Loading translation...
On the necessity of employing the plural “Kangyurs” as opposed to “the Kangyur,” see the work of Peter Skilling (1997, 2009, 2013).
§236; see Herrmann-Pfandt (2008), p 124. The Lhenkarma is also sometimes called the Denkarma (ldan kar ma).
Nishioka (1980), p 74, §277. See Van der Kuijp (2013) for an analysis of this work’s textual formation and transmission.
We follow the Buddhist Sanskrit spelling of ‘bodhisatva’ with a single rather than a double ‘t’ as found in manuscripts and inscriptions as the latter is a convention of modern editors. See Bhattacharya (2010).
As detailed by Schopen (2004, p 397), narrative elements appear to carry great weight for some scholars but “we know next to nothing for certain about how early texts were redacted and transmitted” (ibid, p 399). The rules for redaction in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya “clearly favor Śrāvastī” as the setting. Both Rājagṛha and Śrāvastī are among the six great cities recommended as a location if the setting is forgotten. Schopen provides analysis of occurrences noting that Gokhale records a 75% occurrence of Sāvatthi in Pāli texts, Minh Chang records a 45% occurrence in the Chinese Madhyama-āgama, and Schopen himself estimates an 80% occurrence rate for Śrāvastī in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. Currently known redaction rules applied to sūtras, therefore, place the location in Śrāvastī more frequently than would otherwise be expected.
Since the publication of the present sūtra, there has been a recent English translation from the Tibetan by Peter Skilling, who is aware of this correlation and provides some helpful notes along with the translation found in his anthology Questioning the Buddha: A Selection of Twenty-Five Sutras; see Skilling (2021), pp. 213–20.
On the notion of early Mahāyāna formations as an optional and legitimate vocation, or particular lifestyle, within Buddhist communities see Nattier (2003), pp 84-86, and Skilton (2002), p 134.
The translation follows Vinītā’s (2010, pp 57 and 459) observation for kulaputra (as well as kuladuhitā) that –putra in the latter part of a compound does not mean ‘son’ but indicates a ‘member’ of a class or group.
In Buddhist literature, this is an epithet applied to buddhas, most often to Śākyamuni. The Sanskrit term generally means “possessing fortune,” but in specifically Buddhist contexts it implies that a buddha is in possession of six auspicious qualities (bhaga) associated with complete awakening. The Tibetan term—where bcom is said to refer to “subduing” the four māras, ldan to “possessing” the great qualities of buddhahood, and ’das to “going beyond” saṃsāra and nirvāṇa—possibly reflects the commentarial tradition where the Sanskrit bhagavat is interpreted, in addition, as “one who destroys the four māras.” This is achieved either by reading bhagavat as bhagnavat (“one who broke”), or by tracing the word bhaga to the root √bhañj (“to break”).
An important form of Buddhist meditation focusing on developing insight into the nature of phenomena. Often presented as part of a pair of meditation techniques, the other being śamatha, “calm abiding”.
One of the first Buddhist monasteries, located in a park outside Śrāvastī, the capital of the ancient kingdom of Kośala in northern India. This park was originally owned by Prince Jeta, hence the name Jetavana, meaning Jeta’s grove. The wealthy merchant Anāthapiṇḍada, wishing to offer it to the Buddha, sought to buy it from him, but the prince, not wishing to sell, said he would only do so if Anāthapiṇḍada covered the entire property with gold coins. Anāthapiṇḍada agreed, and managed to cover all of the park except the entrance, hence the name Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāmaḥ, meaning Anāthapiṇḍada’s park. The place is usually referred to in the sūtras as “Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍada’s park,” and according to the Saṃghabhedavastu the Buddha used Prince Jeta’s name in first place because that was Prince Jeta’s own unspoken wish while Anāthapiṇḍada was offering the park. Inspired by the occasion and the Buddha’s use of his name, Prince Jeta then offered the rest of the property and had an entrance gate built. The Buddha specifically instructed those who recite the sūtras to use Prince Jeta’s name in first place to commemorate the mutual effort of both benefactors.
Anāthapiṇḍada built residences for the monks, to house them during the monsoon season, thus creating the first Buddhist monastery. It was one of the Buddha’s main residences, where he spent around nineteen rainy season retreats, and it was therefore the setting for many of the Buddha’s discourses and events. According to the travel accounts of Chinese monks, it was still in use as a Buddhist monastery in the early fifth century ᴄᴇ, but by the sixth century it had been reduced to ruins.
