@089
##PART II
The Manuscript of the## Vajracchedikā
##Found at Gilgit
An Annotated Transcription and Translation
by Gregory Schopen
Table of Contents to Part II
Abbreviations and Bibliography...91
Introductory Note...95
Transcription of the Gilgit Text...99
Textual Notes...109
Translation of the Gilgit Text...123
Notes
Notes to the Introduction...133
Notes to the Translation...133
@091
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbreviations and Special Transcriptions Used in the Edition
and Textual Notes
Chak: Chakravarti 1956.
Cz: Conze 1974.
Du: Dutt 1959.
G: Gilgit Manuscript. Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra, eds. Gilgit 
Buddhist Manuscripts (Facsimile Edition). Pt. 7.## śata-piṭaka
##Series 10(7). New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture,
1974, folio 1380-93. I have also been able to use-thanks to Profes-
sor J.W. de Jong-a printout of a microfilm of the manuscript. This 
printout is sometimes much easier to read than the published fac-
simile.
Ku: ## Kumārajīva’s ##Chinese translation of the## Vajracchedikā. Taisho
235. Chin-kang pan-jo po-lo-mi ching. ##Vol. 8, 748-52. The very few
references I make to this text are all taken from Conze’s notes to his 
edition.
MM: Muller 1881.
MS: manuscript; the same as G.
Par: Pargiter 1916.
Tib: Tibetan Translation. ‘Phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa
rdo rje gcod pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. Peking Kanjur.
Otani Reprint, vol. 21, no. 739. Photographic Reprint of the Tibetan
Tripitaka. Kyoto: Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute, 1958, 250-
5-2 to 256-3-8.
m : ##The transcription of an## akṡara ##which looks like the## akṡara ##for## -ṇa-
##with a mark above it very like the vowel marker for e. This mark is 
clearly intended as a kind of## virāma, ##although the value of the nasal
is not always clear. This## akṡara, ##when it appears, always occurs as a 
@092
word final, and often seems to be used interchangeably with## anusvāra.
##W.: wrongly. This implies no judgment with regard to the “correctness”
or “incorrectness” of the grammatical form, etc. It refers only to the
readings actually found in the MS and whether or not they have been 
accurately given by the editors. 
.: represents a similar mark of punctuation found in the MS.
)) : represents a similar mark of punctuation found in the MS.
.)) : represents a similar mark of punctuation found in the MS.
() : indistinct or damaged## akṡaras.
[ ] : ##lost or unreadable## akṡaras.
##X : lost or unreadable## akṡaras ##within a word.
Abbreviations and Bibliography 
Aalto, Pentti. 1968. “Conditionals in Buddhist Sanskrit.” Studies in 
South, East, and Central Asia.## śata-piṭaka ##Series: Indo-Asian Lite-
ratures, vol. 74. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1-9.
BHSD: Franklin Edgerton. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.
BHSG: Franklin Edgerton. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar. New
Haven: yale University Press, 1953.
Chakravarti, N. P. 1956. “The Gilgit Text of the## Vajracchedikā.” ##In 
Giuseppe Tucci, ed., Minor Buddhist Texts. Serie Orientale Roma
IX. 1. Rome: IsMEO, 175-92.
Conze, Edward. 1948. “Remarks on ā# pāla ##Ms. in the Bodleian
Library.” Oriental Art 1.1: 9-12. Reprint. Edward Conze, Further
Buddhist Studies. Oxford: Bruno Cassirer, 1975: 116-24.
----. 1962. The Gilgit Manuscript of the## Aṡṭādaśasāhasrikāprajñā-
pāramitā, ##chaps. 55 to 70. Serie Orientale Roma XXVI. Rome:
IsMEO. 
----. 1973. The Short## Prajñāpāramitā ##Texts. London: Luzac and Co.
@093
----. 1974.## vajracchedikā prajñāpāramitā. ##2d ed. Serie Orientale
Roma XIII. Rome: IsMEO. Cited by page number.
Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. 1977.## “Saṃvega: ##Aesthetic Shock.” 
Reprint. In Roger Lipsey, ed., Coomaraswamy, 1: Selected Papers:
Traditional Art and Symbolism. Bollingen Series, no. 89. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 179-85.
de Harlez, Charles. 1891.## “vajracchedikā (prajñāpāramitā) ##traduite du
texte sanscrit avec comparaison des versions chinoise et mand-
choue.” Journal Asiatique (8th series) 18.##
Demieville, Paul. 1937. “Butsudo.” In Hobogirin. ##3d fasc. Paris:
Librarie d’Amerique et d’Orient Adrien Maisonneuve, 198-203.##
Dīgha-Nikāya. ##Edited by Thomas W. Rhys Davids and Joseph
E. Carpenter. 3 vols. London: Pali Text Society, 1890-1911.
Dutt, Nalinaksha, ed. 1959. Gilgit Manuscripts. Vol. IV. Calcutta: J. C.
Sarkhel/Calcutta Oriental Press. Reprint. Bibliotheca Indo-
Buddhica 24. Delhi: Sri Satguru, 1984, 139-70.
ed.: edited, editor, edition.
f./ff.: and following.
Filliozat, Jean. 1980. “Sur le domaine śemantique de## puṇya.” In
Indianisme et Bouddhisme: Melanges offerts a Mgr. Etienne
Lamotte. Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut Orientaliste, Universite
Catholique de Louvain. 
fo.: folio.
Hara Minoru. 1967-68. “Transfer of Merit.” The Adyar Library Bul-
letin, nos. 31-32. Dr. V. Raghavan Felicitation Volume, 382-411.
----. 1970. “Tapo-dhana.” Acta Asiatica 19: 58-76.
Ingalls, Daniel H. H. 1962. “Cynics and## pāśupatas: ##The Seeking of 
Dishonor.” The Harvard Theological Review 55: 281-98.
Kern, Hendrik and Nanjio Bunyiu. 1908-12.## Saddharmapuṇḍarīka.
##Bibliotheca Buddhica 10. St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of 
Sciences. Reprint. Osnabruck: Biblio Verlag, 1970.
La Vallee Poussin, Louis de. 1923-31.## L’Abhidharmakośa ##de##
Vasubandhu. ##Paris: Paul Guethner. Reprint. Melanges chinois et
bouddhiques, vol. 16. Brussels: Institut Belge des Hautes Etudes
Chinoises, 1971.
@094
Lamotte, Etienne. 1962. L’Enseignement de## Vimalakīrti. ##Bibliotheque
du Museon, tome 51. Louvain: Publications Universitaires/Institut
Orientaliste.
Lorenzen, David N. 1972. The## Kāpālikas ##and## Kālāmukhas. ##Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Masuda Jiryo. 1930. “saptaśatikā prajñāpāramitā.” ##Taisho Daigaku
Gakuho 6-7.
Muller, F. Max. 1881. Buddhist Texts from Japan. Anecdota Oxonien-
sia: Aryan Series, vol. 1, pt. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19-46.
Pargiter, F. E. 1916.## “Vajracchedikā ##in the Original Sanskrit.” In A. F.
Rudolf Hoernle, ed., Manuscript Remains of Buddhist Literature
Found in Eastern Turkestan. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 176-95.
Roerich, George. 1959. Biography of## Dharmasvāmin. ##Historical
Research Series 2. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute.
Rowell, Teresina. 1934-37. “The Background and Early Use of the## 
Buddhakṡetra ##Concept.” The Eastern Buddhist 6.3 (1934): 199-246;
6.4 (1935): 379-431; 7.2 (1937): 131-76.
Schopen, Gregory. 1975. “The Phrase## ‘sa Prthīvipradeśaś caityabhūto 
bhavet’ ##in the## Vajracchedikā: ##Notes on the Cult of the Book in##
Mahāyāna.” ##Indo-Iranian Journal 17: 147-81.
Vaidya, P. L. 1960.## Aṡṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā. ##Buddhist Sanskrit
Texts, no. 4. Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute. 
Waldschmidt, Ernst. 1967. “Der Buddha preist die Verehrungswurdig-
keit seiner Reliquien: Sondertext I des## Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra.” ##In
Ernst Waldschmidt, Von Ceylon bis Turfan. Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht. 
Walleser, Max. 1914.## Prajñāpāramitā. ##Die Vollkommenheit der
Erkenntnis. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Leipzig: J. C.
Hinrichs.
Warder, A[nthony] K. 1971. “Dharmas and Data.” Journal of Indian
Philosophy 1: 272-95.
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Mer-
riam Co., 1961.
Yuyama Akira. 1967. Indic Manuscripts and Chinese Blockprints
(Non-Chinese Texts) of the Oriental Collection of the Australian
National University Library, Canberra. Occasional Paper, no. 6.
Canberra: Centre of Oriental Studies, Australian National University.
@095
INTRODUCTORY NOTE*{The initial work for this text edition and translation was made possible by a grant from
the Translations Program of the National Endowment for the Humanities, an independent
federal agency.}
Since the Gilgit manuscript of the## Vajracchedikā ##has already been
edited twice, the reasons for another edition may not be altogether
apparent. There are, however, several good reasons for a reedition. First
of all, the manuscript of the## Vajracchedikā-##which contains in addition
three other texts-is one of the most carefully written of the Gilgit finds.
In the introduction to his edition Chakravarti, for example, notes with 
regard specifically to the text of the## Vajracchedikā ##that the manuscript 
“is remarkably free from errors....The few mistakes which occur are 
mainly orthographical or are due to oversight.”1 The Gilgit text of the## 
Vajracchedikā ##is, in fact, a fine example of what ā# Prajñāpāramitā ##text
in Sanskrit prose actually looked like in the sixth or seventh century, as 
opposed to how we-under the watchful eye of## Pāṇini ##and the influence
of the expectations derived from much later, mostly Nepalese, manu-
script traditions-might think it should have looked. In consequence
the manuscript has considerable significance for the history of the
“style” of this literature, as well as for the history of the language as it 
was actually written. This is especially so in regard to syntax and the 
use of sandhi and sandhi forms.
But, if all of this is true, then it is of some importance to have as 
accurate an edition of the manuscript as is possible, and this brings us to 
a second good reason for making another edition of the text: both of the 
previous editions are full of mistakes and distortions. Since all of these 
will be signaled in my notes, there is no reason to cite them here and we 
might simply note the broad types of errors that occur in the editions.
In Chakravarti’s editions, for example, in less than ten pages of 
romanized Sanskrit there are at least twenty-nine cases in which the 
manuscript has, correctly, a long vowel, which Chakravarti reads or 
prints, incorrectly, as a short vowel. There are at least seven cases in 
which the opposite occurs, that is, what in the manuscript is, correctly, a 
short vowel is printed in Chakravarti’s edition, incorrectly, as a long 
@096
vowel (virtually all of these mistakes occur at the ends of words and 
involve case endings, gender and number distinctions, etc.). There are at 
least six cases in which the manuscript has, correctly, a plural verb form, 
but in which Chakravarti prints, incorrectly, a singular. There are at
least thirty-two cases in which Chakravarti omits an## anusvāra ##found in
the manuscript, printing an -m instead, and at least nine places where 
Chakravarti’s edition omits entire words which are found in the manu-
script. Although I know very well from experience that some mistakes 
are always made in working from manuscripts, this, I think, is a little 
excessive. 
Dutt’s edition is equally problematic and gives an equally distorted
impression of the manuscript. He, for example, completely misrepre-
sents the sandhi found in the manuscript. There are at least thirty- 
seven cases in which a perfectly correct sandhi in the manuscript is 
printed by Dutt as an unresolved hiatus (-y + a- printed as -i a- eight
times; -e- printed -a i- five times;## - ā- printed as –a a- ten times;
-ai- printed as -a e- four times;-o- printed as –a u- seven times,
etc.). His treatment of## anusvāra ##and the nasals is equally problematic.
In addition to this, there are five places where he adds words-once a 
whole line-which are not found in the manuscript, four places where he 
omits words-again, in one case a whole line-which occur in the manu-
script, and in four more places he brackets words which actually occur in 
the manuscript. 
There are yet other reasons for undertaking a new edition of the Gil-
git text. Its appearance might serve to stimulate a badly needed critical
investigation and revision of other editions of the text. The edition of 
the late Edward Conze, for instance, has become the standard one, and 
has recently been reprinted. Yet it is of very dubious value from a text-
critical point of view. Conze’s edition, for example, is badly conflated.
He mixes texts of clearly different recensions and widely different dates,
and does so with a high degree of arbitrariness. He says in his introduc-
tion that the text he wants to present “is substantially that of Max
Muller” which “is based on three documents, all comparatively late.”2
But at 14b, for example, he reads## na mama bhagavan## duṡkaram.
Duṡkaram ##is not the reading in any of Muller’s three sources, the Gilgit
text or the Tibetan translation. All of these sources read## āścaryam (ngo
mtshar). ##In spite of this, and without any stated justification, Conze
adopts the reading found in Pargiter’s Central Asian manuscript (which
is probably a thousand years earlier than the manuscripts on which 
Conze’s basic text is based) and the “reading” found in## Kumārajīva’s
##translation. This, of course, is not a terribly significant example, but it is 
typical of one aspect of Conze’s methodology. We might look at another
@097
case which underscores even more clearly the arbitrary nature of Conze’s
editorial procedures. At the end of his 17c he omits an entire passage
which is found in Muller’s edition (i.e., Conze’s basic text), because it is 
not found in## Kumārajīva, ##Pargiter or the Tibetan text. It is also not 
found in the Gilgit text (although Conze fails to note this) and therefore
we can “infer,” he says, that it “is a later addition which has crept into 
the text after 800 A.D.”3 He also adds that “it is also doctrinally suspect
... contradicting the whole of Buddhist tradition” and, he says else-
where, “the idea is contrary to the tradition of the## Prajñāpāramitā.”4
##Obviously, if each editor were allowed to exclude passages which con-
tradicted what he thought was “the whole of Buddhist tradition” or "the
tradition of the## Prajñāpāramitā,” ##the resulting text would be little more 
than a personal document. If, on the other hand, Conze excludes the 
passage primarily on the grounds that it does not occur in## kumārajīva,
##Pargiter, the Tibetan and Gilgit texts, then he must also exclude pas-
sages like## evaṃ parityajan gaṅgānadīvālukāsamān kalpāṃs tān ātma-
bhāvān parityajet ##at 13e,## ‘grayānasaṃprasthitānāṃ sattvānāṃ arthāya
śreṡṭhayānasaṃprasthitānāṃ arthāya ##at 14a or any number of other 
passages, each of which is omitted in all four sources. 
In regard more specifically to the Gilgit text it should be noted that 
Conze’s notes to his edition reproduce all the errors in Chakravarti’s edi-
tion, and that there are a number of cases in which Conze’s notations in 
regard to the Gilgit text are wrong or misleading. For example, at 15b he 
notes that## na-abodhisattva-pratijñai: sattvai: śakyam ayaṃ dharma-
paryāya: ##is missing in the Tibetan translation, but he does not note that
it is also missing in the Gilgit text. Clearly, then, the text established by
Professor Conze can only be used with the greatest circumspection, and 
a new critical edition is badly needed. The discovery of three new manu-
scripts of the## Vajracchedikā ##in Nepal makes such an edition even more 
desirable.5
Given the fact that the Gilgit manuscript of the## Vajracchedikā
##represents both an early and a well-written text, and given the fact that
one of my primary purposes is to provide a readily available example of 
what ā# Prajñāpāramitā ##text in the sixth or seventh century actually
looked like, I have chosen to present, not an edition of the manuscript,
but a transcription. I have added a series of notes-in the most eco-
nomical way possible-signaling the errors and silent alterations which 
appear in Chakravarti’s and Dutt’s editions. I have offered virtually no 
emendations, conjectures or “corrections.” The text stands almost 
exactly as it occurs in the manuscript. This is true of the punctuation as 
well. I have simply reproduced the punctuation found in the manuscript, 
which is, I might add, usually good. I have added no grammatical or syn-
@098
tactical notes, although there are things of interest which fall into both
categories, nor have I catalogued sandhi forms. I have, in fact, done very
little except try to present as accurately as possible the text as it is found 
in the manuscript.
