Introduction

i.1The topic of this sūtra, as is evident from its title, is the Buddhist doctrine of the dependent arising of conditioned phenomena. This concept is considered by many Buddhists to be the essence of the teaching, the Dharma. Dependent arising is often presented as a series of twelve links (nidāna) of causes and effects that begins with ignorance and ends with death. This schema is found in many canonical texts, and is the principal topic of the two works that precede the present sūtra in the Degé Kangyur, the Rice Seedling Sūtra (Śālistambha­sūtra, Toh 210), and the Sūtra Teaching the Fundamental Exposition and Detailed Analysis of Dependent Arising (Pratītya­samutpādādi­vibhaṅga­nirdeśa­sūtra, Toh 211).

i.2The teaching on dependent arising is epitomized by the famous “creed” (dhāraṇī) in verse-form, stating that the Buddha teaches the causes for the arising of phenomena as well as that which is their cessation. This verse formula is perhaps best known from a narrative in the Vinaya recounting Śāriputra’s life. The story tells of Upatiṣya (as Śāriputra was called before he met the Buddha) first hearing about the Buddha from Aśvajit, one of the Buddha’s five erstwhile companions and earliest disciples. When Upatiṣya asks Aśvajit to summarize the very essence of the Buddha’s teaching, Aśvajit answers him by reciting this verse. As soon as he hears it, Upatiṣya immediately attains a preliminary state of realization.

i.3In the sūtra translated here, however, these same lines are taught to Avalokiteśvara by the Buddha himself. The Buddha then instructs his followers to insert them into stūpas in order to generate the merit of Brahmā, an extraordinary type of merit. The practice of inserting these verses, as well as impressing or inscribing them on religious images, appears to have become popular during the second half of the first millennium, and was observed by Xuanzang in the seventh century. The creed can be found inscribed on, or inserted within, miniature caityas or stūpas at holy sites throughout the Buddhist world such as Sarnath, Bodh Gaya, and Rājagṛha, as far east as Kedah and Java, and as far west as Afghanistan. This practice was continued by the Tibetans into the second millennium and to this day it is considered by Buddhists to be a meritorious act.

i.4Xuanzang mentions that these objects were considered relics of the Dharma (dharmaśarīra). Buddhist scripture came to be identified as a type of relic of the Buddha from the time of early Mahāyāna discourse, according to which worshipping the words of the Buddha was considered to be equivalent, if not superior, to worshipping the Buddha himself. Canonical sources, such as the Rice Seedling Sūtra (Toh 210), have furthermore equated dependent arising with the Dharma itself. Thus, inserting or inscribing the verse of dependent arising empowers an object just as a fragment of the Buddha’s remains would. Included in the Tibetan text of this sūtra is the Sanskrit transliteration of the verse, implying that they were used like a mantra or dhāraṇī; the Sanskrit syllables are considered potent in their own right as a manifestation of the Dharma and thus of the Buddha himself.

i.5The sūtra is found in three places within the Degé Kangyur: in the General Sūtra section (Toh 212), the Action Tantra section (Toh 520), and the Dhāraṇīs (Toh 980). In two of those locations, it is followed by duplicates of a short separate text (Toh 521, Toh 981) containing the verse of dependent arising, which is also, of course, cited in numerous other texts. To date we do not know of any extant Sanskrit original version of the sūtra, and although there appear to be a few minor spelling mistakes and inconsistencies found in some versions, there are no significant variations among the available Tibetan texts. One modern translation of the sūtra that should be mentioned is that of Peter Skilling, who published it along with some helpful notes on it in his 2021 collection, Questioning the Buddha: A Selection of Twenty-Five Sutras.