In its most general sense, this term refers to the state of freedom from suffering and cyclic existence, or saṃsāra, that is the goal of the Buddhist path. More specifically, the term may refer to a category of advanced meditative attainment such as those of the “eight liberations.”
Dhyāna is defined as one-pointed abiding in an undistracted state of mind, free from afflicted mental states. Four states of dhyāna are identified as being conducive to birth within the form realm. In the context of the Mahāyāna, it is the fifth of the six perfections. It is commonly translated as “concentration,” “meditative concentration,” and so on.
The term dhāraṇī has the sense of something that “holds” or “retains,” and so it can refer to the special capacity of practitioners to memorize and recall detailed teachings. It can also refer to a verbal expression of the teachings—an incantation, spell, or mnemonic formula—that distills and “holds” essential points of the Dharma and is used by practitioners to attain mundane and supramundane goals. The same term is also used to denote texts that contain such formulas.
In Buddhism more generally, merit refers to the wholesome karmic potential accumulated by someone as a result of positive and altruistic thoughts, words, and actions, which will ripen in the current or future lifetimes as the experience of happiness and well-being. According to the Mahāyāna, it is important to dedicate the merit of one’s wholesome actions to the awakening of oneself and to the ultimate and temporary benefit of all sentient beings. Doing so ensures that others also experience the results of the positive actions generated and that the merit is not wasted by ripening in temporary happiness for oneself alone.
Morally virtuous or disciplined conduct and the abandonment of morally undisciplined conduct of body, speech, and mind. In a general sense, moral discipline is the cause for rebirth in higher, more favorable states, but it is also foundational to Buddhist practice as one of the three trainings (triśikṣā) and one of the six perfections of a bodhisattva. Often rendered as “ethics,” “discipline,” and “morality.”
During the life of the Buddha, Śrāvastī was the capital city of the powerful kingdom of Kośala, ruled by King Prasenajit, who became a follower and patron of the Buddha. It was also the hometown of Anāthapiṇḍada, the wealthy patron who first invited the Buddha there, and then offered him a park known as Jetavana, Prince Jeta’s Grove, which became one of the first Buddhist monasteries. The Buddha is said to have spent about twenty-five rainy seasons with his disciples in Śrāvastī, thus it is named as the setting of numerous events and teachings. It is located in present-day Uttar Pradesh in northern India.
The Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha—the three objects of Buddhist refuge. In the Tibetan rendering, “the three rare and supreme ones.”
’phags pa rgyal ba’i blo gros zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo (Jayamatināmamahāyānasūtra), Toh. 194, also entitled ’phags pa rgyal ba’i blo gros kyis zhus pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo (Jayamatiparipṛcchānāmamahāyānasūtra) in (L), (S), and (N):
(C) Cone Kangyur, vol. 41 (mdo sde, tsa), folios 309b-310a;
(D) Degé Kangyur, vol. 61 (mdo sde, tsa), folios 250b-251a;
(F) Phug brag Kangyur, vol. 70 (mdo sde, ma), folios 58b-59a;
(F2) Phug brag Kangyur, vol. 82 (mdo sde, sa), folios 257b-258b;
(Go) Gondhla Collection, vol. 13 (ka-na, folio 200b – ka-ma, folio 1a);
(J) Lithang Kangyur, vol. 56 (mdo sde, tsa), folios 282a-282b;
(L) London Kangyur, vol. 52 (mdo sde, za), folios 7b-8b;
(M) IOL Tib J 75;
(N) Narthang Kangyur, vol. 61 (mdo sde, ba), folios 403b-404b;
(Q) Peking Kangyur, vol. 34 (mdo sna tshogs, mu), folios 260b-261a (p 232);
(S) Stok Palace Kangyur, vol. 73 (mdo sde, za), folios 6b-7b;
(Y) Readings of the Yongle Kangyur found in bka’ ’gyur (dpe bsdur ma) [Comparative Edition of the Kangyur], krung go’i bod rig pa zhib ’jug ste gnas kyi bka’ bstan dpe sdur khang (The Tibetan Tripitaka Collation Bureau of the China Tibetology Research Center). 108 volumes. Beijing: krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang (China Tibetology Publishing House), 2006–9, vol. 61 (mdo sde, tsa), pp. 681-683.
Śūraṃgamasamādhināmamahāyānasūtra:
Shoulengyan sanmei jing, 首楞嚴三昧經 (Taishō 642, 15), translated by Kumārajīva (402-412 c.e.).
