@089 ##PART II The Manuscript of the## VajracchedikA ##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.## zata-piTaka ##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: ## KumArajIva’s ##Chinese translation of the## VajracchedikA. 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## akSara ##which looks like the## akSara ##for## -Na- ##with a mark above it very like the vowel marker for e. This mark is clearly intended as a kind of## virAma, ##although the value of the nasal is not always clear. This## akSara, ##when it appears, always occurs as a @092 word final, and often seems to be used interchangeably with## anusvAra. ##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## akSaras. [ ] : ##lost or unreadable## akSaras. ##X : lost or unreadable## akSaras ##within a word. Abbreviations and Bibliography Aalto, Pentti. 1968. “Conditionals in Buddhist Sanskrit.” Studies in South, East, and Central Asia.## zata-piTaka ##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## VajracchedikA.” ##In Giuseppe Tucci, ed., Minor Buddhist Texts. Serie Orientale Roma IX. 1. Rome: IsMEO, 175-92. Conze, Edward. 1948. “Remarks on A# pAla ##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## ASTAdazasAhasrikAprajJA- pAramitA, ##chaps. 55 to 70. Serie Orientale Roma XXVI. Rome: IsMEO. ----. 1973. The Short## PrajJApAramitA ##Texts. London: Luzac and Co. @093 ----. 1974.## vajracchedikA prajJApAramitA. ##2d ed. Serie Orientale Roma XIII. Rome: IsMEO. Cited by page number. Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. 1977.## “SaMvega: ##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.## “vajracchedikA (prajJApAramitA) ##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.## DIgha-NikAya. ##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 zemantique de## puNya.” 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## pAzupatas: ##The Seeking of Dishonor.” The Harvard Theological Review 55: 281-98. Kern, Hendrik and Nanjio Bunyiu. 1908-12.## SaddharmapuNDarIka. ##Bibliotheca Buddhica 10. St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences. Reprint. Osnabruck: Biblio Verlag, 1970. La Vallee Poussin, Louis de. 1923-31.## L’Abhidharmakoza ##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## VimalakIrti. ##Bibliotheque du Museon, tome 51. Louvain: Publications Universitaires/Institut Orientaliste. Lorenzen, David N. 1972. The## KApAlikas ##and## KAlAmukhas. ##Berkeley: University of California Press. Masuda Jiryo. 1930. “saptazatikA prajJApAramitA.” ##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.## “VajracchedikA ##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## DharmasvAmin. ##Historical Research Series 2. Patna: K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute. Rowell, Teresina. 1934-37. “The Background and Early Use of the## BuddhakSetra ##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 PRthIvipradezaz caityabhUto bhavet’ ##in the## VajracchedikA: ##Notes on the Cult of the Book in## MahAyAna.” ##Indo-Iranian Journal 17: 147-81. Vaidya, P. L. 1960.## ASTasAhasrikA prajJApAramitA. ##Buddhist Sanskrit Texts, no. 4. Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute. Waldschmidt, Ernst. 1967. “Der Buddha preist die Verehrungswurdig- keit seiner Reliquien: Sondertext I des## MahAparinirvANasUtra.” ##In Ernst Waldschmidt, Von Ceylon bis Turfan. Gottingen: Vanden- hoeck & Ruprecht. Walleser, Max. 1914.## PrajJApAramitA. ##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## VajracchedikA ##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## VajracchedikA-##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## VajracchedikA ##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## VajracchedikA ##is, in fact, a fine example of what A# PrajJApAramitA ##text in Sanskrit prose actually looked like in the sixth or seventh century, as opposed to how we-under the watchful eye of## PANini ##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## anusvAra ##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;## - A- printed as –a a- ten times; -ai- printed as -a e- four times;-o- printed as –a u- seven times, etc.). His treatment of## anusvAra ##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## duSkaram. DuSkaram ##is not the reading in any of Muller’s three sources, the Gilgit text or the Tibetan translation. All of these sources read## Azcaryam (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## KumArajIva’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## KumArajIva, ##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## PrajJApAramitA.”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## PrajJApAramitA,” ##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## kumArajIva, ##Pargiter, the Tibetan and Gilgit texts, then he must also exclude pas- sages like## evaM parityajan gaGgAnadIvAlukAsamAn kalpAMs tAn Atma- bhAvAn parityajet ##at 13e,## ‘grayAnasaMprasthitAnAM sattvAnAM arthAya zreSThayAnasaMprasthitAnAM arthAya ##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-pratijJai: sattvai: zakyam ayaM dharma- paryAya: ##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## VajracchedikA ##in Nepal makes such an edition even more desirable.5 Given the fact that the Gilgit manuscript of the## VajracchedikA ##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 A# PrajJApAramitA ##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: bhagavAn Aha . yA(vat) subhUt(e) tr(i)sAhasra-mahAsAhasre lokadhAtau pRthivIraja: kaccit tad vahu. Aha. bahu bhagavan tat pRthivIraja: arajas tathAgatena bhASitas tenocyate pRthivI- 2. –raja iti . yo ’py asau lokadhAtur adhAtu: sa tathAgatena bhASitas tenocyate lokadhAtur iti .)) bhagavAn Aha. tat kiM manyase subhUte dvAtRMzatA mahApuruSalakSaNais tathAgato draSTavya: 3. Aha. no bhagavaMs tat kasya heto tAni tAni dvAtriMzan mahA- puruSalakSaNAni tathAgatena bhASitAny alakSaNAni tenocyante dvAtriMzan mahApuruSalakSaNAnIti. bhagavAn Aha . yaz ca kha- 4. –lu pu(na): subhUte strI vA puruSo vA gaMgAnadIbAlukopamAna AtmabhAvAn parityajed yaz ceto dharmaparyAyAd antazaz catuS- padikAm api gAthAm udgRhya parebhyo dezayed ayam e- 5. –va tato nidAnaM bahupuNyaM prasavetAprameyam asaMkhyeyaM )) atha khalv AyuSmAM subhUtir dharmapravegenAsrUNi prAmuMcat so ‘srUNi prAmRjya bhagavantam etad av(o)cat A- 6. -zcaryaM bhagavan paramAzcaryaM sugata . yAvad ayaM dharma- paryAyas tathAgatena bhASito yato me bhagavaM jJAnam utpannaM na me jAtv ayaM dharmaparyAya: zrUtapUrva: parameNa 7. (t)e (bhaga)van(n) Azcaryena samanvAgatA bhaviSyanti ya iha sUtre bhASyamANe bhUtasaMjJAm utpAdayiSyanti . yA caiSA bhagavan bhUtasaMjJA saivAx-M(j)-x-A xsmAt tathAgato bhASate @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)Uxxx(bh)UtasaMjJeti . na me bhagavann AzcaryaM yad aham imaM dharmaparyAyaM bhASyamANam avakalpayAmy adhimucya. ye te bhagavan satvA imaM dharmaparyAya(m) u(d)gra(h)ISya(n)ti .yAva(t pa)ryavApsya- 2. –nti. te paramAzcaryasamanvAgatA bhaviSyanti. api tu khalu punar bhagavan na teSAm AtmasaMjJA pravartsyate. na satva- saMjJA na jIvasaMjJA na pudgalasaMjJA. tat kasya heto: sarva- saMjJA(pagatA hi) 3. buddhA bhagavanta: bhagavAn Aha. evam etat subhUte paramAz- caryasamanvAgatAs te bhaviSyanti ya imaM dharmaparyAyaM zrutvA nottrasiSyanti . na saMtrasiSyanti . na sa(M)trA(sam Apatsya-) 4. –nte . tat kasya heto: paramapAramiteyaM subhUte tathAgatena bhASitA. yAM ca tathAgata: paramapAramitAM bhASate . tAm aparimANA buddhA bhagavanto bhASante . te(n)oc(yate) pa- 5. –ramapAramiteti . )) api tu khalu puna: subhUte ya tathAgatasya kSAntipAramitA saivApAramitA . tat kasya heto: yadA subhUte kali- rAjAGgapratyaMgamAMsAny acchaitsIt nAsI- 6. –n me tasmin samaye AtmasaMjJA vA satvasaMjJA vA jIvasaMjJA vA pudgalasaMjJA vA. vyApAdasaMjJA vApi me tasmin samaye 'bhaviSyad abhijAnAmy ahaM subhUte atIte 'dhvani paMca jAtiza- 7. –tAni yo ‘haM kSAntivAdI RSir abhUvaMs tatrApi me nAtmasaMjJA- bhUn na satvasaMjJA na jIvasaMjJA na pudgalasaMjJA . tasmAt tarhi subhUte bodhisatvena mahAsatvena sarvasaMjJA varjayitvA ##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. –rimANena . sarve te satvA mamAMsena bodhiM dhArayiSyanti . tat kasya heto: na hi zakyaM subhUte ayaM dharmaparyAyo hInA- dhimuktikai: satvai: zrotuM . nAtmadRSTikair na satvajIvapu- 2. –dgaladRSTikai: zakyaM zrotuM udgrahItuM vA . yAvat paryavA- ptuM vA nedaM sthAnaM vidyate . api tu khalu puna: subhUte yatra pRthivIpradeze idaM sUtraM prakAzayiSyati . pUjanIya: sa @101 3. pRthivIpradezo bhaviSyati . sadevamAnuSAsurasya lokasya vanda- nIya: pradakSiNIkaraNIyaz caityabhUta sa pRthivIpradezo bhavi- Syati . ye te subhUte kulaputrA 4. vA kuladuhitaro vA . imAn evaMrUpAn sUtrAntAn udgrahISyanti yAvat paryavApsyanti . te paribhUtA bhaviSyanti suparibhUtA: yAni ca teSAM satvAnAM pUrvajanmikAny azubhAni ka- 5. –rmANy apAyasaMvartanIyAni tAni dRSTa eva dharme paribhUtatayA kSapayiSyanti buddabodhiM cAnuprApsyanti . abhijAnAmy ahaM subhUte atIte ‘dhvany asaM(khy)e(y)ai(:) kalpai(r) (a)saMkhyeya- 6. –tarair ddIpaMkarasya tathAgatasyArhata: samyaksaMbuddhasya pareNa caturazItir buddhakoTIniyutazatasahasrANy abhUvan yAni mayA ArAgitAni ArAgya ca na virAgitAni . ##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 mayA subhUte te buddhA bhagavanta ArAgya na virAgitA yac ca carime kAle pazcimAyAM paMcAzatyAM varttamAnAyAm imAM sUtrAntAn udgrahISyanti . yAvat paryavApsyanti . asya subhU- 2. –te puNyaskandhasyAsau pUrvaka: puNyaskandha: zatatamIm api kalAn nopaiti . sahasratamIm api . zatasahasratamIm api . saM- khyAm api kalAm api gaNanAm apy upamAm apy upa- 3. –nizAm api na kSamate . sacet subhUte teSAM kulaputrANAM kuladuhitrINAM ca puNyaskandhaM bhASeyaM yAvantas te satvA kulaputrA: kuladuhitaraz ca tasmin samaye puNya- 4. –skandhaM parigrahISyanti . unmAdaM satvA anuprApnuyuz citta- vikSepaM vA gaccheyu: api tu khalu puna: subhUte acintyo ‘yaM dharmaparyAya: asyAcintya eva vipAka:)) 5. Aha . kathaM bhagavan bodhisatvayAnasaMprasthitena sthAta- vyaM kathaM pratipattavyaM kathaM cittaM pragRhItavyaM . bhagavAn Aha . iha subhUte bodhisatvayAnasaMprasthitenaivaM cittam utpA- 6. –dayitavyaM sarvasatvA mayA anupadhizeSe nirvANadhAtau parinirvApayitavyA: evaM ca satvAn parinirvApya na kazcit satva: parinirvApito 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 subhUte bodhisatvasya satvasaMjJA pravartteta . jIvasaMjJA pudgalasaMjJA vA na sa bodhisatva iti vaktavya: tat kasya heto: nAsti subhUte sa dharmo yo bodhisatvayAnasaMprasthito nAma . tat kiM manya- 2. –se subhUte asti sa kazcid dharmo yas tathAgatena dIpaMkarasya tathAgatasyAntikAd anuttarAM samyaksaMbodhim abhisaMbud- dha: Aha . nAsti sa bhagavan kazcid dharmo yas tathAgatena dIpaMkara- 3. -sya tathAgatasyAntikAd anuttarA samyaksaMbodhim abhisaMbud- dha: Aha . tasmAd ahaM dIpaMkareNa tathAgatena vyAkRto bhaviSyasi tvaM mANavAnAgate 'dhavani zAkyamunir nAma tathA- 4. –gato ‘rhan samyaksaMbuddhas tat kasya hetos tathAgata iti subhUte tathatAyA etad adhivacanaM ya: kazcit subhUte evaM vadet tathAgatenAnuttarA samyaksaMbodhir abhisaMbuddheti . 5. nAsti subhUte sa kazcid dharmo yas tathAgatenAnuttarA samyak- saMbodhir abhisaMbuddha: ya: subhUte tathAgatena dharmo ‘bhisaMbuddhas tatra na satyaM na mRSA: tasmAt tathAgato bhASate . sarva- 6. –dharmA buddhadharmA iti . sarvadharmA iti subhUte sarve te adharmAs tenocyante sarvadharmA iti . )) tadyathApi nAma subhUte puruSo bhaved upetakAyo mahAkAya: subhUtir Aha . 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 tathAgatena puruSo bhASita upetakAyo mahAkAya: akAya: sa bhagavaMs tathAgatena bhASitas tenocyate upetakAyo mahAkAya: bhagavAn Aha. evam etat subhUte 2. yo bodhisatva evaM vaded ahaM satvAn parinirvApayiSyAmIti . na sa bodhisatva iti vaktavya: tat kasya heto: asti subhUte sa kazcid dharmo yo bodhisatvo nAma . Aha . no hIdaM bha- 3. –gavan bhagavAn Aha . tasmAt tathAgato bhASate ni:satvA: sarva- dharmA: nirjIvA niSpudgalA: ya: subhUte bodhisatva evaM vaded ahaM kSetravyUhAn niSpAdayiSyAmIti . so ’pi tathaiva @103 4. vaktavya: tat kasya heto: kSetravyUhA: kSetravyUhA iti subhUte avyUhAs te tathAgatena bhASitAs tenocyante kSetravyUhA iti . ya: subhUte bodhisatvo nirAtmAno dharmA nirA- 5. –tmAno dharmA ity adhimucyate sa tathAgatenArhatA samyaksaM- buddhena bodhisatvo bodhisatva ity A(khyAta)s tat kiM manyase subhUte saMvidyate tathAgatasya mAMsacakSu: Aha . evam etad bha- 6. –gavan saMvidyate tathAgatasya mAMsacakSu: )) bhagavAn Aha . tat kiM manyase subhUte saMvidyate tathAgatasya divyaM cakSu: prajJA(ca)kSur dharmacakSur buddhacakSu: Ahaivam etad bhaga- van saMvidyate 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. –thAgatasya divyaM cakSu: prajJAcakSur dharmacakSur buddha- cakSu: )) bhagavAn Aha . tat kiM manyase subhUte yAvantyo gaMgAnadyAM bAlukAs tAvantya gaMgAnadyo bhaveyus tAsu yA bAlukAs tAvanta eva lo- 2. –kadhAtavo bhaveyu: kaccid bahavas te lokadhAtavo bhaveyu: bhagavAn Aha . yAvanta: subhUte teSu lokadhAtuSu satvAs teSAm ahaM nAnAbhAvAM cittadhArAM jAnIyAs tat kasya heto- 3. -z cittadhArA cittadhArA iti subhUte adhArAs tAs tathAgatena bhASi- tAs tenocyante cittadhArA iti . tat kasya hetor atItaM subhUte cittaM nopalabhyate . anAgataM cittaM nopalabhya- 4. –te . pratyutpannaM nopalabhyate . tat kiM manyase subhUte ya imaM trisAhasramahAsAhasraM lokadhAtuM saptaratnaparipUrNaM kRtvA dAnan dadyAd api nu sa kulaputro vA kuladu- 5. –hitA vA tato nidAnaM bahu puNyaM prasaveta . Aha. bahu bhagavan bahu sugata . bhagavAn Aha . evam etat subhUte evam etad vahu sa kulaputro vA kuladuhitA vA tato nidAnaM 6. bahu puNyaM prasaveta . sacet subhUte puNyaskandho ‘bhaviSyan na tathAgato ‘bhASiSyat puNyaskandha: puNyaskandha iti . tat kiM manyase subhUte rUpakAyapariniSpattyA tathAgato 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. –STavya: Aha . no bhagavan na rUpakAyapariniSpattyA tathAgato draSTavya: tat kasya heto: rUpakAyapariniSpattI rUpakAyapariniS- pattir ity apariniSpattir eSA tathAga- 2. -tena bhASitA tenocyate rUpakAyapariniSpattir iti . bhagavAn Aha . tat kiM manyase subhUte lakSaNasaMpadA tathAgato draSTavya: Aha . no bhagavan na lakSaNasaMpadA tathAgato 3. draSTavya: tat kasya heto: yaiSA lakSaNasaMpat tathAgatena bhASitA alakSaNasaMpad eSA tathAgatena bhASitA tenocyate lakSaNasaMpad iti . bhagavAn Aha . tat kiM ma- 4. –nyase subhUte api nu tathAgatasyaivaM bhavati na mayA dharmo dezita iti . ya: subhUte evaM vadet tathAgatena dharmo dezita iti . abhyAcakSIta mAM sa subhUte asatAd u- 5. –dgRhItena . tat kasya hetor dharmadezanA dharmadezaneti subhUte nAsti sa kazcid dharmo yo dharmadezanA nAmopalabhyate . AhAsti bhagavan kecit satvA bhaviSyanty anAgate 'dhvani ya imA- 6. -n evaMrUpAn dharmAn (bhASyamA)NAM cchrutvAbhizraddadhA- syanti . bhagavAn Aha . na te subhUte satvA nAsatvAs tat kasya heto: sarvasatvA iti subhUte asatvAs te tathAgatena bhASitAs 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 sarvasatvA iti. tat kiM manyase subhUte api tv asti sa kazcid dharmo yas tathAgatenAnuttarA samyaksaMbodhir abhisaM- buddha: Aha. nAsti sa bhagavan kazcid dharmo yas tathAgate- 2. –nAnuttarA samyaksaMbodhir abhisaMbuddha: bhagavAn Aha . evam etat subhUte evam etat aNur api tatra dharmo na saMvidyate nopalabhyate tenocyate 'nuttarA samyaksaMbodhir iti . a- 3. –pi tu khalu puna: subhUte sama: sa dharmo na tatra kiMcid viSamas tenocyate 'nuttarA samyaksaMbodhir iti . nirjIvatvena ni:satvatvena niSpudgalatvena samA sAnuttarA samyaksaMbo- 4. –dhi: sarvai: kuzalair dharmair abhisaMbudhyate . kuzalA dharmA: kuzalA dharmA iti subhUte adharmAz caiva te tathAgatena bhASitAs tenocyante kuzalA dharmA iti . yaz ca kha- @105 5. -lu puna: subhUte yAvantas trisAhasramahAsAhasre lokadhAtau sumerava: parvatarAjAs tAvato rAzIn saptAnAM ratnAnAm abhisaM- hRtya dAnaM dadyAd yaz ceta: prajJApAramitA- 6. –yA antazaz catuSpadikAm api gAthAm udgRhya parebhyo dezayed asya subhUte puNyaskandhasyAsau pUrvaka: puNyaskandha: zata- tamIm api (ka)lAn nopaiti . yAvad 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. –zAm api na kSamate . tat kiM manyase subhUte api nu tathAgata- syaivaM bhavati . mayA satvA mocitA iti . na khalu puna: subhUte-r-evaM draSTavyaM . tat kasya heto: na sa kazcit sa- 2. –tvo yas tathAgatena mocita: yadi puna: subhUte kazcit satvo ’bhaviSyad yas tathAgatena mocita: sa eva tasyAtmagrAho ’bhaviSyat satvagrAho jIvagrAha: pudgalagrAha: 3. AtmagrAha iti subhUte agrAha eSa tathAgatena bhASita: sa ca bAlapRthagjanair udgRhIta: bAlapRthagjanA iti subhUte ajanA ete tathAgatena 4. bhASitAs tenocyaMte bAlapRthagjanA iti . tat kiM manyase subhUte lakSaNasaMpadA tathAgato draSTavya: Ahaivam etad bhagaval lakSaNasaMpadA tathAgato draSTavya: 5. bhagavAn Aha . sacet puna: subhUte lakSaNasaMpadA tathAgato dra[STa]vyo ’bhaviSyad rAjApi cakravartI tathAgato ’bhaviSyat Aha . yathAhaM bhagavato bhASitasyArtham AjA- 6. –nAmi . na lakSaNasaMpadA tathAgato draSTavya: )) atha khalu bhagavAMs tasyAM velAyAm imA gAthA abhASata: )) ye mAM rUpeNa adrAkSur ye mAM ghoSeNa anvayu: mithyA- ##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. –prahANaprasRtA na mAM