Introduction

i.1The Question of Mañjuśrī presents a dialogue between the Buddha and the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī, in which the Buddha illustrates the vastness of the merit represented by the Buddha’s Dharma conch and how, by means of his conch and other auspicious qualities, the Buddha and his teaching pervade countless worlds and manifest in countless guises according to the myriad needs and dispositions of beings.

i.2The sūtra opens with Mañjuśrī approaching the Buddha and asking him to explain the measure of the merit represented by the Buddha’s “Dharma conch,” which in this sūtra seems to mean the Buddha’s voice. The conch symbolizes the far-reaching power of the Buddha’s word and the vast extent to which the teachings resonate among the incalculable realms. The conch shell is also one of the eight auspicious emblems that each symbolize various beneficent aspects of the Buddha’s teaching.

i.3In order to express the vast magnitude of the merit of the Dharma conch, the Buddha proceeds to present a sequence of hypothetical scenarios in which all beings in a given realm possess the merit of a previously introduced figure or attribute. That merit is then multiplied by varying amounts to equal that of an even greater figure or attribute‍—from the cakravartin monarch to Māra, to brahmā gods of increasingly vast domains, to pratyekabuddhas and bodhisattvas, to the pores of the Buddha’s body and his eighty excellent signs‍—culminating in lists of the eighty designs marking the Buddha’s hands and feet and the thirty-two signs of a great being. Finally, the Buddha states that the sum of multiplying these eighty designs by an inconceivable amount is equal to the sum of merit generated by the Dharma conch. A very similar passage, with the same sequence of meritorious figures and signs culminating in the Buddha’s voice, can be seen in the Ratna­megha­sūtra (Toh 231), while a somewhat less similar presentation of the exponential superiority of the Dharma conch is found in another sūtra, the Akṣaya­mati­nirdeśa­sūtra (Toh 175, placed nearby in the Degé Kangyur).

i.4The list of eighty designs on the Buddha’s hands and feet is a unique feature of this sūtra. Peter Skilling has compiled an analysis of the various sources that list the designs and symbols found on the body or on the hands and feet of the Buddha. Such lists are well known in the Theravādin traditions, which include an early list of around forty designs given by Buddhaghosa in his commentaries on the Digha and Majjhima Nikāyas, and several later lists of one hundred and eight signs found in Pali sources from the twelfth to fourteenth centuries. In the Kangyur this list of eighty designs is found exclusively in The Question of Mañjuśrī, but there are two texts in the Tengyur that contain similar lists: Śamathadeva’s Abhidharma­kośa­ṭīkopayikā (Toh 4094) contains two lists‍—one short and one long‍—of designs found on the body of the Buddha, cited from texts that no longer exist, and Daśabalaśrīmitra’s Saṃskṛtāsaṃskṛta­viniścaya (Toh 3897) also contains a short and long list of designs found on the hands and feet of the Buddha. In this latter text the long list is, with some exceptions, nearly identical to that found in The Question of Mañjuśrī and likely drawn from the same source. Skilling points out that although The Question of Mañjuśrī is a Mahāyāna sūtra, this list must have been taken from a Vaibhāṣika or (Mūla)Sarvāstivādin source.

i.5The eighty designs differ from the more commonly known eighty excellent signs on the body of a buddha. The eighty designs are adornments on the hands and feet that are said to be greater in the hierarchy of merit than the eighty excellent signs on the body, which, although not enumerated in Tibetan sources of The Question of Mañjuśrī, are listed in two of the Chinese versions. The thirty-two signs listed in this sūtra align roughly with other standard enumerations in the canonical literature.

i.6The Buddha goes on to explain that the Dharma conch, with its power to tame beings, causes the teachings to pervade countless world systems, as do his body, light, and conduct‍—all of which manifest according to the needs and inclinations of beings. In the end, Mañjuśrī praises the Buddha, and the audience rejoices in his teaching.

i.7There was no known Sanskrit original of The Question of Mañjuśrī available until recently, when a manuscript containing a collection of twenty texts, all of them sūtras, was found in the Potala Palace in Lhasa. Bhikṣuṇī Vinītā published a critical edition of this collection, along with an English translation, in the series Sanskrit Texts from the Autonomous Region (2010). Unfortunately, due to the inaccessibility of the manuscript collection and because it is missing a final colophon, its origin and date are currently unknown. In our translation, citations of the Sanskrit are given using Vinītā’s emendations of the handwritten manuscript.

i.8The Question of Mañjuśrī is the last in the manuscript collection and is abruptly cut off about one third of the way through, ending in the middle of the third folio (F.2.b) of this sūtra as found in the Degé Kangyur. In the Sanskrit manuscript, this sūtra is titled Dharma­śaṅkha­sūtra, or The Dharma Conch Sūtra, while in Tibetan manuscripts it is only ever called The Question of Mañjuśrī (Mañjuśrī­paripṛcchā­sūtra).

i.9There are three versions of the text found in the Chinese Tripiṭaka: one (Taishō 473) translated by Faxian (法賢, 337–422 ᴄᴇ), which combines the titles The Question of Mañjuśrī and The Dharma Conch (佛説妙吉祥菩薩所問大乘法螺經); another (Taishō 661) translated by Divākara (地婆訶羅, 613–687 ᴄᴇ) called The Mahāyāna Sūtra on the Hundred Meritorious Marks (大乘百福相經); and a third (Taishō 662), said to be translated by Divākara, called The Mahāyāna Sūtra on the Marks Adorned with a Hundred Merits (大乘百福莊嚴相經).

i.10No information is given in the colophon as to the translator or editor of the Tibetan. The Denkarma and Phangthangma imperial catalogs both mention a Question of Mañjuśrī among the registry of sūtras, although there is a slight ambiguity owing to the length of ninety ślokas (one śloka equaling sixteen syllables in the Sanskrit source) described in both catalogs, which seems a bit short for this text. Nonetheless, considering the sūtra’s early presence in the Chinese canon, this is most likely the same text, and assuming this is the case we can surmise that it was translated into Tibetan in the early translation period at a date no later than that of the Denkarma, 812 ᴄᴇ.

i.11We have based our translation primarily on the Degé edition of the Tibetan Kangyur, but we have also consulted the Sanskrit as well as the Comparative Edition (Tib. dpe bsdur ma) and several other Kangyur editions, including those from Tshalpa, Thempangma, and independent lines. These recensions are generally consistent and roughly correspond to the Sanskrit and Chinese sources, but there are occasional differences such as additions or omissions of stages in the hierarchical sequence of merit. There are also, as is to be expected, some variations between the Chinese and Tibetan translations of the lists found in the sūtra.