’phags pa dpa’ bar ’gro ba’i ting nge ’dzin zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo, Toh. 132, translated by Śākyaprabha and Ratnarakṣita, Degé Kangyur, vol. 55 (mdo sde, da), folios 253b-316b. For translations, see Lamotte 1965, 1998.
Rdo, Rta (ed.). (2003) dkar chag ’phang thang ma / sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa. Beijing: mi rigs dpe skrun khang.
Pad dkar bzang po. Ed. Mi nyag mgon po (2006). mdo sde spyi’i rnam bzhag. Beijing: mi rigs dpe skrun khang.
Apple, James B. (2013a). “Redaction and Rhetoric in Mahāyāna Sūtras: The Case of Jayamati.” Paper presented at the 223rd meeting of the American Oriental Society, Portland, Oregon, Friday, March 15, 2013.
Apple, James B. (2013b). “Phylogenetics and Philology in the Study of Tibetan Kanjurs: The Case of the Tibetan Dunhuang version of the Sūtra of Jayamati.” Paper presented at the Canadian Society for the Study of Religion, Victoria, British Columbia, Sunday, June 2, 2013.
Apple, James B. (2015). “Redaction and Rhetoric in Mahāyāna Sūtras: The Case of Jayamati.” Indo-Iranian Journal, vol. 58:1, pp 1-24.
Bhattacharya, Gouriswar. (2010). “How to Justify the Spelling of the Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Term Bodhisatva?” In Eli Franco and Monika Zin (eds.), From Turfan to Ajanta: Festschrift for Dieter Schlingloff on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, vol. II, 35–50. Rupandehi: Lumbini International Research Institute.
Hureau, Sylvie. (2009). “Buddhist Rituals.” In John Lagerwey and Pengzhi Lü (eds.), Early Chinese Religion: The Period of Division (220-589 AD). Part two, vol. 1, 1207-1244.
Lalou, Marcelle. (1953). “Les Textes Bouddhiques au temps du Roi khri-sroṅ-lde-bcan.” Journal Asiatique 241: 313-53.
Lamotte, Étienne. (1965). La Concentration de la Marche Héroïque, Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra. Bruxelles: Institut belge des hautes études chinoises.
Lamotte, Étienne. (Sara Boin-Webb, tr.). (1998). Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra: The Concentration of Heroic Progress: An Early Mahaȳan̄a Buddhist Scripture. Surrey: Curzon Press.
La Vallée Poussin, Louis de. (1962). Catalogue of the Tibetan manuscripts from Tun-huang in the India Office Library. London: Published for the Commonwealth Relations Office by Oxford University Press.
Nattier, Jan. (2008). A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han [dong han] and Three Kingdoms [san guo] Periods. Tokyo: International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University.
Nishioka, Soshū. (1980). “ ‘Putun bukkyōshi’ Mokurokubusakuin 1 / Index to the Catalogue Section of Bu-ston’s ‘History of Buddhism’ 1.” Tōkyō daigaku bungakubu Bunka-kōryū-kenkyū-shisetsu Kenkyū Kiyō 4: 61-92.
Schaeffer, Kurtis R., and Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp. (2009). An Early Tibetan Survey of Buddhist literature: The Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od of Bcom ldan ral gri. Cambridge, Mass: Dept. of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University.
Schopen, Gregory. (2004). “If You Can’t Remember, How to Make It Up: Some Monastic Rules for Redacting Canonical Texts.” In Buddhist Monks and Business Matters: Still More Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India, pp. 395-408. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Skilling, Peter. (1997). “From bKa’ bstan bcos to bKa’ ’gyur and bsTan ’gyur.” In Eimer, Helmut (ed.), Transmission of the Tibetan Canon: Papers Presented at a Panel of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995, pp. 87-111. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Skilling, Peter. (2009). “Translating the Buddha’s Words: Some Notes on the Kanjur Translation Project.” Talk at Nonthaburi, March 11, 2009.
Skilling, Peter and Saerji. (2013). “The Circulation of the Buddhāvataṃsaka in India.” In Annual Report of The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University for the Academic Year 2012, vol. XVI, pp. 193-216.
Skilling, Peter. (2021) Questioning the Buddha: A Selection of Twenty-Five Sutras. Somerville: Wisdom Publications, 2021.
