Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana c10: Appendix. A Note on the Prajñāpāramitā

Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relation to Hīnayāna c10

Language
English

Contents

Appendix. A Note on the Prajñāpāramitā

c10.2

It need not be pointed out how great is the importance of the Prajñāpāramitās in the history of the Buddhist literature and how much the history of the origin and development of Mahāyānism depends on them. From the large number of works on Prajñāpāramitās existing in Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan, a list of which is to be found in Nanjio's Catalogue of the Chinese Buddhist Tripiṭaka and Walleser's Die Vollkommenheit der Erkenntnis, it is apparent that at a certain stage of Buddhism the Prajñāpāramitās were considered by the Buddhists the most holy and the most valuable of all works. Nāgārjuna considered it worth while to undertake the task of writing a commentary on one of them while Asaṅga and many others devoted much time and energy to comprehend the philosophy embedded in them.

The Earliest Prajñāpāramitā

c10.s1.1

The dates of Chinese translations of the various Prajñāpāramitās help us very little in ascertaining which of them is the oldest; nor is the theory, which is so often launched by scholars, that the more concise a book the earlier it is, of much consequence in regard to this class of literature. The earliest Chinese translation, we are told, was made of the Daśasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā by Lokarakṣā about 148 A.D.¹ Curiously enough this particular version of the Prajñāpāramitā was not known to the Sanskritists. The Mahāvyutpatti² mentions six of them without referring to it while Bendall, R. L. Mitra, and H. P. Śāstrī catalogued many manuscripts on Prajñāpāramitā but did not come across any of the Daśasāhasrikā. Besides these facts it should also be noted that Śāntideva or the author of the Laṅkāvatāra had occasions to refer to the Śata. and the Aṣṭa. but never to the Daśa.¹ The only explanation that can be offered for this silence of the Sanskritists is that either this Prajñāpāramitā is of non-Indian origin or is only a version of the well-known Aṣṭa. Profs. Nanjio², Walleser and a few other scholars prefer the latter view on account of the fact that the Chinese version of the Daśa. follows more or less that of the Aṣṭa. But then again the question arises, why in the Chinese collection there should be versions of the Aṣṭa. too? A very close study of the various Chinese versions may yield some definite results but the names of chapters as given in the Chinese versions help us very little, specially in view of the fact that the titles of chapters were mostly invented by the Chinese translators and were not translations of the titles of the Sanskrit originals.³

c10.s1.2

¹ Nanjio's restoration of the name Daśasāhasrikā, it seems, was made from the Tibetan name Ses-rab-kyi-pha-rol-tu-phyin-pa-khri-pa (10,000), for, there is nothing in the Chinese title to indicate that it is Daśa. and not Aṣṭa. or any other Prajñāpāramitā. Again, Nanjio points out that this Daśa. was the same as Aṣṭa.

c10.s1.3

² Mvyut. 65 mentions Śatasāhasrikā, Pañcaviṃśatisā, Aṣṭasā, Pañcaśatikā, Triśatikā and Saptaśatikā.

c10.s1.4

¹ Henceforth Śata., Daśa., and Aṣṭa. will be used for referring to the Śatasāhasrikā, Daśasāhasrikā and Aṣṭasāhasrikā.

c10.s1.5

² Nanjio, Catalogue, p. 3(d).

c10.s1.6

³ E.g. in the Sanskrit original of the Śatasāhasrikā the chapters are indicated by numbers only without any name but the Chinese version gives the names of chapters. Evidently the names were chosen so as to indicate the subject-matter of the chapter.

c10.s1.7

If we are to rely on the Tibetan traditions, we should regard the Aṣṭa. as the oldest, for it was the first Prajñāpāramitā preached by Maitreya.⁴ Adding to this the opinion of Profs. Nanjio and Walleser about the identity of the Daśa. and the Aṣṭa., it would not be wide of the mark to hold that the Aṣṭa. was the oldest. The Nepalese tradition, however, makes it to be the latest abridgment made from the original Prajñāpāramitā, which extended over a hundred and twenty-five thousand ślokas,⁵ the earliest abridgment being the Śata. followed by the Pañcaviṃśati. and the Aṣṭa.

c10.s1.8

⁴ Tāra., p. 58.

c10.s1.9

⁵ Mitra, Intro. to the Aṣṭa., p. iv.