In presenting the transcription I have, for the sake of economy, not 
used footnoting or footnote numbers. I first give the transcription of the 
folios line by line. The second section of the article consists of a series of 
notes for each line of each folio indicating the misreadings and errors
concerning that line found in the published editions. The word or words 
in my transcription that have been wrongly read or printed by Chakra-
varti, Dutt, etc., are signaled in these notes by bold face type, and they 
are followed by statements giving the reading found in Chakravarti,
Dutt, etc. 
In addition to the transcription and notes, I have provided a transla-
tion. The translation is included for two basic reasons: first, to allow 
those who cannot read Sanskrit, but who are interested in the text, to be 
able to see what an early version of this text looked like and, second,
because I think, rightly or wrongly, that the available English transla-
tions of this text can be usefully supplemented by another interpreta-
tion. That, in the end, is what every translation is. The first of these 
reasons has also very largely determined the kind of translation I have 
given. Apart from having paraphrased some recurring rhetorical 
phrases, I have tried, in the main, to stay as close to the text as possible.
This procedure has, I hope, preserved some of the “style” of the original.
It has, I know, resulted in what might most politely be called a 
“Sanskritic” English. I can here only repeat the words of an obscure 
scholar writing some years ago: “In reference to the translation given 
here, it should be noted first that it was not intended to be beautiful. In 
this, I am afraid, I have succeeded beyond even my greatest expectations."

I have added to the translation a few notes, especially where there
are textual uncertainties or where I thought a particular point needed 
further interpretation. The notes are obviously incomplete and clearly 
reflect my own particular interests. 
@099
##TRANSCRIPTION OF THE GILGIT TEXT
Folio 5a (G 1380; Chak 182.1-183.11; Du 151.3-152.15; MM 29.6-30.11;
Cz 38.6-39.20; Par 182.10-183.10; Tib 253.1.3-2.5)##
1. –ta: bhagavān āha . yā(vat) subhūt(e) tr(i)sāhasra-mahāsāhasre
lokadhātau prthivīraja: kaccit tad vahu. āha. bahu bhagavan
tat prthivīraja: arajas tathāgatena bhāṡitas tenocyate prthivī-
2. –raja iti . yo ’py asau lokadhātur adhātu: sa tathāgatena bhāṡitas
tenocyate lokadhātur iti .)) bhagavān āha. tat kiṃ manyase 
subhūte dvātrṃśatā mahāpuruṡalakṡaṇais tathāgato draṡṭavya:
3. āha. no bhagavaṃs tat kasya heto tāni tāni dvātriṃśan mahā-
puruṡalakṡaṇāni tathāgatena bhāṡitāny alakṡaṇāni tenocyante
dvātriṃśan mahāpuruṡalakṡaṇānīti. bhagavān āha . yaś ca kha-
4. –lu pu(na): subhūte strī vā puruṡo vā gaṃgānadībālukopamāna
ātmabhāvān parityajed yaś ceto dharmaparyāyād antaśaś catuṡ-
padikām api gāthām udgrhya parebhyo deśayed ayam e-
5. –va tato nidānaṃ bahupuṇyaṃ prasavetāprameyam asaṃkhyeyaṃ 
)) atha khalv āyuṡmāṃ subhūtir dharmapravegenāsrūṇi
prāmuṃcat so ‘srūṇi prāmrjya bhagavantam etad av(o)cat ā-
6. -ścaryaṃ bhagavan paramāścaryaṃ sugata . yāvad ayaṃ dharma-
paryāyas tathāgatena bhāṡito yato me bhagavaṃ jñānam
utpannaṃ na me jātv ayaṃ dharmaparyāya: śrūtapūrva:
parameṇa
7. (t)e (bhaga)van(n) āścaryena samanvāgatā bhaviṡyanti ya iha sūtre 
bhāṡyamāṇe bhūtasaṃjñām utpādayiṡyanti . yā caiṡā bhagavan 
bhūtasaṃjñā saivāx-ṃ(j)-x-ā xsmāt tathāgato bhāṡate 
@100
##Folio 5b (G 1381; Chak 183.12-184.9; Du 152.15-154.11; MM 30.12-
32.1; Cz 39.20-41.19; Par 183.10-184.20; Tib 253.2.5-3.8)##
1. (bh)ūxxx(bh)ūtasaṃjñeti . na me bhagavann āścaryaṃ yad aham
imaṃ dharmaparyāyaṃ bhāṡyamāṇam avakalpayāmy adhimucya.
ye te bhagavan satvā imaṃ dharmaparyāya(m) u(d)gra(h)īṡya(n)ti
.yāva(t pa)ryavāpsya-
2. –nti. te paramāścaryasamanvāgatā bhaviṡyanti. api tu khalu
punar bhagavan na teṡām ātmasaṃjñā pravartsyate. na satva-
saṃjñā na jīvasaṃjñā na pudgalasaṃjñā. tat kasya heto: sarva-
saṃjñā(pagatā hi)
3. buddhā bhagavanta: bhagavān āha. evam etat subhūte paramāś-
caryasamanvāgatās te bhaviṡyanti ya imaṃ dharmaparyāyaṃ 
śrutvā nottrasiṡyanti . na saṃtrasiṡyanti . na sa(ṃ)trā(sam āpatsya-)

4. –nte . tat kasya heto: paramapāramiteyaṃ subhūte tathāgatena
bhāṡitā. yāṃ ca tathāgata: paramapāramitāṃ bhāṡate . tām
aparimāṇā buddhā bhagavanto bhāṡante . te(n)oc(yate) pa-
5. –ramapāramiteti . )) api tu khalu puna: subhūte ya tathāgatasya
kṡāntipāramitā saivāpāramitā . tat kasya heto: yadā subhūte kali-
rājāṅgapratyaṃgamāṃsāny acchaitsīt nāsī-
6. –n me tasmin samaye ātmasaṃjñā vā satvasaṃjñā vā jīvasaṃjñā
vā pudgalasaṃjñā vā. vyāpādasaṃjñā vāpi me tasmin samaye
'bhaviṡyad abhijānāmy ahaṃ subhūte atīte 'dhvani paṃca jātiśa-
7. –tāni yo ‘haṃ kṡāntivādī rṡir abhūvaṃs tatrāpi me nātmasaṃjñā-
bhūn na satvasaṃjñā na jīvasaṃjñā na pudgalasaṃjñā . tasmāt
tarhi subhūte bodhisatvena mahāsatvena sarvasaṃjñā varjayitvā
##Folio 7a (G 1382; Chak 184.9-185.4; Du 156.14-157.13; MM 34.2-35.2;
Cz 44.6-45.11; Par 186.11-187.7; Tib 253.5.7-254.1.7)##
1. –rimāṇena . sarve te satvā mamāṃsena bodhiṃ dhārayiṡyanti .
tat kasya heto: na hi śakyaṃ subhūte ayaṃ dharmaparyāyo hīnā-
dhimuktikai: satvai: śrotuṃ . nātmadrṡṭikair na satvajīvapu-
2. –dgaladrṡṭikai: śakyaṃ śrotuṃ udgrahītuṃ vā . yāvat paryavā-
ptuṃ vā nedaṃ sthānaṃ vidyate . api tu khalu puna: subhūte 
yatra prthivīpradeśe idaṃ sūtraṃ prakāśayiṡyati . pūjanīya: sa
@101
3. prthivīpradeśo bhaviṡyati . sadevamānuṡāsurasya lokasya vanda-
nīya: pradakṡiṇīkaraṇīyaś caityabhūta sa prthivīpradeśo bhavi-
ṡyati . ye te subhūte kulaputrā 
4. vā kuladuhitaro vā . imān evaṃrūpān sūtrāntān udgrahīṡyanti 
yāvat paryavāpsyanti . te paribhūtā bhaviṡyanti suparibhūtā:
yāni ca teṡāṃ satvānāṃ pūrvajanmikāny aśubhāni ka-
5. –rmāṇy apāyasaṃvartanīyāni tāni drṡṭa eva dharme paribhūtatayā
kṡapayiṡyanti buddabodhiṃ cānuprāpsyanti . abhijānāmy ahaṃ
subhūte atīte ‘dhvany asaṃ(khy)e(y)ai(:) kalpai(r) (a)saṃkhyeya-
6. –tarair ddīpaṃkarasya tathāgatasyārhata: samyaksaṃbuddhasya
pareṇa caturaśītir buddhakoṭīniyutaśatasahasrāṇy abhūvan yāni
mayā ārāgitāni ārāgya ca na virāgitāni .
##Folio 7b (G 1383; Chak 185.4-27; Du 157.13-159.2; MM 35.2-36.3; Cz
45.11-47.5; Par 187.7-deest; Tib 254.1.7-2.6)##
1. yac ca mayā subhūte te buddhā bhagavanta ārāgya na virāgitā yac
ca carime kāle paścimāyāṃ paṃcāśatyāṃ varttamānāyām imāṃ 
sūtrāntān udgrahīṡyanti . yāvat paryavāpsyanti . asya subhū-
2. –te puṇyaskandhasyāsau pūrvaka: puṇyaskandha: śatatamīm api 
kalān nopaiti . sahasratamīm api . śatasahasratamīm api . saṃ-
khyām api kalām api gaṇanām apy upamām apy upa-
3. –niśām api na kṡamate . sacet subhūte teṡāṃ kulaputrāṇāṃ
kuladuhitrīṇāṃ ca puṇyaskandhaṃ bhāṡeyaṃ yāvantas te satvā
kulaputrā: kuladuhitaraś ca tasmin samaye puṇya-
4. –skandhaṃ parigrahīṡyanti . unmādaṃ satvā anuprāpnuyuś citta-
vikṡepaṃ vā gaccheyu: api tu khalu puna: subhūte acintyo ‘yaṃ 
dharmaparyāya: asyācintya eva vipāka:))
5. āha . kathaṃ bhagavan bodhisatvayānasaṃprasthitena sthāta-
vyaṃ kathaṃ pratipattavyaṃ kathaṃ cittaṃ pragrhītavyaṃ . 
bhagavān āha . iha subhūte bodhisatvayānasaṃprasthitenaivaṃ 
cittam utpā-
6. –dayitavyaṃ sarvasatvā mayā anupadhiśeṡe nirvāṇadhātau 
parinirvāpayitavyā: evaṃ ca satvān parinirvāpya na kaścit satva: 
parinirvāpito bhavati . tat kasya heto: sace-
@102
##Folio 8a (G 1384; Chak 185.27-186.22; Du 159.2-160.10; MM 36.3-
37.16; Cz 47.5-49.5; Par deest-188.10; Tib 254.2.6-4.4)##
1. –t subhūte bodhisatvasya satvasaṃjñā pravartteta . jīvasaṃjñā
pudgalasaṃjñā vā na sa bodhisatva iti vaktavya: tat kasya heto: 
nāsti subhūte sa dharmo yo bodhisatvayānasaṃprasthito nāma .
tat kiṃ manya-
2. –se subhūte asti sa kaścid dharmo yas tathāgatena dīpaṃkarasya
tathāgatasyāntikād anuttarāṃ samyaksaṃbodhim abhisaṃbud-
dha: āha . nāsti sa bhagavan kaścid dharmo yas tathāgatena
dīpaṃkara-
3. -sya tathāgatasyāntikād anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhim abhisaṃbud-
dha: āha . tasmād ahaṃ dīpaṃkareṇa tathāgatena vyākrto
bhaviṡyasi tvaṃ māṇavānāgate 'dhavani śākyamunir nāma tathā-
4. –gato ‘rhan samyaksaṃbuddhas tat kasya hetos tathāgata iti 
subhūte tathatāyā etad adhivacanaṃ ya: kaścit subhūte evaṃ 
vadet tathāgatenānuttarā samyaksaṃbodhir abhisaṃbuddheti .
5. nāsti subhūte sa kaścid dharmo yas tathāgatenānuttarā samyak-
saṃbodhir abhisaṃbuddha: ya: subhūte tathāgatena dharmo
‘bhisaṃbuddhas tatra na satyaṃ na mrṡā: tasmāt tathāgato 
bhāṡate . sarva-
6. –dharmā buddhadharmā iti . sarvadharmā iti subhūte sarve te 
adharmās tenocyante sarvadharmā iti . )) tadyathāpi nāma
subhūte puruṡo bhaved upetakāyo mahākāya: subhūtir āha . yo
##Folio 8b (G 1385; 186.22-187.15; Du 160.10-162.1; MM 37.16-39.2; Cz
49.5-50.14; Par 188.10-189.9; Tib 254.4.4-255.1.1)##
1. ‘sau tathāgatena puruṡo bhāṡita upetakāyo mahākāya: akāya: sa
bhagavaṃs tathāgatena bhāṡitas tenocyate upetakāyo mahākāya: 
bhagavān āha. evam etat subhūte
2. yo bodhisatva evaṃ vaded ahaṃ satvān parinirvāpayiṡyāmīti . na
sa bodhisatva iti vaktavya: tat kasya heto: asti subhūte sa kaścid
dharmo yo bodhisatvo nāma . āha . no hīdaṃ bha-
3. –gavan bhagavān āha . tasmāt tathāgato bhāṡate ni:satvā: sarva-
dharmā: nirjīvā niṡpudgalā: ya: subhūte bodhisatva evaṃ vaded 
ahaṃ kṡetravyūhān niṡpādayiṡyāmīti . so ’pi tathaiva
@103
4. vaktavya: tat kasya heto: kṡetravyūhā: kṡetravyūhā iti subhūte 
avyūhās te tathāgatena bhāṡitās tenocyante kṡetravyūhā iti . ya: 
subhūte bodhisatvo nirātmāno dharmā nirā-
5. –tmāno dharmā ity adhimucyate sa tathāgatenārhatā samyaksaṃ-
buddhena bodhisatvo bodhisatva ity ā(khyāta)s tat kiṃ manyase 
subhūte saṃvidyate tathāgatasya māṃsacakṡu: āha . evam etad bha-

6. –gavan saṃvidyate tathāgatasya māṃsacakṡu: )) bhagavān āha .