drakSyanti te janA: draSTavyo dharmato buddho dharmakAyas tathAgata: dharmatA cApy avijJeyA na sA zakyaM vijAnituM )) tat kiM manyase subhUte lakSaNasaMpadA tathA- @106 2. -gatenAnuttarA samyaksaMbodhir abhisaMbuddhA: na khalu puna: subhUte evaM draSTavyaM na subhUte lakSaNasaMpadA tathAgatenAnuttarA samyaksaMbodhir abhisaMbuddhA . yat khalu pu- 3. -na: subhUte syAd evaM bodhisatvayAnasaMprasthitai: kasyacid dharmasya vinAza: prajJApta ucchedo vA na khalu puna: subhUte evaM draSTavyaM . na bodhisatvayAnasaMprasthitai: ka- 4. -syacid dharmasya vinAza: prajJApto noccheda: yaz ca khalu puna: subhUte kulaputro vA kuladuhitA vA gaMgAnadIbAlukopamAl lokadhAtUn saptaratnapratipUrNAn kRtvA (tathA-) 5. –gatebhyo ’rhadbhya: samyaksaMbuddhebhyo dAnaM dadyAd yaz ca bodhisatvo nirAtmakeSu dharmeSu kSAntiM pratilabheta . ayam eva tato bahutaraM puNyaM prasaveta . na khalu puna: subhUte bo [dhi]- 6. -satvena puNyaskandha: parigrahItavya: Aha . puNyaskandho bhagavan parigrahItavya: bhagavAn Aha . parigrahItavya: subhUte nodgrahItavya: tenocyate pa(r)igra[hItavya:] ##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: subhUte ya: kazcid evaM vadet tathAgato gacchati vAgacchati vA . tiSThati vA niSIdati vA zayyAM vA kalpayati . na me sa bhASitasyArtham AjAnAti . tat ka(sya) [heto:] 2. tathAgata iti subhUte na kutazcid Agato na kvacid gata: tenocyate tathAgato ’rhan samyaksaMbuddha iti . yaz ca khalu puna: subhUte kulaputro vA kuladuhitA vA yAvantas trisAhasra[mahA-] 3. –sAhasre lokadhAtau pRthivIrajAMsi tAvato lokadhAtUn maSiM kuryAt tadyathApi nAma paramANusaMcayas tat kiM manyase subhUte bahu sa paramANusaMcayo bhavet Ahai- 4. –vam etad bhagavan bahu sa paramANusaMcayo bhavet tat kasya heto: saced bhagavan saMcayo saMcayo ’bhaviSyan na bhagavAn avakSyat paramANusaMcaya iti . tat kasya heto: yo ’sau paramA- 5. –NusaMcayo bhASita: asaMcaya: sa bhagavatA bhASitas tenocyate paramANusaMcaya iti . yac ca tathAgato bhASati tRsAhasramahA- sAhasro lokadhAtur iti . adhAtu: sa tathA- @107 6. -gatena bhASitas tenocyate trisAhasramahAsAhasro lokadhAtur iti. tat kasya heto: saced bhagavan dhAtur abhaviSyat sa eva bhagavan piNDagrAho ’bhaviSyad yaz caiva tathAgatena 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. –NDagrAho bhASita: agrAha: sa tathAgatena bhASitas tenocyate piNDagrAha iti . bhagavAn Aha . piNDagrAhaz caivAvyavahAro ’nabhilApya: subhUte sa dharma: sa bAlapR- 2. -thagjanair udgRhIta: tat kasya heto: ya: kazcit subhUte evaM vaded AtmadRSTis tathAgatena bhASitA satvadRSTir jIvadRSTi: pudgaladRSTi: api nu subhUte sa samyag vadan vadet 3. Aha . no bhagavaMs tat kasya heto: yA sA bhagavann AtmadRSTis tathAgatena bhASitA adRSTi: sA tathAgatena bhASitA tenocyate AtmadRSTir iti . bhagavAn Aha . 4. evaM subhUte bodhisatvayAnasaMprasthitena sarvadharmA jJAta- vyA adhimoktavyAs tathA cAdhimoktavyA yathA na dharmasaM- jJApi pratyupatiSThet tat kasya heto: dharmasaMjJA 5. dharmasaMjJeti subhUte asaMjJaiSA tathAgatena bhASitA tenocyate dharmasaMjJeti . yaz ca khalu puna: subhUte bodhisatvo mahAsatva: aprameyAsaMkhyeyAl lokadhAtUn saptaratnapa- 6. –ripUrNAn kRtvA dAnan dadyAd yaz ca kulaputro vA kuladuhitA vA ita: prajJApAramitAyA antazaz catuSpadikAm api gAthAm udgRhya dhArayed dezayet paryavApnuyAd 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 bahutaraM puNyaM prasavetAprameyam asaM- khyeyaM . kathaM ca saMprakAzayet yathA na prakAzayet teno- cyate saMprakAzaye iti .)) tArakA timiraM dIpo mA- 2. –yAvazyAya budbuda: supinaM vidyud abhraM ca evaM draSTavya saMskRtaM .)) idam avocad bhagavAn AttamanA sthavira subhUtis te ca bhikSubhikSuNyupAsakopAsikA: sadevamAnuSAsu- 3. –ragandharvaz ca loko bhagavato bhASitam abhyanandan )) . )) vajracchedikA prajJApAramitA samAptA: )). )) @108 BLANK @109 ##TEXTUAL NOTES Folio 5A# 1. yA(vat) subhUt(e) ##MM, Cz, Tib## tat kiM manyase subhUte yAvat, ##but Cz’s notation for G and Par is wrong; they both have## yAvat subhUte, ##and both omit## tat kiM manyase. kaccit ##Chak w.## kazcit, ##which is cited by Cz.## vahu ##Chak, Du W.## bahu. Aha ##Cz## subhUtir Aha, ##but with no indication that G and Par omit## subhUtir. bahu bhagavan tat pRthivIraja: ##Cz’s notation for Par is wrong here; although it has more than G it too omits## bahu sugata. arajas tathAgatena ##Du w.## arajas tat tathAgatena, ##probably under the influence of MM and Par.## bhASitas ##Du w.## bhASitam; ##Cf. Chak n. 1 on page 182.## 2. adhAtu: ##Chak w.## adhAtuM; ##because of his insertion of material from MM, Du’s sandhi does not correspond to that found in the MS.## bhASitas ##Du w.## bhASita:. dvAtRMzatA ##Du w.## dvAtriMzan; ##Cz cites G w. as## dvAtriMzatA. 3. Aha ##Cz## subhUtir Aha, ##but with no indication that both G and Par omit## subhUtir. ##no Cz no## hIdaM, ##and while he indicates that Par has no iti instead, he does not indicate that G both omits## hIdaM ##and has nothing corresponding to## Par’s iti. bhagavaMs ##Du w.## bhagavan; ##after## bhagavan ##Cz has## na dvAtriMzanmahApuruSa- lakSaNais tathAgato ’rhan saMyaksambuddho draSTavya:, ##which he indicates is missing in G and Tib; he fails to note that it is also missing from## Par. heto tAni tAni ##Chak w.## hetor yAni tAni; ##Du w.## heto: / yAni [hi] tAni; ##although the first## tAni ##is slightly blurred, it is clearly not possible to read## –r yAni. ##Cz has## heto: yAni hi tAni 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.## bhASitAny alakSaNAni ##Du w.## bhASitAni alakSaNAni. tenocyante ##Chak, Du w##. –ocyate. mahApuruSalakSaNAnIti ##Chak w.## -lakSa- NAnItI; ##Du w.## –lakSaNAni iti. @110 4. gaMgAnadIbAlukopamAn ##Chak, Du w.## gaNgAnadIvAlukopamAn. parityajed ##Chak w.## parityajyed; ##Du w.## parityajet. catuSpadikAm ##Chak, Du w.## catuSpAdikAm; ##cf. Par.## dezayed ##Du has## dezayet ##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## samprakAzayed ##after## dezayed ##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. asaMkhyeyaM ##Chak, Du w.## -am. AyuSmAM ##Du w.## -an. subhUtir ##Du w. -i:. dharmapravegenAsrUNi ##Chak w.## -pra- vegenAzruni; ##Du w.## -pravegeNAzrUni. ##Both here and in the follow- ing## 'srUNi ##the dental s is quite clear. Cz has## -vegena- ##without noting G’s## pra-. prAmuMcat ##Du w.## prAmuJcat. 'srUNi ##Chak w. ’sruNi; ##Du w.## ’zrUni. prAmRjya ##Du w.## pramRjya, ##but Cf. his n.4 on page 152.## 6. bhagavaM ##Du w.## bhagavan. 7. samanvAgatA ##after## samanvAgatA ##MM, Cz have## bodhisattvA; ##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.## bhASyamANe ##after## bhASya- mANe ##MM, Cz have## zrutvA; ##Cz indicates it is missing in Par and G, but it is also missing in Tib.## saivAx-M(j)-x-A xsmAt ##Chak## saivAbhUtasaMjJA tasmAt, ##but this is clearly too much for the space in the MS; Du has## saivA[bhUta] saMjJA tasmAt, ##the reading of MM. Although mostly obliterated, it is virtually certain from the MS that there were only three## akSaras ##in the space, and enough remains to indicate that the first two were probably## saMjJA; ##the third## akSara would then have been ta-. Par has## saivAsaMjJA tasmA ##and Tib## de nyid ’du shes ma mchis pa... de bas na. ##Read:## saivAsaMjJA tasmAt. ##Folio 5b## 1. (bh)Uxxx(bh)UtasaMjJeti ##since MM and Par have## bhUtasaMjJA bhUtasaMjJeti (##so MM; Par-saMjJA iti), ##and since this would fit the gap perfectly, it is safe to assume that G too read## bhUtasaMjJA bhUtasaMjJeti, ##which is also the reading of Tib.## AzcaryaM ##note that Cz rejects## AzcaryaM, ##the reading of G, MM and Tib, and pre- fers## duSkaraM, ##the reading of Par and Ku.## bhASyamANam ##Chak## @111 ##w.## bhaSyamANam. avakalpayAmy ##Du w.## -kalpayAmi. adhi- mucya ##Du w.## adhimucye; ##the reading of G could be the result of the loss or accidental omission of the vowel sign.## satvA ##in both MM and Cz the following passage occurs after## satvA: bhaviSyanty anAgate ’dhvani pazcime kAle pazcime samaye pazcimAyAM paJca- zatyAM saddharmavipralope vartamAne 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## pazcimAyAM paJcazatyAM ##and no more. Tib too, though fuller than Par, omitted## anAgate ’dhvani ##and## saddharmavipralope vartamAne, ##but Cz does not indi- cate this either.## imaM ##Cz has## bhagavan ##after## imaM ##and he does not indicate that it is omitted by G, Par and Tib.## 2. paramAzcaryasamanvAgatA ##Du adopts the reading of MM and Cz:## paramAzcaryeNa samanvAgatA, ##though he cites the actual MS reading in his n. 2. Cz indicates that G reads## paramAzcaryasam- anvAgatA, ##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.