c10.s1.10

We might have made a better approach to the truth if we had known the text upon which Nāgārjuna commented and produced his famous *Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra*. Rosenberg informs us that the text used by Nāgārjuna was the *Pañcaviṃśati.*, but he does not indicate his source of information.¹ A view current in Japan at the present moment is that Nāgārjuna’s *Śāstra* was written upon the *Prajñāpāramitā* called 大明度經 (Ta-ming-tu-ching)². According to Nanjio’s information this is a version of the *Aṣṭa.* or *Daśa.*, at least the fact that the *Ta-ming-tu-ching* contains also thirty chapters like some of the versions of the *Aṣṭa.* and *Daśa.* points towards the probability of its being a translation of a version of the *Aṣṭa.* but on comparison we see that this text does not literally follow the present Sanskrit text. Besides, the number of chapters in the Sanskrit original is thirty-two while that in the Chinese is thirty and so if it be a translation of the *Aṣṭa.* it must be of another version of the same.

c10.s1.11

¹ Rosenberg, *Die Probleme der buddhistischen Philosophie*, p. 273. Rosenberg’s statement is not based on any authority. This tradition is also recorded by Przyluski (see *I. H. Q.*, vol. V, p. 2).

c10.s1.12

² Forming no. 135 of the Taisho edition, vol. VII, pp. 475ff. It was translated by Chi-Chien of the Wu dynasty (222-280). The Japanese view was communicated to me by Prof. E. Tomomatsu.

Internal Evidences: (I) Conception of Trikāya

c10.s2.1

There are also internal evidences which throw light on the antiquity of the *Aṣṭa.* and its priority to the *Śata.* and the *Pañcaviṃśati.* They are mainly the conceptions of Sambhogakāya and the ten *bhūmis*.

c10.s2.2

It has been shown before³ that the Yogācārins were responsible for the Trikāya conception and that Nāgārjuna in his *Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra* spoke only of two kāyas, viz., rūpa and dharma kāyas, and not sambhogakāya. The Sambhogakāya is expressly mentioned in the recast version⁴ of the *Pañcaviṃśati.* but the nature of its description shows that its Sambhogakāya (=embodiment of Bodhipakṣika and other pure dharmas) corresponded to the Dharmakāya of the early Mahāyānists, and Svasambhogakāya of the later Yogācārins. Now the question arises, when did this conception of Sambhogakāya come into vogue? The first definite conception of it appears in the Laṅkāvatāra where the name given to it is not Sambhogakāya but Niṣyanda- or Dharmatāniṣyanda-Buddha¹. The Laṅkāvatāra is not a very early treatise and is undoubtedly later than the Śatasāhasrikā, to which it refers by name². In the Śata., the term Niṣyandakāya or Sambhogakāya does not appear but there is the graphic description of Śākyamuni's Sambhogakāya, which is called there Prakṛtyātmabhāva or Āsecanakakāya³. This description of the Āsecanakakāya serves as a prelude (nidāna) to the discourse on the Prajñāpāramitā. The Pañcaviṃśati. follows the Śata. almost word by word in this description, and therefore needs no separate comment. The Gaṇḍavyūha surpassed the Prajñāpāramitās in its description of the Buddhakāya, and it seems that imagination could not be let loose further than what the compiler of the Gaṇḍavyūha has done. The description of the Āsecanakakāya appears in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka as well but it is more guarded and less imaginative. It is striking that this description of the refulgent body of Buddha, throwing its rays of light all over the universe and making every being happy, is absent in the Aṣṭa. The Aṣṭa. starts directly with the topic of the Prajñāpāramitā, which has been taken up by the Śata. in its second and fourth chapters⁴. The silence of the Aṣṭa. about the refulgent kāya of Buddha is clearly indicative of its being earlier than the Śata., Pañcaviṃśati., Gaṇḍavyūha, etc., and was the production of a time when the Sambhogakāya or Āsecanakakāya had not yet been conceived of.

c10.s2.3

³ See ante, Ch. III (b), pp. 96, 97, 114.

c10.s2.4

⁴ The extant Sanskrit Mss. of the *Pañcaviṃśati.* do not represent the original *Pañcaviṃśati.*, from which the Chinese and Tibetan (bkah-ḥgyur) translations were made. For detailed reasons see my *Intro.* to the *Pañcaviṃśati.*

c10.s2.5

¹ See ante, Ch. III (b), p. 120.

c10.s2.6

² Laṅkā., p. 8.

c10.s2.7

³ See ante, Ch. III (b), pp. 118-9.

c10.s2.8

⁴ E.g. Śata., p. 504=Aṣṭa., p. 7 " p. 324= " p. 4.

