The Long Explanation of the Noble Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand, Twenty-Five Thousand, and Eighteen Thousand Lines
Explanation of the Maitreya Chapter: Chapter
- Daṃṣṭrasena (Diṣṭasena)?
- Yeshé Dé
Degé Tengyur, vol. 93 (sher phyin, pha), folios 1.b–292.b
Translated by Gareth Sparham
under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha
The Long Explanation of the Noble Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand, Twenty-Five Thousand, and Eighteen Thousand Lines is a detailed explanation of the Long Perfection of Wisdom sūtras, presenting a structural framework for them that is relatively easy to understand in comparison to most other commentaries based on Maitreya-Asaṅga’s Ornament for the Clear Realizations. After a detailed, word-by-word explanation of the introductory chapter common to all three sūtras, it explains the structure they also all share in terms of the three approaches or “gateways”—brief, intermediate, and detailed—ending with an explanation of the passage known as the “Maitreya chapter” found only in the Eighteen Thousand Line and Twenty-Five Thousand Line sūtras. It goes by many different titles, and its authorship has never been conclusively determined, some Tibetans believing it to be by Vasubandhu, and others that it is by Daṃṣṭrāsena.
This commentary was translated by Gareth Sparham under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
I thank the late Gene Smith, who initially encouraged me to undertake this work, and I thank all of those at 84000—Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, the sponsors, and the scholars, translators, editors, and technicians—and all the other indispensable people whose work has made this translation possible.
I thank all the faculty and graduate students in the Group in Buddhist Studies at Berkeley, and Jan Nattier, whose seminars on the Perfection of Wisdom were particularly helpful. At an early stage, Paul Harrison and Ulrich Pagel arranged for me to see a copy of an unpublished Sanskrit manuscript of a sūtra cited in Bṭ3. I thank them for that assistance.
I also take this opportunity to thank the abbot of Drepung Gomang monastery, Losang Gyaltsen, and the retired director of the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics, Kalsang Damdul, for listening to some of my questions and giving learned and insightful responses.
Finally, I acknowledge the kindness of my mother, Ann Sparham, who recently passed away in her one hundredth year, and my wife Janet Seding.
We gratefully acknowledge the generous sponsorship of Kelvin Lee, Doris Lim, Chang Chen Hsien, Lim Cheng Cheng, Ng Ah Chon and family, Lee Hoi Lang and family, the late Lee Tiang Chuan, and the late Chang Koo Cheng. Their support has helped make the work on this translation possible.
Having thus finished explaining Her Ladyship the One Hundred Thousand, I will now explain what is in the Twenty-Five Thousand.1933
all dharmas are simply mere names.
and so on, teaches the following. He asks: How could form and so on be just a name? The designation of “form,” “feeling,” and so on does not indicate simply a mere name, it indicates a basis, because the name is first given and then the aspect of the basis presents itself to the mind. He means: Were that name to be without a basis, [F.282.a] either it would be illogical to say “a mere name,” or else, if it is taken to exist as form and so on that is not a basis, as a name, based on what and on account of what basis would that name be referring to something? That word would not exist either. Therefore, it is illogical to say “mere name.”
The Lord is saying that form and so on is not a nominal entity.1935 If it were a nominal entity, then it would be feasible that by merely saying it even those who do not know what it is connected to would know what those bases are, as entities with their various specific attributes. But they do not know those, so words are one thing and the bases, form and so on, are something else. He means it is simply conventionally suitable that later on there are those words “for this or that basis.” Therefore, form and so on is not in its intrinsic nature a name. “Plucked out of thin air” means comes about later, in the sense of “fabricated.” As for a “basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon,” it is “compounded” because it has arisen from cause and conditions; a “causal sign” because it appears to consciousness; and a “basis” because it is in the form of a basis. A place for an appearance as a compounded dharma is called a “basis.”
and so on. Without the name, from seeing simply the mere basis, you do not become aware “this is form”;1936 and without seeing the basis, just from the word being said you do not become aware of the basis. He means: There, logically, if the name for form were to come about later and is not its entity,1937 [F.282.b] even without the name being said those who do not know what the name is connected to will comprehend “it is form.” And even after the name has been said, since the word would be plucked out of thin air the awareness that arises would not be of the actual reality of the basis. Either way it is one of these two,1938 so form and so on is not in its intrinsic nature a name.
In regard to “in the absence of the name… through that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon:” construe “in the absence” as when the word is set aside; “through that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon” it is not tenable that there is awareness that that basis “is form.”
He makes it known that names are plucked out of thin air in three parts: because you do not know what something is from just the basis without the name being said; because there are many names for a single basis; and because there is one name for many bases.
