@I
APPENDIX II 
THE GILGIT TEXT OF THE vajracchedikā
BY N. P. CHAKRAVARTI
@II
Blank
@175
INTRODUCTION 
While examining the collection of manuscripts discov-
ered in 1931 in a stupa mound in the mountainous region
three miles to the north of Gilgit, which is now preserved
in the National Archives of India, New Delhi, as a tempo-
rary measure, I came across seven folios of a manuscript
of vajracchedikā. The manuscript is written
on birch bark and bears the folio numbers 5 and 7 to 12
on the obverse. Pages 1 to 4 and 6 are now missing. Dr.
Nalinaksha Dutt has noticed this manuscript as consisting 
of 12 leaves{1 Gilgit mss., Vol. I, p. 47.} but on inquiry he wrote to me saying that
he did not remember if all the 12 leaves were actually there.
I could not find the missing leaves even after a careful
search; obviously they were missing all the time.
Folio 5 is 36.5 mm in length and 5.5 mm in width
and bears 7 lines of writing; while folios 6-12 are of the 
same width, the length is 37 mm and they bear 6 lines of 
writing on each side with the exception of the reverse of 
leaf 12 where the manuscript ends, which has only three
lines. Considering the portion which is missing, it would
appear that the first five leaves had 7 lines of writing on 
each side and the rest 6 lines each. The writing on all
the folios is in the same hand and the difference in the 
number of lines in the subsequent pages for which a fresh 
birch bark appears to have been used, seems to be due to 
the fact that a thicker pen was used. 
@176
The bundle of which 27 leaves are now preserved, ori-
ginally contained texts of at least four manuscripts, vaj-
racchedikā, bhaiṣajyaguru, an unidentified text
and vasudhārā. The folios 24-27 are missing but it is 
clear that bhaiṣajyaguru which began on folio 13 must
have ended on folio 24. The third text ended on folio 34
but there is no colophon indicating the name of the work. 
Folio 35 begins with the tale of sucīndra in vasudhārā { 1 C. BENDALI, Catalogue of Buddhist Sanscrit Manuscripts in Cambridge,
Cambridge 1883, Mss. Add. 1335 and Add. 1400.}
Max Mueller was the first to edit the text of vaj-
racchedikā from the manuscript received from
Japan{2 Anecdota Oxoniensia, Aryan Series, I, 1. Translated by the same scholar 
in Sacred Books of the East, vol. 49, Pt. II, pp. 109-144, in French by C. DE
HARLEZ in Journal Asiatique, 1891, s. 8, T. XVIII, pp. 440 ff. and in German
by MAX WALLESER, prajñāparamitā, Die Vollkommenheit der Erkenntnis,
nach indischen, tibetischen and chinesischen Quellen usw., Goettingen 1914,
pp. 140-158.}. F. E. Pargiter has edited a fragmentary text
of the work discovered by the late Sir Aurel Stein during his
first expedition to Chinese Turkestan during 1900-1901,
from the ruins of a small dwelling place at Dandan Uliq{3 A. F. RUDOLF HOERNLE, Manuscript Remains of Buddhist Literature 
found in Eastern Turkestan, Oxford 1916, pp. 176 ff.}.
This manuscript is written on country paper and is badly
decayed. Its language is indifferent sanscrit. Sten Ko-
now has also edited an old Khotanese version of the same 
work brought back also by Stein{4 HOERNLE, 1. c., pp. 214 ff.}.
Folio 5 of the present ms. begins with ta: bhagavān āha,
corresponding to p. 29, 1. 5 and ends with sarva saṃjñā
varjayitvā, corresponding to p. 32, 1. 1 of Max Mueller’s
edition. Folio 7 begins with (pa)rimāṇena in p. 3, 1.2 of the 
same edition. Though incomplete, the text is edited here
@177
for several reasons. It is decidedly the earliest manuscript
known so far of the work. Moreover, if compared to the 
mss. examined by Max Mueller, the present mss. is 
remarkably free from errors and is much shorter, 
avoiding unnecessary repetitions. The few mistakes
which occur are mainly orthographical or are due
to oversight, e. g. dvātṛṃśatā for dvātri- (5 a, 1.2), 
bhūta for bhūtah- (7 a, 1.3), paṃcaśatyām for paṃca-,
duhitṛnāṃ for duhitrināṃ- (7 b, 1.3), asastād for asato-
(7 b, 1.4) kuśali for kuśalair- (10 a, 1. 4) cevaṃ for cai-
vaṃ- (10 b, 1.1). anusvāra has been omitted in samāmllo-
kān – (11 a, 1. 4) and –kheyāmllokān-(12 a, 1.5). All
such omissions and errors have been corrected in the foot
notes in the text. As regards orthography consonants 
are not doubled following a repha, the rare exceptions 
being rddipaṃkarasya- (7 a, 1.6) and varttamānāyāṃ-
(7 b, 1.1). Sattva has been invariably spelt as satva.
