Toh 226The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra “Transmigration Through Existences”

Summary

King Śreṇya Bimbisāra of Magadha approaches the Buddha and asks him how a past action can appear before the mind at the
moment of death. The Buddha presents the analogy of a sleeping person who dreams of a beautiful woman and on waking foolishly
longs to find her. He cites this as an example of how an action of the distant past, which has arisen from perception and
subsequent afflictive emotions and then ceased, appears to the mind on the brink of death. The Buddha goes on to explain how one
transitions from the final moment of one life to the first moment of the next, according to the ripening of those actions, without
any phenomena actually being transferred from one life to another. The Buddha concludes with a set of seven verses that offer a
succinct teaching on emptiness, focusing on the two truths and the fictitious nature of names.

Acknowledgements

This sūtra was translated by the Kīrtimukha Translation Group. Celso Wilkinson, Laura Goetz, and L.S. Summer translated the
text from the Tibetan and Sanskrit. William Giddings provided comparisons to the Chinese versions of the text.

The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.

Introduction

The Sūtra on Transmigration Through Existences (Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra) is set in the Kalandakanivāpa, at the Veṇuvana near Rājagṛha, where King Śreṇya Bimbisāra
of Magadha approaches the Buddha and asks him how, given the doctrine that formations are empty, an action that has long
ceased can appear before the mind at the moment of death. The Buddha presents the
analogy of a beautiful woman in a dream; the sleeping person dreams of cavorting with her, and even after waking foolishly
longs to find her. The analogy illustrates how a karmic deed of the distant past, which arose from perception and ensuing
afflictive emotions and then ceased, manifests in the mind of someone on the verge of death. The Buddha goes on to explain the
transition from the final moment of one life to the first moment of the next, according to the ripening of that karmic deed,
without any phenomena actually being transferred. Thus, in this sūtra, the Buddha provides a fundamental explanation for how
transmigration between lives occurs in conformity with the view that there is no self—as an immutable, incomposite entity—that
goes from this life to the next. The Buddha concludes with a set of seven verses that do not summarize his prose teachings or
even mention transmigration at all, but rather offer a succinct teaching on emptiness, focusing in particular on the two
truths and the fictitious nature of all nominal designations.

It is notable that this sūtra can be divided into two distinct parts—the prose and the verse sections—which are
thematically quite different. The second has little relation to the title of the sūtra and seems to be more a deep reading of
the preceding prose than the kind of verse summary commonly found in other Mahāyāna sūtras. This divide is one key to
navigating the sūtra’s complex history, which is explained below. In essence, this early Mahāyāna sūtra holds an important
place in the tradition as one of the earliest statements on the two truths and was used by both the Madhyamaka and early Yogācāra schools as a scriptural authority on the
ultimate truth.

Extant Sources of the Sūtra

The Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra was translated and edited by the Indian scholars Jinamitra
and Dānaśīla and the Tibetan translator and editor Yeshé Dé, who were active from the eight–ninth centuries ce. The Denkarma and Phangthangma imperial catalogs, dated to the early ninth century, both include
it in their lists of translated sūtras. It is also listed in the Mahāvyutpatti.

There was no known Sanskrit witness of this sūtra until recently, when a manuscript containing twenty texts, all of
them sūtras, was found in the Potala Palace in Lhasa. Bhikṣuṇī Vinītā published a critical edition and English translation of
this collection in the series Sanskrit Texts from the Autonomous Region (2010). Unfortunately, due to the inaccessibility of
the manuscript collection and because it was missing a final colophon, its origin and date are currently unknown. There seems to be a thematic connection among the twenty sūtras.
Vinītā gives the example of moral discipline (śīla) as a recurrent theme
running through the manuscript, and we can
likewise note the recurrence of themes of karmic cause and effect and the hierarchy of merit. Interestingly, this sūtra is
quoted among others, including several from the Potala manuscript, by Kawa Paltsek (ska ba dpal
brtsegs) in a text contained in the Tengyur called the *Pravacanaratnākhyānaśākyavaṃśāvalī. Here we can identify the same recurrent themes among the quotations.

Other fragments from the Sanskrit text have been found extant in quotation in other works, with a great number of
variations. The Pitāputrasamāgamasūtra (The Sūtra of the Meeting of Father and Son) contains a passage that
closely parallels the prose passage of the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra in both the Tibetan and
Sanskrit. The extant Sanskrit is found in quotation in Śāntideva’s Śikṣāsamuccaya. In addition to being quoted
extensively among treatises, the verse section of the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra has some passages
in common with or closely resembling verses found in other sūtras and treatises. There are three similarly titled treatises
found in the Tengyur, all attributed to Nāgārjuna, called the Bhavasañcara (Toh 2277), the Bhavasaṅkrānti (Toh 3840), and the
Bhavasaṅkrāntiparikathā (Toh 4162), and for the second of these there is a word-by-word commentary
called the Bhavasaṅkrāntitīka (Toh 3841), attributed to a “Paṇḍita
Maitreyanātha.” All three of these treatises contain within them verses that loosely match the verse section of the
Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra. Ostensibly these treatises are themselves a commentary on the
sūtra; however, the relationships are ambiguous, and some scholars have suggested the possibility that it was the treatises,
in some form, that had a later influence on the verse section of the sūtra. Since the whole set of the canonical
quotations and parallel passages to the verse section is complex and extensive, a comprehensive list of these instances is
found in the

appendix.