tat kiṃ manyase subhūte saṃvidyate tathāgatasya divyaṃ cakṡu: 
prajñā(ca)kṡur dharmacakṡur buddhacakṡu: āhaivam etad bhaga-
van saṃvidyate ta-
##Folio 9a (G 1386; Chak 187.14-188.7; Du 162.1-163.5; MM 39.2-40.8;
Cz 50.14-52.14; Par 189.10-190.7; Tib 255.1.1-2.1)##
1. –thāgatasya divyaṃ cakṡu: prajñācakṡur dharmacakṡur buddha-
cakṡu: )) bhagavān āha . tat kiṃ manyase subhūte yāvantyo
gaṃgānadyāṃ bālukās tāvantya gaṃgānadyo bhaveyus tāsu yā 
bālukās tāvanta eva lo-
2. –kadhātavo bhaveyu: kaccid bahavas te lokadhātavo bhaveyu: 
bhagavān āha . yāvanta: subhūte teṡu lokadhātuṡu satvās teṡām
ahaṃ nānābhāvāṃ cittadhārāṃ jānīyās tat kasya heto-
3. -ś cittadhārā cittadhārā iti subhūte adhārās tās tathāgatena bhāṡi-
tās tenocyante cittadhārā iti . tat kasya hetor atītaṃ subhūte 
cittaṃ nopalabhyate . anāgataṃ cittaṃ nopalabhya-
4. –te . pratyutpannaṃ nopalabhyate . tat kiṃ manyase subhūte ya
imaṃ trisāhasramahāsāhasraṃ lokadhātuṃ saptaratnaparipūrṇaṃ
krtvā dānan dadyād api nu sa kulaputro vā kuladu-
5. –hitā vā tato nidānaṃ bahu puṇyaṃ prasaveta . āha. bahu
bhagavan bahu sugata . bhagavān āha . evam etat subhūte evam
etad vahu sa kulaputro vā kuladuhitā vā tato nidānaṃ
6. bahu puṇyaṃ prasaveta . sacet subhūte puṇyaskandho ‘bhaviṡyan
na tathāgato ‘bhāṡiṡyat puṇyaskandha: puṇyaskandha iti . tat
kiṃ manyase subhūte rūpakāyapariniṡpattyā tathāgato dra-
@104
##Folio 9b (G 1387; Chak 188.8-189.21; Du 163.5-164.9; MM 40.8-41.9;
Cz 52.14-54.1; Par 190.7-191.7; Tib 255.2.1-3.3)##
1. –ṡṭavya: āha . no bhagavan na rūpakāyapariniṡpattyā tathāgato 
draṡṭavya: tat kasya heto: rūpakāyapariniṡpattī rūpakāyapariniṡ-
pattir ity apariniṡpattir eṡā tathāga-
2. -tena bhāṡitā tenocyate rūpakāyapariniṡpattir iti . bhagavān āha
. tat kiṃ manyase subhūte lakṡaṇasaṃpadā tathāgato draṡṭavya:
āha . no bhagavan na lakṡaṇasaṃpadā tathāgato 
3. draṡṭavya: tat kasya heto: yaiṡā lakṡaṇasaṃpat tathāgatena
bhāṡitā alakṡaṇasaṃpad eṡā tathāgatena bhāṡitā tenocyate 
lakṡaṇasaṃpad iti . bhagavān āha . tat kiṃ ma-
4. –nyase subhūte api nu tathāgatasyaivaṃ bhavati na mayā dharmo
deśita iti . ya: subhūte evaṃ vadet tathāgatena dharmo deśita iti
. abhyācakṡīta māṃ sa subhūte asatād u-
5. –dgrhītena . tat kasya hetor dharmadeśanā dharmadeśaneti
subhūte nāsti sa kaścid dharmo yo dharmadeśanā nāmopalabhyate 
. āhāsti bhagavan kecit satvā bhaviṡyanty anāgate 'dhvani ya imā-
6. -n evaṃrūpān dharmān (bhāṡyamā)ṇāṃ cchrutvābhiśraddadhā-
syanti . bhagavān āha . na te subhūte satvā nāsatvās tat kasya
heto: sarvasatvā iti subhūte asatvās te tathāgatena bhāṡitās teno-
##Folio 10a (G 1388; Chak 188.30-189.21; Du 164.9-165.12; MM 41.9-
42.7; Cz 54.1-55.8; Par 191.7-192.3; Tib 255.3.3-4.3)##
1. -cyante sarvasatvā iti. tat kiṃ manyase subhūte api tv asti sa 
kaścid dharmo yas tathāgatenānuttarā samyaksaṃbodhir abhisaṃ-
buddha: āha. nāsti sa bhagavan kaścid dharmo yas tathāgate-
2. –nānuttarā samyaksaṃbodhir abhisaṃbuddha: bhagavān āha .
evam etat subhūte evam etat aṇur api tatra dharmo na saṃvidyate 
nopalabhyate tenocyate 'nuttarā samyaksaṃbodhir iti . a-
3. –pi tu khalu puna: subhūte sama: sa dharmo na tatra kiṃcid
viṡamas tenocyate 'nuttarā samyaksaṃbodhir iti . nirjīvatvena
ni:satvatvena niṡpudgalatvena samā sānuttarā samyaksaṃbo-
4. –dhi: sarvai: kuśalair dharmair abhisaṃbudhyate . kuśalā 
dharmā: kuśalā dharmā iti subhūte adharmāś caiva te tathāgatena
bhāṡitās tenocyante kuśalā dharmā iti . yaś ca kha-
@105
5. -lu puna: subhūte yāvantas trisāhasramahāsāhasre lokadhātau
sumerava: parvatarājās tāvato rāśīn saptānāṃ ratnānām abhisaṃ-
hrtya dānaṃ dadyād yaś ceta: prajñāpāramitā-
6. –yā antaśaś catuṡpadikām api gāthām udgrhya parebhyo deśayed
asya subhūte puṇyaskandhasyāsau pūrvaka: puṇyaskandha: śata-
tamīm api (ka)lān nopaiti . yāvad upani-
##Folio 10b (G 1389; Chak 189.21-190.11; Du 165.12-166.14; MM 42.7-
43.7; Cz 55.8-56.20; Par 192.3-192.21; Tib 255.4.3-5.4)##
1. –śām api na kṡamate . tat kiṃ manyase subhūte api nu tathāgata-
syaivaṃ bhavati . mayā satvā mocitā iti . na khalu puna: 
subhūte-r-evaṃ draṡṭavyaṃ . tat kasya heto: na sa kaścit sa-
2. –tvo yas tathāgatena mocita: yadi puna: subhūte kaścit satvo 
’bhaviṡyad yas tathāgatena mocita: sa eva tasyātmagrāho 
’bhaviṡyat satvagrāho jīvagrāha: pudgalagrāha: 
3. ātmagrāha iti subhūte agrāha eṡa tathāgatena bhāṡita: sa ca 
bālaprthagjanair udgrhīta: bālaprthagjanā iti subhūte ajanā ete
tathāgatena
4. bhāṡitās tenocyaṃte bālaprthagjanā iti . tat kiṃ manyase subhūte 
lakṡaṇasaṃpadā tathāgato draṡṭavya: āhaivam etad bhagaval
lakṡaṇasaṃpadā tathāgato draṡṭavya: 
5. bhagavān āha . sacet puna: subhūte lakṡaṇasaṃpadā tathāgato 
dra[ṡṭa]vyo ’bhaviṡyad rājāpi cakravartī tathāgato ’bhaviṡyat āha .
yathāhaṃ bhagavato bhāṡitasyārtham ājā-
6. –nāmi . na lakṡaṇasaṃpadā tathāgato draṡṭavya: )) atha khalu 
bhagavāṃs tasyāṃ velāyām imā gāthā abhāṡata: )) ye māṃ rūpeṇa
adrākṡur ye māṃ ghoṡeṇa anvayu: mithyā-
##Folio 11a (G 1390; Chak 190.12-191.4; Du 166.14-168.3; MM 43.7-44.6;
Cz 56.20-59.1; Par 192.21-193.13; Tib 255.5.4-256.1.4)##
1. –prahāṇaprasrtā na māṃ drakṡyanti te janā: draṡṭavyo dharmato
buddho dharmakāyas tathāgata: dharmatā cāpy avijñeyā na sā
śakyaṃ vijānituṃ )) tat kiṃ manyase subhūte lakṡaṇasaṃpadā
tathā-
@106
2. -gatenānuttarā samyaksaṃbodhir abhisaṃbuddhā: na khalu
puna: subhūte evaṃ draṡṭavyaṃ na subhūte lakṡaṇasaṃpadā
tathāgatenānuttarā samyaksaṃbodhir abhisaṃbuddhā . yat khalu 
pu-
3. -na: subhūte syād evaṃ bodhisatvayānasaṃprasthitai: kasyacid
dharmasya vināśa: prajñāpta ucchedo vā na khalu puna: subhūte 
evaṃ draṡṭavyaṃ . na bodhisatvayānasaṃprasthitai: ka-
4. -syacid dharmasya vināśa: prajñāpto noccheda: yaś ca khalu
puna: subhūte kulaputro vā kuladuhitā vā gaṃgānadībālukopamāl
lokadhātūn saptaratnapratipūrṇān krtvā (tathā-) 
5. –gatebhyo ’rhadbhya: samyaksaṃbuddhebhyo dānaṃ dadyād yaś
ca bodhisatvo nirātmakeṡu dharmeṡu kṡāntiṃ pratilabheta . ayam 
eva tato bahutaraṃ puṇyaṃ prasaveta . na khalu puna: subhūte 
bo [dhi]-
6. -satvena puṇyaskandha: parigrahītavya: āha . puṇyaskandho
bhagavan parigrahītavya: bhagavān āha . parigrahītavya: 
subhūte nodgrahītavya: tenocyate pa(r)igra[hītavya:]
##Folio 11b (G 1391; Chak 191.5-26; Du 168.3-169.4; MM 44.7-45.4; Cz
54.1-60.7; Par 193.13-194.5; Tib 256.1.4-2.4)##
1. api tu khalu puna: subhūte ya: kaścid evaṃ vadet tathāgato
gacchati vāgacchati vā . tiṡṭhati vā niṡīdati vā śayyāṃ vā kalpayati
. na me sa bhāṡitasyārtham ājānāti . tat ka(sya) [heto:]
2. tathāgata iti subhūte na kutaścid āgato na kvacid gata: tenocyate 
tathāgato ’rhan samyaksaṃbuddha iti . yaś ca khalu puna:
subhūte kulaputro vā kuladuhitā vā yāvantas trisāhasra[mahā-]
3. –sāhasre lokadhātau prthivīrajāṃsi tāvato lokadhātūn maṡiṃ
kuryāt tadyathāpi nāma paramāṇusaṃcayas tat kiṃ manyase 
subhūte bahu sa paramāṇusaṃcayo bhavet āhai-
4. –vam etad bhagavan bahu sa paramāṇusaṃcayo bhavet tat kasya
heto: saced bhagavan saṃcayo saṃcayo ’bhaviṡyan na bhagavān avakṡyat 
paramāṇusaṃcaya iti . tat kasya heto: yo ’sau paramā-
5. –ṇusaṃcayo bhāṡita: asaṃcaya: sa bhagavatā bhāṡitas tenocyate
paramāṇusaṃcaya iti . yac ca tathāgato bhāṡati trsāhasramahā-
sāhasro lokadhātur iti . adhātu: sa tathā-
@107
6. -gatena bhāṡitas tenocyate trisāhasramahāsāhasro lokadhātur iti.
tat kasya heto: saced bhagavan dhātur abhaviṡyat sa eva bhagavan 
piṇḍagrāho ’bhaviṡyad yaś caiva tathāgatena pi-
##Folio 12a (G 1392; Chak 191.27-192.15; Du 169.4-170.7; MM 45.4-46.2;
Cz 60.7-61.12; Par 194.5-194.22; Tib 256.2.4-3.4)##
1. –ṇḍagrāho bhāṡita: agrāha: sa tathāgatena bhāṡitas tenocyate
piṇḍagrāha iti . bhagavān āha . piṇḍagrāhaś caivāvyavahāro
’nabhilāpya: subhūte sa dharma: sa bālapr-
2. -thagjanair udgrhīta: tat kasya heto: ya: kaścit subhūte evaṃ 
vaded ātmadrṡṭis tathāgatena bhāṡitā satvadrṡṭir jīvadrṡṭi:
pudgaladrṡṭi: api nu subhūte sa samyag vadan vadet
3. āha . no bhagavaṃs tat kasya heto: yā sā bhagavann ātmadrṡṭis
tathāgatena bhāṡitā adrṡṭi: sā tathāgatena bhāṡitā tenocyate
ātmadrṡṭir iti . bhagavān āha .
4. evaṃ subhūte bodhisatvayānasaṃprasthitena sarvadharmā jñāta-
vyā adhimoktavyās tathā cādhimoktavyā yathā na dharmasaṃ-
jñāpi pratyupatiṡṭhet tat kasya heto: dharmasaṃjñā
5. dharmasaṃjñeti subhūte asaṃjñaiṡā tathāgatena bhāṡitā tenocyate
dharmasaṃjñeti . yaś ca khalu puna: subhūte bodhisatvo 
mahāsatva: aprameyāsaṃkhyeyāl lokadhātūn saptaratnapa-
6. –ripūrṇān krtvā dānan dadyād yaś ca kulaputro vā kuladuhitā vā
ita: prajñāpāramitāyā antaśaś catuṡpadikām api gāthām udgrhya
dhārayed deśayet paryavāpnuyād a-
##Folio 12b (G 1393; Chak 192.16-25; Du 170.7-15; MM 46.2-11; Cz
61.12-62.8; Par 194.22-195.7; Tib 256.3.4-3.8)##
1. -yam eva tato bahutaraṃ puṇyaṃ prasavetāprameyam asaṃ-
khyeyaṃ . kathaṃ ca saṃprakāśayet yathā na prakāśayet teno-
cyate saṃprakāśaye iti .)) tārakā timiraṃ dīpo mā-
2. –yāvaśyāya budbuda: supinaṃ vidyud abhraṃ ca evaṃ draṡṭavya
saṃskrtaṃ .)) idam avocad bhagavān āttamanā sthavira subhūtis
te ca bhikṡubhikṡuṇyupāsakopāsikā: sadevamānuṡāsu-
3. –ragandharvaś ca loko bhagavato bhāṡitam abhyanandan )) . ))
vajracchedikā prajñāpāramitā samāptā: )). ))
@108 
BLANK
@109
##TEXTUAL NOTES
Folio 5ā#
1. yā(vat) subhūt(e) ##MM, Cz, Tib## tat kiṃ manyase subhūte yāvat, 
##but Cz’s notation for G and Par is wrong; they both have## yāvat
subhūte, ##and both omit## tat kiṃ manyase. kaccit ##Chak w.## kaścit, 
##which is cited by Cz.## vahu ##Chak, Du W.## bahu. āha ##Cz## subhūtir
āha, ##but with no indication that G and Par omit## subhūtir. bahu
bhagavan tat prthivīraja: ##Cz’s notation for Par is wrong here;
although it has more than G it too omits## bahu sugata. arajas
tathāgatena ##Du w.## arajas tat tathāgatena, ##probably under the 
influence of MM and Par.## bhāṡitas ##Du w.## bhāṡitam; ##Cf. Chak n. 1 
on page 182.##
2. adhātu: ##Chak w.## adhātuṃ; ##because of his insertion of material 
from MM, Du’s sandhi does not correspond to that found in the 
MS.## bhāṡitas ##Du w.## bhāṡita:. dvātrṃśatā ##Du w.## dvātriṃśan; ##Cz
cites G w. as## dvātriṃśatā.
3. āha ##Cz## subhūtir āha, ##but with no indication that both G and Par
omit## subhūtir. ##no Cz no## hīdaṃ, ##and while he indicates that Par
has no iti instead, he does not indicate that G both omits## hīdaṃ
##and has nothing corresponding to## Par’s iti. bhagavaṃs ##Du
w.## bhagavan; ##after## bhagavan ##Cz has## na dvātriṃśanmahāpuruṡa-
lakṡaṇais tathāgato ’rhan saṃyaksambuddho draṡṭavya:, ##which he
indicates is missing in G and Tib; he fails to note that it is also
missing from## Par. heto tāni tāni ##Chak w.## hetor yāni tāni; ##Du
w.## heto: / yāni [hi] tāni; ##although the first## tāni ##is slightly blurred, it 
is clearly not possible to read## –r yāni. ##Cz has## heto: yāni hi tāni
bhagavan; ##he indicates only that G omits## hi, but in fact both## hi ##and## 
bhagavan ##are omitted by both G and Par as well as Tib.##

bhāṡitāny alakṡaṇāni ##Du w.## bhāṡitāni alakṡaṇāni. tenocyante
##Chak, Du w##. –ocyate. mahāpuruṡalakṡaṇānīti ##Chak w.## -lakṡa-
ṇānītī; ##Du w.## –lakṡaṇāni iti. 
@110
4. gaṃgānadībālukopamān ##Chak, Du w.## gaṇgānadīvālukopamān.
parityajed ##Chak w.## parityajyed; ##Du w.## parityajet. catuṡpadikām
##Chak, Du w.## catuṡpādikām; ##cf. Par.## deśayed ##Du has## deśayet 
##because he inserts after it a piece of text from MM and is therefore 
“required” to alter the sandhi found in the MS. This kind of thing is 
very frequent in Du and will not normally be noted hereafter. MM
and Cz add## samprakāśayed ##after## deśayed ##and, while Cz indicates
that this is missing from G, he does not indicate that it was 
probably also missing from Par; cf. Par n. 4 on page 183.##
5. asaṃkhyeyaṃ ##Chak, Du w.## -am. āyuṡmāṃ ##Du w.## -an.
subhūtir ##Du w. -i:. dharmapravegenāsrūṇi ##Chak w.## -pra-
vegenāśruni; ##Du w.## -pravegeṇāśrūni. ##Both here and in the follow-
ing## 'srūṇi ##the dental s is quite clear. Cz has## -vegena- ##without
noting G’s## pra-. prāmuṃcat ##Du w.## prāmuñcat. 'srūṇi ##Chak 
w. ’sruṇi; ##Du w.## ’śrūni. prāmrjya ##Du w.## pramrjya, ##but Cf. his n.4
on page 152.## 
6. bhagavaṃ ##Du w.## bhagavan.
