The Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra (1)

The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra is among the many canonical works in which a particular buddha in another buddhafield is invoked along with the benefits of recalling his name and reciting his dhāraṇī. Associated as it is with longevity, this is one of the most widely read texts in the Kangyur, and Aparimitāyur­jñāna (“Immeasurable Longevity and Wisdom”’) is one of the most frequently portrayed and well-known buddhas in the pantheon of Tibetan Buddhism.

The sūtra is commonly referred to as the Tsédo (tshe mdo, “Sūtra of Longevity”) or Tsézung (tshe gzungs, “Dhāraṇī of Longevity”), and contains a dhāraṇī that is repeated in the text twenty-nine times. It is included in many Tibetan liturgical compilations, and its recitation, usually with a specified number of repetitions, is often advised to people in poor health or facing other difficulties, or is commissioned on their behalf in monasteries.

Although its title identifies it as a sūtra, it is placed in all Kangyurs with the Action Tantras (bya ba’i rgyud, kriyātantra). In common with many other works classified as Action Tantras, there is nevertheless little in the text to identify it as a tantra. The inclusion of a long, repeated dhāraṇī in Sanskrit is presumably one criterion for this classification, although there are many other canonical works with a similar structure that are placed with the sūtras. Other criteria may have been its classification and line of transmission in India, before it was taken to Tibet, or the fact that it has also formed the basis for a wide range of tantra practices, particularly among the higher levels of tantra, in the form of sādhanas of Aparimitāyus.1

The text has also survived in a large number of Sanskrit manuscripts (mostly later Nepalese ones); in two Chinese translations; and in a different‍—perhaps earlier‍—Tibetan translation, represented by most of the very numerous manuscripts found in the caves of Dunhuang, where a Khotanese manuscript (probably the oldest surviving version) was also found.

All Kangyurs include two major versions of the sūtra, similar in most respects but differing mainly in the presence or absence of one phrase in the repeated dhāraṇī. The background of the existence of these two versions is discussed below. The version translated here is the best known and most widely used of the two, and seems to represent Sanskrit source texts brought to Tibet in the later translation period. Even this version, however, is found in two near-duplicate copies in the Degé and other Kangyurs, with one word in the dhāraṇī consistently differing between the copies.

The other major version, The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra (2), Toh 675, appears to be derived from the same translation, but the dhāraṇī it contains is the shorter one, matching those found in the Chinese translations, the Dunhuang manuscript in Khotanese, and the earlier Tibetan translation represented by the majority of the very numerous Dunhuang manuscripts in Tibetan.2

This sūtra3 is one of the set known as the “ten royal sūtras,” thought to be so called either because they represent distillations of the most profound scriptures, or because according to traditional histories they were recommended to King Trisong Detsen for his daily practice by Guru Padmasambhava. As a result of practicing them, the king is said to have extended his life by thirteen years.4

In a similar vein, the fact that so many manuscript copies of this text have been found in the Dunhuang caves is due to their production by scribes there having been commissioned on behalf of Trisong Detsen’s grandson, Ralpachen (who reigned in the early ninth century), in order to ensure for the king the longevity that the text itself promises.

The name of the buddha who is the subject of this sūtra has three forms, of different lengths. The shortest version of his name is Aparimitāyus. The medium-length version is Aparimitāyur­jñāna (“Immeasurable Longevity and Wisdom”), and figures in the title of the sūtra. The longest form of the name, also in the sūtra, is Aparimitāyur­jñāna­suviniścita­tejo­rāja (“The Blazing King Who Is Completely Certain of Immeasurable Longevity and Wisdom”).5

The shortest name, Aparimitāyus, is translated into Tibetan as Tsepamé (tshe dpag med or, in full, tshe dpag tu med pa). Tsepamé, however, is also the Tibetan translation of Amitāyus, an alternative form of the name of the Buddha Amitābha found in many scriptures. These two buddhas, who seem to have been originally quite distinct, are often identified with each other‍—not only in Tibetan Buddhism but also in the Chinese and Japanese traditions6‍—and the overlap of their names in Tibetan is therefore not the only factor at work. But partly as a result of back-translation from Tibetan into Sanskrit, Aparimitāyur­jñāna has become commonly known as Amitāyus, a name which makes him difficult to distinguish from the Amitāyus who is Amitābha.