There are three translations of the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra found in the Chinese
Tripiṭaka: one (Taishō 575) translated by Bodhiruci (菩提流支, sixth century ce), another (Taishō 576) translated by Buddhaśānta (佛陀扇多, sixth
century), and a third (Taishō 577) translated by Yijing (義淨, seventh to eighth century).

There are several other Western-language translations of this sūtra available. In 1936, Giuliana Stramigioli
translated both the Tibetan and Chinese (Taishō 557) versions, separately, into Italian. The Tibetan translated was derived
from a thirteenth- or fourteenth-century manuscript found in Tholing Monastery. N. Aiyaswami Sastri published a translation in 1931 from the Narthang Kangyur and
another in 1938 from the Tibetan and all three Chinese translations. Fernando Tola and Carmen Dragonetti translated the sūtra
into Spanish based on Stramigioli’s edition in 1977, again in 1980 based on Sastri’s edition, and into English in 1986. As is
mentioned above, there is also Vinītā’s 2010 English translation based the Sanskrit manuscript from the Potala. Most recently
of all, Peter Skilling has included a fine translation of the sūtra and some helpful notes on it in his 2021 collection,
Questioning the Buddha: A Selection of Twenty-Five Sutras.

The History and Philosophy of the Sūtra

Noriaki Hakamaya, in his detailed analysis of Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra, theorizes that
the prose section of the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra and its parallel in the Pitāputrasamāgamasūtra originated as an explanation on the topic of transmigration that later
developed under the influence of the Prajñāpāramitā tradition, at which time elements of the emptiness doctrine would have
been introduced. He further suggests that the verse section may have been an addition of the Yogācāra school.

Hakamaya’s thesis is supported by several contextual points in the sūtra. To begin with, the prose section presents an
explanation of rebirth as resulting from the causal force of an action (karma) without the actual transmigration of any self or permanent phenomenon. This accords with the standard
Buddhist nominalist view, in which what seems to be a coherent “self” is merely a collection of factors known as the five
aggregates, which include consciousness, and thus rebirth occurs through causality and without a “self” transferring from this
life to the next. In general, this explanation of rebirth would be accepted by any Buddhist school. One exception would be
those schools described by their critics as Pudgalavādins, or “proponents of a person,” who assert that a person (pudgala) transmigrates from one life to the next. However, two such schools, the
Vātsiputrīya and Saṃmitīya, make this claim while maintaining the Buddhist tenet of no-self (anātman): this “person” is defined as neither permanent nor impermanent and is neither the same nor
different from the five aggregates.

Interestingly, the Tibetan, Sanskrit, and Chinese versions of the sūtra unanimously state that “no phenomenon
whatsoever transmigrates from this world to another world,” with one notable exception in Bodhiruci’s Chinese translation
(Taishō 575), which states in the same passage, “there is one phenomenon that transmigrates from this life into
the future life.” Intriguingly,
the Bodhiruci version does not indicate what exactly this one phenomenon is or how it functions in the process of
transmigration. Discussing this passage, N. Aiyaswami Sastri speculates that this version, as the earliest translation, may
indicate that the original narrative of the sūtra originated from schools, such as the Vātsiputrīya and Saṃmitīya, that assert
the transmigration of the “person” or some similar phenomenon. In this case, the title of the sūtra, Transmigration Through Existences, would indeed accord with those that say transmigration occurs. However, our research has not unearthed any
other evidence that traces the sūtra specifically to these schools, and all the later editions clearly do not reflect this
view.

Regardless of this disparity, the prose section of the sūtra provides a standard early Buddhist explanation of
rebirth. As in the analogy of the dream, even something we know so well to be illusory can have consequences: the dreamer
remembers the dream woman or even goes out searching for her. In the same way, although nothing passes from one life to another, the effects of the actions of one life can
shape the next.

The prose section of the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra is concordant with the Sautrāntika
view that consciousness, which itself seems to be a continuity, consists only of distinct momentary consciousnesses arising
and ceasing. Thus, it is said in this sūtra that when one reaches the last moment of consciousness of one life, in the next
moment the first consciousness of the next life arises in
turn, and these are connected only by the
potential of the past karma that shapes each moment as it arises.

The Sautrāntikas maintained that karma, too, is momentary, and thus an action leads to an evolving stream of germinal
potentialities (bīja or “seed”) leading to the fruition. The difference in
the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra and other Mahāyāna sūtras is that all the elements of the
transmigration—consciousness, karma, and so forth—are said not to arise, remain, or cease; they are devoid of essential
nature, so any seeming functioning of karma is an illusion.

A particularly interesting feature of the prose is that it makes this doctrinal assumption that the karma of a single
action arises in the mind at the moment of death and is instrumental in determining a being’s next state of existence. While
the Buddha accepts this principle implicit in King Bimbisāra’s question, he does not explain the reasoning behind it, which
could be interpreted in different ways according to various Buddhist views. It is worth noting that this sūtra does not
implicate an intermediate state between lives and seems to imply that the first moment of consciousness of the next life
arises immediately following the cessation of the final moment of consciousness in the previous one. In light of this, without forcing a specific interpretation of how this causality
functions, we can say that the arising of the karma in the mind in the final moment of death provides an explanation for how
the continuum of consciousness transmigrating from one existence to the next occurs in lieu of a self or any perpetuating
phenomena to be carried through that transmigration. This explanation also maintains the ethical principle of the law of
karma, indispensable to Buddhism, that one’s ethical conduct determines one’s next existence and that pleasure and suffering
arise from one’s past actions.