(II) Conception of Daśabhūmi

c10.s3.1

Another internal evidence, proving the greater antiquity of *Aṣṭa.* is its conception of Bhūmis. We have seen that in the evolution of the Bhūmi conception, the *Mahāvastu* represents the earliest stage, the *Śata.* and the *Pañcaviṃśati.* the middle, and the *Daśabhūmikasūtra* and other works the latest¹. The *Aṣṭa.* does not refer to the Bhūmis at all. Objection may be taken to such negative evidences, but if the *Aṣṭa.* and the *Śata.* be compared, it will be found that the evidence, though negative, is strong enough to prove our contention. The account of the Bhūmis occurs in the tenth chapter of the *Śata.*, in which the topic has been introduced by the line: *Katham bodhisattvo mahāyāna-samprasthito bhavati* (how a bodhisattva is regarded as having started on the great way?)². This is preceded by an elaborate answer to the question, "What is Mahāyāna?"³, giving opportunity to the *Śata.* to dilate on all the practices, which a bodhisattva is expected to accomplish. The chapter that follows the account of the Bhūmis deals with the metaphysical interpretation of Mahāyāna, which is identified there with the highest truth, the *Śūnyatā*, and compared to *Ākāśa*⁴. The *Aṣṭa.* answers the question as to who is Mahāyāna-samprasthita by one word: *pāramitābhiḥ samprasthitaḥ* (started by practice of the pāramitās). This is preceded by a brief answer to the question "What is Mahāyāna?" and followed by the remarks about the metaphysical aspect of Mahāyāna without any reference to the Bhūmis. It may be contended that the *Aṣṭa.* for the sake of abridgment omitted many topics and the account of the Bhūmis was one of them. An objection like this cannot be answered except by a further negative evidence. It is a common practice with the *Prajñāpāramitās* to enumerate all the various practices and even stages of sanctification of a Śrāvaka, Pratyekabuddha or Bodhisattva and show that they are non-existing or that Bodhisattvas remain dissociated from them or that they are only dreams but taken as real by the dreaming masses. None of the *Prajñāpāra-* mitās mention these Mahāyānic bhūmis though they speak of the Hinayānic stages of sanctification¹ in such enumerations. This strengthens our position that the conception of Bhūmis was not known to the early Mahāyānists and that they were invented later on and incorporated in the larger Prajñāpāramitās, leaving untouched the older enumeration of Śrāvakabhūmis².

c10.s3.2

¹ See supra, Ch. IV.

c10.s3.3

² *Śata.*, p. 1454= *Aṣṭa.*, p. 23.

c10.s3.4

³ *Śata.*, p. 1405= *Aṣṭa.*, p. 23.

c10.s3.5

⁴ *Śata.*, p. 1530= *Aṣṭa.*, p. 24.

c10.s3.6

¹ See ante, Ch. IV, p. 241.

c10.s3.7

² See Śata., p. 1473.

c10.s3.8

By such internal evidences it can be definitely stated that the Aṣṭa. preceded the Śata. and the Pañcaviṃśati. as well as the Laṅkāvatāra, Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, Gaṇḍavyūha and Daśabhūmikasūtra. By means of these tests of the conceptions of Sambhogakāya and Bhūmi, we may thus arrange the texts chronologically,—

c10.s3.9

(1) Aṣṭa. and Daśa.,

c10.s3.10

(2) Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, Śata., and Pañcaviṃśati. (recast version),

c10.s3.11

(3) Gaṇḍavyūha and Laṅkāvatāra, and

c10.s3.12

(4) Daśabhūmikasūtra.

c10.s3.13

The earliest Chinese translation of the Daśabhūmikasūtra was made by Dharmarakṣa in the third century A.C. proving the existence of the Sūtra itself in the second century. Two centuries may well be allowed for the evolution of these conceptions of the Sambhogakāya and the Bhūmis, and the expansions of the Prajñāpāramitās. We may therefore hold that the Aṣṭa. or the Daśa. was in existence towards the end of the first century B.C.

