Notes

n.1Tāranātha’s commentary (see Khomthar Jamlö 2014, vol. 2, pp. 75–77) points out elements of the text that can be interpreted according to a tantra perspective (primarily but not exclusively that of kriyātantra), in addition to the perspective of the pāramitā vehicle. See also n.­45.

n.2The Dunhuang manuscripts, as far as we have been able to judge from those available for online viewing, are fairly consistent witnesses of one Tibetan translation, but that translation is significantly different from both of the canonical versions. Differences between the Dunhuang manuscripts and the translation presented here are mostly not noted, but details of the most significant differences between them and the other version, Toh 675, can be found in the notes to that translation.

n.3Or, perhaps more accurately the other version, The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra (2) , Toh 675, to the extent that it may represent the translation available in the late eighth century.

n.4The story is recounted in chapter 70 of the Padma Kathang (padma bka’ thang); for more detail, see Khomthar Jamlö 2014, vol. 1, pp. 2–3.

n.5There are several spellings of this name in Tibetan found in the canonical texts. Here in version (1) of the sūtra in the Degé (Toh 674 and 849) and in most other Kangyurs it is tshe dang ye shes dpag tu med pa shin tu rnam par nges pa’i gzi brjid kyi rgyal po, while in version (2) of the sūtra (Toh 675) in most Kangyurs and in the Dunhuang texts it is tshe dang ye shes dpag tu med pa shin tu rnam par gdon mi za ba’i rgyal po. In the Lhasa Kangyur, however, version (2) has the spelling tshe dang ye shes dpag tu med pa shin tu rnam par nges pa gdon mi za ba’i rgyal po. The longest form of the equivalent name in The Root Manual of the Rites of Mañjuśrī (Toh 543, 27.27) is tshe dang ye shes dpag tu med pa rnam par nges pa’i dbang po’i rgyal po.

n.6See Payne 2007, 283–85, and Nattier 2007.

n.7The epithet Dundubhisvara is a particular feature of another Kangyur text, the Aparimitāyur­jñānahrdayadhāraṇī (Toh 676), which, despite its misleading title, clearly features Amitābha-Amitāyus. See i.­15 for more details.

n.8See especially The Display of the Pure Land of Sukhāvatī (Sukhāvatīvyūha, Toh 115) and The Array of Amitābha (Amitabhavyūha, Toh 49).

n.9Dharmachakra Translation Committee (2020), chapter 27, especially 27.3–27.44.

n.10Dharmachakra Translation Committee (2020), chapter 1, 1.36.

n.11See Sarva­durgati­pariśodhana­tantra, Degé Kangyur vol. 85: Toh 483, F.83.a et seq., and Toh 485, F.114.a et seq.; for Sanskrit see Skorupski 1983, pp. 186–88. The two versions (Skorupski labels them A and B) correspond to the early and later translation periods, and the mantra cited in this paragraph is the one from the later translation, version B. The mantra in version A is the same except that the word karaṇi is added before the final svāhā.

n.12See this text and its introduction, Dharmachakra Translation Committee (2021), The Dhāraṇī “Essence of Immeasurable Longevity and Wisdom,” i.8 and 1.12–14.

n.13Taishō 936, Dacheng wuliang shou jing (大乘無量壽經); and Taishō 937, Fo shuo dacheng sheng wuliang shou jueding guangming wang rulai tuoluoni jing (佛說大乘聖無量壽決定光明王如來陀羅尼經).

n.14See Leumann 1912, Konow 1916 (images of the Khotanese text can also be seen in plates XIV–XVII at the back of the Konow volume), and Payne 2007, pp. 273–308.

n.15Silk 2004, pp. 423–29.

n.16These Kangyurs, including the Lithang, Qianlong, Ragya, Urga, Phajoding, and Dodedrak, have two versions of the sūtra version (1) in their Tantra and Dhāraṇī sections with the same difference as between Toh 674 and 849.

n.17This is the case in the Stok Palace, Shey, Gangteng, and Chizhi Kangyurs, all of predominantly Themphangma lineage, but also in the Lhasa (Zhol), Narthang, Phuktrak, and Neyphug mixed group Kangyurs.