7. samanvāgatā ##after## samanvāgatā ##MM, Cz have## bodhisattvā; ##Cz
indicates this is missing in Par and G, but not that it is also missing 
in Tib which has sems can de dag ni.## bhāṡyamāṇe ##after## bhāṡya-
māṇe ##MM, Cz have## śrutvā; ##Cz indicates it is missing in Par and G,
but it is also missing in Tib.## saivāx-ṃ(j)-x-ā xsmāt ##Chak##
saivābhūtasaṃjñā tasmāt, ##but this is clearly too much for the space 
in the MS; Du has## saivā[bhūta] saṃjñā tasmāt, ##the reading of MM.
Although mostly obliterated, it is virtually certain from the MS that
there were only three## akṡaras ##in the space, and enough remains to 
indicate that the first two were probably## saṃjñā; ##the third## akṡara
would then have been ta-. Par has## saivāsaṃjñā tasmā ##and Tib## de
nyid ’du shes ma mchis pa... de bas na. ##Read:## saivāsaṃjñā 
tasmāt. 
##Folio 5b##
1. (bh)ūxxx(bh)ūtasaṃjñeti ##since MM and Par have## bhūtasaṃjñā
bhūtasaṃjñeti (##so MM; Par-saṃjñā iti), ##and since this would fit
the gap perfectly, it is safe to assume that G too read## bhūtasaṃjñā
bhūtasaṃjñeti, ##which is also the reading of Tib.## āścaryaṃ ##note
that Cz rejects## āścaryaṃ, ##the reading of G, MM and Tib, and pre-
fers## duṡkaraṃ, ##the reading of Par and Ku.## bhāṡyamāṇam ##Chak##
@111 
##w.## bhaṡyamāṇam. avakalpayāmy ##Du w.## -kalpayāmi. adhi-
mucya ##Du w.## adhimucye; ##the reading of G could be the result of
the loss or accidental omission of the vowel sign.## satvā ##in both
MM and Cz the following passage occurs after## satvā: bhaviṡyanty
anāgate ’dhvani paścime kāle paścime samaye paścimāyāṃ pañca-
śatyāṃ saddharmavipralope vartamāne ya. ##Cz indicates that all of
this is missing in G, but he does not indicate that Par too omits the
greater part of it. Par probably had only## paścimāyāṃ pañcaśatyāṃ 
##and no more. Tib too, though fuller than Par, omitted## anāgate
’dhvani ##and## saddharmavipralope vartamāne, ##but Cz does not indi-
cate this either.## imaṃ ##Cz has## bhagavan ##after## imaṃ ##and he does 
not indicate that it is omitted by G, Par and Tib.##
2. paramāścaryasamanvāgatā ##Du adopts the reading of MM and
Cz:## paramāścaryeṇa samanvāgatā, ##though he cites the actual MS
reading in his n. 2. Cz indicates that G reads## paramāścaryasam-
anvāgatā, ##but he does not indicate that Par has the same reading.##
api tu khalu punar ##Chak w.## api khalu; ##Cz, following Chak, indi-
cates that## tu ##and## khalu ##are missing in G; this, however, is not the
case. Note that what I have read as## tu ##in G could also be read as## tr.
pravartsyate ##Du w.## pravartiṡyate. na satvasaṃjñā na jīva-
saṃjñanā ##Du w.## na jīvasaṃjñā na sattvasaṃjñā; ##that is to say, Du
has here inadvertently inverted the order.## pudgalasaṃjñā ##after##
pudgalasaṃjñā ##Cz has## pravartiṡyate na-api teṡāṃ kācit saṃjña
##(read## -ā) na-a-saṃjñā pravartate. tat kasya heto: yā sa bhaga-
vann ātmasaṃjña ##(read## -ā) saiva-a-saṃjñā yā sattva-saṃjñā jīva-
saṃjñā pudgala-saṃjñā saiva-a-saṃjñā. ##Cz’s notation here is very
confused and incomplete. First, he indicates that## na-api teṡāṃ
kācit saṃjñā na-a-saṃjñā pravartate ##is not found in Par, but he
does not indicate that it is also missing in G and Tib. Secondly-
and here probably the result of a printing error-since there is a
marker at the end of the passage, but no marker at the beginning to
indicate where the omission begins, it is not clear that G omits all
the rest of this passage as well.## sarvasaṃjñā(pagatā) ##in Chak
this is printed by mistake as## sarvasaṃjñā pagatā.
3. bhagavān āha ##where G has only## bhagavān āha, ##Cz has## evam ukte
bhagavān āyuṡmantam subhūtim etad avocat ##(= Par, MM, Tib);
##this is not noted in Cz.## ya ##Du w.## yatra. saṃtrasiṡyanti ##Chak
##w.## saṃtrāsiṡyanti; ##Du w.## santrasiṡyanti. sa(ṃ)trā(sam) ##Chak
W.## saṃtrasam; ##Du W.## santrāsam.
@112
4. paramapāramiteyaṃ ##in Chak this is printed by mistake as##
paramapā ramiteyaṃ; ##Du w.## paramapāramitā iyaṃ. yāṃ ca ##after##
yāṃ ca ##Cz adds## subhūte ##without a note; but## subhūte ##is not found in
G, Par or Tib. Moreover, just before## yaṃ ca ##Du adds without
brackets## yadutāpāramitā, ##which he appears to have taken from
MM.## aparimāṇā ##after## aparimāṇā ##Du adds without brackets or a
note## api; ##this does not occur in the MS or in Tib (Par is fragmen-
tary).## buddhā ##Chak w. buddha.##
5. –ramapāramiteti ##Du w.## -pāramitā iti. ya ##Chak, Du w.## yā. kali-
rājāṇgapratyaṃgamāṃsāny ##Chak w.## -pratyaṇga-; ##Du w.## kali-
rājo ’ṅgapratyaṇgamāṃsāni. ##MM and Cz both read## kaliṅga(-); ##cf.
the former’s n. 2 on page 31 and the latter’s n. 5 on page 41.
6. tasmin ##Chak misprinted as## ta-asmin. jīvasaṃjñā ##the## akṡara ##I
have transliterated## jī ##may in fact have a superscribed r.##
’bhaviṡyad ##Du w.## abhaviṡyat. atīte ’dhvani ##Chak w. printed##
atītedhvani; ##Du w.## atīte adhvani. paṃca ##Du w.## pañca.
7. yo ’haṃ ##Du w.## yadāhaṃ ##with the following note “MS.## yemāṃ.”
##The## yo, ##however, is very clear and beyond any doubt. What Du
takes as## māṃ ##I read with reservations## haṃ; ##these two## akṡaras ##can
look very much alike.## kṡāntivādī ##Chak w.## -vādi. abhūvaṃs ##Du
w.## abhūvaṃ. nātmasaṃjñābhūn ##Du w.## nātmasaṃjñā abhūt; ##Cz##
na-ātmasaṃjñā babhūva ##with no note citing G.## varjayitvā ##Cz##
vivarjayitvā ##with no note citing G.##
##Folio 7ā#
1. mamāṃsena ##Chak, Du w.## samāṃśena; ##MM and Cz also read##
samāṃśena ##and Cz adds a note (pages 116-17) in which he seems
to want to account for the fact that the reading## samāṃśena, ##which
he thinks is correct, does not correspond to the reading of Tib. Tib
has## nga’i byang chub phrag pa la thogs par ’gyur ro ##and this, of
course, corresponds exactly with the actual reading of G. Both
Chak and Du must have been influenced by MM. Although the ini-
tial## ma- ##is, in the MS, slightly smudged at the bottom, the dental
s-which cannot be confused with the palatal## ś ##in this script-is
absolutely certain and there is virtually no possible doubt that G
reads## mamāṃsena. ##Tib then, unlike Cz, MM, Chak and Du, clearly
reflects the “true” reading, and the recognition of this reading 
renders the remarks of Cz (page 116) superfluous. Note too that
@113
##Cz’s text has between## –rimāṇena ##and## sarve ##the phrase## puṇyaskan-
dhena samanvāgatā bhaviṡyanti ##which is not found in G, although
Cz does not indicate this. The same applies to the## subhūte ##between##
te ##and## sattvā: ##in Cz.##
2. sthānaṃ ##Chak w.## sthānānī, ##which Cz cites in his note.## prthivī-
pradeśe ##Du w.## -pradeśa. prakāśayiṡyati ##Chak w.## -iṡyate.
3. caityabhūta ##Du w.## -bhūta:.
4. satvānāṃ ##Chak omits## satvānāṃ ##although it is in the MS. The##
subhūte ##preceding## satvānāṃ ##in Cz is not found in G.##- janmikāny
##Du w.## -janmikāni.
5. apāyasaṃvartanīyāni ##in Chak this is misprinted as## apāya saṃ-
vartanīyāni. tāni ##Chak omits## tāni ##although it is in the MS; it is,
however, not found in MM and Cz.## ’dhvany ##Du w.## ’dhvani.
6. ddīpaṃkarasya ##Chak w.## ddipaṃkarasya; ##Du w.## dīpaṇkarasya.
caturaśītir buddhakoṭīniyutaśatasahasrāṇy ##Chak w.## catur-
aśītibuddhakoṭi-; ##Du w.## caturaśītibuddhakoṭīniyutaśatasahasrāṇi.
ārāgya ##Chak w.## ārāgyā, ##which is cited in Cz’s notes.
##Folio 7b##
1. bhagavanta ##Du w.## bhagavanta:. carime ##Du reads## carime; Chak##
varime. ##I am not certain;## va- ##and## ca- ##can be virtually indistin-
guishable.## paṃcāśatyāṃ ##Du w.## pañcaśatyāṃ. varttamānāyām
##Du emends to## vartamāna ##and in his n. 2 w. cites the MS as## varta-
mānāyām. imāṃ ##Du w.## imān.
2. pūrvaka: ##Cz reads## paurvaka: ##and, although he notes the reading
of Par, he does not cite G.## śatatamīm ##Chak w.## śatamīm. kalān
##Du w.## kalāṃ. apy ##Du w.## api.
3. kulaputrāṇāṃ ##Chak w.## -pūtranām. kuladuhitrīṇāṃ ##Du 
w.## -duhitri%#ṇāṃ. ca ##Chak omits## ca ##although it is found in the MS; its
presence in G is not noted in Cz.## bhāṡeyaṃ ##Du w.## bhāṡeya.
yāvantas te satvā ##Du emends to## yāvat te ##and cites the MS in his
n. 7 where he w. gives## sattvā:.
4. parigrahīṡyanti ##Chak, Du w.## prati- ##which is also the reading of 
MM and Cz.## asyācintya ##Du w.## asya acintya.
@114
5. āha ##where G has only## āha ##Cz has## atha khalu āyuṡmān subhūtir
bhagavantam etad avocat (MM and Tib also have this reading), but
Cz has not noted G.## pragrhītavyaṃ ##Chak w.## pragrahītavyaṃ; ##Du
w.## [pra]grahītavyam; ##Du’s brackets are here more than usually
mysterious since## pra- ##is quite clearly in the MS.## bodhisatvayāna-
saṃprasthitenaivaṃ ##Chak w.## -(aivam); ##Du w.## -tena evaṃ.
6. –dayitavyaṃ ##Chak is misprinted as## -dayita vyaṃ.
##Folio 8ā#
1. pravartteta ##Chak, Du w.## pravarteta.
2. dīpaṃkarasya ##Du w.## dīpaṅkarasya.## tathāgatasyāntikād ##Chak
w.## tathāgatasya antikād. samyaksaṃbodhim ##Chak w.## -sam-
bodhim. abhisaṃbuddha: ##Chak w.## -sambuddha:. āha ##Cz has##
evam ukta āyuṡmān subhūtir bhagavantam etad avocat ##instead of
G’s## āha, ##but the reading of G is not noted.##
3. tathāgatasyāntikād ##Du w.## -āntikāt. anuttarā ##Chak, Du
w.## anuttarāṃ. samyaksaṃboddhim ##Chak w.## -sambodhim. abhi-
saṃbuddha: ##Chak w.## -sambuddha:. āha ##Cz has## evam ukte
bhagavān āyuṡmantam subhūtim etad avocat ##instead of G’s## āha,
##but the reading of G is not noted.## vyākrto ##Du w.## vyākrta:.
bhaviṡyasi ##Du reads## bhaviṡyasi ##but cites the MS w. in a note as##
bhaviṡyāmi. māṇavānāgate ##Chak w.## mānavānāgate; ##Du 
w.## māṇava anāgate.
4. samyaksaṃbuddhas ##Chak w.## -sambuddhas; ##Du w.## -buddha:.
tathāgata ##Chak is misprinted as## tathā gata. adhivacanaṃ ##Du
w.## -vacanam. ##Cz notes that a passage is added in MM after##
-vacanaṃ ##which is not found in## Ku, Par ##and Tib; it is also not
found in G although Cz does not note this.## tathāgatenānuttarā
##Du w.## tathāgatena anuttarā; ##he also w. cites the MS reading in n. 2
as## anuttarāṃ. samyaksaṃbodhir ##Chak w.## -sambodhir; ##Du in his
n. 2 w. cites the MS as## -saṃbodhim. abhisaṃbuddheti ##Chak
w.## -sambuddheti; ##Du in his n. 2 w. cites the MS as## -saṃbuddha:.
5. tathāgatenānuttarā ##Du w.## tathāgatena anuttarāṃ. samyak-
saṃbodhir ##Du w.## -bodhim. abhisaṃbuddha: ##Chak w.## -sam-
buddha:. mrṡā: ##Chak reads w.## mrṡa: ##and then adds a note saying
“Rd.## mrṡā-,” ##but the MS does read## mrṡā: ! ##Du w.## mrṡā. ##It is pos-
@115
sible, of course, that what I have transliterated here as## -: ##was
intended only as a mark of punctuation.
6. –sarvadharmā iti ##Chak has w. omitted## sarvadharmā iti ##and Cz,
as a consequence, w. indicates that it is missing in G.## tenocyante
Chak w.## tenocyate, which Cz cites; Du w.## tena ucyante. bhaved ##Du
w.## bhavet.
##Folio 8b## 
1. bhāṡita ##Du w.## bhāṡita:. bhāṡitas ##Du w.## bhāṡita:. tenocyate ##Du
w.## tena ucyate. etat ##Du w.## etate.
2. vaded ##Chak, Du w.## vadet. parinirvāpayiṡyāmīti ##Du
w.## -nirvāpayiṡyāmi iti. āha ##Cz has## subhūtir āha, ##without nothing
that G omits## subhūtir.
3. ni:satvā: ##Cz’s notation here is potentially misleading since it
seems to suggest that G reads## sarvadharmā ni:sattvā:, ##which is
not the case.## sarvadharmā: ##Du w.## -dharmā. vaded ##Du w.## vadet.
niṡpādayiṡyāmīti ##Chak w.## niṡpadayiṡyamīti; ##Du w.## niṡpāda-
yiṡyāmi iti.
4. kṡetravyūhā: kṡetravyūhā iti ##Chak w.## kṡetravyūhā iti, ##omitting
one of the two## kṡetravyūhās ##found in the MS; Cz w. follows Chak.##
bhāṡitās ##Chak w.## bhāṡitas. tenocyante ##Chak w.## tenocyate, ##which 
Cz cites; Du w.## tena ucyante. bodhisatvo ##Chak is misprinted as##
boodhisatvo. nirātmāno ##Chak w.## nirātmano.
5. –tmāno ##Chak w.## nirātmano. bodhisatva ##Cz reads## bodhisattvo##
mahāsattva ##and, although he notes that G has a second## bodhisattva
in place of## mahāsattva, ##he does not note that Par agrees with G.##
ā(khyāta)s ##Du w.## ākhyāta: ##After## ākhyātas ##Cz has## bhagavān āha,
##but he does not note that this is missing in G, Par and Tib.## āha ##Cz
has## subhūtir āha ##without noting that it is missing in G and Par.##
6. cakṡu: ##Du w.## divyacakṡu:. prajñā(ca)kṡur ##Du w.## -cakṡu:.
dharmacakṡur ##Du w.## -cakṡu:. āhaivam ##Du w.## āha evam.