Other than by their names, a further means of distinguishing between these two buddhas is by their buddhafields. In this sūtra, the Buddha Śākyamuni clearly introduces Aparimitāyur­jñāna as dwelling in the realm named Aparimita­guṇa­saṃcaya (“Accumulation of Immeasurable Qualities”), which is situated in an upward direction from this world, i.e. toward the zenith. Tibetan authors who commented on the problem, even if they used the short form Tsepamé (Amitāyus), nevertheless took pains to distinguish between the two buddhas. On the one hand was “Amitāyus of the zenith” (steng phyogs kyi tshe dpag med) and “Amitāyus of Akaniṣṭha” (’og min gyi tshe dpag med, in the tantras), both likely to be references to Aparimitāyur­jñāna. On the other was “Amitāyus of Sukhāvatī” (bde ba can gyi tshe dpag med), also sometimes known as “Amitāyus of the Drum of Immortality” (’chi med rnga sgra’i tshe dpag med, Dundubhisvara-Amitāyus), both of whom can be identified with Amitābha.7

Aparimitāyur­jñāna is therefore presented here as quite distinct from the Amitāyus or Amitābha who resides in the realm of Sukhāvatī in the western direction. However, perhaps adding to the confusion, even the text of this present sūtra includes rebirth in Sukhāvatī among the results that will be obtained by those who write the sūtra down and recite it. This can presumably be explained by the fact that Sukhāvatī, described in several Kangyur sūtras8 and in many prayers, was the realm in which Mahāyāna Buddhists predominantly and almost generically prayed to be reborn.

Of the few other mentions specifically of Aparimitāyur­jñāna in the canonical texts, one appears to be in The Root Manual of the Rites of Mañjuśrī (Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa, Toh 543), in which the Buddha Śākyamuni tells of a buddha with the names Aparimitāyur­jñānarāja and Amitāyurjñānaviniścayarājendra, who has taught the king of vidyās that consists of a single letter. His pure realm is called Amitavyūhavatī, or simply Amitāyus.9 He is also mentioned as one of nine tathāgatas from buddhafields in the eastern direction present in the assembly.10

Another, perhaps more significant, mention comes in the Sarva­durgati­pariśodhana­tantra (Toh 483 and 485). One of the many secondary maṇḍalas described in that influential Yogatantra work, widely used in funerary rites, is that of a tathāgata whose full name is given as Aparimitāyuḥ­puṇya­jñāna­sambhāra­tejo­rāja, but who is referred to as Amitāyus in the several commentaries. He is invoked to protect from untimely death, and his mantra, oṁ puṇye puṇye mahā-puṇye aparimitāyuḥ-puṇye jñāna-sambhāropacite svāhā, bears a striking resemblance to the central section of the repeated dhāraṇī of the present text, as well as to the dhāraṇī of The Essence of Aparimitāyus (tshe dpag med kyi snying po, Toh 673a).11 Its possible relationship to the present text is discussed further in i.­24 below, and in the introduction to Toh 675 at i.29–31.

The only other mention in the Kangyur of the tathāgata known as Aparimitāyur­jñāna is, misleadingly, in the title of the text that follows the two versions of this sūtra in the Tantra section. Often confused with the present text, it is The Dhāraṇī “The Essence of Immeasurable Longevity and Wisdom” (Toh 676, Aparimitāyur­jñānahṛdaya-nāma-dhāraṇī),12 but that work proves to be concerned solely with the “other” Amitāyus (or Aparimitāyus) to be identified with Amitābha, in Sukhāvatī. It shares no content with The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra, has an entirely different dhāraṇī, and‍—despite the title‍—the name Aparimitāyur­jñāna does not appear within the text itself. However, the fact that it has that title, and its placement in most Kangyurs just after The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra, indicate that these two buddhas were already identified with each other by the time of the compilation of the Kangyurs‍—as indeed they are in the Buddhist traditions of East Asia.