It is also up for interpretation exactly how the analogy of the dream should be understood. The Buddha gives this
analogy to explain the principle of how the karma appears at the moment of death, stating that the woman in the dream is
analogous to that karma, and that her arising in the mind of the man waking from the dream is to be understood as analogous to
the karma appearing before the mind at the moment of death. Certainly, he is not implying that the phenomena of karma itself
appears, since it has explicitly long since passed, but its potentiality or causal force is present somehow at that crucial
moment of death. Perhaps the analogy also emphasizes that the karma itself is nonexistent, like the woman in a dream. But on
the whole, the precise implications of this analogy might be explicated differently according to the theory of karma and
transmigration held by any particular Buddhist school.

In the Buddha’s final remarks of the prose section we find some passages that align the narrative closely with the
Prajñāpāramitā teachings on how phenomena lack any essential nature and on emptiness, in particular at

, where the phenomena including final consciousness, transmigration, karma, first
consciousness, and birth are declared to be empty of themselves.

Moving on to the verses, the

first four pertain to the Buddhist nominalist
position that all phenomena are only nominally existent (prajñaptisat),
having no independent substantial existence (dravyasat), a position that was
used by Madhyamaka thinkers to support their school’s interpretation of emptiness.

The

final three verses present a śūnyavāda interpretation of the two truths.
The relative truth refers to conventional appearances, as in verse five when “one who observes correctly” says “The eye sees
forms.” From the perspective of the ultimate truth there is only the nature of emptiness, all phenomena existing dependently,
or, according to the statement in verse six, “seeing comes from a conjunction.” Finally, verse seven points out
the “supreme truth” that “The eye does not see form / And the mind does not know phenomena,” meaning that the conceptual
notion of the two truths is itself provisional.

Although the verse section presents a Madhyamaka position, and despite having parallel treatises attributed to
Nāgārjuna, Hakamaya intriguingly suggests the possibility that these verses were an addition of the Yogācāra school. The
evidence he provides is that the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra is cited in numerous Yogācāra texts,
including the Bodhisattvabhūmi and Sāgaramegha’s commentary on its treatment of the second
verse, in which it is interpreted according to the Yogācāra trisvabhāva
(three nature) theory, and the fact that the sūtra is cited in dialectical treatises to refute the Yogācāra
position as the basis of their scriptural authority. Regardless of the question of the sūtra’s
history, the verse section is quoted or echoed in many treatises as a definitive statement on the two truths and the
nominalist position of phenomena.

All of this is merely an overview, food for further research, and is intended to draw attention to some facets of the
fascinating history of this brief sūtra.

Our Translation Approach

We have based our translation primarily on the Tibetan version in the Degé Kangyur, but we consulted the Sanskrit and
versions in other Kangyurs in the case of questionable terms or passages, in order to establish the most plausible and
accurate readings of the text. The citations of the Sanskrit we provide in the notes are from Vinītā’s emendations of the
handwritten Potala manuscript. Instances where our translation diverges from the Degé have been noted, and any significant
differences found in the various versions of the sūtra are recorded and explained in the notes. In general, all these
versions, along with the Sanskrit and Chinese sources, are unanimous in terms of their general structure and meaning (except
for the phrase found in Bodhiruci’s translation, Taishō 575,

mentioned above).
However, there are many minute variations to be found among the various versions, especially in comparison to the parallel
passages found in the Pitāputrasamāgamasūtra and quotations of both the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra and Pitāputrasamāgamasūtra found in
many other texts. These numerous variations are both the likely result and evidence of the sūtra’s complex development.

Since the minor variations found in comparing the different versions are particularly numerous, we have chosen to
provide annotations only for differences that change the meaning in a significant way or that we otherwise deemed to be
interesting or noteworthy. To note all variant readings would require the preparation of a diplomatic edition of the
multiple texts, which lies beyond the scope of this translation. As mentioned above, a comprehensive list of all the Kangyur
and Tengyur quotations and congruent passages relating to the verse section of the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra is given in the

appendix.

The Translation

The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra

Transmigration Through Existences

Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas!

Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was dwelling in the Kalandakanivāpa, at the Veṇuvana near Rājagṛha,
together with a great monastic saṅgha of 1,250 monks and a multitude of bodhisattva mahāsattvas. The
Blessed One, surrounded and venerated by an audience of many
hundreds of thousands, taught the Dharma. He expounded the wholesome conduct that is virtuous in the beginning, virtuous in
the middle, and virtuous in the end, and that is excellent in meaning, excellent in words, distinctive, perfect, completely
pure, and thoroughly refined.

At that time King Śreṇya Bimbisāra of Magadha set out from the great city of Rājagṛha. With great royal pomp and
power, he arrived at the Veṇuvana before the Blessed One. He bowed his head to the feet of the Blessed One, circumambulated
him three times, and sat to one side.

Seated to one side, King Śreṇya Bimbisāra of Magadha inquired of the Blessed One,
“Blessed One, how does an action, performed and accumulated, having ceased and ceased for a long while, manifest in the mind
when the moment of death is imminent? Since all formations are empty, how are actions not lost?”

The Blessed One replied to King Śreṇya Bimbisāra of Magadha,
“Great king, it is like this: To give an analogy, a man has dreamed that he has cavorted with the most beautiful woman in the
land, and
then upon waking he keeps recollecting that most beautiful woman in the land. What do you think, king? Does that most
beautiful woman in the land from the dream exist?”

