The Sūtra on Impermanence (2)

Translation of མ་རྟག་པ་ཉད་ཀྱ་མད (མི་རྟག་པ་ཉིད་ཀྱི་མདོ)

Language: English
Translator: Charles DiSimone
Extent: 74 passages, 5,055 words
Text: complete digital text
Source: 84000 · Translated by Charles DiSimone and Jin Kyoung Choiunder the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating… · CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha). Shown whole and unaltered, with its notes, on a…

intro 84000's introduction — 12 parts
1
2
3
4
notes Notes — 58 parts

Text

84000's introduction

intro.1

The Sūtra on Impermanence ( Anityatāsūtra) is a short discourse on the impermanence of conditioned states. The Buddha explains that it does not matter what one’s social status is, whether one is born in a heaven, or even if one has realized awakening and is an arhat, a pratyekabuddha, or a buddha. All that lives will eventually die. He concludes with a series of verses on impermanence exhorting the audience to understand that happiness is to bring conditioned states to rest.

intro.2

In the span of a human life, it can sometimes feel as if we have all the time in the world. As time goes by and one day bleeds into the next, the months and years pass away. Grave concerns over the inherent dis-ease of existence are put out of mind as more pressing matters arise and we become concerned with what appear to be more immediate goals. The Sūtra on Impermanence ( Anityatāsūtra) is a discourse that steers the listener or reader away from such notions.

intro.3

The Sūtra on Impermanence is a short work, which may be separated into fifteen sections. It begins with the very brief opening half of its narrative frame . This opening frame gives little information apart from indicating that the Buddha was staying at the Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, in Śrāvastī. There is no interlocutor. The Buddha addresses the monks in his presence by declaring that all conditioned states are impermanent and therefore should be rejected , noting that “life indeed concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die,” the refrain of the sūtra . He then goes on to present various examples of types of beings, starting with wealthy people of high social status who, despite their status, will ultimately die . He continues with further examples of beings ascending in importance: kings , sages , gods in the realm of desire , gods in the form realm , and gods in the formless realm . All such beings will die. Moving beyond this general hierarchy within Buddhist cosmology, the Buddha continues to the three vehicles and declares that even those who have realized awakening and are free from further births, that is, arhats , pratyekabuddhas , and buddhas , have bodies that will eventually come to an end. The Buddha then reiterates his refrain that there is nothing that is born that will not die, using a simile of clay pots that are created and eventually destroyed . Following this, the Buddha recites a series of verses on the transitory nature of life designed to inspire one to soteriological pursuits .¹ The sūtra ends with the concluding half of the narrative frame, which is even more brief than the opening half, stating the delight of those who heard the Buddha’s discourse .

intro.4

A number of Sanskrit witnesses of The Sūtra on Impermanence survive. These extant manuscripts might be classified into at least two separate transmissions. The first is what we may call the “Potala Transmission,” which consists of two Indic manuscripts copied in Dhārikā script. These were both collected into the Sanskrit manuscript library at the Potala Palace in Lhasa and are still housed there to this day. While these two manuscripts are unavailable for inspection, photostats have been made that are held by the China Tibetology Research Center (CTRC) in Beijing.² To call this a transmission itself is somewhat debatable. The two manuscripts, while sharing the same script, were copied by different hands and often show divergences from one another. However, they do share similarities that are not seen in the other witnesses, which suggests the possibility of a shared transmission. Nonetheless, it is unclear when each manuscript came into the possession of the Potala or from where they were produced. Additionally, because of the extensive use of the Dhārikā script over a number of centuries, it is not possible to provide a satisfactory estimate for the dates of these two manuscripts. Both witnesses appear as component works in larger multitext sūtra manuscripts, but the exact nature of these two distinct multitext manuscripts remains unclear. They are without known titles and are not known to have circulated in South Asia or beyond, apart from the witnesses within the Potala Palace Collection.