In some later practice texts, both Amitābha and Amitāyus take the role of the dharmakāya deity of the lotus family, while in others Amitāyus may be specified as representing any of the three kāyas. Iconographically, Amitābha is often portrayed in nirmāṇakāya and Amitāyus in saṃbhogakāya form. In the present sūtra, however, there is no indication that Aparimitāyus is in saṃbhogakāya or any other specified form. In fact, there is no description of him at all‍—except perhaps that the appellation tejorāja, “blazing king,” might be taken to refer to his “fire-like” red appearance. His usual portrayal as red in color, wearing the saṃbhogakāya costume, and holding a vase of amṛta, the nectar of immortality, comes from the later tantra practices that have their origin in this sūtra.

Two translations of this text into Chinese were made, one by Facheng (Taishō 936) in the early ninth century, and the other by Fatian (Taishō 937) in the late tenth century.13 Both Chinese translations contain the “two oṁ” dhāraṇī, and are therefore closer to the Khotanese, the other Tibetan version (2) of the text (Toh 675), and the Dunhuang manuscripts than they are to the Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts and to the present version (1) in Tibetan.

There are many surviving manuscripts of the text in Sanskrit, but none that can be reliably dated much before the early ninth century, the period when it was first translated into Chinese, and probably into Tibetan for the first time (see below). Most of the Sanskrit manuscripts are Nepalese and are dated considerably later.

The oldest known Indic version of the text may be one from east Turkestan in what came to be called “Khotanese,” the old Iranian dialect of that region during the later period of the time when Buddhism was prevalent there. It is written in the Upright Gupta script, and probably dates to the seventh or eighth century. The manuscript was discovered in the Mogao caves in Dunhuang by Sir Aurel Stein in 1907, and in 1912 Ernst Leumann made a short comparison of the Sanskrit of this sūtra’s opening sentences with a few fragments of the Khotanese text. In 1916, two Sanskrit editions saw the light independently. One, by Sten Konow, compared an edition of a Nepalese Sanskrit version with a complete edition of the Khotanese manuscript, along with the first English translation. The other, by Max Walleser, was based on a Nepalese manuscript and included a German translation. Walleser’s German translation has been translated into English by Richard K. Payne in his paper on this sūtra.14 Jonathan Silk has made an English translation from Walleser’s edition of the Sanskrit,15 and attests in his unpublished paper, “The Most Important Buddhist Scripture? The Aparimitāyur­jñāna and Medieval Buddhism,” to the relatively large number of extant Sanskrit manuscripts‍—well over one hundred‍—either in isolation or compilations, indicating how popular this sūtra was in Buddhist practice.

The Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts are all of the “three oṁ” version of the text, and therefore correspond more closely to the present version (1), Toh 674. The Khotanese, on the other hand, contains the “two oṁ” version of the dhāranī throughout, and is thus closer to version (2) in Tibetan, Toh 675, to the many Dunhuang manuscripts in Tibetan, and to the two Chinese translations.

There are two different but closely related versions of The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra in most Kangyurs. We have called them The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra (1) and (2), and in keeping with the tradition established by editors of all Kangyurs we have translated and published them separately, despite their similarity. They are found consecutively in the Tantra Collection, and according to Situ Panchen’s original catalog of the Degé Kangyur they are placed with the Action (Kriyā) Tantras in the subdivision that corresponds to the principal deity (rigs kyi gtso bo) of the Padma (lotus) family. Their Degé recensions are cataloged as Toh 674 and Toh 675, respectively.

Before discussing the complex differences between The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra (1) and (2), it should be mentioned here that The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra (1) itself also exists in two slightly different forms, the difference being a minor one in the dhāraṇī that is less significant than the differences between versions (1) and (2). In those Kangyurs that, like the Degé, have a separate compendium of dhāraṇīs (gzungs ’dus, dhāraṇī) section, a second version of (1) appears there; in the Degé it is Toh 849, and is essentially a duplicate of the first (Toh 674), except that the dhāraṇī differs in one word. In the middle part of the repeated dhāraṇī, where the Toh 674 version has aparimitāyur­puṇya-jñāna, the Toh 849 version reads aparimita­puṇye aparimita­puṇya-jñāna. This latter reading is also found in the versions in the compendium of dhāraṇīs in several Tshalpa Kangyurs;16 is the only version to be found in some other Kangyurs, notably those of the Themphangma group;17 and corresponds to the version in the Druptap Küntü, which will be mentioned in more detail below. Readers of this translation will see the version of the dhāraṇī corresponding to the version (Toh 674 or Toh 849) that they have selected.