## pravartiSyate. na satvasaMjJA na jIva- saMjJanA ##Du w.## na jIvasaMjJA na sattvasaMjJA; ##that is to say, Du has here inadvertently inverted the order.## pudgalasaMjJA ##after## pudgalasaMjJA ##Cz has## pravartiSyate na-api teSAM kAcit saMjJa ##(read## -A) na-a-saMjJA pravartate. tat kasya heto: yA sa bhaga- vann AtmasaMjJa ##(read## -A) saiva-a-saMjJA yA sattva-saMjJA jIva- saMjJA pudgala-saMjJA saiva-a-saMjJA. ##Cz’s notation here is very confused and incomplete. First, he indicates that## na-api teSAM kAcit saMjJA na-a-saMjJA 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.## sarvasaMjJA(pagatA) ##in Chak this is printed by mistake as## sarvasaMjJA pagatA. 3. bhagavAn Aha ##where G has only## bhagavAn Aha, ##Cz has## evam ukte bhagavAn AyuSmantam subhUtim etad avocat ##(= Par, MM, Tib); ##this is not noted in Cz.## ya ##Du w.## yatra. saMtrasiSyanti ##Chak ##w.## saMtrAsiSyanti; ##Du w.## santrasiSyanti. sa(M)trA(sam) ##Chak W.## saMtrasam; ##Du W.## santrAsam. @112 4. paramapAramiteyaM ##in Chak this is printed by mistake as## paramapA ramiteyaM; ##Du w.## paramapAramitA iyaM. yAM ca ##after## yAM ca ##Cz adds## subhUte ##without a note; but## subhUte ##is not found in G, Par or Tib. Moreover, just before## yaM ca ##Du adds without brackets## yadutApAramitA, ##which he appears to have taken from MM.## aparimANA ##after## aparimANA ##Du adds without brackets or a note## api; ##this does not occur in the MS or in Tib (Par is fragmen- tary).## buddhA ##Chak w. buddha.## 5. –ramapAramiteti ##Du w.## -pAramitA iti. ya ##Chak, Du w.## yA. kali- rAjANgapratyaMgamAMsAny ##Chak w.## -pratyaNga-; ##Du w.## kali- rAjo ’GgapratyaNgamAMsAni. ##MM and Cz both read## kaliGga(-); ##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. jIvasaMjJA ##the## akSara ##I have transliterated## jI ##may in fact have a superscribed r.## ’bhaviSyad ##Du w.## abhaviSyat. atIte ’dhvani ##Chak w. printed## atItedhvani; ##Du w.## atIte adhvani. paMca ##Du w.## paJca. 7. yo ’haM ##Du w.## yadAhaM ##with the following note “MS.## yemAM.” ##The## yo, ##however, is very clear and beyond any doubt. What Du takes as## mAM ##I read with reservations## haM; ##these two## akSaras ##can look very much alike.## kSAntivAdI ##Chak w.## -vAdi. abhUvaMs ##Du w.## abhUvaM. nAtmasaMjJAbhUn ##Du w.## nAtmasaMjJA abhUt; ##Cz## na-AtmasaMjJA babhUva ##with no note citing G.## varjayitvA ##Cz## vivarjayitvA ##with no note citing G.## ##Folio 7A# 1. mamAMsena ##Chak, Du w.## samAMzena; ##MM and Cz also read## samAMzena ##and Cz adds a note (pages 116-17) in which he seems to want to account for the fact that the reading## samAMzena, ##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## z ##in this script-is absolutely certain and there is virtually no possible doubt that G reads## mamAMsena. ##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## –rimANena ##and## sarve ##the phrase## puNyaskan- dhena samanvAgatA bhaviSyanti ##which is not found in G, although Cz does not indicate this. The same applies to the## subhUte ##between## te ##and## sattvA: ##in Cz.## 2. sthAnaM ##Chak w.## sthAnAnI, ##which Cz cites in his note.## pRthivI- pradeze ##Du w.## -pradeza. prakAzayiSyati ##Chak w.## -iSyate. 3. caityabhUta ##Du w.## -bhUta:. 4. satvAnAM ##Chak omits## satvAnAM ##although it is in the MS. The## subhUte ##preceding## satvAnAM ##in Cz is not found in G.##- janmikAny ##Du w.## -janmikAni. 5. apAyasaMvartanIyAni ##in Chak this is misprinted as## apAya saM- vartanIyAni. tAni ##Chak omits## tAni ##although it is in the MS; it is, however, not found in MM and Cz.## ’dhvany ##Du w.## ’dhvani. 6. ddIpaMkarasya ##Chak w.## ddipaMkarasya; ##Du w.## dIpaNkarasya. caturazItir buddhakoTIniyutazatasahasrANy ##Chak w.## catur- azItibuddhakoTi-; ##Du w.## caturazItibuddhakoTIniyutazatasahasrANi. ArAgya ##Chak w.## ArAgyA, ##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.## paMcAzatyAM ##Du w.## paJcazatyAM. varttamAnAyAm ##Du emends to## vartamAna ##and in his n. 2 w. cites the MS as## varta- mAnAyAm. imAM ##Du w.## imAn. 2. pUrvaka: ##Cz reads## paurvaka: ##and, although he notes the reading of Par, he does not cite G.## zatatamIm ##Chak w.## zatamIm. kalAn ##Du w.## kalAM. apy ##Du w.## api. 3. kulaputrANAM ##Chak w.## -pUtranAm. kuladuhitrINAM ##Du w.## -duhitri%#NAM. ca ##Chak omits## ca ##although it is found in the MS; its presence in G is not noted in Cz.## bhASeyaM ##Du w.## bhASeya. yAvantas te satvA ##Du emends to## yAvat te ##and cites the MS in his n. 7 where he w. gives## sattvA:. 4. parigrahISyanti ##Chak, Du w.## prati- ##which is also the reading of MM and Cz.## asyAcintya ##Du w.## asya acintya. @114 5. Aha ##where G has only## Aha ##Cz has## atha khalu AyuSmAn subhUtir bhagavantam etad avocat (MM and Tib also have this reading), but Cz has not noted G.## pragRhItavyaM ##Chak w.## pragrahItavyaM; ##Du w.## [pra]grahItavyam; ##Du’s brackets are here more than usually mysterious since## pra- ##is quite clearly in the MS.## bodhisatvayAna- saMprasthitenaivaM ##Chak w.## -(aivam); ##Du w.## -tena evaM. 6. –dayitavyaM ##Chak is misprinted as## -dayita vyaM. ##Folio 8A# 1. pravartteta ##Chak, Du w.## pravarteta. 2. dIpaMkarasya ##Du w.## dIpaGkarasya.## tathAgatasyAntikAd ##Chak w.## tathAgatasya antikAd. samyaksaMbodhim ##Chak w.## -sam- bodhim. abhisaMbuddha: ##Chak w.## -sambuddha:. Aha ##Cz has## evam ukta AyuSmAn subhUtir bhagavantam etad avocat ##instead of G’s## Aha, ##but the reading of G is not noted.## 3. tathAgatasyAntikAd ##Du w.## -AntikAt. anuttarA ##Chak, Du w.## anuttarAM. samyaksaMboddhim ##Chak w.## -sambodhim. abhi- saMbuddha: ##Chak w.## -sambuddha:. Aha ##Cz has## evam ukte bhagavAn AyuSmantam subhUtim etad avocat ##instead of G’s## Aha, ##but the reading of G is not noted.## vyAkRto ##Du w.## vyAkRta:. bhaviSyasi ##Du reads## bhaviSyasi ##but cites the MS w. in a note as## bhaviSyAmi. mANavAnAgate ##Chak w.## mAnavAnAgate; ##Du w.## mANava anAgate. 4. samyaksaMbuddhas ##Chak w.## -sambuddhas; ##Du w.## -buddha:. tathAgata ##Chak is misprinted as## tathA gata. adhivacanaM ##Du w.## -vacanam. ##Cz notes that a passage is added in MM after## -vacanaM ##which is not found in## Ku, Par ##and Tib; it is also not found in G although Cz does not note this.## tathAgatenAnuttarA ##Du w.## tathAgatena anuttarA; ##he also w. cites the MS reading in n. 2 as## anuttarAM. samyaksaMbodhir ##Chak w.## -sambodhir; ##Du in his n. 2 w. cites the MS as## -saMbodhim. abhisaMbuddheti ##Chak w.## -sambuddheti; ##Du in his n. 2 w. cites the MS as## -saMbuddha:. 5. tathAgatenAnuttarA ##Du w.## tathAgatena anuttarAM. samyak- saMbodhir ##Du w.## -bodhim. abhisaMbuddha: ##Chak w.## -sam- buddha:. mRSA: ##Chak reads w.## mRSa: ##and then adds a note saying “Rd.## mRSA-,” ##but the MS does read## mRSA: ! ##Du w.## mRSA. ##It is pos- @115 sible, of course, that what I have transliterated here as## -: ##was intended only as a mark of punctuation. 6. –sarvadharmA iti ##Chak has w. omitted## sarvadharmA 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. bhASita ##Du w.## bhASita:. bhASitas ##Du w.## bhASita:. tenocyate ##Du w.## tena ucyate. etat ##Du w.## etate. 2. vaded ##Chak, Du w.## vadet. parinirvApayiSyAmIti ##Du w.## -nirvApayiSyAmi iti. Aha ##Cz has## subhUtir Aha, ##without nothing that G omits## subhUtir. 3. ni:satvA: ##Cz’s notation here is potentially misleading since it seems to suggest that G reads## sarvadharmA ni:sattvA:, ##which is not the case.## sarvadharmA: ##Du w.## -dharmA. vaded ##Du w.## vadet. niSpAdayiSyAmIti ##Chak w.## niSpadayiSyamIti; ##Du w.## niSpAda- yiSyAmi iti. 4. kSetravyUhA: kSetravyUhA iti ##Chak w.## kSetravyUhA iti, ##omitting one of the two## kSetravyUhAs ##found in the MS; Cz w. follows Chak.## bhASitAs ##Chak w.## bhASitas. tenocyante ##Chak w.## tenocyate, ##which Cz cites; Du w.## tena ucyante. bodhisatvo ##Chak is misprinted as## boodhisatvo. nirAtmAno ##Chak w.## nirAtmano. 5. –tmAno ##Chak w.## nirAtmano. bodhisatva ##Cz reads## bodhisattvo## mahAsattva ##and, although he notes that G has a second## bodhisattva in place of## mahAsattva, ##he does not note that Par agrees with G.## A(khyAta)s ##Du w.## AkhyAta: ##After## AkhyAtas ##Cz has## bhagavAn Aha, ##but he does not note that this is missing in G, Par and Tib.## Aha ##Cz has## subhUtir Aha ##without noting that it is missing in G and Par.## 6. cakSu: ##Du w.## divyacakSu:. prajJA(ca)kSur ##Du w.## -cakSu:. dharmacakSur ##Du w.## -cakSu:. Ahaivam ##Du w.