For indicating punctuation a common mark is a comma laid 
lengthwise like the figure of 1. Another is a dot followed
by a comma to indicate a full stop (5 a,1.5). In order
to indicate the end, a circle with a dot in the middle flanked
by two strokes on either side is used. The mss. ends with
vajracchedikā samāptā and there is no colophon at the 
end indicating the name of the copyist, the place where it
was copied or the purpose for which it was prepared.
The writing is of the upright variety of the Gupta script
as in the mss. of the Bhaiṣajyaguru, a page of which has 
been illustrated in Dutt’s edition of the work.{1 Gilgit mss. Vol. I.}.
The date of these manuscripts has been placed by earlier
scholars in the 5th, 6th or, even in the 7th century. But
@178
on examining the script carefully we find that it is analogous
to that used in the Bower mss. II and III and Weber
mss. I and III. Initial ā follows the Weber ms. III, the
initial i is represented by three dots and the initial e is 
written in the same way as in the Weber mss. I. In ka
the vertical bar is straight but the horizontal bar is bent.
Ja is cursive as in Weber mss. III and ma and ya follow
closely the Bower ms. III, the latter with a loop in the 
left. Ra is of the same variety as in Bower mss. II and
the marks used for punctuation are also similar. Dr. Hoernle
in his intensive study of the Bower manuscript has shown 
that its parts I-III, IV, V-VII and VI were written by 
four different scribes, three of whom were contemporaries, 
the writer of part VI being a little later. According 
to him the date of the Bower mss. has to be placed, on 
palaeographic grounds, in the second half of the 4th cen-
tury- rather nearer the beginning than the end of the 
period, i. e. approximately in the third quarter of the 4th 
century A. D.{1 Indian Antiquary, Vols. XLII, XLIII, 1913-14, Supplement.}
From the similarity of the script of the Gilgit mss. of
vajracchedikā with that of Bower mss. on the whole 
and the resemblance of a few letters with the Weber mss.
I and II, the Gilgit mss. may have to be placed early in the 
5th century A. D., rather than in the 6th century as has
been held hitherto. On comparison with the script of the 
Kasia Plate, Pargiter placed the Vajracchedikā manuscript 
edited by him at the end of the 5th or the beginning of 
the 6th century A.D. But the script of that manuscript
is more developed than that of the Gilgit manuscript which
has therefore to be placed at an earlier date. 
@179
Hoernle also holds that the Bower ms. was written by 
Indians settled in Kuchar. But so far as the Gilgit mss. 
are concerned there is no doubt that they were written
by the scribes settled in the Gilgit region, perhaps Buddhist
monks from Kashmir.
But this does not mean that all the mss. in the Gilgit
collection were written in the same period. The script
used in some is early and in others it is definitely of a much
later date, spread over a century if not longer. 
Apart from the palaeographical evidence there is also
some internal evidence to show that the manuscripts recov-
ered from Gilgit were not written at the same time. Names
of at least three rulers appear in the colophons of the various
mss. Dutt notices the name of only one śāhi ruler mention-
ed in a colophon of one of the manuscripts. His full name 
with titles was śrīdeva śāhi surendra vikramāditya nanda{1 DUTT, 1. c., p. 32 of the text.}.
He along with śamidevi-trailokyadevi bhaṭṭārikā, prob-
ably his wife, and one Vihali were the chief donors of the 
manuscripts. Dutt connects his colophon with the mss.
B of bhaiṣajyaguru edited by him. I examined the mss.
carefully and found that it was the gift of the devout lay
worshipper vasaṃta and his associates while the page
where the name of the ruler appears, forms the obverse of an 
unnumbered leaf and may have belonged to a different ma-
nuscript. The scribe of the king’s manuscript was ārya
Sthirabuddhi and the collaborator Narendradatta who may
be identical with the mahabhāṇaka Narendradatta, the 
scribe of the ajitasenavyākaraṇa edited by Dutt. I came 
across the name of a second ruler of the same dynasty in 
the colophon of another unnumbered page. He is styled
@180
as paṭoladeva śāhi vajrāditya nandin. No further infor-
mation of the ruler is given in the ms. and it can not be
ascertained whether he was a predecessor or successor of 
surendra vikramāditya. The name of another paṭola-
deva is, however, known from an unpublished inscription
from Gilgit, an impression of which was sent to me in 1942
by the British Political Agent in Gilgit. The inscription 
is incised on a rock near Hunza and records the foundation 
of a city called Makarapura by one makarasiṅgha, a chief
in the district of haṇesarā (Hunza) and the great Lord
of the elephants (mahāgajapati) of the P. M. P. paṭoladeva
śāhi śrideva surendrātityanandideva. The inscription
describes him as being born in the lineage of Bhagadatta, 
obviously the same as the son of Naraka mentioned in the
mahābhārata. It is interesting to note that the same line-
age is claimed by bhāskaravarman, the ruler of prāgiyotiṣa
(Assam) and the contemporary of King harṣa of Kanauj
in the 7th century A. D. There is nothing to show any
connection between these two ruling families, one of which
ruled in the extreme north and the other in the eastern
part of India. It seems that both the dynasties, the ādi-
tyas of Gilgit and the Varmans of Assam, traced their descent
from the same source with the same object in view viz. to 
establish a claim for their kṣatriya origin.
