ward off blight.
From this point onward, the Tibetan corresponds to the Sanskrit commencing in Kimura V: p. 104, line 19.
Note the double negative: rtogs par mi ’gyur ba med do.
This follows Kimura V: p. 108, line 27: rūpapariniṣpatti. The Tibetan (KPD vol. 28, p. 261) reads gzungs (“dhāraṇī”).
This is at variance with the Sanskrit (Kimura V: p. 111, line 6) which reads: ākāśaśūnyatābhāvanayā. (“through the cultivation of the emptiness of space”).
Kimura V: p. 112, line 28 reads aprajñapanīya (“inconceivable”), although KPD vol. 28, p. 271, reads gnyis su med pa.
The Tibetan here lacks the corresponding definition of nonduality, on which see Kimura V: p. 116, lines 29–30; also Conze 1975: p. 512.
The Sanskrit reads ṛddhiparyāye (“by means of miraculous powers”).
To appreciate the glossing of the elements of the term prajñāpāramitā in this paragraph, much of which is lost in translation (as it is even in Tibetan), the reader should bear in mind that throughout this text we have rendered prajñāpāramitā as the “perfection of wisdom” for the sake of brevity and simplicity, although paramita can also be rendered as “transcendence,” or more fully as “transcendent perfection.”
Kimura V: p. 128, line 10 reads samudayaprahāṇārtha.
Kimura V: p. 128, line 11 reads nirodhasākṣātkriyārtha.
Here the Tibetan reads yongs su rtog pa shes pa, where in all other instances of this series of kinds of knowledge, the knowledge is ’dris pa shes pa.
Tib. sems can du ’dzin pa. Kimura V: p. 130, line 19 simply reads saṃsārāt (“from cyclic existence”).
The text (KPD vol. 28, p. 312) follows brgya stong gi cha with brgya phrag stong gi cha. Kimura V: p. 133, line 13, reads only śatasahasra.
Repeated for emphasis.
Kimura V: p. 139 line 33: dhāraṇyāṃ carati. Also Conze 1975: p. 530. Our text (KPD vol. 28, p. 329) misreads gzugs.
Repeated for emphasis.
Repeated for emphasis.
The expression ’phags pa’i chos dang ’dul ba is repeated for emphasis (KPD vol. 28, p. 369). However, Kimura V: p. 158, line 22 suggests that Subhūti is asking about the extent of both the Dharma of the noble ones and that which is not of the noble ones (anāryadharamavinaya).
The negative particle is missing in the Tibetan (KPD vol. 28, p. 374, line 1), but included in Kimura V: p. 160, line 25, who also notes that it is missing in the Tibetan.
This passage (KPD vol. 28, p. 387, lines 12…) seems to be at variance with Kimura V: p. 165, lines 18–28 and with Conze 1975: p. 546.
Here the Tibetan repeats the line: “I would focus my mind on actualizing the knowledge of clairvoyance.”
The three categories (trirāśi, phung po gsum) are, at the time of a buddha’s awakening, those whose receptivity to the teaching is certain, those whose receptivity is unpredictable (i.e., they may or may not benefit from it), and those whose nonreceptivity is certain and are sure not to benefit from it. During the period of a buddha’s teaching many in the second category can be shifted to the first. See also 42.24. The Buddha’s observations of these categories are recounted in The Play in Full (Lalitavistara, Toh 95), see Dharmachakra Translation Committee 2013, 25.47–48. See also The Teaching on the Great Compassion of the Tathāgata (Tathāgatamahākaruṇānirdeśa, Toh 147) 2.318 et seq.
This paragraph marks the conclusion of the fifth abhisamaya.
Kimura VI: p. 12, line 22, reads duḥkhākṣayaś for rgya chung (“feeble”).
This paragraph marks the end of the sixth abhisamaya.
Repetition omitted here.
This reading follows Kimura VII: p. 20, line 25: tena śrutena. Conze 1975: p. 558 concurs: “as a result of what he has heard.…” Our text (KPD vol. 28, p. 442, lines 5–6) reads thob pa des for thos pa de.
