Notes On Prajnaparamita Texts

Author(s): J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269715/1

Page #1

Notes on Prajñāpāramitā texts:
2. The Suvik räntavikra miparipṛccha
J. W. de Jong
The Sanskrit text of the Suvikrantavikramiparipṛccha (abbr. Su.) was published in 1956 by Matsumoto and in 1958 by Hikata. Conze has given a summary of the contents in The Prajñāpāramitā Literature ('s-Gravenhage, 1960, pp. 60-62). The vocabulary has been carefully studied by him in his Materials for a Dictionary of the Prajñāpāramitā Literature (Tokyo, 1967). Recently two translations have been published. Conze's translation is to be found in The Short Prajñāpāramitā Texts (London, 1973, pp. 1-78) and a Japanese translation by Tosaki Hiromasa in Daijō butten, vol. 1 (Tōkyō, 1973, p. 73-296, 304-316, 325-329).
According to Conze the Su. is the latest in time of the full-scale Prajñāpāramitā texts and must be earlier than A.D. 625 since Candrakirti quotes it in his Madhyamakāvatāra.1 Hikata puts the terminus ante quem in the beginning of the sixth century because Bhāvaviveka (c. 490570) quotes it in his Prajñāpradipa-Mulamadhyamakavṛtti (cf. Hikata pp. lxxvi and lxxxii). However, all passages quoted by Bhāvaviveka are from one chapter only (chapter III) and it is therefore not possible to maintain that the entire text existed already in the beginning of the sixth century.
The editions of the Sanskrit text are based upon a single manuscript from the Cambridge University Library. According to Bendall the manuscript was written in the 12-13th centuries. It is therefore much later than the Chinese translation (660-663, cf. T. 2154, ch. 8, p. 555b) and the Tibetan translation by Silendrabodhi, Jinamitra and Ye-sessde (c. 800-825). The Sanskrit text is much closer to the Tibetan translation than to the Chinese translation. This is partly due to the fact that Hsüan-tsang has not always translated the text literally; in many instances he has given a paraphrase in order to bring out more clearly the meaning of the text. Moreover, Hsüan-tsang's translation is influenced by the rhythm of the Chinese sentence which consists of groups of four characters. On the other hand it is obvious that the Sanskrit text, as represented by the Cambridge manuscript, has been subjected to
187

Page #2

188
changes and corruptions. A great number of these must have been in existence already in the manuscript used by the Tibetan translators in the beginning of the ninth century. Finally, the Tibetan translation seems not to have been made with the same care as translations of other P.P. texts.
In several places the divergences between the three recensions are so great that it is very difficult to arrive at the meaning of the original text. In these cases it is impossible to establish the exact wording by emendations of the Sanskrit text. This is true for instance of pp. 7.9-8.16 (all references are to page and line of Hikata's edition). Tosaki translates the Sanskrit text but adds in a note a translation of both the Tibetan and the Chinese versions. However, even when the Sanskrit text agrees with the Tibetan translation and not with the Chinese translation, it is not always possible to assume that the text is correctly transmitted. For example, in chapter 4 there occurs the following passage: Atah Śārad- . vatīputra durlabhatamās te satvāh, ye gambhirān dharmān śrutvā 'nuttarāyām samyaksambodhau cittam utpā dayanti cchandam ca janayanti, mahākušalamūlasamanvāgatāḥ. Nâham Sāradvatiputra tān satvān mahāsamsārasamprasthitān iti vadāmi, yeşām ayam prajñāpāramitānirdeśaḥ śravanapatham apy āgamisyati (Hikata: yanti), śrutvā ca pathişyanti, adhimokşayişyanti, udāram ca pritisaumanasyam janayisyanti, éşu dharmeşu cchandam janayisyanti, punaḥ punaḥ śravanāyāpi. Kah punar vādah uddestum vā svādhyātum vā parebhyo deśayitum vā (p. 59.11-18). The Tibetan translation agrees with the Sanskrit text apart from two minor differences: 1. mahākusalamūlasamanvāgatāḥ, T. dge-ba chen-po dan-ldan-pa = mahākušalasamanvāgatāḥ; 2. ayam prajñāpāramitānirdeśaḥ, T. ses-rabkyi pha-rol-pa 'di = iyam prajñāpāramitā. The Chinese translation agrees with the first sentence up to mahākusalamūlasamanvāgatāhand continues as follows: "I say that they possess great wholesome roots, are provided with great equipment (mahāsambhāra) and are armed with the great armour (mahāsannāhasannaddha). Quickly they will realize the supreme and correct awakening (anuttarasamyaksambodhi). When these beings hear the exposition of this profound Prajñāpāramitā, they will rejoice and desire to hear it again and again. The merit reaped by them is without measure and without end. How much more (will be their merit) when they will be able to bear it in mind, to recite it and to teach it to others.” The Chinese translation has certainly preserved the original text much better than the Sanskrit manuscript. The Sanskrit text makes a very clumsy impression and gives a distorted idea of the original version.