To return to our discussion of the more significant differences between the two major variants, versions (1) and (2), the principal distinction lies again mainly in the repeated dhāraṇī, but in this case is a marked difference in its length and composition. In the present version, The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra (1), Toh 674 and 849, the middle part of the dhāraṇī comprises a phrase beginning “oṁ puṇye puṇye . . .” that is not present in the other version, The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra (2), Toh 675, although the rest of the dhāraṇī is almost the same. It is on that basis that the catalog of the Degé Kangyur distinguishes the two texts by calling this one (Toh 674 and 849) the “three oṁ” version (because the repeated dhāraṇī also contains two other phrases beginning with oṁ), while the other one (Toh 675) it calls the “two oṁ, no puṇye” version.18 In some other catalogs, e.g. the index to the Narthang Kangyur, the two texts are called respectively the “large and small Tsédo.”19

Another intriguing hint that the Kangyur provides us with regard to these two versions of the text is that the part of the dhāraṇī “present” in this version (1), Toh 674, but “missing” in version (2), Toh 675, is included in all Kangyurs, almost identically but on its own, as the dhāraṇī that forms the very short content of another text in this group, The Essence of Aparimitāyus, Toh 673a. There is no explanation in the various Kangyur catalogs for its presence, but the term “essence” (hṛdaya, snying po, sometimes rendered “heart mantra”) in its title identifies it as a mantra used in at least one tradition of the practice of Aparimitāyus. The only other mention of this mantra in the Kangyur appears to be in the Sarva­durgati­pariśodhana, known best in Tibetan by its shortened title sbyong rgyud (the “Purification Tantra”), a tantra of the Yoga class, in which this same mantra is given as the “essence vidyā-mantra” (hṛdayavidyā, snying po’i rig pa) of the tathāgata Aparimitāyuḥ­puṇya­jñāna­sambhāra­tejo­rāja, the principal figure in a secondary maṇḍala.20 What is confirmed by this mantra’s mention in the tantra, as well as its presence as Toh 673a, is at the very least that it is a potentially independent stand-alone mantra phrase, making it easier to understand that it might have been either added or removed at some stage in the evolving transmission of the dhāraṇī in the sūtra. Its use in arguments and counter-arguments in favor of the authenticity of each of the two versions of the sūtra is discussed in the introduction to Toh 675 at i.29–31.

The translation published here, the “three oṁ” version, represents the form of the text most widely recited and reproduced in modern compilations. That the “two oṁ” version, The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra (2), Toh 675, is also preserved in all Kangyurs as a separate text is an implicit recognition that both are authentic. The controversies that have nevertheless sometimes arisen about that question are discussed below and in the introduction to Toh 675, i.20-32.

Apart from the composition of the dhāraṇī, there are some other relatively minor differences in wording between Toh 674 and 675, as recorded in the notes. Among these differences, the most significant are as follows:

There are no translators’ colophons to either version of the text, in any of the different Kangyurs. Nor are there colophons for the many reproductions of the text in other Tibetan compilations‍—with the exception of the version in the Druptap Küntü, mentioned below. Outside the texts themselves, this absence of information about the translators is confirmed in most of the Kangyur inventories and catalogs (including the catalog of the Degé Kangyur, which explicitly states that the translators are unknown)‍—but with two exceptions.

