Introduction

i.1The Long Explanation of the Noble Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand, Twenty-Five Thousand, and Eighteen Thousand Lines (hereafter Bṭ3) is a line-by-line explanation of the three Long Perfection of Wisdom sūtras, presenting a structural framework common to all three sūtras that is easy for readers unfamiliar with the Perfection of Wisdom to understand. It should not be confused with the commentary with which it is often associated, The Long Commentary on the One Hundred Thousand (hereafter Bṭ1), which has the same generic name Bṛhaṭṭīkā, the same opening verse of homage, and many similar passages. The two works are grouped together in the Degé Tengyur and are described in Tsultrim Rinchen’s Karchak (dkar chag) of the Degé Tengyur as together constituting the third of the four great “pathbreaker” traditions of interpreting the Perfection of Wisdom, which is characterized by the “three approaches and eleven formulations” (sgo gsum rnam grangs bcu gcig).

i.2The author of Bṭ3 has not been conclusively determined; some Tibetans say it is by Vasubandhu, while others assert that it is by Daṃṣṭrāsena. It goes by a variety of titles, some calling it The Long Explanation (Bṛhaṭṭīkā), some Well-Trodden Path (Paddhati) or Commentary on the Scripture (Tib. gzhung ’grel), and others [Commentary on] All Three Mother [Scriptures That Is a] Destroyer of Harms (Tib. yum gsum gnod ’joms) or Long [Commentary That Is a] Destroyer of Harms (Tib. gnod ’joms che ba).

i.3The first half of Bṭ3 has a loose internal structure. It begins with a detailed explanation of the introductory chapter and then provides a brief, an intermediate, and a detailed exegesis. The brief exegesis is of the opening statement that comes near the beginning of the second chapter in all three versions of the sūtra, the intermediate exegesis of Chapters 2 to 21 in the Eighteen Thousand, Chapters 2 to 13 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand, and the detailed exegesis of the rest of all three. It ends with an explanation of the chapter spoken to Maitreya, Chapter 83 in the Eighteen Thousand, Chapter 72 in the Twenty-Five Thousand. Some Tibetan writers say a small part at the end is either lost or was not translated into Tibetan.

i.4The earlier parts of Bṭ3 spend considerable time on each word; later parts explain just particular words or paragraphs from longer sections. This means that an ordinary modern reader will, at the least, be able to identify the sections of the sūtras that Bṭ3 is explaining, something that cannot be said of Maitreya’s better known Ornament for the Clear Realizations (Abhi­samayālaṃkāra). The Ornament for the Clear Realizations is a magnificent text, arguably a text that has exerted the greatest influence on Tibetan Buddhism, but it is a very difficult one for a modern reader trying to navigate for the first time one of the Long Perfection of Wisdom scriptures.

The Work, its Tibetan Translation, and its Titles and Monikers

i.5The Perfection of Wisdom commentary translated here is extant as a complete work only in Tibetan translation. It is likely to be the same as the work listed with the same title in the Denkarma (Tib. ldan dkar ma) and Phangthangma (Tib. ’phang thang ma) catalogs of works translated into Tibetan (early 9th century ᴄᴇ). Although the Degé Tengyur catalog says that the text was translated by the Indian preceptor Surendrabodhi and the editor-translator monk Yeshé Dé, the extant colophons say only that these translators edited and finalized it, perhaps suggesting that an earlier translation served as a basis.

i.6From the Tibetan title under which the text appears in catalogs, a Sanskrit title has been reconstructed as Ārya­śata­sāhasrikā­pañca­viṃśati­sāhasrikāṣṭa­daśa­sāhasrikā­prajñā­pāramitā­bṛhaṭṭīkā, shortened to Bṛhaṭṭīkā (Bṭ3). However, there is no Sanskrit title given either at the beginning of the Tibetan translation or in the colophon, and although Bṭ3 was clearly written in Sanskrit by an Indian author (as detailed below), there is no known surviving Sanskrit manuscript of this work that might attest to its original title. Nor is there, in any extant work in an Indic language, any obvious reference to a text with a comparable title .

i.7As well as its full Tibetan and reconstructed Sanskrit titles, Bṭ3 is also known by several shorter names. One is Commentary on the Scripture (gzhung ’grel), and another is Destroyer of Harms (gnod ’joms). The origin of these monikers is a little complicated to explain.

i.8Indian authors who refer to this text include Haribhadra (eighth century) and Abhayākaragupta (fl. ca.1100). Haribhadra mentions what is thought to be this text (see below) as a work by Vasubandhu , using the title “Well-Trodden Path” (Paddhati) but this was rendered in the Tibetan translation of Haribhadra’s work as “Commentary on the Scripture” (gzhung ’grel). However, later Tibetan writers do not agree on whether “well-trodden path” is actually the name of a text.

i.9This same title, Well-Trodden Path/Commentary on the Scripture, is again used by Abhayākaragupta, as mentioned below, in his Intention of the Sage, where he specifically identifies “the Scripture” as The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines. It is also used (and identified with Vasubandhu) in a lesser-known work by Jagattalanivāsin (fl. ca. 1165), An Explanation called “Following the Personal Instructions of the Bhagavatī”, that both summarizes the Eight Thousand and follows the “Commentary on the Scripture” (gzhung ’grel).

i.10These titles, Well-Trodden Path or Commentary on the Scripture, as well as the name Destroyer of Harms, both derive from a verse of homage at the beginning of Bṭ3. To further confuse matters, this same verse is found also at the beginning of the other treatise Bṭ3 is grouped with, which we have referred to above (i.­1) as Bṭ1‍—Toh 3807, cataloged immediately before Bṭ3, with a similar title, The Long Commentary on the One Hundred Thousand, reconstructed in Sanskrit as *Śata­sāhasrikā­prajñā­pāramitā­bṛhaṭṭīkā, and often confused with Bṭ3. The verse at the beginning of both treatises, in Tibetan translation, says:

I want to compose a Commentary on the Scripture in which the harms have been destroyed.

i.11When the Tibetan translators render the Sanskrit word paddhati as “Commentary on the Scripture” (gzhung ’grel), this is indeed the contextually appropriate meaning. Still, paddhati in its most basic sense means a “path” or a “well-trodden path” (from pad, “foot,” and dhati, derived with saṃdhi from han, “to strike”). If one takes the paddhati in Bṭ1 and Bṭ3’s verse of homage to mean “path,” the line would then be translated this way:

I want to make a Well-Trodden Path where the thorns [i.e. “the harms”] have been trodden down [i.e. destroyed].

i.12For this title rendered most literally as “well-trodden path where the thorns have been trodden down,” that is how the alternative rendering Destroyer of Harms, nöjom (gnod ’joms), has become the moniker commonly used for both Bṭ1 and Bṭ3 in Tibet, at least since the fourteenth century, and particularly in Gelukpa commentaries on the Perfection of Wisdom,

i.13The title Destroyer of Harms is, in the case of this text, an abbreviation for the titles Yumsum Nöjom (yum gsum gnod ’joms), [Commentary on the] Three Mother [Scriptures] That Is a Destroyer of Harms, also known as Nöjom Chéwa (gnod ’joms che ba), The Longer [Commentary] That Is a Destroyer of Harms. The latter name distinguishes it from the other Nöjom (Destroyer of Harms), Bṭ1, whose title is an abbreviation for Bumkyi Nöjom (’bum gyi gnod ’joms), [Commentary on the] One Hundred Thousand Line [Scripture] That Is a Destroyer of Harms), also known as Nöjom Chunga (gnod ’joms chung ba), The Shorter [Commentary] That Is a Destroyer of Harms, even though that “shorter” commentary is actually a much longer treatise in terms of the number of folios.