This inscription is dated in the 13th day of the bright
half of the month pauṣa of the year 47. Unfortunately 
there is no indication to show whether this year has to be 
referred to any particular era, or denotes only the regnal
year. We know that the Laukika era was in use also in the 
northern parts of Kashmir and if the year has to be referred
to that era, in which the century was omitted, the exact
date can not be verified from the details given in the epi-
@181
graph. If it is a regnal year, which seems unlikely, paṭola-
deva must have been quite advanced in age when this record
was engraved. But here the palaeographical evidence is of
some use to us. The script used in the record may be called
proto śāradā as it shows many earlier forms. According
to Buehler, epigraphic śāradā dates from the end of the 8th
to the beginning of the 9th century though as a literary 
script it may have been much older. The script is earlier
than that used in the image inscriptions of Brahmor and
Chatrahi{1 VOGEL, Antiquities of Chamba State, Pt. I (Arch. Surv. Ind., New Im-
perial Series, Vol. XXXVI), Pl. X.} and may therefore have to be placed at a period
not later than the 7th century, perhaps even earlier. This
paṭoladeva seems to be identical with śāhi śāhānuśāhi
paṭoladeva mentioned in a fragmentary manuscript of
mahāmāyūrī recovered by M. S. Kaul in 1938 from stūpa
B. which gives further information about his family{2 M. S. KAREL, Report on the Gilgit Excavation in 1938, p. 11.}. The 
script of this manuscript is decidedly much later than that
of the vajracchedikā and the Vinaya texts of the Gilgit
collection.
Now who were these śāhi rulers ? Dutt seems to take
it for granted that they belonged to the family of the Hindu
śāhiya dyanasty of udabhāṇḍapura (Ohind). But this is 
not definitely so. Lalliya sāhi, the founder of this 
dynasty, was a contemporary of śaṅkaradeva of Kashmir
(883-902 A. D.) and would therefore be too late in date.
Moreover, the region were this inscription and the manu-
scripts have been found is in Darada territory and would
be outside the kingdom of the śāhis of Ohind. Kalhaṇa
mentions the names of several Darada śāhis who seem to
have taken prominent parts in Kashmir politics in the 11th 
@182
and 12th centuries but he does not mention any earlier
rulers of Darada by name. According to Tibetan sources
the Gilgit region was known as bruśa whose rulers seem to
have some connection with the kings of udyāna (Swat).
According to the same source the kings of bruśa had the
title devaputra (gnam sras) and the manuscripts of Bstan
‘byun actually give the name of one of the kings of bruśa
as Sad-Zver. This title, however, is not found either in 
the inscription or in the manuscripts from Gilgit nor can 
the ruler mentioned in the Tibetan manuscript be identified
yet. Probably he was a later king when Gilgit had formed 
a closer political relation with Tibet, through matrimonial 
and other alliances.
[The segn * indicates the beginning of a line in the manuscript.]
