Loading translation...
This version is mentioned by Nakamura 1980 (p. 167) but is there misspelled as Mañjuśrīvikārasūtra.
We have indicated a number of these differences in the notes. Along these lines, we have also numbered the verses for reference and editing purposes.
These sources cite the text as ’jam dpal gnas pa’i mdo. Included among these treatises is a Dunhuang fragment of the rnal ’byor chen por bsgom pa’i don attributed to Puk Yeshé Yang (771–850
This meaning of the Sanskrit verb vihṛ- is related to another meaning that is not commonly found in Buddhist literature, “to roam about for one’s pleasure” or “to walk around at leisure.” One of the Chinese translations (Taishō 470) has in fact rendered the word vihāra in the title of the sūtra as 巡行 (“strolling around”), and it also uses these characters for the part in the sūtra where Mañjuśrī “walks about” among the monastic dwellings. It therefore may be that the underlying Sanskrit of this sūtra would have also attested to this use of the verb. However, the title of the later Chinese translation (Taishō 471) only uses the word 行 (literally “to go” but also “to practice”), which thus covers the more common, practice-oriented meaning of vihāra, “dwelling.”
Tib. phyem red kyi dus kyi tshe nang du yang dag ’jog las bzhengs nas is, as noted by Harrison 1990 (p. 8, n. 8), related to the Pāli sāyaṇhasamayaṃ paṭisallāṇā vuṭṭhito and Sanskrit sāyāhṇa(kāla)samaye pratisaṃlayanād vyutthāya, “emerging towards evening from solitary meditation.”
The following questions from “…bodily form?” to “…the formless realm” are missing in Taishō 470.
Taishō 470 translates “teaching freedom from desire” for “doctrine of disengagement” throughout the sūtra.
This text takes issue with the thesis of the Sarvāstivādin school that the past, present, and future really and substantially exist (Bareau 2013, p. 177ff.).
I have based the translation on the Dunhuang (IOL Tib J 149, folio 6.a), as all the later Kangyurs, including D, add mi slob pa rnams kyang “even those not in training” (aśaikṣa). However, arhats are synonymous with aśaikṣa s, and so this phrase seems to be an addition to the text.
dge sbyong gi chos ≈ śramaṇadharma (samaṇadhamma). See Anālayo 2009 for this concept in early Buddhist sources. The Thempangma (L, S, V, and Z) and Tabo (Ta) manuscripts read dge slong for dge sbyong, a frequent wrong reading in Tibetan Kangyurs. Taishō 470 has “dwells in the quality of a śrāvaka” instead of “dwells in the quality of spiritual practice.”
Taishō 470 begins this paragraph with, “At that time, after Mañjuśrī completed this teaching, the five hundred monks stood up from their seats and left, saying, ‘We do not view Mañjuśrī’s body; we do not listen for Mañjuśrī’s name. Wherever Mañjuśrī is and dwells, we should abandon that place. Why? Mañjuśrī is at variance with our pure moral conduct (brahmacarya). Thus, we should abandon him.’ ”
Taishō 470 for the following two sentences has, “Because this realm of reality is itself dharmatā, the way things are, the realm of reality has no thought or regression.”
The Dunhuang manuscript (IOL Tib J 149) reads ’khyims ≈ pariveṣin (“to circle about”) rather than chud zos te ngo mtshar byas.
Taishō 470 reads, “At that time, the World Honored One, in order to reveal this meaning again, uttered these verses.”
Taishō 470 has the same number of verses, but there are differences in style, terminology, and idioms of expression that we have not noted.
I have based the translation on the Dunhuang (IOL Tib J 149), which reads ’dus byas la ni gang rtog against all Kangyur editions, which read ’dus ma byas la gang rtog (“that which is conceptualized as unconditioned”). The Dunhuang reading matches an early Tibetan commentary attributed to Puk Yeshé Yang (771–850
I have based the translation on the Dunhuang (IOL Tib J 149) and other Kangyurs (Go, L, Ne, Q, and Ta), which read ming dang skye med gang yin pa against Degé, which reads ming dang skye mched gang yin pa (“The names and sense-bases”).
Note that all editions read zad pa except for Degé, which reads zag pa. See Apple 2014, p. 315, n. 400.
Taishō 470 reads “Five hundred monks generated the mind set on unexcelled, true, and complete awakening.”
A term meaning acceptance, forbearance, or patience. As the third of the six perfections, patience is classified into three kinds: the capacity to tolerate abuse from sentient beings, to tolerate the hardships of the path to buddhahood, and to tolerate the profound nature of reality. As a term referring to a bodhisattva’s realization, dharmakṣānti (chos la bzod pa) can refer to the ways one becomes “receptive” to the nature of Dharma, and it can be an abbreviation of anutpattikadharmakṣānti, “forbearance for the unborn nature, or nonproduction, of dharmas.”
The essentially pure nature of mind is obscured and afflicted by various psychological defilements, which destroy the mind’s peace and composure and lead to unwholesome deeds of body, speech, and mind, acting as causes for continued existence in saṃsāra. Included among them are the primary afflictions of desire (rāga), anger (dveṣa), and ignorance (avidyā). It is said that there are eighty-four thousand of these negative mental qualities, for which the eighty-four thousand categories of the Buddha’s teachings serve as the antidote.
Kleśa is also commonly translated as “negative emotions,” “disturbing emotions,” and so on. The Pāli kilesa, Middle Indic kileśa, and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit kleśa all primarily mean “stain” or “defilement.” The translation “affliction” is a secondary development that derives from the more general (non-Buddhist) classical understanding of √kliś (“to harm,“ “to afflict”). Both meanings are noted by Buddhist commentators.
dmigs (pa) translates a number of Sanskrit terms, including ālambana, upalabdhi, and ālambate. These terms commonly refer to the apprehending of a subject, an object, and the relationships that exist between them. The term may also be translated as “referentiality,” meaning a system based on the existence of referent objects, referent subjects, and the referential relationships that exist between them. As part of their doctrine of “threefold nonapprehending/nonreferentiality” (’khor gsum mi dmigs pa), Mahāyāna Buddhists famously assert that all three categories of apprehending lack substantiality.
According to Buddhist tradition, one who is worthy of worship (pūjām arhati), or one who has conquered the enemies, the mental afflictions (kleśa-ari-hata-vat), and reached liberation from the cycle of rebirth and suffering. It is the fourth and highest of the four fruits attainable by śrāvakas. Also used as an epithet of the Buddha.
A type of nonhuman being whose precise status is subject to different views, but is included as one of the six classes of beings in the sixfold classification of realms of rebirth. In the Buddhist context, asuras are powerful beings said to be dominated by envy, ambition, and hostility. They are also known in the pre-Buddhist and pre-Vedic mythologies of India and Iran, and feature prominently in Vedic and post-Vedic Brahmanical mythology, as well as in the Buddhist tradition. In these traditions, asuras are often described as being engaged in interminable conflict with the devas (gods).
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”).
This refers to what occurs at the end of an arhat’s or a buddha’s life. When nirvāṇa is attained at awakening, whether as an arhat or buddha, all suffering, afflicted mental states (kleśa), and causal processes (karman) that lead to rebirth and suffering in cyclic existence have ceased, but due to previously accumulated karma, the aggregates of that life remain and must still exhaust themselves. It is only at the end of life that these cease, and since no new aggregates arise, the arhat or buddha is said to attain parinirvāṇa, meaning “complete” or “final” nirvāṇa. This is synonymous with the attainment of nirvāṇa without remainder (anupadhiśeṣanirvāṇa).
According to the Mahāyāna view of a single vehicle (ekayāna), the arhat’s parinirvāṇa at death, despite being so called, is not final. The arhat must still enter the bodhisattva path and reach buddhahood (see Unraveling the Intent, Toh 106, \1\27.14.) On the other hand, the parinirvāṇa of a buddha, ultimately speaking, should be understood as a display manifested for the benefit of beings; see The Teaching on the Extraordinary Transformation That Is the Miracle of Attaining the Buddha’s Powers (Toh 186), \1\21.32.
The term parinirvāṇa is also associated specifically with the passing away of the Buddha Śākyamuni, in Kuśinagara, in northern India.
Also translated as “practicing concentration.”
Also translated as “concentrating.”
A term meaning defilement, impurity, and pollution, broadly referring to cognitive and emotional factors that disturb and obscure the mind. As the self-perpetuating process of affliction in the minds of beings, it is a synonym for saṃsāra. It is often paired with its opposite, vyavadāna, meaning “purification.”