Page #3

de Jong 189 Probably mahāsamsāra is the result of a corruption of mahāsambhāra.
The editors and translators of the Su. have made many useful suggestions for emending the Sanskrit text, but many problems still remain.? In quite a few places the Chinese translation is based upon a much more reliable text. However, Hsüang-tsang's method of translating makes it difficult to make use of it for textual emendations. Nevertheless, it is certainly necessary to quote it each time when it seems to have preserved better the original sense of the text. A complete translation of Hsüang-tsang's version would be highly welcome. The following notes are limited to the discussion of a few passages only. For the Tibetan translation I have made use of the two editions at my disposal: the Peking and Lhasa editions of the Kanjur and for the Chinese translation I have used volume 7 of the Taisho edition (pp. 1065-1110). As the text is relatively short and moreover divided into seven chapters, I have refrained from giving references to page and line of the Tibetan and Chinese translations.
Su. 5.6: nânapatrapānām. Ti no-tsha ma-'tshal-cin khrel ma-mchis-pa rnams-kyi = nâhrikānām anapatrapānām. C. agrees with Ti. Conze translates: "who discredit the doctrine by their deeds” and adds in a note: “Ch: who lack any shame and are without dread of blame'. In MDPL Conze translates an-apatrapa by "one who discredits the doctrine by his deeds", but apatrāpya by “dread of blame”.
Su. 5.19: -vrşabhopamānām bodhisatvānām mahāsatvānām ābridhaśalyānām. Ti does not have bodhisatvānām mahāsatvānām. These two words are to be found in line 22 and have to be omitted in line 19.
Su. 5.22-6.5: Ye dharmam api nopalabhante nâbhiniviśante, kutaḥ punar adharmam, teşām vayam Bhagavann arthāya Tathāgatam pariprcchāmo bodhisatvānām mahāsatvānām āśayaśuddhānām ....... samsayacchedanakusalānām, [teşām] vayam Bhagavan satvānām krtaśas Tathāgatam pariprcchāmo bodhisatvānām mahāsatvānām. Hikata adds teşām which is not in Ms. and in Ti. However, according to Ti one must put a full stop before āśayasuddhānām and omit teșām: bodhisatvānām mahāsatvānām. Āśayaśuddhānām ....... samśayacchedanakusalānām vayam Bhagavan satvānām krtaśas Tathāgatam pariprcchāmo bodhisatvānām mahāsatvānām.
Su.7.10: Apāramitaisā Suvikrāntavikrāmin sarvadharmāņām, tenocyate prajñā pāramiteti. According to Hikata's note C. and Ti have pāramitaişā. However, C. does not translate pāramitā with the usual equivalent but gives a free rendering: “Wisdom is able to penetrate far into the true

Page #4

190
nature of the dharmas". It seems preferable to read pāramitā, as in p. 27.3 where C. renders pāramitā in the same way (Hikata corrects the manuscript reading ā pāramitā to pāramitā. Conze reads ā-pāram-itā and refers to Ti tshu-rol rtogs-pa ste. However, tshu-rol corresponds to āra and not to pāra). In the following passage Conze corrects the readings of the manuscript: ajñā and ajānanā to ājñā and ājānanā. It is impossible to determine the original readings, but C. and Ti show clearly that the negative prefix a is incorrect.
Su. 7.17-18: yatha satva ajānanas, tenocyate prajñeti. Ti ji-ltar semscan rnams-kyis ses-par 'gyur-ba de-ltar śes-rab ces bya'o. Cf. p. 27.4-5: yathā punar yuşmākamājānanā (Ms.ajānanā) bhavisyanti, Ti ji-ltar khyed śes-par 'gyur-ba. It is impossible to reconstruct the original readings.
Su. 8.1-3: [Na] jñānagocara eșa Suvikrāntavikrāmin nâjñānagocaraḥ, nâjñānavişayo nâpi jñānavişayaḥ; avişayo hi jñānam; saced ajñānavişayah. syād, ajñānam syāt. Hikata adds na which is found in Ti but not in C. Ti inverts the order of jñānagocara and ajñānagocara. According to Hikata Ti and C. do not have saced ajñānavişayaḥ syād but correspond to: sacej jñāne vişayah syād. However, C. translates: sacej jñānam visayah syād. This follows logically after avisayo hi jñānam: “Knowledge is not the object of knowledge); if it were the object (of knowledge), it would be non-knowledge.” Eşa refers to prajñā. Conze translates prajñā by 'wisdom' and jñāna by 'cognition'. His translation of this passage is as follows: "It [i.e. prajñā] is not the range of non-cognition, not the sphere of non-cognition, nor also the sphere of cognition; for it is a cognition without an (objective) sphere. If there were an objective sphere in non-cognition, that would be a non-cognition.” However, this passage only makes sense by assuming that prajñā and jñāna are used without making a distinction between the two: "It is not the domain of knowledge, nor the domain of non-knowledge, nor the object of knowledge, nor the object of non-knowledge. For knowledge [i.e. prajñā] is not the object (of knowledge). If knowledge were the object of knowledge (sacej jñānam visayo syād), it would be non-knowledge.”
Su. 8.4-5: nâjñānena jñānam ity ucyate, nâpi jñānena jñānam ity ucyate. Ti ye-ses-kyis ye-ses ses bya'o // ye-ses-kyis mi-ses-pa zes mi-bya'o 11 = jñānena jñānam ity ucyate, na jñānenájñānam ity ucyate, C. nâjňānena jñānam ity ucyate, nâpi jñānenäjñānam ity ucyate, nâpi jñānena jñānam ity ucyate.
Su. 8.6: na tu tatra kimcid ajñānam, yac chakyam ādarśayitum; idam taj jñānam ... Read with Ti and C. kimcij jñānam.