Van der Kuijp, Leonard. (2013). “Some Remarks on the Textual Transmission and Text of Bu ston Rin chen grub’s Chos ’byung, a Chronicle of Buddhism in India and Tibet.” In Revue d’études tibétaines, no. 25, Avril, pp. 115-193.
Vinītā, Bhikṣuṇī. (2010). A Unique Collection of Twenty Sūtras in a Sanskrit Manuscript from the Potala. Beijing: China Tibetology Publishing House.
The sūtra is introduced with the Buddha residing in Śrāvastī, in Jeta’s Wood, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, together with a great assembly of monks and a great multitude of bodhisatvas. The Buddha then addresses the bodhisatva Jayamati, instructs him on nineteen moral prescriptions, and indicates the corresponding effects of practicing these prescriptions when they are cultivated.
Translation by the University of Calgary Buddhist Studies team. This sūtra was introduced and translated by James B. Apple.
This translation has been completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
At first glance, the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra (“The Sūtra of the Inquiry of Jayamati”) appears to be a short Mahāyāna sūtra preserved in the Tibetan Kangyurs, as well as in a recently published Sanskrit manuscript. However, despite appearances, the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra in fact has an intertextual relationship, previously unrecognized, as part of the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra (“The Concentration of Heroic Progress”) (Apple 2015).
The Sanskrit version of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra is preserved as the eighth among twenty sūtras contained in a unique, but incomplete, manuscript collection recovered from the Potala Palace in Lhasa, Tibet. The Sanskrit edition is divided into three paragraphs with section numbers. We have retained the section numbers in the following translation of the Tibetan version. The Tibetan version of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra exists in twelve available Tibetan exemplars that date initially from the late eighth to mid-ninth century, beginning with the Dunhuang IOL Tib J 75 exemplar, up through the vulgate editions of handwritten and printed Kangyur versions which date from the thirteenth to the eighteenth centuries.
The Inquiry of Jayamati is listed in two early ninth century Tibetan catalogs, the Lhenkarma (lhan kar ma), and the Phangthangma (’phang thang ma), as the Jayamatiparipṛcchā (rgyal ba’i blo gros kyis zhus pa) in eleven ślokas. The late thirteenth century catalog of the Tibetan Kadampa master Darma Gyaltsen (dar ma rgyal mtshan, 1227-1305), commonly known as Chomden Reltri (bcom ldan ral gri), lists the sūtra as the Jayamatiparipṛcchā (rgyal ba’i blo gros kyis zhus pa) in eleven ślokas. A listing of texts appended to the History of Buddhism in India and its Spread to Tibet by Butön Rinchen Drup (bu ston rin chen grub, 1290-1364) also records the work as the Jayamatiparipṛcchā (rgyal ba’i blo gros kyis zhus pa) in eleven ślokas. These catalog lists match the Tibetan title of the sūtra that is found in a marginal note above the first line of the Sanskrit manuscript of the Jayamatiparipṛcchā as ’phags pa rgyal ba’i blo gros kyis zhus pa’i mdo ste brgyad par rdzogs so.
However, among vulgate Kangyurs, the Tshalpa (tshal pa) editions of Cone (C), Degé (D), Jangsatham (J), Peking (Q), the independent Kangyurs of Phug brag (F, F2), and the Gondlha (Go) proto-Kangyur give the title as The Mahāyāna Sūtra “Jayamati” (Jayamatināmamahāyānasūtra, rgyal ba’i blo gros zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo), while only the Kangyurs of the Thempangma (thems spang ma) line of London (L) and Stok Palace (S), as well as the mixed Kangyur of Narthang (N), give the title, in Tibetan at least, as ’phags pa rgyal ba’i blo gros kyis zhus pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo, (The Mahāyāna Sūtra “The Inquiry of Jayamati”). Although this should translate the Sanskrit Jayamatiparipṛcchānāmamahāyānasūtra, these Kangyurs, too, use the Sanskrit title Jayamatināmamahāyānasūtra. None of the available Tibetan editions have a colophon that lists the translators of the sūtra.
Analysis of the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions indicate that they preserve different nidāna or prologues. The Sanskrit version has the Bhagavān residing at Vulture’s Peak in Rājagrḥa with a great company of 1,250 monks, while the Tibetan version has the Bhagavān residing in Śrāvastī, in Jeta’s Wood, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, together with a great assembly of monks and a great multitude of bodhisatvas. Vinītā’s study also notes that the conclusions of the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions differ. These differences between the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the introductory settings and formulaic conclusions may well indicate that this brief sūtra was redacted in a manner similar to the Mūlasarvāstivāda rules on “how to make up a sūtra.” This is based on the fact that all Tibetan versions of the sūtra give Śrāvastī as the setting, this being the favored location for a redacted text among the Mūlasarvāstivāda according to Gregory Schopen’s recent analysis.