“No, Blessed One, she does not,” he replied.

The Blessed One then asked, “Great king, what do you think? In that case, is that person who has become fixated on the
most beautiful woman in the land wise in nature?”

“No, Blessed One, he is not,” he replied. “Why is that? Blessed One, the most beautiful woman in the land from the
dream is utterly nonexistent and cannot be observed; as there
is no way he can cavort with her, that man is bound to be miserable and exhausted.”

“Great king,” said the Blessed One, “childish and unlearned beings, in the same way, become fixated on pleasant forms that they see with their eyes. Having become fixated, they then
become desirous. Being desirous, they then become enamored. Being enamored leads them to commit actions stemming from passion,
anger, and ignorance, which are conditioned by body, speech, and mind. The actions, thus conditioned, then cease. Having ceased, an action does not remain anywhere—in the east or
in the south, in the west or in the north. It does not remain above, below, or in the intermediate directions.

“But at some other time, whenever it might be, when the moment of death is approaching and the karma concordant with
one’s fortune for this life is exhausted, the final consciousness ceases, and this next karma—just like the most beautiful
woman in the land for the person in the analogy sleeping and waking from sleep—will manifest in the mind.

“Great king, immediately after that first consciousness ceases, there arises the mindstream concordant with one’s
fortune along with the experiences of karmic fruition that manifest therein.

“Great king, no phenomenon whatsoever transmigrates from this world to another world, yet there are the manifestations of death and birth.

“Great king, the cessation of the final consciousness
is known as death. The arising of the first consciousness is known as birth. Great
king, the moment the final consciousness ceases, it does not go anywhere. The moment the first consciousness pertaining to
birth arises, it also does not come from anywhere. Why is that? It is because they are devoid of
essential nature.

“Great king, the final consciousness is empty of final consciousness, transmigration after death is empty of
transmigration after death, action is empty of action, the first
consciousness is empty of the first consciousness, and birth is empty of birth, yet actions manifest without being lost.

“Great king, no sooner does the first consciousness pertaining to birth cease than there arises, without any
interruption, the mindstream in which the experiences of karmic fruition manifest.”

Thus spoke the Blessed One. The Sugata having spoken, the Teacher further declared:

“All of these are mere names—

They abide only as notions.

Set apart from their verbal designations,

What is designated does not exist. {1}

“By whatever names

Any phenomena are designated,

They do not exist therein.

This is the very nature of phenomena. {2}

“The nature of name is empty of name.

A name does not exist as a name.

All nameless phenomena

Have been designated by name. {3}

“These phenomena do not exist;

They originate from conceptual thought.

The conceptual thought that conceptualizes them as empty

Also does not exist. {4}

“ ‘The eye sees form’

Is said by one who observes correctly.

To the world with its perverse arrogance,

This was taught as the relative truth. {5}

“What the Guide has made known—

That seeing comes from a conjunction —

The wise speak of

As the grounds for designating ultimate truth. {6}

“The eye does not see form

And the mind does not know phenomena.

That is the supreme truth;

The world does not fathom it.”
{7}

The Blessed One having spoken, King Śreṇya Bimbisāra of Magadha, the bodhisattvas and monks, and the world with its
gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas rejoiced and praised the words of the Blessed One.

This concludes the noble Mahāyāna sūtra “Transmigration Through Existences.”

Colophon

Translated and edited by the Indian preceptors Jinamitra and Dānaśīla and the chief editor and translator Bandé Yeshé
Dé. It was then revised and finalized according to the new terminology.

Notes

Abbreviations

BhSS

Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra

PPSS

Pitāputrasamāgamasūtra (Toh 60)

C
Choné (co ne) Kangyur

D
Degé (sde dge) Kangyur

H
Lhasa (zhol) Kangyur

J
Lithang (’jang sa tham) Kangyur

K
Peking (pe cin) Kangxi Kangyur

Kʏ

Peking Yongle (g.yung lo) Kangyur

N
Narthang (snar thang) Kangyur

S
Stok Palace (stog pho brang bris ma) Kangyur

U
Urga (ku re) Kangyur

Sanskrit
Sanskrit manuscript found in the Potala Palace (see introduction and bibliography)

Taishō 575
Sixth-century Chinese translation by Bodhiruci (菩提流支)

Taishō 576
Sixth-century Chinese translation by Buddhaśānta (佛陀扇多)

Taishō 577
Seventh–eighth-century Chinese translation by Yijing (義淨)

Bibliography

Primary Tibetan Sources

Primary Sanskrit and Chinese Sources

Secondary Kangyur and Tengyur Texts

Other Secondary Sources

Appendix

The Seven Verses Found in the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra

The verse section of the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra is quite significant to Buddhism’s
commentarial literature, as it has been used as scriptural authority to support philosophical views concerning key concepts
about emptiness, phenomena, the nature of phenomena, and the two truths. However, because these verses were so often quoted in
treatises, they at times appear to have been altered and are attributed to various sources. Furthermore, as noted in the
introduction, it is uncertain whether the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra was the original source of
these seven terse but important verses. What follows is an account of all the quotations and verses we found in the Kangyur
and Tengyur; here we have supplemented the research of previous scholars with our own findings. The list is by no means
exhaustive, and it is confined to the seven verses found at the end of the Bhavasaṅkrāntiśāstra with a primary focus on Tibetan sources. There are also numerous Sanskrit fragments of the
verses that are not listed here. For a comprehensive view of these, see Vinītā (2010), pp. 438–47, which compares Sanskrit
readings found in different extant quotations, and some of the Chinese sources as well.

