Introduction

i.1In Teaching the Causes and Results of Good and Ill, Ānanda asks the Buddha why different beings experience different fortunes and what types of past actions have now ripened into their respective conditions. The Buddha answers by elucidating the inconceivable dynamics of karma through a series of examples of virtuous and nonvirtuous actions along with their positive and negative results. While these one-to-one correspondences might strike the reader as an oversimplification of a very subtle and complex process, such pedagogical devices are common in the Buddhist tradition. Notably, in the classical presentation of the three types of karmic results (Tib. las kyi ’bras bu gsum), the second is said to be the “correlated effect” (Tib. rgyu mthun pa’i ’bras bu), which describes how results mirror their causes.

i.2The Tibetan version of Teaching the Causes and Results of Good and Ill is a translation of the Chinese sūtra titled Shanwo yinguo jing 善惡因果經 (Taishō 2881). One thing that is particularly intriguing about this Tibetan sūtra is that it is practically identical to another Tibetan translation, Teaching the Ripening of Virtuous and Nonvirtuous Actions (Toh 355). Upon comparison, it is clear that these two Tibetan texts are simply different translations of the same Chinese sūtra. However, perhaps solely on account of their dissimilar titles, they are retained as two distinct yet adjacent entries in the Degé Kangyur.

i.3These two sūtras differ not in terms of content but in terms of language; Toh 354, translated here, employs an Indo-Tibetan lexicon, whereas Toh 355 uses a Sino-Tibetan lexicon. The Indo-Tibetan lexicon refers to a body of terminology constructed in the likeness of Sanskrit and implemented during the early ninth century in order to imbue translations with a more Indic flavor, while the Sino-Tibetan lexicon leans toward a more indigenous, and presumably more archaic, range of Tibetan terminology that emerged out of interaction with Chinese texts. This suggests that Toh 355 is the earlier of the two translations, given that the Sino-Tibetan encounter predates the cultural sway that Indian Buddhism would later have over the Tibetan empire and subsequent Tibetan Buddhist traditions. Nevertheless, its title is absent in the Denkarma (Tib. ldan/lhan dkar ma) and Phangthangma (Tib. ’phang thang ma) catalogs of the early ninth century.

i.4The translator of Toh 354 was the prolific translator Chödrup (Tib. chos grub, alias Facheng 法成, c. 755–849), who was active in Dunhuang during the early ninth century. Given that Chödrup is known for his use of Indian vocabulary, it is likely that he did not also translate Toh 355. The colophon of Toh 354 states that it was translated with reference to both Indian and Chinese manuscripts. However, given that we have no extant Sanskrit manuscripts of the sūtra, no mention of the text in Indian sources, and not even a Sanskrit title at the head of the sūtra, it seems uncertain whether this statement can be trusted. It could possibly be a later addition made with the aim of conferring greater canonical authenticity upon a translation from Chinese in a climate in which India was seen as the principal source of authentic transmission.

i.5Beyond the Tibetan, the sūtra was translated from Chinese into Sogdian and an English translation of the Sogdian has previously been published by David Neil MacKenzie (1970). The present English translation was produced based on the Degé block print with reference to the Comparative Edition (Tib. dpe bsdur ma) and subsequently compared with the Chinese version.