The other immediately apparent difference in content between the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions is that the edited Tibetan contains nineteen prescriptions rather than the fourteen in the Sanskrit. In the following translation, the third and fourth prescriptions in the Tibetan are in inverse order compared with the Sanskrit. Notably, the eighth prescription in the Tibetan version discusses knowledge, while the Sanskrit version has meditative absorption. Classical philological and phylogenetic textual analysis of the available Tibetan exemplars of the Jayamatiparipṛcchā indicates there are four lines of textual relations grouped within the (I) Tshalpa (C, D, J, N, Q, Y) line, (II) Thempangma (L, S) line, (III) Dunhuang (M) and Phug brag (F, F2) manuscripts, and (IV) Western Kangyur lines (Go). Textual analysis also indicates two recensions of the sūtra, with the Dunhuang exemplar and the two Phug brag exemplars, each containing sixteen prescriptions, representing one textual recension, while the Gondlha proto-Kangyur and vulgate Kangyurs represent another textual recension. The Dunhuang and Phug brag exemplars may represent early, but incomplete, Tibetan translations of the sūtra.
Be that as it may, the doctrinal content of the Jayamatiparipṛcchā, including all nineteen prescriptions found among vulgate Tibetan Kangyurs, is actually contained within the much older version of Kumārajīva’s early fifth century Chinese translation of the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, the Shoulengyan sanmei jing, 首楞嚴三昧經 (Taishō. no. 642, 15), as well as the later ninth century Tibetan translation of the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra. This intertextual relation between the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra and Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra has not been noticed before, either by traditional Buddhist scholars or by modern Buddhist studies scholars. Versions in French and English of the corresponding content are located in section 153 of Étienne Lamotte’s translation of the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, under the title given by Lamotte, “Why and How to Practice the Heroic Progress.” Kumārajīva’s Chinese version and the Tibetan version of the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, translated by Śākyaprabha and Ratnarakṣita, closely match the syntax and terminology found in the Tibetan version of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra, despite several minor differences in wording (Apple, 2015).
Although there is a direct correspondence in content between the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra and this section of the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, a significant difference between the two sūtras is the person speaking the prescribed content. In the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra the prescriptions are delivered by the Buddha to the bodhisatva Jayamati. The Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, on the other hand, attributes the prescriptions to Jayamati. After Jayamati proclaims the nineteen prescriptions in the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, the Buddha responds to Jayamati, corresponding to section 154 of Lamotte’s Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra translation, with a proclamation advocating the practice of the Śūraṃgamasamādhi, emphasizing how this samādhi encompasses and goes beyond the qualities that the bodhisatva Jayamati had declared.
The correspondence between the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra and this section of the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra brings up a number of interesting questions related to philology, intertextuality, and other cultural practices in the study of Mahāyāna sūtras. Based on the analysis of these sūtras, the stemma codicum for the content of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra, due to its being incorporated into the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, pushes the inferred archetype or oldest inferable ancestor of this sūtra back before the fifth century of Kumārajīva.
How do we know this? The content of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra was wholly subsumed and inverted from the Buddha’s speech to represent the bodhisatva Jayamati’s proclamation, including all nineteen prescriptions in the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra. This means that the content of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra must precede the composition of this section of the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra. Most modern scholars theorize that the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra is one of the oldest Mahāyāna sūtras due to its listing in Chinese catalogs as being translated several times before Kumārajīva’s fifth century Chinese version, including the non-extant second century Shoulengyan jing, 首楞嚴經, of Lokakṣema (支讖, 185 c.e.) and the lost third century translation of Zhi Qian (支謙). Although we are unable to verify that these early, but lost, Chinese versions included the section that corresponds with the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra, we can still infer that the content of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra with its nineteen prescriptions must go back to the fourth century. It is highly probable that the content of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra circulated as a type of subhāṣita or set of well-spoken sayings for monks who took up the vocation of Mahāyāna practices.