@116
##Folio 9ā#
1. divyaṃ cakṡu: ##Du w.## divyacakṡu:. pra(jñāca)kṡur ##Du
w.## -ckṡu: dharmacakṡur ##Du w.## -cakṡu:. bhagavān āha ##Du
w. omits## bhagavān āha. yāvantyo ##Chak w. yavantyo. gaṃgā-
nadyāṃ ##Du w.## gaṇgā-; ##Cz has## gaṇgāyāṃ mahānadyāṃ ##without
noting G.## bālukās ##Chak, Du w.## vālukās. tāvantya ##Du reads##
tāvatyo ##with a note w. citing the MS as## yāvantyo. gaṃgānadyo ##Du
w.## gaṅgā-. bhaveyus ##Du w.## bhaveyu:. bālukās ##Chak, ##Du w.## vālukās.
2. kaccid ##Chak w.## kaścid, ##which is cited by Cz; Du reads## kaccid ##but
then w. cites the MS as## kaścit. bhaveyu: ##Chak w.## bhaveyū; ##Du
adds after## bhaveyu: ##a sentence not found in the MS:## subhūtir
āha / evam etat bhagavann evam etat sugata bahavas te lokadhāta-
vah:; ##this Du presumably took from MM, which has virtually the
same reading, although it adds## bhaveyu: ##after## lokadhātava:; ##Cz
has the same reading as MM without noting the omission in G.##
jānīyās ##Chak has been misprinted as## jā nīyās; ##Du reads## prajānāmi
##and w. cites the MS as## jānīya:.
3. –ś ##Du w.## heto:. cittadhārā ##Du w.## -dhārāś. bhāṡitās ##Chak
w.## bhāsitās.##tenocyante Chak w. tenocyate. hetor Chak, Du
w.## heto:. nopalabhyate ##Chak w.## nopalabyate. anāgataṃ cittaṃ
##Du w.## anāgatacittaṃ.
4. pratyutpannaṃ ##Chak misprinted as## pratyuypannaṃ. ya ##Du
w.## ya:. dānan ##Du w.## dānaṃ. dadyād ##Du w.## dadyāt.
5. puṇyaṃ ##Cz has## puṇyaskandhaṃ ##without noting that G omits##
-skandhaṃ. prasaveta ##both Chak and Du also read## prasaveta,
##but the final## akṡara ##could also be read## -tā. āha ##Cz has## subhūtir
āha ##without noting that G omits## subhūtir; ##Du w. omits everything
from the first## āha ##in line 5 down to## prasaveta ##in line 6. Chak
w.## aha. vahu ##Chak w.## bahu.
6. puṇyaṃ ##Chak w.## puṇyam, ##Which Cz cites (this citation could be
misleading since Cz gives only## puṇyam ##as the equivalent in G for
his## puṇyaskandhaṃ, ##when in fact the equivalent in G is## bahu
puṇyaṃ). sacet ##Du w.## sa cat.
@117
##Folio 9b##
1. āha ##Cz has## subhūtir āha ##without noting that both G and Par omit##
subhūtir. rūpakāyapariniṡpattī ##Du w.## -pariniṡpatti:. ity
apariniṡpattir eṡā ##Du has## iti apariniṡpattir iti [bhagavan] apari-
niṡpattir eṡā, ##etc., but his first## apariniṡpattir, ##as well as the follow-
ing## iti, ##not only do not occure in tyhe MS, but are not found in MM,
Cz, Par or Tib. Cz does have the## bhagavan ##but does not indicate
that it is not found in G.##
2. tenocyate ##Du reads## anena ucyate, ##but cites the MS as reading## tena.
āha ##Cz has## subhūtir āha ##without noting that## subhūtir ##is not found
in G.## bhagavan ##Chak is misprinted as## bhavan.
3. tenocyate ##Du w.## tena ucyate.
4. tathāgatasyaivaṃ ##Chak w.## -aivam. na ##Du w. omits## na. asatād
##Cz has## ’satodgrhītena, ##and both Chak and Du, though they cite the
MS correctly, would emend to this. Cz does not note the reading of G.##
5. –dgrhītena ##Chak w.## udgrhitena. hetor ##Du w.## heto:. dharma-
deśaneti ##Du w.## -deśanā iti. āhāsti ##Du w.## āha asti; ##Cz has## āha
##instead of## evam ukta āyuṡmān subhūtir bhagavanatam etad avocat,
##without indicating the reading of G.## bhaviṡyanty ##Du w.## bhavi-
ṡyanti. anāgate ’dhvani ##Chak is misprinted as## anāgatedhvani;
##after## ’dhvani ##Cz has## paścime kāle paścime samaye paścimāyāṃ
pañcaśatyāṃ saddharmavipralope vartamāṇe ##and, while he notes
that none of this occurs in G, he does not indicate that neither
could it have occurred in Par nor is it found in Tib.##
6. (bhāṡyamā)ṇāṃ ##Chak w.## bhāṡamānāṃ; ##Du w.## bhāṡyamāṇān; ##Cz
omits## bhāṡyamāṇāṃ ##and, while he notes that G has it (he cites the
incorrect reading of Chak), he does not note that Par probably had
something like it, and that Tib also has it.## cchrutvābhiśradda-
dhāsyanti ##Du w.## śrutvābhiśraddhāsyanti. nāsatvās ##Chak
w.## nāsatvā; ##Du w.## na asattvā:. bhāṡitās ##Du w.## bhāṡitā:.
##Folio 10ā#
1. –cyante ##Chak w.## -cyate. ##tv Chak w.## nu; ##Du w.## nu. tathāgatenā-
nuttarā ##Chak w.## -anuttara; ##Du w.## tathāgatena anuttarāṃ. sam-
yaksaṃbodhir ##Chak w.## samyaksambodhir; ##Du w.## samyaksaṃ-
@118
bodhim. abhisaṃbuddha: ##Chak w.## -sambuddha:. āha ##Cz has##
āyuṡmān subhūtir āha, ##without noting that G does not have the
first two words.##
2. –nānuttarā ##Chak is misprinted as## -anuttarāsamyak-, ##etc.; Du
w.## tathāgatena anuttarāṃ. samyakasaṃbodhir ##Chak w.## -sam-
bodhir; ##Du w.## -saṃbodhim. abhisaṃbuddha: ##Chak w.##-sam-
buddha:. tenocyate ##Du w.## tena ucyate. ’nuttarā ##Du w.## anuttarā.
samyaksaṃbodhir ##Chak w.## -sambodhir. iti ##Chak w.## ity.
3. tu ##Du w. prints## tu ##in brackets.## kiṃcid ##Du w.## [kaścid]; ##both the
reading and the brackets are wrong.## viṡamas ##Du w.## viṡama:.
tenocyate ##Du w.## tena ucyate. ’nuttarā ##Du w.## anuttarā. samyak-
saṃbodhir ##Chak w.## -sambodhir. nirjīvatvena ##Du w.## nirjīvi-
tvena. sānuttarā ##Chak w.## sānuttara.
4. –dhi: ##Chak w.## -sambodhi:. sarvai: ##Du is misprinted as## sarve:.
kuśalair ##Chak, Du w.## kuśalai:. bhāṡitās ##Du w.## bhāṡitā: teno-
cyante ##Chak, Du w.## tenocyate.
5. subhūte ##after## subhūte ##Cz adds## strī vā puruso vā ##and, although he
notes that this is not found in G, he does not note that it also does
not occur in Par and that Tib has for the beginning of this passage##
rigs kyi bu ’am / rigs kyi bu mo gang la la zhig gis, ##etc.## trisāhasra-
mahāsāhasre ##Chak w.## -mahāsahasre. abhisaṃhrtya ##Chak mis-
printed as## abhisaṃhartya. dadyād ##Du w.## dadyāt. yaś ceta: ##Chak
w.## yaś caiva, ##which is cited by Cz.##
6. catuṡpadikām ##Chak, Dū# catuṡpādikām. deśayed ##Du w.## deśayet.
asya ##Du w.## etasya. (ka)lān ##Du w.## kalāṃ. yāvada ##Chak w. yavad.
##Folio 10b##
1. tathāgatasyaivaṃ ##Chak w.## -aivam. subhūte-r-evaṃ ##Chak has## 
subhūte cevaṃ (##Cz cites G as## caivaṃ, ##but## caivaṃ ##is only an emen-
dation suggested by Chak in a note and not the reading found in 
the MS); Du has w.## subhūte evaṃ. ce ##and## re ##frequently can only be
distinguished with difficulty-if at all-in the script. I have read## r
##and, on the assumption that this is the correct reading, I would
interpret## r here as an “inorganic” sandhi consonant or “hiatus-
bridger.” But the use of such “hiatus-bridgers,” though common
enough elsewhere, is certainly not characteristic of our MS.## dra-
ṡṭavyaṃ ##Du w.## draṡṭavyam.
@119
2. ’bhaviṡyad ##Du w.## ’bhaviṡyat. pudgalagrāha: ##Du w.## pudgala-
grā[ho ’bhaviṡyat].
3. ātmagrāha ##Chak is misprinted as## ātamgrāha. ete ##Chak, Du
w.## eva te.
4. bhāṡitās ##Du w.## bhāṡitā:. tenocyaṃte ##Chak, Du w.## tenocyante.
lakṡaṇasaṃpadā ##Chak w.## -sampadā. āhaivam etad ##Chak
w.## āhai vaṃ, ##omitting## etad; ##Du w.## āha / evam etad. bhagaval
lakṡaṇasaṃpadā ##Du w.## bhagavan lakṡaṇa-; ##Cz cites G as## evaṃ
bhagavann alakṡaṇasampadā, ##which is not the reading of Chak,
but an emendation suggested by Chak in a note. Moreover, Cz does
not indicate the reading of## Par, ##which is essentially the same as G:##
āha . evam eva bhagavaṃ lakṡaṇasaṃpadāyās tathāgato draṡṭa-
vya:. ##What is in Cz a negative statement is in both G and Par an
affirmative statement.##
5. puna: ##Chak w. omits## puna: ##and Cz, following Chak, w. indicates
that## puna: ##is not found in G.## lakṡaṇasaṃpadā ##Chak
w.## -sampadā. dra[ṡṭa]vyo ##neither Chak nor Du indicate that##
-ṡṭa- ##has been inadvertently omitted in the MS.## ’bhaviṡyad ##Du
w.## ’bhaviṡyat. ’bhaviṡyat ##Chak## bhaviṡyad. āha ##for G’s## āha ##Cz has##
āyuṡmān subhūtir bhagavantam etad avocat ##but, without noting G
or Par, the latter having only## āyuṡmāṃ subhūtir āha. yathāhaṃ
##Chak w.## yathāham.
6. lakṡaṇasaṃpadā ##Chak w.## -sampadā. bhagavāṃs ##Chak
w.## bhagavaṃs. imā gāthā ##Du w.## ime gāthe. abhāṡata: )) ##Chak

and Du both have## abhāṡata ##and it is very possible that the : of the
:)) after## -ta ##should simply be taken as part of the mark of punctua-
tion, :)) being a variant form of .)).## adrākṡur ##Du w.## cādrākṡur;
##Cz reads## ca-adrākṡur ##and, though he notes that G does not have## ca,
##he does not note that it is also missing from Par.## anvayu: ##Cz has## 
ca-anvayu: ##and w. indicates that G and Par also have the## ca,
##though it occurs in neither.
Folio 11ā#
1. dharmatā cāpy avijñeyā ##Chak w.## dharmato cāsya vijñeyā, ##which
Cz cites; Du w.## dharmatā cāpy abhijñeyā. sā ##Chak w.## sa, ##which Cz
cites.## vijānituṃ ##Chak w.## vijānitum. lakṡaṇasaṃpadā ##Chak w.## -sampadā.
@120
2. samyaksaṃbodhir ##Chak w.## -sambodhir. abhisaṃbuddhā:
##Chak w.## abhisambuddha:; ##Du w.## abhisaṃbuddhā. lakṡaṇasaṃ-
padā ##Chak w.## -sampadā. samyaksaṃbodhir ##Chak w.## -sam-
bodhir. abhisaṃbuddhā ##Chak w.## abhisambuddha:.
3. syād ##Chak w.## syad, ##which is cited by Cz.## evaṃ ##Chak w.## evam.
prajñāpta ##Du w.## prajñapta:. vā ##Du w. adds an## iti ##after## vā, ##which
is not found in the MS (Du probably took it from MM or Cz).## dra-
ṡṭavyaṃ ##Du w.## draṡṭavyam.
4. yaś ca ##Du w.## yat. gaṃgānadībālukopamāl ##Chak w.## gaṃgānadī-
vālukosamā:; ##Du w.## gaṅgānadīvālukopamān. saptaratnaprati-
pūrṇān ##Chak w.## -pūrṇāṅ.
5. samyaksaṃbuddhebhyo ##Chak misprinted as## -sambudhebyo.
dadyād ##Du w.## dadyāt. bahutaraṃ ##Chak w.## -taram. puṇyaṃ ##Cz
has## puṇyaskandhaṃ, ##without noting the reading of G.##
6. āha ##Cz has## āyuṡmān subhūtir āha ##for the first## āha ##in G, but does
not note G’s lack of the first two words.## pa(r)igra[hītavya:] ##the
last few syllables of the line have been obliterated, but the recon-
struction given here in brackets is fairly certain.
Folio 11b##
1. vāgacchati ##Du w.## vā āgacchati. me ##Cz inserts## subhūte ##after## me
##but does not note that it occurs in neither G nor Par. [heto:] ##the
final syllables of the line have been obliterated but the reconstruc-
tion given here in brackets is fairly certain.##
2. samyaksaṃbuddha ##Chak w.## -sambuddha:. subhūte ##Chak is
misprinted as## subhū te. yāvantas ##Du reads## yāvanti ##and cites the
MS reading w. as## yāvanta. trisāhasra[mahā-] ##the final syllables
of this line have also been obliterated, but again the bracketed
reconstruction is fairly certain.##
3. tāvato ##Chak w.## tavato. lokadhātūn ##Chak w.## lokadhātuṃ, ##which
is cited by Cz.## paramāṇusaṃcayas ##Chak w.## paramānusaṃcaya:;
##Du w.## -sañcaya:. ##In what follows here the MS always has## saṃcaya,
##but in every case but one Du w. prints## sañcaya; ##this will not be
noted hereafter.## bahu ##Du w.## bahu:. paramāṇusaṃcayo ##Chak
w.## paramānusaṃśayo.
@121 
4. –vam ##Du w.## āha / evaṃ; ##Cz has subhūtir āha: evam, ##without 
noting G or Par, neither of which has the## subhūtir. bhagavan
##Chak w.## bhagavān. bahu ##Du w.## bahu:. paramāṇusaṃcayo
##Chak w.## paramānu-. bhagavan ##Chak w.## bhagavān. ’bhaviṡyan
##Du w.## ’bhaviṡyat. paramāṇusaṃcaya ##Chak w.## paramānu-.
5. –ṇusaṃcayo ##Chak w.## ’sauparamānu-. asaṃcaya: ##Chak
w.## asaṃcaya. bhāṡitas ##Du w.## bhāṡita:. paramāṇusaṃcaya
##Chak w.## paramānu-. yac ca ##Chak, Du w.## yaś ca. bhāṡati ##Du
w.## bhāṡate. trsāhasramahāsāhasro ##Chak, Du w.## tri-.
6. bhāṡitas ##Du w.## bhāṡita:. bhagavan ##Chak w.## bhagavān ##for the 
first bhagavan in the line.## abhaviṡyat ##Chak w.## abhavisyat.
bhagavan ##Cz omits the second bhagavan without noting that it is 
found in G.## ’bhaviṡyad ##Du w.## ’bhaviṡyat. tathāgatena ##in Cz## 
tathāgatena ##follows rather than precedes## piṇḍagrāhas, ##but its
placement in G is not noted in Cz; Par has the same word order 
as G. 
Folio 12ā#
1. -ṇḍagrāho ##Chak w.## -graho. bhāṡitas ##Du w.## bhāṡita:. caivā-
vyavahāro ##Cz has caivā# subhūte ’vyavahāro, ##but the## subhūte Cz
places after caiva G has after## ’nabhilāpya: ##and Par after## caivāvya-
vahāro. ##None of this is noted by Cz.## sa dharma: ##Cz has## na sa  
dharmo, ##without noting that G omits the## na. 