(Folio 5 a) ta: bhagavān āha | yāvat subhūte trisāhasra-
mahāsāhasre lokadhātau pṛthivīraja: kaścit tad bahu |
āha | bahu bhagavan tat pṛthivīraja: arajas tathāga-
tena bhāṣitas{1 Rd. bhāṣitaṃ.} tenocyate pṛthivī *{2 The segn * indicates the beginning of a line in the manuscript.} raja iti | yo py
asau lokadhātur adhātuṃ sa tathāgatena bhāṣitas
tenocyate lokadhātur iti | bhagavān āha | tat kiṃ
manyase subhūte dvātṛṃśatā{3 Rd. dvātriṃ.} mahāpuruṣalakṣaṇais
tathāgato draṣṭavya: * āha | no bhagavaṃs tat kasya
hetor yāni tāni dvātriṃśan mahāpuruṣalakṣaṇāni ta-
thāgatena bhāṣitāny alakṣaṇāni tenocyate dvātriṃśan
mahāpuruṣalakṣaṇānītī | bhagavān āha | yaś ca kha
* lu puna: subhūte strī vā puruṣo va gaṅgāna-
dīvālukopamān ātmabhāvān parityajyed yaś ceto
dharmaparyāyād antaśaś catuṣpādikām api gāthām
udgṛhya parebhyo deśayed ayam e*va tato nidā-
@183
naṃ bahupuṇyaṃ prasavetāprameyam asaṃkhye-
yam | atha khalvāyuṣmāṃ subhūtir dharmaprave-
genāśruṇi prāmuṃcat so ‘śruṇi prāmṛjya bhaga-
vantam etad avocat ā*ścaryaṃ bhagavan paramā-
ścaryaṃ sugata | yāvad ayaṃ dharmaparyāyas ta-
thāgatena bhāṣito yato me bhagavaṃ jñānam utpan-
naṃ na me jātvayaṃ dharmaparyāya: śrutapūrva:
parameṇa * te bhagavann āścaryeṇa samanvāgatā
bhaviṣyanti ya iha sūtre bhāṣyamāne bhūtasaṃjñām
utpādayiṣyanti | yā caiṣā bhagavan bhūtasaṃjñā sai-
vābhūtasaṃjñā tasmāt tathāgato bhāṣate
(Folio 5 b) bhūtasaṃjñābhūtasaṃjñeti | na me bhagavann- 
āścaryaṃ yad aham imaṃ dharmaparyāyaṃ bhaṣya-
māṇam avakalpayāmy adhimucya | ye te bhagavan
satvā imaṃ dharmaparyāyam udgrahīṣyanti | yāvat
paryavāpsya * nti te paramāścaryasamanvāgatā bha-
viṣyanti | api khalu bhagavan na teṣām ātmasaṃjñā
pravartsyate na satvasaṃjñā na jīvasaṃjñā na pud-
galasaṃjñā | tatkasya heto: sarvasaṃjñā pagatā hi
* buddhā bhagavanta: bhagavān āha | evam etat
subhūte paramāścaryasamanvāgatās te bhaviṣyanti
ya imaṃ dharmaparyāyaṃ śrutvā nottrasiṣyanti na
saṃtrāsiṣyanti | na saṃtrasamāpatsya * nte | tat-
kasya heto: paramapā ramiteyaṃ subhūte tathā-
gatena bhāṣitā | yāṃ ca tathāgata: paramapāra-
mitāṃ bhāṣate | tām aparimāṇā buddha bhaga-
vanto bhāṣante | tenocyate pa * ramapāramiteti | api 
tu khalu puna: subhūte yā tathāgatasya kṣāntipā-
ramitā saivāpāramitā | tatkasya heto: yadā subhūte 
kalirājāṅga{1 MAX MULLER’S edition reads kaliṃgarājāṃga. He quotes Eitel
(Handbook of Chinese Buddhism, pp. 49 and 55) as giving the alternative read-
ing of kālirāja but the correct reading seems to be kalirāja as found in the Gilgit
ms. See Max Muller’s ed., p. 31, n. 2.} pratyaṇgamāṃsānyacchaitsīt nāsī * n me 
@184
ta-asmin samaye ātmasaṃjñā vā satvasaṃjñā vā
jīvasaṃjñā vā pudgalasaṃjñā vā | vyāpādasaṃjñā
vāpi me tasmin samaye bhaviṣyad abhijnānāmy
ahaṃ subhūte atītedhbani paṃca jātiśa * tāni yo
‘haṃ kṣāntivādi ṛṣir abhūvaṃs tatrāpi me nātma-
saṃjñābhūn na satvasaṃjñā na jīvasaṃjñā na pud-
galasaṃjñā | tasmāt tarhi subhūte bodhisattvena 
mahāsattvena sarvasaṃjñā varjayitvā{1 MAX, MULLER, vivarjayitvā which is grammatically wrong.}
(Folio 6 missing; 7a ) [pa]rimāṇena | sarve te satvā sam-
āṃśena bodhiṃ dhārayiṣyanti | tatkasya heto: na
