The Dhāraṇī “Heap of Flowers”
Translation of འཕགས་པ་མ་ཏག་བརྩགས་པ་ཞས་བྱ་བའ་གཟངས (འཕགས་པ་མེ་ཏོག་བརྩེགས་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་གཟུངས)
- Language
- English
- Translators
- Gergely Hidas, Péter-Dániel Szántó
- Extent
- 31 passages, 2,808 words
- Text
- complete digital text
- Source
- 84000 · Published by 84000 (v 1.0.3 2024). 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha,… · CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha). Shown whole and unaltered, with its notes, on a…
Contents
- intro 84000's introduction — 7 parts
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- notes Notes — 18 parts
Text
84000's introduction
intro.1
The text comprises a teaching given by the Buddha Śākyamuni to the bodhisattva Siṃhavikrīḍita in response to his question: what kind of merit does one gain by worshiping the Tathāgata? The Buddha addresses the question by stating that the merits of the awakened ones are limitless, thus any merit accrued by worshiping them, whether face to face or in the form of a caitya, is also limitless. What truly matters is the worshiper’s mental attitude. He then continues by teaching a dhāraṇī accompanied by a short practice and describes its benefits.
intro.2
The Dhāraṇī “Heap of Flowers” is a text that has had considerable influence. In India, it was quoted by Śāntideva and his followers; in China, it was preserved in at least four translations; and in Tibet it has been popular since the Imperial Period.
intro.3
The dhāraṇī and the discourse that frames it is delivered by Buddha Śākyamuni at Lake Anavatapta, prompted by a question from the bodhisattva Siṃhavikrīḍita who wishes to know what amount of merit is gained by worshiping a buddha. The Buddha replies by slightly rebuking Siṃhavikrīḍita: since the qualities of the buddhas are endless, so too is the merit gained by worshiping them. Moreover, it does not matter whether those buddhas are directly present in reality or are present in the form of a caitya containing a small relic. Nor does it matter how precious the offering is (although a long list of appropriate offerings is provided). What truly matters is the positive mental attitude of the worshiper, both when making the offering and after the act. After this discourse, the Buddha teaches the dhāraṇī meant to enhance the act of worship, and explains its benefits.
intro.4
We have not been able to find the original Sanskrit text in its entirety, but large and significant parts are preserved in Śāntideva’s Śikṣāsamuccaya (Toh 3940) and Prajñākaramati’s Bodhicaryāvatārapañjikā (Toh 3872).
intro.5
The Tibetan translation is recorded in the imperial catalogs¹ and we know of at least one fragment from the Dunhuang manuscript hoard, which was copied on the back of a Chinese scroll that contained a translation of the Diamond Sūtra (Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā).² In the Degé Kangyur, the text is included in both the Tantra section (Toh 516)³ and the Compendium of Dhāraṇīs (Toh 886).⁴ ⁵ The translators are not identified in these sources, but according to Butön Rinchen Drup (bu ston rin chen grub, 1290–1364), the dhāraṇī was translated by the well-known Tibetan scholar-monk, Yeshé Dé (ye shes sde).⁶
intro.6
The earliest of the four Chinese translations is 華積陀羅尼神呪經 (Taisho 1356, Huaji tuoluoni shenzhou jing), which is said to be the work of Zhi Qian and held to be of venerable antiquity (ca. 220–30 ce), but this attribution seems to be quite doubtful.⁷ This Chinese version is quite close to the Tibetan translation. The next two Chinese translations, 師子奮迅菩薩所問經 (Shizi fenxun pusa suowen jing, Taisho 1357) and 花聚陀羅尼呪經 (Huaju tuoluoni zhou jing, Taisho 1358), are the works of unknown translators from around the fourth or fifth century. The latest of the Chinese translations, 花積樓閣陀羅尼經 (Huaji louge tuoluoni jing, Taisho 1359), is the work of the famous Dānapāla, whose prolific output was sponsored by the Northern Song court around the turn of the first millennium.
intro.7
This English translation was made principally on the basis of the Tibetan translations of the text found in the Tantra Collection (rgyud ’bum) and the Compendium of Dhāraṇīs (gzungs ’dus) in the Degé Kangyur in consultation with the Stok Palace Kangyur and the Dunhuang fragment.
1
Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas.
Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was residing on the shores of the great Lake Anavatapta, in the mansion of the nāga king Anavatapta,
2
together with a great monastic retinue of five hundred monks and a great retinue of bodhisattvas, numbering an even thousand, gathered from various world-systems. Without exception, they all possessed dhāraṇī, possessed contemplation, had one rebirth remaining, were well established on the ten levels, were consecrated with the consecration of immediately being heirs apparent, ⁸ had donned the great cuirass, and entertained no doubts regarding the qualities of a buddha.
At that time, the bodhisattva mahāsattva⁹ Siṃhavikrīḍita came and took a seat in that very retinue. The bodhisattva mahāsattva Siṃhavikrīḍita then rose from his seat, placed his upper garment on one shoulder, placed his right kneecap on the ground, cupped his palms in reverence toward the Blessed One, and said to the Blessed One,
“Blessed One! How much merit does a son or daughter of noble family who performs worship to a thus-gone one accrue?”