These two exceptions are the catalog (dkar chag) of the Narthang Kangyur (regarding both versions) and the lineage record of transmissions received by Minling Terchen Gyurme Dorje (regarding this version, Toh 674, only). Both attribute the translation to the Indian paṇḍita Puṇyasambhava and the Tibetan translator Patsap Nyima Drak, who were active in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. This same attribution is made in the colophon of the sūtra as reproduced in the Druptap Küntü (sgrub thabs kun btus), a collection of sādhanas of the Sakya tradition compiled by Jamyang Loter Wangpo (1847–1914).24 Now, these two translators are widely agreed to be the translators of the text that follows immediately after the two versions of The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra in the Kangyur, The Dhāraṇī “Essence of Immeasurable Longevity and Wisdom” (Toh 676), which (as mentioned in i.­15 above) is not closely related to The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra despite its title, and one possibility is that this attribution of The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra to those translators might have been an error brought about by the proximity of the texts and their confusingly similar titles.

In particular, the catalog of the Narthang Kangyur alone would seem to be an inadequate source of information here. The Narthang Kangyur was produced in the early 1730s, and reproduces versions of this group of texts, the equivalents of Toh 674 through Toh 676,25 without colophons for either version of the sūtra. It is only in its catalog that the attribution to these two translators appears to be made. A look at the page in the catalog concerned reinforces suspicions of an erroneous attribution, as the carving of the catalog’s woodblocks26 seems to have run into problems for this entry, which coincides with a folio break. Indeed, the catalog not only appears to attribute both versions of The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra to these translators, but also omits naming these (or any) translators for the following text, The Dhāraṇī “Essence of Aparimitāyur­jñāna” (Toh 676), which all the other Kangyur catalogs agree in attributing to them.

On the other hand, the evidence provided by Minling Terchen’s lineage record carries considerably more weight. As well as naming the same two translators mentioned above, it details the several different sequences of lineage holders through whom the text of the “three oṁ version” (i.e. Toh 674) came to Tibet, mostly including the sequence: Jetari; one or more of the masters known as Vajrāsana(pati); and Bari Lotsāwa Rinchen Drak (1040–1111), the second holder of the Sakya Throne. Abhayākaragupta (d. 1125, who may have been one of the Vajrāsana title holders) is also mentioned in one of these sequences.27 Abhayākaragupta and Bari Lotsāwa are both associated with the transmission to Tibet of many Action Tantra practices, including several collections entitled The One Hundred Sādhanas. These were held and transmitted notably by the Sakya tradition, and if this text was among the many works brought to Tibet by this lineage and translated in the process, that would help explain how the attribution to the two translators was preserved outside the transmission of Kangyurs as such. It would also help explain why this text was classified as an Action Tantra, in common with all the other works in those collections.

Curiously, however, the attribution of this translation to Puṇyasambhava and Patsap Nyima Drak is complicated by several mentions in the commentaries of other translations. Writing in the early fifteenth century, Kunga Lekrin mentions a translation‍—apparently of this text‍—by Yarlung Lotsāwa Drakpa Gyaltsen, who lived in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, and a later fourteenth century one by the Jonangpa scholars Kunpang Chödrak Palzang, Sabzang Mati Paṇchen, and Jonang Lotsāwa Lodrö Pal, all three contemporaries and important disciples of Dolpopa.28 In the early seventeenth century, Amé Zhap Ngawang Kunga Sonam mentions the same names,29 and his contemporary Tāranātha brings up the latter two, as well as mentioning Patsap, in his discussion of the translation of the verbs used in their translation of 1.­3.30 These translations appear no longer to exist, but confirmation would require further research. The balance of the existing evidence, nevertheless, favors the idea that this version of The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra was indeed translated and introduced to Tibet by Puṇyasambhava and Patsap Nyima Drak in the late eleventh or early twelfth century.

We also know with little doubt (as discussed more fully in the introduction to The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra (2), Toh 675) that at least one version of the sūtra was translated during the early translation period. Both the early ninth century Denkarma (ldan dkar ma) and Phangthangma (phang thang ma) inventories of translated texts mention, respectively, texts entitled The Dhāraṇī of Aparimitāyus (tshe dpag tu med pa’i gzungs, 110 ślokas in length) and Aparimitāyus (tshe dpag tu med pa, 120 ślokas), both probably referring to a version of this text; in both inventories it is placed in the category “miscellaneous long and short dhāraṇīs” (gzungs che phra sna tshogs).31 Material evidence, too, of the existence of translations in the early period is provided by the very large number of manuscript copies of the sūtra, in Tibetan, found among the Dunhuang manuscripts, a large group of which can be dated to between 830 and 850,32 most having apparently been made on the orders of King Ralpachen (r. 815–41)‍—presumably to create the meritorious results that the text itself describes.