hi śakyaṃ subhūte ayaṃ dharmaparyāyo hīnā-
dhimuktikai: satvai: śrotuṃ | nātmadṛṣṭikairna
satvajīvapu*dgaladṛṣṭikai: śakyaṃ śrotum udgra-
hītuṃ vā | yāvat paryavāptuṃ vā nedaṃ sthānānī
vidyate | api tu khalu puna: subhūte yatra pṛthi-
vīpradeśe idaṃ sūtraṃ prakāśayiṣyate | pūjanīya: 
sa * pṛthivīpradeśo bhaviṣyati | sa devamānuṣāsu-
rasya lokasya vandanīya: pradakṣiṇīkaraṇīyaś cai-
tyabhūta{2. Rd. bhūta:} sa pṛthivīpradeśo bhaviṣyati | ye te su-
bhūte kulaputrā * vā kuladuhitaro vā | imān evaṃ-
rūpān sūtrāntān udgrahīṣyanti yāvat paryavāpsyanti
te paribhūtā bhaviṣyanti suparibhūtā: yāni ca te-
ṣāṃ pūrvajanmikāny aśubhāni ka * rmāṇy apāya saṃ-
vartanīyāni dṛṣṭa eva dharme paribhūtatayā kṣapa-
yiṣyanti buddhabodhiṃ cānuprāpsyanti | abhijānāmy
ahaṃ subhūte atīte’ dhvany asaṃkhyeyai: kalpair
asaṃkhyeya * tarair ddipaṃkarasya tathāgatasyā-
@185
rhata: samyaksaṃbuddhasya pareṇa caturaśītibud-
dhakoṭiniyutaśatasahasrāṇy abhūvan yāni mayā ārā-
gitāni ārāgyā ca na virāgitāni 
(Folio 7b) yacca mayā subhūte te buddhā bhagavanta
ārāgya na virāgitā yacca varime kāle paścimāyāṃ 
paṃcāśatyāṃ{1 Rd. paṃca.} varttamānāyam imāṃ sūtrāntān ud-
grahīṣyanti | yāvat paryavāpsyanti | asya subhū*te
puṇyaskandhasyāsau pūrvaka: puṇyaskandha: śata-
mīm api kalān{2 Rd. kalāṃ} nopaiti sahasratamīm api | śatasa-
hasratamīm api saṃkhyām api kalām api gaṇanām 
apy upamām apy upa * niśām api na kṣamate |
sacet subhūte teṣāṃ kulaputrānāṃ kuladuhitrīnāṃ{3 Rd. duhitṛṇāṃ.}
puṇyaskandhaṃ bhāṣeyaṃ yāvantas te satvā ku-
laputrā: kuladuhitaraś ca tasmin samaye puṇya
* skandhaṃ pratigrahīṣyanti | unmādaṃ satvā anu-
prāpnuyuś cittavikṣepaṃ vā gaccheyu: api tu kha-
lu puna: subhūte acintyo yaṃ dharmaparyāya: 
asyācintya eva vipāka: * āha | kathaṃ bhagavan 
bodhisattvayānasaṃprasthitena sthātavyaṃ kathaṃ
pratipattavyaṃ kathaṃ cittaṃ pragrahītavyaṃ |
bhagavān āha | iha subhūte bodhisatvayānasaṃ
prasthitenaivam cittam utpā * dayita vyaṃ sar-
vasattvā mayā anupadhiśeṣe nirvāṇadhātau pari-
nirvāpayitavyā: evaṃ ca satvān parinirvāpya na
kaścit satva: parinirvāpito bhavati | tatkasya heto: 
sace-
(Folio 8 a) t subhūte bodhisattvasya sattvasaṃjñā pra-
varteta | jīvasaṃjñā pudgalasaṃjñā vā na sa bo-
@186
dhisatva iti vaktavya: tatkasya heto: nāsti subhūte
sa dharmo yo bodhisatvayānasaṃprasthito nāma |
tat kiṃ manya*se subhūte asti sa kaścid dharmo
yas tathāgatena dīpaṃkarasya tathāgatasya antikād
anuttarāṃ samyaksambodhim abhisambuddha: āha 
nāsti sa bhagavan kaścid dharmo yas tathāgatena
dīpaṃkara*sya tathāgatasyāntikād anuttarāṃ sam-
yaksambodhim abhisambuddha: āha | tasmād ahaṃ
dīpaṃkareṇa tathāgatena vyākṛto bhaviṣyasi tvaṃ 
mānavānāgate’dhvani śākyamunir nāma tathā*gato
‘rhan samyaksambuddhas tatkasya hetos tathā gata
iti subhūte tathatāyā etad adhivacanaṃ ya: kaścit
subhūte evaṃ vadet tathāgatenānuttarā samyak-
sambodhir abhisambuddheti*nāsti subhūte sa kaścid
dharmo yas tathāgatenānuttarā samyaksaṃbodhir
abhisambuddha: ya: subhūte tathāgatena dharmo
`bhisaṃbuddhas tatra na satyaṃ na mṛṣa:{1 Rd. mṛṣā^.} tasmāt
tathāgato bhāṣate | sarva*dharmā buddhadharmā iti 