This phrase occurs throughout a number of Perfection of Wisdom discourses and several other sūtras (Apple 2014). See, for example, the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā §7 (Harrison 2006, p. 145).
Also translated as “non-decrease and non-increase.” See i.8.
Refers to blissful meditative practices achieved in this life as a result of advanced progress on the path in mainstream forms of Buddhism. This phrase occurs throughout the Śrāvakabhūmi (D folios 25.a, 70.b, 74.b, and 152.a). It is synonymous with mthong ba’i chos la bde bar gnas pa (Skt. dṛṣtadharmasukhavihāra, “abiding in bliss in the present life”), a term applied to certain types of arhats. Cf. Apple 2013.
Emptiness (stong pa nyid), signlessness (mtshan ma med pa), and wishlessness (smon pa med pa) are known as the “three doors to deliverance” (triṇivimokṣamukhāni) or the “three concentrations” (trayaḥ samādhyaḥ) and as a set appear in both mainstream Buddhist sūtras and Mahāyāna sūtras. See Conze 1962, pp. 59–69; Lamotte 1944, pp. 1213–15; and Deleanu 2000, pp. 74–78.
The name of a buddha in the future.
These comprise (1) the meditative absorption of the sense field of infinite space, (2) the meditative absorption of the sense field of infinite consciousness, (3) the meditative absorption of the sense field of nothing-at-all, and (4) the meditative absorption of neither perception nor non-perception.
The four positive qualities of loving kindness (byams pa, maitrī), compassion (snying rje, karuṇā), sympathetic joy (dga’ ba, muditā), and equanimity (btang snyoms, upekṣā), which may be radiated towards oneself and then immeasurable sentient beings.
The four levels of meditative concentration previously attained by beings who inhabit the heavens of the form realm. These are named “first” through “fourth” and each is described at length in Buddhist texts.
A class of generally benevolent nonhuman beings who inhabit the skies, sometimes said to inhabit fantastic cities in the clouds, and more specifically to dwell on the eastern slopes of Mount Meru, where they are ruled by the Great King Dhṛtarāṣṭra. They are most renowned as celestial musicians who serve the gods. In the Abhidharma, the term is also used to refer to the mental body assumed by sentient beings during the intermediate state between death and rebirth. Gandharvas are said to live on fragrances (gandha) in the desire realm, hence the Tibetan translation dri za, meaning “scent eater.”
Name of a mountain close to Rājgṛha. It is famous as the place where the Buddha is said to have taught the Prajñāpāramitā and other teachings.
The name of a hell realm. One of the eight hot hells.
Also translated as “unwavering.”
Also translated as “immovable.”
“Et cetera,” “in short,” “in brief”; a résumé of a preceding series of stanzas. Cf. Mahāvyupatti §5435; Edgerton 1953, p. 354a.
The bodhisattva Maitreya is an important figure in many Buddhist traditions, where he is unanimously regarded as the buddha of the future era. He is said to currently reside in the heaven of Tuṣita, as Śākyamuni’s regent, where he awaits the proper time to take his final rebirth and become the fifth buddha in the Fortunate Eon, reestablishing the Dharma in this world after the teachings of the current buddha have disappeared. Within the Mahāyāna sūtras, Maitreya is elevated to the same status as other central bodhisattvas such as Mañjuśrī and Avalokiteśvara, and his name appears frequently in sūtras, either as the Buddha’s interlocutor or as a teacher of the Dharma. Maitreya literally means “Loving One.” He is also known as Ajita, meaning “Invincible.”
For more information on Maitreya, see, for example, the introduction to \1\2Maitreya’s Setting Out (Toh 198).
Mañjuśrī is one of the “eight close sons of the Buddha” and a bodhisattva who embodies wisdom. He is a major figure in the Mahāyāna sūtras, appearing often as an interlocutor of the Buddha. In his most well-known iconographic form, he is portrayed bearing the sword of wisdom in his right hand and a volume of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtra in his left. To his name, Mañjuśrī, meaning “Gentle and Glorious One,” is often added the epithet Kumārabhūta, “having a youthful form.” He is also called Mañjughoṣa, Mañjusvara, and Pañcaśikha.
See “Mañjuśrī.”
Māra, literally “death” or “maker of death,” is the name of the deva who tried to prevent the Buddha from achieving awakening, the name given to the class of beings he leads, and also an impersonal term for the destructive forces that keep beings imprisoned in saṃsāra:
(1) As a deva, Māra is said to be the principal deity in the Heaven of Making Use of Others’ Emanations (paranirmitavaśavartin), the highest paradise in the desire realm. He famously attempted to prevent the Buddha’s awakening under the Bodhi tree—see The Play in Full (Toh 95), \1\221.1—and later sought many times to thwart the Buddha’s activity. In the sūtras, he often also creates obstacles to the progress of śrāvakas and bodhisattvas. (2) The devas ruled over by Māra are collectively called mārakāyika or mārakāyikadevatā, the “deities of Māra’s family or class.” In general, these māras too do not wish any being to escape from saṃsāra, but can also change their ways and even end up developing faith in the Buddha, as exemplified by Sārthavāha; see The Play in Full (Toh 95), \1\221.14 and \1\221.43. (3) The term māra can also be understood as personifying four defects that prevent awakening, called (i) the divine māra (devaputramāra), which is the distraction of pleasures; (ii) the māra of Death (mṛtyumāra), which is having one’s life interrupted; (iii) the māra of the aggregates (skandhamāra), which is identifying with the five aggregates; and (iv) the māra of the afflictions (kleśamāra), which is being under the sway of the negative emotions of desire, hatred, and ignorance.
One of the three qualities of mindfulness (dran pa; smṛti) including familiarization (’dris pa’i dngos po; samstute vastuni) and nondistraction (mi g.yeng ba; avikṣipta). See, for example, Jaini 1992 (pp. 47–59) on asaṃpramoṣa in Abhidharma literature. The “absorption of nonforgetfullness” (asaṃpramoṣo nāma samādhiḥ) is listed in the Mahāvyutpatti §526.
’phags pa ’jam dpal gnas pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo (Āryamañjuśrīvihāranāmamahāyānasūtra). Degé Kangyur vol. 61 (mdo sde, tsa), folios 266.b–271.b.
’phags pa ’jam dpal gnas pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. 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, pp. 725–37.
’phags pa ’jam dpal gnas pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. Basgo Manuscript Kangyur vol. 53 (mdo, tsa), folios 277.a–384.a.
’phags pa ’jam dpal gnas pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. Bathang (Newark) Kangyur vol. 10, folios 13.b–18.a.
’phags pa ’jam dpal gnas pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. Choné Kangyur vol. 41 (mdo sde, tsa), folios 328.a–333.b.
’phags pa ’jam dpal gnas pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. Gondhla Collection Kangyur vol. 16 (ka), folios 15.a–19.a.
’phags pa ’jam dpal gnas pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. Hemis Kangyur 61.6 (mdo, tsa), folios 310.a–317.a.
’phags pa ’jam dpal gnas pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. Kangxi “Dragon” Kangyur no. 865 (mdo, tsu), folios 286/427.a–291/535.a. See Chou 2011.
’phags pa ’jam dpal gnas pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. London (Shelkar) Kangyur vol. 39 (mdo sde, ta), folios 367.b–374.a.
’phags pa ’jam dpal gnas pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. Peking Qianlong Printed Kangyur vol. 34 (mdo sna tshogs, mu), folios 275.a–280.a.
’phags pa ’jam dpal gnas pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. Phukdrak Kangyur vol. 82 (mdo sde, sa), folios 194.b–202.a.
’phags pa ’jam dpal gnas pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. Shey Palace Kangyur vol. 56 (mdo, ta), folios 443.b–451.a.
’phags pa ’jam dpal gnas pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. Stok Palace Manuscript Kangyur vol. 60 (mdo sde, ta), folios 394.a–401.a.
’phags pa ’jam dpal gnas pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. Tabo Manuscript RN21 (ki 46–49); RN311 (ka 37).
’phags pa ’jam dpal gnas pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. Ulanbatar Kangyur vol. 62 (mdo sde, ta), folios 370.a–377.a.
Anālayo, Bhikkhu. “Qualities of a True Recluse (Samaṇa) – According to the Samaṇamaṇḍikā-sutta and its Madhyama-āgama Parallel.” Journal of the Centre for Buddhist Studies, Sri Lanka 7 (2009): 153–84.
