Notes

n.1Tāranātha’s commentary (Tāranātha 2014, 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.­43.

n.2The 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.3Degé Kangyur, vol. 103 (dkar chag, lakṣmī), folio 152b.5–6.

n.4tshe mdo che chung gnyis, Narthang index, folio 12b.1 (p. 658).

n.5The 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.6The Dunhuang manuscripts, on the other hand, despite the closely similar content, do seem to represent a different translation from a near-identical source. See i.­34.

n.7See also n.­42.

n.8But see also n.­41.

n.9This mention of Sukhāvatī (bde ba can) is, however, not present in the Dunhuang manuscripts.

n.10See Toh 674, 1.71.

n.11See the introduction to The Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra (1), Toh 674, i.27–31, in which references to these sources are provided.

n.12See Narthang Kangyur dkar chag, vol. 102, end of folio 113.b and beginning of folio 114.a. For further details, see the introduction to Toh 674, i.29.

n.13Denkarma, folio 302.a.4; Phangthangma, folio 10 (p. 25).

n.14Dotson 2016, 129–30.

n.15Curiously, 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 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.16de ltar dpe gnyis snang yang rang gi ngo bo gcig yin te/ puN+ye med pa’i oM gnyis ma ni/ lots+tsha ba yon gyis ma mgu bas sngags la ser sna byas pas ma dag pa yin te/ mtshan brgya rtsa brgyad ma tshang ba’i phyir ro/ /zhes bdag gi bla ma dag gsungs so/ / (Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo, folio 118.a).

n.17Amé Zhab (2014), p. 42.

n.18Tāranātha (2014), p. 77.

n.19See Tāranātha, p. 21.

n.20The Khotanese manuscript is written in Upright Gupta script and may date to the seventh or eighth century, possibly even earlier. See i.­36 below and Konow (1916), pp. 301–2.

n.21Ngorchen’s raising of these refutations of the earlier version’s authenticity, despite the apparent 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, which seems to have included this text despite his misgivings.

n.22See Kunga Lekrin (2014), pp. 21–22; Amé Zhab (2014), p. 43.

n.23Kunga Lekrin (2014), p. 22 and Amé Zhab (2014), p. 42.

n.24See also n.­50.

n.25See the English rendering in n.­56.

n.26There are some twenty such works in the Kangyur.

n.27Compare, for example, the “hundred-syllable” (yig brgya) mantra of Vajrasattva.

n.28Tāranātha (2014), p. 77. Paradoxically, Tāranātha includes the phrase “one hundred and eight names” in the title of his commentary, as part of the title by which he refers to the sūtra.

n.29Amé Zhab (2014), p. 43.

n.30See also the introduction to Toh 674, at i.14 and i.24.

n.31See n.­43.

n.32See 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.33Silk 2004, pp. 423–29.

n.34Taishō 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.35Given 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, it is likely to have been this version rather than the other.

n.36See Dotson 2016; and also van Schaik, Sam, “The Whereabouts of the Tibetan Manuscripts from Dunhuang.”

n.37The equivalent in basic content, but strictly speaking not in the number of oṁs they contain because the initial oṁ is omitted.

n.38Varacandra is often written in the dialect form of “Walatsandra” and translated into Tibetan as zla ba bzang po.

n.39Although in some Tibetan traditions Cintācakra, commonly referred to as White Tārā, is more common as an actual long-life practice.

n.40See Druptap Küntü (1902), vol. 10 (tha), folios 339.b–341.a, and vol. 1 (ka), folios 191.a–195.b, respectively.

n.41We have here completed the name of the buddha realm in line with the form it takes in 1.­8. For this mention, the Degé text of Toh 675 omits altogether the final part of the realm’s name, [la] sogs pa (saṃcaya), although in the Dunhuang manuscripts it is present, sometimes with and sometimes without la, and in the archaic orthography scogs pa. The Degé of Toh 674 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, in their “three oṁ” versions of the text, have the correct sogs pa (Choné vol. 15, ba, F.281b.4; Urga vol. 101, e, F.57b.3), but in their “two oṁ” versions omit this part of the name, as here in the Degé Kangyur (Choné vol. 15, ba, F.287b.8; Urga vol. 91, ba, F.216.b.3).