Page #5

de Jong 191
Su. 8.7-8: Tena taj jñānam jñānatvena na samvidyate, nâpi taj jñānam tatvenâvasthitam. C. translates: "Therefore in knowledge there is no property of true knowledge and neither does true knowledge reside in the property of knowledge" (tena jñāne jñānatvam na samvidyate, nâpi jñānam jñānatve 'vasthitam ?). Ti de'i-phyir ye-ses de-ni/ye-ses-ñid-kyis med-do || ye-ses kyan ye-ses-su mi-gnas-te = tena taj jñānam jñānatvena na samvidyate, nâpi jñānam jñānenâvasthitam. The instrumentals jñānatvena and tatvena or jñānena are predicate instrumentals3: "Therefore that knowledge does not exist as (true) knowledge, that knowledge is not established as (true) knowledge."
Su. 8.11: jñānâjñānam yathābhūtaparijñā. Read jñānâjñānayor yathābhūtaparijñā, cf. Ti ye-ses dan mi-ses-pa yan-dag-pa ji-lta-ba bźin-du yons-su śes-pa. C.: "true and complete knowledge of knowledge and non-knowledge."
Su. 8.12-14: Na hi jñānam vacaniyam nâpi jñānam kasyacid visayaḥ sarvaviṣayavyatikrāntam hi jñānam, na ca jñānam viṣayam, ayam Suvikrantavikramiñ jñānanirdeśaḥ. Adeso 'pradeśaḥ, yena jñānenâsau jñāninām jñānīti samkhyām gacchati, yaivam Hikata's punctuation is not correct because a full stop must be placed between viṣayam (read viṣayaḥ) and ayam, and the full stop between jñānanirdeśaḥ and adeśo must be omitted. Na ca jñānam viṣayah. Ti ye-ses-kyi yul yan gan-yan ma yin-no = na câsti kaścij jñānaviṣayaḥ. C.: "It can not be said that knowledge is the object of non-knowledge" (na ca jñānam ajñānaviṣayaḥ). Hikata remarks that for jñāninām jñānīti Ti has jñānyajñānīti. However, even with these changes Ti does not correspond to the Sanskrit text: phyogs kyan ma yin-pa 'di gan-gis ses-pa de ni | ye-ses-can nam | ye-ses-can ma yin-pa źes-bya-ba'i grans-su mi 'gro'o //. Perhaps the original text read: yena jñānena nâsau jñānyajñānīti samkhyām gacchati.
Su. 9.14-15: nirvidhyati nirvedhika prajñety ucyate, nirvidhyati. Ti seems to have read: prajñā nordhvam nirvidhyati, cf. Ti sten ma rtogs-te. C. is more detailed: "This penetrating wisdom does not exist at all, not above, not below; it is not slow, not quick; it does not progress nor regress; it neither goes nor comes".
Su. 10.9: samsārātyantavihārī. Ti drug-la rtag-tu gnas "always remaining in the six"; C. "possessing the six permanent states". Read ṣaṭsātatyavihārī? Cf. Abhidharmakośa p. 150.4: ṣaṭ sātatā vihārā and the references given by La Vallée Poussin L'Abhidharmakośa, III (ParisLouvain, 1926), p. 114, n. 3.
Su. 10.13: vajropamasamādhir nairvedhikyā prajñayā parigṛhītam

