Toh 675Kinh Vô Lượng Thọ Trí (2) (Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra)

Summary

The Buddha, while at the Jetavana in Śrāvastī, tells Mañjuśrī of a buddha
realm far above the world, in which lives the Buddha Aparimitāyurjñāna. He
states that those who recite, write, hear, and so on, the praise of this buddha,
or make offerings to this text, will have numerous benefits, including a long
life and a good rebirth. As vast numbers of buddhas recite it, the mantra, or
dhāraṇī, of this buddha is
repeated numerous times. This is the lesser known of the two versions of this
sūtra in the Kangyur, but possibly represents the earlier translation.

Acknowledgements

The sūtra was translated from Tibetan by Peter Alan Roberts with
reference to related Sanskrit versions. Tulku Yeshi of the Sakya Monastery,
Seattle, was the consulting lama who reviewed the translation. The project
manager and editor was Emily Bower. The proofreader was Ben Gleason. The
introduction was compiled by the 84000 Editorial Team, and incorporates material
by Peter Alan Roberts.

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

Introduction

Overview

The Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra is among
the many canonical works in which a particular buddha in another buddhafield
is invoked along with the benefits of recalling his name and reciting his
dhāraṇī. Associated as
it is with longevity, this is one of the most widely read texts in the
Kangyur, and Aparimitāyurjñāna (“Immeasurable Longevity and Wisdom”’) is
one of the most frequently portrayed and well-known buddhas in the pantheon
of Tibetan Buddhism.

The sūtra is commonly referred to as the Tsédo (tshe mdo, “Sūtra of
Longevity”) or Tsézung (tshe gzungs, “Dhāraṇī of Longevity”), and
contains a dhāraṇī that is repeated in the text twenty-nine times. It is
included in many Tibetan liturgical compilations, and its recitation,
usually with a specified number of repetitions, is often advised to people
in poor health or facing other difficulties, or is commissioned on their
behalf in monasteries.

Although its title identifies it as a sūtra, it is placed in all
Kangyurs with the Action Tantras (bya
ba’i rgyud, kriyātantra). In common with many other works classified as
Action Tantras, there is nevertheless little in the text to identify it as a
tantra. The inclusion of a long, repeated dhāraṇī in Sanskrit is presumably
one criterion for this classification, although there are many other
canonical works with a similar structure that are placed with the sūtras.
Other criteria may have been its classification and line of transmission in
India, before it was taken to Tibet, or the fact that it has also formed the
basis for a wide range of tantra practices, particularly among the higher
levels of tantra, in the form of sādhanas of Aparimitāyus.

The text has also survived in a large number of Sanskrit manuscripts
(mostly later Nepalese ones); in two Chinese translations; and in a slightly
different—perhaps earlier—Tibetan translation, represented by most of the
very numerous manuscripts found in the caves of Dunhuang, where a Khotanese
manuscript (probably the oldest surviving version) was also found.

All Kangyurs include two major versions of the sūtra, similar in
most respects but differing mainly in the presence or absence of one phrase
in the repeated dhāraṇī. The background of the existence of these two
versions is discussed below. The version translated here is the lesser known
of the two, is much less widely used, and differs from Sanskrit source texts
brought to Tibet in the later translation period to a greater extent than
the other version.

The present version appears to be derived from the same translation
as the other major version,
The
Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra (1)
, Toh 674, but the dhāraṇī
it contains is the shorter one, matching those found in the Chinese
translations, the Dunhuang manuscript in Khotanese, and the earlier Tibetan
translation represented by the majority of the very numerous Dunhuang
manuscripts in Tibetan.

This sūtra, to the extent that it may represent the translation
available in the late eighth century, is one of the set known as the “ten
royal sūtras,” thought to be so called either because they represent
distillations of the most profound scriptures, or because according to
traditional histories they were recommended to King Trisong Detsen for his
daily practice by Guru Padmasambhava. As a result of practicing them, the
king is said to have extended his life by thirteen years.