There, in reference to the first part, it says
“Maitreya, what do you think—without resorting to, without standing on, without having to stand on the designation form for this or that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon, do you think this—namely, ‘this is form’—about this or that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon?” P25k P18k
and so on. If that form is taken to be a nominal entity, why do those who are ignorant of the term, who do not know that the word form stands for the form that is the basis, not have the realization in words that “this is form” by seeing just that basis? If that name is taken to be that entity that is a basis, just as a consciousness that grasps the specific defining marks of the basis arises from properly seeing the basis, similarly it would make sense that a consciousness that knows the name would arise as well. But it does not arise, so form and so on is not the nominal entity.
In reference to the second part it says,
and so on. Let a basis be taken to be a nominal entity. There are many names for a single basis; for example, just the one feeling is called feeling, experience, state of awareness, pleasure, suffering, and equanimity. There, if that basis is taken to be a nominal entity, whereas it would make sense that when the single basis, feeling, is spoken about with many names it would become many entities,1939 that is not the case. Therefore, you should know that form and so on is not a name entity.
In reference to the third part it says,
and so on. Were that basis taken to be the nominal entity, then when a name for many bases has been said, like, for example, “aggregates, sense fields, and constituents,” then all the dharmas would become a single entity.1940 But that is not the case. Therefore, you should know that form and so on is not a nominal entity.
What is being taught with,
This is teaching: The Lord has taught that the word labeled onto a basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon is together with a basis and together with a foundation; he has not taught that it is without a basis and without a foundation. Therefore, because it1942 is grounded in the basis that is causal sign of a compounded phenomenon, it seems that the entity that is the basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon is the word.
sorts out Maitreya’s statement, teaching: Are you saying that those who use the word form for that basis are giving voice to the entity that is its defining mark, or are they just saying a word? He1944 thus says that they are saying a word. Therefore, it is apparent that those words are giving voice to the name of that basis, not the entity, like, for example, in common parlance the child’s name Devadatta (“God-given”) and so on. Therefore, it is teaching that form and so on is not the name entity.1945
and so on, is saying that it is the entities of form and so on that are bases that are apprehended. It is saying: given that the Lord has said “form is a mere name,” and “feeling is a mere name” too, in that case the name form becomes the form entity and the name feeling becomes the feeling entity.
In order to sort that out as well,
and so on. It is understood in the world that form and so on are subject to production and stopping and are subject to defilement and purification. If the dharmas, form and so on, were taken to be name entities, there would then be no production or stopping, or defilement or purification over and above that of the name,1946 but such does occur. Therefore, you should know that a name is not the intrinsic nature of the dharmas.
and so on. The bodhisattva is asking: What about what you have said before, Lord, that “form is a mere name,” and “feeling is a mere name?” By saying that, do you intend that a mark of form and so on does not exist in any way at all, or that form just does not exist at all?
and so on.
and so on, the Lord differentiates and teaches that it exists from the perspective of the conventional truth but does not exist from the perspective of the ultimate truth.
and so on. He is saying: If you are saying that ultimately form and so on do not exist at all, in that case, you have gone to the extreme of the nihilists and so on. There the Lord’s intention in saying “ultimately it does not exist” is this: a basis1948 that can be designated by a name form and so on ultimately does not exist; a basis that cannot be named, that is
has an ultimate existence. Having said that he asks,
and so on. If the ultimate element is inexpressible by the entity that is the name and word for form and so on, [F.284.b] how could that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon designated by the name ever have any sort of existence or nonexistence? Having asked that, Maitreya also asks,
What does this teach? It is teaching that he has asserted that very basis that is the causal sign of a compounded phenomenon is its base because there is nothing else serving as a base of the inexpressible ultimate element. If that basis that is the causal sign of a compounded phenomenon ultimately does not exist, it does not make sense to say that “the inexpressible element is based on the basis that is the causal sign of a compounded phenomenon.” He is saying that you cannot call the basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon the “inexpressible element.”
Then the Lord, wanting to teach the way in which the basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon does not exist, and how, even though it does not exist, it serves as the foundation,1949 with,
and so on, asks him about just that. With,
and so on, he goes on to say: “Maitreya, when you take up the thoroughly purified wisdom, the inexpressible element,1951 at that point does the basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon appear or does it not appear?” And the bodhisattva says,
He means it does not appear.
what does this teach? It says: “Understand that since the basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon does not appear when you are cultivating attention to the ultimate, it does not exist ultimately, but it exists as a convention.” That conventional reality, furthermore, cannot ultimately be expressed as just that or as other. Therefore, it says,
If the conventional reality itself is the ultimate, well then, the very basis of a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon would be the inexpressible element. In that case, by having directly witnessed the basis of a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon they would have directly witnessed the inexpressible element.
and so on. If the ultimate is something other than conventional reality, then the inexpressible element would be “other than,” that is, broken off from the basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon, and if that were the case the true nature of a phenomenon would be other than the phenomenon.
And what would be wrong with that?
would not be accomplished. How so? Given that the ultimate element is without a causal sign, in what form would that absence of a causal sign come to appear to consciousness? When that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon and the dharma-constituent are not different, it is correct that the compounded thing and the dharma-constituent then become awakening’s cause. The intention is this: they first take the element with a causal sign as the basis they apprehend, then later, when they are carrying out an analysis with wisdom, apprehend it as the ultimate constituted as a nonexistent basis. That is correct.