Page #6

192
yatra sthāpayati. Read: vajropamam samādhim (Ms. vajropamam samādhir). Conze's translation has to be corrected, for samādhim is the object of sthāpayati and pracārayati: "wherever he fixes his concentration and to which objects he directs it”.
Su. 10.19: tantraupayikayā (Ms. tatraupayikayā) mīmāmsayā. Read tatropayikaya, cf. Pāli tatroupāyāya vinamsāya tamannagata (Vinaya I. 70, 71; IV. 211; Ang. Nik. II. 35; III. 37, 113; IV. 265, 286, 332; V. 24, 27, 90, 338). Cf. Dasabhūmikasūtra (ed. J. Rahder), p. 61.15: tatropagatayā mīmāmsayā samanvāgato; Ratnagotravibhāga (ed. Johnston), p. 23.7: tatropagamikayā mīmāmsayā samanvāgataḥ (see IIJ, XI, 1968, p. 44).
Su. 11.13–14: na tasya, yaḥ svabhāvaḥ sa svayamsambhavaḥ. Ti de'i ran-bzin de ni / ran-gi nan-gis "jig-cin. Tosani reads: tasya yah svabhāvaḥ sa svayamvibhavaḥ, but yaḥ is not represented in Ti. C. has: "In this way the svabhāva is destroyed by itself.”
Su. 11.14: samudayânantaranirodhaḥ. Hikata remarks: "Ms. is not clear but looks like to be -nuttarao; acc. to Tib. also -nuttarao; but Ch. anantara; from the context of this paragraph, it should be -ândntarao". Samudaya is absent in both Ti and C. Ti: mñam (L. sñam)-pa ni / bla-na med-pa'i 'gog-pa ste; C. “it is immediate destruction".
Su. 12.1: Anirodho nirodhaḥ pratītyasamutpādas yâvabodhaḥ. Ti 'gog-pa dan mi-'gal-ba; avirodho nirodhaḥ. C.: avirodho virodhaḥ. Instead of avabodhaḥ Ti has read anirodhaḥ ('gog-pa med-pa) and C, anubodhà. Cf. p. 13.14.
Su. 12.15-16: Na kimcid anyad upalabhyate, idam taj jñānavigama iti. Instead of idam taj jñānavigama iti Ti has: "apart from the ajñānavigama and the jñānavigama” (mi-ses-pa dan bral-ba dan / ses-pa dan-bral-ba 'dilas). C. translates: "Because one knows in this way cognition and noncognition and nothing else is apprehended, therefore it is called ajñānavigama”.
Su. 13.22–23: na ca punar dharmâdharmasvabhāvena samvidyate. Hikata remarks that C. agrees with S., but that Ti has dharmo dharmasvabhāvena (chos ni chos-kyi no-bo ñid-kyis). Tosani follows Ti. Conze reads dharmo 'dharmasvabhāvena. C. has "Moreover, both dharma and adharma are without svabhāva".
Su. 15.1: dhātuh samketena. Dhātuh is not found in Ti and C.
Su. 15.9: sarvadharmânubodha. Both Ti and C. have read buddhadharmânubodha.
Su. 15.12: apürnatyam tad aparinişpattiyogena. Read with Ti and C.

Page #7

de Jong
193
apūrṇatvam apariniṣpattiyogena.
Su. 15.15-16: Tena tad. Tosaki suggests reading Naitad but according to Ti one must read te na (de ni.
.ma yin-no). Instead of te
C. has 'the Buddhadharmas'.
Su. 16.17: viparyantāḥ is obviously an error for viparyastāḥ.
Su. 17.2: Sarvā manyanā 'sārambaṇā. Conze translates sarambaṇā. Tosaki corrects manyanā to 'manyanā. Ti: sarvā 'manyanā 'sārambaṇā (thams-cad rloms-sems med-la dmigs-pa dan bcas-pa ma-yin-pa), but C. seems to have read: sarva manyanā 'nārambaṇā.
Su. 17.8-9: vibhāvavitā hi tena satvāḥ sarva[sam] jñāḥ. Hikata remarks that according to C. and Ti it should be sarva[sam] jñāḥ but Ti has sattvasamjñā (sems-can-du 'du-ses-pa) and C. sarvasamjñā. Read: vibhāvitā hi tena satvasamjñā.
Su. 18.1-2: yasyaś carya 'vabodhad. Read caryāyā 'vabodhad, cf. Ti spyod-pa gan khon-du chud-pas.
Su. 19.7-8: Nâtra bodhir na ca cittam, na ca bodhir upalabdhā, notpado nânutpādas, tena sa bodhisattva. Ti de-la ni byan-chub kyan-med/ sems kyan med-do || gan-gis sems-ñid dan | byan-chub dan | skye-ba dan mi-skye-ba yan mi-dmigs-pa de byan-chub sems-dpa' nâtra ca bodhir na ca cittam, yena na ca cittam, na ca bodhir upalabdha, notpado nânutpādaḥ, sa bodhisattva. C. agrees with Ti, but does not translate nâtra bodhir na ca cittam.
Su. 19.18: sarvam jñānam. Ti thams-cad mkhyen-pa'i ye-ses sarvajñajñānam. C. can correspond both to sarvajñā and to sarvajñajñāna, cf. Nakamura Hajime, Bukkyōgo daijiten (Tōkyō, 1975), s.v. issaiichi (p. 60).
Su. 20.1: cittaprakṛtim ca prajānanti. Ti sems-kyi ran-bźin yan rab-tu mi-ses = na ca cittaprakṛtim prajānanti. C. agrees with S.
Su. 20.3: bodhiprakṛtim ca prajananti. Ti byan-chub-kyi ran-bźin yan rab-tu mi-ses-te = na ca bodhiprakṛtim prajānanti. C. agrees with S.
Su. 20.3: te najñātacittena bodhim ca pasyanti. C. corresponds to: te 'nena jñānena citte bodhim na paśyanti. C. does not translate na bodhau cittam pasyanti, na citte bodhim pasyanti (p. 20. 4-5).
Su. 20.6: te bhāvanām api nopalabhante. Ti de rnam-par 'jig-par byedpa de yan mi-dmigs-sin = te vibhāvanām api nopalabhante C.: te bhavanăm ca vibhāvanām ca nopalabhante.
Su. 20.16: Ye punaḥ Suvikrantavikrāmin bodher nâpi dūre nâbhyāsanne samanupasyanti. According to C. bodher must be corrected to bodhim.