In a similar vein, the fact that so many manuscript copies of this
text have been found in the Dunhuang caves is due to their production by
scribes there having been commissioned on behalf of Trisong Detsen’s
grandson, Ralpachen (who reigned in the early ninth century) in order to
ensure for the king the longevity that the text itself promises.

Aparimitāyus, Amitāyus, and Amitābha

Aparimitāyurjñāna (“Immeasurable Longevity and Wisdom”), the buddha
who is the subject of this sūtra, despite being described in this text as
dwelling in a realm situated in an upward direction from this world, i.e.
toward the zenith, has been identified to a varying extent in both Tibet and
East Asia with Amitābha, buddha of the realm called Sukhāvatī in the west.
Both are often referred to by the shortened name Amitāyus in Sanskrit,
Tsépamé (tshe dpag med or, in full,
tshe dpag tu med pa) in Tibetan,
but are nevertheless likely to have originally been seen as distinct. The
confusion that has been caused by these partially overlapping identities is
discussed in detail in the introduction (i.9–i.16) to Toh 674, The Aparimitāyurjñāna
Sūtra (1).

The Tibetan Versions of the Sūtra in the Kangyur,

Their Differences, and Their Translation

Differences in Content

There are two different but closely related versions of The Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra in most Kangyurs.
In keeping with the tradition established over the centuries by editors
of all Kangyurs, we have here translated and published them separately,
despite their similarity, and have labeled them The
Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra (1) and (2). In the Kangyur the two
versions are found consecutively in the Tantra Collection, and according
to Situ Panchen’s original catalog of the Degé Kangyur both are placed
with the Action (Kriyā) Tantras in the subdivision that corresponds to
the principal deity (rigs kyi
gtso bo) of the Padma (lotus) family. Their Degé
recensions are cataloged as Toh 674 and 675, respectively.

The principal distinction between the two versions lies in the
length and composition of the repeated dhāraṇī. Compared to the present
version (2) of the text, the dhāraṇī in the other version, The Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra (1), Toh 674 and
849, is longer and contains an extra phrase in the middle beginning
“oṁ puṇye puṇye…” that is not
present here, although the rest of the dhāraṇī is almost the same. It is
on that basis that the catalog of the Degé Kangyur distinguishes the two
texts by calling this one (Toh 675) the “two oṁ, no puṇye” version (because the repeated
dhāraṇī also contains two other phrases beginning with oṁ), while the other one (Toh 674 and
849) it calls the “three oṁ”
version. In some other
catalogs, e.g. the index to the Narthang Kangyur, the two versions (1)
and (2) are called respectively the “large and small Tsédo.”

It is the other version, the “three oṁ” version, The
Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra (1), Toh 674 and 849, that is the
best known and most widely recited form of the text. It is also the one
reproduced in most compilations of dhāraṇīs and anthologies of practice
texts, whether ancient or modern. By contrast, the present “two oṁ” version is only
preserved in the Kangyur, as here, and is very little known or used.
Nevertheless, the fact that it has been included in all Kangyurs as a
separate text is an implicit recognition that both versions are
authentic. The background to the existence of these two different
versions, and the controversies that have sometimes arisen about their
origins and authenticity, are explored in the introduction to The Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra (1), Toh 674 and
849 (i.21 et seq) and are set out in slightly more detail
here.