n.42“The Blazing King Who Is Completely Certain of Immeasurable Longevity and Wisdom.” This is the longest form of Aparimitāyurjñāna’s name. There are several spellings of this name in Tibetan to be found in the canonical texts. Here in version (2) of the sūtra in the Degé (Toh 675) and in most other Kangyurs, as well as 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, while in version (1) of the sūtra (Toh 674 and 849) in most Kangyurs it is tshe dang ye shes dpag tu med pa shin tu rnam par nges pa’i gzi brjid kyi 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.43The 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 675 reads bzhugs so/ /tshe ’dzin cing tshe mthar phyin par bzhed de and Toh 674, with a different spelling of the final verb, bzhugs te tshe ’dzin cing tshe mthar phyin par gzhes te. Tāranātha notes in his commentary (Tāranātha 2014, p. 65) that this expanded 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 (Amnyé Zhab 2014, 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 present “two oṁ” version, Toh 675, this phrase appears in Tibetan as the latter rendering, as in the “three oṁ” version, Toh 674, 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.­34). Tāranātha also mentions (Tāranātha 2014, 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.44bstan to; the Dunhuang manuscripts have brjod do, “said to have.”

n.45From the Sanskrit guṇavarṇa, which was translated into Tibetan as “qualities and praise” (yon tan dang bsngags pa).

n.46According to Toh 675, the Khotanese, and the Dunhuang manuscripts. In the Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts and in Toh 674 1.4, Aparimitāyur­jñāna is shortened to Aparimitāyus.

n.47khyim na ’chang gi bar du byed dam; the Dunhuang manuscripts have only ’chang ngam, making no mention of “at home” or (with the preceding phrases) of a progression from hearing or writing the title alone to doing so for the whole text.

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.” None of the Tibetan versions, including the Dunhuang manuscripts, add these extra items of offering.

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—but plausibly only for the other version of the text, the “three oṁ” version (Toh 674 and 849)‍—this 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” does seem to refer to the dhāraṇī, and could therefore be interpreted as “the-one-hundred-and-eight-syllable appellation” of Buddha Aparimitāyur­jñāna. On the other hand, here in Toh 675 and in the other “two oṁ” versions of the text (the Dunhuang manuscripts, the Khotanese, and all the Chinese versions), the dhāraṇīs have far fewer syllables, yet this mention is present nevertheless (although 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, 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.51This version, as well as Toh 674, has ’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.53As in n.­46, according to Toh 675, the Khotanese, and the Dunhuang manuscripts. In the Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts and in Toh 674 1.6, Aparimitāyur­jñāna is shortened to Aparimitāyus.

n.54de dag gi yon tan dang legs par gyur pa ni ’di dag go; the Dunhuang manuscripts read de dag gi yon tan dang legs pa ni ’di dag go.

n.55The Dunhuang manuscripts omit the initial oṁ in all instances of the dhāraṇī, but start the first instance (only) with tadyathā.

n.56The dhāraṇī transliterated throughout the text is shown according to the version in the Degé Kangyur. Versions in other Kangyurs have only minor variants in spelling and punctuation. An approximate translation is: “ Oṁ, Homage to the Bhagavān Aparimitāyur­jñāna­suviniścita­tejo­rāja, the tathāgata, arhat, perfectly awakened buddha. It is thus: 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.57The Dunhuang manuscripts make no mention here of the one hundred and eight names, but just read sngags kyi tshig ’di dag, “these mantra words.”

n.58As in n.­46 and n.­53, according to Toh 675, the Khotanese, and the Dunhuang manuscripts. In the Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts and in Toh 674 1.8, Aparimitāyur­jñāna is shortened to Aparimitāyus.

n.59The prefix bde ba can, which is here rendered as “blissful” but could also be interpreted as the realm name Sukhāvatī, is present in this version of the text but not in the equivalent sentence of Toh 674 (see Toh 674, 1.8), nor in the Dunhuang manuscripts. It somewhat confusingly identifies this realm at the zenith with the western realm of the “other” Amitāyus who is Amitābha, perhaps confirming that the conflation of these two buddhas (see i.­9) occurred at an early date in Tibet.

n.60The Nepalese Sanskrit here has the additional line, “And they will have measureless life in the Aparimita­guṇa­saṃcaya realm.”

n.61The 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, and the Dunhuang Tibetan manuscripts use the term mdo in place of the Degé’s mdo sde.

n.62The Nepalese Sanskrit and Toh 674 (1.22), as well as the Dunhuang manuscripts, here instead have “three hundred sixty million” in conformity with the other numbers.

n.63In the Tibetan of the Kangyur, here in Toh 675 as well as in Toh 674 (see Toh 674, 1.28), this phrase and its recurrences in the passages that follow is yi ger ’dri’am/ yi ger ’drir ’jug na. In some of the Dunhuang manuscripts it is yi ger ’dri’am/ ’drir ’jug na, while in others it is simply ’drir bchug na or ’drir bcug na, presumably meaning “set in writing.”

n.64This 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.65While Toh 674 reads de’i mtshams med pa lnga byas pa yang yongs su byang bar ’gyur ro (“will be purified even of having committed the five karmas…”), here in Toh 675 this reads more simply de’i mtshams med pa lnga yongs su byang bar ’gyur ro. This is closer than Toh 674 to the Dunhuang manuscripts, which read de mtshams myed 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 (see Konow 1916, p. 310).