The Work and its Original Author

i.14In the absence of an original, authoritative attribution, the identity of the author of Bṭ3 is contested. In different commentaries, histories, and bibliographical works its author, if named at all, is variously said to be Daṃṣṭrāsena, Vasubandhu, the master Vasubandhu, the Middle Way master Vasubandhu , or simply the Nöjom Khenpo (gnod ’joms mkhan po), “the Destroyer of Harms scholar.” The problem of authorship is compounded by the text’s close association with Bṭ1 and the monikers shared by the two works. It is by no means always clear in discussions of the author, especially in early Tibetan Perfection of Wisdom commentaries, whether the work being referred to is Bṭ1 or Bṭ3.

i.15Perhaps one measure of the dearth of definitive evidence is that the two principal candidates for authorship‍—each with their proponents in the later literature‍—are scholars who lived many centuries apart. Vasubandhu is the great fourth or fifth century scholar of Abhidharma and Yogācāra, traditionally said to be the half-brother of Asaṅga. Daṃṣṭrāsena, about whom little else is known, was a Kashmiri scholar who lived in the late eighth and early ninth centuries. Both have been said, variously, to be the authors of both Bṭ3 and Bṭ1. At the same time it is not very likely that the two works have the same author, as their style and approach are rather different.

i.16Vasubandhu, certainly a prolific author but also one to whom a great many works have been attributed with varying certainty, is likely to have written at least one Prajñāpāramitā commentary. Nevertheless, no such text is counted among the works that are considered his with the highest degree of certainty‍—those cross-referenced in his own works and commented on by his immediate successors. If nevertheless there was such a text, the question is whether it survived as the one translated into Tibetan as Bṭ3 (or possibly Bṭ1), or was lost.

i.17In the eighth century, Haribhadra, in perhaps the first known reference in an extant Sanskrit work to a commentary that might be Bṭ3, refers in a slightly disparaging way to a work by Vasubandhu with the title “Well-Trodden Path” (Paddhati); this title (as mentioned above in i.­8) in the Tibetan translation of Haribhadra’s was rendered “Commentary on the Scripture” (gzhung ’grel):

Elevated with pride in his minute knowledge of the sides of the division into being and nonbeing, the master Vasubandhu attained a status that allowed him to explain the topics of the Perfection of Wisdom in the Well-Trodden Path/Commentary on the Scripture.

i.19As well as linking the name Vasubandhu with the title Well-Trodden Path, with its suggestive reference to the introductory verse shared by Bṭ3 and Bṭ1, it is also noteworthy that Haribhadra says that this Vasubandhu writes with only an understanding of the Mind Only view, not the Middle Way view.

i.20Haribhadra’s work was not translated into Tibetan, however, until the later translation period. Earlier, when the two commentaries were translated, no author seems to have been identified for Bṭ3. Of the two extant early 9th century ᴄᴇ catalogs of works translated into Tibetan, the Denkarma (Tib. ldan dkar ma) makes no mention of authors for either Bṭ1 or Bṭ3, while the Phangthangma (Tib. ’phang thang ma) gives no author for Bṭ3, but lists Bṭ1 with an impressive group of treatises and text summaries under the heading “sūtra and śāstra commentaries written by King Trisong Detsen.”

i.21We then have no apparent mention of either text until around the start of the twelfth century when Ar Changchup Yeshé (ar byang chub ye shes, ca. 1100) records the view that “there is a Commentary on the Scripture by Vasubandhu that connects the Ornament for the Clear Realizations treatise with the eight-chapter version of The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines , but it is not likely that it has ever been even seen by anyone.”

i.22Some time later, Bodong Tsöndrü Dorjé (bo dong brtson ’grus rdo rje, fl. ca. twelfth–thirteenth century), in what may be the first mention of the four traditions of interpretation (see i.­1) first says that earlier commentaries say “the master Daṃṣṭrāsena’s Long Commentary on the One Hundred Thousand [i.e. Bṭ1]” sets forth one of the four ways to interpret the Perfection of Wisdom, and then, following Haribhadra, refers to “the Commentary on the Twenty-Five Thousand Line Perfection of Wisdom Scripture [i.e. Bṭ3] written by Vasubandhu, who has given an exegesis based on the Mind Only view.”

i.23In the thirteenth century, the Narthang scholar Chomden Rikpai Raltri (bcom ldan rig pa’i ral gri, 1227–1305), who had access to a large number of manuscripts, as part of a general survey in his Early Survey of Buddhist Literature (bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od) places both works at the start of the section on sūtra commentaries, attributing no author to Bṭ1 but clearly attributing Bṭ3 to Vasubandhu. Later in the same work, he places the Commentary on the Twenty-Five Thousand Scripture among a group of works “attributed by Tibetans to Indians,” and a few folios later says that Bṭ1 is by “Trisong Detsen.” But in other works, perhaps of later date, Rikpai Raltri seems also to be the first writer to mention Daṃṣṭrāsena as the author of either of the two texts (though in this case for Bṭ1). In his Historical Evolution of the Works of Maitreya (byams pa dang ’brel ba’i chos kyi byung tshul) (Kano and Nakamura 2009, pp. 131–32), and in his summary explanation of the One Hundred Thousand Line Perfection of Wisdom (shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag brgya pa rgyan gyi me tog), he differentiates between Bṭ3 and Bṭ1 as being “by the master Vasubandhu and the master Daṃṣṭrāsena.”

i.24His student Upa Losal (dbus pa blo gsal, ca. 1270–1355), in the catalog of the early Narthang Tengyur, writes that Bṭ1 is “accepted as being by Daṃṣṭrāsena” but that Bṭ3 is by Vasubandhu.

i.25Not much later in the fourteenth century, their younger contemporary Butön (bu ston rin chen grub, 1290–1364) goes one step further than his predecessors in explaining the reasoning underlying the attributions he advocates. In the list of translated texts in his History, he notes that the Phangthangma catalog attributes Bṭ1 to the Tibetan king Trisong Detsen, but says that two other early inventories assert that it is of Indian origin and attribute it to Daṃṣṭrāsena. Then, regarding Bṭ3, he acknowledges that many scholars have attributed it to Daṃṣṭrāsena, but as evidence for it being by Vasubandhu points out that Abhayākaragupta’s (fl. ca.1100) Intention of the Sage (Muni­matālaṃkāra) copies passages verbatim from Bṭ3 or cites them as being from “the Commentary on the Twenty-Five Thousand Scripture (nyi khri gzhung ’grel).”

i.26One such passage in Intention of the Sage linking the commentary to Vasubandhu is the following:

The master Vasubandhu also in the Commentary on the Scripture says: “ ‘Armed with great armor.’ This teaches that the intention is vast from the first thought of awakening.”

i.28Abhayākaragupta does also identify “the Scripture” referred to using the Well-Trodden Path/Commentary on the Scripture as The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines. Indeed, this is corroborated by short sections of a Sanskrit manuscript of Intention of the Sage that have recently been edited and published by Kazuo Kano and Xuezhu Li, and these Sanskrit passages have been a useful reference in the present translation, mentioned in several notes.

i.29It is worth noting here that the identification of the monikers Well-Trodden Path (Paddhati) and Commentary on the Scripture (gzhung ’grel) with a commentary “on the Twenty-Five Thousand scripture,” rather than one on all three of the long sūtras, is less of a problem for identification of the commentary than it might appear. The commentary itself makes little mention of the individual sūtras, except in commenting that the “Maitreya chapter” is only present in the Twenty-Five Thousand version, for not only are all three sūtras very similar in their content but also their clear differentiation into different versions defined in their titles by the number of ślokas may have been a relatively late development in the evolution of the Prajñāpāramitā literature.

i.30The other Indian text mentioned above (i.­9), written by Jagattalanivāsin, an approximate contemporary of Abhayākaragupta, An Explanation called “Following the Personal Instructions of the Bhagavatī”, affirms very explicitly not only that the Commentary on the Scripture is by Vasubandhu, but also that this Vasubandhu is none other than the wellknown Vasubandhu associated with Asaṅga and Maitreya.

i.31Dölpopa Sherap Gyaltsen (dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan, 1292–1361) goes further, saying with confidence in his Sūtra-Based Commentary (mdo lugs ma) that both Bṭ1 and Bṭ3 are by Vasubandhu, and not just any Vasubandhu, but by “the direct student of the Jina Maitreya, the great chariot, the Middle Way master Vasubandhu, … the author of the commentary on Maitreya’s Ornament for the Great Vehicle Sūtras (Mahā­yāna­sūtrālaṃkāra).” In this way he unequivocally rejects the slightly disparaging earlier characterization of him by Haribhadra. Nyaön Kunga Pel (nya dbon kun dga’ dpal, 1285–1379), a student of both Butön and Dölpopa, repeats their attributions for the two texts, opines that the two commentaries have not always been properly distinguished from each other, and says that other scholars attribute Bṭ1 to the Tibetan king Trisong Detsen and Bṭ3 to Daṃṣṭrāsena.

i.32Tsongkhapa Losang Drakpa (tsong kha pa blo bzang grags pa, 1356–1419) is probably the most influential proponent for attributing Bṭ1 to Trisong Detsen and Bṭ3 to Daṃṣṭrāsena. At the beginning of his Golden Garland (legs bshad gser phreng), he lists a number of points in support of it (Sparham 2008–13, pp. 7–9). He also strongly disagrees with the judgment that it is written from a Mind-Only perspective.

i.33Shakya Chokden (shAkya mchog ldan, 1428–1507), writing in 1454 in his Garland of Waves (bzhed tshul rba rlabs kyi phreng ba), says “most earlier Tibetan spiritual friends say there are four pathbreakers into the Perfection of Wisdom” and lists the Nöjom [Bṭ1 and Bṭ3] as the third of these four ways. Then he either cites or paraphrases “Butön Rinpoché” as saying:

It is written in the Phangthangkamé Catalog that Trisong Detsen has composed this Explanation of the One Hundred Thousand [Bṭ1] in seventy-eight bundles of pages, but in both the Chimphu Catalog and the Phodrang Tongthangden Catalog it is said to be Indian, so it was composed by Padé. It is written that the one known as the Commentary on All Three Mother Scriptures That Is a Destroyer of Harms [Bṭ3] in twenty-seven bundles has been composed by Pawo (dpa’ bo), but it is the Commentary on the Scripture composed by Vasubandhu, because the citations from the Commentary on the Scripture in Abhayākaragupta’s Intention of the Sage are exactly as they are in this [Bṭ3], and because he [i.e. Vasubandhu] makes an opening promise to compose, with “I want to compose a commentary on that scripture in which the harms have been destroyed.”