Apple, James B. (2014). A Stairway taken by the Lucid: Tsong kha pa’s Study of Noble Beings. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 2013.
Apple, James B. (2014). “Fragments and Phylogeny of the Tibetan Version of the Mañjuśrīvihārasūtra: A Case Study in the Genealogy of Tibetan Kanjurs.” Annual Report of The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology (ARIRIAB) at Soka University 17 (2014): 293–335.
Bareau, André. The Buddhist Schools of the Small Vehicle. Translated by Sara Boin-Webb. Edited by Andrew Skilton. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2013.
Braarvig, Jens (1993). Akṣayamatinirdeśasūtra. 2 vols. Oslo: Solum Forlag, 1993.
Braarvig, Jens (1994). “The Practice of the Bodhisattvas: Negative Dialectics and Provocative Arguments. Edition of the Tibetan text of the Bodhisattvacaryānirdeśa with a translation and introduction.” Acta Orientalia 55 (1994): 113–60.
Chang, Garma C. C. A Treasury of Mahāyāna Sūtras: Selections from the Mahāratnakūta Sūtra. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1983.
Chou, Kungshin. Preface in Tibetan Scripture-Index to 龍藏經,金字法寶 (The Tibetan Dragon Sutras, Golden Ink Dharma Treasure). 108 volumes. Taiwan: 國立故宮博物院 (National Palace Museum), 龍岡印刷股份有限公司 Long-Kuang Digital Culture Co., 2011.
Conze, Edward (1962). Buddhist thought in India. London: Allen & Unwin, 1962.
Conze, Edward (1973). The Short Prajñāpāramitā Texts. London: Luzac & Co., 1973.
Conze, Edward (1975). The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom: With the Divisions of the Abhisamayālaṅkāra. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975.
Deleanu, Florin. “A Preliminary Study on Meditation and the Beginnings of Mahāyāna Buddhism.” Annual Report of The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology (ARIRIAB) at Soka University 3 (2000), pp. 65–113.
Dharmachakra Translation Committee, trans. (2022). The Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom, the Blessed Mother (Bhagavatīprajñāpāramitāhṛdaya, Toh 21). 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2022.
Edgerton, Franklin. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. 2 vol. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1970.
Gyamtso, Yeshe, trans. A Garland of Jewels: The Eight Great Bodhisattvas. Woodstock, NY: KTD Publications, 2008.
Harrison, Paul M. (1990). The Samādhi of Direct Encounter with the Buddhas of the Present: An Annotated English Translation of the Tibetan Version of the Pratyutpanna-Buddha-Saṃmukhāvasthita-Samādhi-Sūtra with Several Appendices relating to the History of the Text. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series 5. Tokyo: International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1990.
Harrison, Paul M. (2006). “Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā: A New English Translation of the Sanskrit Text Based on Two Manuscripts from Greater Gandhāra.” In Buddhist Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection Volume III, edited by Jens Braarvig et al., 133–59. Hermes: Oslo, 2006.
Herrmann-Pfandt, Adelheid. Die lHan kar ma: ein früher Katalog der ins Tibetische übersetzten buddhistischen Texte. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008.
Hikata, Ryusho. Suvikrantāvikrāmi-paripṛcchā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra: Edited with an introductory essay by Ryusho Hikata. Fukuoka: Kyushu University, 1958.
Jaini, Padmanabh. “Smṛti in the Abhidharma Literature and the Development of Buddhist Accounts of Memory of the Past.” In In the Mirror of Memory: Reflections on Mindfulness and Remembrance in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, edited by Janet Gyatso, 47–59. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992.
Kapstein, Matthew, trans. “An Imperial Decree on Translation.” In Sources of Tibetan Tradition, edited by Kurtis R. Schaeffer, Matthew Kapstein, and Gray Tuttle, 72–76. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013.
Lamotte, Étienne. Le Traité de la Grande Vertu de Sagesse de Nàgàrjuna (Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra). Volume 1. Louvain: Institut Orientaliste, 1944.
Lopez, Donald S. The Heart Sūtra Explained: Indian and Tibetan Commentaries. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1988.
Mahāvyutpatti (bye brag tu rtogs par byed pa chen po). Toh 4346, Degé Tengyur vol. 204 (sna tshogs, co), folios 1.b–131.a.
Meisig, Konrad, and Marion Meisig. A Buddhist Chinese Glossary: Buddhistisch-Chinesisches Glossar. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012.
Monier-Williams, M. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1974.
Nakamura, H. Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes. Tokyo: Kufs Publication, 1980.
Nishioka, Soshū. “ ‘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 (1980): 61–92.
Otokawa, Bun’ei. “New Fragments of the rNal ’byor chen por bsgom pa’i don from Tabo.” In Tabo studies II: Manuscripts, Texts, Inscriptions, and the Arts, edited by Cristina Anna Scherrer-Schaub and Ernst Steinkellner, 99–162. Roma: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente, 1999.
Pekar Sangpo (pad dkar bzang po). mdo sde spyi’i rnam bzhag. Edited by mi nyag mgon po. Beijing: mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2006.
Pangthangma (dkar chag ’phang thang ma / sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa). Beijing: mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2003.
Regamey, Constantin. Philosophy in the Samādhirājasūtra: Three Chapters from the Samādhirājasūtra. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1990.
Schaeffer, Kurtis R., and Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp. An Early Tibetan Survey of Buddhist Literature: The “Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od” of Bcom ldan ral gri. Harvard Oriental Series 64. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
Shiu, Chung Hung Henry. The Nonduality of Nonconceptual Wisdom and Conceptual Cognition: A Study of the Tathāgatagarbha Teaching in the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa-parivarta. PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2006.
Situ Penchen Chökyi Jungné (si tu paN chen chos kyi ’byung gnas). Mahāmudrā Teachings of the Supreme Siddhas: The Eighth Situpa Tenpa’i Nyinchay on the Third Gyalwa Karmapa Rangjung Dorje’s “Aspiration Prayer of Mahāmudrā of Definitive Meaning.” Translated and edited by Lama Sherab Dorje. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion, 1995.
Skilling, Peter. “Notes on the Bhadrakalpika-sūtra (III): Beyond the Fortunate Aeon.” Annual Report of The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology (ARIRIAB) at Soka University 15 (2012): 117–26.
Vimalamitra (dri med bshes gnyen). cig car ’jug pa rnam par mi rtog pa’i bsgom don. Toh 3910, Degé Tengyur, vol. 110 (dbu ma, ki), folios 6.b–13.b.
Taishō 470 Wén shū shī lì xún xíng jīng 文殊師利巡行經, translated by Bodhiruci ca. 508–535
Taishō 471 Wén shū shī lì xíng jīng 文殊尸利行經, translated by Jñānagupta in 586
C Choné Printed Kangyur
D Degé Printed Kangyur
Go Gondhla Collection Proto-Kangyur
J Lithang Printed Kangyur
L London Manuscript Kangyur
Ne Bathang Manuscript Kangyur
Q Peking Qianlong Printed Kangyur
S Stok Palace Manuscript Kangyur
Ta Tabo Manuscript
V Ulanbatar Manuscript Kangyur
Y Yongle Printed Kangyur
Z Shey Palace Manuscript Kangyur
The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī first presents a dialogue between Mañjuśrī and Śāriputra regarding the activity of “dwelling” (vihāra) during meditation, the nature of dharmas, and the “true nature” (tathatā). This opens into a conversation between Mañjuśrī and a large gathering of monks whereby Mañjuśrī corrects the monks’ misinterpretations. Mañjuśrī then instructs Śāriputra on the enduring and indestructible nature of the realm of sentient beings and the realm of reality. Finally, the power of Mañjuśrī’s teaching is explained and reiterated by the Buddha.
Translation by the University of Calgary Buddhist Studies Team. This sūtra was introduced and translated by Dr. James B. Apple with assistance from Dr. Shinobu Arai Apple.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī opens with the Buddha Śākyamuni residing in Rājagṛha on Gṛdhrakūṭa Mountain together with a great monastic assembly of five hundred monks and a multitude of bodhisattvas. After the Buddha has delivered a Dharma teaching, Mañjuśrī walks through the monastic quarters of the area and sees Śāriputra engaged in meditation among the residences of the five hundred monks. There follows a dialogue between Mañjuśrī and Śāriputra regarding the activity of “dwelling” during meditation, the nature of dharmas, and the “true nature.” This opens into a conversation between Mañjuśrī and the five hundred monks in which Mañjuśrī corrects the monks’ misinterpretations. Finally, Mañjuśrī instructs Śāriputra on the non-decrease and non-increase of the realm of sentient beings (sattvadhātu) and the realm of reality (dharmadhātu)—an instruction that indicates the nonconceptual, immutable, and indestructible nature of awakening. Because this nature, symbolized by Mañjuśrī himself, does not dwell anywhere, it is without any dwelling place, in other words without any determinate location or foundation. The power of Mañjuśrī’s teaching is explained and reiterated by the Buddha. The sūtra concludes with the Buddha predicting the future awakening of the five hundred monks and eighty thousand gods who are present in the audience.