In all Kangyurs the verb here is sems pa med, while in the long sentences that follow it is bsnyems pa med or snyems pa med in Kangyurs of the Tshalpa line, but sems pa med in the Stok Palace Kangyur. Kimura’s Sanskrit (VII: 23–24) has na parāmṛśati throughout.
This reading follows Kimura VII: p. 24, line 12: darśanabhūmi, whereas our text reads “path of insight” (mthong ba’i lam).
This reading follows the Narthang, Lhasa, and Stok Palace Kangyurs: ngo bo nyid med. The Degé and other Kangyurs omit the negative med. Kimura’s Sanskrit (VII: 24) reads tathā hi teṣāṃ svabhāvo na saṃvidyate, yena svabhāvena prabhāvyeran.
The conventional ethical disciplines (sāṅketikaśīla, brda can gyi tshul khrims) comprise the vows adopted by monks, the novitiate, and the laity.
Cf. Kimura VI-VIII: p. 31 instead reads vijñaptiśīla, which may correspond to the conventional ethical disciplines mentioned in the previous line.
The Tibetan here is ting nge ’dzin kyi pha rol tu phyin pa, in lieu of bsam gtan gyi pha rol tu phyin pa.
This completes the seventh abhisamaya.
This passage marks the start of the eighth abhisamaya. Kimura VIII: p. 43 line 1 to p. 44 line 4, includes a section on the buddha body of essentiality, the buddha body of perfect resource, and the buddha body of emanation, which is omitted in the Tibetan.
This accords with Kimura VIII: p. 52, line 27, which reads ātmamāṃsaṃ. The Tibetan has bdag po.
Cf. Kimura VI-VIII: p. 55; also Conze 1975: p. 579.
This listing of the eight sense fields of mastery and the ten total saturations of the elements is also translated in Konow 1941: pp. 28–30, with reconstructed Sanskrit on pp. 101–2. Cf. Sparham 2012 IV: pp. 70–76. Among them, the eight sense fields of mastery originate through engagement with the aforementioned eight aspects of liberation. See Negi 1993–2005: p. 5395 (vimokṣapraveśsikānyabhibhvāyatanāni, zil gyis gnon pa’i skye mched rnams ni rnam par thar pa ’jug pa las byung ba can yin la). They are the basis for the control and transcendence of the realm of desire. See Nāṇamoli 1979: p. 866.
This distinction between subtle and gross external forms is made not on the basis of physical size but with reference to their impact on consciousness. See Bodhi 1993: p. 153. Some sources (e.g., Longchen Rabjam in Dorje 1987: p. 374) more explicitly distinguish greater and lesser external forms on the basis of sentience and nonsentience.
The order of powers (8) and (9) are reversed from the order they were presented earlier at 9.37. See also g.274 and g.280.
See the glossary entry “four fearlessnesses” for notes and comparative references to this set.
Cf. Kimura VI-VIII: p. 59; also Conze 1975: p. 583. On these four kinds of exact knowledge, see 9.42.
The list of the eighty minor marks that follows is very similar to the list in the Mahāvyutpatti (349), the only differences being two pairs of items in reversed order and some differences in the terms used, the list in the present text reflecting perhaps a more archaic lexicon later revised. See also the following note n.541.
On the discrepancies between the various listings of the thirty-two major marks and eighty minor marks, see the corresponding notes in our translation of the Ten Thousand 2.15–2.72, in particular n.64 and n.67. Cf. also Kimura VI-VIII: pp. 64–67; Conze 1975: pp. 586–87.
Cf. Conze 1975: p. 586. Missing in Kimura VIII: p. 67.
Cf. Conze 1975: p. 586. Missing in Kimura VIII: p. 67.
Cf. Conze 1975: p. 586. Missing in Kimura VIII: p. 67.
These are the basic forty-two vocalic and consonantal syllables of the Sanskrit language, on which see Jamgon Kongtrul’s presentation in Dorje 2012: pp. 108–12.
Note that the last three—the meditative concentrations, the immeasurable attitudes, and the formless absorptions (KPD vol. 28, p. 557)—have already been detailed in this sentence.
See Kimura VI-VIII: p. 80, line 13. The Tibetan shin tu gsong ldong could also be interpreted to mean “utterly perforated.” Cf. Conze 1975: p. 594, “full of holes.”