Most likely Padé (dpa’ sde) and Pawo (dpa’ bo) are abbreviations for Daṃṣṭrāsena.

i.35Evidence put forward by Tibetan scholars who support the attribution of Bṭ3 to Daṃṣṭrāsena comes more from internal features of the text itself than from external references to it, and in the absence of much recorded detail about Daṃṣṭrāsena himself and his works tends to concentrate more on refuting the possibility of Vasubandhu’s authorship more than on attempting to substantiate Daṃṣṭrāsena’s.

i.36There is one passage in the text that certainly cannot have been written by the fourth- to fifth-century Vasubandhu who wrote the Treasury of Abhidharma (Abhidharmakośa), Thirty Verses (Triṃśikā), and Twenty Verses (Viṃsatikā), because it references the opinion of Śāntarakṣita, who lived some 300–400 years later. This is among the points made by Tsongkhapa. The passage appears in the versions of Bṭ3 in Tibetan translation in the Narthang, Kangxi, and Golden (gser bris ma) Tengyurs, but strikingly was omitted from the version in the Degé Tengyur.

i.37The passage in question (5.­441) comes at the end of a long gloss of the words “during the last of the five hundreds.” After explaining that a “five hundred” is one tenth of the five thousand years the doctrine of the Tathāgata lasts, and dividing each of the ten five hundred-year periods into “chapters” or time periods, and associating lower and lower attainments with each subsequent chapter, the author of Bṭ3 then gives another opinion (5.­440):

Some say the measure of a human lifespan can be one hundred years. There, in the earlier fifty years, the color, shape, strength, intellect, and so on increase, and in the later fifty years they wane. Similarly, the end of the time period‍—the time of the waning of the teaching‍—is like the later fifty years and hence is labeled “the last of the five hundreds.”

i.39Although Bṭ3 does not say so explicitly, in fact this is a citation from Vasubandhu’s Long Commentary on Akṣayamati’s Teaching (Akṣaya­mati­nirdeśa­ṭīkā). In the Narthang and Kangxi versions of Bṭ3, it then says:

When formulated like that [in Vasubandhu’s Long Commentary on Akṣayamati’s Teaching], the duration of the Tathāgata’s teaching is two thousand five hundred years. The two commentaries (ṭīkā) appear to be contradictory. Śāntarakṣita’s intention is that the good Dharma lasts from the Worthy One chapter up to the Meditative Stabilization chapter. There is the explanation in the explanatory tradition and there is this other explanation. In general, there is agreement on five thousand years.

i.41Clearly Vasubandhu could not reference the opinion of Śāntarakṣita. It is presumably for this reason that the passage was removed by the editors of the Degé Tengyur, despite its inclusion in the other, earlier versions, and despite Tsultrim Rinchen’s Degé Tengyur dkar chag only repeating Butön’s relatively open opinion on the attributions of the text to Daṃṣṭrāsena and Vasubandhu.

i.42Another possible but less obvious objection to Vasubandhu’s authorship that has been pointed out is the commentary’s mention of “the Subcommentary” (4.­61), thought to be a reference to a work by one of the two Vimuktisenas. The earlier of the two, Ārya Vimuktisena was‍—at the very earliest and only according to some accounts‍—a late student of Vasubandhu. Even in the unlikely event that the commentary in question had actually been written during Vasubandhu’s lifetime, it is improbable that Vasubandhu would have cited it.

i.43One way of explaining the presence of these passages might be to say that the Commentary on the Scripture known to Haribhadra and Abhayākaragupta is by a later Buddhist writer having the name Vasubandhu (like the Tantric Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva). Alternatively, it might be that the kernel of Bṭ3, or the tradition of interpretation at the heart of Bṭ3, goes back to the great Vasubandhu, who is then said to be its author, in the same way that Nāgārjuna is said to be the author of the Treatise on the Long Perfection of Wisom (Mppś) (Mahā­prajñā­pāramitā­śāstra, Dazhidu lun).

i.44The problem of the authorship of Bṭ3 is therefore unlikely to be resolved in the absence of any new evidence. Disagreement about it is indirectly linked to controversies that have been intensely debated among Tibetan commentators down the ages, and concern the relationship of the view of the Madhyamaka as expressed by Nāgārjuna and his followers on the one hand, to that of the Yogācāra of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu on the other‍—both essentially based on the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras‍—and the interpretation of the second and third turnings of the Dharma Wheel as definitive or provisional. Bṭ3 itself has played a relatively minor role in these debates, but two passages in the commentary that discuss the “three natures,” 4.­110–4.­111 and 4.­541–4.­547 are cited by Dölpopa, Shakya Chokden, and others as evidence that the Bṛhaṭṭīka supports an “emptiness of other” interpretation of emptiness. Tsongkhapa, in contrast, strongly opposed all such “emptiness of other” interpretations, while accepting that Bṭ3 puts forward a Madhyamaka view. This introduction is not the place to present a detailed account of these complex and enduring doctrinal debates, in which other, better known texts played more important roles. It would be unfair to both sides of the debate to suggest that, in evoking this work, their attribution of it to Vasubandhu or Daṃṣṭrāsena, respectively, was influenced solely by their doctrinal perspectives, but it would also be disingenuous to see no correlation at all; in understanding the work’s significance, its provenance is indeed a crucial element.

i.45For whatever reasons, in any case, both Bṭ1 and Bṭ3 have remained little explored, and Ornament for the Clear Realizations has remained the principal focus of Perfection of Wisdom studies in the Indo-Tibetan scholastic tradition. Nevertheless, we feel that present day readers will find this helpful commentary a useful guide to navigating the long Perfection of Wisdom sūtras and to understanding their many features‍—regardless of controversies over its author or doctrinal debates about a few of its finer points.

Structure of Bṭ329

Introduction

i.46Bṭ3 begins with a detailed explanation of the part of the introduction that is shared with many other scriptures, drawing, in particular, on The Ten Bhūmis (Daśa­bhūmika­sūtra). It explains each of the opening words of the Perfection of Wisdom, and then gives a detailed explanation of the epithets of those in the retinue. It references many of the categories in the Perfection of Wisdom that it will explain in greater detail later.

i.47The opening section of Bṭ3 continues with an explanation of the words in the part of the introduction unique to the Perfection of Wisdom and ends with a presentation of the single vehicle system.

Explanation of the Doctrine

i.48There is a brief, an intermediate, and a detailed teaching.

Brief teaching

i.49This is the single question, “How then, Lord, should bodhisattva great beings who want to fully awaken to all dharmas in all forms make an effort at the perfection of wisdom?”, to which the Lord responds by remaining silent. It raises four further questions: What is a bodhisattva great being? What is it to want to fully awaken to all dharmas in all forms? What does “should make an effort” mean? And what is the perfection of wisdom?

Intermediate teaching

i.50This is “an explanation in ultimate truth mode that takes the knowledge of all aspects, that is, the state of the nonconceptual perfection of wisdom, as its point of departure.” It deals with the same four questions, first in a brief exposition and then in a detailed exposition. The intermediate teaching is given the general name “Subhūti’s Chapter,” and covers the sections of the three long sūtras corresponding to the first chapter of the Eight Thousand , which is an explanation of the knowledge of all aspects.

i.51The intermediate teaching’s brief exposition sets forth four practices: the practice of the nonconceptual perfection of wisdom, the practice of the absence of secondary afflictions on the side of awakening, the practice of not harming beings to be matured, and the practice of all the stainless buddhadharmas that are the cause of maturation.

i.52The intermediate teaching’s detailed exposition is in eight parts:

Why bodhisattvas endeavor (they want to make themselves familiar with the three vehicles, they want the greatnesses of bodhisattvas, and they want the greatnesses of buddhas) [4.­67–4.­185].