intro.5

The second extant transmission of The Sūtra on Impermanence may be referred to as the “Nepalese Transmission.” This transmission consists of a number of manuscripts that have been uncovered in collections throughout the Kathmandu Valley and are now spread throughout collections in Nepal, Europe, and Japan. There are seven individual witnesses known to scholars: two witnesses in the National Archives of Nepal,³ one witness in a private collection in Lalitpur (Patan) in Nepal,⁴ one witness in the collection of the Société Asiatique in Paris,⁵ one witness in the collection of the Royal Asiatic Society in London,⁶ one witness in the collection of the Tōyō Bunko in Tokyo,⁷ and one witness in the collection of the Tokyo University Library.⁸ All of the known manuscript witnesses of The Sūtra on Impermanence in the Nepalese Transmission are rather late, dating from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century ce. All of the manuscripts we have examined were copied in variations of the so-called Nepalese akṣaras (Newari script, Pracalit, etc.) and this is doubtlessly also the case for the manuscripts that have not been checked. Without fail, each witness within the Nepalese Transmission is found as a component work within larger Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha manuscripts. The classification of The Sūtra on Impermanence as a component work of the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha appears to have been a Nepalese innovation, as the earlier Sanskrit witnesses from the Potala Transmission and the Tibetan and Chinese translations do not classify the sūtra as having any association with dhāraṇī. It may be that the repetition of the sūtra’s refrain or the verses were the factors that caused this text to be associated with dhāraṇī collections. However, it is perhaps more likely that The Sūtra on Impermanence became associated with the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha due in part to its short length. Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha collections are made up of shorter texts, and short sūtras are included as well as dhāraṇī texts. It should be noted that while The Sūtra on Impermanence only appears as a component work within Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha manuscripts, it is not included in all Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha manuscripts, the traditional contents of which appear to have been somewhat fluid.⁹ Of particular note within the Nepalese Transmission are the witnesses from the Royal Asiatic Society (RAS) and the Tokyo University Library (TUL). It is certain that these two manuscripts were produced by the same scribal tradition. The TUL witness was either copied from the RAS witness or, probably more likely, was copied from an intermediate witness that is no longer extant.¹⁰

intro.6

The translation of The Sūtra on Impermanence within the Degé Kangyur contains only a very brief colophon mirroring the Sanskrit colophon. The colophon simply states that the sūtra has ended, providing no details on the translation.¹¹ This brief colophon is seen in the majority of witnesses to The Sūtra on Impermanence within the Tibetan Kangyurs. However, there are three witnesses with expanded colophons: two witnesses in the Langdo (lang mdo) collection and one in the Namgyal Kangyur.¹² These colophons state that The Sūtra on Impermanence was translated by the team of Kamalagupta (tenth–eleventh century) and Rinchen Sangpo (958–1055), who were frequent collaborators. Kamalagupta, a Kashmiri paṇḍita, was an immigrant to Tibet, and Rinchen Sangpo was a native Tibetan translator. This places the date of the translation within the tenth and eleventh centuries in the beginning of the second transmission of Tibetan translations. Beyond these colophons there are no major variations among the Tibetan versions of The Sūtra on Impermanence within the various Kangyurs. The Sūtra on Impermanence is always included in the General Sūtra Section in all Kangyurs. There is another work titled The Sūtra on Impermanence (1) (Anityatāsūtra),¹³ Toh 309, appearing directly before Toh 310, the sūtra translated here. While these two works share a title and theme, their content differs, and they are each unique works. It should be noted, however, that the opening and concluding narrative frame of Toh 309 is nearly the same as that of Toh 310. This may suggest that the two works developed in connection with one another and are possibly parallels of the same work from different Buddhist textual traditions.

intro.7

There is one Chinese translation by Fatian 法天 (aka Dharmadeva), Foshuo zhuxing youwei jing 佛說諸行有為經, completed in 984 ce and found in the Collected Sūtras (Jingji bu 經集部) section of the Taishō Tripiṭaka. The content of this Chinese translation generally agrees with that of the Sanskrit and Tibetan. However, as is so often the case with Chinese translations, sections are sometimes abbreviated and blurred together.