## Aha evam. @116 ##Folio 9A# 1. divyaM cakSu: ##Du w.## divyacakSu:. pra(jJAca)kSur ##Du w.## -ckSu: dharmacakSur ##Du w.## -cakSu:. bhagavAn Aha ##Du w. omits## bhagavAn Aha. yAvantyo ##Chak w. yavantyo. gaMgA- nadyAM ##Du w.## gaNgA-; ##Cz has## gaNgAyAM mahAnadyAM ##without noting G.## bAlukAs ##Chak, Du w.## vAlukAs. tAvantya ##Du reads## tAvatyo ##with a note w. citing the MS as## yAvantyo. gaMgAnadyo ##Du w.## gaGgA-. bhaveyus ##Du w.## bhaveyu:. bAlukAs ##Chak, ##Du w.## vAlukAs. 2. kaccid ##Chak w.## kazcid, ##which is cited by Cz; Du reads## kaccid ##but then w. cites the MS as## kazcit. bhaveyu: ##Chak w.## bhaveyU; ##Du adds after## bhaveyu: ##a sentence not found in the MS:## subhUtir Aha / evam etat bhagavann evam etat sugata bahavas te lokadhAta- vah:; ##this Du presumably took from MM, which has virtually the same reading, although it adds## bhaveyu: ##after## lokadhAtava:; ##Cz has the same reading as MM without noting the omission in G.## jAnIyAs ##Chak has been misprinted as## jA nIyAs; ##Du reads## prajAnAmi ##and w. cites the MS as## jAnIya:. 3. –z ##Du w.## heto:. cittadhArA ##Du w.## -dhArAz. bhASitAs ##Chak w.## bhAsitAs.##tenocyante Chak w. tenocyate. hetor Chak, Du w.## heto:. nopalabhyate ##Chak w.## nopalabyate. anAgataM cittaM ##Du w.## anAgatacittaM. 4. pratyutpannaM ##Chak misprinted as## pratyuypannaM. ya ##Du w.## ya:. dAnan ##Du w.## dAnaM. dadyAd ##Du w.## dadyAt. 5. puNyaM ##Cz has## puNyaskandhaM ##without noting that G omits## -skandhaM. prasaveta ##both Chak and Du also read## prasaveta, ##but the final## akSara ##could also be read## -tA. Aha ##Cz has## subhUtir Aha ##without noting that G omits## subhUtir; ##Du w. omits everything from the first## Aha ##in line 5 down to## prasaveta ##in line 6. Chak w.## aha. vahu ##Chak w.## bahu. 6. puNyaM ##Chak w.## puNyam, ##Which Cz cites (this citation could be misleading since Cz gives only## puNyam ##as the equivalent in G for his## puNyaskandhaM, ##when in fact the equivalent in G is## bahu puNyaM). sacet ##Du w.## sa cat. @117 ##Folio 9b## 1. Aha ##Cz has## subhUtir Aha ##without noting that both G and Par omit## subhUtir. rUpakAyapariniSpattI ##Du w.## -pariniSpatti:. ity apariniSpattir eSA ##Du has## iti apariniSpattir iti [bhagavan] apari- niSpattir eSA, ##etc., but his first## apariniSpattir, ##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. Aha ##Cz has## subhUtir Aha ##without noting that## subhUtir ##is not found in G.## bhagavan ##Chak is misprinted as## bhavan. 3. tenocyate ##Du w.## tena ucyate. 4. tathAgatasyaivaM ##Chak w.## -aivam. na ##Du w. omits## na. asatAd ##Cz has## ’satodgRhItena, ##and both Chak and Du, though they cite the MS correctly, would emend to this. Cz does not note the reading of G.## 5. –dgRhItena ##Chak w.## udgRhitena. hetor ##Du w.## heto:. dharma- dezaneti ##Du w.## -dezanA iti. AhAsti ##Du w.## Aha asti; ##Cz has## Aha ##instead of## evam ukta AyuSmAn subhUtir bhagavanatam etad avocat, ##without indicating the reading of G.## bhaviSyanty ##Du w.## bhavi- Syanti. anAgate ’dhvani ##Chak is misprinted as## anAgatedhvani; ##after## ’dhvani ##Cz has## pazcime kAle pazcime samaye pazcimAyAM paJcazatyAM saddharmavipralope vartamANe ##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. (bhASyamA)NAM ##Chak w.## bhASamAnAM; ##Du w.## bhASyamANAn; ##Cz omits## bhASyamANAM ##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.## cchrutvAbhizradda- dhAsyanti ##Du w.## zrutvAbhizraddhAsyanti. nAsatvAs ##Chak w.## nAsatvA; ##Du w.## na asattvA:. bhASitAs ##Du w.## bhASitA:. ##Folio 10A# 1. –cyante ##Chak w.## -cyate. ##tv Chak w.## nu; ##Du w.## nu. tathAgatenA- nuttarA ##Chak w.## -anuttara; ##Du w.## tathAgatena anuttarAM. sam- yaksaMbodhir ##Chak w.## samyaksambodhir; ##Du w.## samyaksaM- @118 bodhim. abhisaMbuddha: ##Chak w.## -sambuddha:. Aha ##Cz has## AyuSmAn subhUtir Aha, ##without noting that G does not have the first two words.## 2. –nAnuttarA ##Chak is misprinted as## -anuttarAsamyak-, ##etc.; Du w.## tathAgatena anuttarAM. samyakasaMbodhir ##Chak w.## -sam- bodhir; ##Du w.## -saMbodhim. abhisaMbuddha: ##Chak w.##-sam- buddha:. tenocyate ##Du w.## tena ucyate. ’nuttarA ##Du w.## anuttarA. samyaksaMbodhir ##Chak w.## -sambodhir. iti ##Chak w.## ity. 3. tu ##Du w. prints## tu ##in brackets.## kiMcid ##Du w.## [kazcid]; ##both the reading and the brackets are wrong.## viSamas ##Du w.## viSama:. tenocyate ##Du w.## tena ucyate. ’nuttarA ##Du w.## anuttarA. samyak- saMbodhir ##Chak w.## -sambodhir. nirjIvatvena ##Du w.## nirjIvi- tvena. sAnuttarA ##Chak w.## sAnuttara. 4. –dhi: ##Chak w.## -sambodhi:. sarvai: ##Du is misprinted as## sarve:. kuzalair ##Chak, Du w.## kuzalai:. bhASitAs ##Du w.## bhASitA: teno- cyante ##Chak, Du w.## tenocyate. 5. subhUte ##after## subhUte ##Cz adds## strI vA puruso vA ##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.## trisAhasra- mahAsAhasre ##Chak w.## -mahAsahasre. abhisaMhRtya ##Chak mis- printed as## abhisaMhaRtya. dadyAd ##Du w.## dadyAt. yaz ceta: ##Chak w.## yaz caiva, ##which is cited by Cz.## 6. catuSpadikAm ##Chak, DU# catuSpAdikAm. dezayed ##Du w.## dezayet. asya ##Du w.## etasya. (ka)lAn ##Du w.## kalAM. yAvada ##Chak w. yavad. ##Folio 10b## 1. tathAgatasyaivaM ##Chak w.## -aivam. subhUte-r-evaM ##Chak has## subhUte cevaM (##Cz cites G as## caivaM, ##but## caivaM ##is only an emen- dation suggested by Chak in a note and not the reading found in the MS); Du has w.## subhUte evaM. 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- STavyaM ##Du w.## draSTavyam. @119 2. ’bhaviSyad ##Du w.## ’bhaviSyat. pudgalagrAha: ##Du w.## pudgala- grA[ho ’bhaviSyat]. 3. AtmagrAha ##Chak is misprinted as## AtamgrAha. ete ##Chak, Du w.## eva te. 4. bhASitAs ##Du w.## bhASitA:. tenocyaMte ##Chak, Du w.## tenocyante. lakSaNasaMpadA ##Chak w.## -sampadA. Ahaivam etad ##Chak w.## Ahai vaM, ##omitting## etad; ##Du w.## Aha / evam etad. bhagaval lakSaNasaMpadA ##Du w.## bhagavan lakSaNa-; ##Cz cites G as## evaM bhagavann alakSaNasampadA, ##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:## Aha . evam eva bhagavaM lakSaNasaMpadAyAs tathAgato draSTa- 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.## lakSaNasaMpadA ##Chak w.## -sampadA. dra[STa]vyo ##neither Chak nor Du indicate that## -STa- ##has been inadvertently omitted in the MS.## ’bhaviSyad ##Du w.## ’bhaviSyat. ’bhaviSyat ##Chak## bhaviSyad. Aha ##for G’s## Aha ##Cz has## AyuSmAn subhUtir bhagavantam etad avocat ##but, without noting G or Par, the latter having only## AyuSmAM subhUtir Aha. yathAhaM ##Chak w.## yathAham. 6. lakSaNasaMpadA ##Chak w.## -sampadA. bhagavAMs ##Chak w.## bhagavaMs. imA gAthA ##Du w.## ime gAthe. abhASata: )) ##Chak and Du both have## abhASata ##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 .)).## adrAkSur ##Du w.## cAdrAkSur; ##Cz reads## ca-adrAkSur ##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 11A# 1. dharmatA cApy avijJeyA ##Chak w.## dharmato cAsya vijJeyA, ##which Cz cites; Du w.## dharmatA cApy abhijJeyA. sA ##Chak w.## sa, ##which Cz cites.## vijAnituM ##Chak w.## vijAnitum. lakSaNasaMpadA ##Chak w.## -sampadA. @120 2. samyaksaMbodhir ##Chak w.## -sambodhir. abhisaMbuddhA: ##Chak w.## abhisambuddha:; ##Du w.## abhisaMbuddhA. lakSaNasaM- padA ##Chak w.## -sampadA. samyaksaMbodhir ##Chak w.## -sam- bodhir. abhisaMbuddhA ##Chak w.## abhisambuddha:. 3. syAd ##Chak w.## syad, ##which is cited by Cz.## evaM ##Chak w.## evam. prajJApta ##Du w.## prajJapta:. vA ##Du w. adds an## iti ##after## vA, ##which is not found in the MS (Du probably took it from MM or Cz).## dra- STavyaM ##Du w.## draSTavyam. 4. yaz ca ##Du w.## yat. gaMgAnadIbAlukopamAl ##Chak w.## gaMgAnadI- vAlukosamA:; ##Du w.## gaGgAnadIvAlukopamAn. saptaratnaprati- pUrNAn ##Chak w.## -pUrNAG. 5. samyaksaMbuddhebhyo ##Chak misprinted as## -sambudhebyo. dadyAd ##Du w.## dadyAt. bahutaraM ##Chak w.## -taram. puNyaM ##Cz has## puNyaskandhaM, ##without noting the reading of G.## 6. Aha ##Cz has## AyuSmAn subhUtir Aha ##for the first## Aha ##in G, but does not note G’s lack of the first two words.## pa(r)igra[hItavya:] ##the last few syllables of the line have been obliterated, but the recon- struction given here in brackets is fairly certain. Folio 11b## 1. vAgacchati ##Du w.## vA Agacchati. me ##Cz inserts## subhUte ##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. samyaksaMbuddha ##Chak w.## -sambuddha:. subhUte ##Chak is misprinted as## subhU te. yAvantas ##Du reads## yAvanti ##and cites the MS reading w. as## yAvanta. trisAhasra[mahA-] ##the final syllables of this line have also been obliterated, but again the bracketed reconstruction is fairly certain.