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 Prajnaparamita texts: 2. The Suvik rantavikra mipariprccha J. W. de Jong The Sanskrit text of the Suvikrantavikramipariprccha (abbr. Su.) was published in 1956 by Matsumoto and in 1958 by Hikata. Conze has given a summary of the contents in The Prajnaparamita Literature ('s-Gravenhage, 1960, pp. 60-62). The vocabulary has been carefully studied by him in his Materials for a Dictionary of the Prajnaparamita Literature (Tokyo, 1967). Recently two translations have been published. Conze's translation is to be found in The Short Prajnaparamita Texts (London, 1973, pp. 1-78) and a Japanese translation by Tosaki Hiromasa in Daijo butten, vol. 1 (Tokyo, 1973, p. 73-296, 304-316, 325-329). According to Conze the Su. is the latest in time of the full-scale Prajnaparamita texts and must be earlier than A.D. 625 since Candrakirti quotes it in his Madhyamakavatara.1 Hikata puts the terminus ante quem in the beginning of the sixth century because Bhavaviveka (c. 490570) quotes it in his Prajnapradipa-Mulamadhyamakavrtti (cf. Hikata pp. lxxvi and lxxxii). However, all passages quoted by Bhavaviveka 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 Hsuan-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, Hsuan-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 Sarad- . vatiputra durlabhatamas te satvah, ye gambhiran dharman srutva 'nuttarayam samyaksambodhau cittam utpa dayanti cchandam ca janayanti, mahakusalamulasamanvagatah. Naham Saradvatiputra tan satvan mahasamsarasamprasthitan iti vadami, yesam ayam prajnaparamitanirdesah sravanapatham apy agamisyati (Hikata: yanti), srutva ca pathisyanti, adhimoksayisyanti, udaram ca pritisaumanasyam janayisyanti, esu dharmesu cchandam janayisyanti, punah punah sravanayapi. Kah punar vadah uddestum va svadhyatum va parebhyo desayitum va (p. 59.11-18). The Tibetan translation agrees with the Sanskrit text apart from two minor differences: 1. mahakusalamulasamanvagatah, T. dge-ba chen-po dan-ldan-pa = mahakusalasamanvagatah; 2. ayam prajnaparamitanirdesah, T. ses-rabkyi pha-rol-pa 'di = iyam prajnaparamita. The Chinese translation agrees with the first sentence up to mahakusalamulasamanvagatahand continues as follows: "I say that they possess great wholesome roots, are provided with great equipment (mahasambhara) and are armed with the great armour (mahasannahasannaddha). Quickly they will realize the supreme and correct awakening (anuttarasamyaksambodhi). When these beings hear the exposition of this profound Prajnaparamita, 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 mahasamsara is the result of a corruption of mahasambhara. 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, Hsuang-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 Hsuang-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: nanapatrapanam. Ti no-tsha ma-'tshal-cin khrel ma-mchis-pa rnams-kyi = nahrikanam anapatrapanam. 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 apatrapya by "dread of blame". Su. 5.19: -vrsabhopamanam bodhisatvanam mahasatvanam abridhasalyanam. Ti does not have bodhisatvanam mahasatvanam. 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 nabhinivisante, kutah punar adharmam, tesam vayam Bhagavann arthaya Tathagatam pariprcchamo bodhisatvanam mahasatvanam asayasuddhanam ....... samsayacchedanakusalanam, [tesam] vayam Bhagavan satvanam krtasas Tathagatam pariprcchamo bodhisatvanam mahasatvanam. Hikata adds tesam which is not in Ms. and in Ti. However, according to Ti one must put a full stop before asayasuddhanam and omit tesam: bodhisatvanam mahasatvanam. Asayasuddhanam ....... samsayacchedanakusalanam vayam Bhagavan satvanam krtasas Tathagatam pariprcchamo bodhisatvanam mahasatvanam. Su.7.10: Aparamitaisa Suvikrantavikramin sarvadharmanam, tenocyate prajna paramiteti. According to Hikata's note C. and Ti have paramitaisa. However, C. does not translate paramita 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 paramita, as in p. 27.3 where C. renders paramita in the same way (Hikata corrects the manuscript reading a paramita to paramita. Conze reads a-param-ita and refers to Ti tshu-rol rtogs-pa ste. However, tshu-rol corresponds to ara and not to para). In the following passage Conze corrects the readings of the manuscript: ajna and ajanana to ajna and ajanana. 