Braces {} have been used when referring to the verse numbers as they appear in the present translation of the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra, to disambiguate them from indexes used in other texts.

Similar Verses Found in Other Sūtras of the Kangyur

Laṅkāvatārasūtra (Toh 107): Verse {1} is found at folio
129.b3 and folio 260.b5; note that the wording here is quite different: ming dang ’du
shes bye brag gis/ /mdo dang mdo las rnam rtog bshad/ /brjod pa dag ni ma gtogs par/ /brjod par bya ba’ang mi rig
go/. Verse {4} is found at folio 159.a6; note that the wording here is also quite
different: chos ’di dag ni snying po med/ /rlom sems las ni byung ba yin/ /gang gis
stong zhes snyems pa yi/ /snyems pa de yang stong pa’o/. Some of the Tengyur treatises listed below quote these
verses as they appear in the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra but attribute them to the Laṅkāvatārasūtra.

Ghanavyūhasūtra (Toh 110): Verses {1–2} are found together in three
instances: folio 39.b4–6, folio 40.a6–7, and folio 41.b3–4. Note that the content is somewhat different, and the first
instance is interspersed with parts of dialogue.

Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhisūtra (Toh 133): Lindtner (1992), p. 264, n. 30, mentions this sūtra as having
verses in common with the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra, although these do not appear to be present
in the Tibetan editions.

Nāgārjuna’s Bhavasaṅkrānti Treatises

As mentioned in the

introduction, these treatises attributed to Nāgārjuna each
contain a section resembling the seven-verse section of the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra but contain
significant differences and some partial omissions. While there are further variations between the verses of the three
treatises themselves, Sastri suggests that they are all recensions of the same older source. See Sastri (1931), pp. xxii–xxxi,
for his discussion of the differences between each text.

Bhāvasañcara (Toh 2277), Nāgārjuna: Includes verses {1–7} with
some variation at folio 128.a1–5.

Bhavasaṅkrānti (Toh 3840), Nāgārjuna: Includes verses {1–7} with
some variation at folio 151.b2–6 (verse {4} is shortened into two lines). This treatise is also referred to as the Madhyama (dbu ma) Bhavasaṅkrānti, according to the colophon.

Bhavasaṅkrāntitīka (Toh 3841), Paṇḍita Maitreyanātha: Contains a phrase-level commentary on
the Bhavasaṅkrānti treatise (Toh 3840) above.

Bhavasaṅkrāntiparikathā (Toh 4162), Nāgārjuna: Includes verses {1–7} with
some variations at folios 167.b7–168.a3 (verse {2} is shortened into two lines and {3} is omitted).

Bhavabhedaśāstra (Taishō 1574), Nāgārjuna: This is not included in the Tengyur but is found in
the Chinese Tripiṭaka, vol. 30, no. 1574. Sastri describes this as yet another recension of the treatises attributed to
Nāgārjuna above.

Comparisons between the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra and three Bhavasaṅkrānti treatises attributed to Nāgārjuna that are represented in the Degé Kangyur:

{V}

Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra

Bhāvasañcara

Bhavasaṅkrānti[śāstra]

Bhavasaṅkrāntiparikathā

{1}
འདི་དག་ཐམས་ཅད་མིང་ཙམ་སྟེ། །འདུ་ཤེས་ཙམ་དུ་གནས་པ་ཡིན། །བརྗོད་པ་ལས་ནི་གཞན་གྱུར་པ། །བརྗོད་པར་བྱ་བ་ཡོད་མ་ཡིན། །
འདི་དག་ཐམས་ཅད་མིང་ཙམ་སྟེ། །ཐ་སྙད་ཙམ་དུ་རབ་ཏུ་འཇུག །དངོས་པོ་མེད་ལ་ཐ་དད་པའི། །བརྗོད་བྱ་ཡོད་པ་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། །
འདི་དག་ཐམས་ཅད་མིང་ཙམ་ཡིན། །མིང་གི་ཁམས་སུ་རབ་ཏུ་གནས། །བཤད་བྱེད་དེ་ཡང་གུད་དུ་ཡང་། །བཤད་བྱ་དེ་ཡང་གང་ན་ཡོད། །
འདི་དག་ཐམས་ཅད་མིང་ཙམ་སྟེ། །འདུ་ཤེས་ཙམ་ལ་རབ་ཏུ་གནས། །རྗོད་པར་བྱེད་ལས་ཐ་དད་པའི། །བརྗོད་པར་བྱ་བ་ཡོད་མ་ཡིན། །

{2}
མིང་ནི་གང་དང་གང་གིས་སུ། །ཆོས་རྣམས་གང་དང་གང་བརྗོད་པ། །དེ་ལ་དེ་ནི་ཡོད་མ་ཡིན། །འདི་ནི་ཆོས་རྣམས་ཆོས་ཉིད་དོ། །
བདག་ཉིད་གང་དང་གང་གིས་ནི། །ཆོས་རྣམས་གང་དང་གང་བརྟགས་པ། །དེ་ནི་དེ་ལ་ཡོད་མིན་ཏེ། །ཆོས་རྣམས་ཀྱི་ནི་ཆོས་ཉིད་དེ། །
གང་ལས་གང་བྱུང་མིང་དེ་ནི། །གང་ལས་གང་བྱུང་ཆོས་དེ་རྣམས། །དེ་ནི་མེད་པར་འགྲོ་བ་ཡིན། །ཆོས་དེ་མེད་པས་ཆོས་ཉིད་ཡིན། །
ཆོས་རྣམས་ཐམས་ཅད་མིང་མེད་དེ། །བདག་མེད་པར་ཡང་ཡོངས་སུ་གསལ། །