Relation Among the Various Prajñāpāramitās

c10.s4.1

It is generally believed,—there is also a tradition to this effect,—that there has been a gradual abridgment of the original Prajñāpāramitā and this has given rise to the various treatises called the Śatasāhasrikā, Pañcaviṃśatisā°, Aṣṭādaśasā°, Daśasā°, Aṣṭasā°, Saptaśatikā, Ardhaśatikā, ending with Ekākṣarī. Strictly speaking all these Prajñāpāramitās excepting the first three or four are not really abridgments of the larger ones but are independent works devised and written by different compilers at different times. The main theme of all the works is, of course, the same, viz., the establishment of the new Śūnyatā philosophy, and the assertion that the Truth can be realised through the practice of the prajñāpāramitā only. There are many extraneous matters, which have been discussed incidentally in the larger Prajñāpāramitās and passed over in the smaller ones, e.g., the sense of the 18 śūnyatās, 118 samādhis, the various cakṣus, the bodhipakṣikadharmas. It seems to me that the larger Prajñāpāramitās are not merely unnecessary expansions of the smaller ones, and that it is perhaps an exaggeration to say that the Vajracchedikā is an abridgment of the Śata., or the Ekākṣarī gives all that a Prajñāpāramitā can give.

c10.s4.2

And then as against the tradition that the smaller Prajñāpāramitās are abridgments of the larger ones, a view is current among modern oriental scholars that the truth lies in the opposite direction. Dr. Tucci is an advocate of this view. In his introduction to the Saptaśatikā, he says "Save rare exceptions, bigger compilations do nothing but expand in an emphasizing way those fundamental concepts, which constitute the kernel of Prajñāpāramitā. Those fundamental concepts are to be found more succinctly and without excessive repetitions in shorter manuals. The Saptaśatikā goes immediately into the core of the subject-matter and without so many repetitions expounds in one dialogue the theme, the interlocutors being Buddha, Mañjuśrī and Śaradvatiputra" ¹. Prof. Tucci overlooks the fact that the Saptaśatikā touches the fringe of a wide range of topics discussed in the other Prajñāpāramitās and cannot be taken as giving the gist of a large Prajñāpāramitā. To carry to the extreme his line of thought we may say in one word that Śūnyatā is the teaching of the Prajñāpāramitās and it contains the gist of the whole literature. The view which Tucci endorses is really the outcome of the critical study of the brahmanic literature. It has been found that in some cases the brahmanical works were originally short and simple, and in course of time they became voluminous by glosses or philosophical interpretations. The Buddhist literature stands on quite a different footing, and what may be true for the brahmanic literature is not necessarily true for the buddhist. In the latter case we find that the language of the older texts is simpler although they are more verbose and full of repetitions, while the later texts are concise, less verbose, and have fewer repetitions. Again, the voluminousness of the earlier *Prajñāpāramitās* was due to repetitions and not to glosses and philosophical interpretations. Hence the relation between the smaller and the larger *Prajñāpāramitās* should be ascertained by an independent enquiry and not by any general theory. It can only be possible when we have the *Prajñāpāramitās* in handy editions. So, for the present, we must confine ourselves to a comparison of the *Aṣṭa.*, 12 (out of the 72) chapters of the *Śata.* and the recast version of the *Pañcaviṃśati.*, which is in the course of publication.¹ The relation between the *Aṣṭa.* and the *Śata.* can be hardly called that of abridgment or expansion as it can be said between the *Śata.* and the *Pañcaviṃśati.* The *Aṣṭa.* does not contain a word about the glorious Buddhakāya and other matters of the Nidāna. It starts directly with the question as to the propriety of Subhūti in teaching Mahāyāna, a topic taken up in the second chapter of the *Śata.*² In the first chapter, the *Aṣṭa.* discusses when a bodhisattva is to be regarded as mahāsan-nāhasannaddhah (well-armoured), which is treated in the seventh chapter of the *Śata.*³ Then the question "What is Mahāyāna?" is answered at the very beginning of the *Aṣṭa.* while it is taken up in the eleventh chapter of the *Śata.*⁴ Instances of agreement, sometimes verbal, like those mentioned above can be multiplied to show that the *Aṣṭa.* and the *Śata.* deal with identical topics, but the arrangement and the emphasis laid on a particular topic are quite different. Besides this, the Śata. introduced new topics like bhūmis and expositions of the various śūnyatās, samādhis, etc.,¹ which were only enumerated or referred to in the Aṣṭa. So it may be said that the Śata. utilised the Aṣṭa. and not vice versa. Again, some of the Prajñāpāramitās were evidently abridged from the Śata. The Pañcaviṃśati. is clearly an abridgment of the Śata. effected by an omission of set enumerations and repetitions by the use of words, such as yāvad, peyyālam or by sometimes mentioning only the positives in full without the negatives. In short, the Pañcaviṃśati. tried to preserve the original with the utmost accuracy.