n.18Degé Kangyur, vol. 103 (dkar chag, lakṣmī), folio 152b.5–6.

n.19tshe mdo che chung gnyis, Narthang index folio 12b.1 (p. 658).

n.20The tantra exists in two versions in the Kangyur, one (Toh 483) translated in the early period and the other (Toh 485) some centuries later. The mantra in question is the same in both versions, except that the later version, instead of the compound sambhāropacite, has sambhāropacayakāriṇi. See Roberts and Bower (2021a), i.7.

n.21See also n.­5.

n.22But see also n.­43.

n.23This mention of Sukhāvatī (bde ba can) as a prefix to the name of the realm is not present in the Dunhuang manuscripts.

n.24Druptap Küntü, vol. 12 (na), folio 339a.

n.25Narthang Kangyur, vol, 93, folios 201.b–218.b. Note that the text we have labeled Toh 673a, The Essence of Aparimitāyus, is not present in the Narthang Kangyur.

n.26Narthang Kangyur dkar chag, end of folio 113.b and beginning of folio 114a.

n.27See Minling Terchen (1998), vol. 2 (kha), folios 265.b–266.b. While Minling Terchen’s lineage record does also mention the “shorter, two oṁ version with no puṇyai in the middle,” it unfortunately makes no statement about its provenance.

n.28See Khomthar Jamlö (2014), p. 22.

n.29See Khomthar Jamlö (2014), p. 42.

n.30See n.­45. Tāranātha’s comments can be seen in Khomthar Jamlö (2014), p. 65.

n.31Denkarma, folio 302a.4; Phangthangma, folio 10 (p. 25).

n.32Dotson 2016, 129–30.

n.33Curiously, this finding seems not to have been reported before in Western academic studies. It is based on our examination of the Dunhuang manuscripts for which digitized images are available, and complete enough to judge. Some of these are listed in the bibliography with links to images on the sites of the International Dunhuang Project and Vienna Resources for Kanjur and Tenjur Studies. Dotson (2016, p. 137) does report that Akira Fujieda and Daishun Ueyama (1962) note two different lengths of the dhāraṇī in “some of the Tibetan Dunhuang Ap [manuscripts],” but without stating clearly whether this refers to the manuscripts in this particular group or others. Given our limited access to the manuscripts and inadequate resources for a detailed study, further investigation would be desirable. It should be noted that it is incorrect, strictly speaking, to call the version of the dhāraṇī in the Dunhuang manuscripts the “two oṁ” version, because in most of the Dunhuang manuscripts the dhāraṇī starts “namo…” (and in some cases “tadyathā…”) without the initial oṁ of the canonical versions. These dhāraṇī therefore only have one oṁ. Nevertheless, we will continue to use “the two oṁ version” as a convenient shorthand to designate all versions of the dhāraṇī that lack the centrally placed phrase beginning “oṁ puṇye puṇye mahāpuṇye…”.

n.34See Konow (1916), pp. 301–2.

n.35Ngorchen’s raising of these refutations of the earlier version’s authenticity, despite the silence of earlier Sakya scholars on this issue, is presumably related to the fact that his lifetime (the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries) saw the first widespread appearance of newly compiled Kangyurs. The canonical translations in earlier generations had been represented only in a variety of localized library collections. Indeed, Ngorchen himself supervised the creation of a Kangyur sponsored by the King of Mustang.

n.36Some of the more significant differences between the Kangyur versions and the Dunhuang manuscripts are recorded in the annotations to the translated text of version (2), Toh 675, q.v.

n.37Or, rather, Toh 675, given the conjectures in the preceding section and especially the fact that only “two oṁ” versions of the text can be confirmed to have existed before the late eleventh century.

n.38See Dotson 2016; and also van Schaik, Sam, “The Whereabouts of the Tibetan Manuscripts from Dunhuang.”