Thus, the Lord teaches that a compounded basis ultimately does not exist [F.285.b] and also that the ultimate is released from being just that or another.1954 Then the noble Maitreya, worried there is a mistake again, asks,
because it does not exist, or is it
This teaches the following: Even though the basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon is unreal, still foolish, ordinary people lack the strength to take hold of the ultimate because, governed by the error of ignorance and the maturation of karma and so on as cause and conditions, bases that are dependent phenomena and are not independent still appear to consciousness as the opposite of how they actually are. When bodhisattvas are working hard at cultivating paying attention to that, the ignorance and so on that are the cause and conditions are not there, so the earlier appearance constituted as a phenomenon dependent on them thus does not appear. In the absence of ignorance and so on as cause, that compounded basis does not still have the strength to arise independently. Therefore, it says “that basis… has no independent existence at all.” And therefore it also says “nonexistence” is “not apprehended.”
and so on,1956 teaches when a dependent phenomenon occurs constituted by error, and true reality when the error does not occur. This means that when there is conceptualization the apprehending is in error dependent on the power of something else, the conceptualization, [F.286.a] and when there is no conceptualization the apprehending is without error as just the ultimate, because the dependent phenomenon does not exist. Having been asked that by the Lord, with
and then, in order to eliminate that it is something that really exists, asks,
There, “they” are the bodhisattvas; “thus” when they ultimately do not exist; “abiding in the nonconceptual element”—in the ultimate element; and “what existence does it have” is what existence does that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon have? This means it is just nonexistent.
Were it to exist, it would be apprehended.
and so on, gives an exposition of their divisions. From
it teaches that all ordinary and extraordinary phenomena [F.286.b] are included within the three aspects.
and so on,
and so on.1958 This means: based on a conventional designation, relative to the compounded basis that is the reason for the conventional designation, that name and term form, when designated as the intrinsic nature of form, is falsely imagined form.1959
There, for the phenomena, form and so on: the expression mode of appearance1960 as “form” and so on is the falsely imagined nature; the mode of erroneous appearance as the dharmas to consciousness1961 because of the power of ignorance and so on is the dependent nature; and the inexpressible, signless mode of appearance separated from those names and that mode of erroneous appearance is the ultimate, thoroughly established nature. You should grasp this in detail from the text.
and so on.
and so on. A mind arising and appearing in the mode of an appearance of an existent thing1962 for foolish, ordinary persons whose minds have become distorted, governed by afflictive emotions and the maturation of karma, and so on, as cause and conditions, is “conceptualized form.” “That basis which is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon” and so on teaches that.
“Established in the true dharmic nature of mere conceptualization”—there is no other nature except the mode of appearance when something has been conceptualized by an intellectually active state of mind,1963 so that basis is established as a merely conceptualized nature. Just that which is established as that is called “conceptualization.”
Thus “dependent on,” taking as its point of departure just that “conceptualization” established as the mere mode of appearance when something has been conceptualized by an intellectually active state of mind, the thoroughly distracted1964 mode of appearance constituted as a basis connected with an expression is called “an expression.” Thus, dependent on that mode of appearance “established as the mode of appearance when something has been conceptualized by an intellectually active state of mind,” the appearance in the form of a basis to the intellectually active state of mind is called “conceptualized form.”1965
You should connect this in the same way with
and so on as well.
when just that mode of appearance in a nonconceptual intellectually active state of mind1966 has become separated from a falsely imagined phenomenon described before—a mode of appearance suited, as the expressed and expression mode of appearance, to name and designation—[F.287.b] then, that mode of appearance established, in itself, in an inexpressible form as an absence of conceptualization is “the true dharmic nature of form.”
because the falsely imagined nature does not exist;
the nonexistence of a mode of appearance that is the essential nature of a dharma;
a mode of appearance without distortion; and
the culmination of such a mode of appearance. You should connect this in the same way with
and so on as well.
because it is absolutely nonexistent.
This means it does exist because it exists conventionally. It is a material reality because as a compounded phenomenon it is destroyed and exists as form.1967 So this is an explanation that it is existent as a conceptualized nature and is a material reality.
it says that because it has a dependent nature.
this is the true dharmic nature of form. It is not suitable to say “it does not exist” because it exists as an inexpressible entity, so it is not “a nonmaterial reality.” It is not suitable to say “it exists” because it exists in the form of a conceptualized basis, so “nor” is it “a material reality.” This therefore teaches a middle way avoiding two extremes. “The category of the ultimate” means the nature of the ultimate.1968 The word “category” means nature. Finally, you should connect this in the same way with them all, up to
and so on. What does
Just that nonexistence of “form or not form” in each of these three—falsely imagined form, conceptualized form, and the true dharmic nature of form—individually is the nondual, is suchness, is the absence of a self in dharmas. Thus, the words form, feeling, and so on, when enumerated as suchness, are counted as not two. That is the meaning, and wanting to teach just that, to teach the mark of each of those three aspects of form as free from form and not form, first, based on falsely imagined form, it says, “Is the absence of material reality in imaginary form, form, or is it not?”
