Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

འཕགས་པ་མ་ཏག་བརྩགས་པ་ཞས་བྱ་བའ་གཟངས notes: Notes

The Dhāraṇī “Heap of Flowers” notes

Language
English

Notes

notes.1

1. Denkarma, F.302.a.7, see also Herrmann-Pfandt 2008, pp. 208–9; Kawagoe 2005, p. 20.

notes.2

2. Pelliot tibétain 418, first identified by Lalou (1939, p. 102). The fragment corresponds to approximately the first folio of the Degé text (folio 31.a.6–31.b.6).

notes.3

3. Two sets of folio references have been included in this translation due to a discrepancy in volume 88 (rgyud ’bum, na) of the Degé Kangyur between the 1737 par phud printings and the late (post par phud) printings. In the latter case, an extra work, Bodhi­maṇḍasyālaṃkāra­lakṣa­dhāraṇī (Toh 508, byang chub snying po’i rgyan ’bum gyi gzungs), was added as the second text in the volume, thereby displacing the pagination of all the following texts in the same volume by 17 folios. Since the eKangyur follows the later printing, both references have been provided, with the highlighted one linking to the eKangyur viewer. In the Toh 516 version of the text there is a slight discrepancy in the folio numbering between the 1737 par phud printings and the late (post par phud) printings of the Degé Kangyur. Although the discrepancy is irrelevant here, further details concerning this may be found in of the Toh 516 version of this text.

notes.4

4. Strickmann (1996, p. 72) noted that there are five Chinese translations and two Tibetan translations, but we are not aware of a second Tibetan translation and counted only four Chinese renderings.

notes.5

5. This text, Toh 886, and all those contained in this same volume (gzungs ’dus, e), are listed as being located in volume 100 of the Degé Kangyur by the Buddhist Digital Resource Center (BDRC). However, several other Kangyur databases—including the eKangyur that supplies the digital input version displayed by the 84000 Reading Room—list this work as being located in volume 101. This discrepancy is partly due to the fact that the two volumes of the gzungs ’dus section are an added supplement not mentioned in the original catalog, and also hinges on the fact that the compilers of the Tōhoku catalog placed another text—which forms a whole, very large volume—the Vimala­prabhā­nāma­kālacakra­tantra­ṭīkā (dus ’khor ’grel bshad dri med ’od, Toh 845), before the volume 100 of the Degé Kangyur, numbering it as vol. 100, although it is almost certainly intended to come right at the end of the Degé Kangyur texts as volume 102; indeed its final fifth chapter is often carried over and wrapped in the same volume as the Kangyur dkar chags (catalog). Please note this discrepancy when using the eKangyur viewer in this translation. Note that there is a discrepancy among various databases for cataloging the Toh 886 version of this text within vol. 100 or 101 of the Degé Kangyur. See Toh 886, , for details.

notes.6

6. Butön F.175.a.2 (p. 981); see also Nishioka 1983 (#1292), p. 62. Butön’s chos ’byung is somewhat unclear at this point, so this identification is tentative.

notes.7

7. On Zhi Qian, a man of Yuezhi ancestry, see Nattier 2008, pp. 116–48. Nattier is silent on this particular text, the implication being that she does not accept it among the genuine translations of Zhi Qian. Most scholars (e.g., Strickmann 1996, p. 72 and Matsunaga 1977, p. 170) accept the attribution without hesitation. We are very grateful to Prof. Nattier for answering our query and graciously providing us with more information (e-mail, 2023 October 1): most significantly, a number of words and expressions used in this translation (including the very first ones, 如是我聞, wording that appears to date only from the beginning of the 5th century) are utterly foreign to the Zhi Qian corpus, so the attribution does not seem to be credible.

notes.8

8. We have not been able to trace the Sanskrit equivalent for this expression. Perhaps the idea is that all these bodhisattvas would become buddhas in their next incarnation, each in one of the many universes.

notes.9

9. This is translated by Tibetans as “great being,” but it is equally possible if not more likely that originally it was a bahuvrīhi compound meaning “of great courage.”