One intriguing hint that the Kangyur provides us with regard to
these two versions of the text is that the part of the dhāraṇī that is
“added” in version (1), Toh 674, but “missing” here in version (2), Toh
675, is included in all Kangyurs, almost identically, but on its own, as
the dhāraṇī that forms the very short content of another text in this
group,
The
Essence of Aparimitāyus
, Toh 673a. There is no
explanation in the various Kangyur catalogs for its presence, but the
term “essence” (hṛdaya, snying po, sometimes rendered “heart
mantra”) in its title identifies it as a mantra used in at least one
tradition of the practice of Aparimitāyus. The only other mention of
this mantra in the Kangyur appears to be in the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana, known best in Tibetan by its
shortened title sbyong rgyud (the
“Purification Tantra”), a tantra of the Yoga class, in which this same
mantra is given as the “essence vidyā-mantra” (hṛdayavidyā, snying po’i rig pa) of the tathāgata
Aparimitāyuḥpuṇyajñānasambhāratejorāja, the principal figure in a
secondary maṇḍala. What is confirmed by this mantra’s mention in
the tantra, as well as its presence as Toh 673a, is at the very least
that it is a potentially independent stand-alone mantra phrase, making
it easier to understand that it might have been either added or removed
at some stage in the evolving transmission of the dhāraṇī in the
sūtra.

Apart from the composition of the dhāraṇī, there are a few other
differences between Toh 674 and 675, mostly minor. Overall, the two
versions appear to be much more closely related than they would be if
they represented two different translations made entirely independently
of each other. Some of the minor textual differences between the present
version of the sūtra and Toh 674 are flagged in the notes, but among the
more significant are the following:

The Tibetan rendering of the longest form of the name
Aparimitāyurjñānasuviniścitatejorāja here (in Toh 675) is
tshe dang ye shes dpag tu med pa
shin tu rnam par gdon mi za ba’i rgyal po, while
in Toh 674 it is tshe dang ye shes
dpag tu med pa shin tu rnam par nges pa’i gzi brjid kyi
rgyal po.

(Aparimitaguṇasaṃcaya, “Accumulation of Immeasurable
Qualities”), but here in Toh 675 at the first mention of it (see

) it is just yon tan dpag tu med pa
(Aparimitaguṇa, “Immeasurable Qualities”).

Its second mention here in Toh 675 (see

), however, not only gives it
in full, as in Toh 674, but also prefixes it with the words
bde ba can, which can
be rendered as “blissful” but also as the realm name Sukhāvatī,
somewhat confusingly identifying this realm with that of the
“other” Amitāyus who is Amitābha, and perhaps confirming that
the conflation of these two buddhas (see above) occurred at an
early date in Tibet.

In the three paragraphs in which comparisons using
analogies are made of the amounts of merit to be obtained
through—in Toh 674—reciting the sūtra, here in Toh 675 (

,

, and

Finally, Toh 674 has a curious concluding line that is not present here in Toh 675:
in addition to the beings in the world being overjoyed and
rejoicing at the Buddha’s words, the Buddha himself is said to
be pleased or delighted (dgyes pa). This appears to be the result of the
Sanskrit āttamanās being translated twice, as descriptive
for both the world and the Buddha. The ending here in Toh 675
matches similar instances of this standard ending formula.

Differences in Origin and Transmission

In essence, the other, best-known, “three oṁ” version of the sūtra,
Toh 674, was brought to Tibet and translated in the later, post-imperial
period of transmission. The origins of the present “two oṁ” version are less
clear, but it is likely to represent sources known and translated in the
early, imperial period.

We have set out the evidence that the translation preserved in
the Kangyur of the “three oṁ” version (Toh 674) may be attributed to Puṇyasambhava
and Patsap Nyima Drak in the late eleventh or early twelfth century—a
widely accepted belief—in the introduction to that version of the text.
It is based primarily on a mention in the lineage record of
transmissions received by Minling Terchen Gyurme Dorje, mentions in
Tāranātha’s commentary to the sūtra, and the colophon appended to the
version of the text as reproduced in the Druptap Küntü (sgrub thabs kun btus), a collection of
sādhanas of the Sakya tradition compiled by Jamyang Loter Wangpo
(1847–1914). There is also evidence that other, later translations of
the “three oṁ”
version were made. Here we will concentrate in particular on what may
be inferred of the origins of the present, “two oṁ” version, Toh 675.