Alternatively, following the Ten Thousand, 30.10, it could read “and that liberation ensues from the [last] two truths of the noble ones (dvayato vinirmuktam āryasatyaṃ, ’phags pa’i bden pa rnam pa gnyis las rnam par grol ba). They also correctly know that [liberation] does not ensue from the [former] two truths of the noble ones (advayato vinirmuktam āryasatyaṃ, ’phags pa’i bden pa rnam pa gnyis ma yin par).” The present reading in the text accords with Kimura VI-VIII: p. 82, which reads: dvayato vinirmuktam āryasatyaṃ, advayato vinirmuktam āryasatyaṃ; also Conze 1975: p. 595.
The negative particle ma is missing in the Tibetan (KPD vol. 28, p. 607, line 19).
Conze 1975: p. 602 concurs: “he reviews all dharmas as unobscured.” KPD vol. 28, p. 608, note 3 also suggests the alternative reading yang dag par rjes su mi mthong ngo.
The text (KPD vol. 28, p. 701) misreads mi mnyam pa’i chos nyid, but see Dutt 1934, p. 243.
This phrase, tadā syād eṣa doṣaḥ (Kimura VIII: p. 110, line 27), is missing in the Tibetan (KPD vol. 28, p. 643, line 1).
The rest of this paragraph and the next are translated from a passage missing in the Degé but found in the Yongle and Peking Kangyurs. It is reproduced in KPD vol. 28, p. 659, note 8.
Here ends the missing passage mentioned in the preceding note.
The translation here follows the Sanskrit (Kimura VI-VIII: p. 119, lines 29–30): iyanta iti vā neyanta iti vā. The corresponding Tibetan ’di snyed do zhes bgyis ba’am ’di dag go zhes bgyi ba (KPD vol. 28, p. 663, line 7) omits the negative particle.
KPD vol. 28. p. 666, line 3: kye ma sems can de dag ni yang dag pa ma yin pa’i ’dzin pa las dgrol bar bya na dka’ ba byed do. Note that the Ten Thousand suggests “easy” rather than “difficult.” Kimura VIII: p. 121, line 4, by contrast, reads sumocanā bateme sattvā asaṃgrahāt, which Conze 1975: p. 616 translates as “Well freed, surely, are those beings from seizing on that which is not.”
This reading follows Kimura VIII: p. 127, line 25: bhojanāni. The Tibetan here reads mnabs stsal (“clothing”).
This reading of byug pa follows the Narthang edition (KPD vol. 28, p. 678, note 7), in contrast to the reading “tangibles” (spraṣṭavyāni).
That is to say, their beautiful forms (abhirūpa prasādika, lus mdzes pa) may gravitate toward the major and minor marks.
This passage describes how the category of those whose receptivity is certain (niyatarāśī, nges pa’i phung po) is replenished from the other two of the three categories of beings.
That is to say, the mistaken view that, owing to emptiness, engagement in virtuous acts is to be avoided.
This reading of “joy” (prīti, dga’ ba) follows Kimura VIII: p. 133, line 10. The Tibetan (KPD vol. 28, p. 688, line 10) reads dge ba.
This is the meditation on repulsive phenomena (aśubhabhāvanā, mi sdug pa ’i sgom) as an antidote for desire. Note that Kimura reads śubha for aśubha.
At this point the Sanskrit text includes the Maitreya chapter as found in Kimura VIII: p. 145 line 28 through p. 157 end. The Tibetan text includes this below, in chapter 72. Conze follows the Tibetan order.
This is the predominant reading, found in the Yongle, Beijing, Narthang, and Lhasa editions, although the negative particle is omitted in the Degé. See KPD vol. 28, p. 729, note 2.
This is the first time in the text that the ten perfections are listed rather than the six.
By contrast, Kimura VIII: p. 177, line 28, reads nirmito ’anyan nirmitaṃ nirmiṇoti (“if some phantom emanation were to conjure up another emanation”). Conze 1975: p. 642 concurs.
Kimura VII: p. 145, line 29 adds yadi abhāvasvabhāvāḥ sarvadharmās (“if all phenomena are of the essential nature of nonentity”). See also Conze 1975: p. 644.