Page #8

194
Su. 20.25: yo hi naiv'âram upalabhate. Tigan pha-rolñid kyan mi-dmigs. Tosaki reads: yo hi naiva pāram. This is confirmed by C.
Su. 22.20: anulomam ca samdhayanti. Conze translates: “they explain their secret intent) in agreement with just the fact”. However, neither Ti nor C. support this explanation. Ti rjes-su mthun-par smra-bar byed-do; C. "they harmonize this and that so that there is no mutual opposition". Probably one must read samdhāyanti as has been proposed by Matsumoto. According to Edgerton dhāyati and dhāyate (from dhā-) occur chiefly in comp. with antara-. C. is correct in translating samdhāyati by 'to harmonize, to make agree'. -
Su. 23.3-4: na ca kamcid anuraksyam dharmam deśayati. Conze puts a question mark after his translation: “Although he does not demonstrate any dharma which can be preserved". Ti has read also anuraksyam (rjes-su srun-ba'i chos), but according to C. one must read kimcid. anuraksya: “he teaches the dharma without holding back anything"...
Su. 25.1: ratnănām api. Read ratnānām nāmāpi, cf. Ti rin-po-che rnams-kyi min yan. C. agrees with Ti.
Su. 29.18: Na hi - Suvikrāntavikrāmin rūpam rūpasvabhāvam jahāti. Ti translates jānāti (ses-so), but C. agrees with S. Also in line 19 Ti has jānāti but C. jahāti. . . .
. Su. 37.16: nirvyttir nânirvșttih. According to Hikata C. has nirvști and anirvrti but Tiagrees with S. However, Ti has nivytti (Idog-pa) and anivstti (mi-ldog-pa). In 41.5 Ti translates nirvṛtti with grub-pa..
Su. 41.16-17: na ca svapnasvabhāvanirdeśaḥ kaścit samvidyate. Ti agrees with S. but according to C. One must read: na ca svapnasvabhāvah kaścit samvidyate.
Su. 42.3: svabhāvanirdeśah. Read svabhāvah (see Hikata note 1).
Su. 42.4: māyāsvabhāvanirdeśasya svabhāvo. Read with C. māyāsvabhāvanirdeso.
Su. 42.19: maricinirdeśasvabhāvo. Read with C. maricisvabhāvanirdeso. * Su. 43.2: prajñāpāramitānirdeśapadam câdhigacchati śravaņāya. According to C.one must read: prajñāpāramitā nirdeśapadam câdhigacchati śravaņāya.
Su. 43.2–3: na ca kasyacid dharmasya nirdeśaśravaņāya gacchati: Conze translates: "it is not the exposition of any dharma which reaches the hearing”. Obviously, Conze reads: nirdeśaḥ śravanāya. Ti chos gan bstan-pa thos-par 'gyur-ba med-do. However, C. has: “The dharma which is heard is entirely without svabhāva": na ca kasyacid dharmasya