The available sources of information about the origins of the
two versions do not include the most usual ones for Kangyur texts,
colophons and Kangyur catalogs. There are no translators’ colophons to
either version of the text in any of the different Kangyurs. Most of the
Kangyur inventories and catalogs merely list the titles and distinguish
them using epithets such as “three oṁ” and “two oṁ,” or “long” and “short.” Some, including
the catalog of the Degé Kangyur, explicitly state that the translators
are unknown. The one exception is the catalog (dkar chag) of the Narthang
Kangyur, which appears to attribute both versions of the
sūtra to Puṇyasambhava and Patsap Nyima Drak. As well as being
inherently unlikely, this is at odds with all other sources of
information. A look at the folios of the catalog concerned reinforces
suspicions of an erroneous attribution, as the carving of the catalog’s
woodblocks seems to have run into problems for this entry, which
coincides with a folio break. Indeed, the Narthang catalog’s confusing
attributions at this point do not reflect the titles or colophons in the
body of the Narthang Kangyur itself.

Despite this dearth of direct canonical records, what we do know
is that at least one version of the sūtra was translated during the
early translation period. Firstly, both the early ninth century
inventories of translated texts, the Denkarma (ldan dkar ma) and Phangthangma (phang thang ma), mention, respectively, texts entitled
The Dhāraṇī of Aparimitāyus (tshe dpag tu med pa’i gzungs, 110 ślokas in length) and Aparimitāyus (tshe
dpag tu med pa, 120 ślokas), both probably referring to a version of this
text; in both inventories it is placed in the category “miscellaneous
long and short dhāraṇīs” (gzungs che phra sna
tshogs).

Secondly, very tangible evidence of the existence of
translations in the early period is provided by the very large number of
manuscript copies of the sūtra, in Tibetan, found among the Dunhuang
manuscripts, a large group of which can be dated to between 830 and
850, most having apparently been made on the orders of
King Ralpachen (r. 815–41)—presumably to create the meritorious results
that the text itself describes. Crucially, all the Dunhuang manuscripts
that we have been able to examine contain the “two oṁ” version of the
dhāraṇī. This fact, combined with the
evidence from Minling Terchen, makes it very likely that the present
version of the text, the “three oṁ” version, is the translation dating from
the later translation period, while Toh 675, the “two oṁ” version, is more
closely related to the one originally made in the early translation
period.

Thirdly, an early period translation of the “two oṁ” version is the target
of some openly dismissive remarks made in several works by later Sakya
scholars, including Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo and his disciple Kunga Lekrin
in the fifteenth century, and Amé Zhab Ngawang Kunga Sönam in the
seventeenth century. Both the latter authors discuss the various
theories raised to account for the existence of the two versions, and go
on to confirm the validity only of the later translation, The Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra (1), Toh 674.
Following a leading statement attributed by Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo to his
own teachers, they
are both scathingly critical of the “two oṁ” version, and of the “earlier
translators” responsible for it, whom they accuse of deliberately
omitting part of the dhāraṇī to express dissatisfaction with their
stipend. Such comments have to be seen in the context of arguments
regarding authenticity between proponents of the “late” versus the
“early” translation traditions (which concerned principally the tantras
rather than any of the other canonical genres), but they do at least
confirm that the “two oṁ” version of the text was widely recognized as having
been translated in the early, imperial period.

Debates About Difference and

Authenticity

The writings of Ngorchen, Kunga Lekrin, and Amé Zhab go to some
lengths to throw doubt on the authenticity of the “two oṁ” version, with Amé
Zhab’s, in particular, using arguments that in some cases refute points
made in favor of it by opponents in the debate who remain invisible and
unidentified. For apart from Tāranātha’s commentary, we have not been
able to find actual writings of the period defending the “two oṁ” version from the
disparagements of the authors mentioned, other than general notes by
catalog compilers to the effect that “both versions are authentic.” The
substance of such writings or statements can only be inferred, from
arguments put forward in order to neutralize them by those in favor of
the “three oṁ”
version. The following points represent the principal arguments that
these writers deploy to justify their unusually harsh judgment.