This reading follows Kimura (VIII: p. 147, line 10): na prayujyate. The Tibetan (KPD vol. 28, p. 765, lines 4–5) reads mi rigs so (“it would be improper [to say]”).
Thanks to Tom Tillemans for his comments on this passage where the Sanskrit and Tibetan diverge. The objection made by Maitreya is that language cannot properly be used if it never denotes any real entities and is simply fictitious.
The Sanskrit here (Kimura VIII: p. 147, line 13 ff.) suggests that the comments that follow are made directly by Lord Buddha without the further intervention of Maitreya, as stated in the Tibetan.
Kimura VIII: p. 149, line 5 adds upalabdha.
This follows the Tibetan (KPD vol. 28, p. 773, line 18): ma lags. Kimura VIII: p. 150, line 30 reads evaṃ, and Conze 1975: p. 647 concurs: “So it is.”
As far as the expression “the nonduality of nonentities and entities” (bhāvābhāvādvayatā, dngos med dang dngos po gnyis su med pa) is concerned, here we follow Kimura VIII: p. 167, line 23. The Tibetan (KPD vol. 28, p. 784, line 3) reads sgom pa dang dngos po gnyis su med pa.
At this point our text reaches the end of the Sanskrit version (Kimura VIII: p. 157).
The last four chapters of the text correspond, not to the Sanskrit editions of Dutt/Kimura, but to Vaidya’s Sanskrit edition of the Sūtra of the Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines (Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra, Toh 12). They concern the exemplary sacrifices of the great bodhisattva being, Sadāprarudita, and form a self-contained appendix. The Sanskrit can be found in Vaidya: pp. 238–64, and the translation is contained in Conze 1973, p. 277 ff.
The Tibetan (Degé) reads stong phrag drug cu (“sixty thousand”), but according to KPD vol. 28, p. 839, note 3, the number of meditative stabilities is stated in the Yongle, Beijing, Narthang, Choné, and Lhasa editions to be six million (brgya stong phrag drug cu). Conze 1973: p. 298 concurs with the latter.
This quatrain is characterized by repetition of the second syllable of each line.
This quatrain is characterized by repetition of the last syllable of each line in the first syllable of the following line.
This stanza is characterized by repetition in the first two syllables of each line.
Bibliography
Primary Sources in Tibetan and Sanskrit
shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag nyi shu lnga pa (Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā) [The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines]. Toh 9, Degé Kangyur vols. 26–28 (shes phyin, nyi khri, ka–a), folios ka.1.b–ga.381.a.
shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag nyi shu lnga pa (Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā) [The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines, Toh 9]. bka’ ’gyur (dpe bsdur ma) [Comparative Edition of the Kangyur], krung go’i bod rig pa zhib ’jug ste gnas kyi bka’ bstan dpe sdur khang (The Tibetan Tripitaka Collation Bureau of the China Tibetology Research Center). 108 volumes. Beijing: krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang (China Tibetology Publishing House), 2006–2009, vols. 26–28.
Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā [The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines]. Sanskrit text based on the edition by Takayasu Kimura. Tokyo: Sankibo Busshorin 2007–9 (1–1, 1–2), 1986 (2–3), 1990 (4), 1992 (5), 2006 (6–8). Available as e-text on Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages (GRETIL). Page references: {Ki.}
Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā [The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines]. Dutt, Nalinaksha. Calcutta Oriental Series 28. London: Luzac, 1934. Reprint edition, Sri Satguru Publications, 1986. Available as e-text on Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages (GRETIL). Page references: {Dt.nn}
Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā [The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines]. Sanskrit text based on the edition by P. L. Vaidya, in Buddhist Sanskrit Texts, vol. 4. Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute, 1960. Available as e-text on Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages (GRETIL). Page references (for chapters 73–75): {Va.nn}
Secondary References in Tibetan and Sanskrit
shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag nyi shu lnga pa (Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā) [The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines, the “eight-chapter” (le’u brgyad ma) Tengyur version]. Toh 3790, Degé Tengyur vols. 82–84 (shes phyin, ga–ca), folios ga.1.b–ca.342.a.
shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag brgya pa (Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā) [The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines]. Toh 8, Degé Kangyur vols. 14–25 (shes phyin, ’bum, ka–a).
Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā [The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines]. Sanskrit text of the Anurādhapura fragment, based on the edition by Oskar von Hinüber, “Sieben Goldblätter einer Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā aus Anurādhapura,” in Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-Hist.Kl. 1983, pp. 189–207. Available as e-text on Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages (GRETIL).
Śatasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā [The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines]. Sanskrit texts based on Ghoṣa, Pratāpacandra, Çatasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā: A Theological and Philosophical Discourse of Buddha With His Disciples in A Hundred Thousand Stanzas. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1902–14 (chapters 1–12); and on Kimura, Takayasu, Śatasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā, II/1–4, 4 vols. Tokyo: Sankibo Busshorin, 2009–14. Available as e-texts, Part I and Part II, on Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages (GRETIL).
The Larger Prajñāpāramitā. Sanskrit edition (mostly according to the Gilgit manuscript GBM 175–675, fols. 1–27) from Zacchetti, Stefano (2005). In Praise of the Light: A Critical Synoptic Edition with an Annotated Translation of Chapters 1-3 of Dharmarakṣa’s Guang zan jing, Being the Earliest Chinese Translation of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica, Vol. 8. The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology. Tokyo: Soka University, 2005. Available as e-text on Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages (GRETIL).
The Larger Prajñāpāramitā. Sanskrit edition (Gilgit manuscript fols. 202.a.5-205.a.12, GBM 571.5–577.12) from Yoke Meei Choong, Zum Problem der Leerheit (śūnyatā) in der Prajñāpāramitā, Frankfurt: Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe 27, Bd. 97, 2006, pp. 109–33. Available as e-text on Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages (GRETIL).
Daṃṣṭrasena. shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa ’bum pa rgya cher ’grel pa (Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitābṛhaṭṭīkā) [“An Extensive Commentary on The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines”], Toh 3807, Degé Tengyur vols. 91–92. Also in Tengyur Pedurma (TPD) (bstan ’gyur [dpe bsdur ma]), [Comparative Edition of the Tengyur], krung go’i bod rig pa zhib ’jug ste gnas kyi bka’ bstan dpe sdur khang (The Tibetan Tripitaka Collation Bureau of the China Tibetology Research Center). 120 volumes. Beijing: krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang (China Tibetology Publishing House), 1994–2008, vol. 54 (TPD 54) pp. 627–1439 and vol. 55 pp. 2–550.
Denkarma (ldan dkar ma; pho brang stod thang ldan dkar gyi chos ’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.
Butön (bu ston rin chen grub). bde bar gshegs pa’i bstan pa’i gsal byed chos kyi ’byung gnas gsung rab rin po che’i mdzod. In gsung ’bum/_rin chen grub/ zhol par ma/ ldi lir bskyar par brgyab pa/ [The Collected Works of Bu-ston: Edited by Lokesh Chandra from the Collections of Raghu Vira], vol. 24, pp. 633–1056. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1965–71.
Jamgön Kongtrül (’jam mgon kong sprul). shes bya kun khyab mdzod [“The Treasury of Knowledge”]. Root verses contained in three-volume publication. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1982; Boudhnath: Padma Karpo Translation Committee edition, 2000 (photographic reproduction of the original four-volume Palpung xylograph, 1844). Translated, along with the auto-commentary, by the Kalu Rinpoche Translation Group in The Treasury of Knowledge series (TOK). Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 1995 to 2012. Mentioned here are Ngawang Zangpo 2010 (Books 2, 3, and 4) and Dorje 2012 (Book 6, Parts 1–2).
Nordrang Orgyan (nor brang o rgyan). chos rnam kun btus. 3 vols. Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2008.
Tsongkhapa (tsong kha pa blo bzang grags pa). byang chub sems dpa’ sems dpa’ chen po rtagtu ngu’i rtogs pa brjod pa’i snyan dngags dpag bsam gyi ljong pa [“An Avadāna of the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva Sadāprarudita”], in Lhasa (zhol) Kangyur vol. 34, folios 523.b–555.b (pp. 1046–1110). The same text is also to be found in Tsongkhapa’s Collected Works: gsung ’bum tsong kha pa (bkras lhun par rnying ldi lir bskyar par brgyab pa), vol. 3, Ngawang Gelek Demo, 1975, pp. 242–96.