It is not suitable to say falsely imagined form is the intrinsic nature of form because it does not exist as what constitutes form; but it is not suitable to say that it does not constitute form either, because it does exist relative to form’s name and what has been designated form. Therefore, it says,
This means form is not nonexistent based on what has been designated, but, because the intrinsic nature of form does not exist, it is not form either, so “it is not two.”
The conceptualized form that is that1974 appears as constituting form, so the intrinsic nature of form is not nonexistent; but [F.288.b] it is also ultimately not the intrinsic nature of form because it is an intrinsic nature separated from the perception of form. Therefore, it says
Thus, this means that form is not nonexistent because that conceptualized form appears as the intrinsic nature of form suitable to be named form, but it is also not form because ultimately it does not have the defining mark of form, so “it is not two.”
Form that is the thoroughly established true nature of dharmas is not the intrinsic nature of form because it is an intrinsic nature separated from all causal signs; but it is not not the intrinsic nature of form either because it is the intrinsic nature of form—the true nature of dharmas. Therefore, it says,
It is not form because the true nature of dharmas is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, but it is not not form because it is the true dharmic nature of form. That is the meaning of nondual. Therefore, it is
in the sense of “counted as suchness.”
Bodhisattvas paying attention to the mark of all dharmas in meditative equipoise do not comprehend. While not in meditative equipoise like śrāvakas, [F.289.a] with the knowledge of mastery they comprehend, just as it has been explained before.1977 Therefore just that not comprehending absolutely like that is their comprehension. Similarly, also connect this with
Then, to teach what they become skilled in when such skill in the mark of nonduality arises, it teaches nirvāṇa with,
Take “the nirvāṇa of bodhisattvas” as the extremely pure transformation of the basis. That transformation of the basis, furthermore, is in the intrinsic nature of a complete nirvāṇa beyond all afflictive obscuration and obscuration to knowledge, the intrinsic nature of a complete nirvāṇa beyond the maturation of karma. Therefore, it is nirvāṇa. Thus, unlike śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas they work for the welfare of beings for as long as saṃsāra exists. Therefore, it is not nirvāṇa.
“Taking the welfare of others as the point of departure, there is not a total rejection of saṃsāra and appropriation of a nirvāṇa without aggregates, therefore it is not a nirvāṇa; but taking their own welfare as the point of departure, because the work has been done, there is not a total rejection of nirvāṇa and there is no appropriation of a life in saṃsāra, therefore it is a nirvāṇa. What is the Lord teaching with this? He is explaining that it is nirvāṇa when they take the dharma body as the point of departure, but from the perspective of the complete enjoyment body and magically created body it is not nirvāṇa.
With this teaching it is asking: If for the sake of others they do not totally reject saṃsāra, they will have totally rejected nirvāṇa. If for their own sake they do not totally reject nirvāṇa, they will have totally rejected saṃsāra. Therefore, given that these “not totally rejecting and rejecting saṃsāra,” and “passing into nirvāṇa and not passing into nirvāṇa,” are contradictory, how is it not a contradiction?
and so on, teaches that they are not contradictory. This means bodhisattvas do not conceive of all dharmas. Seeing them all as just the same, they do not entertain in their mind in regard to saṃsāra the construct “it is saṃsāra,” nor in regard to nirvāṇa the construct “it is nirvāṇa.” Thus, they stay in the same state, and while remaining in that same state do not, for instance, recoil mentally from anything because of seeing a defect or get attracted to anything because of seeing an advantage. [F.290.a]
“Well then, Lord, will it not be the case that just as bodhisattvas standing in the realm without thought construction… have not totally rejected a life in saṃsāra they will similarly not have appropriated it, and just as they have not totally rejected nirvāṇa they will similarly not have appropriated that, either? And Lord, if there is no appropriation, how can there be no rejection?” P25k P18k
“Bodhisattvas do not conceive of saṃsāra or nirvāṇa, apprehending them as being the same. There is therefore no rejection of saṃsāra or nirvāṇa and there is no appropriation of them either.” So he asks about that: if there is no appropriating there, how is there no rejection?
This says: I do not say they appropriate or forsake based on abandoning or not abandoning a life in saṃsāra; I say it, contingent on the need for it, based on the work being done, because, through the force of the clairvoyances, they do not make an absolute break in the stream of work for the welfare of the mass of beings at all times in infinite world systems. Therefore, I say “they do not totally reject saṃsāra,” but not because they do not abandon saṃsāra.
Thus, taking the realm of
as the point of departure, he has taught that they remain in that, and therefore says, “They appropriate nirvāṇa.”
is asking how is the absence of conceptualization completed and finalized.
is the absence of the duality of “existing” and “not existing.”
is not conceptualizing those dharmas as anything at all in any way at all.