Absence of Indic source texts

Amé Zhab writes that Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo personally
examined three Sanskrit manuscripts of the sūtra, all of which were
the “three oṁ”
version, implying that there were no Sanskrit texts
attesting to the “two oṁ” version. While there is little doubt that the
“three oṁ”
version of the text is indeed authentic to its source, Ngorchen’s
claim that it is the only authentic version is
explicitly refuted and dismissed by Tāranātha, who in his commentary
says there were many Sanskrit manuscripts of both versions, and relates in his autobiography how, on a visit to
Narthang, he was himself shown several Sanskrit manuscripts of the
sūtra, of which one was clearly the “two oṁ” version.

From today’s perspective, no surviving Sanskrit versions of
the text from Tibet have been discovered, and the only known
Sanskrit manuscripts are Nepalese ones dating from much later
centuries. However, the veracity of Tāranātha’s report can be
indirectly confirmed by Sten Konow’s 1916 comparison of two
versions, one in Sanskrit based on Nepalese manuscripts and one a
Khotanese manuscript (probably centuries earlier) found in the
Dunhuang caves by Sir Aurel Stein. The Nepalese Sanskrit has the
“three oṁ”
version of the dhāraṇī while the Khotanese has the “two oṁ” version. Ngorchen and his successors were also presumably
unaware that in both of the two Chinese translations, too, the
dhāraṇī is the “two oṁ” version.

Different versions might refer to

different buddhas

The argument assumed here is based on the two more or less
distinct buddhas to whom the shortened name Amitāyus, or Tsepamé
(tshe dpag med) in Tibetan,
might refer. Tibetan authors took pains to distinguish between, on
the one hand, “Amitāyus of the zenith” (steng phyogs kyi tshe dpag med) and “Amitāyus of
Akaniṣṭha” (’og min gyi tshe dpag
med), both likely to be references to
Aparimitāyurjñāna; and on the other, “Amitāyus of Sukhāvatī”
(bde ba can gyi tshe dpag
med), also sometimes known as “Amitāyus of the Drum of
Immortality” (’chi med rnga sgra’i tshe
dpag med, Dundubhisvara-Amitāyus), both of whom can be
identified with Amitābha.

Conceivably, it could therefore be proposed that while one
version of the text described the existence of one of these buddhas
and the benefits to be obtained from remembering his name and
honoring him, the other might be legitimately different because it
focused instead on the other buddha. There are indeed some minor
differences between the two versions concerning the names used at
certain points in the text, as mentioned above at

. It is not clear who might have
used this notion as an explanation for the existence of variant
dhāraṇīs, but in any case both Kunga Lekrin and Amé Zhab are emphatic
in insisting that both versions are clearly focused on the tathāgata
Aparimitāyurjñāna, whose buddha realm is in the zenith.

One hundred and eight names are mentioned

in the sūtra itself

Both versions of the sūtra mention (in

,

, and

) that the benefits of an
increased lifespan will come to beings who hear, remember, or write
“the one hundred and eight names of Aparimitāyurjñāna.” Kunga
Lekrin and Amé Zhab
interpret the one hundred and eight names as a reference to the
dhāraṇī, the “three oṁ” version of which does indeed have 108 syllables if
the euphonic rules of Sanskrit are applied to elide the two
instances of final and initial a, or if the final svāhā is omitted. The “two oṁ” dhāraṇī, they point out, only has
seventy-seven syllables, is therefore incomplete, and must be
incorrect.