Page #9

de Jong 195 svabhāvaḥ śravaņāya gacchati.
Su. 43.7-8: kutah punas tannirdeśasvabhāvopalabdhir bhavisyati. C.: “Why? The mass of foam does not exist, Suvikrāntavikrāmin. How much less will there be an exposition of its svabhāva”: Tat kasmād dhetoh! Phenapinda eva na samvidyate, kutah punas tatsvabhavānirdeso bhavisyati.
Su. 43.24: prajñāpāramitāyā nirdeśaḥ kāryam ca karoti. C.: tasyā nirdesena kāryam ca karoti.
Su. 45.10: C. adds jantu between jiva and poşa, cf. Kasya pa parivarta $ 142. Likewise p. 47. 8-9.
Su. 47.1-2: nâsyām kaścid upalabhyate yo 'bhisambuddhaḥ. (Ms. ('bhisambuddhā). Read with C. 'bhisamboddhā. Ti has nâsyām kaścit parinispanno dharma upalabhyate yo 'bhisambuddhaḥ: gan mñon-par rdzogs-par rtogs-pa yońs-su grub-pa'i chos gan-yan mi dmigs-so.
Su. 47.21-22: Paramārthajñānadarśanasamvrtyasvabhāvato. C. adds jñānadarśana between samvști and asvabhāvato.
Su. 52.22–23: na kamcid dharmam upalabhate, na samanupaśyati, yam dharmam jānīyād yasya vā dharmasya jñāpayitrā vā bhavet. Ti chos gan ses-pa 'am / chos gan ses-par byed-par 'gyur-ba'i chos gan-yan mi dmigs-so = na kamcid dharmam upalabhate yam dharmam jānīyād yasya vā dharmasya jñāpayitā vā bhavet. C. agrees with Ti..
Su. 58.6–7: ca yeşām parijānante, te tathārūpāḥ satpuruşāḥ. Ti gan-gi (L,T.T. gis) yońs-su śes-pa de dan de-dag ni = ca yeşām parijñanam, te te. In the following lines read:, te te instead of te, te.
Su. 61.2: parinispattir darśanenopayātah. Read: parinispattidarśanam . upayātaḥ, cf. Ti yoňs-su grub-par mthon-bar ñe-bar 'gro-ba ma yin-no.
See also p. 61.3, 8, 9, 13 and 14 where the same emendation has to be made. Probably the instrumentals have crept into the text under the influence of the instrumentals in the preceding passage.
Su. 62.24–25: Asangalakşaņ[eșu] hi Śāradvatīputra (sajanti] sarvabalapsthagjanāḥ. Ms. Asangalakşaņā. Read Asangasangā [or asangasaktā] hi Sāradvatīputra survabālapsthagjanāh, cf. Ti byis-pa so-so’i skye-bo thams-cad ni chags-pa med-pa la chags-so //. C. agrees with Ti.
Su. 68.12–14: yā 'pi sā "yuşmañ Śāradvatīputra prajñā lokottarā nirvedhagāmini, tasyā api prajñāpāramitānidarśanam nopaiti. Tosaki separates correctly prajñāpāramitā and nidarśanam. Conze omits tasyā in his translation: “It is because this is a wisdom which is supramundane and which leads to penetration that the perfection of wisdom does not lend itself to explanation”. Tasyā refers to prajñā. “As to prajñā, the per

Page #10

196
fection of wisdom does not envisage the explanation of it (i.e. prajñā)” ("does not envisage the explanation" is Conze's rendering of nidarśanam upaiti in the preceding passage).
Su. 68.14-16: Tad yatha "yuşmañ Śāradvatīputra dharmo nidarśanam nopaiti kasyacid dharmasya, katham tasyaivodāhāranirdeso (Hikata tasya evo-, but Ms. tasyaivo-) bhaviṣyati. Tosaki omits dharmo but this is found both in Ti and in C., cf. Ti chos gań ǹes-par bstan-par yan ñe-bar mi-'gro-ba'i chos de ji-ltar brjod-cin nes-par bstan-par 'gyur.
Su. 71.12-13: na tatha yais te, te dharma ye ca na tatha (Ms. 'vitatha) yathā gṛhītās. Ti: chos de ni | ji-lta-ba bźin-du ma yin-no || gan-dag ji-ltar bzun-ba de-bźin-du ma yin-pa. C.: "Such dharmas are not so. As they are seized, not such are their marks." Read: na tatha yatha te te dharmā, ye ca na tatha yathā gṛhītās (?).
Su. 72.4: Sarvaiṣām (Ms. sarveṣām) Suvikrāntavikrāmin vikalpacaryā. Ti. rab-kyi rtsal-gyis rnam-par gnon-pa / 'di (T.T. de)-dag thams-cad ni rnam-par rtog-pa la spyod-pa'o = sarvaiṣā.
Su. 72.5: sarvavikalpaprahīņā. Tosaki emends to sarvakalpaprahīņā in accordance with Ti. However, C. has sarvakalpavikalpaprahīņā.
Su. 72.5-6: kalpa iti Suvikrāntavikrāmin vikalpanaiṣā sarvadharmāṇām. C.: kalpa iti kalpasvabhavaḥ sarvadharmāṇām, vikalpa iti kalpaviseṣaḥ sarvadharmāṇām.
Su. 73.7: yato. Read yad (Ti gan).
Su. 73.11: nocyeta. C. adds: viparyāsa iti.
Su. 73.13: Jñāto (Ms. jñātam) hi tena viparyāso 'bhūta iti. The reading of the manuscript jñātam must be kept.
Su. 73.19: tena sārdham [a]viparyāsaḥ sthita. Ti de'i phyir de phyin-cilog med-par gnas-pa = tena sa 'viparyasasthita.
Su. 73.19: caryāyām (Ms. caryā) na vikalpayati. Read caryām na vikalpayati.
Su. 74.24: tena ca carya-'pagata. Ti de spyod-pa med-pa ste = te carya-'pagatās.
Su. 78.18-19: parijñātā hi ten' ātmasatvārambaṇaprakṛtipariśuddhā (Ms. . . . -ārambaṇaparijñā). Read: prakṛtipariśuddham hi ten' atmasatvārambaṇam parijñātam.
Su. 84.5-6: prajñāpāramitācaryā cittajanikā, tenocyate 'cintyateti. Ti sems-kyis bskyed-pa (T.T. sems-kyi skyed-pa) ma yin-pa'i phyir-te | de'i phyir bsam-gyis mi khyab-pa źes bya'o = cittajanită, tenocyate 'cintyeti. C. agrees with Ti but adds: na ca cittajanikā, tenocyate "cintyeti. Su. 84.7-8: cittam cittajam iti Suvikrāntavikrāmimś cetasaḥ pratiṣed