All the Dunhuang manuscripts that we have been able to examine contain the “two oṁ” version of the dhāraṇī.33 This fact, combined with the evidence from Minling Terchen, makes it very likely that the present version of the text, the “three oṁ” version, is the translation dating from the later translation period, while Toh 675, the “two oṁ” version, is more closely related to the one originally made in the early translation period.

An additional confirmation of this hypothesis can be found in commentarial works by later Sakya scholars, Kunga Lekrin (a disciple of Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo) in the fifteenth century, and Amnyé Zhab Ngawang Kunga Sönam in the seventeenth century. Both authors discuss the various theories raised to account for the existence of the two versions, and go on to confirm the validity only of the later translation, The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra (1), Toh 674 (represented here). Following a leading statement attributed by Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo to his teachers, these authors are scathingly critical of the “two oṁ” version, The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra (2), Toh 675, and of the “earlier translators” responsible for it, whom they accuse of deliberately omitting part of the dhāraṇī to express dissatisfaction with their stipend. Such comments have to be seen in the context of the mutual lack of trust between proponents of the “late” versus the “early” translation traditions regarding authenticity and lineage (which concerned principally the tantras rather than any of the other canonical genres).

Among other reasons they cite to justify this unusually harsh judgment, (for more detail, see introduction to The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra (2), Toh 675), Ngawang Kunga Sönam writes that Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo mentioned seeing three Sanskrit manuscripts of the sūtra, all of which were the “three oṁ” version. While there is little doubt that this “three oṁ” version of the text is indeed authentic to its source, Ngorchen’s claim that it is the only authentic version is explicitly refuted and dismissed by Tāranātha, who reports seeing, on a visit to Narthang, several Sanskrit manuscripts of the sūtra, of which one was clearly the “two oṁ” version. The veracity of Tāranātha’s report can be indirectly confirmed by Sten Konow’s 1916 comparison of two versions, one in Sanskrit based on Nepalese manuscripts and one a Khotanese manuscript (probably centuries earlier) found in the Dunhuang caves by Sir Aurel Stein. The Nepalese Sanskrit has the “three oṁ” version of the dhāraṇī while the Khotanese has the “two oṁ” version.34 Ngorchen and his successors were also presumably unaware that in both of the two Chinese translations, too, the dhāraṇī is the “two oṁ” version.35

Apart from Tāranātha’s, we have not been able to find writings of the period defending the “two oṁ” version from the disparagement of the authors mentioned, other than notes by catalog compilers to the effect that “both versions are authentic.” However, Amé Zhab’s writing on the subject in favor of the “three oṁ” version does present some of the arguments used, in order to refute them‍—somewhat unconvincingly. More details are to be found in the introduction to The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra (2), Toh 675, at i.21 et seq.

Both versions, therefore, can be considered authentic; and although the compilers and editors of the many Kangyurs do not seem to have noted their reasons, there must have been enough consensus on this point‍—despite all the controversies‍—for both to have been preserved in all Kangyurs.

The story of these two different versions may seem already complex enough, but there is more to be explored. Apart from the differences in the dhāraṇī, the other differences between the two versions in the Kangyurs (the principal ones listed above at i.­26 and others in the notes) are relatively so minor that these two translations seem most unlikely to have been made independently, even allowing for the possibility that the Sanskrit texts they were made from were very similar. The most obvious explanation might be that the later translation was based on the earlier, adapting it to conform to a slightly different Sanskrit original. However, an examination of the wording and terminology of the Dunhuang manuscripts‍—which predate Puṇyasambhava and Patsap Nyima Drak by several centuries‍—shows that they almost certainly represent a Tibetan translation different from the “two oṁ” version (Toh 675) that has survived in the Kangyur.36 It is therefore tempting to conjecture that the “two oṁ” version in the Kangyur could in fact be a back-adaptation of the later translation, edited to conform to the alternative “two oṁ” dhāraṇī of the earlier translation but not otherwise reflecting that earlier translation fully. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that a few significant elements of the later “three oṁ” version that are not present in the “two oṁ” Dunhuang manuscripts are present in the “two oṁ” version in the Kangyur. These elements are discussed more fully in the introduction to Toh 675, at i.15 et seq.