At first sight, this is perhaps the most convincing
argument in favor of the “three oṁ” version of the text. On closer
examination, however, some of its initial attractions seem less
clear. To see the dhāraṇī as comprising one hundred and eight names
requires a stretch of the imagination. The dhāraṇi contains
semantically coherent words and phrases of which few are
actual “names,” and even if all the many compound words are divided
into their irreducible units their number still remains less the
number of syllables. Of the many “hundred-and-eight-name” or
“hundred-name” texts to be found in the Kangyur and elsewhere, most actually do contain
distinct lists of names just as their titles suggest, and there do
not seem to be other instances of a dhāraṇī being referred to as a
“one-hundred-and-eight-syllable appellation,” as this phrase might
possibly be interpreted. Indeed,
Tāranātha points out in his commentary that to account
for the fact that the one hundred and eight names are also mentioned
in the “two oṁ”
version of the text we have to assume that it refers to a separate
text on the one hundred and eight names elsewhere. Such cases, he
says, are not unknown; he gives the example of the hundred names of
Śrī Heruka. In fact, however, no text enumerating the hundred and
eight names of Aparimitāyurjñāna appears ever to have been
identified.

From the perspective we can take today, historically and
geographically wider than was possible for those scholars, the
strength of this argument using the hundred and eight names to
promote the exclusive authenticity of the “three oṁ” version is much
diminished. That not only the Khotanese version (probably the oldest
manuscript of all) but also the many Dunhuang texts and both Chinese
translations all contain the “two oṁ” dhāraṇī, with its seventy-seven
syllables, yet still make mention of “one hundred and eight names”
adds considerable weight to Tāranātha’s inference that this is not
necessarily a reference to the dhāraṇī itself.

The longer dhāraṇī may include a phrase

added from elsewhere

Amé Zhab writes that
“certain later scholars” have claimed that the “two oṁ” version is
correct but that the dhāraṇī of the “three oṁ” version has been expanded by adding
to it the mantra of Aparimitāyus from the sbyong rgyud, i.e. the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana, a tantra, widely used for
funerary rites, of which there are two Tibetan translations in the
Kangyur made in the early and later translation periods, Toh 483 and
485 respectively.

It is true that in the “three oṁ” version the centrally placed phrase
starting “oṁ puṇye puṇye
mahāpuṇye…”—the phrase whose presence or absence marks
the difference between the dhāraṇīs of the two versions—is very
similar to a mantra found in the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana as the “essence” (hṛdaya, snying po) mantra in one of the secondary maṇḍalas in
the text, that of of a tathāgata whose full name is given as
Aparimitāyuḥpuṇyajñānasambhāratejorāja, but who is referred to
as Amitāyus in the several commentaries. This mantra is also
strikingly similar to the one introduced as the “essence” mantra of
Aparimitāyus in the very short text that precedes the two Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtras in most
Kangyurs, and of which we have published a translation under the
title
The
Essence of Aparimitāyus
(Toh 673a).

Amé Zhab, however, dismisses the argument as inadmissible,
writing that in the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana mantra the words āyuḥpuṇya and sarvacayaṃkari [sic] are found that
are not in the dhāraṇī of the “three oṁ” version; these scholars, he says,
have simply not consulted the tantra properly. But his objections,
valid though they presumably seemed from the copies of the relevant
books he had to hand, are more easily dispelled than sustained. The
first of the words he cites, āyuḥpuṇya, is present in one of the two only slightly
differing variants of the “three oṁ” dhāraṇī preserved in most Kangyurs,
the version in the Tantra Collection (rgyud ’bum), Toh 674. The second, sarvacayaṃkari, is indeed not in any version of the
present dhāraṇī but, even assuming that Amé Zhab had intended the
somewhat different spellings upacayakāriṇi or upacayakāraṇi actually found in the Sanskrit and
Tibetan respectively of the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana, it is present only in the
version of that tantra as translated in the later translation period
(Toh 485), and is absent in the earlier translation (Toh 483), which
reads oṁ puṇye puṇye mahāpuṇye
aparimita‑ayūḥpuṇya-jñāna-saṃbhāropacite svāhā.