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 ajananas, tenocyate prajneti. Ti ji-ltar semscan rnams-kyis ses-par 'gyur-ba de-ltar ses-rab ces bya'o. Cf. p. 27.4-5: yatha punar yusmakamajanana (Ms.ajanana) bhavisyanti, Ti ji-ltar khyed ses-par 'gyur-ba. It is impossible to reconstruct the original readings. Su. 8.1-3: [Na] jnanagocara esa Suvikrantavikramin najnanagocarah, najnanavisayo napi jnanavisayah; avisayo hi jnanam; saced ajnanavisayah. syad, ajnanam syat. Hikata adds na which is found in Ti but not in C. Ti inverts the order of jnanagocara and ajnanagocara. According to Hikata Ti and C. do not have saced ajnanavisayah syad but correspond to: sacej jnane visayah syad. However, C. translates: sacej jnanam visayah syad. This follows logically after avisayo hi jnanam: "Knowledge is not the object of knowledge); if it were the object (of knowledge), it would be non-knowledge." Esa refers to prajna. Conze translates prajna by 'wisdom' and jnana by 'cognition'. His translation of this passage is as follows: "It [i.e. prajna] 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 prajna and jnana 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. prajna] is not the object (of knowledge). If knowledge were the object of knowledge (sacej jnanam visayo syad), it would be non-knowledge." Su. 8.4-5: najnanena jnanam ity ucyate, napi jnanena jnanam ity ucyate. Ti ye-ses-kyis ye-ses ses bya'o // ye-ses-kyis mi-ses-pa zes mi-bya'o 11 = jnanena jnanam ity ucyate, na jnanenajnanam ity ucyate, C. najnanena jnanam ity ucyate, napi jnanenajnanam ity ucyate, napi jnanena jnanam ity ucyate. Su. 8.6: na tu tatra kimcid ajnanam, yac chakyam adarsayitum; idam taj jnanam ... Read with Ti and C. kimcij jnanam.

Page #5
de Jong 191 Su. 8.7-8: Tena taj jnanam jnanatvena na samvidyate, napi taj jnanam tatvenavasthitam. C. translates: "Therefore in knowledge there is no property of true knowledge and neither does true knowledge reside in the property of knowledge" (tena jnane jnanatvam na samvidyate, napi jnanam jnanatve 'vasthitam ?). Ti de'i-phyir ye-ses de-ni/ye-ses-nid-kyis med-do || ye-ses kyan ye-ses-su mi-gnas-te = tena taj jnanam jnanatvena na samvidyate, napi jnanam jnanenavasthitam. The instrumentals jnanatvena and tatvena or jnanena are predicate instrumentals3: "Therefore that knowledge does not exist as (true) knowledge, that knowledge is not established as (true) knowledge." Su. 8.11: jnanajnanam yathabhutaparijna. Read jnanajnanayor yathabhutaparijna, cf. Ti ye-ses dan mi-ses-pa yan-dag-pa ji-lta-ba bzin-du yons-su ses-pa. C.: "true and complete knowledge of knowledge and non-knowledge." Su. 8.12-14: Na hi jnanam vacaniyam napi jnanam kasyacid visayah sarvavisayavyatikrantam hi jnanam, na ca jnanam visayam, ayam Suvikrantavikramin jnananirdesah. Adeso 'pradesah, yena jnanenasau jnaninam jnaniti samkhyam gacchati, yaivam Hikata's punctuation is not correct because a full stop must be placed between visayam (read visayah) and ayam, and the full stop between jnananirdesah and adeso must be omitted. Na ca jnanam visayah. Ti ye-ses-kyi yul yan gan-yan ma yin-no = na casti kascij jnanavisayah. C.: "It can not be said that knowledge is the object of non-knowledge" (na ca jnanam ajnanavisayah). Hikata remarks that for jnaninam jnaniti Ti has jnanyajnaniti. 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 zes-bya-ba'i grans-su mi 'gro'o //. Perhaps the original text read: yena jnanena nasau jnanyajnaniti samkhyam gacchati. Su. 9.14-15: nirvidhyati nirvedhika prajnety ucyate, nirvidhyati. Ti seems to have read: prajna 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: samsaratyantavihari. Ti drug-la rtag-tu gnas "always remaining in the six"; C. "possessing the six permanent states". Read satsatatyavihari? Cf. Abhidharmakosa p. 150.4: sat satata vihara and the references given by La Vallee Poussin L'Abhidharmakosa, III (ParisLouvain, 1926), p. 114, n. 3. Su. 10.13: vajropamasamadhir nairvedhikya prajnaya parigrhitam

Page #6