## 3. tAvato ##Chak w.## tavato. lokadhAtUn ##Chak w.## lokadhAtuM, ##which is cited by Cz.## paramANusaMcayas ##Chak w.## paramAnusaMcaya:; ##Du w.## -saJcaya:. ##In what follows here the MS always has## saMcaya, ##but in every case but one Du w. prints## saJcaya; ##this will not be noted hereafter.## bahu ##Du w.## bahu:. paramANusaMcayo ##Chak w.## paramAnusaMzayo. @121 4. –vam ##Du w.## Aha / evaM; ##Cz has subhUtir Aha: evam, ##without noting G or Par, neither of which has the## subhUtir. bhagavan ##Chak w.## bhagavAn. bahu ##Du w.## bahu:. paramANusaMcayo ##Chak w.## paramAnu-. bhagavan ##Chak w.## bhagavAn. ’bhaviSyan ##Du w.## ’bhaviSyat. paramANusaMcaya ##Chak w.## paramAnu-. 5. –NusaMcayo ##Chak w.## ’sauparamAnu-. asaMcaya: ##Chak w.## asaMcaya. bhASitas ##Du w.## bhASita:. paramANusaMcaya ##Chak w.## paramAnu-. yac ca ##Chak, Du w.## yaz ca. bhASati ##Du w.## bhASate. tRsAhasramahAsAhasro ##Chak, Du w.## tri-. 6. bhASitas ##Du w.## bhASita:. bhagavan ##Chak w.## bhagavAn ##for the first bhagavan in the line.## abhaviSyat ##Chak w.## abhavisyat. bhagavan ##Cz omits the second bhagavan without noting that it is found in G.## ’bhaviSyad ##Du w.## ’bhaviSyat. tathAgatena ##in Cz## tathAgatena ##follows rather than precedes## piNDagrAhas, ##but its placement in G is not noted in Cz; Par has the same word order as G. Folio 12A# 1. -NDagrAho ##Chak w.## -graho. bhASitas ##Du w.## bhASita:. caivA- vyavahAro ##Cz has caivA# subhUte ’vyavahAro, ##but the## subhUte Cz places after caiva G has after## ’nabhilApya: ##and Par after## caivAvya- vahAro. ##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## bAla pRthagjanair. vaded ##Du w.## vadet. AtmadRSTis ##Chak w.## -dRStis. sa ##Du w. puts sa in brackets; in Cz the order of## subhUte ##and sa is inverted without a note.## samyag ##Du w.## samyak. 3. Aha ##Cz has## subhUtir Aha ##without noting G. no Cz w. indicates that no is omitted in G.## bhagavaMs ##Du w.## bhagavan. bhagavann ##Du w. bhagavan.## 4. adhimoktavyAs ##Du w.## adhimoktavyA:. 5. dharmasamjJeti ##Du w.## dharmasamjJA iti. dharmasaMjJeti ##Du w.## dharmasaMjJA iti. aprameyAsaMkhyeyAl ##Chak w.## -AsaM- khyeyA; ##Du w.## -AsaMkhyeyAn. lokadhAtUn ##Chak w.## -dhatUn. 6. –ripUrNAn ##Chak is misprinted as## -pUrNAG. dAnan ##Du w.## dAnaM. dadyAd ##Du w.## dadyAt. prajJApAramitAyA ##Chak w.## prajJa-. @122 catuSpadikAm ##Chak, ##Du w.## catuSpAdikAm. dhArayed ##Chak w.## vAcayed; ##Cz in his notation has been misled by Chak.## dezayet ##Chak, Du w.## dezayed. paryavApnuyAd ##Du w.## paryavApnuyAt. ##Folio 12b## 1. tato ##Cz inserts## nidAnaM ##after## tato ##without noting that it is not found in G and Par.## prasavetAprameyam ##Du w.## prasaveta aprayeyam. asaMkhyeyaM ##Du w.## asaMkhyeyam. saMprakA- zayet ##Chak w.## samprakAzayet. saMprakAzayet ##Chak w.## sampra- kAzaye; ##Du w.## saMprakAzayed. 2. draSTavya ##Du w.## draSTavyaM. saMskRtaM ##Chak w.## saMskRtam. AttamanA ##Du w.## AttamanA:. sthavira ##Chak is misprinted as## sthavirasubhUtis, ##etc.; Du w.## sthavira:. sadevamAnuSAsu- ##Du w.## -manuSyA-. 3. samAptA: ##Both Chak and Du have## samAptA ##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,## SubhUti, ##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## tathAgata. ##In that sense ‘a particle of dust’ is used. Also, that which is a world system, that is said by the## TathAgata ##not to be a system. In that sense ‘world system’ is used.” The Blessed One said: “What do you think,## SubhUti? ##Is A# TathAgata ##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## TathAgata. ##In that sense ‘the thirty-two characteristic marks of a great man’ is used.” The Blessed One said: “But again,## SubhUti, ##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## SubhUti, ##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## TathAgata, ##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## sUtra ##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## TathA- 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,## SubhUti. ##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,## SubhUti, ##has been declared by the## TathAgata ##to be the greatest perfection. And that which the## TathA- gata ##declares the greatest perfection is declared as well by immeasurable Buddhas and Blessed Ones. In that sense ‘greatest perfection’ is used. “But again,## SubhUti, ##that which is the perfection of patience of the## TathAgata, ##just that is not a perfection. And why is that? When,## SubhUti, ##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## SubhUti, 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,## SubhUti, ##a bodhisattva, A# mahA- 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,## SubhUti, ##on whatever piece of ground one will proclaim this## sUtra, ##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## SubhUti, ##those sons and daughters of good family who will take up## sUtras ##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## “SubhUti, I remember that in the past, during incalculable and more than incalculable aeons-before the time of the## TathAgata, Arhat, ##Fully @125 and Completely Awakened One## DIpaMkara-##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,## SubhUti, ##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## sUtras... ##and master them, then,## SubhUti, ##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.## SubhUti, 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,## SubhUti, ##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,## SubhUti, ##one who has set out on the way of A# 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]## SubhUti, ##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?## SubhUti, ##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,## SubhUti? ##Is that some thing which was awakened to by the## TathAgata, ##in the presence of the## TathAgata DIpaM- kara, ##as the utmost, full and perfect awakening?” He said: “Blessed One, that which was awakened to by the## TathA- gata, ##in the presence of the## TathAgata DIpaMkara, ##as the utmost, full and perfect awakening is not some thing.” He said: “Because of that was I assured by the## TathAgata DIpaM- kara: ##'You, young man, will be at a future time A# TathAgata, Arhat, ##Fully and Perfectly Awakened One named## S*Akyamuni.’ ##And why is that?## ‘TathAgata’, SubhUti, ##that is a designation for thusness.## SubhUti, ##someone might speak thus, 'The utmost, full and perfect awakening is fully and perfectly awakened to by the## TathAgata.’ ##But that which is the utmost, full and perfect awakening fully and perfectly awakened to by @126 the## TathAgata ##is not some thing.## SubhUti, ##the thing which is fully and perfectly awakened to by the## TathAgata- ##in that there is neither truth nor falsehood. On that account the## TathAgata ##says ‘all characteristics are the characteristics of a Buddha.’ 'All characteristics’,## SubhUti, ##all those are not characteristics. In that sense ‘all characteristics’ is used. Suppose for example,## SubhUti, ##there would be a man endowed with a body, a great body.”## subhUti ##said: “That which [8b] the## TathAgata ##has called a man endowed with a body, a great body-he, Blessed One, is said to be with- out a body by the## TathAgata. ##In that sense ‘endowed with a body, a great body’ is used.” The Blessed One said: “Just so,## SubhUti, ##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,## SubhUti, ##some thing which is named ‘bodhisattva’?” He said: “No indeed, Blessed One.” The Blessed One said: “On that account the## TathAgata ##says ‘all things are without living being, without personal soul, without person.’## SubhUti, ##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’,## SubhUti, ##those have been said by the## TathAgata ##not to be wonderful arrangements. In that sense ‘wonderful arrangements in [one’s] sphere of activity’ is used.## SubhUti, ##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## TathAgata, Arhat, ##Fully and Perfectly Awakened One. “What do you think,## subhUti? ##Does the physical eye of the## TathA- gata exist?” He said: “So it is Blessed One. The physical eye of the## TathAgata ##exists.” The Blessed One said: “What do you think,## SubhUti? ##Does the divine eye of the## TathAgata ##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## TathAgata, ##the eye of wisdom, the eye of Dharma, the awakened eye exists.” The Blessed One said: “What do you think,## SubhUti? ##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:## “subhUti, ##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’,## subhUti, ##that has been said by the## tathAgata ##not to be a stream. In that sense ‘stream of thought’ is used. And why is that?