The sūtra is not extant in Sanskrit but is preserved in Chinese, Tibetan, and Mongolian versions. There are two Chinese versions: the 文殊師利巡行經 Wén shū shī lì xún xíng jīng translated by Bodhiruci ca. 508–535
The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī is also recorded in the Denkarma and Phangthangma inventories of Tibetan imperial translations, so we can establish that it was first translated from Sanskrit into Tibetan no later than the early ninth century, as the Denkarma is dated to 812
The sūtra enjoyed some popularity in eighth- and ninth-century Tibet, a fact attested to by its inclusion among the one hundred and four titles of Buddhist scriptures found in Mahāvyutpatti §1329 and the number of extant Tibetan Dunhuang fragments. The sūtra was also cited in several early Tibetan treatises from Dunhuang and two times by Vimalamitra (eighth century) in his commentary on nonconceptual meditation. The sūtra is also sporadically cited in later Tibetan commentaries and was briefly analyzed by Pekar Sangpo (sixteenth century) in his overview of the sūtras preserved among Tibetan Kangyurs.
The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī (in Sanskrit Mañjuśrīvihāra) is a discourse that plays on the Sanskrit word vihāra, which can variously mean (1) dwelling place, (2) condition of existence, (3) walking about, (4) monastery, (5) pleasure ground, (6) sport, (7) arrangement, or distribution. The Chinese translators understood the title of the term in the sense of (3), with Bodhiruci translating the title as Mañjuśrī’s “going around” (巡行) and Jñānagupta translating the nearly synonymous Mañjuśrī’s “wandering” (行). This connotation refers to the opening scene, in which Mañjuśrī wanders about the monastic residences. This sense is not captured in the Tibetan translation gnas pa, which corresponds only to connotations (1) or (2) among the possibilities listed above. Without a Sanskrit manuscript of the text, we cannot be sure of the exact connotation of vihāra, but the context throughout the sūtra implies that the “dwelling place” of Mañjuśrī is not a determinate place. The dwelling place that Mañjuśrī explains to Śāriputra and the five hundred monks is the realm of reality, which is beyond time, unlocalized, immovable, and inaccessible to conceptual thought. Awakening in this sūtra is characterized as the nonconceptual awareness of the infinite realm of reality.
In the first half of the sūtra, Mañjuśrī criticizes various presuppositions underlying Śāriputra’s conceptual understanding of concentration and its role in spiritual practice (1.3), the past, present, and future (1.5, 1.11), comprehension (1.16), and the “dwelling place” of an arhat (1.18). Although difficult to verify, the presuppositions of Śāriputra may well represent the mainstream Buddhist understandings of a person following the Abhidharma of the Sarvāstivādin ordination lineage, particularly Śāriputra’s advocacy of the practice of standing firm in the past, present, and future. According to Pekar Sangpo, the concise meaning of this part of the sūtra is that Śāriputra is taught, as a response to Mañjuśrī’s questions, the emptiness that by nature is free from the conceptual fabrication of anything.
The second half (1.21–1.41) of the sūtra consists of a dialogue that develops between Mañjuśrī and the five hundred monks in the audience. The five hundred monks are initially disturbed by and reject Mañjuśrī’s teaching and move away from him, but the monks then return upon Mañjuśrī’s further instruction to Śāriputra. Mañjuśrī’s additional instruction to Śāriputra is the cause for four hundred of the monks’ minds to be liberated from the pollutions. However, one hundred monks fall into a deep hell realm due to being greatly disturbed by Mañjuśrī’s instruction. Śāriputra then questions Mañjuśrī’s motives and mode of teaching. The Buddha comes to the defense of Mañjuśrī and explains the great karmic benefit of hearing the profound Dharma for these monks, even if they doubt it. The Buddha predicts that the monks will swiftly be reborn in Tuṣita heaven after their instructive interlude in hell and that they will then become arhat disciples under the future Buddha Maitreya. Tibetan scholars like Situ Penchen Chökyi Jungné (1700–1774) cite this episode as an example of the power of the profound Dharma to bring great positive effects, even for those who have doubt and do not follow the instruction.
After Śāriputra praises Mañjuśrī on his eloquence in explaining the Dharma, Mañjuśrī proceeds to instruct the audience on the “non-decrease and non-increase” (anūnatvāpūrṇatva) of the realm of sentient beings and the realm of reality (1.27). The topic of “non-decrease and non-increase” is an important theme in a number of Mahāyāna sūtras, such as The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines (Toh 24), The Questions of Suvikrāntavikrāmin (Toh 14), and The Absorption That Encapsulates All Merit (Toh 134), along with various sūtras of the Heap of Jewels (Ratnakuṭa) class and even the Heart Sūtra. The Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta, a discourse that bears the name of this topic and is preserved only in Chinese, connects this topic with the teaching of Buddha nature (tathāgatagarbha). The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī, however, equates the non-increasing and non-decreasing true nature with the realm of reality and the realm of sentient beings. The non-increase and non-decrease of the realm of sentient beings and the realm of reality is explained in The Questions of Suvikrāntavikrāmin, where both realms are said to lack any intrinsic essence, are infinite, and are designated through conventional expressions. The Buddha explains to Suvikrāntavikrāmin that “non-decrease and non-increase” is a synonym for the vision of how things are in a nonconceptual manner. The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī concurs with this understanding, where the text reads, “that which is uncurtailed in this way is awakening. Awakening is liberation. Liberation is nonconceptual. The nonconceptual is unfabricated and immutable. The unfabricated and immutable is wholly beyond suffering.” Because this nonconceptual nature, which is symbolized by Mañjuśrī himself, does not dwell anywhere, it is without a fixed dwelling place, in other words without any metaphysical foundation.
The Prajñāpāramitā literature seems to have also exerted an influence on The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī, as there are several themes found in the sūtra that are redolent of earlier Prajñāpāramitā discourses. For example, the sūtra mentions that arhats are “constituted by the unconditioned,” a phrase found throughout the Prajñāpāramitā literature and particularly well known from The Sūtra on the Perfection of Wisdom “The Diamond Cutter” (Toh 16). At the conclusion of The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī, the Buddha predicts that the audience will achieve complete buddhahood “in the eon called Star-like,” a prediction that is also given in a number of Prajñāpāramitā discourses. We also note that a parallel to the episode of the monks falling into hell is found in the sūtra Teaching the Practice of a Bodhisattva (Toh 184).
Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas!
Thus did I hear at one time. The Bhagavān was staying at Rājagṛha, on Gṛdhrakūṭa Mountain, together with a large community of a full five hundred monks and a great congregation of bodhisattvas. At that time, the Bhagavān, after emerging in the late afternoon from secluded meditation, surrounded and honored by a great assembly, taught the Dharma.
Subsequently, the youthful Mañjuśrī was walking about, going from residence to residence among all five hundred monks. When he went to the residence where the elder Śāriputra lived, Mañjuśrī saw him sitting alone in solitude, practicing concentration while in meditative seclusion.
When he saw him, he said the following words to the elder Śāriputra: “Honorable Śāriputra, are you practicing concentration?”
“Yes,” replied Śāriputra, “it is so, Mañjuśrī.”
“Honorable Śāriputra,” said Mañjuśrī, “are you concentrating in order to abandon afflictions that have already been abandoned? Or are you concentrating in order to abandon those that have not yet been abandoned?
“Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on the past? Are you concentrating while dwelling on the future? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the present? Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on bodily form? Are you concentrating while dwelling on feelings, perceptions, volitional formations, or consciousness? Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on the eye? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the nose, ear, tongue, body, or mind? Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on visible form? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on sound, smell, taste, touch, or other phenomena?
“Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on the desire realm? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the form realm or the formless realm?
“Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on the internal? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the external? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the internal and external? Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on the body? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the mind?”
“Mañjuśrī,” replied Śāriputra, “I am practicing concentration in order to dwell in bliss for this life and to dwell in nonforgetfulness.”