192 yatra sthapayati. Read: vajropamam samadhim (Ms. vajropamam samadhir). Conze's translation has to be corrected, for samadhim is the object of sthapayati and pracarayati: "wherever he fixes his concentration and to which objects he directs it". Su. 10.19: tantraupayikaya (Ms. tatraupayikaya) mimamsaya. Read tatropayikaya, cf. Pali tatroupayaya vinamsaya tamannagata (Vinaya I. 70, 71; IV. 211; Ang. Nik. II. 35; III. 37, 113; IV. 265, 286, 332; V. 24, 27, 90, 338). Cf. Dasabhumikasutra (ed. J. Rahder), p. 61.15: tatropagataya mimamsaya samanvagato; Ratnagotravibhaga (ed. Johnston), p. 23.7: tatropagamikaya mimamsaya samanvagatah (see IIJ, XI, 1968, p. 44). Su. 11.13-14: na tasya, yah svabhavah sa svayamsambhavah. Ti de'i ran-bzin de ni / ran-gi nan-gis "jig-cin. Tosani reads: tasya yah svabhavah sa svayamvibhavah, but yah is not represented in Ti. C. has: "In this way the svabhava is destroyed by itself." Su. 11.14: samudayanantaranirodhah. 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 -andntarao". Samudaya is absent in both Ti and C. Ti: mnam (L. snam)-pa ni / bla-na med-pa'i 'gog-pa ste; C. "it is immediate destruction". Su. 12.1: Anirodho nirodhah pratityasamutpadas yavabodhah. Ti 'gog-pa dan mi-'gal-ba; avirodho nirodhah. C.: avirodho virodhah. Instead of avabodhah Ti has read anirodhah ('gog-pa med-pa) and C, anubodha. Cf. p. 13.14. Su. 12.15-16: Na kimcid anyad upalabhyate, idam taj jnanavigama iti. Instead of idam taj jnanavigama iti Ti has: "apart from the ajnanavigama and the jnanavigama" (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 ajnanavigama". Su. 13.22-23: na ca punar dharmadharmasvabhavena samvidyate. Hikata remarks that C. agrees with S., but that Ti has dharmo dharmasvabhavena (chos ni chos-kyi no-bo nid-kyis). Tosani follows Ti. Conze reads dharmo 'dharmasvabhavena. C. has "Moreover, both dharma and adharma are without svabhava". Su. 15.1: dhatuh samketena. Dhatuh is not found in Ti and C. Su. 15.9: sarvadharmanubodha. Both Ti and C. have read buddhadharmanubodha. Su. 15.12: apurnatyam tad aparinispattiyogena. Read with Ti and C.

Page #7
de Jong 193 apurnatvam aparinispattiyogena. 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: viparyantah is obviously an error for viparyastah. Su. 17.2: Sarva manyana 'sarambana. Conze translates sarambana. Tosaki corrects manyana to 'manyana. Ti: sarva 'manyana 'sarambana (thams-cad rloms-sems med-la dmigs-pa dan bcas-pa ma-yin-pa), but C. seems to have read: sarva manyana 'narambana. Su. 17.8-9: vibhavavita hi tena satvah sarva[sam] jnah. Hikata remarks that according to C. and Ti it should be sarva[sam] jnah but Ti has sattvasamjna (sems-can-du 'du-ses-pa) and C. sarvasamjna. Read: vibhavita hi tena satvasamjna. Su. 18.1-2: yasyas carya 'vabodhad. Read caryaya 'vabodhad, cf. Ti spyod-pa gan khon-du chud-pas. Su. 19.7-8: Natra bodhir na ca cittam, na ca bodhir upalabdha, notpado nanutpadas, tena sa bodhisattva. Ti de-la ni byan-chub kyan-med/ sems kyan med-do || gan-gis sems-nid dan | byan-chub dan | skye-ba dan mi-skye-ba yan mi-dmigs-pa de byan-chub sems-dpa' natra ca bodhir na ca cittam, yena na ca cittam, na ca bodhir upalabdha, notpado nanutpadah, sa bodhisattva. C. agrees with Ti, but does not translate natra bodhir na ca cittam. Su. 19.18: sarvam jnanam. Ti thams-cad mkhyen-pa'i ye-ses sarvajnajnanam. C. can correspond both to sarvajna and to sarvajnajnana, cf. Nakamura Hajime, Bukkyogo daijiten (Tokyo, 1975), s.v. issaiichi (p. 60). Su. 20.1: cittaprakrtim ca prajananti. Ti sems-kyi ran-bzin yan rab-tu mi-ses = na ca cittaprakrtim prajananti. C. agrees with S. Su. 20.3: bodhiprakrtim ca prajananti. Ti byan-chub-kyi ran-bzin yan rab-tu mi-ses-te = na ca bodhiprakrtim prajananti. C. agrees with S. Su. 20.3: te najnatacittena bodhim ca pasyanti. C. corresponds to: te 'nena jnanena citte bodhim na pasyanti. C. does not translate na bodhau cittam pasyanti, na citte bodhim pasyanti (p. 20. 4-5). Su. 20.6: te bhavanam api nopalabhante. Ti de rnam-par 'jig-par byedpa de yan mi-dmigs-sin = te vibhavanam api nopalabhante C.: te bhavanam ca vibhavanam ca nopalabhante. Su. 20.16: Ye punah Suvikrantavikramin bodher napi dure nabhyasanne samanupasyanti. According to C. bodher must be corrected to bodhim.