Page #11

de Jong 197 ha eşah. Ti sems zes bya-ba de nisems rab-tu rtog-pa'o (T.T. gtogs-pa’o)
= cittam iti. Suvikrāntavikrāmimś cetasaḥ prativedha eşaḥ. C.: “Nonproduction of mind also is perverted view. If one understands that both thought and mental elements (caitasika) do not exist, then there is absence of perverted view.”
Su. 87.1: Sarvalokābhyudayacaryeyam. Ti 'jig-rten thams-cad las mnon-par 'phags-pa = sarvalokābhyudgateyam. For sarvalokābhyudgata see p. 122.7; Lalitavistara (ed. S. Lefmann) p. 60. 14; Suvarnabhāsottamasutra (ed. J. Nobel), p. 206.6.
Su. 87.16-17: Vaiśāradyabhūmir iyam Suvikrāntavikrāmin dharmaneyam (Ms.dharmaneyam) prajñāpāramitācaryā. Dharmaneyam is missing in both Ti and C. and has to be omitted.
Su. 88.10: na kamcid dharmam, yat prajñāpāramitāyām na yojayati. Read: na kaścid dharmaḥ, yam.....
Su.92.16–17: phenapindopamā hi sarvadharmā avimardanakşamatvāt. Ti translates avimardanak şamatvāt with mñe (L. mi-ñe) mi-bzod-pa'i phyir = vimardana-a-kşamatvāt. C. has: "because they can not be picked up and rubbed". A-vimardanakşamatvāt means: “because they do not withstand crushing”. Conze translates: “because they are easily crushed".
Su. 96.12–13: tām api nirālambanavasikatām na manyate. Ti dmigspa med-pa dan / dmigs-pa ya-ma-brla de-dag la yan rlom-sems-su mi byed-do = tān api nirālambanānālambanavaśikān na manyate. C. agrees with Ti. For ārambanavasika see Astasahasrikā p. 265. According to Haribhadra ālambana-vasika means 'depending on an ālambana' (ālambana-paratantra). Conze translates 'devoid of objective support' (The Perfection of Wisdom, p. 175) but vasika cannot have the meaning ‘empty' as second member of a compound.
Su. 98.20–22: Yāvat kalpanā tāvad vikalpanā, nāsty atra vikalpanāsamucchedah. Yatra punaḥ Suvikrāntavikrāmin na kalpanā na vikalpanā, tatra kalpasamucchedah. Tosani emends vikalpanāsamucchedaḥ to kalpanā-. Ti has mi-rtog-pa which corresponds to vikalpanā. For both vikalpanāsamucchedah and kalpasamucchedaḥ C. has kalpanāvikalpanāsamucchedaḥ which is certainly the original reading.
Su. 99.1: anto hi Suvikrāntavikrāmin kalpo vikalpo (Ms. 'vikalpah) viparyāsasamutthitas. Ti rtog-pa dan / mi-rtog-pa ni / phyin-ci log-pa las byun-bas med-pa'i phyir-ro = asanto hi Suvikrāntavikrāmin kalpo vikalpaś ca viparyāsasamutthitās. Tosaki changes anto to asan but it is more likely that anto is the result of a corruption of asanto.