In sum, the evidence of relationships between the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra and Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra brings a nuanced awareness to the intertextual relationships between Mahāyāna sūtras. This evidence indicates that the authorial communities that composed and compiled “Mahāyāna” texts during the Kuṣāṇa and Gupta eras in South Asia were aware of each other’s work and that there were shared elements between authorial communities of different “Mahāyāna” sūtras. The subsuming of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra into the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra also provides a rare glimpse of something more. It points toward the editorial practices utilized by the authors of Mahāyāna sūtras to gain rhetorical advantage over competitors. The shared content demonstrates that the authorial communities of these sūtras were not only borrowing each other’s ideas, stock phrases, and literary tropes, but were actively competing to demonstrate that their vision of the bodhisatva way superseded the practices and motivations outlined by other groups.
Homage to all buddhas and bodhisatvas!
Thus I have heard at one time. The Bhagavān was residing in Śrāvastī, in Jeta’s Wood, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, together with a great assembly of monks and a great multitude of bodhisatvas. Then, the Bhagavān addressed the bodhisatva Jayamati as follows.
“Jayamati, a faithful man or woman of a good family (1) who desires merit should worship the Tathāgata; (2) who desires discernment should be devoted to learning; (3) who desires heavenly rebirth should uphold moral conduct; (4) who desires wealth should increase charity; (5) who desires beauty should cultivate patience; (6) who desires eloquence should pay respect to the guru; (7) who desires memory should not have excessive pride; (8) who desires knowledge should frequently practice appropriate mindfulness; (9) who desires liberation should abstain from all evil; (10) who desires to make all beings happy should generate the mind for awakening; (11) who desires a sweet voice should speak truthfully; (12) who desires virtuous qualities should take joy in solitude; (13) who desires the Dharma should attend to the spiritual friend; (14) who desires quiescence should frequently practice no contact with others; (15) who desires insight should frequently examine things as empty; (16) who desires rebirth in the world of Brahmā should cultivate love, compassion, joy, and equanimity; (17) who desires the abundant resources of gods and humans should behave in conformity with the path of ten virtuous actions; (18) who desires complete nirvāṇa should take joy in empty dharmas; (19) who desires to obtain all virtuous qualities should worship the Three Jewels.”
When the Bhagavān had spoken, the bodhisatva mahāsatva Jayamati, the complete assembly, and the world with its gods, humans, demigods and gandharvas rejoiced and highly praised what had been proclaimed by the Bhagavān.
This completes the noble Mahāyāna sūtra, “The Inquiry of Jayamati.”
The sūtra is introduced with the Buddha residing in Śrāvastī, in Jeta’s Wood, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, together with a great assembly of monks and a great multitude of bodhisatvas. The Buddha then addresses the bodhisatva Jayamati, instructs him on nineteen moral prescriptions, and indicates the corresponding effects of practicing these prescriptions when they are cultivated.
Translation by the University of Calgary Buddhist Studies team. This sūtra was introduced and translated by James B. Apple.
This translation has been completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
At first glance, the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra (“The Sūtra of the Inquiry of Jayamati”) appears to be a short Mahāyāna sūtra preserved in the Tibetan Kangyurs, as well as in a recently published Sanskrit manuscript. However, despite appearances, the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra in fact has an intertextual relationship, previously unrecognized, as part of the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra (“The Concentration of Heroic Progress”) (Apple 2015).
The Sanskrit version of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra is preserved as the eighth among twenty sūtras contained in a unique, but incomplete, manuscript collection recovered from the Potala Palace in Lhasa, Tibet. The Sanskrit edition is divided into three paragraphs with section numbers. We have retained the section numbers in the following translation of the Tibetan version. The Tibetan version of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra exists in twelve available Tibetan exemplars that date initially from the late eighth to mid-ninth century, beginning with the Dunhuang IOL Tib J 75 exemplar, up through the vulgate editions of handwritten and printed Kangyur versions which date from the thirteenth to the eighteenth centuries.
The Inquiry of Jayamati is listed in two early ninth century Tibetan catalogs, the Lhenkarma (lhan kar ma), and the Phangthangma (’phang thang ma), as the Jayamatiparipṛcchā (rgyal ba’i blo gros kyis zhus pa) in eleven ślokas. The late thirteenth century catalog of the Tibetan Kadampa master Darma Gyaltsen (dar ma rgyal mtshan, 1227-1305), commonly known as Chomden Reltri (bcom ldan ral gri), lists the sūtra as the Jayamatiparipṛcchā (rgyal ba’i blo gros kyis zhus pa) in eleven ślokas. A listing of texts appended to the History of Buddhism in India and its Spread to Tibet by Butön Rinchen Drup (bu ston rin chen grub, 1290-1364) also records the work as the Jayamatiparipṛcchā (rgyal ba’i blo gros kyis zhus pa) in eleven ślokas. These catalog lists match the Tibetan title of the sūtra that is found in a marginal note above the first line of the Sanskrit manuscript of the Jayamatiparipṛcchā as ’phags pa rgyal ba’i blo gros kyis zhus pa’i mdo ste brgyad par rdzogs so.
