Introduction

i.1Multitude of Constituents is a short discourse found in similar but not identical form in the Pali canon (Bahudhātuka­sutta, MN 115), in which the Buddha confirms Ānanda’s suggestion that all danger and negative experiences arise from a lack of education, childishness, or foolishness (Tib. byis pa, Skt./Pali bāla), and not from being skilled, or learned (Tib. mkhas pa, Skt./Pali paṇḍita).

i.2The Buddha encourages Ānanda to develop the qualities of the learned and to relinquish those of the foolish. He enumerates these qualities in four categories: being learned in the constituents; being learned in the sense fields; being learned in dependent origination; and being learned in what is possible and impossible. Each of these four categories is then elaborated in turn.

i.3In the section on the “constituents,” from which the sūtra takes its name, the term constituent has been chosen to translate the multivalent Sanskrit/Pali term dhātu, and its Tibetan equivalent khams, sometimes also translated into English as “element” or “domain.” In the context of this discourse, the term is used in a manner similar to dharma (Tib. chos) to refer to the many facets of experience and the world that is experienced. These constituents together constitute all experience, from the physical world to sensory and mental experience; to areas such as attitude, affect, and right and wrong; as well as to temporality (past, present, and future) and the three realms (Tib. khams gsum, Skt. tridhātu), which together make up the whole of saṃsāra. In total, sixty-two constituents are enumerated in this discourse. They are presented in an order that reflects the pedagogical orientation of the text, with the most numerous category listed first (the eighteen constituents of the senses), followed by multiple further categories of six, four, three, and finally two.

i.4In the second and third sections, the twelve sense fields and the twelve links of dependent origination are listed respectively.

i.5The fourth section, on knowing what is possible and impossible, or what is tenable and untenable, consists of twelve pairs of contrasting hypotheticals presented as examples, of which only the first eight have parallels in the Pali canon version of the discourse. Knowing what is possible and what is impossible is typically considered the first of the “ten powers” of a buddha, though no allusion is made to this in the sūtra itself.

i.6The Pali canon version of the discourse, the Bahudhātuka­sutta (MN 115), has a slightly different framing narrative, in places presents items in a different order, and is somewhat shorter than the version contained in the Tibetan Kangyur. The core structure and contents of the discourse, however, are shared. The Pali version has been translated into English (Bhikkhu Sujato 2018) and several other modern languages.

i.7No extant Sanskrit version of the text has been identified. The Sanskrit title given in the Degé and Lithang Kangyurs, Dhātubahutaka­sūtra, appears to be a back-translation from the Tibetan khams mang po pa. Kangyurs of the Themphangma line, such as the Stok Palace Kangyur, give the preferable Sanskrit form Bahudhātuka­sūtra, which more closely matches the Pali title and has been adopted here.

i.8A Chinese translation of the discourse was made in the late fourth century ᴄᴇ by Gautama Saṅghadeva (Duo jie jing 多界經, Taishō 26-181) as part of the translation of the Madhyamāgama. Another translation, using the Sanskrit title Bahudhātuka­sūtra, was made by Faxian in 998 (Fo shuo si pin famen jing 佛說四品法門經, Taishō 776).

i.9The text carries no colophon in most Tibetan Kangyurs of the Tshalpa and Themphangma lineages. However, two Kangyurs of the independent or mixed group, the Phukdrak Kangyur and the Namgyal Kangyur, include a colophon stating that it was translated and finalized by the Indian preceptor Surendrabodhi and the senior editor-translator Bandé Yeshé Dé. This indicates a translation made during the height of the Tibetan imperial patronage of Buddhism in the late eighth to the early ninth century ᴄᴇ. That it was indeed translated during the “early diffusion” (snga dar) is confirmed by the fact that it appears in the early ninth-century Denkarma imperial catalog, where it is listed among Hīnayāna sūtras (Tib. theg pa chung ngu’i mdo).

i.10The sūtra was also reproduced in full by Śamathadeva in his commentary to the Abhidharmakośa, the Abhidharma­kośaṭīkopāyikā, which is no longer extant in Sanskrit. The Tibetan translation of this text (chos mngon pa ’ i mdzod kyi ’ grel bshad nye bar mkho ba, Toh 4094), believed to date from the eleventh century, includes a parallel alternative translation of the discourse in full. This later translation from Sanskrit closely matches the Kangyur version and was likely made with reference to the older translation, but in places presents clarifications. No other canonical commentaries on the text in Tibetan have been identified.

i.11The Tibetan text concludes with a series of alternative titles for the discourse, namely “The Four Parts,” “The Mirror of the Dharma,” and “The Great Drum of Deathlessness.”

i.12This English translation was made from the Tibetan as found in the Degé Kangyur, in consultation with the variant readings recorded in the Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma) and the Stok Palace Kangyur. Significant divergences from the Pali version, and from the Tibetan version of the discourse found in Toh 4094, have been observed in the notes.