intro.8

There are no direct Pali equivalents to The Sūtra on Impermanence. There are multiple works with the same name, Aniccasutta, found in the Saṃyuttanikāya, but none of these are directly related to the sūtra translated here. While there are no direct equivalents in the Pali canon, there are multiple instances of passages and phrases that directly parallel the content of The Sūtra on Impermanence, often but not always in the Saṃyuttanikāya.¹⁴

intro.9

There are also a number of parallel passages to be found within surviving Sanskrit Buddhist works beyond the verses shared with the Udānavarga, which themselves appear across a spectrum of texts.¹⁵ That the present sūtra is not found in Pali, but that its modular pieces may be found in Pali works, may be telling. This, taken with the fact that the Chinese translation is rather late and is in the Collected Sūtras section of the Taishō, not associated with any āgama, may suggest that The Sūtra on Impermanence belongs to an āgama that was not translated in its entirety into Chinese. This would possibly also suggest a (Mūla-)Sarvāstivāda āgama affiliation for this work. This may be bolstered, too, by the fact that Kamalagupta, the primary translator of the work into Tibetan, was from Kashmir, where the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition would have been dominant during his lifetime. Another source pointing toward a (Mūla-)Sarvāstivāda affiliation is the inclusion of the verses found in the Udānavarga, which was likely a Sarvāstivāda work.¹⁶ Nonetheless, we should not conclude any doctrinal affiliation with certainty. It is also possible, although less plausible, that this work was translated later because it was composed later and was not included in any āgama/nikāya collection.

intro.10

The primary source texts used for this English translation were the Tibetan translation in the Degé Kangyur and a critical edition of the Sanskrit created from the witnesses of the Royal Asiatic Society, Tokyo University Library, and private collection of Mr. Padmajyoti Dhakhwa of Patan. The Tibetan of the Degé and the Sanskrit are generally consistent but differences between the two are noted when encountered. While there are no major differences between the Tibetan and Sanskrit, when differing readings are noted, translations of more substantial differences are provided in the notes.¹⁷ There is some disagreement found between the Tibetan and the Sanskrit on the number of verses at the end of the sūtra, with two recorded in the Degé and four in the Sanskrit, sharing one verse between them. All verses from both the Tibetan and Sanskrit are translated, totaling five verses.

intro.11

The Sanskrit edition was created for this translation and may be found in the appendices. In addition to the RAS, TUL, and PDP manuscripts that make up the edition, variant readings from the first of the two CTRC manuscripts are also always noted. The edition follows the general orthography of the three Sanskrit manuscript witnesses. Therefore, some variations in the spelling of words are not emended to conform to classical Sanskrit standards. For example, gemination is always reported. Sandhi is not always standardized because the formations used would not have been considered incorrect when the manuscripts were copied, and they can provide important information about inherent punctuation of statements.

intro.12

In addition to the Degé and Sanskrit critical edition, multiple Kangyurs were consulted. The Degé was checked throughout against the Peking Kangyur with substantial variants, which do not occur often, noted when present. The Choné and Stok Palace versions of the Tibetan were also consulted. The Chinese translation was also consulted throughout. Variants between the Chinese and the Tibetan and Sanskrit are occasionally noted. Instances where something appears in the Tibetan but not the Sanskrit and/or Chinese are always noted.

1

Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas.¹⁸

Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was staying in Śrāvastī, in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, along with a great community of monks numbering 1,250.¹⁹

Then, the Blessed One addressed those monks: “Monks, all conditioned states are impermanent, uncertain, unreliable, subject to change. This being the case, monks, one should become disgusted with, indifferent to, not fixated upon,²⁰ and liberated from all conditioned states.²¹

“For all beings, all spirits, and all that draw breath, life indeed concludes with death, has its limit in death,

2

for there is nothing [PDP.223.a] that is born that will not die.

“Monks,²² those wealthy householder families, wealthy brahmin families, and wealthy warrior families who are of great wealth, of great affluence, having an abundance of jewels, rubies, pearls, beryl, conch shells, crystal, coral, [RAS.60.b] gold, silver, and luxuries; owning an abundance of treasuries and storerooms of money and grain; [TUL.46.b] having an abundance of male slaves, female slaves, servants,²³ and laborers; and having an abundance of friends, counselors,²⁴ relations, and relatives—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die.²⁵

“Monks,²⁶ those consecrated kings and warriors, who have obtained strength²⁷ and power through sovereignty over the people, who dwell having conquered the great circumference of the Earth—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die.