2. –thagjanair ##Chak is misprinted as## bāla prthagjanair. vaded ##Du
w.## vadet. ātmadrṡṭis ##Chak w.## -drṡtis. sa ##Du w. puts sa in
brackets; in Cz the order of## subhūte ##and sa is inverted without a 
note.## samyag ##Du w.## samyak. 
3. āha ##Cz has## subhūtir āha ##without noting G. no Cz w. indicates that 
no is omitted in G.## bhagavaṃs ##Du w.## bhagavan. bhagavann ##Du
w. bhagavan.##
4. adhimoktavyās ##Du w.## adhimoktavyā:.
5. dharmasamjñeti ##Du w.## dharmasamjñā iti. dharmasaṃjñeti ##Du
w.## dharmasaṃjñā iti. aprameyāsaṃkhyeyāl ##Chak w.## -āsaṃ-
khyeyā; ##Du w.## -āsaṃkhyeyān. lokadhātūn ##Chak w.## -dhatūn. 
6. –ripūrṇān ##Chak is misprinted as## -pūrṇāṅ. dānan ##Du w.## dānaṃ.
dadyād ##Du w.## dadyāt. prajñāpāramitāyā ##Chak w.## prajña-.
@122
catuṡpadikām ##Chak, ##Du w.## catuṡpādikām. dhārayed ##Chak
w.## vācayed; ##Cz in his notation has been misled by Chak.## deśayet
##Chak, Du w.## deśayed. paryavāpnuyād ##Du w.## paryavāpnuyāt.
##Folio 12b##
1. tato ##Cz inserts## nidānaṃ ##after## tato ##without noting that it is not
found in G and Par.## prasavetāprameyam ##Du w.## prasaveta
aprayeyam. asaṃkhyeyaṃ ##Du w.## asaṃkhyeyam. saṃprakā-
śayet ##Chak w.## samprakāśayet. saṃprakāśayet ##Chak w.## sampra-
kāśaye; ##Du w.## saṃprakāśayed.
2. draṡṭavya ##Du w.## draṡṭavyaṃ. saṃskrtaṃ ##Chak w.## saṃskrtam. 
āttamanā ##Du w.## āttamanā:. sthavira ##Chak is misprinted as## 
sthavirasubhūtis, ##etc.; Du w.## sthavira:. sadevamānuṡāsu- ##Du
w.## -manuṡyā-.
3. samāptā: ##Both Chak and Du have## samāptā ##and it is possible that 
here again : is a part of the final punctuation mark; i.e., :)) .)),
instead of-: )); cf. fo. 10b, line 6 and note.
@123
TRANSLATION OF THE GILGIT TEXT
[5a] The Blessed One said: “The number,## Subhūti, ##of particles of 
dust in a world system of three thousand great-thousand worlds1-is
that great?" 
He said: “It is great, Blessed One. That particle of dust is said to be
not a particle by the## tathāgata. ##In that sense ‘a particle of dust’ is used.
Also, that which is a world system, that is said by the## Tathāgata ##not to 
be a system. In that sense ‘world system’ is used.”
The Blessed One said: “What do you think,## Subhūti? ##Is ā# Tathāgata
##to be seen through the thirty-two characteristic marks of a great man?”
He said: “No, Blessed One. Why is that? Each of the thirty-two
characteristic marks of a great man is said to be not a characteristic 
mark by the## Tathāgata. ##In that sense ‘the thirty-two characteristic
marks of a great man’ is used.”
The Blessed One said: “But again,## Subhūti, ##if a woman or a man
were to give away their person as many times as there are sands in the 
river Ganges, and if someone else, after taking from this discourse on 
Doctrine a verse of even four lines, were to teach it to others, the latter
alone would on that account produce great merit, immeasurable and 
incalculable.”
Then, indeed, the Venerable## Subhūti, ##through the shock of the 
Doctrine,2 burst into tears. Wiping away his tears, he said this to the
Blessed One: “It is astonishing, O Blessed One, it is truly astonishing, O
Sugata, how this discourse on Doctrine3 was spoken by the## Tathāgata, ##as
a consequence of which knowledge has arisen for me! I have never heard 
this discourse on Doctrine before. They, Blessed One, who will produce
a true conception when this## sūtra ##is being taught here will be possessed 
by the greatest astonishment. And that, Blessed One, which is a true
conception, that indeed is not a conception. On that account the## Tathā-
gata ##says [5b] ‘A true conception, a true conception’.
“Blessed One, it is not astonishing to me that I am prepared for the
teaching of this discourse on Doctrine, since I have been intent upon it.
Blessed One, those living beings who will take up this discourse on 
@124
Doctrine...4 and master it will be possessed by the greatest astonish-
ment. But again, Blessed One, a conception of a self will not occur to 
them, nor a conception of a living being, nor a conception of a personal
soul, nor a conception of a person. And why is that? Because the Bud-
dhas, the Blessed Ones, have walked away from all conceptions.”
The Blessed One said: “That is so,## Subhūti. ##Those who, after hear-
ing this discourse on Doctrine, will not be terrified, will not tremble, will
not be overcome by dread, they will be possessed by the greatest 
astonishment.5 And why is that? This,## Subhūti, ##has been declared by
the## Tathāgata ##to be the greatest perfection. And that which the## Tathā-
gata ##declares the greatest perfection is declared as well by immeasurable
Buddhas and Blessed Ones. In that sense ‘greatest perfection’ is used.
“But again,## Subhūti, ##that which is the perfection of patience of the## 
Tathāgata, ##just that is not a perfection. And why is that? When,##
Subhūti, ##an evil king6 hacked the flesh from all my limbs, there was for
me on that occasion no conception of a self, no conception of a living
being, no conception of a personal soul, no conception of a person. Nor,
moreover, could there have been a conception of injury for me at that
time.7## Subhūti, I remember five hundred births in the past when I was a 
seer who taught patience. Then too there was for me no conception of a 
self, no conception of a living being, no conception of a personal soul, no 
conception of a person. Therefore,## Subhūti, ##a bodhisattva, ā# mahā-
sattva, having abandoned all conception...” [folio 6 is missing].
[“Those who will take up this discourse on Doctrine, will preserve it,
will declare it, will recite it, will master it...],8 [7a] all those living
beings will carry my awakening on their shoulder.9 And why is that? It
is not possible for this discourse on Doctrine to be heard by living beings
who have but little resolve. Nor is it possible for it to be heard, taken up 
...or mastered, by those who have a view of a self, nor by those who
have a view of a living being or a personal soul or a person. That situa-
tion simply does not occur.
“But again,## Subhūti, ##on whatever piece of ground one will proclaim
this## sūtra, ##that piece of ground will become an object of worship. That 
piece of ground will become for the world together with its devas, men
and asuras a true shrine to be revered and circumambulated.10## Subhūti,
##those sons and daughters of good family who will take up## sūtras ##such as 
these...and master them, they will be ridiculed, severely ridiculed. But,
through that ridicule, their demeritorious actions in former lives which
should lead to rebirth in an unfortunate destiny will here and now come 
to be exhausted, and they will obtain the awakening of a Buddha.11##
“Subhūti, I remember that in the past, during incalculable and more 
than incalculable aeons-before the time of the## Tathāgata, Arhat, ##Fully
@125
and Completely Awakened One## Dīpaṃkara-##there were eighty-four
hundreds of thousands of millions of billions of Buddhas who were 
attended to by me and, having been attended to, were not neglected. [7b]
If,## Subhūti, ##after having attended to them, all those Buddhas were not
neglected by me; and if in the Final Period, when the last five hundred 
years have begun, someone will take up these## sūtras... ##and master
them, then,## Subhūti, ##the quantity of merit resulting from the former
does not approach even a hundredth part of the quantity of merit of the
latter, nor a thousandth part, nor a hundred-thousandth. That quantity
of merit is not open to enumeration, nor measure, nor calculation, nor
comparison, nor likening.## Subhūti, those living beings, those sons and
daughters of good family will acquire then such a quantity of merit that
if I were to declare the quantity of merit of those sons and daughters of 
good family, living beings (who heard that declaration) would go mad,
they would be totally disoriented. But again,## Subhūti, ##this discourse on 
Doctrine is unthinkable-unthinkable indeed is its effect.”12
He said: “How, Blessed One, should one who has set out on the way 
of a bodhisattva stand? How should he actually practice? How should
he direct his thought?”
The Blessed One said: “Here,## Subhūti, ##one who has set out on the
way of ā# bodhisattva ##should produce a thought in this manner: ‘All living
beings should be led by me to final nirvana in the realm of nirvana which
leaves nothing behind. But after having led living beings thus to final
nirvana, there is no living being whatsoever who has been lead to final
nirvana.’ And why is that? If, [8a]## Subhūti, ##a conception of a living
being were to occur to a bodhisattva, a conception of a personal soul, or a
conception of a person, he is not to be called ‘a bodhisattva’. And why is 
that?## Subhūti, ##that which is called ‘one who has set out on the way of a 
bodhisattva’, that is not a thing.13
“What do you think,## Subhūti? ##Is that some thing which was
awakened to by the## Tathāgata, ##in the presence of the## Tathāgata Dīpaṃ-
kara, ##as the utmost, full and perfect awakening?”
He said: “Blessed One, that which was awakened to by the## Tathā-
gata, ##in the presence of the## Tathāgata Dīpaṃkara, ##as the utmost, full
and perfect awakening is not some thing.”
He said: “Because of that was I assured by the## Tathāgata Dīpaṃ-
kara: ##'You, young man, will be at a future time ā# Tathāgata, Arhat, ##Fully
and Perfectly Awakened One named## S*ākyamuni.’ ##And why is that?## 
‘Tathāgata’, Subhūti, ##that is a designation for thusness.## Subhūti,
##someone might speak thus, 'The utmost, full and perfect awakening is 
fully and perfectly awakened to by the## Tathāgata.’ ##But that which is the
utmost, full and perfect awakening fully and perfectly awakened to by
@126
the## Tathāgata ##is not some thing.## Subhūti, ##the thing which is fully and 
perfectly awakened to by the## Tathāgata- ##in that there is neither truth
nor falsehood. On that account the## Tathāgata ##says ‘all characteristics
are the characteristics of a Buddha.’ 'All characteristics’,## Subhūti, ##all
those are not characteristics. In that sense ‘all characteristics’ is used. 
Suppose for example,## Subhūti, ##there would be a man endowed with a 
body, a great body.”##
subhūti ##said: “That which [8b] the## Tathāgata ##has called a man
endowed with a body, a great body-he, Blessed One, is said to be with-
out a body by the## Tathāgata. ##In that sense ‘endowed with a body, a great
body’ is used.”
The Blessed One said: “Just so,## Subhūti, ##the bodhisattva who would
speak thus: ‘I will lead beings to final nirvana’-he is not to be called a
bodhisattva. And why is that? Is there,## Subhūti, ##some thing which is 
named ‘bodhisattva’?”
He said: “No indeed, Blessed One.”
The Blessed One said: “On that account the## Tathāgata ##says ‘all
things are without living being, without personal soul, without person.’##
Subhūti, ##a bodhisattva who would speak thus: ‘I will bring about wonder-
ful arrangements in [my] sphere of activity’14-he too is not to be called 
a bodhisattva.15 And why is that? ‘Wonderful arrangements in [one’s]
sphere of activity, wonderful arrangements in [one’s] sphere of activity’,##
Subhūti, ##those have been said by the## Tathāgata ##not to be wonderful
arrangements. In that sense ‘wonderful arrangements in [one’s] sphere
of activity’ is used.## Subhūti, ##that bodhisattva who is intent on saying
‘without a self are things, without a self are things’-he is declared ‘a
bodhisattva, a bodhisattva’ by the## Tathāgata, Arhat, ##Fully and Perfectly
Awakened One. 
“What do you think,## subhūti? ##Does the physical eye of the## Tathā-
gata exist?”
He said: “So it is Blessed One. The physical eye of the## Tathāgata
##exists.”
The Blessed One said: “What do you think,## Subhūti? ##Does the 
divine eye of the## Tathāgata ##exist, the eye of wisdom, the eye of Dharma,
the awakened eye?”
He said: “So it is Blessed One. [9a] The divine eye of the## Tathāgata,
##the eye of wisdom, the eye of Dharma, the awakened eye exists.”
The Blessed One said: “What do you think,## Subhūti? ##There could be
as many Ganges rivers as there are sands in the river Ganges, and there
could be as many world systems as there are sands in that many rivers.
Would those world systems then be many?”16
@127
The Blessed One said:## “subhūti, ##I could know17 the various streams
of thought of living beings as numerous as those in that many world sys-
tems. And why is that? ‘Stream of thought, stream of thought’,## subhūti,
##that has been said by the## tathāgata ##not to be a stream. In that sense
‘stream of thought’ is used. And why is that?## subhūti, ##a past thought is
not apprehended. A future thought is not apprehended. A present
(thought)18 is not apprehended.
“What do you think,## subhūti? ##He who, after having filled this three
thousand great-thousand world system with the seven precious things,
would give it as a gift-surely that son or daughter of good family would,
as a result, produce much merit?”
He said: “Much, Blessed One, much,## Sugata.”
##The Blessed One said: “So it is,## subhūti, ##so it is much. That son or
daughter of good family would, as a result, produce much merit. If,##
subhūti, ##there would have been a quantity of merit, the## tathāgata ##would
not have said ‘quantity of merit, quantity of merit’.
“What do you think,## subhūti? ##Should the## tathāgata ##be seen
through the perfect development of his physical body?” [9b]
He said: “No Blessed One. It is not through the perfect development
of his physical body that the## tathāgata ##is to be seen. And why is that?
‘A perfect development of the physical body, a perfect development of 
the physical body’, that is said to be not a perfect development by the##
tathāgata. ##In that sense ‘perfect development of the physical body’ is
used.”
The Blessed One said: “What do you think,## subhūti? ##Should the##
tathāgata ##be seen through the possession of characteristic marks?”
He said: “No Blessed One. It is not through the possession of char-
acteristic marks that the## tathāgata ##is to be seen. And why is that?
That which is the possession of characteristic marks is said to be not the
possession of characteristic marks by the## tathāgata. ##In that sense ‘pos-
session of characteristic marks’ is used.”
The Blessed One said: “What do you think,## subhūti? ##Surely it
occurs to the## tathāgata: ##’Not by me has a Doctrine been taught.’ He,##
subhūti, ##who would speak thus: ‘By the## tathāgata ##a Doctrine has been
taught,’ he,## subhūti, ##would falsely accuse me by taking something up
from what is not there.19 Why is that? ‘A teaching of Doctrine, a teach-
ing of Doctrine’,## subhūti, ##that is not some thing which receives the name
‘a teaching of Doctrine.’”
He said: “Blessed One, will there be any living beings at a future time
who, after hearing such Doctrines being taught, will believe?”
The Blessed One said: “They,## subhūti, ##are neither living beings nor
nonliving beings. Why is that? ‘All living beings’,## subhūti, ##they are said
@128
to be not living beings by the## tathāgata. ##In that sense [10a] ‘all living
beings’ is used.
“What do you think,## subhūti? ##Surely that which was awakened to
by the## tathāgata ##as the utmost, full and perfect awakening is some
thing?” 
He said: “Blessed One, that which was awakened to by the## tathā-
gata ##as the utmost, full and perfect awakening is not some thing.”
The Blessed One said: “So it is,## subhūti, ##so it is. Not even the most
minute thing exists or is found there. In that sense ‘utmost, full and per-
fect awakening’ is used. But again,## subhūti, ##that thing is the same; there 
is no difference. In that sense ‘utmost, full and perfect awakening’ is
used. Through the fact of there being no personal soul, no living being,
no person, that utmost, full and perfect awakening is fully and perfectly
awakened to as identical with all meritorious things. ‘Meritorious
things, meritorious things’,## subhūti-##but just those are said by the##
tathāgata ##not to be things. In that sense ‘meritorious things’ is used.
“But once again,## subhūti, ##if someone, after collecting piles of the
seven precious things as large as the kings of mountains, the Sumerus,     
here in this three thousand great-thousand world system, were to give
them as a gift; and someone else, after having taken from this Perfection
of Wisdom a verse of even four lines, were to teach it to others##-subhūti,
##the quantity of merit from the former case does not approach a
hundredth part of the quantity of merit of the latter...[10b] it is not
open to comparison.