Mañjuśrī then asked, “Honorable Śāriputra, do you apprehend any dharmas that dwell in bliss in this life, or that dwell in bliss in what is not this life, or that are without forgetfulness?”
“Mañjuśrī,” Śāriputra replied, “I truly do not observe or apprehend any dharmas that dwell in bliss in this life or that dwell in bliss in what is not this life. However, Mañjuśrī, I rely and dwell on what the Tathāgata taught to śrāvakas as the doctrine of disengagement.”
Mañjuśrī then asked, “Honorable Śāriputra, what is it that the Tathāgata taught to śrāvakas as the doctrine of disengagement and that you, honorable Śāriputra, rely and dwell on?”
Śāriputra replied, “In this regard, Mañjuśrī, a monk relies and dwells on the past, relies and dwells on the future, and relies and dwells on the present. In brief, as mentioned before, one should understand that he relies and dwells as mentioned before all the way up to the mind. Mañjuśrī, the Tathāgata taught these śrāvakas that these dharmas are disengaged, and I rely and dwell on these dharmas.”
Mañjuśrī then asked, “Honorable Śāriputra, why do you say, ‘I rely and dwell on the past, rely and dwell on the future, rely on the present, dwell in disengagement, and, in brief, rely on and dwell in disengagement as mentioned before all the way up to the mind’? It is like this, honorable Śāriputra: a true nature of the past does not exist. A true nature of the future does not exist. A true nature of the present does not exist. In this way, if these dharmas do not exist, then how can the elder Śāriputra say, ‘I rely and dwell on the past, rely and dwell on the future, and rely and dwell on the present’? Dharmas that do not exist have no basis.
“Further, honorable Śāriputra, there is nothing that is a true nature of the past and a true nature of the future and the present. Nor are phenomena caused by anything. Nor do they belong to anything. They are not based anywhere. There is nothing apprehended as a basis of what is not based anywhere.
“Further, honorable Śāriputra, those who speak of a ‘true nature of the past, the future, and the present’ and who thus propound stability deprecate the Tathāgata. Why is this? It is because a true nature is immovable and without vain imaginings. It is because a true nature is uncorrupted. It is because true nature is empty, without signs, and wishless.
“Further, honorable Śāriputra, a true nature of the past cannot be apprehended. A true nature of the future cannot be apprehended. A true nature of the present cannot be apprehended. And, in brief, the true nature of everything up to mind cannot be apprehended. However, honorable Śāriputra, besides the true nature, one does not apprehend any other dharma capable of being shown or explained.”
Śāriputra then asked, “Mañjuśrī, does the Tathāgata teach the Dharma while residing in the true nature?”
“Honorable Śāriputra,” Mañjuśrī replied, “if a true nature does not exist, then how can the Tathāgata reside in the true nature and teach the Dharma? Honorable Śāriputra, if the Dharma also does not exist, then how can the Tathāgata reside in the true nature and teach the Dharma? If the Tathāgata also does not exist, then how can the Tathāgata reside in the true nature and teach the Dharma? All dharmas do not exist and cannot be apprehended. The Tathāgata also does not exist and cannot be apprehended. When his Dharma is taught, it is like this: it is without distinction between either apprehending or not apprehending. The Tathāgata himself is not distinguished by the expressible or the inexpressible. Why is this? Because, honorable Śāriputra, the Tathāgata is completely cut off from expression, involves no designation, and is not something that can be designated.”
Śāriputra then asked, “Mañjuśrī, who will become a recipient for a Dharma teaching such as this?”
Mañjuśrī said, “Honorable Śāriputra, one who is not disturbed in the conditioned realm and who does not desire complete nirvāṇa will be a recipient for a Dharma teaching like this. One who does not apprehend dharmas of the past, does not comprehend dharmas of the past, does not apprehend dharmas of the past, present, or future, and does not comprehend dharmas of the past, present, or future will be a recipient for a Dharma teaching such as this. One who neither sees nor appropriates defilements and purifications will be a recipient for a Dharma teaching such as this. One who does not pursue either self or nonself and who does not pursue acquiring and relinquishing is a recipient for a Dharma teaching such as this. That one will comprehend the meaning of this exposition.”
“Mañjuśrī, in this regard, what is comprehended?” asked Śāriputra.
Mañjuśrī then asked, “Honorable Śāriputra, if there were to be something that constitutes the meaning of this exposition, then ask, ‘In this regard, what is comprehended?’ ”
“Mañjuśrī, this profound Dharma teaching is rarely directly perceived,” said Śāriputra. “It is rarely fully apprehended. Mañjuśrī, if even arhats, those in training, and those beyond training grow discouraged regarding this location, how much more so are childish ordinary beings.”
“Honorable Śāriputra,” said Mañjuśrī, “arhats do not have a dwelling place. Why is this? Because if even arhats do not exist, in what place would an arhat dwell? Arhats are thus distinguished by being without dwelling place. Arhats are distinguished by being without apprehension. Arhats are distinguished by having fully cut off the expressible and inexpressible. Why is this? Because as arhats have fully cut off the expressible and inexpressible, they are free from designation. Arhats are free from distinctions concerning places.
“They are distinguished by the unconditioned. They are without engagement. They are distinguished by the unconditioned because if arhats are unconditioned and without dwelling place, what would be the dwelling place of arhats?
“Arhats are not distinguished by name and form. Childish ordinary beings conceptualize name and form. Name and form are understood by arhats to be without conceptions and without conceptualizing. Therefore, arhats are not distinguished by name and form. Even childish beings are not apprehended. The qualities of childish beings, arhats, and arhat qualities are also not apprehended. At the time they are not apprehended, they are not conceived. They are not dealt with. Without being dealt with, they are unelaborated and peaceful.
“One does not accept their ‘existence,’ nor does one accept their ‘nonexistence.’ One also does not accept that they are both existent while existing and nonexistent while not existing. Nor does one accept that they are neither existent nor nonexistent. When one does not accept any of these, there is no apprehension. Being free from all apprehensions—without thought and free from thought—we speak of one who dwells in the quality of spiritual practice by way of being without dwelling place.”
Once this teaching had been explained by the youthful Mañjuśrī, the five hundred monks of the retinue got up from their seats saying, “We do not see the youthful Mañjuśrī. We do not hear the youthful Mañjuśrī. Any location where the youthful Mañjuśrī could dwell should be abandoned. Why is that? The youthful Mañjuśrī has shown in a blatant manner that the defilements and purifications have a single characteristic.” They thought that he had thereby said something that was not Dharma, and thinking, “How can we thus train in the doctrine that is well spoken by the Bhagavān and practice pure moral conduct?” they departed.
The elder Śāriputra then asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, do you not teach the Dharma so that sentient beings may comprehend the Dharma?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Yes, Honorable Śāriputra.”
Śāriputra said, “Having arisen from their seats, those five hundred monks have spoken disparagingly and unpleasantly, and they have departed.”
“Honorable Śāriputra, it is good,” said Mañjuśrī, “it is good that those five hundred monks said, ‘We do not see the youthful Mañjuśrī. We do not hear the youthful Mañjuśrī. Any location where youthful Mañjuśrī could dwell should be abandoned. Śāriputra, the words of these monks are well spoken. Why is that? Because the youthful Mañjuśrī does not exist and cannot be apprehended. That which does not exist and cannot be apprehended cannot be seen and cannot be heard. Any location where the youthful Mañjuśrī could dwell should be abandoned. Why is that? Because, since the youthful Mañjuśrī does not exist and cannot be apprehended, any place he could dwell also does not exist and cannot be apprehended. And one should not try to rely on what does not exist and cannot be apprehended.”
When those five hundred monks had heard this teaching by the youthful Mañjuśrī, they again returned to their places and said the following words to the youthful Mañjuśrī: “Mañjuśrī, why do we not understand what you just taught?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “This is good, monks, this is good. Such are the activities of the Teacher’s hearers. In this regard, monks, there is nothing to comprehend and there is nothing to cognize. Why is this? Because this realm of reality is the very state of dwelling in the manner of being without dwelling place. That which is the realm of reality is not a realm. That which does not exist and cannot be apprehended is also immovable and without death and rebirth. That which is immovable and without death and rebirth is not something comprehensible. It is not something cognizable. Those who are without the vain imaginings of comprehension and cognition are called hearers of the Teacher. They are called those who have attained the supreme, leaders, and those worthy of offerings.”