How bodhisattvas endeavor, explaining chapters 3–5 in the Eighteen Thousand [4.­186–4.­257] and the rest of chapter 2 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand.

The defining marks of those who endeavor (these are the unfindable intrinsic nature of form and each of the other aggregates and so forth, the unfindable intrinsic nature of them as a collection, the unfindability of their own defining marks, and the unfindable totality of dharmas) [4.­258–4.­322].

The members of the bodhisattva community who are engaged in the endeavor [4.­323–4.­401].

The instructions for the endeavor (instructions for making an effort at names that are conventional terms making things known, instructions for making an effort without apprehending beings, instructions for making an effort at not apprehending a word for something, and instructions for making an effort when all dharmas are not apprehended) [4.­402–4.­473].

The benefits of the endeavor, which are the comprehension of the dharmas that have to be comprehended, the elimination of those that have to be eliminated, the fulfillment in meditation of those that have to be fulfilled, and the direct witness by reaching those that have to be directly witnessed [4.­474–4.­500].

There are six subdivisions of the endeavor: (1) practice free from the two extremes; (2) practice that does not stand; (3) practice that does not fully grasp dharmas, causal signs, or understanding; (4) practice that has made a full investigation; (5) the practice of method; and (6) practice for quickly fully awakening. The practice for quickly fully awakening is the training in the meditative stabilizations, in not apprehending all dharmas, in the illusion-like, and in skillful means [4.­501–4.­675].

The last of the eight parts is the discussion that arrives at an authoritative conclusion about the meaning.

i.53The last of these eight parts is a long section in Bṭ3 that explains up to the end of chapter 21 in the Eighteen Thousand and up to the end of chapter 13 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand. First there is a list of twenty-eight or twenty-nine questions [4.­678], followed by an exchange between the two principal interlocutors‍—Subhūti and Śāriputra. Bṭ3’s explanations of the responses to the twenty-eight or twenty-nine questions do not exactly match the enumeration given in the original list. The differences are pointed out later in this introduction and in the notes to the translation. The response to the question, “What is the Great Vehicle?”, occasions a detailed explanation of the purification dharmas under twenty-one categories, starting with the perfections, emptinesses, meditative stabilizations, and thirty-seven dharmas on the side of awakening, and going up to the four detailed and thorough knowledges, the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha, and the dhāraṇī doors. The intermediate teaching ends with an exposition of the etymology of vehicle, the attributes of the Great Vehicle (that it surpasses the world, is equal to space, does not come or go, and has no beginning or end), and its results.

Detailed teaching

i.54This takes as its point of departure the knowledge of path aspects, which is to say the bodhisattva’s knowledge, as distinct from a buddha’s knowledge of all aspects, and “teaches the conceptual and nonconceptual perfection of wisdom that is the practice of bodhisattvas.”

i.55The first part, up to Subhūti’s two hundred and seventy-seven questions, divides the three long sūtras into sections that are sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit. First it explains what the perfection of wisdom is, how bodhisattvas should stand in it, and how they should train in it. This section is important in that it makes clear that all three knowledges‍—the knowledges of a śrāvaka, a bodhisattva, and a buddha‍—are the practice of the perfection of wisdom. This is the main insight of the exposition in Maitreya’s Ornament for the Clear Realizations . It then explains the sustaining power (adhiṣṭhāna) of a tathāgata, and the greatness of the doctrine. Bṭ3 then gives an exegesis of benefits, merits, rejoicing, dedication, and the praises. It also gives an exegesis of forsaking the perfection of wisdom because of its depth and its purity, a discursus on “the last of the five hundreds,” and an explanation of the works of Māra. Finally, it explains the difference between a new bodhisattva and a seasoned bodhisattva, the signs of those irreversible from progress toward awakening, suchness (reality), a tathāgata (realized one), skillful means, and the argument between Subhūti and Śāriputra over whether it is hard or not hard to become awakened.

The second part explains the responses to the two hundred and seventy-seven questions.

Summary of the Chapters of Bṭ3

I. Introduction

I.1 Introduction common to all sūtras

i.56This section provides (1) glosses for each of the words or phrases that set the scene, starting with “Thus did I hear at one time”; (2) glosses for each term in the string of epithets for the “great community of monks,” one of the four branches of the community (monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen) present for the teaching; and (3) glosses for the epithets of the five types of bodhisattvas in the retinue. The explanation of the qualities of the worthy monks provides for a brief overview of the practice and result set forth in the fundamental Buddhist scriptures, and the explanation of the bodhisattvas, based on The Ten Bhūmis, gives a brief overview of the five types of bodhisattva: (1) bodhisattvas with a surpassing intention on the first level, (2) those “who stand in signlessness with effort up to the seventh level, (3) those who effortlessly stand in signlessness… on the eighth level,” (4) bodhisattvas up to the tenth level, and (5) bodhisattvas “obstructed by just a single birth.” It connects the epithets beginning with their “understanding phenomena to be like an illusion,” and so on, with the last of these. There is also a detailed explanation of the four types of dhāraṇī.

I.2 Introduction unique to the Perfection of Wisdom

i.57This again provides glosses for each word or phrase starting from, “Thereupon the Lord, having himself arranged the lion throne…” The Lord demonstrates miraculous powers of meditative stabilization, miraculous wonder-working powers, and miraculous dharma-illuminating powers. The first is demonstrated by the Lord radiating light, the second with his magical creation of a great tower of flowers and its suspension in the air and so on, and the third with his illuminating the buddhas in different worlds and teaching a gigantic retinue. In the context of the buddhas of the ten directions warning their bodhisattvas traveling to our world that they should “be careful in that buddhafield,” there is a detailed explanation of the five degenerations in Śākyamuni’s buddhafield, that is, in the world in which we live.

I.3 Presentation of the single vehicle system

i.58Included in this section of the introduction is an exposition of the opening words of the second chapter in all three long sūtras: “When the Lord understood that the world with its celestial beings, Māras and Brahmās, śramaṇas and brahmins, gods, and humans, as well as bodhisattvas, most of them in youthful form, had assembled, he said to venerable Śāriputra…” The great śrāvaka Śāriputra is singled out, rather than a bodhisattva, to make known that “the perfection of wisdom is a shared discourse.” He is singled out even though he is a worthy one, because all worthy ones are finally roused from nirvāṇa to work for the welfare of beings. This occasions a presentation of the single vehicle system explained in The White Lotus of the Good Dharma (Saddharma­puṇḍarīka), The Lion’s Roar of Śrīmālādevī (Śrīmālā­devī­siṃha­nāda), The Questions of Sāgaramati (Sāgara­mati­paripṛcchā), The Ten Dharmas Sūtra (Daśa­dharmaka­sūtra), and in the Maitreya chapters of the Eighteen Thousand and Twenty-Five Thousand.

II. Summary of Contents

i.59The Perfection of Wisdom is divided into three teachings: brief, intermediate, and detailed. The subdivisions of the intermediate teaching are explicitly identified under the heading “exposition in eight parts.” These are:

why bodhisattvas endeavor,

how bodhisattvas endeavor,

the defining marks of those who endeavor,

the subdivisions of those who endeavor,

the instructions for the endeavor,

the benefits of the endeavor,

the subdivisions of the endeavor, and

the specific instruction for coming to an authoritative conclusion about this exposition.

i.60Bṭ3 says there are eleven rounds of teaching. The probable correspondences with the chapters in The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines scripture are given in the notes to the translation [2.­17].

III. Explanation of the Brief Teaching

i.61This section provides a detailed gloss of each word of the statement, “Here, Śāriputra, bodhisattva great beings who want to fully awaken to all dharmas in all forms should make an effort at the perfection of wisdom.” Here and throughout Bṭ3 the explanation uses the terminology of the three natures characteristic of Yogācāra discourse. These are the imaginary (Skt. parikalpita, Tib. kun brtags), dependent or other-powered (Skt. paratantra, Tib. gzhan dbang), and thoroughly established or final outcome (Skt. pariniṣpanna, Tib. yongs su grub pa); alternatively, they are imaginary, conceptualized (Skt. vikalpita, Tib. rnam par brtags pa), and true dharmic nature (Skt. dharmatā , Tib. chos nyid). Taken together, the three natures give a full description of a phenomenon. For instance, the commentary says [4.­543]: “The form ordinary foolish beings take to be defined as an easily breakable or seeable real thing is imaginary form. The aspect in which just that appears as real as an object of consciousness is conceptualized form. Just the bare thoroughly established suchness separated from those two imaginary and conceptualized form aspects is the true dharmic nature of form,” and [1.­121] “Imaginary phenomena appear as if they are standing over there away from the consciousness. Dependent phenomena are produced dependent on conditions, like, as a simile, ‘magical creations’ that are produced dependent on the magician.” These are important terms used widely in Bṭ3.