n.39The three texts (see bibliography) by Jetāri (also known as Jitāri) all contain in their titles the expanded name Aparimitāyur­jñāna (Tib. tshe dang ye shes dpag tu med pa) rather than just Amitāyus, but it is not entirely clear that they are focused on “Aparimitāyur­jñāna of the zenith” rather than “Amitāyus of Sukhāvatī,” and while they mention the dhāraṇī to be recited they do not reproduce it. The sādhana (Toh 2699, F.67.a) instructs the reader to recite the name mantra (ming gi sngags), the essence mantra (snying po’i sngags), and the “dhāraṇī changed by the names” (ming gis bsgyur na gzungs), but then says “the dhāraṇī is that of Dundubhisvara” (gzungs ni ’chi med rnga sgra’o, which suggests that the deity is rather Amitābha (see The Dhāraṇī “Essence of Immeasurable Longevity and Wisdom”, Toh 676, i.8). The ritual (Toh 2700, F.67.b) is of the nine deity maṇḍala and, intriguingly, mentions setting up [the?] “two sūtras of Tsépamé” on tables to the south and north. It also mentions reciting the “long dhāraṇi mantra” (gzungs kyi sngags rings), the essence (snying po), and the wrathful mantra (khro bo’i sngags), but also includes “the six pāramitā verses of the dhāraṇī” (gzungs kyi ni/ /phar phyin drug gi tshig bcad), this latter mention presumably referring to the verses starting at 1.­64 near the end of the present text.

n.40Varacandra is often written in the dialect form of “Walatsandra” and translated into Tibetan as zla ba bzang po.

n.41Although in some Tibetan traditions Cintācakra, commonly referred to as White Tārā, is more common as an actual long-life practice.

n.42Note that there is a discrepancy among various databases for cataloging the Toh 849 version of this text within vol. 100 or 101 of the Degé Kangyur. See Toh 849, n.­42, for details.

n.43The Degé and most other Kangyurs have yon tan dpag tu med pa la sogs pa. The usual meaning of la sogs pa is “et cetera,” and is probably a scribal corruption of sogs pa, which would be the correct translation of the saṃcaya in the Sanskrit. The Choné and Urga Kangyurs have the correct sogs pa (Choné vol. 15, ba, F.281b.4; Urga vol. 101, e, F.57b.3). Toh 675 omits altogether [la] sogs pa (saṃcaya), the final part of the realm’s name, but in the Dunhuang manuscripts it is present, sometimes with and sometimes without la, and in the archaic orthography scogs pa.

n.44See n.­5.

n.45The Nepalese Sanskrit texts read eva hi tiṣṭhati dhriyate yāpayati, which is the standard phrase in descriptions of tathāgatas inhabiting their respective realms, and can be seen in the Sanskrit of such texts as The Display of the Pure Land of Sukhāvatī (Toh 115) 1.2. The standard rendering in Tibetan is bzhugs te ’tsho zhing gzhes (“resides, lives, and remains”) and is found in numerous translated sūtras. It is frequently followed by a phrase such as “and there teaches the Dharma.” Here, while in the Dunhuang manuscripts it is rendered bzhugs te ’tsho zhing gzhes, Toh 674 reads bzhugs te tshe ’dzin cing tshe mthar phyin par gzhes (Toh 675 is similar but has a different spelling of the last verb, bzhed). Tāranātha notes in his commentary (see Khomthar Jamlö 2014, vol. 2, p. 65) that this latter rendering is how Patshab Nyima Drak, Chödrak Pal (kun spang chos grags dpal), and Lodrö Pal (lo tsA ba blo gros grags dpal) translate this phrase, thus specifying the particular teaching taught and not simply applying to the one who teaches it (the significance of Tāranātha mentioning the latter two translators, both early fourteenth century Jonangpa scholars of whom sūtra translations do not appear to have survived, is not entirely clear to us). The other two commentaries follow similar interpretations, Amnyé Zhab (Khomthar Jamlö 2014, vol. 2, p. 47) specifying that “extending life to its very limit” indeed refers to the actions of Aparimitāyus with regard to beings. Finally, the fact that in the “two oṁ” version, Toh 675, this phrase appears in Tibetan as the latter rendering, as here, while in the Dunhuang manuscripts it appears in the former, standard rendering, is further evidence that Toh 675 may be a back-adaptation of this translation to the “two oṁ” form rather than simply representing an earlier translation (see Introduction i.­38). Tāranātha also mentions (see Khomthar Jamlö 2014, vol. 2, p. 76) the importance of this phrase, along with the wording of the verses on the six pāramitās (1.­64 et seq.) as indicating an interpretation of the text as a tantra involving empowerment and blessing.