“What do you think,## subhūti ? ##Surely it occurs to the## tathāgata:
##‘living beings are released by me.’ Not, again,## subhūti, ##is it to be seen
thus. Why is that? That which is released by the## tathāgata ##is not some
living being. If again,## subhūti, ##there would have been some living being
who was released by the## tathāgata, ##that indeed would have been for him
the holding on to a self, the holding on to a living being, the holding on to
a personal soul, the holding on to a personal entity. ‘Holding on to a
self’,## subhūti, ##this is said by the## tathāgata ##to be not holding on, but it is
held on to by simple ordinary people. ‘Simple ordinary people’,## subhūti,
##these are said by the## tathāgata ##not to be people. In that sense ‘simple
ordinary people’ is used.
“What do you think,## subhūti, ##should the## tathāgata ##be seen through
the possession of characteristic marks?”
He said: “That is so, Blessed One. The## tathāgata ##is to be seen
through the possession of characteristic marks.”
The Blessed One said: “But if,## subhūti, ##the## tathāgata ##were to be
seen through the possession of characteristic marks, a wheel-turning
king would also be ā# tathāgata.”
@129
##He said: “As I understand the meaning of what was said by the
Blessed One, the## Tathāgata ##is not to be seen through the possession of 
characteristic marks.”
Then, again, on that occasion the Blessed One spoke these verses:
Those who saw me through form,
Those who associated me with sound-[11a]
They have engaged in a misguided effort.
Those people will not see me.
The Awakened One is to be seen from the Doctrine;
The## Tathāgata ##is the body of Doctrine;
But, indeed, the substance of the Doctrine is not
to be understood,
Nor is it possible for it to be understood.
“What do you think,## Subhūti? Is the utmost, full and perfect awak-
ening fully and perfectly awakened to by the## Tathāgata ##through the pos-
session of characteristic marks? Again,## Subhūti, ##it is not to be seen thus.
The utmost, full and perfect awakening,## Subhūti, is not fully and per-
fectly awakened to by the## Tathāgata ##through the possession of charac-
teristic marks. 
“If, again,## Subhūti, it should occur thus: ‘by someone set out on the
way of a bodhisattva the destruction of some thing is taught, or its anni-
hilation,’again,## subhūti, ##it is not to be seen thus. The destruction of 
some thing, or its annihilation, is not taught by someone who has set out 
on the way of a bodhisattva. 
“If, again,## Subhūti, a son or daughter of good family, after filling
world systems similar in number to the sands of the Ganges with the 
seven precious things, were to give them as a gift to the## Tathāgata,
Arhat, ##Fully and Perfectly Awakened One; and if a bodhisattva were to 
achieve composure20 in the midst of things that have no self-the latter
would indeed produce much greater merit than the former. However,##
Subhūti, ##a quantity of merit is not to be acquired by a bodhisattva.”
He said: “A quantity of merit, Blessed One, is to be acquired,
surely?”
The Blessed One said: “‘Is to be acquired’,## Subhūti, ##not ‘is to be held 
on to’. In that sense ‘is to be acquired’ is used. [11b]
“But once again,## subhūti, ##if someone were to speak thus: ‘The##
Tathāgata ##goes, or he comes, or he stands, or he sits, or he lays down’-
he does not understand the meaning of what I said. Why is that? A##
‘Tathāgata’, Subhūti, ##has not come from anywhere, has not gone
@130
anywhere. In that sense## ‘Tathāgata, Arhat, ##Fully and Perfectly
Awakened One’ is used.
“And if again,## Subhūti, a son or daughter of good family were to 
grind into powder as many world systems as there are particles of dust in 
this three thousand great-thousand world system so that there would be 
just a pile of the finest atoms-what do think,## Subhūti? ##Would that pile
of atoms be huge?”
He said: “That is so, Blessed One, that would be a huge pile of atoms.
And why is that? If, Blessed One, there would have been a pile, the
Blessed One would not have said ‘a pile of atoms’. Why is that? That
which is said to be a pile of atoms, that is said by the Blessed One not to 
be a pile. In that sense ‘a pile of atoms’ is used. That which the## Tathā-
gata calls ‘three thousand great-thousand world system’, that is said by
the## Tathāgata ##not to be a system. In that sense ‘three thousand great-
thousand world system’ is used. Why is that? If, Blessed One, there
would have been a system, just that, Blessed One, would have been the
holding on to a solid mass. And that which is said by the## Tathāgata
##[12a] to be the holding on to a solid mass is said to be not holding on. In 
that sense ‘holding on to a solid mass’ is used.”
The Blessed One said: “And holding on to a solid mass is itself,##
Subhūti, a thing not open to verbal expression; it cannot be put into 
words. It, however, has been held on to by simple ordinary people. Why
is that? If,## Subhūti, someone were to speak thus ‘A view of a self was
taught by the## Tathāgata, a view of a living being, a view of a personal
soul, a view of a person’-would he indeed,## Subhūti, ##speak correctly?”
He said: “No, Blessed One. And why is that? Blessed One, that 
which is said by the## Tathāgata ##to be a view of a self, that is said by the## 
Tathāgata ##to be not a view. In that sense ‘a view of a self' is used.”
The Blessed One said: “In this way,## subhūti, ##one who has set out on
the way of a bodhisattva should know all things, should be intent on 
them. And he should be intent on them in such a way that even the con-
ception of a thing would not be present. Why is that? ‘Conception of a
thing, conception of a thing’,## Subhūti, that is said by the## Tathāgata ##not
to be a conception. In that sense ‘conception of a thing’ is used.
“And again,## Subhūti, ##if ā# bodhisattva, mahāsattva, ##having filled 
immeasurable, incalculable world systems with the seven precious
things, were to give them as a gift; and if a son or daughter of good 
family, having taken up from this Perfection of Wisdom a verse of even
four lines, were to preserve it, were to teach it, were to master it [12b]-
the latter certainly would produce immeasurable, incalculable merit,
much greater than the first. 
@131
“And how would he fully cause it to appear? In such a way that he 
would not cause it to appear. In that sense ‘fully cause it to appear’ is 
used.”
A shooting star, a fault of vision, a lamp;
An illusion and dew and a bubble;
A dream, a flash of lightning, a thunder cloud-
In this way is the conditioned to be seen.
The Blessed One said this.
Delighted, the Elder## subhūti, ##and the monks and nuns, the lay men
and women, and the world with its devas, men, asuras and gandharvas
rejoiced in that spoken by the Blessed One.
The## vajracchedikā prajñāpāramitā ##is concluded.
@132
[BLANK]
@133
NOTES
For complete citation information the reader is directed to the list of
abbreviations and bibliography found at the beginning of Part II.
Notes to the Introduction
1. Chakravarti 1956: 177.
2. Conze 1974: 1.
3. Conze 1974: 6.
4. Conze 1974: 6, 48.
5. Yuyama 1967: 68.
Notes to the Translation
1.“Three thousand great-thousand worlds” is, of course, hardly acceptable English
but, as Franklin Edgerton points out, “It is not clear what precise meaning, if any,
attaches to## mahāsāhasra.” ##He also notes that “in## mahāvyutpatti ##7999 ff. and##
mañjuśrīmūlakalpa ##343.16 ff.## mahā- ##compounded with other numbers means ten
times the number,” and the same may or may not be intended here (see BHSD 259).
For at least one description of what a world system so described would include, see
La Vallee Poussin 1923-31: II.170.
2. To appreciate the significance of the expression## dharmapravegena, ##“through the
shock of the Doctrine,” and of this passage as a whole, see the short but important
paper by## Ananda Coomaraswamy 1977 and the passages from## Pāli ##literature he cites
there. Unless I am mistaken, this is an important passage in the## vajracchedikā. ##Its
articulation of a particular kind of “emotively” charged experience## (subhūti ##“bursts
into tears”), a kind of shock-induced realization as a reaction to a certain form of
doctrinal expression## (subhūti ##says “through this discourse on Doctrine knowledge 
has arisen for me”), may in fact be a prototype and paradigm for at least certain
strands of the later Buddhist tradition. In any case, this passage is the clearest
indication we have of the kind of “religious” experience with which our text seems to
have been concerned.##
3. dharmaparyāya ##is a deceptively difficult term to translate. Edward Conze, who I
follow here, translates it “discourse on dharma” (Conze 1974: 76). Charles de Harlez
translates it “cours de la loi” (de Harlez 1891: 471) and Max Walleser “Lehrbuch”
@134
(Walleser 1914: 147). Edgerton says “lit. device, means of (teaching) the doctrine,
and so, secondarily, religious discourse” (BHSD 279). In usage it seems to indicate
first a talk or discussion or even “sermon” on the doctrine which draws out or
elaborates on the meaning of the latter. Were it not for fear of possible
misunderstandings, I would almost prefer to translate it as “development of the
Doctrine”; that is, “development” in the sense of “to lay open by degrees or in detail,
to disclose, reveal; to unfold more completely, to evolve the possibilities of” (as
defined in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, s.v. develop). Secondarily, then, it
comes to mean the record of that “talk” which “lays open by degrees”; that is to say,
a “text” or even a “book” which contains it.
4. The marks of ellipsis in this type of sentence translate the Buddhist Sanskrit idiom##
yāvat, ##which stands for omitted elements of a standard list or formula. Here the
whole phrase would be: “will take up this discourse on Doctrine, will preserve it, will
declare it, will recite it, will master it”-editors.
5. This passage is one example of a very frequent, very important, and very little
studied kind of passage found throughout the## prajñāpāramitā ##literature. Again and
again the absence of fear, terror, dread and anxiety when confronted with the asser-
tions made in these texts is defined as the Perfection of Wisdom, as the mark of one
who actually practices the Perfection of Wisdom, or-as here-the “greatest perfec-
tion”. Typical of these passages is the following from the## aṡṭasāhasrikā. ##Here, after
the Buddha has exhorted## subhūti ##to teach the Perfection of Wisdom to bodhi-
sattvas,## subhūti ##responds by saying: "Bodhisattva, bodhisattva’, when this is said,
to what thing does that designation ‘bodhisattva’ refer?  I do not see a thing called
‘bodhisattva’. Nor, moreover, do I see a thing named ‘the Perfection of Wisdom’. I,
not finding then, O Blessed One, a bodhisattva nor a thing called bodhisattva, not
apprehending, not seeing it, and not finding a Perfection of Wisdom, not apprehend-
ing, not seeing it-what bodhisattva in what Perfection of Wisdom will I teach and
instruct?” (bodhisattvo bodhisattva iti yad idaṃ bhagavann ucyate, katamasyaitad
bhagavan dharmasyādhivacanaṃ yad uta bodhisattva iti. nāhaṃ bhagavaṃs taṃ
dharmaṃ samanupaśyāmi yad uta bodhisattva iti. tam apy ahaṃ bhagavan 
dharmaṃ na samanupaśyāmi yad uta prajñāpāramitā nāma. so ’haṃ bhagavan
bodhisattvaṃ vā bodhisattvadharmaṃ vā avindan anupalabhamāno ’samanu-
paśyan prajñāpāramitām apy avindan anupalabhamāno ’samanupaśyan katamaṃ
bodhisattvaṃ katamasyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyām avavadiṡyāmi anuśāsiṡyāmi). ##After
this passage, however, the text immediately adds: “But again, Blessed One, if when
this is being said, taught and explained the mind of a bodhisattva is not depressed,
not cowed, not dejected, does not fall into despair; if he is not discouraged, not
crushed; if he is not terrified, frightened, does not tremble with fear-then just this
bodhisattva, ##mahāsattva, ##is to be instructed in the Perfection of Wisdom. Just this
is to be known as the Perfection of Wisdom of that bodhisattva. This is the instruc-
tion in the Perfection of Wisdom”## (api tu khalu punar bhagavan saced evaṃ bhā-
ṡyamāṇe deśyamāne upadiśyamāne bodhisattvasya cittaṃ nāvalīyate na saṃlīyate
na viṡīdati na viṡādam āpadyate nāsya viprṡṭhībhavati mānasam na bhagnaprṡṭhī-
bhavati nottrasyati na saṃtrasyati na saṃtrāsam āpadyate, eṡa eva bodhisattvo
mahāsattva: prajñāpāramitāyām anuśāsanīya:, eṡaivāsya bodhisattvasya mahā-
sattvasya prajñāpāramitā veditavyā, eṡo ’vavāda: prajñāpāramitāyām). ##The text is 
from Vaidya 1960: 3.5ff.
Similar passages, variations on this same theme, occur throughout the## aṡṭasāha-
srikā (##4.21, 5.24, 9.10, 11.2, 13.15, 15.28, etc.) but are by no means limited to this 
text. We find, for example, the following in the## aṡṭādaśasāhasrikā: ##“If again,##
subhūti, ##the mind of a bodhisattva,## mahāsattva, ##is not depressed when the fact of
the isolation of all things is being talked about, is not cowed and does not tremble in
fear, that bodhisattva,## mahāsattva, ##moves in the Perfection of Wisdom” (Conze
1962: 61; see also 23.6, 60.21, etc.) In the## saptaśatikā ##we find: “Then## mañjuśrī, ##the
heir apparent, said this to the Blessed One: ‘Blessed One, just as Buddhas are those
@135
bodhisattvas, mahāsattvas, ##to be seen who, after hearing this explanation of the
Perfection of Wisdom, will be intent, will not be terrified, will not be frightened, will
not tremble with fear” (Masuda 1930: 215.5; also 209.1, 211.4, 214.6, 214.11, 216.1, 6,
13; 217.4, 10, etc.). This repeated emphasis on fear, terror or dread in connection
with hearing the Perfection of Wisdom being taught or explained would seem to
indicate that the authors of our texts were clearly aware of the fact that what they
were presenting was above all else potentially terrifying and awful, and that a
predictable reaction to it was fear. And, although these passages need to be studied
further, they already give us some valuable information on the nature of the experi-
ence with which this literature is dealing.
6. Conze does not question the reading## kaliṅga-rājā, ##“the king of## kaliṅga,” ##but the
reading of the Gilgit text and the khotanese (kalarri)## = kalirāja: ##would seem to 
further confirm Edgerton’s suggestion that## kaliṅga-rājan “##is undoubtedly an error
of the tradition for## kali-rājan” ##(BHSD 172).
7. It is Possible that we have here in the Gilgit text a scribal omission. Pargiter’s text
(paragraph 9a) has:## nāsī me tasmiṃ samaye [ātma]-(saṃjñā vā satva-jīva-pudgala-
saṃ)jñā vā na me kāci saṃjñā nāsaṃjñā babhūva (ta)[t kasya heto: sa] cen me
subhūte tasmim* sa(maye) ā(tmasam)jñābhaviṡyat vyāpādasaṃjñā me tasmiṃ
samaye ’bhaviṡya(t) [xxxxxx saṃ] jñā pudgalasaṃjñābhaviṡya[t vyā]pādasaṃjñā
me tasmiṃ samaye ’bhaviṡyat. ##But all of that which appears in italics does not
occur in the Gilgit text. This, of course, looks very much like a homoeoteleuton in
which the scribe may have written the first## pudgalasaṃjñā, ##then, through an eye
skip, he may have written after the first## pudgalasaṃjñā ##what should have come
after the second## pudgalasaṃjñā, ##thereby omitting everything that should have come
between. This kind of homoeoteleuton is in fact frequently found in the Gilgit
manuscripts. Against this, however, is the fact that if this was purely a “mechani-
cal” omission we would have expected the Gilgit text to have## -pudgalasaṃjñā vā
’bhaviṡyat vyāpādasaṃjñā me tasmin, ##etc. But instead we find## pudgalasaṃjñā vā
vyāpādasaṃjñā vāpi me tasmin, ##etc., and the## vāpi ##is particularly hard to explain. I
see no way of deciding the case. If, however, the Gilgit text is not to be explained as
the result of a scribal omission, then it must at least be noted that the way in which
it has constructed the conditional sentence is rather unusual (cf. Aalto 1968).