notes.10

10. The testimony of the Dunhuang fragment ends here.

notes.11

11. We find the Tibetan text unsatisfactory here; as the text stands, the passage would mean: “through the vehicle of śrāvakas, or the vehicle of pratyekabuddhas, or the great vehicle, or one of the three vehicles.” In light of the Sanskrit and the logic of the passage we have emended ’am to ste; in this way, the enumeration of the three vehicles serves as an explanation of “three vehicles.” Note that Prajñākaramati’s quotation (see note below) lacks the enumeration of the three; this is either an omission on the commentator’s part or a sign that the apposition was once a gloss which made it into the main text.

notes.12

12. The Tibetan reads “with a faithful mind” (dad pa’i sems kyis). However, in light of the previous sentence and the testimony of the Sanskrit (prasannacittaḥ), we have emended the reading to “with a cleansed mind” (dang ba’i sems kyis). This emendation is confirmed by the Phukdrak manuscript.

notes.13

13. This passage is quoted with reference in Nāgārjuna’s Sūtrasamuccaya (Sanskrit not available; Toh 3934, 181.b–182.a) and Prajñākaramati’s Bodhi­caryāvatāra­pañjikā (La Vallée Poussin 1901–14, p. 424): ye kecit siṃhavikrīḍita tathāgatasya pūjāṃ kariṣyanti tiṣṭhato vā pari­nirvṛtasya vā, sarve te triyānād ekatareṇa yānena pari­nirvāsyanti | yaś ca khalu siṃha­vikrīḍita tathāgatam arhantaṃ samyaksaṃ­buddhaṃ dṛṣṭvā cittaṃ prasādayet, prasannacittaḥ satkuryāt, gurukuryāt, mānayet, pūjayet, upacaret, lābhena cīvara­piṇḍa­pātaśayanā­sanaglāna­pratyaya­bhaiṣajya­pariṣkāraiḥ sarva­sukho­padhānair upatiṣṭhet, yaś ca pari­nirvṛtasya tathāgatasya sarṣa­paphalamātra­dhātau śarīra­pūjāṃ kuryāt, samo vipākaḥ prati­kāṅkṣitavyaḥ | tathā pūjāyai nāsti viśeṣo nānākaraṇaṃ ca .

notes.14

14. The word for coin here is kārṣāpaṇa (kAr+SA pa Na), of which copper, silver and gold mints existed (for a broader discussion of coinage in the period, see Maity 1970, pp. 213–29). The logic of the passage requires us to posit that the less valuable copper coin is meant.

notes.15

15. Here we have preferred the reading of the Sanskrit testimony (see note below); the Tibetan has “some flowers.”

notes.16

16. This passage is quoted with reference in Śāntideva’s Śikṣāsamuccaya (Bendall 1902, p. 173); we give the text here with some reformatting and silent corrections: yaś ca khalu punaḥ siṃha­vikrīḍita tathāgataṃ saṃmukhaṃ varṣaṃ vā varṣa­sahasraṃ vā varṣa­śatasahasraṃ vā sarva­sukhopadhānair upatiṣṭhet, yaś ca pari­nirvṛtasya tathāgatasya caitye bodhicitta­saṃgṛhīta ekapuṣpam āropayet tathāgata­pūjāyai jalāñjaliṃ copanāmayej jalena vā siñcayed īṣikāpadaṃ vā dadyān nirmālyaṃ cāpanayed upalepana­pradānaṃ vā puṣpa­pradānaṃ vā dīpa­pradānaṃ vā kuryād āttamanāḥ ekakrama­vyatihāraṃ vātikramya vācaṃ bhāṣeta | namas tasmai buddhāya bhagavata iti mā te ’tra siṃha­vikrīḍita kāṅkṣā vā vimatir vā vicikitsā vā yad asau kalpaṃ vā kalpa­śataṃ vā kalpa­sahasraṃ vā durgati­vinipātaṃ gacchen nedaṃ sthānaṃ vidyate. For an English translation, see Bendall and Rouse 1922, pp. 169–70, and Goodman 2016, p. 171. The quotation was taken over from here in Prajñākaramati’s Bodhi­caryāvatāra­pañjikā (La Vallée Poussin 1901–14, pp. 424–5); the differences are very minor.

notes.17

17. Referring to the organs of perception and the organs of action.

notes.18

18. Here we have adopted the reading of the Stok Palace Kangyur, de’i sems la gnas par ’gyur te, instead of the Degé reading, de’i sems las rnam par dag par ’gyur te. This somewhat obscure sentence shows great fluctuation in the Chinese translations as well.