IV. Explanation of the Intermediate Teaching

i.62This is in two parts, a brief teaching and a detailed teaching.

IV.1 Brief teaching

i.63This section glosses the words in the first two paragraphs of the Lord’s immediate response to Śāriputra’s original question in chapter 2 of all three long sūtras. The response, a long list, is broken down into (1) the practice of the nonconceptual perfections, (2) the practice of the dharmas on the side of awakening without the secondary afflictions, (3) the practice without harming that brings beings to maturity, and (4) the practice that brings the buddhadharmas to maturity. The practice of the perfections is accomplished with skillful means; the practice of the dharmas on the side of awakening is accomplished through mastering the śrāvaka realizations; compassion accomplishes the practice of bringing beings to maturity; and wisdom accomplishes the practice of fully developing the buddhadharmas.

IV.2 Detailed teaching

i.64This explains the rest of chapter 2 and up to the end of chapter 21 in the Eighteen Thousand, chapter 13 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand.

IV.2.A This section glosses the explanation, in chapter 2 of all three long sūtras, of the goals to which the thought of awakening is directed. It explains in three parts the perfection of wisdom for which bodhisattvas endeavor. By endeavoring at the perfection of wisdom (1) they want to make themselves familiar with the three vehicles and achieve that familiarity, (2) they want and achieve the greatnesses of bodhisattvas, and (3) they want and achieve the greatnesses of buddhas. In the context of explaining the line “want to destroy all residual impressions, connections, and afflictions,” the commentary makes clear how the same practice and the same knowledge in the mindstreams of different beings with different motivations and insights differ. It again connects the different goals set forth from the line “want to enter into the secure state of a bodhisattva” with higher and higher bodhisattva levels, and in the context of the line “want to stand in inner emptiness,” gives a long and detailed explanation of each of the sixteen emptinesses. The end of this section investigates how Śākyamuni could both be without lust and still have the wife Yaśodharā and son Rāhula.

i.65IV.2.B This section explains in detail the passage, at the beginning of chapter 3 in the Eighteen Thousand and in chapter 2 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand, about how bodhisattvas endeavor by “not seeing” any phenomenon, the name of any phenomenon, seeing itself, or anything that “not seeing” sees. It articulates the relationship between the three natures, the conventional and ultimate realities, and the way names and what they refer to are both connected with, but isolated from, the ultimately real. A bodhisattva with such wisdom eclipses the knowledge of even a billion worthy ones like Śāriputra. Still, the wisdom gained from the basic teachings and the wisdom gained from the Perfection of Wisdom ultimately have no intrinsic nature and are the same. That wisdom is special because of the intention, practice, and work, and because of the complete awakening and turning the wheel of the Dharma that are its result.

i.66IV.2.C This section, under the heading “the defining marks of those who endeavor,” explains a passage in chapter 2 of all three long sūtras as first teaching four practices of emptiness woven around eleven defining marks, and then teaching a further sixteen practices of emptiness. The defining mark is always emptiness. Glossing the line, “you cannot say… that they ‘are engaged’ or ‘are not engaged,’ ” the commentary explains the first of the four practices, the practice of form and so on separately, based on Nāgārjuna’s Root Verses on the Middle Way (Mūla­madhyamaka­kārikā), teaching that nothing is produced from itself and so on. The second practice, explaining the line “do not see ‘a confluence of form with feeling,’ ” teaches that form and so on, as a collection that locates a bodhisattva, are empty. The third practice, explaining the line “that emptiness of form is not form,” is to see the defining mark of form and so on as empty; and the fourth, explaining the line “form is itself emptiness, and emptiness is form,” is a practice that sees the totality of dharmas, starting with form, as emptiness. The list of sixteen emptinesses begins with an explanation of the line, “they do not see the practice of the perfection of wisdom as either ‘engaged’ or ‘not engaged’ with form.”

The bodhisattva always practicing these emptinesses is at the eighth level, has gained the forbearance for dharmas that are not produced, and is predicted to full awakening by the buddhas.

i.67IV.2.D Those who endeavor at the practice are subdivided into three types: the supreme who arrive from a buddhafield and go to a buddhafield, the middling who arrive from Tuṣita, and the last who arrive from among humans. These are then divided into the forty-four or forty-five members of the community. Following that, the commentary deals briskly with the detailed explanation of the six clairvoyances and the five eyes, and the remainder of chapter 2 up to the end of chapter 5 in the Eighteen Thousand, all of which in the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand is included in chapter 2.

i.68IV.2.E This section is an explanation of chapter 6 in the Eighteen Thousand, chapter 3 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand. A bodhisattva, the perfection of wisdom, and awakening ultimately do not exist, but the names are important conventionally because otherwise beings would be deprived of the instructions they need. The Lord, through Subhūti, gives the instructions for making an effort “by using names and conventional terms conventionally,” for making an effort without apprehending beings, for making an effort by not apprehending words for things, and for making an effort when all dharmas cannot be apprehended.

i.69Names for things (their conventional reality) are not other than the ultimate reality of things. The name bodhisattva is not found anywhere. It is “used conventionally as a mere word and conventional term” that is “not produced and does not stop.” Were it produced when the actual thing referred to by the name is produced, it would not be necessary to give it a name, because it would be known automatically. The benefit of such instruction is that it stops the śrāvaka’s attachment to insight, the three doors to liberation, and the perfect analytic understanding of the suchness of dharmas. A bodhisattva avoids all such thought constructions.

i.70The instruction for making an effort without apprehending beings explains the relationship between self and the aggregates and rejects the views of ordinary “cow-herders,” Jains, Vaidikas, Sāṃkhyas, Parivrājakas, Ulūkas, and proponents of Īśvara, as well as the view that the ultimate reality of a bodhisattva is the bodhisattva.

i.71The instruction for making an effort by not apprehending words for things explains “is bodhisattva the word for form?” and so on. The aggregates and the attributes of the aggregates are imaginary names, so they cannot be the bodhisattva.

i.72There is a brief and then a more detailed instruction for making an effort when all dharmas cannot be apprehended. A “bodhisattva” during the course of practice is like the sky that, though earlier clouded over and later cloudless, is just the sky.

i.73IV.2.F The benefits of the endeavor are set forth in chapter 7 in the Eighteen Thousand, chapter 4 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand. They include comprehension of the dharmas that have to be comprehended and those that have to be eliminated, perfecting in meditation those that have to be perfected, and directly witnessing those that have to be directly witnessed.

i.74Glossing the line, “Because that thought is no thought because the basic nature of thought is clear light,” the commentary says that “no thought” means no imaginary thought. Thought itself is clear light unsullied by any stains, such as an ordinary person’s feelings of desire and hatred. It says, [4.­488] “Later, even when a buddha, because that thought is separated from the afflictive emotions plucked out of thin air and abides in its natural purity, those stains have absolutely not arisen, and so, like space that is not conjoined with clouds and so on, it is clear light and hence “not disjoined” either.”

i.75IV.2.G This section explains chapters 8 to 10 in the Eighteen Thousand, chapters 5 to 7 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand. It subdivides the endeavor into (1) practice free from the two extremes; (2) practice that does not stand; (3) practice that does not fully grasp dharmas, causal signs, or understanding; (4) practice that has made a full investigation; (5) the practice of method, which is to say persevering at eliminating the practice of causal signs and enactments and cultivating the nonpractice of dharmas and causal signs; and (6) practice for quickly fully awakening, which is a training in the meditative stabilizations, training in not apprehending all dharmas, training in the illusion-like, and training in skillful means. The last of these is training in skillful means for the analytic understanding of all dharmas, fulfilling the six perfections, relying on spiritual friends, and shunning bad friends.

i.76In the context of glossing the words “suchness,” “unmistaken suchness,” and so on, this section explains the nine thoroughly established phenomena: the thoroughly established that is indestructible, that is without error, that does not alter, that is the nature of things, that is the state causing all purification dharmas, and that is constant, irreversible, true reality, and beyond the path of logic.

i.77In its explication of the passage “form is empty of form… that emptiness of form is not form, and emptiness is not other than form. Form itself is emptiness, and emptiness itself is form,” there is a very clear explanation of what later Tibetan scholars would call other-emptiness (Tib. gzhan stong). The passage [4.­542], here in a slightly abbreviated form, is:

“The intention is as follows. … There are three types of form: falsely imagined form, conceptualized form, and the true dharmic nature of form. Among these, the form ordinary foolish beings take to be defined as an easily breakable or seeable real thing is imaginary form. The aspect in which just that appears as real as an object of consciousness is conceptualized form. Just the bare thoroughly established suchness separated from those two imaginary and conceptualized form aspects is the true dharmic nature of form. It is empty because it is empty of the definitions‍—being seeable and so on‍—of imaginary phenomena, and of any form conceptualized as a form appearing in the aspect of an object. ‘That emptiness of form is not form.’ This means the suchness empty of imaginary and conceptualized form that is the true dharmic nature of form marking the thoroughly established does not have form for its intrinsic nature because it is totally isolated from form aspects.”

i.79The commentary says that there is a period when suchness has stains, when dharmas are defiled and purified because of the imaginary, and there is a period when suchness has no stains and the production of all dharmas is nonexistent, but the suchness is the same.

i.80IV.2.H The last of the eight subdivisions of the intermediate teaching finishes the discussion of the Lord’s original statement and comes to an authoritative conclusion in regard to what it means. This section explains chapters 11 to 21 in the Eighteen Thousand, and chapters 8 to 13 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand.

i.81First it is divided into the responses to twenty-eight (or twenty-nine) questions, in a slightly different enumeration than those found in the three long sūtras themselves, in order to conform to the topics and narrators in the sūtra. I have identified the later passages in Bṭ3 that correspond to each response and the corresponding sections in the Eighteen Thousand in the notes to that part of the translation [4.­676–4.­679]. Again, readers should be aware that the order of the responses in the sūtras and the order in Bṭ3 do not correspond exactly.

i.82Bṭ3 begins with an explanation of the first five questions as: (1a) What is the meaning of the word bodhisattva ? (1b) What is the meaning of the term great being ? (1c) How are they armed with great armor? (2) How have they set out in the Great Vehicle? (3) How do they stand in the Great Vehicle? We have numbered them in this way to try to retain a correspondence between the list of responses and the later passages expanding on each response.

i.83Questions 6 to 10 are the five questions posed by Subhūti: (6) How is it a great vehicle? 7) How have they come to set out in the Great Vehicle? (8) From where will the Great Vehicle go forth? (9) Where will that Great Vehicle stand? (10) Who will go forth in this vehicle?

i.84The first of these questions occasions a detailed explanation of twenty-one sets of purification dharmas, starting with the perfections and emptiness, and ending with the eighteen buddhadharmas and the dhāraṇī doors. It provides an explanation of the twenty emptinesses, a detailed description of “the application of mindfulness to the body alone, in six parts in accord with the śrāvaka system,” and detailed descriptions of the ten powers and eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha, as well as an explanation of dhāraṇī that supplements the earlier explanation given in the introduction section.

i.85It selectively glosses the purifications of the ten bodhisattva levels that are set forth as the response to question seven in chapter 17 in the Eighteen Thousand and chapter 10 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand.

i.86Questions 8 to 10 are in chapter 18 in the Eighteen Thousand and the second part of chapter 10 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand. Glossing the line, “It will go forth from the three realms and will stand wherever there is knowledge of all aspects,” which is the response to question 8, the commentary says that the Great Vehicle that goes forth beyond saṃsāra and nirvāṇa is ultimately the same as the result. In the context of “name,” “causal sign,” “conventional term,” “communication,” and “designation,” this section gives the helpful explanation that the materiality of a cow is the name; its dewlap, hump, and so on are its causal sign ; “the one that has the red calf,” “the one that has the white calf” are “conventional terms”; “bring the cow here and milk it!” is a communication; and all expressions are designations.

i.87Explaining the response to question 9, it says that ultimately the Great Vehicle “will not stand anywhere,” but still it will stand with the mark of not standing, without error.

It clarifies the response to question 10, “Who will go forth?”, with a brief series of judicious glosses.

i.88The responses to the eleventh and twelfth questions from the perspective of the resultant Great Vehicle‍—awakening‍—are found in chapter 19 of the Eighteen Thousand, and chapter 11 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand. Thus, the Great Vehicle “surpasses the world,” and “is equal to space.”

i.89Explaining the statements in the response to question 11, the commentary correlates “existent” and “nonexistent” with the imaginary and thoroughly established and says that were the imaginary to be real like it seems to be, nothing would be possible. In the context of listing every category of phenomena, it glosses “speech with sixty special qualities” with a citation from the Tathāgata­guhyaka Sūtra and says that this is the “Master’s instruction.”

i.90In explaining the response to question 12, Bṭ3 says that there is a presentation of twenty-one imaginary things, and because those that are presented do not exist in this Great Vehicle, it is like space.

i.91The explanation of the rest of chapter 19 of the Eighteen Thousand and of chapter 11 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand is based on three more of Subhūti’s five statements about the Great Vehicle: “To illustrate, Lord, just as space has room for infinite, countless beings beyond measure”; “you cannot apprehend the Great Vehicle coming, going, or remaining”; and, “you cannot apprehend a prior limit, cannot apprehend a later limit, and cannot apprehend a middle either.” Readers can know which of the twenty-eight responses these correspond to from the notes to the translation. Bṭ3 enumerates twenty-six subsections for the first of Subhūti’s statements, and says about the second that all phenomena during the result period of the Great Vehicle are unmoving. It says that the third statement is divided into a brief and a detailed section that eliminate the ultimate existence of “time,” “three,” “equal,” and “vehicle.” The detailed section has twenty-six subsections.

i.92The remainder of Subhūti’s twenty-eight questions and the responses are in chapter 20 of the Eighteen Thousand and chapter 12 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand. First are the statements made by Subhūti that are then queried by Śāriputra, and then answered by Subhūti up to the end of the chapter.

i.93This section of Bṭ3 says that chapter 21 of the Eighteen Thousand, and the equivalent chapter 13 in Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand, set out a more detailed presentation of the results of paying attention to the nonconceptual perfection of wisdom, beginning with these questions Śāriputra puts to Subhūti: “How do bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom investigate these dharmas? And, Venerable Subhūti, what is a bodhisattva? What is the perfection of wisdom? What is it to investigate?”

V. Explanation of the Detailed Teaching

i.94This is in two parts, the first up to the two hundred and seventy-seven questions, and the second the remainder of the teaching up to the final, separate explanation of the Maitreya Chapter, chapter 83 in the Eighteen Thousand and chapter 72 in the Twenty-Five Thousand.

V.1 Part One

i.95V.1.A This explanation of chapters 22 and 23 of the Eighteen Thousand and of chapters 14 and 15 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand says that a bodhisattva’s perfection of wisdom has an all-knowledge side (the knowledge of śrāvakas) and a knowledge of path aspects side (the knowledge of bodhisattvas). A bodhisattva stands in the perfection of wisdom by knowing where to stand (in the emptiness of dharmas) and where not to stand (in error). Even to stand, in the sense of settle down on or be attached to the true nature of dharmas‍—or even to the true nature of the knowledge of a buddha‍—is an error. So, a bodhisattva stands by not standing. Such instruction does not contradict the ultimate or the conventional. A bodhisattva trains by seeing the ultimate nonduality of all phenomena. So, training in form one trains in the knowledge of a buddha, practicing the perfection of wisdom without thought of increase or decrease. Subhūti can give such a deep explanation of the perfection of wisdom because of the “sustaining power” (adhiṣṭhāna) of the buddha. This plays on the meaning of sustaining power as speech that is (1) on the authority of a tathāgata or through being possessed by a tathāgata, and (2) the sustaining power of emptiness in the sense that emptiness is the subject matter and makes the speech worth listening to. The commentary says that the authority of a tathāgata is an impossibility because of the nonduality of the tathāgata, dharmatā, and tathatā, because there is no object that is known or subject who knows. This section ends with an explanation of why the perfection of wisdom is great, immeasurable, infinite, and limitless.

i.96V.1.B The explanation of chapters 24 to 33 of the Eighteen Thousand and of chapters 16 to 24 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand says that the benefits of the perfection of wisdom are not facing the problems posed by Māra, not dying an untimely death, not meeting with perils and so on, and being protected by the gods.