Zhang Yisun et al. bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo. 3 vols. Subsequently reprinted in 2 vols. and 1 vol. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1985. Translated in Nyima and Dorje 2001 (vol. 1).
Secondary References in English and Other Languages
Bhattacharya, B. [Illustrations of the Indikutasaya Copper Plaques], in Bulletin of the Baroda State Museum and Picture Gallery, I 1. Baroda: 1943-4.
Bodhi, Bhikkhu, trans. The Sūtra on the All-Embracing Net of Views. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1978.
Bongard-Levin, G.M., and Shin’ichirō Hori. “A Fragment of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā from Central Asia.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 19, no. 1 (1996): 19-60.
Boucher, Daniel. “Dharmarakṣa and the Transmission of Buddhism to China.” Asia Major (Academia Sinica) no. 1/2, (2006): 13–37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41649912.
Burchardi, Anne, trans. The Teaching on the Great Compassion of the Tathāgata (Tathāgatamahākaruṇānirdeśa, Toh 147). 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2020.
Brunnhölzl, Karl. Gone Beyond: The Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, The Ornament of Clear Realization, and its Commentaries in the Tibetan Kagyü Tradition. 2 vols. Ithaca: Snow Lion, 2010 and 2011.
Chimpa, Lama and Alaka Chattopadhyaya, trans. Tāranātha’s History of Buddhism in India. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, 1980.
Choong, Yoke Meei. Zum Problem der Leerheit (śūnyatā) in der Prajñāpāramitā. Frankfurt: Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe 27, Bd. 97, 2006, pp. 109–33.
Conze, Edward (1962). The Gilgit Manuscript of the Aṣṭādaśasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā: Chapters 50 to 55 corresponding to the 5th Abhisamaya. SOR 26. Rome: ISMEO, 1962.
———, trans. (1973). The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines and Its Verse Summary. Bolinas, CA: Four Seasons Foundation, 1973.
——— (1974). The Gilgit Manuscript of the Aṣṭādaśasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā: Chapters 70 to 82 corresponding to the 6th, 7th, and 8th Abhisamayas. SOR 46. Rome: ISMEO, 1974.
——— (1975). The Large Sūtra on Perfect Wisdom: With the Divisions of the Abhisamayālaṅkāra. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975.
——— (1978). The Prajñāpāramitā Literature (Second edition). Tokyo: The Reiyukai, 1978.
Davidson, Ronald. “Studies in Dhāraṇī Literature I: Revisiting the Meaning of the Term Dhāraṇī.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 37, no. 2 (April 2009): 97–147.
Dayal, Har. The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhist Sanskrit Literature. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1932. Reprinted Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1970.
Dharmachakra Translation Committee, trans. (2013). The Play in Full (Lalitavistara, Toh 95). 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2013.
——— (2019a). The Jewel Cloud (Ratnamegha, Toh 231). 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2019.
——— (2019b). The Precious Discourse on the Blessed One’s Extensive Wisdom That Leads to Infinite Certainty (Niṣṭhāgatabhagavajjñānavaipulyasūtraratnānanta, Toh 99). 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2019.
——— (2022). The Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom, the Blessed Mother (Bhagavatīprajñāpāramitāhṛdaya, Toh 21). 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2022.
Dorje, Gyurme, trans., (1987). “The Guhyagarbhatantra and its XIVth Century Tibetan Commentary Phyogs bcu mun sel.” 3 vols. PhD diss. University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies, 1987.
———, trans. (2012). Indo-Tibetan Classical Learning and Buddhist Phenomenology. Book 6, Parts 1–2 of Jamgön Kongtrul, The Treasury of Knowledge. Boston: Snow Lion, 2012.
Dudjom Rinpoche. The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism: Its Fundamentals and History. 2 vols. Translated by Gyurme Dorje with Matthew Kapstein. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1991.
Dutt, Nalinaksha. Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā Prajñā-pāramitā. Calcutta Oriental Series 28. London: Luzac, 1934. Reprinted Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1986.
Edgerton, Franklin. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. 2 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.
Falk, Harry. “The ‘Split’ Collection of Kharoṣṭhī texts.” ARIRIAB 14 (2011): 13–23.