However, among vulgate Kangyurs, the Tshalpa (tshal pa) editions of Cone (C), Degé (D), Jangsatham (J), Peking (Q), the independent Kangyurs of Phug brag (F, F2), and the Gondlha (Go) proto-Kangyur give the title as The Mahāyāna Sūtra “Jayamati” (Jayamatināmamahāyānasūtra, rgyal ba’i blo gros zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo), while only the Kangyurs of the Thempangma (thems spang ma) line of London (L) and Stok Palace (S), as well as the mixed Kangyur of Narthang (N), give the title, in Tibetan at least, as ’phags pa rgyal ba’i blo gros kyis zhus pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo, (The Mahāyāna Sūtra “The Inquiry of Jayamati”). Although this should translate the Sanskrit Jayamatiparipṛcchānāmamahāyānasūtra, these Kangyurs, too, use the Sanskrit title Jayamatināmamahāyānasūtra. None of the available Tibetan editions have a colophon that lists the translators of the sūtra.
Analysis of the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions indicate that they preserve different nidāna or prologues. The Sanskrit version has the Bhagavān residing at Vulture’s Peak in Rājagrḥa with a great company of 1,250 monks, while the Tibetan version has the Bhagavān residing in Śrāvastī, in Jeta’s Wood, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, together with a great assembly of monks and a great multitude of bodhisatvas. Vinītā’s study also notes that the conclusions of the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions differ. These differences between the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the introductory settings and formulaic conclusions may well indicate that this brief sūtra was redacted in a manner similar to the Mūlasarvāstivāda rules on “how to make up a sūtra.” This is based on the fact that all Tibetan versions of the sūtra give Śrāvastī as the setting, this being the favored location for a redacted text among the Mūlasarvāstivāda according to Gregory Schopen’s recent analysis.
The other immediately apparent difference in content between the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions is that the edited Tibetan contains nineteen prescriptions rather than the fourteen in the Sanskrit. In the following translation, the third and fourth prescriptions in the Tibetan are in inverse order compared with the Sanskrit. Notably, the eighth prescription in the Tibetan version discusses knowledge, while the Sanskrit version has meditative absorption. Classical philological and phylogenetic textual analysis of the available Tibetan exemplars of the Jayamatiparipṛcchā indicates there are four lines of textual relations grouped within the (I) Tshalpa (C, D, J, N, Q, Y) line, (II) Thempangma (L, S) line, (III) Dunhuang (M) and Phug brag (F, F2) manuscripts, and (IV) Western Kangyur lines (Go). Textual analysis also indicates two recensions of the sūtra, with the Dunhuang exemplar and the two Phug brag exemplars, each containing sixteen prescriptions, representing one textual recension, while the Gondlha proto-Kangyur and vulgate Kangyurs represent another textual recension. The Dunhuang and Phug brag exemplars may represent early, but incomplete, Tibetan translations of the sūtra.
Be that as it may, the doctrinal content of the Jayamatiparipṛcchā, including all nineteen prescriptions found among vulgate Tibetan Kangyurs, is actually contained within the much older version of Kumārajīva’s early fifth century Chinese translation of the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, the Shoulengyan sanmei jing, 首楞嚴三昧經 (Taishō. no. 642, 15), as well as the later ninth century Tibetan translation of the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra. This intertextual relation between the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra and Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra has not been noticed before, either by traditional Buddhist scholars or by modern Buddhist studies scholars. Versions in French and English of the corresponding content are located in section 153 of Étienne Lamotte’s translation of the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, under the title given by Lamotte, “Why and How to Practice the Heroic Progress.” Kumārajīva’s Chinese version and the Tibetan version of the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, translated by Śākyaprabha and Ratnarakṣita, closely match the syntax and terminology found in the Tibetan version of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra, despite several minor differences in wording (Apple, 2015).