## subhUti, ##a past thought is not apprehended. A future thought is not apprehended. A present (thought)18 is not apprehended. “What do you think,## subhUti? ##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,## subhUti, ##so it is much. That son or daughter of good family would, as a result, produce much merit. If,## subhUti, ##there would have been a quantity of merit, the## tathAgata ##would not have said ‘quantity of merit, quantity of merit’. “What do you think,## subhUti? ##Should the## tathAgata ##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## tathAgata ##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## tathAgata. ##In that sense ‘perfect development of the physical body’ is used.” The Blessed One said: “What do you think,## subhUti? ##Should the## tathAgata ##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## tathAgata ##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## tathAgata. ##In that sense ‘pos- session of characteristic marks’ is used.” The Blessed One said: “What do you think,## subhUti? ##Surely it occurs to the## tathAgata: ##’Not by me has a Doctrine been taught.’ He,## subhUti, ##who would speak thus: ‘By the## tathAgata ##a Doctrine has been taught,’ he,## subhUti, ##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’,## subhUti, ##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,## subhUti, ##are neither living beings nor nonliving beings. Why is that? ‘All living beings’,## subhUti, ##they are said @128 to be not living beings by the## tathAgata. ##In that sense [10a] ‘all living beings’ is used. “What do you think,## subhUti? ##Surely that which was awakened to by the## tathAgata ##as the utmost, full and perfect awakening is some thing?” He said: “Blessed One, that which was awakened to by the## tathA- gata ##as the utmost, full and perfect awakening is not some thing.” The Blessed One said: “So it is,## subhUti, ##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,## subhUti, ##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’,## subhUti-##but just those are said by the## tathAgata ##not to be things. In that sense ‘meritorious things’ is used. “But once again,## subhUti, ##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##-subhUti, ##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,## subhUti ? ##Surely it occurs to the## tathAgata: ##‘living beings are released by me.’ Not, again,## subhUti, ##is it to be seen thus. Why is that? That which is released by the## tathAgata ##is not some living being. If again,## subhUti, ##there would have been some living being who was released by the## tathAgata, ##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’,## subhUti, ##this is said by the## tathAgata ##to be not holding on, but it is held on to by simple ordinary people. ‘Simple ordinary people’,## subhUti, ##these are said by the## tathAgata ##not to be people. In that sense ‘simple ordinary people’ is used. “What do you think,## subhUti, ##should the## tathAgata ##be seen through the possession of characteristic marks?” He said: “That is so, Blessed One. The## tathAgata ##is to be seen through the possession of characteristic marks.” The Blessed One said: “But if,## subhUti, ##the## tathAgata ##were to be seen through the possession of characteristic marks, a wheel-turning king would also be A# tathAgata.” @129 ##He said: “As I understand the meaning of what was said by the Blessed One, the## TathAgata ##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## TathAgata ##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,## SubhUti? Is the utmost, full and perfect awak- ening fully and perfectly awakened to by the## TathAgata ##through the pos- session of characteristic marks? Again,## SubhUti, ##it is not to be seen thus. The utmost, full and perfect awakening,## SubhUti, is not fully and per- fectly awakened to by the## TathAgata ##through the possession of charac- teristic marks. “If, again,## SubhUti, 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,## subhUti, ##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,## SubhUti, 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## TathAgata, 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,## SubhUti, ##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’,## SubhUti, ##not ‘is to be held on to’. In that sense ‘is to be acquired’ is used. [11b] “But once again,## subhUti, ##if someone were to speak thus: ‘The## TathAgata ##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## ‘TathAgata’, SubhUti, ##has not come from anywhere, has not gone @130 anywhere. In that sense## ‘TathAgata, Arhat, ##Fully and Perfectly Awakened One’ is used. “And if again,## SubhUti, 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,## SubhUti? ##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## TathA- gata calls ‘three thousand great-thousand world system’, that is said by the## TathAgata ##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## TathAgata ##[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,## SubhUti, 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,## SubhUti, someone were to speak thus ‘A view of a self was taught by the## TathAgata, a view of a living being, a view of a personal soul, a view of a person’-would he indeed,## SubhUti, ##speak correctly?” He said: “No, Blessed One. And why is that? Blessed One, that which is said by the## TathAgata ##to be a view of a self, that is said by the## TathAgata ##to be not a view. In that sense ‘a view of a self' is used.” The Blessed One said: “In this way,## subhUti, ##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’,## SubhUti, that is said by the## TathAgata ##not to be a conception. In that sense ‘conception of a thing’ is used. “And again,## SubhUti, ##if A# bodhisattva, mahAsattva, ##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## subhUti, ##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## vajracchedikA prajJApAramitA ##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## mahAsAhasra.” ##He also notes that “in## mahAvyutpatti ##7999 ff. and## maJjuzrImUlakalpa ##343.16 ff.## mahA- ##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## PAli ##literature he cites there. Unless I am mistaken, this is an important passage in the## vajracchedikA. ##Its articulation of a particular kind of “emotively” charged experience## (subhUti ##“bursts into tears”), a kind of shock-induced realization as a reaction to a certain form of doctrinal expression## (subhUti ##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. dharmaparyAya ##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## yAvat, ##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## prajJApAramitA ##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## aSTasAhasrikA. ##Here, after the Buddha has exhorted## subhUti ##to teach the Perfection of Wisdom to bodhi- sattvas,## subhUti ##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 idaM bhagavann ucyate, katamasyaitad bhagavan dharmasyAdhivacanaM yad uta bodhisattva iti. nAhaM bhagavaMs taM dharmaM samanupazyAmi yad uta bodhisattva iti. tam apy ahaM bhagavan dharmaM na samanupazyAmi yad uta prajJApAramitA nAma. so ’haM bhagavan bodhisattvaM vA bodhisattvadharmaM vA avindan anupalabhamAno ’samanu- pazyan prajJApAramitAm apy avindan anupalabhamAno ’samanupazyan katamaM bodhisattvaM katamasyAM prajJApAramitAyAm avavadiSyAmi anuzAsiSyAmi). ##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, ##mahAsattva, ##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 evaM bhA- SyamANe dezyamAne upadizyamAne bodhisattvasya cittaM nAvalIyate na saMlIyate na viSIdati na viSAdam Apadyate nAsya vipRSThIbhavati mAnasam na bhagnapRSThI- bhavati nottrasyati na saMtrasyati na saMtrAsam Apadyate, eSa eva bodhisattvo mahAsattva: prajJApAramitAyAm anuzAsanIya:, eSaivAsya bodhisattvasya mahA- sattvasya prajJApAramitA veditavyA, eSo ’vavAda: prajJApAramitAyAm). ##The text is from Vaidya 1960: 3.5ff. Similar passages, variations on this same theme, occur throughout the## aSTasAha- srikA (##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## aSTAdazasAhasrikA: ##“If again,## subhUti, ##the mind of a bodhisattva,## mahAsattva, ##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,## mahAsattva, ##moves in the Perfection of Wisdom” (Conze 1962: 61; see also 23.6, 60.21, etc.) In the## saptazatikA ##we find: “Then## maJjuzrI, ##the heir apparent, said this to the Blessed One: ‘Blessed One, just as Buddhas are those @135 bodhisattvas, mahAsattvas, ##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## kaliGga-rAjA, ##“the king of## kaliGga,” ##but the reading of the Gilgit text and the khotanese (kalarri)## = kalirAja: ##would seem to further confirm Edgerton’s suggestion that## kaliGga-rAjan “##is undoubtedly an error of the tradition for## kali-rAjan” ##(BHSD 172). 