i.97On the topic of the relative merits gained from worshiping the perfection of wisdom and other objects of worship, Bṭ3 says that more merit is created from taking up this perfection of wisdom than from this billionfold world system being “filled right to the top with the physical remains of tathāgatas,” and that worshiping all the tathāgatas of the ten directions and worshiping the perfection of wisdom is equivalent. There is more merit created from taking up this perfection of wisdom than from “as many world systems as the sand particles in the Gaṅgā River filled right to the top with the physical remains of tathāgatas.” There is more merit created from giving the perfection of wisdom to others than from personally worshiping the perfection of wisdom, and there is more merit created from conveying the meaning of the perfection of wisdom than the words of the physical book.

i.98Having explained the fourteen conceptualizations, Bṭ3 goes on to say that it is only a semblance of the perfection of wisdom when one apprehends causal signs, and that great merit comes from engaging in practice without any apprehending of causal signs.

i.99The perfection of wisdom as a state of mind rejoicing in all goodness up to the highest goodness is the source of even greater merit, since it says that “merit from rejoicing is highest.” This section then investigates how rejoicing without apprehending anything can function, and it says that rejoicing while apprehending anything is like the four errors of thinking that suffering is happiness and so on.

i.100Dedicating or turning over or transforming (pariṇāma) the merits while apprehending causal signs is wrong in four ways: there would be no connection between the rejoicing thought and the dedicating thought; there would be no connection between the apprehending of the entity, the wholesome root, and the bases of meritorious action; there would be no connection between the dedication and that to which the dedication is being made; and there would be no dedication itself. Ultimate dedication is free from these four errors. Here there are nine sections on dedication free of basic immorality, and three comparisons of the merit created from (1) rejoicing in those who have set out on the wholesome action paths and so on; (2) the state of the eight noble beings; and (3) the highest, the bodhisattva.

i.101V.1.C In its explanation of chapters 34 to 36 of the Eighteen Thousand and of chapters 25 to 27 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand, Bṭ3 explains that the first turning of the wheel of Dharma is twelve rounds of teaching that the perfection of wisdom is like form and so on, because of nonproduction, the absence of an intrinsic nature, the absence of an existent thing, and so on. The perfection of wisdom is principal among the six perfections and is found and produced within a bodhisattva who does not settle down on any phenomenon. It then causes the knowledge of a buddha, but without making anything bigger or smaller.

i.102Its explanation of the greatness of the perfection of wisdom leads to an account of what happens to those forsaking the good Dharma, and the fourfold explanation that because there is no saṃsāra and no nirvāṇa the perfection of wisdom is deep and hard to believe in, which sets the scene for the explanation that dharmas are not bound and not freed. They are pure because “defilement and purification do not exist.” Purity is talked about in thirteen ways as deep, as a light and so on, and as unlimited. In this context of an explanation of the bodhisattva’s knowledge of path aspects, Bṭ3 explains attachment and nonattachment (the knowledge of path aspects) and finally the deeper attachment.

i.103V.1.D The explanation in this section again contextualizes references to the perfection of wisdom in chapters 37 and 38 of the Eighteen Thousand and in chapters 28 and 29 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand as being references to a bodhisattva’s knowledge of path aspects. It says that the benefit of purity is the absence of false projections. Having briefly referenced the thousand buddhas and Maitreya, Bṭ3 again explains that the perfection of wisdom is extremely pure and also explains its benefits. It says that the perfection of wisdom does not establish anything because at the time of the final outcome, “it is a thoroughly established phenomenon that does not alter.” There is no false projection of a final outcome or of any of the stages of the basis, the practice, or the result. In explaining the statement that the perfection of wisdom “is a great perfection,” it says that it is a great secret in reference to dharmas, a great secret as awakening, and a great secret as a turning of the wheel of Dharma. In each case, all are ultimately nonexistent. The commentary then provides selected glosses [5.­387–5.­423] of statements from the sūtra, which the Ornament for the Clear Realizations connects with the one hundred and seventy-three aspects motivating a practitioner to practice the perfection of wisdom.

i.104V.1.E In its explanation of chapters 39 to 42 of the Eighteen Thousand and of chapters 30 to 32 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand this section of the commentary describes the knowledge of path practice as the absence of a practice. Passing over a long section in the sūtra, it says that there are three signs of the completion of the perfection of wisdom: not seeing an increase and not seeing a decline, seeing the marks that define the dharmas, and teaching the inconceivable. This section also investigates the meaning of “the last of the five hundreds” and explains some of the works of Māra in the long section on these topics in the three sūtras. It ends with an explanation of the perfection of wisdom as revealing this world in eleven ways. Among the eleven, in explaining the perfection of wisdom as revealing collected thoughts and distracted thoughts, the commentary gives a long and detailed explanation of the different positive and negative states of mind, from both a conventional and ultimate point of view.

i.105V.1.F The explanation of chapters 43 to 45 of the Eighteen Thousand and of chapters 33 to 35 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand begins with the last of the nine ways in which the perfection of wisdom, like a mother, is the revealer of the world, explaining how the mark of all dharmas is no mark. It explains appreciation and gratitude, taking the respective Sanskrit words in their basic and secondary sense. Having passed over the analogies of the boat and so on, the commentary goes on to say that the absence of apprehending anything and the absence of pride in the six perfections indicates the presence of skillful means. Having given an explanation of the meaning of tshu rol (āra) and pha rol (pāra), it explains that those new to the bodhisattva vehicle train by attending on spiritual friends, without forming ideas, and without longing. The commentary goes on to explain the nine qualities of “doers of the difficult” in terms of benefit and happiness, and being a protector, refuge, resting place, final ally, island, leader, and support. It ends with a description of a new bodhisattva who believes in the perfection of wisdom from the ultimate perspective: as isolated from signs of existence and causes, and from an opposing side and antidote.

i.106V.1.G In the first brief section of its explanation of chapters 46 to 50 of the Eighteen Thousand and of chapters 36 to 40 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand the commentary says that those bodhisattvas who believe in this deep perfection of wisdom and first set out for awakening do so with an integrated practice described by the six perfections. This integrated practice is their armor, not connected with a practice of opposing greed and so on with detachment, but as a practice that is cognizant of the emptiness of all dharmas. This section explains meditation or cultivation (bhāvanā) and the opposite of meditation or disintegration (vibhāvanā) and then explains at length true reality and the signs that a bodhisattva’s progress toward awakening has become irreversible. It explains how Subhūti takes after the Lord because in true reality there is no coming or going and they cannot be differentiated. It is the same with the true reality of all dharmas. All dharmas are therefore, in true reality, an undivided unity. Having explained the six ways in which a universe shakes, this section continues with an explanation of true reality and all its synonyms. While explaining the argument between Subhūti and Śāriputra over whether it is hard or not hard to become awakened, it investigates the possible meanings of progress toward awakening being irreversible. It stresses the centrality of a compassionate attitude toward all beings, and then, in the section on irreversible members of the bodhisattva community, it says there are thirty-five signs of irreversibility.

V.2 Part Two

i.107V.2.A This section simply provides the list of Subhūti’s two hundred and seventy-seven questions. We have linked the questions as listed in this text to the passages where they can be seen in the three sūtras. The author of Bṭ3 does not specifically reference each of the questions in explaining the responses, and also passes over some questions without any commentary at all.

i.108V.2.B The explanation of chapters 51 to 55 of the Eighteen Thousand, chapters 41 to 45 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand, follows relatively closely the responses to the first twenty-seven questions. Explaining the deep places‍—true reality and so on‍—Bṭ3 says that form and so on, the defilement and purification dharmas, are superimposed on true reality by foolish ordinary people who imagine as real what is not real. The accumulation of merit and being worthy of praise are not real. It explains the response to question fourteen‍—“How, Lord, when they do so, will bodhisattva great beings become absorbed for the sake of beings in the three meditative stabilizations?”‍— by dealing with the bodhisattva’s mode of cultivating the emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness meditative stabilizations central to the earliest, most fundamental Buddhist practice. Even awakening is not real in the sense that there is no increase or decrease in true reality. It explains the analogy of the butter lamp to say that awakening is motivated by bodhicitta, the thought of awakening, but neither the first nor the last thought can be shown to produce it. In true reality there is no change.

i.109Even the meditation on emptiness is imaginary, since nothing is lost and nothing gained. Bṭ3 explains the functioning of cause and effect in conventional reality with the analogy of the sameness of a dream and the waking state based on intention. It is the superimposition of the unreal on the real that is the cause of actions that lead to suffering.

i.110All practices are modeled for the sake of others, even practices like compassion and understanding true reality. All the results gained by the practices of those in the three vehicles are modeled, without losing concern for the world. This is what it means to master emptiness. The section ends with an explanation of the responses to questions 18 to 27. It is because of the absence of an intrinsic nature in phenomena that beings can grasp at a falsely imagined “I” and “mine” and get caught in saṃsāra, and by seeing suchness purify error and gain awakening.