subhūte sarve te adharmās tenocyate sarvadharmā
iti | tadyathāpi nāma subhūte puruṣo bhaved upe-
takāyo mahākāya: subhūtir āha | yo
(Folio 8 b) ‘sau tathāgatena puruṣo bhāṣita upetakāyo 
mahākāya: akāya: sa bhagavaṃs tathāgatena bhā-
ṣitas tenocyate upetakāyo mahākāya: bhagavān
āha | evaṃ etad subhūte * yo bodhisatva evaṃ 
vadet ahaṃ satvān parinirvāpayiṣyāmīti | na sa bo-
dhisatva iti vaktavya: tatkasya heto: asti subhūte
sa kaścid dharmo yo bodhisatvo nāma | āha | no hī-
daṃ bha*gavan bhagavān āhā | tasmāt tathāgato
bhāṣate ni:sattvā: sarvadharmā: nirjīvā niṣpud-
@187
galā: ya: subhūte bodhisatva evaṃ vaded ahaṃ
kṣetravyūhān niṣpadayiṣyamīti | so ’pi tathaiva *
vaktavya: tat kasya heto: kṣetravyūhā iti su-
bhūte avyūhās te tathāgatena bhāṣitas tenocyate kṣe-
travyūha iti | ya: subhūte boodhisatvo nirātmano
dharmā nirā*tmano dharmā ity adhimucyate sa
tathāgatenārhatā samyaksaṃbuddhena bodhisatvo bo-
dhisatva{1 Rd. mahāsatva as in M. M.} ity ākhyātas tat kiṃ manyase subhūte
saṃvidyate tathāgatasya māṃsacakṣu: āha | evam
etad bha*gavan saṃvidyate tathāgatasya māṃsa-
cakṣu: bhagavān āha | tat kiṃ manyase subhūte
saṃvidyate tathāgatasya divyaṃ cakṣu: prajñācak-
ṣur dharmacakṣur buddhacakṣu: āhaivam etad bha-
gavan saṃvidyate ta-
(Folio 9 a) thāgatasya divyaṃ cakṣu: prajñācakṣur dhar-
macakṣur buddhacakṣu: | bhagavān āha tat kiṃ
manyase subhūte yavantyo gaṃgānadyāṃ vālukās
tāvantya gaṃgānādyo bhaveyus tāsu yā vālukās
tāvanta eva lo * kadhātavo bhaveyu: kaścid bahavas
te lokadhātavo bhaveyū: bhagavān āha | yāvanta:
subhūte teṣu lokadhātuṣu satvās teṣām ahaṃ nā-
nābhāvāṃ cittadhārāṃ jā nīyās tat kasya heto*ś
cittadhārā cittadhārā iti subhūte adhārās tās tathā-
gatena bhāsitās tenocyate cittadhārā iti | tat kasya
heto: atītaṃ subhūte * cittaṃ nopalabyate | anāga-
taṃ cittaṃ nopalabhyate | pratyuypannaṃ nopala-
bhyate | tat kiṃ manyase subhute ya imaṃ trisā-
hasramahāsāhasraṃ lokadhātuṃ saptaratnaparipūr-
ṇaṃ kṛtvā dānan dadyād api nu sa kulaputro vā
kuladu hitā vā tato nidānam bahu puṇyam prasa-
@188
veta | aha bahu bhagavan bahu sugata | bhagavān 
āha | evam etat subhūte evam etad bahu sa kulapu-
tro vā kuladuhitā vā tato nidānaṃ * bahu puṇyam
prasaveta | sacet subhūte puṇyaskandho ‘bhaviṣyan
na tathāgato ’bhāṣiṣyat puṇyaskandha: puṇyaskandha
iti tat kiṃ manyase subhūte rūpakāyapariniṣpattyā
tathāgato dra-
(Folio 9 b) ṣṭavya: āha | no bhagavan na rūpakāyapari-
niṣpattyā tathāgato draṣṭavya: tat kasya heto: rū-
pakāyapariniṣpattī rūpakāyapariniṣpattir ity aparini-
ṣpattir eṣā tathā * gatena bhāṣitā tenocyate rūpakā-
yapariniṣpattir iti | bhagavān āha tat kiṃ manyase 
subhūte lakṣaṇasampadā tathāgato draṣṭavya: āha | 
no bhavan na lakṣaṇasampadā tathāgato * draṣṭa-
vya: tat kasya heto: yaiṣā lakṣaṇasampat tathāga-
tena bhāṣitā alakṣaṇasampad eṣā tathāgatena bhā-
ṣitā tenocyate lakṣaṇasampad iti | bhagavān āha |
tat kiṃ ma*nyase subhūte api nu tathāgatasyai-
vam bhavati na mayā dharmo deśita iti | ya: su-
bhūte evaṃ vadet tathāgatena dharmo deśita iti |
abhyācakṣīta māṃ sa subhūte asatā{1 Rd. asatod.} d u*dgṛhitena |
tat kasya hetor dharmadeśanā dharmadeśaneti su-
