co.

Table of Contents

s.

Summary

s.­1

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

s.­2

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

ac.

Acknowledgements

ac.­1

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

The Translator’s Acknowledgments

ac.­2

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

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

Acknowledgment of Sponsors

ac.­3

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

The Translation
The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra
The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines
75.

Chapter 75: Exposition of Noncomplication

75.­1

Then venerable Subhūti [F.98.a] asked the Lord, “Lord, if a being is absolutely not apprehended and even the designation of a being does not exist, for whose sake do bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom?”

75.­2

Venerable Subhūti having asked this, the Lord said to him, “Subhūti, having taken the very limit of reality as the measure,819 bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom. Subhūti, if the very limit of reality were to be one thing and the limit of beings another, bodhisattva great beings would not practice the perfection of wisdom. But, Subhūti, the very limit of reality is not one thing and the limit of beings another, therefore bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom for the sake of beings. Subhūti, by not complicating the very limit of reality, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom establish beings at the very limit of reality.”

75.­3

The Lord having said this, venerable Subhūti asked him, “Lord, if the very limit of reality is also the limit of beings, well then, how is a very limit of reality going to rest at the very limit of reality? Lord, if a very limit of reality rests at the very limit of reality, then in that case an intrinsic nature will rest in intrinsic nature. Lord, given that an intrinsic nature does not rest in intrinsic nature, how, Lord, are bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom going to establish the limit of beings at the very limit of reality?” [F.98.b]

75.­4

Venerable Subhūti having asked this, the Lord said to him, “Subhūti, it is true that a very limit of reality does not rest at the very limit of reality and an intrinsic nature does not rest in intrinsic nature, but still, Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom with skillful means establish the limit of beings at the very limit of reality without complicating the very limit of reality. Therefore, Subhūti, the very limit of reality is not one thing and the limit of beings is not another. The very limit of reality and the limit of beings are not two, are not divided, are not broken apart, and are not cut apart.”

75.­5

The Lord having said this, venerable Subhūti asked him, “Lord, what are the skillful means in possession of which bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom with skillful means establish beings at the very limit of reality without complicating the very limit of reality?”

75.­6

Venerable Subhūti having asked this, the Lord said to him, “Subhūti, here, starting from the first production of the thought, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom establish beings in the perfection of giving. Having established them in the perfection of giving, while teaching the prior limit and later limit and midpoint of that giving, they teach, ‘Just as this giving’s prior limit and later limit are empty, and its midpoint is empty, so too this gift is empty, the giving’s result is empty, the benefactor is empty, and the recipient is empty. Son of a good family, since this is the case, do not suppose all those things exist at the very limit of reality; do not suppose the giving is one thing and the result of the gift another; [F.99.a] do not suppose the benefactor is one thing and the recipient another. Do not suppose, son of a good family, when you are giving that it is one thing and the result of the giving another, do not suppose the benefactor is one thing and the recipient another, and then, son of a good family, this giving of yours will be the elixir of immortality for both,820 your giving will have the elixir of immortality as its result and will end up as the elixir of immortality. But you should not, on account of this giving, hold onto form, you should not hold onto feeling, perception, volitional factors, or consciousness. And why? Because this giving of yours is empty of an intrinsic nature of giving, its result is empty of an intrinsic nature of a gift, the benefactor is empty of an intrinsic nature of a benefactor, and the recipient is empty of an intrinsic nature of a recipient, so in emptiness giving cannot be apprehended, and neither can the result of giving, the benefactor, or the recipient. And why? Because those dharmas are utterly empty of an intrinsic nature.’

75.­7

“Furthermore, Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom with skillful means establish beings in the perfection of morality, saying, ‘Come here, son of a good family. You must stop killing and must turn back from killing. Similarly, connect this with each, up to You must stop wrong view and must turn back from wrong view. That sort of intrinsic nature you have looked for in all those dharmas does not exist at all, so, son of a good family, reflect deeply on what those phenomena‍—the living being who is being killed and that with which the living being is being killed‍—are. Similarly, connect this with each, up to wrong view.’ Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom in possession of such skillful means bring beings to maturity and teach them the result of giving and morality [F.99.b] ‍—teaching them that the result of giving and morality is empty of an intrinsic nature, whereby those sons of a good family come to know that the result of giving and morality is empty of an intrinsic nature and do not settle down on it. In a state in which they do not settle down, they generate a state without distraction and generate wisdom; with that wisdom they cut off all bad proclivities and obsessions and pass into complete nirvāṇa in the element of nirvāṇa without any aggregates left behind, but as an ordinary convention, not ultimately. And why? Because in emptiness no phenomenon can be apprehended that is passing into complete nirvāṇa or that has passed into complete nirvāṇa, and yet this‍—namely, the emptiness of what transcends limits‍—is still their complete nirvāṇa. [B53]

75.­8

“Furthermore, Subhūti, when bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom see other beings and other persons who are emotionally upset and bearing malice toward each other, they give advice and instruction, saying, ‘Come here, son of a good family. All those dharmas on account of which you are bearing malice are empty of a basic nature. You both should have patience. You should get used to being patient. You should become the tolerant type. Hey! Reflect deeply on the fact that the object of malice, someone bearing malice, and that on account of which someone bears malice are all empty of a basic nature, and what is empty of a basic nature is never not empty. It is not made by tathāgatas, nor is it made by pratyekabuddhas, śrāvakas, bodhisattvas, gods, nāgas, yakṣas, gandharvas, kinnaras, mahoragas, Cāturmahā­rājika gods, up to Para­nirmita­vaśa­vartin gods, Brahmās, up to Śubhakṛtsna, up to or those in the Śuddhāvāsa and Naiva­saṃjñā­nāsaṃjñāyatana. Son of a good family, reflect deeply on the fact that the object of malice, someone [F.100.a] who is bearing malice, and that on account of which someone bears malice are all empty of an intrinsic nature. Emptiness does not bear malice to anyone at all.’