འཕགས་པ་ད་བཞན་གཤགས་པ་བདན་གྱ་སྔན་གྱ་སྨན་ལམ་གྱ་ཁྱད་པར་རྒྱས་པ་ཞས་བྱ་བ་ཐག་པ་ཆན་པའ་མད intro.22

intro.22

The exact relationship between Toh 503 and Toh 504 remains unclear. In his brief study of traditions associated with Bhaiṣajyaguru, Leonard Zwilling argues that Toh 504 was enlarged into Toh 503, stating that the vows of the other six thus-gone ones “by and large, duplicate those of Bhaiṣajyaguru, and their Buddha-fields are merely named [and] lack any sufficiently distinctive individuating characteristics.”⁸ As readers can see for themselves in this translation, this does not seem to be the case, at least with respect to the Tibetan translation of the text. The aspirations of each of the seven thus-gone ones differ in both number and content, the descriptions of each of the buddhafields contain notable differences, and none of the aspirations and buddhafields of the six buddhas that precede Bhaiṣajya­guru­vaiḍūrya­prabha appear to duplicate his aspirations and the description of his buddhafield. In addition, the role of hearing and reciting the names of these buddhas receives far greater emphasis in the aspirations of the first six buddhas than it does in the account of Bhaiṣajyaguru’s twelve aspirations. Judging from the syntax, word choices, and organization of the presentation of Bhaiṣajyaguru’s aspirations, it is quite possible that Toh 504 was an independent text that was at some point incorporated into Toh 503. However, analyzing the first section of the text using these same criteria also suggests the possibility that the aspirations of the first six buddhas in Toh 503 represent a compilation of several independent texts containing bodhisattva “aspirations.” The text itself hints at its own eclectic origins in its conclusion, where Śākyamuni provides four separate titles for the work that each refer to separate sections of the text.