As mentioned above, recitation of the Tsédo a specified number of times has historically been‍—and is still nowadays‍—prescribed as a practice to people in poor health or facing other difficulties, and to practitioners more generally in order to ensure longevity, and so on. Recitation by the monks or nuns in a monastery is also commissioned for the same reasons. According to the Padma Kathang, the eighth century Tibetan king, Trisong Detsen, was advised to recite this text37 daily (along with the other works known as the “ten royal sūtras”), as a result of which the king’s life is said to have been prolonged by thirteen years beyond the limit predicted by astrological reckoning.

The sūtra itself particularly emphasizes the beneficial effects of writing it out or causing it to be written out, and there is ample evidence that this recommendation was taken seriously in the form of the very large number of commissioned copies, mostly in Tibetan and Chinese and dating to the eighth and ninth centuries, found in the Dunhuang caves by Stein and Pelliot in the early years of the twentieth century. Many of them appear to have been commissioned in the name of the Tibetan king Ralpachen, who reigned in the early ninth century and was the grandson of Trisong Detsen. Among the bundles acquired by the two explorers for the British and French governments, there are over a thousand copies of the sūtra now in the British Library in London, and a similar number in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. Some five hundred further copies remain in libraries in China, many have found their way to Japan, and there are some two hundred in St. Petersburg.38

In the context of tantric practice, the Tibetan canonical literature contains a number of sādhanas of Aparimitāyur­jñāna, particularly among the higher levels of tantra. One example is the liturgy composed by the tenth-century Jetāri, one of the principal teachers of Vikramaśīla Monastery, which was known for its promulgation of higher tantras. That practice was introduced into Tibet by Bari Lotsawa Rinchen Drak (mentioned above), and thereby became a part of the Sakya tradition.39

There are also five Aparimitāyur­jñāna texts in the Tengyur that were composed by Siddharājñī, a female guru active in India in the beginning of the twelfth century, from whom Rechungpa, pupil of the famous Milarepa, received transmissions that Marpa had not been able to bring back to Tibet. At least three if not all of these Siddharājñī texts were translated into Tibetan by Varacandra,40 another of Rechungpa’s teachers, together with the Tibetan Lenchung Darma Tsultrim (glan chung dar ma tshul khrims), about whom little is known other than this translation work with Varacandra. Rechungpa introduced the practice into Tibet, where it spread from his own lineage, the Rechung Kagyü or Rechung Nyengyü, to other Kagyü traditions. These tantric Aparimitāyur­jñāna practices are based upon the five-family system of the higher tantras, and they involve an elaborate visualization of oneself as a red Aparimitāyur­jñāna, wearing the saṃbhogakāya costume and holding a vase of amṛta, with an entourage of deities within a palace, and the visualization of channels within the body. As Aparimitāyur­jñāna is auspicious for long life, his empowerment is given as a long life blessing.41

Within the indigenous Tibetan literature, a very large number of Aparimitāyur­jñāna sādhanas have been created over the centuries within all the lineages and schools. The Nyingma tradition of rediscovered treasure texts (gter ma), too, has produced many Aparimitāyur­jñāna revelations, from Nyangral Nyima Ozer (nyang ral nyi ma ’od zer, 1136–1204) onward. The importance that Aparimitāyur­jñāna assumed in tantric practice may be one of the reasons why this Aparimitāyur­jñānasūtra was classified in most Kangyurs as a tantra rather than as a sūtra.

We are delighted to have translated and published this version of The Sūtra of Aparimitāyur­jñāna, a popular and widely used text, for the benefit of readers everywhere.