7. It is Possible that we have here in the Gilgit text a scribal omission. Pargiter’s text (paragraph 9a) has:## nAsI me tasmiM samaye [Atma]-(saMjJA vA satva-jIva-pudgala- saM)jJA vA na me kAci saMjJA nAsaMjJA babhUva (ta)[t kasya heto: sa] cen me subhUte tasmim* sa(maye) A(tmasam)jJAbhaviSyat vyApAdasaMjJA me tasmiM samaye ’bhaviSya(t) [xxxxxx saM] jJA pudgalasaMjJAbhaviSya[t vyA]pAdasaMjJA me tasmiM samaye ’bhaviSyat. ##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## pudgalasaMjJA, ##then, through an eye skip, he may have written after the first## pudgalasaMjJA ##what should have come after the second## pudgalasaMjJA, ##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## -pudgalasaMjJA vA ’bhaviSyat vyApAdasaMjJA me tasmin, ##etc. But instead we find## pudgalasaMjJA vA vyApAdasaMjJA vApi me tasmin, ##etc., and the## vApi ##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## vajracchedikA ##makes here between preserving some form of the Doctrine and preserving the awakening## (bodhi) ##of the Buddha is more explicitly stated elsewhere in the## prajJApAramitA ##literature. ##In the Gilgit manu- script of the## aSTAdazasAhasrikA, ##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 kazcid Ananda kulaputro vA kuladuhitA vA imAM gaMbhIrAM prajJApAramitAm udgrahISyati dhArayiSyati vAcayiSyati paryavApsyaty atItAnAgatapratyutpannAnAM buddhAnAM bhagavatAM tena bodhir dhAritA bhaviSyati) ##(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## vajracchedikA ##a figure of speech or a reference to an actual practice. Bearing in mind that the term## dharmaparyAya ##can mean both “a discourse on the Doctrine” and the text that con- tains it, is our passage saying that “he who preserves this## dharmaparyAya ##will carry the Awakening of the Buddha” (i.e., the text of the## dharmaparyAya) ##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## dharmaparyAya ##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## mahAyAna sUtra ##litera- ture. In the## saddharmapuNDarIka, ##for example, we find the following verse (III.147): tathAgatasya yatha dhAtu dhArayet tathaiva yo mArgati koci taM nara: / evam eva yo mArgati sUtram IdRzaM labhitva ca mUrdhani dhArayeta (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## tathAgata, ##just so, he who searches for such A# sUtra, ##after having obtained it, would carry it on his head.” “Would carry on his head” is, of course, the literal meaning of## mUrdhani dhArayeta. ##The problem is that the dictionaries give the meaning of## mUrdhanA ##or## mUrdhani, zirasA ##or## zirasi dhArayati, ##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## saptazatikA. ##Here we find:## avinivartanIyabhUmau tvaM zAradvatIputra pratiSThitAMs tAn kulaputrAn kuladuhitrIM jAnISva ya imaM prajJApAramitAnirdezaM zrutvAdhimokSyante ##not- trasiSyanti na santrasiSyanti na santrAsam Apatsyante mUrdhnA ca pratigrahISyanti ##(Masuda 1930: 216.11), which Conze translates:## “zAradvatIputra... ##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## mUrdhanA ca pratigrahISyanti (##the Tibetan here, as in the above passage from the## saddharmapuNdarikA, ##is spyi bos len pa), ##and this is only a variant of the expres- sion## zirasA pratigRhNAti, ##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## saddharmapuNdarIka: tatas tathAgataM so ’Msena pariharati ya imaM dharmaparyAyaM pustakagataM kRtvAMsena pariharati (338.4) ##(“Then, he carries the## tathAgata ##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## dharmasvAmin ##in which we read: “When the GurU# dharmasvAmin ##visited the## vajrAsana-saNgha- vihAra ##carrying an Indian manuscript of the## ashTasAhasrikA-prajJApAramitA, ##the keeper, A# zrAvaka, ##enquired, ‘What book is it?’ The## dharmasvAmin ##answered that it was the## prajJApAramitA. ##The## zrAvaka ##said, ‘You seem to be a good monk, but this carrying on your back of A# mahAyAna ##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 prajJA 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## vajracchedikA, ##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## prajJApAramitA ##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## aSTa ##iii 57]” (see Conze 1948: esp. 119). 11. I know of no exact parallels in## mahAyAna sUtra ##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## pAzupatas. ##See Ingalls 1962 and Hara 1967-68. Professor Hara, for example, cites the following passage from the## pAzupata-sUtra ##attributed to## lakulISa: avamata: sarvabhUteSu paribhUyamAnaz caret, apahata-pApmA pareSAM parivAdAt, pApaM ca tebhyo dadAti sukRtaM ca teSAm Adatte ##(“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## vajracchedikA, ##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## pAzupata-sUtra. ##See also Hara 1970. For the history of the## pAzupatas ##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## PAzupata ##sources (see Filliozat 1980: 111). 12. Conze in his edition cites a number of “parallels” for this passage:## divyAvadAna ##(Cowell and Neil ed.), 78, 469;## mahAvaMsa (Geiger ed.): XVII, 56; XXXI, 125; and## KarmavibhaNgopadeza ##(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## vajracchedikA ##is not strictly speaking “parallel” with these other passages, all of which, first of all, are in verse. Typical of these verse passages is## divyAvadAna 79: evaM hy acintiyA buddhA buddhadharmA ‘py acintiyA / acintiye prasannAnAM vipAko ’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## vajracchedikA ##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## dharmaparyAya, ##“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## dharmaparyAya, 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- cchedikA. ##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## dharmacakSu, ##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##-sarvadharmA buddhadharmA ##iti, etc., at 8a6-and here I have translated it by “characteristics.” 14. “‘Wonderful arrangements’ in [my] sphere of activity” translates## kSetravyUha, ##which presumably stands for## buddhakSetravyUha. ##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 vitathaM vadet. ##pargiter has read-and in part reconstructed-his Central Asian manuscript## vitatham evaM kartavya:. ##The Khotanese translation has## Si na baysUJA vUysai hvaJai, ##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 subhUte yo bodhisatva evaM vaded ahaM satvAn parinirvApayiSyAmIti . 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: subhUte bodhisatva evaM vaded ahaM kSetravyUhAn niSpAdayiSyAmIti. 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 lokadhAtavo bhaveyu: ##virtually all the other sources have the fol- lowing passage:## subhUtir Aha: evam etad bhagavann evam etat sugata bahavas te lokadhAtavo 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 lokadhAtavo bhaveyu: ##to what follows the second, omitted,## bahavas te lokadhAtavo 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## subhUti ##receives no answer, and the second## bhagavAn Aha ##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 A# cittaM ##has been inadvertently omitted by the scribe. 19. The Gilgit text here is open to at least three interpretations:## asatAd ##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## asatA-d-udgRhItena, ##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## dIgha-nikAya ##III.34, ##we might also add## Digha-NikAya ##III.115. 20. ##“Were to achieve composure” here translates## kSAntiM pratilabheta, ##and## kSAnti ##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## kSAnti, ##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## nirAtmakeSu dharmeSu kSAntiM 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## kSAnti ##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 ## kSAnti ##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.