n.46From the Sanskrit guṇavarṇa, which was translated into Tibetan as “qualities and praise” (yon tan dang bsngags pa).

n.47According to Toh 674 and the Nepalese Sanskrit. In the Khotanese and in Toh 675 (but not in the Dunhuang Tibetan manuscripts), Aparimitāyus is lengthened to Aparimitāyur­jñāna.

n.48The Nepalese Sanskrit reads “who recite it and continually make offerings of flowers, perfume, incense, garlands, ointments, powders, robes, parasols, banners, bells, and flags.”

n.49The Nepalese Sanskrit texts read śroṣyanti dhārayiṣyanti vācayiṣyanti, “hear, keep, or recite,” while the Dunhuang Tibetan manuscripts mostly read ’dzin par ’gyur ba, “hold.”

n.50One hundred and eight names for this buddha are not given in this sūtra or in any other. This mention might possibly refer to another, lost sūtra, or perhaps be a corruption of repeating these actions 108 times (as one of the mentions in one of the Chinese translations seems to suggest). Alternatively, and most plausibly for this “three oṁ” version, it could also be a peculiarly worded reference to the dhāraṇī having 108 syllables, which is the case if the two instances of the final and initial a in the Tibetan transliteration are elided into ā as they should be according to the rules of euphonic combination in classical Sanskrit (and as they are in the Sanskrit versions). Indeed, in the paragraph that follows and in 1.­8, “the one hundred and eight names” seems to refer to the dhāraṇī, and could therefore be interpreted as “the-one-hundred-and-eight-syllable appellation” of Buddha Aparimitāyus. On the other hand, in the “two oṁ” versions of the text (Toh 675, the Dunhuang manuscripts, the Khotanese, and all the Chinese versions), the dhāraṇī only has 77 syllables, yet this mention is present nevertheless (though in the case of the Dunhuang manuscripts only in the equivalent of the following paragraph, not in this one). The possible discrepancy was used by some Sarma authors (see introduction to Toh 675 at i.26) as proof that the “two oṁ” dhāraṇī was incomplete, but they may not have been aware of the existence of Sanskrit manuscripts and Chinese translations featuring the “two oṁ” version.

n.51Toh 674 and 675 both have ’chang bar ’gyur ba here, but as in the preceding sentence, the Nepalese Sanskrit texts read śroṣyanti dhārayiṣyanti vācayiṣyanti, “hear, keep, or recite.” Many of the Dunhuang Tibetan manuscripts seem to omit this sentence entirely.

n.52The Nepalese Sanskrit texts read śroṣyanti likhiṣyanti, “hear or write.” The Tibetan version of the Druptap Küntü adds, at the end of these verbs, klog par gyur pa, “or recite,” not present in any of the canonical versions.

n.53There is a difference here in the repeated dhāraṇī between the version in the Degé (and other Kangyurs’) Tantra Section (Toh 674) and the otherwise identical duplicate in the Compendium of Dhāraṇīs (Toh 849). Where the Toh 674 version has aparimitāyur­puṇya-jñāna, the Toh 849 version reads aparimita­puṇye aparimita­puṇya-jñāna. The latter reading is also followed by many of the Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts, as it is in the Tibetan as reproduced in the Druptap Küntü. However, the “essence” mantra presented in The Essence of Aparimitāyus (Toh 673a) that appears to represent this same part of the dhāraṇī follows the former reading. See the Introduction, i.­22; see also the introduction to Toh 673a (i.5) and Skorupski, pp. 188–89 and 214–15.