There are “many families and dispositions of beings,” which is to say, there are three “families.” Also “dispositions” differ on account of particular aspirations, proclivities, beliefs, faculties, and so on.
because of their disposition, from the start, they want perfect, complete awakening and, in accord with what they want, “gain” it.
This intends that when there is rebirth in saṃsāra the accumulations for awakening can be completed.
stream enterers do not arise in an eighth existence here; once-returners appropriate a single existence here; non-returners do not appropriate even a single existence here; and worthy ones do not appropriate any existence at all, so rebirth has ceased.
Those who have the three births have nothing to do with that. They have a threefold birth—“an inconceivable birth, magically created birth, and birth through a prayer that is a vow.”
There, if those not necessarily destined to be in the śrāvaka family have come into the presence of a tathāgata, at that time the tathāgata, [F.291.a] seeing the particular features of their family, will explain to them the doctrine in the sort of way that produces a desire for unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening. Having connected them with that sort of path, if they do not forsake that desire, having actualized the very limit of reality they gain the result of stream enterer and so on. Thus, the buddhas with skillful means and with the system of the perfection of wisdom establish them on the path to all-knowledge. Whether they have become those in training or not in training, because they have not given up wanting unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, even though they actualize nirvāṇa they do not generate an absolutely intense admiration for it as do those who are certain to be śrāvakas. To illustrate, some, when viewing a town or village, think “I am going to live right there.” Then, their admiration for it turns into an admiration for something else when they have seen it, and they think, “I am going to go elsewhere.” They have a change of mind when they have seen it. Similarly, here too when there is a desire for unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, the desire for nirvāṇa turns into something else and they become different from those who are certain to be śrāvakas. Therefore some, even though they have abandoned the afflictions, become special because of the power of residual impressions and so on, and because of the power of a compassionate aspiration and so on they do not get extremely repulsed by saṃsāra. They want to work for the benefit of beings like someone who sees their young son fallen into a filthy cesspool, sees that the cesspool is filthy, but still does not get repulsed because of wanting to get him out. Those like that, in training or not in training, under the guidance of a tathāgata dedicate the wholesome roots of the extraordinary noble path without outflows and so on like this—they dedicate them with the thought: “In order to be of benefit to beings may all of my extraordinary wholesome roots without outflows be directed toward birth in saṃsāra.” through the power of such a dedication the uncontaminated good of the path and so on causes them to be born in saṃsāra. They have [F.291.b] wholesome dharmas similar to afflictions that function as a cooperative condition. Thus, as the other sūtras say:1983
“Sāgaramati, what are these afflictions accompanying the wholesome roots that keep saṃsāra going? They are dissatisfaction with their accumulation of merit, taking up birth in existence having the intention to do so, fixation on meeting with buddhas, not getting depressed when bringing beings to maturity, trying to grasp the good Dharma, making an effort at whatever work beings do, nonseparation from thoughts of attachment to the Dharma, and not giving up the practice of the perfections. Sāgaramati, those are the afflictions accompanying the wholesome roots that keep saṃsāra going. Bodhisattvas are in close contact with them,1984 but they are not stained by the faults of the afflictions.”
The Lord said: “Sāgaramati, it is because through these sorts of afflictions bodhisattvas are in close contact with1985 the three realms and the three realms come about from afflictions. Bodhisattvas are in close contact with1986 the three realms at will through the power of their skillful means and their production of wholesome roots. That is why they are called ‘afflictions accompanying wholesome roots.’ They are afflictions to the extent that they connect them to the three realms, but not because they afflict their minds.”
Certain non-returners or worthy ones endowed with a special clairvoyance generated through the force of meditative stabilization demonstrate birth in various magical creations, work for the infinite welfare of beings, and complete the equipment for awakening. That is called magically created birth.
For others, through the force of relying on spiritual friends, [F.292.a] the special features of such prayers that are vows have come together from the start and they accomplish dedicated births that have the fruition of those prayers of theirs as their nature. That is called dedicated birth.
Why, though, without reaching the result of stream enterer and so on, do they not complete the equipment for awakening?1987 It is because they are powerless to do so because their afflictions are more intense and their faculties duller. Without the necessary purification of faculties and abandonment of afflictions they are incapable of completing the equipment for awakening. Therefore, with skillful means a tathāgata causes them to become endowed with that sort of supreme force. As the other sūtras say:1988
The Lord: “I will teach an analogy for that. Listen! Child of good family, a king who receives the royal consecration on the crown of his head has a son. He studies all the sciences but has dull faculties, not sharp faculties, so he studies what you study later earlier, and studies later what you study earlier. So, child of good family, what do you think, is that boy, on account of that, not the son of the king?”
The Lord: “In the same way, child of good family, bodhisattvas [F.292.b] with dull faculties who are in the lineage, earlier will put an end to afflictions on the path of meditation, and later will fully awaken to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening. What do you think, child of good family, on account of that will they not have fully awakened to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening?”