i.111V.2.C The explanation of chapters 56 to 63 of the Eighteen Thousand and of chapters 46 to 53 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and One Hundred Thousand passes over glorification, good qualities, and so on as easy to understand. In response to question 28‍—“Lord, in what way will a thought that is like an illusion fully awaken to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening?”‍—this section gives the first of two explanations of “no notion of duality and no notion of nonduality.” In response to question 29‍—“Given that unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening is extremely isolated, how will there be a realization of the isolated by the isolated?”‍—it gives the second of the two explanations. It explains briefly about those who do what is difficult and a bodhisattva’s course of action, and then it says that the perfection of wisdom is a state without thought construction; it explains how cyclic existence and nirvāṇa are possible in the absence of thought construction; it explains something really worthwhile and something worthless; it explains the phrase “because space is isolated”; and it explains isolation and the benefits of the perfection of wisdom.

i.112Question 30 is not explicitly cited. It is the point of departure for question 31 [5.­1065]: “Lord, given that no phenomenon is apprehended when they have stood in suchness and practiced for suchness, how will they stand in the knowledge of all aspects?”

i.113The commentary passes over the praise of Subhūti, the praise of dwelling in the perfection of wisdom, and so on as easy to understand, and then explains how each of the six perfections is incorporated with all the others; skillful means and the account of the completion of the accumulations; and the wheel-turning emperor illustration, the unprotected woman illustration, the heroic person who heads into battle illustration, the local ruler illustration, the river illustration, the right hand illustration, the taste in the ocean illustration, and the precious wheel illustration. Then again it gives an explanation of the six perfections.

i.114V.2.D The explanation of chapters 64 to 72 of the Eighteen Thousand, chapters 54 to 61 of the Twenty-Five Thousand, and of 54 to 62 of the One Hundred Thousand presents the six perfections from a conventional and an ultimate point of view. In the Ornament for the Clear Realizations, these are described briefly as a serial and a unique single instant practice. Bṭ3 explains the three meanings of buddha, and it explains the meaning of awakening from the point of view of its thoroughly established nature and its imaginary, designated nature. None of the four possibilities‍—that an existent or a nonexistent thing and so on fully awakens‍—are authorized. Clear realization is seeing sameness as neither existent nor nonexistent. No dharma at all brings about any dharma at all, because dharmas are marked by remaining the same. Still, conventionally, for the comprehension of simple folk, this section says that the practice for awakening is in a gradual sequence. The Tathāgata reached awakening having practiced in a state where nothing is apprehended and having awakened to a state where nothing is apprehended. There is no serial practice ultimately because, as an analogy, apprehending and not apprehending a magically produced illusory elephant and so on happens suddenly, not gradually. All the perfections are included in a single state of mind as are all other wholesome dharmas.

i.115V.2.E The explanation of chapter 73 of the Eighteen Thousand, chapter 62 of the Twenty-Five Thousand, and chapter 63 of the One Hundred Thousand begins as a response to Subhūti’s one hundred and ninety-fourth question. Under the general rubric of the four ways of assembling a retinue, the first, giving gifts in the sense of modeling and teaching the qualities of a buddha, leads to an explanation of those qualities not already explained earlier: conflict-free meditative stabilization, knowledge from prayer, and the four total purities. This section explains each of the ten controls and so on, and then says that the major marks and minor signs are presented in order to engender faith in those who take the physical body as the measure of the greatness of a person. It then gives a detailed explanation of some of the major marks and says in passing that the minor signs simply buttress the major ones as indicating that a great person is handsome. The commentary then discusses language (syllables and so on) under the rubric of kind words, the second of the four ways of assembling a retinue.

i.116The remainder of the explanation is again of how the description of the basis, the practice, and the results of practice are based on the ultimate and conventional natures, and of how the conventional description is employed because of compassion for beings.

i.117V.2.F This section contains the explanation of chapters 74 to 82 of the Eighteen Thousand, chapters 63 to 71 of the Twenty-Five Thousand, and chapters 64 to the end of the One Hundred Thousand. It explains the analogy of a magical creature and says that if beings were to know that all dharmas are like a dream, they would be liberated. The section goes on to explain the response to Subhūti’s two hundred and fifteenth question‍—“How should bodhisattva great beings train in the perfection of wisdom?”‍—by explaining that the imaginary dharmas like form and so on are employed in explanation only because ordinary beings would not otherwise understand the dharma-constituent (the ultimate truth). Bṭ3 explains the very limit of reality as the limit of beings, which is to say the unlimited number and ultimate nature of beings. Having explained that a bodhisattva gains awakening just by standing in emptiness, it gives an explanation of the emptiness of a basic nature as unchanging, unlocated, not coming and not going, not perishing, not increasing or decreasing, not located anywhere, and not obstructing anything. It ends the section by going quickly through the rest of the chapters, giving short glosses that contextualize selected statements and say what they mean. Finally, the commentary explains the responses to Subhūti’s last two questions as saying that, yes, even nirvāṇa is magically created, and the comprehension of emptiness is a comprehension that there is nothing made by a practitioner that was not there before‍—even the emptiness of an intrinsic nature is empty of its intrinsic nature.

VI. Explanation of the Maitreya Chapter

i.118The chapter known traditionally as “the Maitreya Chapter,” but called in the sūtras “The Categorization of a Bodhisattva’s Training” (chapter 83 in the Eighteen Thousand, chapter 72 in the Twenty-Five Thousand, and not present in the One Hundred Thousand) sets out the dialogue between Maitreya and the Lord, investigating the relationship between a name and what it refers to. In explaining the dialogue, Bṭ3 equates the use of the term mere designation with teaching emptiness because ordinary beings apprehend the designation form as having a real basis. Any name can be given to anything. The things to which names are given are only known through the names, not from their own sides, but the names and what are known through names are not exactly the same. When looked for, these things arise from causes and conditions, from ignorance and thought constructions that motivate actions. These things are all the same in that they cannot be apprehended. In true reality they are all without any difference. Therefore, all phenomena from form up to the knowledge of all aspects should be viewed from the perspective of three natures: imaginary, conceptual (the term “other-powered” is not used in this chapter), and the dharma’s ultimate nature (again, “thoroughly established” is not used).

i.119This leads to an explanation of how a bodhisattva enters into nirvāṇa but then willingly takes a body and re-enters the world for the benefit of others. It says that there is no difference between the world and nirvāṇa, so the bodhisattva stays in the same state and thus is not averse to being in the world. A bodhisattva does not appropriate or forsake anything, and through the force of clairvoyance works without end for the welfare of beings.

i.120Citing the The Questions of Sāgaramati and The Ten Bhūmis, the commentary explains what it means to say that a śrāvaka is in nirvāṇa and yet can, finally, live in the world and amass the collections of merit to reach perfect, complete awakening. It identifies different paths for different śrāvakas. Those not necessarily destined to be in the śrāvaka family produce a desire for unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening and then actualize nirvāṇa, but without the absolutely intense admiration for it that those who are certain to be śrāvakas feel. When they see awakening as superior to their nirvāṇa, because of the power of a compassionate aspiration and so on they do not become extremely repulsed by saṃsāra. They enter it through the force of their uncontaminated wholesome roots. Others enter into saṃsāra through the fruition of earlier prayers.

Using This Commentary with the Long Sūtras

i.121Readers using Bṭ3 as a guide to the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras will encounter some citations that are not the same as the corresponding passages in the sūtras themselves. These are noted in cases where a reader using Bṭ3 as a guide to one or all of the sūtras would otherwise lose the thread of the commentary. Sometimes the notes point out different readings. Readers should also be aware that some passages that appear as citations are more strictly paraphrases. They are formatted as citations to help readers locate the passages in the sūtras that are being explained.

i.122As explained in the Introduction, the Tibetan catalogs characterize Bṭ3 as a long explanation of all three long Perfection of Wisdom sūtras‍—The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines (Toh 10), The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines (Toh 9), and The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines (Toh 8). It also has a secondary relevance to The Perfection of Wisdom in Ten Thousand Lines (Toh 11), even though that version of the long sūtras is not mentioned in the text and almost certainly did not exist as a separate version when the commentary was written. It is hard to identify with certainty exactly what is, and what is not, a citation from the many versions and editions of the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras. In the notes we have occasionally identified corresponding passages in Edward Conze’s Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom (LSPW) where this might be helpful to readers.

i.12384000 is currently preparing English translations of both The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines and The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines. Bṭ3 will serve as a guide to all three scriptures when they all become available in translation.