Page #8
194 Su. 20.25: yo hi naiv'aram upalabhate. Tigan pha-rolnid kyan mi-dmigs. Tosaki reads: yo hi naiva param. 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 samdhayanti as has been proposed by Matsumoto. According to Edgerton dhayati and dhayate (from dha-) occur chiefly in comp. with antara-. C. is correct in translating samdhayati by 'to harmonize, to make agree'. - Su. 23.3-4: na ca kamcid anuraksyam dharmam desayati. 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: ratnanam api. Read ratnanam namapi, cf. Ti rin-po-che rnams-kyi min yan. C. agrees with Ti. Su. 29.18: Na hi - Suvikrantavikramin rupam rupasvabhavam jahati. Ti translates janati (ses-so), but C. agrees with S. Also in line 19 Ti has janati but C. jahati. . . . . Su. 37.16: nirvyttir nanirvsttih. According to Hikata C. has nirvsti and anirvrti but Tiagrees with S. However, Ti has nivytti (Idog-pa) and anivstti (mi-ldog-pa). In 41.5 Ti translates nirvrtti with grub-pa.. Su. 41.16-17: na ca svapnasvabhavanirdesah kascit samvidyate. Ti agrees with S. but according to C. One must read: na ca svapnasvabhavah kascit samvidyate. Su. 42.3: svabhavanirdesah. Read svabhavah (see Hikata note 1). Su. 42.4: mayasvabhavanirdesasya svabhavo. Read with C. mayasvabhavanirdeso. Su. 42.19: maricinirdesasvabhavo. Read with C. maricisvabhavanirdeso. * Su. 43.2: prajnaparamitanirdesapadam cadhigacchati sravanaya. According to C.one must read: prajnaparamita nirdesapadam cadhigacchati sravanaya. Su. 43.2-3: na ca kasyacid dharmasya nirdesasravanaya gacchati: Conze translates: "it is not the exposition of any dharma which reaches the hearing". Obviously, Conze reads: nirdesah sravanaya. Ti chos gan bstan-pa thos-par 'gyur-ba med-do. However, C. has: "The dharma which is heard is entirely without svabhava": na ca kasyacid dharmasya

Page #9
de Jong 195 svabhavah sravanaya gacchati. Su. 43.7-8: kutah punas tannirdesasvabhavopalabdhir bhavisyati. C.: "Why? The mass of foam does not exist, Suvikrantavikramin. How much less will there be an exposition of its svabhava": Tat kasmad dhetoh! Phenapinda eva na samvidyate, kutah punas tatsvabhavanirdeso bhavisyati. Su. 43.24: prajnaparamitaya nirdesah karyam ca karoti. C.: tasya nirdesena karyam ca karoti. Su. 45.10: C. adds jantu between jiva and posa, cf. Kasya pa parivarta $ 142. Likewise p. 47. 8-9. Su. 47.1-2: nasyam kascid upalabhyate yo 'bhisambuddhah. (Ms. ('bhisambuddha). Read with C. 'bhisamboddha. Ti has nasyam kascit parinispanno dharma upalabhyate yo 'bhisambuddhah: gan mnon-par rdzogs-par rtogs-pa yons-su grub-pa'i chos gan-yan mi dmigs-so. Su. 47.21-22: Paramarthajnanadarsanasamvrtyasvabhavato. C. adds jnanadarsana between samvsti and asvabhavato. Su. 52.22-23: na kamcid dharmam upalabhate, na samanupasyati, yam dharmam janiyad yasya va dharmasya jnapayitra va 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 janiyad yasya va dharmasya jnapayita va bhavet. C. agrees with Ti.. Su. 58.6-7: ca yesam parijanante, te tatharupah satpurusah. Ti gan-gi (L,T.T. gis) yons-su ses-pa de dan de-dag ni = ca yesam parijnanam, te te. In the following lines read:, te te instead of te, te. Su. 61.2: parinispattir darsanenopayatah. Read: parinispattidarsanam . upayatah, cf. Ti yons-su grub-par mthon-bar ne-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: Asangalaksan[esu] hi Saradvatiputra (sajanti] sarvabalapsthagjanah. Ms. Asangalaksana. Read Asangasanga [or asangasakta] hi Saradvatiputra survabalapsthagjanah, 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: ya 'pi sa "yusman Saradvatiputra prajna lokottara nirvedhagamini, tasya api prajnaparamitanidarsanam nopaiti. Tosaki separates correctly prajnaparamita and nidarsanam. Conze omits tasya 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". Tasya refers to prajna. "As to prajna, the per