n.54The dhāraṇī transliterated throughout the text is shown according to the version, Toh 674 or Toh 849, that the reader has selected. Apart from the differences in the phrase mentioned in note 39, versions in other Kangyurs have only minor variants in spelling and punctuation. An approximate translation [of the version found Toh 674] is:“ Oṁ, Homage to the Bhagavān Aparimitāyur­jñāna­suviniścita­tejo­rāja, the tathāgata, arhat, perfectly awakened buddha. It is thus: Oṁ Merit! Merit! Great merit! The one who has gathered the accumulations of immeasurable longevity, merit, and wisdom! Oṁ, the true nature that is completely pure of all mental events! The one who has risen high in the sky! Who is completely pure in nature! Whose entourage is of the great way! Svāhā .”

n.55The Nepalese Sanskrit has the additional line, “And they will have measureless life in the Aparimita­guṇa­saṃcaya realm.”

n.56The Nepalese Sanskrit and Dunhuang Khotanese and Tibetan manuscripts, in all the references to the sūtra in the rest of the text, call it the Aparimitāyus Sūtra.

n.57According to the Nepalese Sanskrit and Toh 674. Toh 675 has “three hundred fifty million” in conformity with the other numbers.

n.58In the Tibetan of the Kangyur, for both Toh 674 and 675, this phrase and its recurrences in the passages that follow is yi ger ’dri’am/ yi ger ’drir ’jug na, but in the Dunhuang manuscripts it is simply ’drir bchug na or ’drir bcug na, presumably meaning “set in writing.”

n.59This entire sentence, along with the repeated dhāraṇī that goes with it, is absent from the Khotanese manuscript (see Konow 1916, p. 310) and appears to be absent from the Dunhuang Tibetan manuscripts that we have examined, although it is present in both Kangyur versions, in the Druptap Küntü, and in the Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts.

n.60Here in Toh 674 this reads de’i mtshams med pa lnga byas pa yang yongs su byang bar ’gyur ro, while Toh 675 is closer to the Dunhuang manuscripts in reading de’i mtshams med pa lnga yongs su byang bar ’gyur ro. The Nepalese Sanskrit mentions the “karmic obscurations” of the five actions with immediate result (pañcānantaryāṇi karmavaraṇāni) with a precision that does not appear to be present in the Khotanese manuscript.

n.61This paragraph is not present in the Nepalese Sanskrit texts, but is in the Dunhuang Khotanese (see Konow 1916, p. 312).

n.62mngon sum du lung ston pa mdzad, which could also just mean “teach them in person.” The Nepalese Sanskrit has darśanaṃ dāsyanti, “appear before them.”

n.63Degé has ma za shig here, as do the Dunhuang manuscripts, while Toh 675 has ma byed cig.

n.64The Tibetan of the Degé (and all other Kangyurs except the Lithang and Choné) here has mdo sde dkon mchog ’di, “this precious sūtra,” while the Sanskrit and Khotanese, as in the other passages between the repeated dhāraṇī, has aparimitāyuḥ sūtraṃ, “Aparimitāyus sūtra.” In Toh 675 (as well as for this version in the Lithang and Choné Kangyurs), the Tibetan reads simply mdo sde ’di, “this sūtra.”

n.65The phrase “or caused to be written” is omitted in the Tibetan.

n.66The phrase sa pṛthivīpradeśaś caityabhūto bhavet (here rendered in Tibetan sa phyogs de yang mchod rten du ’gyur te) is to be found in a number of texts, including the Vajra­cchedikā (Toh 16), Aṣṭa­sāhasrikā (Toh 12), Kāśyapa­parivarta (Toh 87), and Suvarṇa­bhāsottama­sūtras (Toh 555, Toh 556, Toh 557). In his detailed analysis of the use of the phrase, Schopen suggests (in essence) that it should probably be understood as meaning that the place where the written text in question is to be found becomes “like a stūpa” in the sense of being no less worthy of veneration than a monument housing or representing the relics of a tathāgata’s body, as set out in The Teaching of Vimalakīrti (Vimala­kīrti­nirdeśa, Toh 176) 12.2–5, and in The White Lotus of the Good Dharma (Saddharma­puṇḍarīka, Toh 113) 10.­28–10.­29. See Schopen 2005, pp. 25–62.

n.67The Dunhuang manuscripts have kar sha pa ni ’ga’ zhig, “a few kārṣāpaṇa coins.”