The Blessed One replied to the bodhisattva mahāsattva Siṃhavikrīḍita, “Siṃhavikrīḍita, do not say ‘Blessed One, how much merit does a son or daughter of noble family who performs worship to a thus-gone one accrue?’ Why is that? A thus-gone one ¹⁰ is of immeasurable morality, immeasurable contemplation, immeasurable wisdom, immeasurable liberation, and immeasurable knowledge and vision of liberation. Thus, Siṃhavikrīḍita, since a thus-gone, worthy, fully awakened, perfect buddha is endowed with immeasurable heaps of virtue, it follows that the fruition of performing worship to him is also immeasurable.
3
“It is like this, Siṃhavikrīḍita. Those who perform the worship of a thus-gone one, whether present or departed into complete nirvāṇa, will attain complete nirvāṇa through one of the three vehicles—the vehicle of śrāvakas, the vehicle of pratyekabuddhas, or the great vehicle.¹¹ Moreover, Siṃhavikrīḍita, the fruition of merit is the same for a person whose mind becomes cleansed upon beholding the thus-gone, worthy, fully awakened, perfect buddha, and then with a cleansed mind¹² honors, reveres, worships, and venerates him with profits, clothing, alms, bedding, medicinal herbs, implements, and various kinds of comforts, as for a person who worships a caitya containing a relic even as small as a mustard seed from a thus-gone one who has departed into complete nirvāṇa. There is no difference, no distinction whatsoever between them.¹³
“Suppose, Siṃhavikrīḍita, that a householder bodhisattva were to donate a heap of precious materials as tall as Mount Meru to śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, or thus-gone, worthy, fully awakened, perfect Buddhas, and suppose a bodhisattva who has gone forth were to donate a single coin¹⁴ and then generate the aspiration for unsurpassed perfect awakening. The former roots of merit would not amount to even a hundredth of the latter—not a thousandth, not a hundred-thousandth. It would not even count as any part, any number worthy of consideration, simile, or approximation of any kind. It would not even be close; it would not even compare.
“Suppose, Siṃhavikrīḍita, that a person were to honor a thus-gone, worthy, fully awakened, perfect Buddha with various comforts for a year,
4
a century, or even a millennium. And suppose that a person who has fully adopted the resolve of awakening were, with the intent of worshiping a thus-gone one, to offer a single flower,¹⁵ pour out a handful of water, apply a drop of fragrant pigment, remove withered flowers, or offer some unguent, incense, flowers, perfume, garlands, music, or a parasol, bell, hanging cloth, banner, flag, piece of cloth, or a lamp at a caitya of a thus-gone one who has departed into complete nirvāṇa, and after having made this offering were to say with a rejoicing heart at every step forward, ‘Homage to that Blessed Buddha.’ It is simply impossible, Siṃhavikrīḍita, that these people would fall into unfavorable rebirths for an eon, or a hundred eons, a thousand eons, or one-hundred thousand eons. Have no distrust, no doubts, and no uncertainty about this.¹⁶
“Siṃhavikrīḍita, there is a dhāraṇī named Heap of Flowers that I will teach for the profit of many beings, for the happiness of many beings, to take pity on many people, for the benefit, profit, and happiness of a great many beings, gods and humans. Siṃhavikrīḍita, whoever holds this dhāraṇī, Heap of Flowers, upholds it, recites it, memorizes it, masters it, or extensively explains it to others will invariably remember former births, will not fall into unfavorable rebirths, and will obtain ease. They will never be separated from the Three Jewels, will never be separated from the thus-gone ones, will never be separated from the act of calling the Buddha to mind, will never be separated from bodhisattvas,
5
will never be separated from the resolve for awakening, will never be deficient in faculties, ¹⁷ will never take birth in lower castes, will be endowed with profound fortunes of various talents, and will be able to behold the blessed buddhas of the innumerable world systems in the ten directions.
tadyathā | dhāraṇi dhāraṇi muniprabhāsvare siddhe caṇḍe nāmaci niheri arogavati buddhamatidhairye oṁkare tegagarate tejovate vipulabuddhe dharmāvabhāse akṣayakalpe kalpavati amṛtakalpe hutāśane tejovati niryasaṃhīte tejogravātiṣṭhinadraye tiṣṭhinadraye buddhi svāhā ||
“Siṃhavikrīḍita, those who have fully learned and mastered the title, letters, and words of this dhāraṇī, Heap of Flowers, should call the Buddha to mind on the eight to fifteenth days of the waxing fortnight in either the last month of spring, the first month of summer, or the last month of autumn. They should contemplate the Thus-Gone One three times a day and three times at night while concentrating one-pointedly, and worship the Blessed One with offerings of incense, flowers, lamps, and fragrance. Such persons will behold fifteen blessed buddhas teaching the Dharma while seated on a lion throne in the calyx of a lotus. They will obtain dhāraṇīs and have good memory, dexterity of mind, quick understanding, intelligence, and will remember all their births until they reach complete nirvāṇa. Such persons will become proficient in all traditional learning, all treatises, all crafts, and all pursuits. All kinds of contemplations will be established in their mind, ¹⁸ except for the four truths of the noble ones. Why is that? Because those dharmas pertain to the uncontaminated.”
6
When the Blessed One finished speaking, the bodhisattva mahāsattva Siṃhavikrīḍita, the bodhisattvas, and the monks, together with a host of gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas were gladdened and praised the speech of the Blessed One.
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.