Although there is a direct correspondence in content between the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra and this section of the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, a significant difference between the two sūtras is the person speaking the prescribed content. In the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra the prescriptions are delivered by the Buddha to the bodhisatva Jayamati. The Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, on the other hand, attributes the prescriptions to Jayamati. After Jayamati proclaims the nineteen prescriptions in the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, the Buddha responds to Jayamati, corresponding to section 154 of Lamotte’s Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra translation, with a proclamation advocating the practice of the Śūraṃgamasamādhi, emphasizing how this samādhi encompasses and goes beyond the qualities that the bodhisatva Jayamati had declared.
The correspondence between the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra and this section of the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra brings up a number of interesting questions related to philology, intertextuality, and other cultural practices in the study of Mahāyāna sūtras. Based on the analysis of these sūtras, the stemma codicum for the content of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra, due to its being incorporated into the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, pushes the inferred archetype or oldest inferable ancestor of this sūtra back before the fifth century of Kumārajīva.
How do we know this? The content of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra was wholly subsumed and inverted from the Buddha’s speech to represent the bodhisatva Jayamati’s proclamation, including all nineteen prescriptions in the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra. This means that the content of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra must precede the composition of this section of the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra. Most modern scholars theorize that the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra is one of the oldest Mahāyāna sūtras due to its listing in Chinese catalogs as being translated several times before Kumārajīva’s fifth century Chinese version, including the non-extant second century Shoulengyan jing, 首楞嚴經, of Lokakṣema (支讖, 185 c.e.) and the lost third century translation of Zhi Qian (支謙). Although we are unable to verify that these early, but lost, Chinese versions included the section that corresponds with the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra, we can still infer that the content of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra with its nineteen prescriptions must go back to the fourth century. It is highly probable that the content of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra circulated as a type of subhāṣita or set of well-spoken sayings for monks who took up the vocation of Mahāyāna practices.
In sum, the evidence of relationships between the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra and Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra brings a nuanced awareness to the intertextual relationships between Mahāyāna sūtras. This evidence indicates that the authorial communities that composed and compiled “Mahāyāna” texts during the Kuṣāṇa and Gupta eras in South Asia were aware of each other’s work and that there were shared elements between authorial communities of different “Mahāyāna” sūtras. The subsuming of the Jayamatiparipṛcchāsūtra into the Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra also provides a rare glimpse of something more. It points toward the editorial practices utilized by the authors of Mahāyāna sūtras to gain rhetorical advantage over competitors. The shared content demonstrates that the authorial communities of these sūtras were not only borrowing each other’s ideas, stock phrases, and literary tropes, but were actively competing to demonstrate that their vision of the bodhisatva way superseded the practices and motivations outlined by other groups.
Homage to all buddhas and bodhisatvas!
Thus I have heard at one time. The Bhagavān was residing in Śrāvastī, in Jeta’s Wood, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, together with a great assembly of monks and a great multitude of bodhisatvas. Then, the Bhagavān addressed the bodhisatva Jayamati as follows.
“Jayamati, a faithful man or woman of a good family (1) who desires merit should worship the Tathāgata; (2) who desires discernment should be devoted to learning; (3) who desires heavenly rebirth should uphold moral conduct; (4) who desires wealth should increase charity; (5) who desires beauty should cultivate patience; (6) who desires eloquence should pay respect to the guru; (7) who desires memory should not have excessive pride; (8) who desires knowledge should frequently practice appropriate mindfulness; (9) who desires liberation should abstain from all evil; (10) who desires to make all beings happy should generate the mind for awakening; (11) who desires a sweet voice should speak truthfully; (12) who desires virtuous qualities should take joy in solitude; (13) who desires the Dharma should attend to the spiritual friend; (14) who desires quiescence should frequently practice no contact with others; (15) who desires insight should frequently examine things as empty; (16) who desires rebirth in the world of Brahmā should cultivate love, compassion, joy, and equanimity; (17) who desires the abundant resources of gods and humans should behave in conformity with the path of ten virtuous actions; (18) who desires complete nirvāṇa should take joy in empty dharmas; (19) who desires to obtain all virtuous qualities should worship the Three Jewels.”
When the Bhagavān had spoken, the bodhisatva mahāsatva Jayamati, the complete assembly, and the world with its gods, humans, demigods and gandharvas rejoiced and highly praised what had been proclaimed by the Bhagavān.
This completes the noble Mahāyāna sūtra, “The Inquiry of Jayamati.”