Therefore, reborn through the power of these three sorts of birth they complete the equipment for awakening.
|AAV||Āryavimuktisena (’phags pa rnam grol sde). ’phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag nyi shu lnga pa’i man ngag gi bstan bcos mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan gyi tshig le’ur byas pa’i ’grel pa (Āryapañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñā-pāramitopadeśaśāstrābhisamayālaṃkārakārikāvārttika). Toh 3787, Degé Tengyur vol. 80 (shes phyin, ka), folios 14b–212a.|
|AAVN||Āryavimuktisena. Abhisamayālamkāravrtti (mistakenly titled Abhisamayālaṅkāravyākhyā). Nepal German Manuscript Preservation Project A 37/9, National Archives Kathmandu Accession Number 5/55. The numbers follow the page numbering of my own undated, unpublished transliteration of the part of the manuscript not included in Pensa 1967.|
|AAVārt||Bhadanta Vimuktisena (btsun pa grol sde). ’phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag nyi shu lnga pa’i man ngag gi bstan bcos mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan gyi tshig le’ur byas pa’i rnam par ’grel pa (*Āryapañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñā-pāramitopadeśaśāstrābhisamayālaṃkārakārikāvārttika). Toh 3788, Degé Tengyur vol. 81 (shes phyin, kha), folios 1b–181a.|
|AAtib||shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i man ngag gi bstan bcos mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan zhes bya ba tshig le’le’urur byas pa (Abhisamayālaṃkāra-nāma-prajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstrakārikā) [Ornament for the Clear Realizations]. Toh 3786, Degé Tengyur (shes phyin, ka), folios 1b–13a.|
|Abhisamayālaṃkāra||Abhisamayālaṃkāra-nāma-prajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstra. Numbering of the verses as in Unrai Wogihara edition. Abhisamayālaṃkārālokā Prajñāpāramitā Vyākhyā: The Work of Haribhadra. Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1932–5; reprint ed., Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Book Store, 1973.|
|Amano||Amano, Koei H. Abhisamayālaṃkāra-kārikā-śāstra-vivṛti: Haribhadra’s Commentary on the Abhisamayālaṃkāra-kārikā-śāstra edited for the first time from a Sanskrit Manuscript. Kyoto: Heirakuji Shoten, 2000.|
|Aṣṭa||Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā. Page numbers are Wogihara (1973) that includes the edition of Mitra (1888).|
|BPS||’phags pa byang chub sems dpa’i sde snod ces bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo (Āryabodhisattvapiṭakanāmamahāyānasūtra) [The Bodhisattva’s Scriptural Collection]. Toh 56, Degé Kangyur vols. 40–41 (dkon brtsegs, kha, ga), folios 255b1–294a7, 1b1–205b1.|
|Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo||Zhang, Yisun, ed. Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo. Pe-cing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang 2000.|
|Buddhaśrī||shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa sdud pa’i tshig su byas pa’i dka’ ’grel (Prajñāpāramitāsaṃcayagāthāpañjikā). Toh 3798, Degé Tengyur vol. 87 (shes phyin, nya), folios 116a–189b.|
|Bṭ1||Anonymous/Daṃṣṭrāsena. shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa ’bum gyi rgya cher ’grel (Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitābṛhaṭṭīkā) [Bṛhaṭṭīkā]. Toh 3807, Degé Tengyur vols. 91–92 (shes phyin, na, pa).|
|Bṭ3||Vasubandhu/Daṃṣṭrāsena. ’phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa ’bum dang / nyi khri lnga sgong pa dang / khri brgyad stong pa rgya cher bshad pa (Āryaśatasāhasrikāpañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāṣṭādaśa-sāhasrikāprajñāpāramitābṭhaṭṭīkā) [Bṛhaṭṭīkā]. Degé Tengyur vol. 93 (shes phyin, pha), folios 1b–292b.|
|C||Choné (co ne) Kangyur and Tengyur.|
|D||Degé (sde dge) Kangyur and Tengyur.|
|DMDic||Dan Martin Dictionary. Part of The Tibetan to English Translation Tool, version 3.3.0, compiled by Andrés Montano Pellegrini. Available from https://www.bdrc.io/blog/2020/12/21/dan-martins-tibetan-histories/.|
|Edg||Edgerton, Franklin. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary. New Haven, 1953.|
|Eight Thousand||Conze, Edward. The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines & Its Verse Summary. Bolinas, Calif.: Four Seasons Foundation, 1973.|
|GRETIL||Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages.|
|Ghoṣa||Ghoṣa, Pratāpachandra, ed. Śatasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā. Asiatic Society of Bengal. Calcutta, 1902–14.|