In other words, a close relationship between this
Aparimitāyus mantra in the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana and the dhāraṇī of the “three
oṁ” version
of the sūtra does seem eminently possible, and would not seem
particularly surprising given the cross-text interrelationships
between mantras and dhāraṇīs of related buddhas and deities. It does
seem to suggest that the phrase in question could be a potentially
independent and detachable component of the dhāraṇī, but gives us no
particular hint as to whether it is more likely to have been added
to one version, or removed from another.

Differences and Mixture: Possible

Conclusions

The story of these two different versions may seem already
complex enough, but there is more to be explored. Apart from the
differences in the dhāraṇī, the other differences (listed above at

and in the notes) between the two
versions in the Kangyurs are relatively minor. These two translations
seem most unlikely to have been made independently, even allowing for
the possibility that the Sanskrit texts they were made from were very
similar. The most obvious explanation might be that the later
translation was based on the earlier, adapting it to conform to a
slightly different Sanskrit original. However, an examination of the
wording and terminology of the Dunhuang manuscripts—which predate the
work of Puṇyasambhava and Patsap Nyima Drak by several centuries—shows
that they almost certainly represent a Tibetan translation different
from the present “two oṁ” version (Toh 675) as it has survived in the Kangyur.
It is therefore tempting to conjecture that this “two oṁ” version in the
Kangyur might in fact be a back-adaptation of the later translation,
edited at some stage to conform to the alternative “two oṁ” dhāraṇī of the
earlier translation but not otherwise reflecting that earlier
translation fully. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that a few
significant elements of the later “three oṁ” version that are not present in the
“two oṁ” Dunhuang
manuscripts are present here. Among the most significant in this regard
is the similar rendering, common to both Kangyur versions, of what we
may presume to be the standard, modular phrase in the Sanskrit
manuscripts, eva hi tiṣṭhati dhriyate
yāpayati, as bzhugs so/ /tshe
’dzin cing tshe mthar phyin par bzhed de in

Whatever the case in this confusing blend of textual variation
and admixture, there is no single clinching argument in favor of
accepting one version over another. Both versions, surely, can be
considered authentic; and although the compilers and editors of the many
Kangyurs do not seem to have noted their reasons, there must have been
enough consensus on this point—despite all the controversies—for both to
have been preserved in all Kangyurs.

Sanskrit and Chinese Versions of the Text

There are many surviving manuscripts of the text in Sanskrit, but
none that can be reliably dated much before the early ninth century, the
period when it was first translated into Chinese, and probably into Tibetan
for the first time (see below). Most of the Sanskrit manuscripts are
Nepalese and are dated considerably later.

The oldest known Indic version of the text may be one from east
Turkestan in what came to be called “Khotanese,” the old Iranian dialect of
that region during the later period of the time when Buddhism was prevalent
there. It is written in the Upright Gupta script, and probably dates to the
seventh or eighth century. The manuscript was discovered in the Mogao caves
in Dunhuang by Sir Aurel Stein in 1907, and in 1912 Ernst Leumann made a
short comparison of the Sanskrit of this sūtra’s opening sentences with a
few fragments of the Khotanese text. In 1916, two Sanskrit editions saw the
light independently. One, by Sten Konow, compared an edition of a Nepalese
Sanskrit version with a complete edition of the Khotanese fragments, along
with the first English translation. The other, by Max Walleser, was based on
a Nepalese manuscript and included a German translation. Walleser’s German
translation has been translated into English by Richard K. Payne in his
paper on this sūtra. Jonathan Silk has made an English translation from
Walleser’s edition of the Sanskrit, and attests
in his unpublished paper, “The Most Important Buddhist Scripture? The Aparimitāyurjñāna and Medieval Buddhism,” to
the relatively large number of extant Sanskrit manuscripts—well over one
hundred—either in isolation or compilations, indicating how popular this
sūtra was in Buddhist practice.