c10.s4.3

¹ Saptaśatikā Prajñāpāramitā (Memorie della R. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei), 1923, vol. xvii, fasc. iii.

c10.s4.4

¹ There is another *Prajñāpāramitā* published first by Prof. Leumann (Schriften der wissenschaftlichen Gessellschaft in Strassburg, 1912) and then by Messrs. H. Izumi and S. Toganov (Kyoto, 1917) called *Prajñāpāramitā-nayaśatapañcāstika*.

c10.s4.5

² *Aṣṭa.*, p. 4 = *Śata.*, ch. II.

c10.s4.6

³ " p. 23 = " p. 1405.

c10.s4.7

⁴ *Aṣṭa.*, p. 24 = *Śata.*, p. 1530.

c10.s4.8

¹ See, e.g. Śata., Ch. VIII ff.

c10.s4.9

Very recently a fragment of a Prajñāpāramitā manuscript (48 leaves) found in Central Asia has been published in the Memoirs of the Archæological Survey of India (No. 32). The editor, Mr. Bidyabinod, believes on the evidence of the Upright Gupta characters used in it, that the fragments belong to a date earlier than 580 A.C. He has also shown that the subject-matter and phraseology of the fragment resemble those of the Śata. and that the portion contains a slightly shorter version of chapters vii-xi of the latter. The fragment contains the sections on the interpretation of the Pāramitās, Śūnyatās, Samādhis and the Bodhipakṣika dharmas and closely follows the corresponding passages of the Pañcaviṃśati., having slight difference like dharmebhyaḥ for dharmaiḥ, or bāhya for bahirddhāḥ. The fragment might be regarded as a copy of the original Pañcaviṃśati. but the portions found in it are so very common that it is difficult to say definitely that it is a copy of the Pañcaviṃśati. and not of the Aṣṭādaśa. or any other work. It can, however, be said that it is not a copy of the Śata., for in some places the abridgments have been made on the lines of the Pañcaviṃśati. In Ceylon also some inscriptions have been discovered recently, containing fragments of the Prajñāpāramitā.² They correspond to the nidāna-section of the Śata. and the Pañcaviṃśati.; the agreements though quite close cannot be called literal. So it seems they are taken from a recension of either the Pañcaviṃśati. or the Aṣṭādaśa.

c10.s4.10

² Ceylon Journal of Science, II.

c10.s4.11

The comparison of the Śata., Pañcaviṃśati. and Aṣṭa. confirms our contention that the generalisations regarding abridgment and expansion of the Prajñāpāramitās are not possible and that each book must be judged by its contents. If we consider the Saptaśatikā, which is supposed to be older than the expanded ones, we notice that the interlocutors are Mañjuśrī and Śariputra, and not Subhūti and Śariputra, the most common figures of the very early Mahāyāna treatises. There is a class of literature like the Gaṇḍavyūha, in which Mañjuśrī plays the chief rôle, and so it may be that this Prajñāpāramitā was the production of a class of devotees who held Mañjuśrī in great veneration. The mention of the Nirālamba-bhaginī, i.e., concretion of an abstract idea, hints rather at its posteriority than priority to the larger Prajñāpāramitās.

Nature of the Repetitions

c10.s5.1

We shall now proceed to form an idea of the nature of the repetitions resorted to in the Prajñāpāramitās and the reasons therefor. In these days, when so much attention is given to the conservation of time and energy, one is apt to get weary of repetitions, and particularly of the mechanical repetitions, which are so often found in the Prajñāpāramitās. Writers on philosophical subjects very naturally ring the changes on the theme that they desire to establish; but so long as they do it skilfully, and without tiring their readers there can be little objection to their enthusiasm. One notices these repetitions in the most modern of philosophical works of the west and the east, as well as in the masterly Buddhist works of Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga. For the fulfilment of its object a new philosophical work is necessarily burdened with the unpleasant and arduous task of first wiping out from the minds of its readers several old ideas, some of them deep-rooted, in order to implant new ideas in their places. Again, to deepen the impression it has to revert to its topic over again in different ways and lead its readers unconsciously to the new point of view. The early Buddhist literature, specially the *Prajñāpāramitās*, sadly lacked the knowledge of artful repetitions and consequently it is tiresome. Compared with the great philosophical works produced in India before or about the time of the *Prajñāpāramitās*, the *Prajñāpāramitās* are conspicuously lacking in philosophical precision and phraseology, deficiencies which it tried to remedy by repetitions. For instance, when it endeavours to establish the thesis that everything is śūnya (non-existent), a doubt may be left in the mind of the reader whether the Tathāgata or the Asamskṛtadhātus like the Ākāśa or Nirvāṇa are excluded or included, so the *Prajñāpāramitās* have punctiliously mentioned that each of them whether Tathāgata, Nirvāṇa or Ākāśa, even the various Śūnyatās, are śūnya in the sense that Cakṣu or Cakṣuvijñāna is śūnya. A modern reader can certainly complain of this defect in view of the immense literature that he has to wade through within a short space of time but the writers of the *Prajñāpāramitās* had at their disposal ample time and patience to read and write works like these.