Upon explaining this teaching, among the five hundred monks the minds of four hundred monks were liberated from the pollutions without any further clinging. The minds of one hundred monks grew increasingly disturbed, and their bodily existences and mental states were plunged into the great hell of Howling.
Venerable Śāriputra then said to the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, I am shocked that one hundred monks have all gone to ruin because you did not teach a Dharma that protects sentient beings.”
Thereupon the Bhagavān replied to the elder Śāriputra, “Śāriputra, do not say such things. Why? Śāriputra, those one hundred monks will come into contact with the great hell of Howling for only a moment, and they will then take rebirth together among the gods of Tuṣita heaven. Śāriputra, if these monks had not heard this Dharma discourse, they would undoubtedly have gone to hell, and having exhausted their karma, some would have taken rebirth as humans. But since they have relied upon this Dharma discourse, even those deeds that would cause other beings to experience hell for an eon will, for them, cause that experience for only a short while. Therefore, Śāriputra, those one hundred monks will be included among the initial hearers of the tathāgata Maitreya and become arhats who have exhausted their pollutions. Since that is so, Śāriputra, for this Dharma discourse to be heard by those who have doubt is excellent indeed, in a way that is not the case for the attainment of the four meditative concentrations, in a way that is not the case for the four immeasurables, and in a way that is not the case for the cultivation of the four formless attainments. Why is that? Because without hearing such a Dharma discourse, one will not be liberated from cyclic existence, nor will one be liberated from birth, ageing, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, suffering, sadness, and agitation.”
The venerable Śāriputra then said to the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, it is amazing how you have matured sentient beings through your eloquent explanation of this Dharma discourse.”
“Honorable Śāriputra,” replied Mañjuśrī, “the true nature does not diminish, nor does it increase. The realm of reality does not diminish, nor does it increase. The realm of sentient beings does not diminish, nor does it increase. They are not defiled, nor are they purified. Why is this? Because these things do not exist and cannot be apprehended. They are nothing at all, as they amount to nothing but mere conventions. They are not caused by anything at all. They do not dwell anywhere at all and are without dwelling place. Honorable Śāriputra, that which is uncurtailed in this way is awakening. Awakening is liberation. Liberation is nonconceptual. The nonconceptual is unfabricated and immutable. The unfabricated and immutable is wholly beyond suffering.”
Thereupon, the Bhagavān said to the elder Śāriputra, “Śāriputra, it is just as the youthful Mañjuśrī has taught. True nature does not diminish, nor does it increase. The realm of reality also does not diminish, nor does it increase. The realm of sentient beings does not diminish, nor does it increase. It is not defiled, nor is it purified. Why is this? Because these things do not exist and cannot be apprehended. They are nothing at all, as they amount to nothing more than mere conventions. They are not caused by anything at all. They do not dwell anywhere at all and are without dwelling place.”
At that time, the Bhagavān uttered these verses:
When this Dharma discourse had been explained, one hundred thousand living beings purified the Dharma eye with regard to dharmas so that it was dustless and stainless. The minds of five hundred monks were liberated from the pollutions without any further clinging. Eighty thousand gods belonging to the form realm generated the mind set on unexcelled, perfectly complete awakening. The Bhagavān predicted that they would all realize unexcelled, perfectly complete awakening in the eon called Star-like and that all of them would then bear the same name: the tathāgata, arhat, perfectly complete buddha Flower. When the Bhagavān had said this, the youthful Mañjuśrī, the venerable Śāriputra, and the world with its gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas rejoiced and praised the proclamation of the Bhagavān.
This concludes The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra “The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī.”
It was translated, edited, and finalized by the Indian preceptor Surendrabodhi and the editor-translator Bandé Yeshé Dé.
The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī first presents a dialogue between Mañjuśrī and Śāriputra regarding the activity of “dwelling” (vihāra) during meditation, the nature of dharmas, and the “true nature” (tathatā). This opens into a conversation between Mañjuśrī and a large gathering of monks whereby Mañjuśrī corrects the monks’ misinterpretations. Mañjuśrī then instructs Śāriputra on the enduring and indestructible nature of the realm of sentient beings and the realm of reality. Finally, the power of Mañjuśrī’s teaching is explained and reiterated by the Buddha.
Translation by the University of Calgary Buddhist Studies Team. This sūtra was introduced and translated by Dr. James B. Apple with assistance from Dr. Shinobu Arai Apple.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī opens with the Buddha Śākyamuni residing in Rājagṛha on Gṛdhrakūṭa Mountain together with a great monastic assembly of five hundred monks and a multitude of bodhisattvas. After the Buddha has delivered a Dharma teaching, Mañjuśrī walks through the monastic quarters of the area and sees Śāriputra engaged in meditation among the residences of the five hundred monks. There follows a dialogue between Mañjuśrī and Śāriputra regarding the activity of “dwelling” during meditation, the nature of dharmas, and the “true nature.” This opens into a conversation between Mañjuśrī and the five hundred monks in which Mañjuśrī corrects the monks’ misinterpretations. Finally, Mañjuśrī instructs Śāriputra on the non-decrease and non-increase of the realm of sentient beings (sattvadhātu) and the realm of reality (dharmadhātu)—an instruction that indicates the nonconceptual, immutable, and indestructible nature of awakening. Because this nature, symbolized by Mañjuśrī himself, does not dwell anywhere, it is without any dwelling place, in other words without any determinate location or foundation. The power of Mañjuśrī’s teaching is explained and reiterated by the Buddha. The sūtra concludes with the Buddha predicting the future awakening of the five hundred monks and eighty thousand gods who are present in the audience.
The sūtra is not extant in Sanskrit but is preserved in Chinese, Tibetan, and Mongolian versions. There are two Chinese versions: the 文殊師利巡行經 Wén shū shī lì xún xíng jīng translated by Bodhiruci ca. 508–535
The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī is also recorded in the Denkarma and Phangthangma inventories of Tibetan imperial translations, so we can establish that it was first translated from Sanskrit into Tibetan no later than the early ninth century, as the Denkarma is dated to 812
The sūtra enjoyed some popularity in eighth- and ninth-century Tibet, a fact attested to by its inclusion among the one hundred and four titles of Buddhist scriptures found in Mahāvyutpatti §1329 and the number of extant Tibetan Dunhuang fragments. The sūtra was also cited in several early Tibetan treatises from Dunhuang and two times by Vimalamitra (eighth century) in his commentary on nonconceptual meditation. The sūtra is also sporadically cited in later Tibetan commentaries and was briefly analyzed by Pekar Sangpo (sixteenth century) in his overview of the sūtras preserved among Tibetan Kangyurs.
The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī (in Sanskrit Mañjuśrīvihāra) is a discourse that plays on the Sanskrit word vihāra, which can variously mean (1) dwelling place, (2) condition of existence, (3) walking about, (4) monastery, (5) pleasure ground, (6) sport, (7) arrangement, or distribution. The Chinese translators understood the title of the term in the sense of (3), with Bodhiruci translating the title as Mañjuśrī’s “going around” (巡行) and Jñānagupta translating the nearly synonymous Mañjuśrī’s “wandering” (行). This connotation refers to the opening scene, in which Mañjuśrī wanders about the monastic residences. This sense is not captured in the Tibetan translation gnas pa, which corresponds only to connotations (1) or (2) among the possibilities listed above. Without a Sanskrit manuscript of the text, we cannot be sure of the exact connotation of vihāra, but the context throughout the sūtra implies that the “dwelling place” of Mañjuśrī is not a determinate place. The dwelling place that Mañjuśrī explains to Śāriputra and the five hundred monks is the realm of reality, which is beyond time, unlocalized, immovable, and inaccessible to conceptual thought. Awakening in this sūtra is characterized as the nonconceptual awareness of the infinite realm of reality.
In the first half of the sūtra, Mañjuśrī criticizes various presuppositions underlying Śāriputra’s conceptual understanding of concentration and its role in spiritual practice (1.3), the past, present, and future (1.5, 1.11), comprehension (1.16), and the “dwelling place” of an arhat (1.18). Although difficult to verify, the presuppositions of Śāriputra may well represent the mainstream Buddhist understandings of a person following the Abhidharma of the Sarvāstivādin ordination lineage, particularly Śāriputra’s advocacy of the practice of standing firm in the past, present, and future. According to Pekar Sangpo, the concise meaning of this part of the sūtra is that Śāriputra is taught, as a response to Mañjuśrī’s questions, the emptiness that by nature is free from the conceptual fabrication of anything.