Page #12

198
Su. 100.7-8: dharmadānam. Ti chos-kyi sbyin-pa la = dharmadāne.
Su. 101.20: duhkhito vedanāttamanā. Hikata explains vedanāttamanā by Skt. vedanārtamanā and Pāli vedanāttamanā. However, neither Ti nor C. translates vedanāttamanā and it is probably a corruption for 'nattamanā.
Su. 106.15: kāňkṣāyitatvam vā bandhāyitatvam vā. For bandhāyitatvam read dhandhāyitatvam, cf. p. 22.17 and Edgerton, BHSD s.v. dhandhāyati. A
Su. 114.10–11: āsanno bhavaty anavalokitamūrdhatāyāḥ. Conze reads avalokita- with a reference to Edgerton, BHSD avalokitamūrdhitā. Edgerton quotes only one place: Gandavyūha 65.18. The text of the Gandayyūha is incorrect and avalokitamūrdhitām must be corrected to anavalokitamūrdhitām. The Chinese translations of the Gandavyūha have a negation. See further Daizõkyo sakuin, vol. 5: kegan-bu (Tokyo, 1963), p. 326c mukencho, mukenchoso; Nakamura Hajime, Bukkyōgo daijiten (Tokyo, 1975), p. 1321c mukenchoso; Bodhisattvabhūmi (ed. Wogihara), p. 381.3; (ed. Dutt), p. 263.3-4.
Su. 116.24: mahāsatvenârtham. Read mahāsatvena sarvasattvānām artham, cf. Ti sems-dpa' chen-po sems-can thams-cad-kyi don. C. agrees with Ti.
Su. 117.21-24: Nâham Suvikrāntavikrāmin bodhisatvasya kamcid dharmam evam kşipram paripūrikaram samanupaśyāmi sarvadharmāņām [an]yatheha prajñāpāramitāyām yathā nirdiştāyām abhiyogah. Hikata changes yatheha to anyatheha. However, aparam has to be added between kamcid and dharmam and sarvadharmāņām has to be emended to sarvabuddhadharmāņām, cf. Ti sans-rgyas-kyi chos thams-cad myur-du yons-su rdzogs-par byed-pa de-Ita-bu byar-chub sems-dpa'i (T.T. dpa') chos gźan gan-yan nas ma mthon-no; kamcid aparam dharmam . . . sarvabuddhadharmāņām yatheha prajñāpāramitāyām yathānirdiştāyām
... C. agrees with Ti.
Su. 120.7–9: iyam mahāpsthivi, meghān pratītya snigdhā bhavati, anupūrvena ca pravarşati, devenâbhişyandamānā upary upary udakam pravarşanti, yenotsadhim (Ms. utsāham) bahavo 'nugacchanti. Read: ... bhavati, anupūrvena ca pravarşatā devenābhişyandamānā, [meghā] upary upary udakam pravarşanti, yenotsā bahavo 'nugacchanti (?). Ti char mthar-gyis bab-pas bańs-nas chu 'byun-ste gan-du (L. gan) chu-mig man-po 'byun-ba..
Su. 121.17: sarvā diśaḥ prabhā dhyāmikaroti. Diśaḥ is not translated by Ti and C. Read: sarvāh prabhā.

Page #13
de Jong 199 Su. 123.17-18: asango 'sangataya, sango 'sangabhutataya. Ms. asanga asangataya, sargasangabhutataya. Tosaki reads: sangasangataya, sangasangabhutataya. Ti chags-pa med-pa la chags-pa yan-dag-pa ma yinpa'i phyir = asangasangabhutataya. C. reads: sangasangataya sangabhutataya. For 124.1 bandhabhutataya C. has bandhabandhataya bandhabhutataya. Su. 123.20: Abaddha iti. Ti rtogs-pa med-pa translates probably avedha but according to the context and C. the correct reading must be abandha and not abaddha. Abandha corresponds to asanga (123.18). Moreover, a corruption from abandha to avedha is more likely than. from abaddha to avedha. Su. 126.9-10: Tesam. kulaputranam kuladuhitrnam ca bhuyo marebhyah papiyobhyah (sic!) 'bhayam (Ms. marah papiyamso bhayam) pratikamksitavyam. Read: na ca bhuyo marat papiyaso bhayam, cf. Ti bdud sdig-can-gyis 'jigs-so snam-du dogs-par mi bgyi'o. A corruption of marat to marah has led to the change of papiyaso to papiyamso. Su. 126.17: Baddhasima Suvikrantavikramin maranam papiyasam. Read: baddha sima, cf. Ti bdud sdig-can rnams-kyi mtshams bcad-do. * Su. 128.4-5: vaistarikam ca karisyanti, (te te manusye]ndra manusy'ajaneyah, parigrhitas te. Read: karisyanti. Ye manusyendra manusy'ajaneyah, parigrhitas te. NOTES 1 The Short Prajnaparamita Texts, p. i, 2 Several passages have been discussed by Conze in his reviews of the editions of the Su. by Matsumoto (IIJ. 2, 1958, pp. 316-318) and Hikata (IIJ. 3, 1959, pp. 232- 234). His translation does not always follow Hikata's text. Tosani gives a list of corrections (pp. 316-315): 3 Cf. H. Jacobi, "Uber den nominalen Stil des wissenschaftlichen Sanskrits", IF, 14 (1903), p. 239 [= Kleine Schriften, Wiesbaden, p. 9]: "Es kann namlich bei gewissen Verben allgemeiner Bedeutung das Pradikatsnomen durch den Instrumentalis seines Abstraktums wiedergegeben werden, wo wir im Deutschen gewohnlich 'als' zu dem Pradikatsnomen setzen." See also L. Renou, Grammaire sanscrite (Paris, 1930), p. 293.