Introduction

i.1This sūtra, brief though it is, addresses central Mahāyāna concepts in relation to practices to be carried out at the hour of death. When the Buddha is asked how the mind should be viewed when a bodhisattva is at the point of dying, he replies by giving pith instructions on the nature of phenomena and the mind, and instructs that a bodhisattva should accordingly engender specific clear understandings. The Buddha points out that all phenomena are pure, subsumed within the mind of enlightenment, and naturally luminous. Entities are impermanent, and the realization of mind is wisdom. Consequently, a bodhisattva should arouse a clear understanding that no entities truly exist, a clear understanding of great compassion, a clear understanding of nonapprehension, a clear understanding of nonattachment, and a clear understanding that the Buddha should not be sought anywhere other than in one’s own mind. Although he refers to these instructions as the wisdom at the hour of death, the implication is that these teachings can be cultivated and realized throughout a bodhisattva’s lifetime in order to prepare for death and attain liberation.

i.2The Sanskrit title of the sūtra is found transcribed in all Kangyurs as Ārya-ātajñāna-nāma­mahā­yāna­sūtra. This transcription, however, appears to have been truncated; as Sanskrit, it is not readily comprehensible, and certainly not equivalent to the Tibetan ’da’ ka ye shes. Another version of the Sanskrit title occasionally given is Atijñānasūtra, which, although certainly understandable, yields a meaning quite different from that of the Tibetan. The more likely Sanskrit phrase that would capture ’da’ ka ye shes is atyayajñāna (“wisdom at the time of passing away”), and this has been proposed as a revision of the Sanskrit title in several modern catalogs.

i.3There is no extant Sanskrit text to our knowledge, although it is clear that there was such an original at one time‍—the Tibetan colophon to Śāntideva’s commentary mentions that the Indian abbot Dharmarāja collaborated with Pakpa Sherab (’phags pa shes rab) in the translation of the commentarial text. The sūtra translation preserved in the Kangyur, however, has no colophon with the usual mention of the Tibetan translators and Indian paṇḍits, and was most likely made not from the Sanskrit but from an earlier Chinese translation, as the early ninth-century Denkarma (ldan dkar ma) catalog explicitly includes the Atyayajñāna in a list of sūtras translated into Tibetan from Chinese. Its inclusion in the Denkarma allows it to be dated to the first decades of the ninth century at the latest, and possibly earlier if it was indeed known to King Trisong Detsen (see below). The putative Chinese version, however, does not seem to have survived and the sūtra does not seem to figure in the Chinese canon.

i.4There are two commentaries on this text written by Indian authors in the Degé Tengyur, one attributed to Śāntideva (ca. eighth century) and the other to Prajñāsamudra (dates unknown). There are also six known Tibetan commentaries, four of which were written by seventeenth- to nineteenth-century Gelukpa (dge lugs pa) scholars, the longest and most detailed being one by the seventh Dalai Lama, Kalsang Gyatso. Our translation mainly follows the commentary of Prajñāsamudra and, to a lesser degree, that of Choné Drakpa Shedrub (co ne grags pa bshad sgrub, 1675–1748).

i.5The Atyayajñāna is included in lists of sūtras known as the Five Royal Sūtras and Ten Royal Sūtras, two sets of profound, relatively short, and pithy works traditionally said to have been translated on Padmasambhava’s recommendation and used for daily practice by the eighth-century Tibetan king Trisong Detsen (khri srong lde btsan). Their use is said to have contributed (along with other practices) to the king’s life being extended by thirteen years beyond the limit predicted by astrological reckoning. The texts recounting this incident list the applications or uses of each of these texts; in the case of the Atyayajñāna, this is meditation or cultivation (sgom pa). In the same accounts the sūtra is described as being of definitive meaning. Another Tibetan tradition explains that the Five Royal Sūtras each present the condensed, essentialized meaning of five of the major canonical texts, all much longer, known as the Five Sets of One Hundred Thousand. From this viewpoint, the Atyayajñāna represents the essence of the Mahā­pari­nirvāṇa­sūtra (Toh 119–120). Yet another, more prosaic explanation sometimes found for the epithet “royal” being applied to these works is simply that each of them, compared to other works on similar themes, is of paramount importance.

i.6The Atyayajñāna is considered particularly important in several Tibetan Buddhist traditions, including Dzogchen (rdzogs chen) and Mahāmudrā. Roger Jackson points out that it seems to be the only sūtra from the Kangyur that is included in indigenous Tibetan lists of Indian canonical texts on Mahāmudrā. As a search of the Buddhist Digital Resource Center data reveals, the Atyayajñāna is quoted by well-known Tibetan authors of all schools‍—including Gampopa (sgam po pa, 1079–1153), Sakya Paṇḍita (sa skya paN+Di ta, 1182–1251), Karmapa Rangjung Dorje (rang byung rdo rje, 1284–1339), Longchen Rabjampa (klong chen rab ’byams pa, 1308–64), Shākya Chogden (shAkya mchog ldan, 1428–1507), Drukpa Padma Karpo (’brug pa pad+ma dkar po, 1527–92), Tāranātha (tA ra nA tha, 1575–1634), and the Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngawang Lobzang Gyatso (ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho, 1617–82). The most frequent excerpt quoted is from the final verses on the mind (1.14):

i.7Unsurprisingly, this brief yet well-known sūtra has been translated into English a number of times. Several translations can be found on the internet, including a translation by Ruth Sonam and at least one anonymous version. Published translations include those by Roger Jackson (2009), Sherab Raldri (2010), Tony Duff (2011), and Erick Tsiknopoulos (2019). A translation of the sūtra together with translations of Prajñāsamudra’s and Śāntideva’s commentaries has been published online by Samye Translations (formerly Lhasey Lotsawa, 2015). We hope that our translation will contribute to readers’ appreciation of this remarkable and justly celebrated work.