n.66This paragraph is not present in the Nepalese Sanskrit texts, but is in the Dunhuang Khotanese (see Konow 1916 p. 312).

n.67Toh 675 here has glags btsal kyang where Toh 674 and the Dunhuang manuscripts have glags bltas kyang.

n.68Toh 674 and the Dunhuang manuscripts here have “nine hundred ninety million.”

n.69mngon sum du lung ston pa mdzad, which could also just mean “teach them,” is the reading here in both Toh 675 and Toh 674. The Dunhuang manuscripts have mngon du ston par mdzad or mngon sum du ston pa mdzad, “appear directly to them.” Nepalese Sanskrit has darśanaṃ dāsyanti, “appear before them.”

n.70Degé in this version has ma byed cig, while the other version (see Toh 674, 1.42) and the Dunhuang manuscripts read ma za shig.

n.71Here in Toh 675, the Tibetan of the Degé reads simply mdo sde ’di, “this sūtra,” while in the Dunhuang manuscripts, as well as in the other version, Toh 674 (in the Degé and all other Kangyurs except the Lithang and Choné), the equivalent phrase reads mdo sde dkon mchog ’di, “this precious sūtra.” In the “three oṁ” version (i.e. the equivalent of Toh 674) in the Lithang and Choné Kangyurs, the phrase is as here. The Nepalese Sanskrit and Khotanese, here and in the other passages between the repeated dhāraṇī, instead use the title of the text, aparimitāyuḥ sūtraṃ, “the Aparimitāyus sūtra.”

n.72The phrase “or caused to be written” is omitted in the Tibetan.

n.73The 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.74The Dunhuang manuscripts have kar sha pa ni ’ga’ zhig, “a few kārṣāpaṇa coins.”

n.75According to the Tibetan chos kyi rnam grangs, which appears to have been translated from dharmaparyāya, and is the same in the two canonical versions in Tibetan (Toh 674 and 675) as well as in the Dunhuang manuscripts. 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.76The Degé here in Toh 675 reads dam pa’i chos thams cad khong du chud par ’gyur. In Toh 674 (1.54) this paragraph reads dam pa’i chos mtha’ dag mchod par ’gyur, “will have made an offering to the entirety of the good Dharma.” In the Dunhuang manuscripts, it reads dam pa’i chos mtha’ dag chub par mchod par ’gyur, with the same meaning.

n.77’di lta ste dper na. In most (but not all) of the Dunhuang manuscripts, here and in the two similar statements that follow, dper na is absent.

n.78’khor ba ’jig. Here Toh 675 appears to add another buddha to the list by including this alternative translation of Krakucchanda 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.79Whereas the equivalent phrases of this and the next two statements in Toh 674 (1.56–1.60) clearly refer to the merit related to the Aparimitāyur­jñāna Sūtra, here in Toh 675 the accumulation of merit “of” (or perhaps “relating to”) Aparimitāyur­jñāna himself (i.e. the tathāgata, not the text) is mentioned: tshe dang ye shes dpag tu med pa’i bsod nams kyi phung po’i tshad ni bgrang bar mi nus so. This could be interpreted most literally as Aparimitāyur­jñāna’s own merit, but presumably refers rather to the merit to be obtained by making offerings to him. 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 as well as the Dunhuang texts all match Toh 674 in referring to the sūtra, not the tathāgata.

n.80Here in Toh 675, ri’i rgyal po ri rab dang mnyam pa’i rin po che’i phung por byas te/ sbyin pa byin pa. In Toh 674, the reading is rin po che’i phung po ri rab tsam spungs te sbyin pa byin pa.

n.81See n.­79. Also, this whole paragraph is absent in most of the complete Dunhuang manuscripts that we have seen, but is present in the Nepalese Sanskrit and Khotanese manuscripts.

n.82See n.­79.

n.83This version has gus par byas te, while Toh 674 (1.62) has bsti stang du byas te. The Dunhuang manuscripts only have “causes to be written or makes offerings to.”

n.84One 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.85According to all three commentaries‍—by Amé Zhab Ngawang Kunga Sönam, Kunga Lekrin, and Tāranātha‍—mentioned in the introduction, “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.86The 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.87In Toh 674, at 1.71, as well as in the Dunhuang manuscripts, the word “joyfully” (dgyes shing) is added before “taught.” It seems anomalous and is not usually a part of this traditional formula at the conclusion of sūtras. It may have been derived from the Sanskrit 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, but is in some of the Dunhuang manuscripts.

n.88The 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.89There is no translators’ colophon, although the version in the nineteenth-century Sakya compendium of sādhanas, the Druptap Küntü, has one; see introduction, i.­15.