{3}
མིང་གིས་མིང་ཉིད་སྟོང་པ་སྟེ། །མིང་ནི་མིང་གིས་ཡོད་མ་ཡིན། །མིང་མེད་པ་ཡི་ཆོས་རྣམས་ཀུན། །མིང་གིས་ཡོངས་སུ་བརྗོད་པར་བྱས། །
མིང་གིས་མིང་ཉིད་སྟོང་པས་ན། །མིང་ལ་མིང་ནི་ཡོད་མ་ཡིན། །ཆོས་རྣམས་ཐམས་ཅད་མིང་མེད་པས། །མིང་ནི་བཏགས་པ་ཙམ་ཉིད་དོ། །
མ་བྱུང་མིང་ནི་སྟོང་ཉིད་ཡིན། །དེ་ཡང་མིང་དུ་གྲུབ་པ་མེད། །ཆོས་རྣམས་ཐམས་ཅད་མིང་མེད་པ། །མིང་མེད་དུ་ནི་ཤིན་ཏུ་གསལ། །
Omitted

{4}
ཆོས་རྣམས་འདི་དག་ཡོད་མིན་ཏེ། །རྟོག་པ་ལས་ནི་ཀུན་ཏུ་འབྱུང་། །གང་གིས་སྟོང་པར་རྣམ་རྟོག་པ། །རྟོག་པ་དེ་ཡང་འདི་ན་མེད། །
མི་བདེན་པར་གྱུར་ཆོས་འདི་དག །བརྟགས་པ་ཉིད་དུ་རབ་ཏུ་འཇུག །གང་ལ་བརྟགས་པ་དེ་མེད་ན། །སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་དུ་བརྟགས་པ་གང་། །
དེ་ལྟར་རྣམ་རྟོག་གང་བྱུང་བ། །དེ་ཡང་སྟོང་ཉིད་རྣམ་རྟོག་ཡིན། །
ཡང་དག་མིན་པའི་ཆོས་འདི་དག །རྣམ་པར་རྟོག་པས་ཀུན་ནས་བསླང་། །གང་གིས་སྟོང་པ་ཞེས་བརྟགས་པའི། །རྟོག་པ་དེ་ཡང་འདིས་སྟོང་ངོ་། །

{5}
མིག་གིས་གཟུགས་ནི་མཐོང་ངོ་ཞེས། །ཡང་དག་གཟིགས་པས་གང་གསུངས་པ། །འཇིག་རྟེན་ལོག་པའི་ང་ཅན་ལ། །ཀུན་རྫོབ་བདེན་པར་དེ་གསུངས་སོ། །
མིག་གིས་མཐོང་བའི་གཟུགས་རྣམས་ནི། །དེ་ཉིད་རིག་པ་ཞེས་དེ་བཤད། །འཇིག་རྟེན་ལོག་པའི་ང་རྒྱལ་ཅན། །ཀུན་རྫོབ་བདེན་པ་ཞེས་འདིར་འཇོག
།
མིག་གིས་མཐོང་བའི་གཟུགས་དེ་ནི། །དེ་ཉིད་མཁྱེན་པས་ཡོད་པར་བཤད། །བརྫུན་གྱི་ང་རྒྱལ་འཇིག་རྟེན་པ། །ཀུན་རྫོབ་སེམས་པ་བརྟེན་པ་ཡིན། །
མིག་གིས་གཟུགས་རྣམས་མཐོང་བར་ནི། །དེ་ཉིད་གསུངས་པས་གང་བཤད་པ། །ལོག་པར་ཞེན་པའི་འཇིག་རྟེན་ལ། །ཀུན་རྫོབ་བདེན་པར་བརྗོད་པ་ཡིན། །

{6}
ཚོགས་ནས་མཐོང་ཞེས་གང་དག་ཏུ། །འདྲེན་པས་རབ་ཏུ་བསྟན་མཛད་པ། །དེ་ནི་དོན་དམ་གདགས་པའི་སར། །བློ་དང་ལྡན་པས་བཀའ་སྩལ་ཏོ། །
གང་དུ་ཚོགས་པའི་རྐྱེན་མཐོང་བ། །འདྲེན་པ་གསལ་བར་གྱུར་པ་ཡིན། །བློ་དང་ལྡན་པས་དོན་དམ་ལ། །བརྟགས་ཏེ་གྲགས་པ་ངེས་པར་མཐོང་། །
རྟེན་འབྲེལ་འཛོམ་པས་མཐོང་བ་གང་། །དེར་སྣང་སྟོན་པ་འདྲེན་པ་ཡིན། །འཛིན་པ་སྤྱོད་པའི་ས་ཡོད་པར། །དོན་དམ་པ་ཡི་བློ་མ་ཡིན། །
གང་དུ་ཚོགས་པར་མཐོང་བ་ནི། །འདྲེན་པས་སྟོན་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན། །བློ་དང་ལྡན་པས་དོན་དམ་གྱི། །ཉེ་བར་བརྟགས་པའི་ས་དེ་གསུངས། །