bhūte nāsti sa kaścid dharmo yo dharmadeśanā nā-
mopalabhyate | āhāsti bhagavan kecit satvā bhavi-
ṣyanty anāgatedhvani ya imā*n evaṃrūpān dhar-
mān bhāṣamānāṃ cchrutvābhiśraddadhāsyanti | bha-
gavān āha | na te subhūte satvā nāsatvā tat kasya 
heto: sarvasatvā iti subhūte asatvās te tathāga-
tena bhāṣitās teno-
(Folio 10 a) cyate sarvasatvā iti | tat kiṃ manyase su-
@189
bhūte api na asti sa kaścid dharmo yas tathāgatenā-
nuttara samyaksambodhir abhisambuddha: āha | nāsti
sa bhagavan kaścid dharmo yas tathāgate * nānut-
tarāsamyaksambodhir abhisambuddha: bhagavān āha
| evam etat subhūte evam etat aṇur api tatra dhar-
mo na saṃvidyate nopalabhyate tenocyate ’nuttarā
samyaksambodhir ity a*pi tu khalu puna: subhūte 
sama: sa dharmo na tatra kiṃcid viṣamas tenocyate 
‘nuttarā samyaksambodhir iti | nirjīvatvena ni:satvat-
vena niṣpudgalatvena samā sānuttara samyaksambo-
* dhi: sarvai: kuśalai: dharmair abhisaṃbudhyate
| kuśalā dharmā: kuśalā dharmā iti subhūte adhar-
māś caiva te tathāgatena bhāṣitās tenocyate kuśalā
dharmā iti | yaś ca kha*lu puna: subhūte yāvan-
tas trisāhasramahāsahasre lokadhātau sumerava: par-
vatarājās tāvato rāśīn saptānāṃ ratnānām abhisaṃ-
haṛtya dānaṃ dadyād yaś caiva prajñāpāramitā*yā
antaśaś catuṣpādikām api gāthām udgṛhya parebhyo
deśayed asya subhūte puṇyaskandhasyāsau pūrvaka: 
puṇyaskandha: śatatamīm api kalānnopaiti | yavad
upani-
(Folio 10 b) śam api na kṣamate | tat kiṃ manyase subhūte
api nu tathāgatasyaivam bhavati | mayā satvā mo-
citā iti | na khalu puna: subhūte cevaṃ{1 Rd. caivaṃ.} draṣṭa-
vyaṃ tat kasya heto: na sa kaścit sa*tvo yas tathā-
gatena mocita: yadi puna: subhūte kaścit satvo ‘bha-
viṣyad yas tathāgatena mocita: sa eva tasyātmagrā-
* ho bhaviṣyat satvagrāho jīvagrāha: pudgalagrāha:
ātamgrāha iti subhūte agrāha eṣa tathāgatena bhā-
ṣita: sa ca bālapṛthagjanair udgṛhīta: bālapṛthag-
@190
janā iti subhūte ajanā eva te tathāgatena * bhāṣitās
tenocyante bālapṛthagjanā iti | tat kiṃ manyase su-
bhūte lakṣṇasampadā tathāgato draṣṭavya: āhai vaṃ 
bhagavallakṣaṇasampadā{1 Rd. bhagavannala- |} tathāgato draṣṭavya: bha-
gavān āha sacet subhūte lakṣaṇasampadā tathāgato
draṣṭavyo bhaviṣyad rājāpi cakravartī tathāgato bha-
viṣyad āha | yathāham bhagavato bhāṣitasyārtham
ājā*nāmi na lakṣaṇasampadā tathāgato draṣṭavya: 
atha khalu bhagavaṃstasyāṃ velāyām imā gāthā
abhāṣata | ye māṃ rūpeṇa adrākṣur ye māṃ ghoṣeṇa
anvayu: | mithyā-
(Folio 11a) prahāṇaprasṛtā na māṃ drakṣyanti te janā: | dra-
ṣṭavyo dharmato buddho dharmakāyas tathāgata: | dhar-
mato cāsya vijñeyā na sa śakyaṃ vijānitum || tat kiṃ 
manyase subhūte lakṣaṇasampadā tathā * gatenānut-
tarā samyaksambodhir abhisambuddha: na khalu
puna: subhūte evaṃ draṣṭavyaṃ na subhūte lakṣaṇa-
sampadā tathāgatenānuttarā samyaksambodhir abhi-
sambuddha: | yat khalu pu * na: subhūte syad evam
bodhisatvayānasaṃprasthitai: kasyacid dharmasya vi-
nāśa: prajñapta ucchedo vā na khalu puna: subhūte 
evaṃ draṣṭavyaṃ | na bodhisatvayānasaṃprasthitai: 
ka * syacid dharmasya vināśa: prajñapto nocche-
da: yaś ca khalu puna: subhūte kulaputro vā