n.68According to the Tibetan chos kyi rnam grangs, which appears to have been translated from dharmaparyāya. One of the Nepalese Sanskrit versions reads “this Aparimitāyuḥ Sūtra” (Walleser 1916, p. 24), but the Nepalese Sanskrit edition used by Konow to compare with the Khotanese (Konow 1916, p. 319) has dharmabhāṇaka , which means “one who recites the Dharma from memory” or “one who expounds the teaching.”

n.69In Toh 675, this paragraph reads: “Those who make an offering to this Dharma discourse will comprehend the entirety of the good Dharma.”

n.70Toh 675 gives both Tibetan translations of Krakucchanda, appearing to add another buddha to the list because it adds an alternative translation for Krakucchanda, ’khor ba ’jig, to the less common log par dad sel, but without omitting the latter. In the ninth century Mahāvyuttpati, the Tibetan ’khor ba ’jig was used to translate Kakutsunda, which is one of the hybrid Sanskrit forms for Krakucchanda (compare, for example, to Krakutsanda in the Sanskrit of the White Lotus of Compassion Sūtra and Kakusandha in Pali). The Mahāvyutpatti has log pa dad sel for Krakucchanda, but this latter translation fell into disuse.

n.71Whereas this and the next two statements here in Toh 674 clearly refer to the merit related to the Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra, the equivalent phrases in Toh 675 (1.56–1.60) speak of the accumulation of merit “of” (or perhaps “relating to”) Aparimitāyur­jñāna himself (i.e. the tathāgata, not the text): tshe dang ye shes dpag tu med pa’i bsod nams kyi phung po’i tshad ni bgrang bar mi nus so. This same difference between the two versions of the text is present in these three paragraphs, not only in the Degé Kangyur but also in the other Kangyurs, and does not therefore seem to be due merely to a one-off scribal error. The Nepalese Sanskrit and Khotanese manuscripts and the Dunhuang texts all match Toh 674 in referring to the sūtra, not the tathāgata.

n.72Here in Toh 674, rin po che’i phung po ri rab tsam spungs te sbyin pa byin pa. In Toh 675, the wording is ri’i rgyal po ri rab dang mnyam pa’i rin po che’i phung por byas te/ sbyin pa byin pa.

n.73This whole paragraph is absent in most of the complete Dunhuang manuscripts that we have seen.

n.74This version has bsti stang du byas te, while Toh 675 has gus par byas te. The Dunhuang manuscripts only have “causes to be written or makes offerings to.”

n.75One of the Nepalese Sanskrit versions (Walleser 1916, p. 25) introduces the following verses with the sentence, “Then at that time the Bhagavān spoke these verses:”.

n.76According to all three commentaries mentioned, “entering the city” (grong khyer ’jug pa, pure praviśantaṃ) here and in the following verses refers to the Buddha engaging in benefiting others by teaching disciples. In addition, Tāranātha’s commentary seems to suggest that from a tantra perspective this is one element of the wording of the verses on the six pāramitās that can be taken as referring to empowerment.

n.77The commentaries by Kunga Lekrin and Ngawang Kunga Sönam interpret the “resounding” (sgra, śabda) of the power of generosity (and of the other perfections in the verses that follow) as the Buddha’s proclamations of his past generosity and praise of generosity, etc. Tāranātha explains it as meaning the sound of the dhāraṇī, the very expression of the six perfections.

n.78“Joyfully” (dgyes shing) seems anomalous here and is not usually a part of this traditional formula at the conclusion of sūtras. It may have been derived from idam avocad bhagavān āttamanās, where āttamanās is describing the joy of the audience, but could possibly have been erroneously translated twice. It is not present in Toh 675 1.71, but is in some of the Dunhuang manuscripts.

n.79The Nepalese Sanskrit has “This is what the Bhagavān said, and, overjoyed, the bhikṣus, the bodhisattva mahāsattvas, the complete assembly, and the world with its devas, humans, asuras, and gandharvas praised the Bhagavān’s words.”

n.80There is no translators’ colophon, although the version in the nineteenth-century Sakya compendium of sādhanas, the Druptap Küntü, has one; see introduction, i.­27.