Falk, Harry, and Seishi Karashima (2012). “A first‐century Prajñāpāramitā manuscript from Gandhāra – parivarta 1 (Texts from the Split Collection 1).” ARIRIAB 15 (2012): 19–61.
——— (2013). “A first‐century Prajñāpāramitā manuscript from Gandhāra – parivarta 5 (Texts from the Split Collection 2).” ARIRIAB 16 (2013): 97–169.
Ghoṣa, Pratāpacandra, ed. Çatasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā: A Theological and Philosophical Discourse of Buddha With His Disciples in A Hundred Thousand Stanzas. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1902–14. Available as e-text on Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages (GRETIL).
Herrmann-Pfandt, Adelheid. Die Lhan Kar Ma: Ein früher Katalog der ins Tibetische übersetzten buddhistischen Texte, Kritische Neuausgabe mit Einleitung und Materialien. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008.
Hikata, Ryusho. Suvikrāntavikrāmi-paripṛcchā-Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra: Edited with an Introductory Essay. Fukuoka, 1958.
Hinüber, O. von. (1983) “Sieben Goldblätter einer Pañca-viṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā aus Anurādhapura.” NAWG 7 (1983): 189–207.
——— (2014). “The Gilgit Manuscripts: An Ancient Library in Modern Research.” In From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research, edited by P. Harrison & J. Hartmann, 79–135. Vienna: 2014.
Kimura, Takayasu, ed. Śatasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, II/1–4, 4 vols. Tokyo: Sankibo Busshorin, 2009 (II-1), 2010 (II-2, II-3), 2014 (II-4). Available as e-text (see links) on Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages (GRETIL).
———, ed. Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñā-pāramitā, I–VIII, 6 vols. Tokyo: Sankibo Busshorin, 2007–9 (1-1, 1-2), 1986 (2-3), 1990 (4), 1992 (5), 2006 (6-8). Available as e-text on Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages (GRETIL).
Kloetzli, Randy. Buddhist Cosmology. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983.
Konow, Sten. The First Two Chapters of the Daśasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā: Restoration of the Sanskrit Text, Analysis and Index. Oslo: I Kommisjon Hos Jacob Dybwad, 1941.
Lamotte, Etienne (1998). Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra: The Concentration of Heroic Progress, An Early Mahāyāna Buddhist Scripture. English translation by Sara Boin-Webb. London: Curzon Press.
——— (2001). The Treatise on the Great Virtue of Wisdom of Nāgārjuna (Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra). English translation by Gelongma Karma Migme Chodron. Unpublished electronic text, 2001.
Lethcoe, Nancy R., “Some Notes on the Relationship between the Abhisamayālaṅkāra, the Revised Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā and the Chinese Translations of the Unrevised Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā.” JAOS 96/4 (1976): 499–511.
Lopez, Donald S. The Heart Sūtra Explained: Indian and Tibetan Commentaries. Albany: SUNY, 1988.
Martini, Giuliana (a.k.a. Dhammadinnā). “Bodhisattva Texts, Ideologies and Rituals in Khotan in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries.” In Buddhism Among the Iranian Peoples of Central Asia, vol. 1 of Multilingualism and History of Knowledge, edited by Matteo de Chiara, Matteo, Mauro Maggi, and Giuliana Martini. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2013.
Ñāṇamoli, Bhikkhu, trans. The Path of Purification by Buddhaghosa. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1979.
Negi, J.S., ed. Tibetan Sanskrit Dictionary (bod skad dang legs sbyar gyi tshig mdzod chen mo). 16 vols. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1993–2005.
Ngawang Zangpo, trans. Jamgön Kongtrul, The Treasury of Knowledge (Books Two, Three, and Four): Buddhism’s Journey to Tibet. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 2010.
Nyima, Tudeng and Gyurme Dorje, trans. An Encyclopaedic Tibetan-English Dictionary. Vol. 1. Beijing and London: Nationalities Publishing House and SOAS, 2001.
Obermiller, E. Prajñapāramitā in Tibetan Buddhism. Delhi: Book Faith India (reprint), 1999.