|Gilgit||Gilgit Buddhist Manuscripts (revised and enlarged compact facsimile edition). Vol. 1. by Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra. Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica Series No. 150. Delhi 110007: Sri Satguru Publications, a division of Indian Books Center, 1995.|
|GilgitC||Conze, Edward, ed. and trans. The Gilgit Manuscript of the Aṣṭādaśasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā: Chapters 55 to 70 Corresponding to the 5th Abhisamaya. Roma: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1962.|
|Golden||snar thang gser bri ma. Golden Tengyur/Ganden Tengyur. Produced between 1731 and 1741 by Polhane Sonam Tobgyal for the Qing court, published in Tianjing 1988. BDRC W23702.|
|H||Lhasa (zhol) Kangyur and Tengyur|
|Haribhadra (Amano)||Abhisamayālaṃkārakārikāśāstravivṛti. Amano edition.|
|Haribhadra (Wogihara)||Abhisamayālaṃkārālokā Prajñāpāramitāvyākhyā. Wogihara edition.|
|LC||Candra, Lokesh. Tibetan Sanskrit Dictionary. Śata-piṭaka Series Indo-Asian Literature, Vol. 3. International Academy of Indian Culture (1959–61) third reprint edition 2001.|
|LSPW||Conze, Edward. The Large Sutra on Perfection Wisdom. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 1975. First paperback printing, 1984.|
|MDPL||Conze, Edward. Materials for a Dictionary of the Prajñāpāramitā Literature. Tokyo: Suzuki Research Foundation, 1973.|
|MQ||Conze, Edward and Shotaro Iida. “ ‘Maitreya’s Questions’ in the Prajñāpāramitā.” In Mélanges d’India a la Mémoire de Louis Renou, 229–42. Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard, 1968.|
|MSAvy||Asaṅga / Vasubandhu. Sūtrālaṃkāravyākhyā.|
|MSAvyT||Asaṅga / Vasubandhu. mdo sde’i rgyan gyi bshad pa (Sūtrālaṃkāravyākhyā). Toh 4026, Degé Tengyur vol. 225 (sems tsam, phi), folios 129b–260a.|
|MW||Monier-Williams, Monier. A Sanskrit-English dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899.|
|Mppś||Lamotte, Étienne. Le Traité de la Grande Vertu de Sagesse de Nāgārjuna (Mahāprajñā-pāramitā-śāstra). Vol. I and II: Bibliothèque du Muséon, 18. Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, 1949; reprinted 1967. Vol III, IV and V: Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain, 2, 12 and 24. Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, 1970, 1976 and 1980.|
|Mppś English||Gelongma Karma Migme Chodron. The Treatise on the Great Virtue of Wisdom of Nāgārjuna. Gampo Abbey Nova Scotia, 2001. English translation of Étienne Lamotte (1949–80).|
|Mvy||Mahāvyutpatti (bye brag tu rtogs par byed pa chen po. Toh. 4346, Degé Tengyur vol. 306 (bstan bcos sna tshogs, co), folios 1b-131a.|
|N||Narthang (snar thang) Kangyur and Tengyur.|
|NAK||National Archives Kathmandu.|
|NGMPP||Nepal German Manuscript Preservation Project.|
|PSP||Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā. Edited by Takayasu Kimura. Tokyo: Sankibo Busshorin 2007–9 (1-1, 1-2), 1986 (2-3), 1990 (4), 1992 (5), 2006 (6-8). Available online (input by Klaus Wille, Göttingen) at GRETIL.|
|RecA||Skt and Tib editions of Recension A in Yuyama 1976.|
|RecAs||Sanskrit Recension A in Yuyama 1976.|
|RecAt||Tibetan Recension A in Yuyama 1976.|
|S||Stok Palace (stog pho brang bris ma) Kangyur.|
|Subodhinī||Attributed to Haribhadra. bcom ldan ’das yon tan rin po che sdud pa’i tshig su byas pa’i dka’ ’grel shes bya ba (Bhagavadratnaguṇasaṃcayagāthā-pañjikānāma) [A Commentary on the Difficult Points of the “Verses that Summarize the Perfection of Wisdom”]. Toh 3792, Degé Tengyur vol. 86 (shes phyin, ja), folios 1b–78a.|
|TGN||de bshin gshegs pa’i gsang ba bsam gyis mi khyab pa’i bstan pa (Tathāgatācintyaguhyakanirdeśa) [“Explanation of the Inconceivable Secrets of the Tathāgatas”]. Toh 47, Degé Kangyur vol. 39 (dkon brtsegs, ka), folios 100a7–203a.|
|TMN||de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po chen po nges par bstan pa (Tathāgatamahākaruṇānirdeśasūtra) [“The Teaching on the Great Compassion of the Tathāgata”]. Toh 147, Degé Kangyur vol. 57 (mdo sde, pa), folios 42a1–242b7. English translation in Burchardi 2020.|
|Tempangma||bka’ ’gyur rgyal rtse’i them spang ma. The Gyaltse Tempangma manuscript of the Kangyur preserved at National Library of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.|
|Toh||Tōhoku Imperial University A Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons. (bkaḥ-ḥgyur and bstan-ḥgyur). Edited by Ui, Hakuju; Suzuki, Munetada; Kanakura, Yenshō; and Taka, Tōkan. Tohoku Imperial University, Sendai, 1934.|
|Vetter||Vetter, Tilmann. “Compounds in the Prologue of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā,” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens, Band XXXVII, 1993: 45–92.|