The second half (1.21–1.41) of the sūtra consists of a dialogue that develops between Mañjuśrī and the five hundred monks in the audience. The five hundred monks are initially disturbed by and reject Mañjuśrī’s teaching and move away from him, but the monks then return upon Mañjuśrī’s further instruction to Śāriputra. Mañjuśrī’s additional instruction to Śāriputra is the cause for four hundred of the monks’ minds to be liberated from the pollutions. However, one hundred monks fall into a deep hell realm due to being greatly disturbed by Mañjuśrī’s instruction. Śāriputra then questions Mañjuśrī’s motives and mode of teaching. The Buddha comes to the defense of Mañjuśrī and explains the great karmic benefit of hearing the profound Dharma for these monks, even if they doubt it. The Buddha predicts that the monks will swiftly be reborn in Tuṣita heaven after their instructive interlude in hell and that they will then become arhat disciples under the future Buddha Maitreya. Tibetan scholars like Situ Penchen Chökyi Jungné (1700–1774) cite this episode as an example of the power of the profound Dharma to bring great positive effects, even for those who have doubt and do not follow the instruction.
After Śāriputra praises Mañjuśrī on his eloquence in explaining the Dharma, Mañjuśrī proceeds to instruct the audience on the “non-decrease and non-increase” (anūnatvāpūrṇatva) of the realm of sentient beings and the realm of reality (1.27). The topic of “non-decrease and non-increase” is an important theme in a number of Mahāyāna sūtras, such as The Perfection of Wisdom in Seven Hundred Lines (Toh 24), The Questions of Suvikrāntavikrāmin (Toh 14), and The Absorption That Encapsulates All Merit (Toh 134), along with various sūtras of the Heap of Jewels (Ratnakuṭa) class and even the Heart Sūtra. The Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta, a discourse that bears the name of this topic and is preserved only in Chinese, connects this topic with the teaching of Buddha nature (tathāgatagarbha). The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī, however, equates the non-increasing and non-decreasing true nature with the realm of reality and the realm of sentient beings. The non-increase and non-decrease of the realm of sentient beings and the realm of reality is explained in The Questions of Suvikrāntavikrāmin, where both realms are said to lack any intrinsic essence, are infinite, and are designated through conventional expressions. The Buddha explains to Suvikrāntavikrāmin that “non-decrease and non-increase” is a synonym for the vision of how things are in a nonconceptual manner. The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī concurs with this understanding, where the text reads, “that which is uncurtailed in this way is awakening. Awakening is liberation. Liberation is nonconceptual. The nonconceptual is unfabricated and immutable. The unfabricated and immutable is wholly beyond suffering.” Because this nonconceptual nature, which is symbolized by Mañjuśrī himself, does not dwell anywhere, it is without a fixed dwelling place, in other words without any metaphysical foundation.
The Prajñāpāramitā literature seems to have also exerted an influence on The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī, as there are several themes found in the sūtra that are redolent of earlier Prajñāpāramitā discourses. For example, the sūtra mentions that arhats are “constituted by the unconditioned,” a phrase found throughout the Prajñāpāramitā literature and particularly well known from The Sūtra on the Perfection of Wisdom “The Diamond Cutter” (Toh 16). At the conclusion of The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī, the Buddha predicts that the audience will achieve complete buddhahood “in the eon called Star-like,” a prediction that is also given in a number of Prajñāpāramitā discourses. We also note that a parallel to the episode of the monks falling into hell is found in the sūtra Teaching the Practice of a Bodhisattva (Toh 184).
Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas!
Thus did I hear at one time. The Bhagavān was staying at Rājagṛha, on Gṛdhrakūṭa Mountain, together with a large community of a full five hundred monks and a great congregation of bodhisattvas. At that time, the Bhagavān, after emerging in the late afternoon from secluded meditation, surrounded and honored by a great assembly, taught the Dharma.
Subsequently, the youthful Mañjuśrī was walking about, going from residence to residence among all five hundred monks. When he went to the residence where the elder Śāriputra lived, Mañjuśrī saw him sitting alone in solitude, practicing concentration while in meditative seclusion.
When he saw him, he said the following words to the elder Śāriputra: “Honorable Śāriputra, are you practicing concentration?”
“Yes,” replied Śāriputra, “it is so, Mañjuśrī.”
“Honorable Śāriputra,” said Mañjuśrī, “are you concentrating in order to abandon afflictions that have already been abandoned? Or are you concentrating in order to abandon those that have not yet been abandoned?
“Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on the past? Are you concentrating while dwelling on the future? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the present? Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on bodily form? Are you concentrating while dwelling on feelings, perceptions, volitional formations, or consciousness? Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on the eye? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the nose, ear, tongue, body, or mind? Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on visible form? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on sound, smell, taste, touch, or other phenomena?
“Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on the desire realm? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the form realm or the formless realm?
“Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on the internal? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the external? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the internal and external? Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on the body? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the mind?”
“Mañjuśrī,” replied Śāriputra, “I am practicing concentration in order to dwell in bliss for this life and to dwell in nonforgetfulness.”
Mañjuśrī then asked, “Honorable Śāriputra, do you apprehend any dharmas that dwell in bliss in this life, or that dwell in bliss in what is not this life, or that are without forgetfulness?”
“Mañjuśrī,” Śāriputra replied, “I truly do not observe or apprehend any dharmas that dwell in bliss in this life or that dwell in bliss in what is not this life. However, Mañjuśrī, I rely and dwell on what the Tathāgata taught to śrāvakas as the doctrine of disengagement.”
Mañjuśrī then asked, “Honorable Śāriputra, what is it that the Tathāgata taught to śrāvakas as the doctrine of disengagement and that you, honorable Śāriputra, rely and dwell on?”
Śāriputra replied, “In this regard, Mañjuśrī, a monk relies and dwells on the past, relies and dwells on the future, and relies and dwells on the present. In brief, as mentioned before, one should understand that he relies and dwells as mentioned before all the way up to the mind. Mañjuśrī, the Tathāgata taught these śrāvakas that these dharmas are disengaged, and I rely and dwell on these dharmas.”
Mañjuśrī then asked, “Honorable Śāriputra, why do you say, ‘I rely and dwell on the past, rely and dwell on the future, rely on the present, dwell in disengagement, and, in brief, rely on and dwell in disengagement as mentioned before all the way up to the mind’? It is like this, honorable Śāriputra: a true nature of the past does not exist. A true nature of the future does not exist. A true nature of the present does not exist. In this way, if these dharmas do not exist, then how can the elder Śāriputra say, ‘I rely and dwell on the past, rely and dwell on the future, and rely and dwell on the present’? Dharmas that do not exist have no basis.
“Further, honorable Śāriputra, there is nothing that is a true nature of the past and a true nature of the future and the present. Nor are phenomena caused by anything. Nor do they belong to anything. They are not based anywhere. There is nothing apprehended as a basis of what is not based anywhere.
“Further, honorable Śāriputra, those who speak of a ‘true nature of the past, the future, and the present’ and who thus propound stability deprecate the Tathāgata. Why is this? It is because a true nature is immovable and without vain imaginings. It is because a true nature is uncorrupted. It is because true nature is empty, without signs, and wishless.
“Further, honorable Śāriputra, a true nature of the past cannot be apprehended. A true nature of the future cannot be apprehended. A true nature of the present cannot be apprehended. And, in brief, the true nature of everything up to mind cannot be apprehended. However, honorable Śāriputra, besides the true nature, one does not apprehend any other dharma capable of being shown or explained.”
Śāriputra then asked, “Mañjuśrī, does the Tathāgata teach the Dharma while residing in the true nature?”
“Honorable Śāriputra,” Mañjuśrī replied, “if a true nature does not exist, then how can the Tathāgata reside in the true nature and teach the Dharma? Honorable Śāriputra, if the Dharma also does not exist, then how can the Tathāgata reside in the true nature and teach the Dharma? If the Tathāgata also does not exist, then how can the Tathāgata reside in the true nature and teach the Dharma? All dharmas do not exist and cannot be apprehended. The Tathāgata also does not exist and cannot be apprehended. When his Dharma is taught, it is like this: it is without distinction between either apprehending or not apprehending. The Tathāgata himself is not distinguished by the expressible or the inexpressible. Why is this? Because, honorable Śāriputra, the Tathāgata is completely cut off from expression, involves no designation, and is not something that can be designated.”
Śāriputra then asked, “Mañjuśrī, who will become a recipient for a Dharma teaching such as this?”