{7}
མིག་གིས་གཟུགས་རྣམས་མི་མཐོང་ཞིང་། །ཡིད་ཀྱིས་ཆོས་རྣམས་མི་རིག་པ། །དེ་ནི་བདེན་པ་མཆོག་ཡིན་ཏེ། །དེ་ལ་འཇིག་རྟེན་མི་དཔོགས་སོ། །
གཟུགས་ནི་མིག་གིས་མི་མཐོང་ཞིང་། །ཡིད་ཀྱིས་ཆོས་རྣམས་མི་རིག་པ། །འདི་ནི་མཆོག་ཏུ་བདེན་པ་སྟེ། །འཇིག་རྟེན་གང་གིས་ཀྱང་མི་ཤེས། །
མིག་གིས་གཟུགས་ནི་མཐོང་མི་འགྱུར། །སེམས་ཆོས་དེ་ཡང་ཡོད་མི་འགྱུར། །གང་སྣང་ཐམས་ཅད་བརྫུན་དུ་བཤད། །འཇིག་རྟེན་པས་ནི་གང་སྤངས་པ། །དེ་ནི་དོན་དམ་ཡིན་པར་བཤད། །
མིག་གིས་གཟུགས་ནི་མི་མཐོང་སྟེ། །ཡིད་ཀྱིས་ཆོས་རྣམས་མི་རིག་གོ། །འཇིག་རྟེན་པ་ཡི་ཡུལ་མིན་གང་། །འདི་ནི་མཆོག་ཏུ་བདེན་པའོ། །

Other Quotations from the Tengyur, Sorted by Verse

This section contains all other Tengyur sources that contain quotations of the verses found in the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra. The list is indexed in subsections by the latter’s verse number.
Treatises that quote multiple verses are repeated for each subsection. Note that in most cases the source of the quotation is
not stated in the treatise. It has been noted when the quotation is attributed to the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra or if it is attributed by the text to a different source (often when the quote was
attributed to another source, it is in fact most close to that of the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra).

Verse {1}

Acintyastava (Toh 1128), Nāgārjuna: Verse {1} is quoted at
folio 78.a3. This text also quotes verse {4}; see below.

Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstrābhisamayālaṅkāravṛtti (Toh
3787),
Vimuktasena: Verse {1} is quoted at folios 150.b7–151.a1.

Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstrābhisamayālaṅkārakārikāvārttikā (Toh 3788), Vimuktasena: Verse
{1} is quoted at folio 118.a3–4.

Abhisamayālaṅkārālokā (Toh 3791), Haribhadra: Verse {1} is quoted at
folio 32.a4 and folio 253.b5–6.

Bhagavadratnaguṇasañcayagāthāpañjikā (Toh 3792), Haribhadra: Verse {1} is quoted at
folio 24.a5.

Prajñāpāramitāsaṅgrahakārikāvivaraṇa (Toh 3810), Triratnadāsa: Verses {1–3} are
quoted at folio 314a4–5 ({2–3} appear before {1}).

Madhyamakāloka (Toh 3887), Kamalaśīla: Verse {1} is quoted at
folio 230.a4–5.

Munimatālaṅkāra (Toh 3903), Abhayākaragupta: Verse {1} is quoted
at folio 140.b6.

Laṅkāvatāranāmamahāyānasūtravṛttitathāgatahṛdayālaṅkāra (Toh 4019), Jñānavajra: Verse {1}
is quoted at folio 73.b7.

Yogācārabhūmaubodhisattvabhūmivyākhyā (Toh 4047), *Sāgaramegha: Verse {1ab} is quoted
at folio 71.b2, and then the text proceeds to comment on lines from verse {2}.

Vyākhyāyukti (Toh 4061), Vasubandhu: Partial quotations of
verses {1–3} at folio 110.b1–7 with interspersed commentary.

gsung rab rin po che’i gtam rgyud dang shAkya’i rabs rgyud (Toh 4357), Kawa Paltsek: Verses
{1–2}, {3ab}, and {7} are quoted at folio 265.b.5–7, and verse {7} is quoted again at folio 281.a4–5.

Verse {2}

Prajñāpāramitāsaṅgrahakārikāvivaraṇa (Toh 3810), Triratnadāsa: Verses {1–3} are
quoted at folio 314a4–5 ({2–3} appear before {1}).

Bhagavatyāmnāyānusāriṇīnāmavyākhyā (Toh 3811), Jagaddalanivāsin: Verse {2ab} is
quoted at folio 52.a.2; the lines following this paraphrase ideas in the other verses found in the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra.

Prajñāpāramitāvajracchedikāṭīkā (Toh 3817), Kamalaśīla: Verse {2} is quoted at
folio 254.b3–4.

Prajñāpradīpamūlamadhyamakavṛtti (Toh 3853), Bhāvaviveka: Verse {2} is quoted at
folio 243.b6.

Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā (Toh 3855), Bhāvaviveka: Verse {2} is quoted at
folios 22.b7–23.a1.

Madhyamakahṛdayavṛttitarkajvālā (Toh 3856), Bhāvaviveka: Verse {2} is quoted at
folio 219.a5. “This scripture is renowned among both traditions” (de la gzhung
lugs gnyi ga la grags pa’i lung yang yod de) refers to proponents of both the Mādhyamika and Yogācāra.