“Monks,²⁸ those sages who are forest hermits, whose livelihood consists of fallen fruit,²⁹ who eat fallen fruit, who are nourished by fallen fruit—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die.³⁰

“Monks,³¹ those gods of the realm of desire³²—the gods of the Heaven of the Four Great Kings, the gods of the Heaven of the Thirty-Three, the gods of Yāma Heaven, the gods of Tuṣita Heaven, the gods of the Heaven of Delightful Emanations, and the gods of the Heaven of Control of Enjoyments Created by Others—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die.

“Monks,³³ those gods of the form realm³⁴—those who have obtained the first dhyāna, that is, those who attend Brahmā, those stationed before Brahmā, those in the assembly of Brahmā,³⁵ and those Great Brahmā gods; [RAS.61.a] those who have obtained the second dhyāna, that is, those of limited radiance,

3

those of immeasurable radiance, and those who are radiant ones; those who have obtained the third dhyāna, that is, those of limited splendor, those of immeasurable splendor, and those of complete splendor; those who have obtained the fourth dhyāna, that is, those who are unclouded, those with abundant merit, those with great fruition, and those who have a nature that is free from perception; and those gods³⁶ [of the Pure Abodes (śuddhāvāsa)], that is, those who are relatively not great, those without trouble, those of excellent appearance, those of excellent observation,³⁷ and those who are highest—even for them [TUL.47.a] life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die. ³⁸

“Monks,³⁹ those gods of the formless realm⁴⁰—those gods belonging to the sphere of the infinity of space, those belonging to the sphere of the infinity of consciousness, those belonging to the sphere of nothingness, those belonging to the sphere of neither perception nor nonperception; even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die. These are the three worlds.⁴¹

“Monks,⁴² those arhats, whose negative influences have been exhausted, who have fulfilled their duty, who have done what is to be done, who have laid aside their burdens, who have reached their own goals, those for whom the fetters of existence have been exhausted, whose minds have been completely liberated by proper, highest knowledge, those who have obtained the excellent perfection consisting of complete mastery of thought—even for them their pleasing⁴³ bodies are subject to being given up.⁴⁴

“Monks,⁴⁵ those pratyekabuddhas living alone like a rhinoceros, who live in crowds,⁴⁶ who master themselves alone, who pacify themselves alone, who enter parinirvāṇa themselves alone—even for them their pleasing⁴⁷ bodies are subject to being given up. [RAS.61.b]

“Monks,⁴⁸ those tathāgatas,

4

arhats, complete and perfect buddhas, mighty with the ten powers, worthy of admiration, roaring a true lion’s roar, confident in the four confidences—confidence in ascending dharmas, confidence in all their teaching, confidence in comprehending the path to nirvāṇa, and confidence in their effort for the knowledge of exhausting negative influences⁴⁹—their bodies strong-limbed and firm like Nārāyaṇa—even for them their pleasing⁵⁰ bodies are subject to being given up. ⁵¹

“Monks, just as pots made by potters, [PDP.223.b] whether unfired or fired, are destroyed, conclude in destruction,⁵² it is exactly so, monks, for all beings, all spirits, and all that draw breath—[TUL.47.b] life indeed concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die.”

So said the Blessed One. After the Sugata said this, the Teacher spoke further:

“Alas, conditioned states are impermanent, subject to arising and decaying.
Having arisen, they are sure to be destroyed; happiness is to bring them to rest. [1]⁵³

“What joy, what pleasure is there in a conflagration?
You dwell having entered into darkness—why do you not seek for a lamp? [2]⁵⁴

“Just as clay pots that are made by the potter
All end in destruction, so it is with the lives of beings. [3]⁵⁵

“Just as ripe fruit is forever in danger of falling,
So it is with beings born of conditioned states—always afraid of death. [4]⁵⁶

“All that is accumulated is exhausted in the end; what is elevated falls in the end.
Unions end in separation; [RAS.62.a] life indeed concludes with death.” [5]⁵⁷