Mañjuśrī said, “Honorable Śāriputra, one who is not disturbed in the conditioned realm and who does not desire complete nirvāṇa will be a recipient for a Dharma teaching like this. One who does not apprehend dharmas of the past, does not comprehend dharmas of the past, does not apprehend dharmas of the past, present, or future, and does not comprehend dharmas of the past, present, or future will be a recipient for a Dharma teaching such as this. One who neither sees nor appropriates defilements and purifications will be a recipient for a Dharma teaching such as this. One who does not pursue either self or nonself and who does not pursue acquiring and relinquishing is a recipient for a Dharma teaching such as this. That one will comprehend the meaning of this exposition.”
“Mañjuśrī, in this regard, what is comprehended?” asked Śāriputra.
Mañjuśrī then asked, “Honorable Śāriputra, if there were to be something that constitutes the meaning of this exposition, then ask, ‘In this regard, what is comprehended?’ ”
“Mañjuśrī, this profound Dharma teaching is rarely directly perceived,” said Śāriputra. “It is rarely fully apprehended. Mañjuśrī, if even arhats, those in training, and those beyond training grow discouraged regarding this location, how much more so are childish ordinary beings.”
“Honorable Śāriputra,” said Mañjuśrī, “arhats do not have a dwelling place. Why is this? Because if even arhats do not exist, in what place would an arhat dwell? Arhats are thus distinguished by being without dwelling place. Arhats are distinguished by being without apprehension. Arhats are distinguished by having fully cut off the expressible and inexpressible. Why is this? Because as arhats have fully cut off the expressible and inexpressible, they are free from designation. Arhats are free from distinctions concerning places.
“They are distinguished by the unconditioned. They are without engagement. They are distinguished by the unconditioned because if arhats are unconditioned and without dwelling place, what would be the dwelling place of arhats?
“Arhats are not distinguished by name and form. Childish ordinary beings conceptualize name and form. Name and form are understood by arhats to be without conceptions and without conceptualizing. Therefore, arhats are not distinguished by name and form. Even childish beings are not apprehended. The qualities of childish beings, arhats, and arhat qualities are also not apprehended. At the time they are not apprehended, they are not conceived. They are not dealt with. Without being dealt with, they are unelaborated and peaceful.
“One does not accept their ‘existence,’ nor does one accept their ‘nonexistence.’ One also does not accept that they are both existent while existing and nonexistent while not existing. Nor does one accept that they are neither existent nor nonexistent. When one does not accept any of these, there is no apprehension. Being free from all apprehensions—without thought and free from thought—we speak of one who dwells in the quality of spiritual practice by way of being without dwelling place.”
Once this teaching had been explained by the youthful Mañjuśrī, the five hundred monks of the retinue got up from their seats saying, “We do not see the youthful Mañjuśrī. We do not hear the youthful Mañjuśrī. Any location where the youthful Mañjuśrī could dwell should be abandoned. Why is that? The youthful Mañjuśrī has shown in a blatant manner that the defilements and purifications have a single characteristic.” They thought that he had thereby said something that was not Dharma, and thinking, “How can we thus train in the doctrine that is well spoken by the Bhagavān and practice pure moral conduct?” they departed.
The elder Śāriputra then asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, do you not teach the Dharma so that sentient beings may comprehend the Dharma?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Yes, Honorable Śāriputra.”
Śāriputra said, “Having arisen from their seats, those five hundred monks have spoken disparagingly and unpleasantly, and they have departed.”
“Honorable Śāriputra, it is good,” said Mañjuśrī, “it is good that those five hundred monks said, ‘We do not see the youthful Mañjuśrī. We do not hear the youthful Mañjuśrī. Any location where youthful Mañjuśrī could dwell should be abandoned. Śāriputra, the words of these monks are well spoken. Why is that? Because the youthful Mañjuśrī does not exist and cannot be apprehended. That which does not exist and cannot be apprehended cannot be seen and cannot be heard. Any location where the youthful Mañjuśrī could dwell should be abandoned. Why is that? Because, since the youthful Mañjuśrī does not exist and cannot be apprehended, any place he could dwell also does not exist and cannot be apprehended. And one should not try to rely on what does not exist and cannot be apprehended.”
When those five hundred monks had heard this teaching by the youthful Mañjuśrī, they again returned to their places and said the following words to the youthful Mañjuśrī: “Mañjuśrī, why do we not understand what you just taught?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “This is good, monks, this is good. Such are the activities of the Teacher’s hearers. In this regard, monks, there is nothing to comprehend and there is nothing to cognize. Why is this? Because this realm of reality is the very state of dwelling in the manner of being without dwelling place. That which is the realm of reality is not a realm. That which does not exist and cannot be apprehended is also immovable and without death and rebirth. That which is immovable and without death and rebirth is not something comprehensible. It is not something cognizable. Those who are without the vain imaginings of comprehension and cognition are called hearers of the Teacher. They are called those who have attained the supreme, leaders, and those worthy of offerings.”
Upon explaining this teaching, among the five hundred monks the minds of four hundred monks were liberated from the pollutions without any further clinging. The minds of one hundred monks grew increasingly disturbed, and their bodily existences and mental states were plunged into the great hell of Howling.
Venerable Śāriputra then said to the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, I am shocked that one hundred monks have all gone to ruin because you did not teach a Dharma that protects sentient beings.”
Thereupon the Bhagavān replied to the elder Śāriputra, “Śāriputra, do not say such things. Why? Śāriputra, those one hundred monks will come into contact with the great hell of Howling for only a moment, and they will then take rebirth together among the gods of Tuṣita heaven. Śāriputra, if these monks had not heard this Dharma discourse, they would undoubtedly have gone to hell, and having exhausted their karma, some would have taken rebirth as humans. But since they have relied upon this Dharma discourse, even those deeds that would cause other beings to experience hell for an eon will, for them, cause that experience for only a short while. Therefore, Śāriputra, those one hundred monks will be included among the initial hearers of the tathāgata Maitreya and become arhats who have exhausted their pollutions. Since that is so, Śāriputra, for this Dharma discourse to be heard by those who have doubt is excellent indeed, in a way that is not the case for the attainment of the four meditative concentrations, in a way that is not the case for the four immeasurables, and in a way that is not the case for the cultivation of the four formless attainments. Why is that? Because without hearing such a Dharma discourse, one will not be liberated from cyclic existence, nor will one be liberated from birth, ageing, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, suffering, sadness, and agitation.”
The venerable Śāriputra then said to the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, it is amazing how you have matured sentient beings through your eloquent explanation of this Dharma discourse.”
“Honorable Śāriputra,” replied Mañjuśrī, “the true nature does not diminish, nor does it increase. The realm of reality does not diminish, nor does it increase. The realm of sentient beings does not diminish, nor does it increase. They are not defiled, nor are they purified. Why is this? Because these things do not exist and cannot be apprehended. They are nothing at all, as they amount to nothing but mere conventions. They are not caused by anything at all. They do not dwell anywhere at all and are without dwelling place. Honorable Śāriputra, that which is uncurtailed in this way is awakening. Awakening is liberation. Liberation is nonconceptual. The nonconceptual is unfabricated and immutable. The unfabricated and immutable is wholly beyond suffering.”
Thereupon, the Bhagavān said to the elder Śāriputra, “Śāriputra, it is just as the youthful Mañjuśrī has taught. True nature does not diminish, nor does it increase. The realm of reality also does not diminish, nor does it increase. The realm of sentient beings does not diminish, nor does it increase. It is not defiled, nor is it purified. Why is this? Because these things do not exist and cannot be apprehended. They are nothing at all, as they amount to nothing more than mere conventions. They are not caused by anything at all. They do not dwell anywhere at all and are without dwelling place.”
At that time, the Bhagavān uttered these verses:
When this Dharma discourse had been explained, one hundred thousand living beings purified the Dharma eye with regard to dharmas so that it was dustless and stainless. The minds of five hundred monks were liberated from the pollutions without any further clinging. Eighty thousand gods belonging to the form realm generated the mind set on unexcelled, perfectly complete awakening. The Bhagavān predicted that they would all realize unexcelled, perfectly complete awakening in the eon called Star-like and that all of them would then bear the same name: the tathāgata, arhat, perfectly complete buddha Flower. When the Bhagavān had said this, the youthful Mañjuśrī, the venerable Śāriputra, and the world with its gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas rejoiced and praised the proclamation of the Bhagavān.
This concludes The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra “The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī.”
It was translated, edited, and finalized by the Indian preceptor Surendrabodhi and the editor-translator Bandé Yeshé Dé.