c10.s5.2

The *Prajñāpāramitās* also like all other philosophical works had to eradicate many of the old deep-rooted ideas. They directed their attention mainly to their predecessors, the Hīnayānists. The Hīnayānists, as is well known, had already enjoyed a long lease of life and developed a fair amount of literature on their doctrines, the classification of dharmas, psychological analyses, etc. The *Prajñāpāramitās* took the most popular of these doctrines and disciplines, and tried to show that from the new point of view, which the *Prajñāpāramitās* set out to inculcate, they were all to be treated as mere names having no existence whatsoever. To give an illustration: They preach that a bodhisattva while practising the prajñāpāramitā does not consider himself attached or unattached to any (mentioning each and every one) of the 5 skandhas, 6 indriyas, 6 āyatanas, 6 vijñānas, 4 mahābhūtas, 12 links of the pratityasamutpāda, 6 pāramitās, 18 śūnyatās, 37 bodhipakṣikadharmas, apramāṇas, samādhis, samāpattis, āveṇikadharmas, balas, vaiśāradyas, phalas, tathatā, ātman, sukha, nirvāṇa, and so forth.

c10.s5.3

They repeated the same list over again to maintain that each of them was not bodhisattva or that each of them was not different from bodhisattva. In short, the *Prajñāpāramitās* in order to establish *Śūnyatā* have shown that there is nothing in the world of our knowledge which has any real existence. Everything that we are conscious of has only dreamy existence, and that all the 84,000 dharmaskandhas supposed to have been preached by Buddha are only expedients (*upāyakauśalya*) adopted by him for the benefit of ignorant and deluded beings, and consequently a bodhisattva while practising the *prajñāpāramitā* should treat them as mere apparitions devoid of reality.

Function of Prajñāpāramitā

c10.s6.1

The function of the *prajñāpāramitā* is to make a bodhisattva bear in mind that the *pāramitās*, *samādhis*, *samāpattis*, *phalas* or *bodhipakṣikadharmas*, which he has been practising, are only aids and expedients invented by Buddhas to help beings to the realisation of the ideal. Unlike the other *pāramitās*, the *prajñāpāramitā* is not to be practised. It is really a state of mind to be acquired by the help of the six *pāramitās* and the various Buddhistic practices. A bodhisattva may perfect himself in the *dānapāramitā*, but as there is every possibility of his forming a conception of the *dānapāramitā* as having a sort of existence (*svabhāva*), it may become for him an object of grasping (*grāhya*). He may also have a conception of the giver and the receiver and the thing given. It is to counteract all these conceptions, which are really misconceptions, that the *prajñāpāramitā* steps in and makes the bodhisattva try to develop a state of mind in which the *dānapāramitā* would appear to him as devoid of signs (*alakṣaṇa*), without any independent existence of its own, and at the same time eliminate from his mind any conception regarding the giver, the receiver or the thing given. In short, the function of the *prajñāpāramitā* is to convince a bodhisattva that the *dānapāramitā* or whatever it may be is really formless, baseless and is indistinguishable from *śūnyatā*. It serves as a guard to the bodhisattva, who has risen much above the average and acquired various meritorious qualities, but still may cling to some idea or concept which in itself may be highly pure and meritorious, but being an attachment must be got rid of. It is for this reason that the prajñāpāramitā has been extolled over all other pāramitās or virtues, and has been designated as the chief (nāyikā, pūrvaṅgamā) of all pāramitās.¹ The Aṣṭasāhasrikā² compares the prajñāpāramitā to the earth, on which all the other pāramitās rest, grow and produce the fruit of sarvajñatā (omniscience), and hence it is the producer of the Sarvajñas, the Tathāgatas.

c10.s6.2

¹ Aṣṭa., pp. 80, 81.

c10.s6.3

² Ibid.

Linked texts (14)