Padmakara Translation Group, trans. The Transcendent Perfection of Wisdom in Ten Thousand Lines (Daśasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā, Toh 11). 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2018.
Pagel, Ulrich “The Dhāraṇīs of Mahāvyutpatti # 748: Origins and Formation,” in Buddhist Studies Review 24 no. 2 (2007), 151–91.
Patrul Rinpoche. Kunzang Lama’i Shelung: The Words of My Perfect Teacher. Translated by the Padmakara Translation Group. Revised second edition, 1998. London: International Sacred Literature Trust and Sage Altamira, 1994–98.
Paranavitana, S. “Indikaṭusāya Copper Plaques.” EZ 3 (1933): 199–212.
Rhys Davids, Caroline A.F. Psalms of the Early Buddhists: II Psalms of the Brethren. London: Pali Text Society, 1913. See Internet Archive.
Sakya Pandita Translation Group, trans. The Sūtra on Reliance upon a Virtuous Spiritual Friend (Kalyāṇamitrasevanasūtra, Toh 300). 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2011.
Salomon, Richard (2014). “Gāndhārī Manuscripts in the British Library, Schøyen and Other Collections.” In From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances In Buddhist Manuscript Research, Edited by Paul Harrison and Jens-Uwe Hartmann. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
——— (2018). The Buddhist Literature of Ancient Gandhāra: An Introduction with Selected Translations. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications.
Skilling, Peter, Prapod Assavavirulhakarn, Saerji: “Schøyen MS 2381/241 + 2382/uf18/2d + 2381/186: A (possible) Sanskrit parallel to the Pali Uruvela-sutta.” In Buddhist Manuscripts in the Schoyen Collection, Vol. IV, edited by Jens Braarvig and Jens-Uwe Hartmann. Oslo: Hermes Academic Publishing, 2013.
Sparham, Gareth, trans. (2006–2012). Abhisamayālaṃkāra with vṛtti and ālokā / vṛtti by Ārya Vimuktisena; ālokā by Haribhadra. 4 vols. Fremont, CA: Jain Publishing.
———, trans. (2022a). The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines (Aṣṭādaśasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā, Toh 10). 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
———, trans. (2022b). The Long Explanation of the Noble Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand, Twenty-Five Thousand, and Eighteen Thousand Lines (*Āryaśatasāhasrikāpañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāṣṭādaśasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitābṛhaṭṭīkā, Toh 3808). 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2022.
———, trans. (2024). The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines (Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā, Toh 8). 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2024.
Stein, Lisa, and Ngawang Zangpo, trans. Butön’s History of Buddhism: In India and its Spread to Tibet, A Treasury of Priceless Scripture. Boston: Snow Lion, 2013.
Suzuki Kenta & Nagashima Jundo. “The Dunhuang Manuscript of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā.” In Buddhist Manuscripts from Central Asia: The British Library Sanskrit Fragments, vol. III/2, edited by S. Karashima, J. Nagashima & K. Wille: 593–821. Tokyo, 2015.
Vaidya, P.L. “Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā.” In Buddhist Sanskrit Texts, vol. 4. Darbhanga: Mithila Institute, 1960. Available as e-text on Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages (GRETIL).
Watanabe Shōgo, “A Comparative Study of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā.” JAOS 114/3 (1994): 386–96.
Zacchetti, Stefano (2005). In Praise of the Light: A Critical Synoptic Edition with an Annotated Translation of Chapters 1-3 of Dharmarakṣa’s Guang zan jing, Being the Earliest Chinese Translation of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica, Vol. 8. The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology. Tokyo: Soka University.
——— (2015). “Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras.” In Brill’s Encyclopedia of Buddhism, vol. 1, edited by Jonathan Silk. Leiden: Brill.
——— (2021). The Da zhidu lun 大智度論 (*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa) and the History of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā: Patterns of Textual Variation in Mahāyāna Sūtra Literature. Numata Center for Buddhist Studies: Hamburg Buddhist Studies 14, edited by Michael Radich and Jonathan Silk. Bochum / Freiburg: Projekt Verlag, 2021.
Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Medieval China, 3rd ed. [1st ed. 1959] with a foreword by S. F. Teiser. Leiden: Brill (Sinica Leidensia 11), 2007.