Page #10
196 fection of wisdom does not envisage the explanation of it (i.e. prajna)" ("does not envisage the explanation" is Conze's rendering of nidarsanam upaiti in the preceding passage). Su. 68.14-16: Tad yatha "yusman Saradvatiputra dharmo nidarsanam nopaiti kasyacid dharmasya, katham tasyaivodaharanirdeso (Hikata tasya evo-, but Ms. tasyaivo-) bhavisyati. Tosaki omits dharmo but this is found both in Ti and in C., cf. Ti chos gan nes-par bstan-par yan ne-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) yatha grhitas. Ti: chos de ni | ji-lta-ba bzin-du ma yin-no || gan-dag ji-ltar bzun-ba de-bzin-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 dharma, ye ca na tatha yatha grhitas (?). Su. 72.4: Sarvaisam (Ms. sarvesam) Suvikrantavikramin vikalpacarya. 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 = sarvaisa. Su. 72.5: sarvavikalpaprahina. Tosaki emends to sarvakalpaprahina in accordance with Ti. However, C. has sarvakalpavikalpaprahina. Su. 72.5-6: kalpa iti Suvikrantavikramin vikalpanaisa sarvadharmanam. C.: kalpa iti kalpasvabhavah sarvadharmanam, vikalpa iti kalpavisesah sarvadharmanam. Su. 73.7: yato. Read yad (Ti gan). Su. 73.11: nocyeta. C. adds: viparyasa iti. Su. 73.13: Jnato (Ms. jnatam) hi tena viparyaso 'bhuta iti. The reading of the manuscript jnatam must be kept. Su. 73.19: tena sardham [a]viparyasah sthita. Ti de'i phyir de phyin-cilog med-par gnas-pa = tena sa 'viparyasasthita. Su. 73.19: caryayam (Ms. carya) na vikalpayati. Read caryam na vikalpayati. Su. 74.24: tena ca carya-'pagata. Ti de spyod-pa med-pa ste = te carya-'pagatas. Su. 78.18-19: parijnata hi ten' atmasatvarambanaprakrtiparisuddha (Ms. . . . -arambanaparijna). Read: prakrtiparisuddham hi ten' atmasatvarambanam parijnatam. Su. 84.5-6: prajnaparamitacarya cittajanika, 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 zes bya'o = cittajanita, tenocyate 'cintyeti. C. agrees with Ti but adds: na ca cittajanika, tenocyate "cintyeti. Su. 84.7-8: cittam cittajam iti Suvikrantavikramims cetasah pratised

Page #11
de Jong 197 ha esah. Ti sems zes bya-ba de nisems rab-tu rtog-pa'o (T.T. gtogs-pa'o) = cittam iti. Suvikrantavikramims cetasah prativedha esah. 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: Sarvalokabhyudayacaryeyam. Ti 'jig-rten thams-cad las mnon-par 'phags-pa = sarvalokabhyudgateyam. For sarvalokabhyudgata see p. 122.7; Lalitavistara (ed. S. Lefmann) p. 60. 14; Suvarnabhasottamasutra (ed. J. Nobel), p. 206.6. Su. 87.16-17: Vaisaradyabhumir iyam Suvikrantavikramin dharmaneyam (Ms.dharmaneyam) prajnaparamitacarya. Dharmaneyam is missing in both Ti and C. and has to be omitted. Su. 88.10: na kamcid dharmam, yat prajnaparamitayam na yojayati. Read: na kascid dharmah, yam..... Su.92.16-17: phenapindopama hi sarvadharma avimardanaksamatvat. Ti translates avimardanak samatvat with mne (L. mi-ne) mi-bzod-pa'i phyir = vimardana-a-ksamatvat. C. has: "because they can not be picked up and rubbed". A-vimardanaksamatvat