kuladuhitā vā gaṃgānadīvālukosamā:{2 Rd. kā -samāṃlloka.} lokadhātūn
saptaratnapratipūrṇāṅ  kṛtvā tathāb * gatebhyo ‘rhad-
bhya: samyaksambuddhebyo dānaṃ dadyād yaś ca
bodhisattvo nirātmakeṣu dharmeṣu kṣāntiṃ pratila-
bheta | ayam eva tato bahutaram puṇyaṃ prasaveta
@191
| na khalu puna: subhūte bodhi*satvena puṇyaskan-
dha: parigrahītavya: āha | puṇyaskandho bhagavan
parigrahītavya: bhagavān āha | parigrahītavya: su-
bhūte nodgrahītavya: tenocyate parigrahī [tavya:]
(Folio 11b) api tu khalu puna: subhūte ya: kaścid evaṃ 
vadet tathāgato gacchati vāgacchati vā | tiṣṭhati vā
niṣīdati vā śayyāṃ vā kalpayati | na me sa bhāṣita-
syārtham ājānāti | tat kasya [heto:] tathāgata iti
subhūte na kutaścid āgato na kvacid gata: teno-
cyate tathāgato ’rhan samyaksmbuddha: iti | yaś ca
khalu puna: subhū te kulaputro vā kuladuhitā vā
yāvantas trisāhasrama [hā] * sāhasre lokadhātau pṛthi-
vīrajāṃsi tavato lokadhātuṃ maṣiṃ kuryāt tad ya-
thāpi nāma paramānusaṃcaya: tat kiṃ manyase
subhūte bahu sa paramānusaṃśayo bhavet āhai * vam
etad bhagavān bahu sa paramānusaṃcayo bhavet
tat kasya heto: saced bhagavān saṃcayo ’bhavi-
ṣyan na bhagavān avakṣyat paramānusaṃcaya iti |
tat kasya heto: yo ‘sauparamā * nusaṃcayo bhāṣi-
ta: asaṃcaya sa bhagavatā bhāṣitas tenocyate para-
mānusaṃcaya iti | yaś ca tathāgato bhāṣati trisāha-
sramahāsāhasro lokadhātur iti | adhātu: sa tathā-
*gatena bhāṣitas tenocyate trisāhasramahāsāhasro lo-
kadhātur iti | tat kasya heto: saced bhagavān dhātur
abhavisyat sa eva bhagavan piṇḍagrāho ‘bhaviṣyad
yaś caiva tathāgatena pi-
(Folio 12 a) ṇḍagraho bhāṣita: agrāha: sa tathāgatena 
bhāṣitas tenocyate piṇḍagrāha iti | bhagavān āha |
piṇḍagrāhaś caivāvyavahāro ’nabhilāpya: subhūte
sa dharma: sa bāla pṛthagjanair udgṛhīta: tat ka-
sya heto: ya: kaścit subhūte evaṃ vaded ātma-
dṛṣtis tathāgatena bhāṣitā satvadṛṣṭir jīvadṛṣṭi: pud-
@192
galadṛṣṭi: api nu subhūte sa samyag vadan vadet
* āha | no bhagavaṃs tat kasya heto: yā sā bha-
gavann ātmadṛṣṭis tathāgatena bhāṣitā adṛṣṭi: sā
tathāgatena bhāṣitā tenocyate ātmadṛṣṭir iti | bha-
gavān āha * evaṃ subhūte bodhisatvyānasaṃpra-
sthitena sarvadharmā jñātavyā adhimoktavyās tathā
cādhimoktavyā yathā na dharmasaṃjñāpi pratyupati-
ṣṭhet tat kasya heto: dharmasaṃjñā * dharmasaṃjñeti
subhūte asaṃjñaiṣā tathāgatena bhāṣitā tenocyate 
dharmasaṃjñeti | yaś ca khalu puna: subhūte bodhi-
satvo mahāsatva: aprameyāsaṃkhyeyā{1 Rd. kyeyāmloka.} lokadhatūn
saptaratnapa*ripūrṇāṅ kṛtvā dānan dadyād yaś ca
kulaputro vā kuladuhitā vā ita: prajñapāramitāyā
antaśaś catuṣpādikām api gāthām udgṛhya vācayed
deśayed paryavāpnuyād a
(Folio 12 b) yam eva tato bahutaraṃ puṇyaṃ prasavetā-
prameyam asaṃkhyeyaṃ | kathaṃ ca samprakāśayet
yathā na prakāśayet tenocyate samprakāśaye{2 Rd. -śayed.} iti |
tārakā timiraṃ dīpo mā*yā vaśyāya budbuda: su-
pinaṃ vidyud abhraṃ ca evaṃ draṣṭavya{3 Rd. draṣṭavyaṃ.} saṃskṛ-
tam || idam avocad bhagavān āttamanā sthavirasub-
bhūtis te ca bhikṣubhikṣuṇyupāsakopāsikā: sade-
vamānuṣāsu*ragandharvaś ca loko bhagavato bhā-
ṣitam abhyanandan ||O|| vajracchedikā prajñāpā-
ramitā samāptā ||O||