So said the Blessed One. The assembly was delighted, and those monks rejoiced at the speech of the Blessed One.⁵⁸

Notes

notes.1

1. These verses are also found nearly verbatim in the Anityavarga (“Chapter on Impermanence”) in the Udānavarga.

notes.2

2. These manuscripts are CTRC Box 111, No. 5, folios 13a2–14b2 and CTRC Box 1112, No. 5, pp. 23–24. Ven. Vinītā has edited and translated the first of these mss. and provided a transliteration of the second. See Bhikṣuṇī Vinītā 2010, pp. 170–206.

notes.3

3. National Archives, Kathmandu: NAK 3/589, No. 8, 35a36b = NGMPP A 131–9, A 861/13 (dated 1860 ce), and NAK 3/641, No. 396, 376v = NGMPP A 131–10 (undated, but likely from the nineteenth century). Further information on these mss. may be found in Hidas 2021, pp. 368–77 and 378–89. Both of these are Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha collections. Neither of these manuscripts has been studied and thus neither transliterations nor editions are available.

notes.4

4. Folios 222b10–223b4 of a Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha manuscript from the private collection of Mr. Padmajyoti Dhakhwa of Patan. The colophon was added later and does not provide an exact date, stating simply that the manuscript was copied “80 years ago by Pandit Ratna Bahadur Vajracharya.” It is not clear, however, when this colophon was added and thus it is impossible to calculate when it was copied. It seems very likely, though, that the manuscript was copied in the latter half of the nineteenth century. See Shakya 1988 for a transliteration. However, this transliteration contains many variances in readings from the actual manuscript and it is unclear whether these are misreadings or silent emendations by Shakya. The edition of the Anityatāsūtra found in the appendix of this translation is partially based upon this manuscript.

notes.5

5. Société Asiatique, no. 14(36) in Filliozat 1941/42. Filliozat notes that the Anityatāsūtra witness here is part of a larger collection which she describes as “Recueil de dhāraṇī, stotra, çataka, etc.” (“a collection of dhāraṇī, stotra, śataka, etc.”) dating from 1823 (Filliozat 1941/42, pp. 17–34). Although she does not state it, this is almost certainly a witness of the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha collection. A transliteration has been published in Bhikṣuṇī Vinītā 2010.

notes.6

6. Royal Asiatic Society, London: Hodgson Collection, Ms. no. 55 (H. 147), 60a2–62a1. This is from a Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha manuscript dated 1791 ce. The witness was edited in Yamada 1972. However, this edition is now rather dated and a number of misreadings are to be found. The edition of the Anityatāsūtra found in the appendix of this translation is partially based upon this manuscript.

notes.7

7. Tōyō Bunko, Tokyo, Ms. No. 13.7. This manuscript is undated and has not been studied as far as we are aware. Further information may be found in Hidas 2021, pp. 360–67.

notes.8

8. Tokyo University Library, Tokyo. Kawaguchi and Takakusu Collection, Ms. 416 No. 8. 46a3–47b4. Like the above witnesses, this Anityatāsūtra is again a component work within a Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha collection. No date is provided for this manuscript, but it is listed as “modern” in the catalog notes, which would suggest it was copied in the nineteenth century ce. This is confirmed when it is compared with the witnesses held by the Royal Asiatic Society, which is an earlier witness in the same manuscript copying tradition. This witness was edited in Yamada 1972 and Kimura 1985. However, both Yamada and Kimura’s editions are now dated and a number of misreadings and unexplained variances are to be found. Nonetheless, both editions provide helpful information, Kimura’s especially concerning a number of textual parallels. The edition of the Anityatāsūtra found in the appendix of this translation is partially based upon this manuscript. The manuscript has been digitized and the Anityatāsūtra folios may be found here.

notes.9

9. For information on the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha see Hidas 2021, which is a study on several manuscripts of this work.

notes.10

10. See the edition of the Anityatāsūtra in the appendix for further information on the relationship between these two manuscript witnesses.

notes.11

11. mi rtag pa nyid kyi mdo rdzogs so and ity āryānityatāsūtraṃ samāptaṃ.