means: "because they do not withstand crushing". Conze translates: "because they are easily crushed". Su. 96.12-13: tam api niralambanavasikatam na manyate. Ti dmigspa med-pa dan / dmigs-pa ya-ma-brla de-dag la yan rlom-sems-su mi byed-do = tan api niralambananalambanavasikan na manyate. C. agrees with Ti. For arambanavasika see Astasahasrika p. 265. According to Haribhadra alambana-vasika means 'depending on an alambana' (alambana-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: Yavat kalpana tavad vikalpana, nasty atra vikalpanasamucchedah. Yatra punah Suvikrantavikramin na kalpana na vikalpana, tatra kalpasamucchedah. Tosani emends vikalpanasamucchedah to kalpana-. Ti has mi-rtog-pa which corresponds to vikalpana. For both vikalpanasamucchedah and kalpasamucchedah C. has kalpanavikalpanasamucchedah which is certainly the original reading. Su. 99.1: anto hi Suvikrantavikramin kalpo vikalpo (Ms. 'vikalpah) viparyasasamutthitas. Ti rtog-pa dan / mi-rtog-pa ni / phyin-ci log-pa las byun-bas med-pa'i phyir-ro = asanto hi Suvikrantavikramin kalpo vikalpas ca viparyasasamutthitas. 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: dharmadanam. Ti chos-kyi sbyin-pa la = dharmadane. Su. 101.20: duhkhito vedanattamana. Hikata explains vedanattamana by Skt. vedanartamana and Pali vedanattamana. However, neither Ti nor C. translates vedanattamana and it is probably a corruption for 'nattamana. Su. 106.15: kanksayitatvam va bandhayitatvam va. For bandhayitatvam read dhandhayitatvam, cf. p. 22.17 and Edgerton, BHSD s.v. dhandhayati. A Su. 114.10-11: asanno bhavaty anavalokitamurdhatayah. Conze reads avalokita- with a reference to Edgerton, BHSD avalokitamurdhita. Edgerton quotes only one place: Gandavyuha 65.18. The text of the Gandayyuha is incorrect and avalokitamurdhitam must be corrected to anavalokitamurdhitam. The Chinese translations of the Gandavyuha have a negation. See further Daizokyo sakuin, vol. 5: kegan-bu (Tokyo, 1963), p. 326c mukencho, mukenchoso; Nakamura Hajime, Bukkyogo daijiten (Tokyo, 1975), p. 1321c mukenchoso; Bodhisattvabhumi (ed. Wogihara), p. 381.3; (ed. Dutt), p. 263.3-4. Su. 116.24: mahasatvenartham. Read mahasatvena sarvasattvanam artham, cf. Ti sems-dpa' chen-po sems-can thams-cad-kyi don. C. agrees with Ti. Su. 117.21-24: Naham Suvikrantavikramin bodhisatvasya kamcid dharmam evam ksipram paripurikaram samanupasyami sarvadharmanam [an]yatheha prajnaparamitayam yatha nirdistayam abhiyogah. Hikata changes yatheha to anyatheha. However, aparam has to be added between kamcid and dharmam and sarvadharmanam has to be emended to sarvabuddhadharmanam, 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 gzan gan-yan nas ma mthon-no; kamcid aparam dharmam . . . sarvabuddhadharmanam yatheha prajnaparamitayam yathanirdistayam ... C. agrees with Ti. Su. 120.7-9: iyam mahapsthivi, meghan pratitya snigdha bhavati, anupurvena ca pravarsati, devenabhisyandamana upary upary udakam pravarsanti, yenotsadhim (Ms. utsaham) bahavo 'nugacchanti. Read: ... bhavati, anupurvena ca pravarsata devenabhisyandamana, [megha] upary upary udakam pravarsanti, yenotsa bahavo 'nugacchanti (?). Ti char mthar-gyis bab-pas bans-nas chu 'byun-ste gan-du (L. gan) chu-mig man-po 'byun-ba.. Su. 121.17: sarva disah prabha dhyamikaroti. Disah is not translated by Ti and C. Read: sarvah prabha.

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.