Prajñāpradīpaṭīkā (Toh 3859), Avalokitavrata: Verse {2} is quoted
at vol. 101, folio 282.b4–5. The source is unspecified (gzhan las kyang ji skad
du), but following this is the same quote in prose form attributed to the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra (srid pa ’pho ba’i mdo las).

Sugatamatavibhaṅgabhāṣya (Toh 3900), Jitāri: Verse {2} is quoted at folio
64.a5.

Akṣayamatinirdeśaṭīkā (Toh 3994), Vasubandhu: Verse {2} is quoted at
folio 80.a6.

Mahāyānasūtrālaṅkāraṭīkā (Toh 4029), Asvabhāva: Verse {2} is quoted at
folio 41.a2.

Sūtrālaṅkāravṛttibhāṣya (Toh 4034), Sthiramati: Verse {2} is quoted at
folio 9.a5.

Bodhisattvabhūmi (Toh 4037), Asaṅga: Verse {2} is quoted at folio
27.a4–5. The quote is attributed to the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra (srid pa ’pho ba’i mdo las).

Vyākhyāyukti (Toh 4061), Vasubandhu: Partial quotations of
verses {1–3} at folio 110.b1–7 with interspersed commentary.

Prajñāpāramitopadeśa (Toh 4079), Ratnākaraśānti: Verse {2} is quoted
at folio 145.a3. The quote is attributed to the Laṅkāvatārasūtra (Toh 107) (’di
skad du ’phags pa lang kar gshegs pa las).

Tattvasaṅgraha (Toh 4266), Śāntarakṣita: Verse {2} is
represented at folio 33.a1–2 using different words, but following the same structure as found in the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra.

Tattvasaṅgrahapañjikā (Toh 4267), Kamalaśīla: Verse{2} is quoted at
folio 143.a5–6 and folio 312.b1.

gsung rab rin po che’i gtam rgyud dang shAkya’i rabs rgyud (Toh 4357), Kawa Paltsek: Verses
{1–2}, {3ab}, and {7} are quoted at folio 265.b5–7, and verse {7} is quoted again at folio 281.a4–5.

Verse {3}

Prajñāpāramitāsaṅgrahakārikāvivaraṇa (Toh 3810), Triratnadāsa: Verses {1–3} are
quoted at folio 314.a4–5 ({2–3} appear before {1}).

Śikṣāsamuccaya (Toh 3940),
Śāntideva: Quotes verse {3}; however, the quote is omitted in the Tibetan but is found in the Sanskrit. See Vaidya (1960),
p. 241, v. 9–14. The verse is attributed to the Lokanāthavyākaraṇa, the identity of
which is uncertain.

Vyākhyāyukti (Toh 4061), Vasubandhu: Contains partial
quotations of verses {1–3} at folio 110.b1–7 with interspersed commentary.

gsung rab rin po che’i gtam rgyud dang shAkya’i rabs rgyud (Toh 4357), Kawa Paltsek: Verses
{1–2}, {3ab}, and {7} are quoted at folio 265.b5–7, and verse {7} is quoted again at folio 281.a4–5.

Verse {4}

Acintyastava (Toh 1128), Nāgārjuna: Verse {4} is quoted at
folio 78.a3. This text also quotes verse {1}, see above.

Bodhicaryāvatārapañjikā (Toh 3872), Prajñākaramati: Quotes the Acintyastava above, containing this quotation of Verse {4} at folio 274.b1–2.

Verse {5}

Prajñāpradīpaṭīkā (Toh 3859), Avalokitavrata: Verse {5}
is quoted at vol. 100, folio 8.a5. The quote is attributed to the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra
(srid pa 'pho ba’i mdo las). In other sections this text also quotes
verses {6} and {7}, see below.

Verse {6}

Prajñāpradīpamūlamadhyamakavṛtti (Toh 3853), Bhāvaviveka: Verse {6} is quoted at
folio 203.b7.

Madhyamakahṛdayavṛttitarkajvālā (Toh 3856), Bhāvaviveka: Verse {6} is quoted at
folio 53.a1–2. The connotation of {6cd} is somewhat different: de ni blo can ’jig
rten chos/ /nye bar gdags pa’i sar ston to.

Prajñāpradīpaṭīkā (Toh 3859), Avalokitavrata: Verse {6}
is quoted at vol. 101, folio 147.a4. The quote is attributed to the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra
(srid pa ’pho ba’i mdo las). In other sections this text also quotes
verses {5} and {7}; see above and below.

Prasannapadā (Toh 3860), Candrakīrti: Verses {6–7} are quoted
at folios 40.b7–41.a1. Verse {6} is placed after verse {7}.

Verse {7}

Prajñāpradīpaṭīkā (Toh 3859), Avalokitavrata: Verse {7}
is quoted at vol. 100, folio 8.a2, folio 8.a6, and folio 35.a3. The quote is attributed to the Bhavasaṅkrāntisūtra (srid pa ’pho ba’i mdo las). In other
sections this text also quotes verses {5} and {6}; see above.

Prasannapadā (Toh 3860), Candrakīrti: Verses {6–7} are quoted
at folios 40.b7–41.a1. Verse {6} is placed after verse {7}.

gsung rab rin po che’i gtam rgyud dang shAkya’i rabs rgyud (Toh 4357), Kawa Paltsek: Verses
{1–2}, {3ab}, and {7} are quoted at folio 265.b.5–7, and verse {7} is quoted again at folio 281.a4–5.