notes.12

12. These colophons are: Lg29.4, mdo, Ha-L15 9b4–11b3: myi rtag pa nyid kyi mdo’ rdzogs s+ho / rgya gar kyi mkhan po ka ma la gub tra dang / zhu chen gyi lo tsha ba dge’ slong rin chen bzang pos bsgyur zhing zhus te gtan la phab pa / Lg59.4, mdo, Ha-L97 10b1–12a6: mi rtag pa nyid kyi mdo rdzogs s+ho / rgya gar gyi mkhan po ka ma la gub tra dang / zhu chen gi lo tsha ba rin chen bzang pos sgyur cing zhus te / gtan la phab pa / Ng22.51, mdo, za 308b5–310a8: myi rtag pa nyid kyi mdo’ / rdzogs s+ho / rgya gar gi mkhan po ka ma la kub ta dang / zhu chen gi lo tsa ba dge slong rin chen bzang pos bsgyur cing zhus te / gtan la phab pa /

notes.13

13. See Sakya Pandita Translation Group, trans., The Sūtra on Impermanence (1) , Toh 309 (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2021).

notes.14

14. See, for example, the Jarāmaraṇasutta (SN I 71 (SN 3.3)) and Vepullapabbatasutta (SN II 191–193 (SN 15.20)) in the Saṃyuttanikāya, and the Mahāsudassanasutta (DN II 169–199 (DN 17)) in the Dīghanikāya.

notes.15

15. See, for example, (the Mūlasarvāstivāda) Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra (MPS 48.14) and NidSa 7.3,4.

notes.16

16. Brough 1962, p. 41.

notes.17

17. Such as those found in and .

notes.18

18. Sanskrit: “Oṃ, homage to the Omniscient One.”

notes.19

19. Both the great community of monks and their number is omitted in Tibetan. The Chinese reads 1,250: 千二百五十人, while the Sanskrit variously reads 1,300 or 1,250 in the Nepalese and Potala transmissions, respectively. It seems that at some point there was a corruption in the Sanskrit transmission where the number diverged from the Chinese, and I have emended the Sanskrit edition to follow the Chinese and CTRC: mahatā bhikṣusaṃghena sārddhan ‹ardha›trayodaśabhir bhikṣuśataiḥ. Interestingly, the great community of monks is included in the other Anityatāsūtra preserved in the Kangyur, Toh 309, which shares the same opening frame narrative reading: dge slong gi dge ’dun chen po dang thabs cig tu.

notes.20

20. Sanskrit omits.

notes.21

21. Cf. MPS 48.14; NidSa 7.3,4; DN II 198.18–23; SN II 178; and SN III 147.

notes.22

22. Tibetan omits.

notes.23

23. Tibetan omits.

notes.24

24. Tibetan omits.

notes.25

25. Tibetan reads “even for them life concludes in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die” (gson pa’i mtha’ yang ’chi bar ’gyur ba ste/ skye nas ’chi bar mi ’gyur ba med do).

notes.26

26. Tibetan omits.

notes.27

27. Tibetan omits.

notes.28

28. Tibetan omits.

notes.29

29. Referring to fruit harvested from the ground, i.e., not cultivated through agriculture. Skt. carries the sense of plucked, released, i.e., fallen. Tib. carries the sense of fruit already on the ground.

notes.30

30. Tibetan reads “even for them life concludes in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die” (gson pa’i mtha’ yang ’chi bar ’gyur ba ste/ skye nas ’chi bar mi ’gyur ba med do).

notes.31

31. Tibetan omits.

notes.32

32. kāmāvacarāḥ (gods of the realm of desire) is omitted in Tibetan but necessary in context with the next two sections, which go on to elaborate the certain death of gods in the form realm and the formless realm.

notes.33

33. Tibetan omits.

notes.34

34. Literally “those gods possessing form.”

notes.35

35. Tibetan omits.

notes.36

36. Tibetan omits.

notes.37

37. The Tibetan switches the order of sudṛśa and sudarśana, reading shin tu mthong ba dang | gya nom snang dang. Note: this is the case in the translated passage in note 39.