|Wogihara||Wogihara, Unrai. Abhisamayālaṃkārālokā Prajñāpāramitā Vyākhyā: The Work of Haribhadra. Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko, 1932–5; reprint ed., Tokyo: Sankibo Buddhist Book Store, 1973.|
|Z||Zacchetti, Stefano. In Praise of the Light. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica, Vol. 8. The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology. Tokyo: Soka University, 2005.|
|brgyad stong pa||shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa bryad stong pa (Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā) [“Eight Thousand”]. Toh 12, Degé Kangyur vol. 33 (shes phyin, brgyad stong pa, ka), folios 1a–286a.|
|khri brgyad||shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa khri brgyad stong pa (Aṣṭādaśasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā) [“Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines”]. Toh 10, Degé Kangyur vols. 29–31 (shes phyin, khri brgyad, ka, kha, and in ga folios 1b–206a). English translation in Sparham 2022.|
|khri pa||shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa khri pa (Daśasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā) [“Perfection of Wisdom in Ten Thousand Lines”]. Toh 11, Degé Kangyur vols. 31–32 (shes phyin, khri brgyad, ga folios 1b–91a (second repetition of numbering), and in shes phyin, khrid pa, nga, folios 92b-397a). English translation in Dorje 2018.|
|le’u brgyad ma||shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag nyi shu lnga pa (Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā) [Haribhadra’s “Eight Chapters”]. Toh 3790, vols. 82–84 (shes phyin, ga, nga, ca). Citations are from the 1976–79 Karmapae chodhey gyalwae sungrab partun khang edition, first the Tib. vol. letter in italics, followed by the folio and line number.|
|nyi khri||shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag nyi shu lnga pa (Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā) [Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines]. Toh 9, Degé Kangyur vols. 26–28 (shes phyin, nyi khri, ka–ga). Citations are from the 1976–79 Karmapae chodhey gyalwae sungrab partun khang edition. English Translation in Padmakara 2023.|
|rgyan snang||Haribhadra. shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa brgyad stong pa’i bshad pa mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan gyi snang ba, (Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā-vyākhyānābhisamayālaṃkārālokā) [“Illumination of the Abhisamayālaṃkāra”]. Toh 3791, Degé Tengyur vol. 85 (shes phyin, cha), folios 1b–341a.|
|sa bcu pa||sangs rgyas phal po che zhes bya ba las, sa bcu’i le’u ste, sum cu rtsa gcig pa’o (sa bcu pa’i mdo) (Daśabhūmikasūtra) [“The Ten Bhūmis”]. Toh 44-31, Degé Kangyur vol. 36 (phal chen, kha), folios 166.a–283.a. English translation in Roberts 2021.|
|snying po mchog||Ratnākaraśānti. ’phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa brgyad stong pa’i dka’ ’grel snying po mchog. (Sāratamā) [“Quintessence”]. Toh 3803, Degé Tengyur vol. 89 (shes phyin, tha), folios 1b–230a.|
|ŚsPK||Śatasāhasrikāprajñaparamitā. Edited by Takayasu Kimura. Tokyo: Sankibo Busshorin 2009 (II-1), 2010 (II-2, II-3), 2014 (II-4). Available online (input by Klaus Wille, Göttingen) at GRETIL.|
|ŚsPN3||Śatasāhasrikāprajñaparamitā NGMPP A 115/3, NAK Accession Number 3/632. Numbering of the scanned pages.|
|ŚsPN4||Śatasāhasrikāprajñaparamitā NGMPP B 91/3, NAK Accession Number 3/633. Numbering of the scanned pages.|
|ŚsPN4/2||Śatasāhasrikāprajñaparamitā NGMPP B 91/3, NAK Accession Number 3/633 (part two). Numbering of the scanned pages.|
|’bum||shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag brgya pa (Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā) [Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines]. Toh 8, Degé Kangyur vols. 14–25 (shes phyin, ’bum, ka–a). Citations are from the 1976–79 Karmapae chodhey gyalwae sungrab partun khang edition, first the Tib. vol. letter in italics, followed by the folio and line number.|
’phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa ’bum dang / nyi khri lnga sgong pa dang / khri brgyad stong pa rgya cher bshad pa (Āryaśatasāhasrikāpañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāṣṭādaśa-sāhasrikāprajñāpāramitābṭhaṭṭīkā) [The Long Explanation of the Noble Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand, Twenty-Five Thousand, and Eighteen Thousand Lines]. Vasubandhu/Daṃṣṭrāsena. Toh 3808, Degé Tengyur vol. 93 (shes phyin, pha), folios 1b–292b.