8. The passage enclosed in brackets is translated from Pargiter’s edition.
9. The implied equation the## vajracchedikā ##makes here between preserving some form
of the Doctrine and preserving the awakening## (bodhi) ##of the Buddha is more
explicitly stated elsewhere in the## prajñāpāramitā ##literature. ##In the Gilgit manu-
script of the## aṡṭādaśasāhasrikā, ##for example, the Buddha is made to say: “Ananda,
whatsoever son or daughter of good family will take up this deep Perfection of Wis-
dom, will preserve it, recite and master it, by him the awakening of the past, present
and future Buddhas, Blessed Ones, will be preserved”## (yo hi kaścid ānanda
kulaputro vā kuladuhitā vā imāṃ gaṃbhīrāṃ prajñāpāramitām udgrahīṡyati
dhārayiṡyati vācayiṡyati paryavāpsyaty atītānāgatapratyutpannānāṃ buddhānāṃ
bhagavatāṃ tena bodhir dhāritā bhaviṡyati) ##(Conze 1962: 75.16). And the same
thing, in slightly different words, is said a little later in the same text (84.14). There
remains, however, the problem of whether we have here in the## vajracchedikā ##a
figure of speech or a reference to an actual practice. Bearing in mind that the term##
dharmaparyāya ##can mean both “a discourse on the Doctrine” and the text that con-
tains it, is our passage saying that “he who preserves this## dharmaparyāya ##will carry
the Awakening of the Buddha” (i.e., the text of the## dharmaparyāya) ##on his shoulder
in a literal sense, in the sense that he will carry an actual book containing the
“awakening” on his shoulder? Or is it saying simply that he who preserves the##
dharmaparyāya ##will honor the “Awakening of the Buddha,” the phrase “carry it on
his shoulder” being used figuratively to indicate that he shows it respect ? We have
@136
Notes
in fact the same problem in a number of other passages in## mahāyāna sūtra ##litera-
ture. 
In the## saddharmapuṇḍarīka, ##for example, we find the following verse (III.147): 
tathāgatasya yatha dhātu dhārayet tathaiva yo mārgati koci taṃ nara: / evam eva
yo mārgati sūtram īdrśaṃ labhitva ca mūrdhani dhārayeta (Kern and Nanjio 1908-
12: 99.1-2). And, although the construction here is a little strange, the sense of this
verse would seem to be: “As some man who searches for it would thus preserve a
relic of the## tathāgata, ##just so, he who searches for such ā# sūtra, ##after having
obtained it, would carry it on his head.” “Would carry on his head” is, of course, the
literal meaning of## mūrdhani dhārayeta. ##The problem is that the dictionaries give
the meaning of## mūrdhanā ##or## mūrdhani, śirasā ##or## śirasi dhārayati, ##as “to bear on the
head” and “honor highly”; that is to say that the phrase can have either a literal or a 
figurative meaning. 
A similar problem arises in connection with a passage in the## saptaśatikā. ##Here
we find:## avinivartanīyabhūmau tvaṃ śāradvatīputra pratiṡṭhitāṃs tān kulaputrān
kuladuhitrīṃ jānīṡva ya imaṃ prajñāpāramitānirdeśaṃ śrutvādhimokṡyante ##not-
trasiṡyanti na santrasiṡyanti na santrāsam āpatsyante mūrdhnā ca pratigrahīṡyanti
##(Masuda 1930: 216.11), which Conze translates:## “śāradvatīputra... ##you should
know that those sons and daughters of good family are established on the irreversi-
ble stage, if, on hearing this exposition of perfect wisdom, they believe, do not
tremble, are not frightened or terrified, and if they accept it, placing it on their
heads as a mark of respect” (Conze 1973: 86.) What Conze rather ingeniously trans-
lates “and if they accept it, placing it on their heads as a mark of respect” is##
mūrdhanā ca pratigrahīṡyanti (##the Tibetan here, as in the above passage from the##
saddharmapuṇdarikā, ##is spyi bos len pa), ##and this is only a variant of the expres-
sion## śirasā pratigrhṇāti, ##which the dictionaries give as “to receive, accept ... ‘with
the head’; i.e., ‘humbly, obediently.’” Again, the phrase is open to both a literal and
a figurative interpretation. Conze, of course, gives a translation which tries to
reflect both meanings and, although it is difficult, if not impossible, to decide here,
there are passages where the figurative meaning seems to be more clearly excluded.
One such passage is found in the## saddharmapuṇdarīka: tatas tathāgataṃ so ’ṃsena
pariharati ya imaṃ dharmaparyāyaṃ pustakagataṃ krtvāṃsena pariharati (338.4)
##(“Then, he carries the## tathāgata ##on his shoulder, who, after making this discourse
on the Doctrine into a book, carries it on his shoulder.”) Here, in light of the
specific mention of an actual book, it is difficult to take this passage in a figurative
sense. It in fact seems to be referring to an actual practice, and we may have
another reference to this practice in the much later Biography of## dharmasvāmin ##in
which we read: “When the Gurū# dharmasvāmin ##visited the## vajrāsana-saṇgha-
vihāra ##carrying an Indian manuscript of the## ashṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā, ##the
keeper, ā# śrāvaka, ##enquired, ‘What book is it?’ The## dharmasvāmin ##answered that
it was the## prajñāpāramitā. ##The## śrāvaka ##said, ‘You seem to be a good monk, but
this carrying on your back of ā# mahāyāna ##book is not good. Throw it into the
river!’” (rdo rje gdan dge ’dun gyi gtsug lag khang shes bya bar bla ma chos rjes
brgyad stong pa’i rgya dpe gcig khur nas byon pas dkon gnyer nyan thos shig na re
chos ci yin zer / chos rjes prajñā pa ra mi ta ho shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa yin
gsung pas de na re khyod dge slong legs po cig ’dug pa la theg pa chen po'i chos rgyab
tu khur ba de ma legs de bor la chu la gyur cig zer nas) (Roerich 1959: 18-19 and 73-
74). Note that in his translation after “an Indian manuscript” Roerich gives a note
citing the Tibetan as rgya-dpe-rgya-gar-gyi-dpe-cha, but his edition has only rgya
dpe.
##The point of all this is that, although these and similar passages must be much
more fully studied, our passage in the## vajracchedikā, ##when read in light of these
other passages, appears to be potentially much more than a simple figure of speech.
It may in fact refer to the actual practice of carrying sacred books on one’s person.
@137
10. On this passage and a number of parallel passages elsewhere see Schopen 1975. I
would here like to make amends for having overlooked in my discussion some inter-
esting remarks of the late Professor Conze in regard to this formula: “In this context
the## prajñāpāramitā ##is then invested with a kind of magical power. It sanctifies the
place where it is, makes it into a sacred, a holy place. “This perfection of wisdom
makes a spot of earth into a holy place for beings, worthy of being worshipped and
revered’ [translating## aṡṭa ##iii 57]” (see Conze 1948: esp. 119).
11. I know of no exact parallels in## mahāyāna sūtra ##literature to this interesting passage,
but the idea expressed here-that unmeritorious karma could be eliminated as a
result of being abused by others for having adopted a particular practice or posi-
tion-is remarkably close to a set of ideas and practices associated with the##
pāśupatas. ##See Ingalls 1962 and Hara 1967-68. Professor Hara, for example, cites
the following passage from the## pāśupata-sūtra ##attributed to## lakulīṡa: avamata:
sarvabhūteṡu paribhūyamānaś caret, apahata-pāpmā pareṡāṃ parivādāt, pāpaṃ ca
tebhyo dadāti sukrtaṃ ca teṡām ādatte ##(“Dishonoured amongst all beings, ill-treated
he should wander. [He thus becomes] freed of evil because of the slander of others.
He gives his bad karma to them. And he takes their good karma” [408]). Our pas-
sage in the## vajracchedikā, ##of course, does not specifically mention an actual transfer
between the abused and the abuser; in fact it gives no indication of the mechanism 
or process by which the “bad karma” of the abused is actually eliminated. In spite of
this, the basic idea here appears, as I have said, to be remarkably close to the basic
idea found in the## pāśupata-sūtra. ##See also Hara 1970. For the history of the##
pāśupatas ##see the summary in the last chapter of Lorenzen 1972: 173-92. It should
perhaps be noted that Jean Filliozat has called into question Professor Hara’s inter-
pretation of the “Transfer of Merit” in## Pāśupata ##sources (see Filliozat 1980: 111).
12. Conze in his edition cites a number of “parallels” for this passage:## divyāvadāna
##(Cowell and Neil ed.), 78, 469;## mahāvaṃsa (Geiger ed.): XVII, 56; XXXI, 125; and##
Karmavibhaṇgopadeśa ##(Levi ed.), 153.14 and n. 4, etc. To these I would add only
Waldschmidt 1967: 426-27. The interesting point here, however, is that our passage
in the## vajracchedikā ##is not strictly speaking “parallel” with these other passages, all
of which, first of all, are in verse. Typical of these verse passages is## divyāvadāna 79:
evaṃ hy acintiyā buddhā buddhadharmā ‘py acintiyā / acintiye prasannānāṃ
vipāko ’pi acintiya: // ##(“Thus indeed the Buddhas are unthinkable, unthinkable too
are the characteristics of a Buddha. Of those having faith in the unthinkable, surely
then unthinkable is the effect.”)
Seen in light of these “parallel” passages it would seem that the author of the##
vajracchedikā ##is playing on an old formula. He gives the old formula new meaning
by introducing a significant substitution, while retaining the basic statement. He 
substitutes## dharmaparyāya, ##“this Discourse on the Doctrine” or the “text” that con-
tains it, for the “Buddha” of the old formula, and thereby establishes, for the
“reader” familiar with the formula, the equation of the two.
13. The reader will have observed that I have so far not left the word## dharma
untranslated, and have, in fact, tried to translate it throughout.## Dharma ##is, of
course, a notoriously difficult term to translate, and this fact has been taken as the
justification for not translating it at all. But I do not think this gets us very far. In
our text the term has at least two basic meanings, and in light of this I have used
two renderings. When the term is used to refer primarily to “teachings” or some-
thing taught, as in## dharmaparyāya, I have consistently translated it by “Doctrine.”
When it is used in a more “philosophical” sense as an element in assertions regard-
ing “reality,” I have consistently translated it by “thing,” an English term of equal
richness, intending thereby the sense “whatever exists, or is conceived to exist, as a
separate entity; any separable or distinguishable object of thought” (Webster’s New
Collegiate Dictionary, 883). On this aspect of the term see most recently Warder
1971. This, of course, does not differ radically from the way in which Max Muller         
@138
handled the term in the first English translation of the Sanskrit text of the## Vajra-
cchedikā. ##But, for example, where he would translate “nothing,” I would prefer “no
thing,” the two having quite different senses in English. There is at least one place
in our text, the compound## dharmacakṡu, ##where I do not know exactly which of the 
two basic meanings of dharma is supposed to be in play. As a consequence, in this
case I leave the term untranslated. There is also one place in our text where the 
term appears to be used in a third basic sense##-sarvadharmā buddhadharmā ##iti,
etc., at 8a6-and here I have translated it by “characteristics.”
14. “‘Wonderful arrangements’ in [my] sphere of activity” translates## kṡetravyūha, ##which
presumably stands for## buddhakṡetravyūha. ##Here the text appears to be referring to 
the idea that the bodhisattva-as an integral part of his long career-should work
towards effecting through his accumulation of merit the appearance of a “world,” a 
sphere, which is ideally suited to the pursuance of the religious goal by the 
individuals with whom he is concerned. This idea, and the whole complex of ideas
connected with the## “buddhafield,” ##has yet to be fully studied. Cf. Rowell 1934-37,##
Demieville 1937 and Lamotte 1962: 395-404. 
15. The text has here only## so ’pi tathaiva vaktavya: ##and Conze’s text has the same
reading. But the various manuscript traditions show some uncertainty here and##
Muller ##reads## sa vitathaṃ vadet. ##pargiter has read-and in part reconstructed-his
Central Asian manuscript## vitatham evaṃ kartavya:. ##The Khotanese translation
has## ṡi na baysūñā vūysai hvañai, ##which Konow translates into Sanskrit as## sa: na
bodhisattva: vaktavya:. ##The Tibetan translation in the Peking kanjur has## de yang
de bzhin du brjod par bya’o, but the blockprint Conze cites has de bzhin du brjod
par bya’o. The uncertainty here seems to result from the fact that the referent of## 
tathaiva ##is not immediately clear; this is a consequence, it would seem, of the fact
that it occurs somewhat earlier. First we have## evam etat subhūte yo bodhisatva
evaṃ vaded ahaṃ satvān parinirvāpayiṡyāmīti . na sa bodhisatva iti vaktavya:.
##This is followed by a passage giving the reason for this-a passage much longer in 
Conze’s and Muller’s text than it is in the Gilgit and Central Asian text. Then we
have## ya: subhūte bodhisatva evaṃ vaded ahaṃ kṡetravyūhān niṡpādayiṡyāmīti. so
’pi tathaiva vaktavya:. ##The two passages separated by the explanatory material are 
clearly parallel in structure, and seen in this light it appears that## so ’pi tathaiva
vaktavya:= na sa bodhisatva iti vaktavya:; ##I have translated accordingly. Conze,
without noting it, has doen exactly the same thing.
16. After## bahavas te lokadhātavo bhaveyu: ##virtually all the other sources have the fol-
lowing passage:## subhūtir āha: evam etad bhagavann evam etat sugata bahavas te 
lokadhātavo bhaveyu:. ##The absence of this passage in the Gilgit text is almost cer-
tainly to be explained as a scribal omission resulting from a typical homoeoteleuton,
the skip being from the first## bahavas te lokadhātavo bhaveyu: ##to what follows the 
second, omitted,## bahavas te lokadhātavo bhaveyu:. ##Note too that the mechanical
nature of the omission is indicated by the fact that, unless we assume the omitted 
passage was originally there, the construction of the Gilgit text does not make sense.
As it now stands, what is clearly a question by the “Blessed One” to## subhūti ##receives 
no answer, and the second## bhagavān āha ##is completely unnecessary.
17. This is one of the very few places where the manuscript is clearly wrong. It has a 
second-person-singular verbal form with a first-person pronoun.
18. presumably here ā# cittaṃ ##has been inadvertently omitted by the scribe.
19. The Gilgit text here is open to at least three interpretations:## asatād ##may be intended
as an ablative singular of a stem asata, an -a extension of a weak stem in-t. Such
an ablative form is not, however, recorded by Edgerton. It may also be that we 
should read## asatā-d-udgrhītena, ##taking-d-as an “inorganic” sandhi consonant or
“hiatus-bridger” (cf. BHSG 4.46). A third possibility is, of course, that the reading
@139
of the Gilgit text is simply a mistake. To Conze’s reference to## dīgha-nikāya ##III.34,
##we might also add## Digha-Nikāya ##III.115.
20. ##“Were to achieve composure” here translates## kṡāntiṃ pratilabheta, ##and## kṡānti ##is
normally translated “patience.” Conze in fact translates the phrase “would gain the 
patient acquiescence in.” It is, however, possible that “patience” is not always the
best translation for## kṡānti, ##especially if “patience” is used with the implication of “to
endure.” As I understand the term, it more commonly means not “to endure” or “to
accept” but to remain “unaffected by,” and I think the present passage is a good
example of this. Unless I am very much mistaken, the phrase## nirātmakeṡu
dharmeṡu kṡāntiṃ pratilabheta, ##which I translate as “to achieve composure in the 
midst of things that have no self,” is intended above all else as a positive expression
of the state of mind that is much more commonly expressed in negative terms, 
several examples of which are cited above in n.5. That is to say, to obtain## kṡānti ##is 
the positive expression for the same state which is negatively expressed by such for- 
mulae as “he is not depressed, not cowed, not dejected... he is not terrified, fright-
ened and does not tremble with fear.” But the opposite of dejection, terror and fear
is not patience or endurance, it is rather something more like composure. Note too
that in almost every case the absence of fear and dread and the obtainment of ## kṡānti
##are to take place in regard to the same basic fact, however expressed: the absence of 
a self. The proper reaction to this fact, and the full realization of its implications,
may be expressed either positively by saying “he obtains composure in regard to it,”
or negatively by saying “he is not terrified, alarmed, frightened, etc.” In the end they
are very much the same.