notes.38

38. The Tibetan in this section treats each consecutive level of the form realm deities as its own paragraph with the requisite introductory phrase and the running refrain of the sūtra (“Those … even for them life concludes with death…”). Degé contains all four sections, 1.8a–d, but Peking omits 1.8a & b. This fourfold way of interpreting this passage is not ideal as it conflates the gods of the Pure Abodes into the enumeration of the gods of the fourth dhyāna as can be seen in 1.8d below. The translation of the Tibetan (Degé) is: 1.8a “Those gods of the form realm who have obtained the first dhyāna—those who attend Brahmā, those stationed before Brahmā, and those Great Brahmā gods—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die. 1.8b “Those gods who have obtained the second dhyāna—those of limited radiance, those of immeasurable radiance, and those who are radiant—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die. 1.8c “Those gods who have obtained the third dhyāna—those of limited splendor, those of immeasurable splendor, and those of complete splendor—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die. 1.8d “Those gods who have obtained the fourth dhyāna—those who are unclouded, those with abundant merit, those with great fruition, those who have a nature that is free from perception, and [those gods of the Pure Abodes]: those who are relatively not great, those without trouble, those of excellent appearance, those of excellent observation, and those who are highest—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die.”

notes.39

39. Tibetan omits.

notes.40

40. Literally “those gods without form.”

notes.41

41. Sanskrit: traidhātukam idam. This sentence is omitted in the Tibetan.

notes.42

42. Tibetan omits.

notes.43

43. Tibetan: yid du ’ong ba. This is not present in any Sanskrit witness where only kāya (“body”) is mentioned and is also omitted in Chinese.

notes.44

44. That is, subject to death.

notes.45

45. Tibetan omits.

notes.46

46. tshogs na spyod pa (vargacārin), omitted in all Sanskrit witnesses and Chinese. This is the second, less famous but more gregarious, of the two classes of pratyekabuddha.

notes.47

47. Again, “pleasing” is only found in the Tibetan and is missing from both the Sanskrit and Chinese. See .

notes.48

48. Tibetan omits.

notes.49

49. āśravajñānaprahāṇavaiśāradyam. A less precise translation would be “confidence in their knowledge of the abandonment of negative influences.” This is a problematic phrase within this interpretation of the caturvaiśāradya that is unique to The Sūtra on Impermanence. The equivalent in the standard list of the four confidences would be sarvāśravakṣayajñānavaiśāradyam (s.v. this entry in Mvy 130 (S. 132)), “confidence in the knowledge of exhausting negative influences,” which seems to be the intended meaning of āśravajñānaprahāṇavaiśāradyam. However, prahāṇa in Sanskrit Buddhist literature generally, and in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, is not related to the Sanskrit term prahāṇa (“abandonment”), but rather the Pali term padhāna (“effort”), an important technical term. It seems that whoever added this explanation of the four confidences in the Sanskrit transmission of The Sūtra on Impermanence conflated the correct BHS usage of prahāṇa for the standard Sanskrit usage. This may bolster the conclusion we take from the manuscript evidence that these four terms laying out the four confidences were possibly later additions to the text.

notes.50

50. Once again, “pleasing” is only found in the Tibetan and is missing from both the Sanskrit and Chinese. See and .

notes.51

51. The order of the description of buddhas is slightly different between the Sanskrit and Tibetan, and the Sanskrit adds a passage laying out the four confidences. It seems that this was a later addition in an effort to make the four confidences clearer to the reader. Interestingly, the explanation provided in the Sanskrit is a unique list that differs in wording from the four confidences. See the noted discussion on caturvaiśāradyaviśaradā in of the Sanskrit critical edition (note ). The translation of the Tibetan (Degé) is: 1.12 “Those tathāgatas, arhats, complete and perfect buddhas, mighty with the ten powers, confident in the four confidences, worthy of admiration, their bodies strong-limbed and firm like Nārāyaṇa, roaring a true lion’s roar—even for them their pleasing bodies are subject to being given up.”

The Sūtra on Impermanence (2)

Contents

Text

84000's introduction

Notes