As noted above, the Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts are all of the
“three oṁ” version of the
text, and therefore correspond more closely to version (1), Toh 674. The
Khotanese, on the other hand, contains the “two oṁ” version of the dhāranī throughout, and is
thus closer to the present version and to the many Dunhuang manuscripts in
Tibetan.

Two translations of the sūtra into Chinese were made, one by
Facheng (Taishō 936) in the early ninth century, and the other by Fatian
(Taishō 937) in the late tenth century. Both Chinese translations contain
the “two oṁ” dhāraṇī, and
are therefore closer to the Khotanese, the present Tibetan version of the
text, and the Dunhuang manuscripts than they are to the Nepalese Sanskrit
manuscripts and to version (1) in Tibetan, Toh 674.

The Sūtra in Buddhist Practice

As mentioned above in the overview of this introduction, recitation
of the Tsédo a specified number of times
has historically been—and is still nowadays—prescribed as a practice to
people in poor health or facing other difficulties, and to practitioners
more generally in order to ensure longevity, and so on. Recitation by the
monks or nuns in a monastery is also commissioned for the same reasons.
According to the Padma Kathang, the eighth
century Tibetan king, Trisong Detsen, was advised to recite this text daily
(along with the other works known as the “ten royal sūtras”), as a result of
which the king’s life is said to have been prolonged by thirteen years
beyond the limit predicted by astrological reckoning.

The sūtra itself particularly emphasizes the beneficial effects of
writing it out or causing it to be written out, and there is ample evidence
that this recommendation was taken seriously in the form of the very large
number of commissioned copies, mostly in Tibetan and Chinese and dating to
the eighth and ninth centuries, found in the Dunhuang caves by Stein and
Pelliot in the early years of the twentieth century. Many of them appear to
have been commissioned in the name of the Tibetan king Ralpachen, who
reigned in the early ninth century and was the grandson of Trisong Detsen.
Among the bundles acquired by the two explorers for the British and French
governments, there are over a thousand copies of the sūtra now in the
British Library in London, and a similar number in the Bibliothèque
Nationale in Paris. Some five hundred further copies remain in libraries in
China, many have found their way to Japan, and there are some two hundred in
St. Petersburg. As noted in

In the context of tantric practice, the Tibetan canonical literature
contains a number of sādhanas of Aparimitāyurjñāna, particularly among the
higher levels of tantra. One example is the liturgy composed by the
tenth-century Jetāri, one of the principal teachers of Vikramaśīla
Monastery, which was known for its promulgation of higher tantras. That
practice was introduced into Tibet by Bari Lotsāwa Rinchen Drak (mentioned
above), and thereby became a part of the Sakya tradition.

There are also five Aparimitāyurjñāna texts in the Tengyur that
were composed by Siddharājñī, a female guru active in India in the beginning
of the twelfth century, from whom Rechungpa, pupil of the famous Milarepa,
received transmissions that Marpa had not been able to bring back to Tibet.
At least three if not all of these Siddharājñī texts were translated into
Tibetan by Varacandra, another of Rechungpa’s teachers, together with
the Tibetan Lenchung Darma Tsultrim (glan chung
dar ma tshul khrims), about whom little is known other than
this translation work with Varacandra. Rechungpa introduced the practice
into Tibet, where it spread from his own lineage, the Rechung Kagyü or
Rechung Nyengyü, to other Kagyü traditions. These tantric Aparimitāyurjñāna
practices are based upon the five-family system of the higher tantras, and
they involve an elaborate visualization of oneself as a red
Aparimitāyurjñāna, wearing the saṃbhogakāya costume and holding a vase of amṛta, with an entourage of
deities within a palace, and the visualization of channels within the body.
As Aparimitāyurjñāna is auspicious for long life, his empowerment is given
as a long life blessing.

Within the indigenous Tibetan literature, a very large number of
Aparimitāyurjñāna sādhanas have been created over the centuries within all
the lineages and schools. The Nyingma tradition of rediscovered treasure
texts (gter ma), too, has
produced many Aparimitāyurjñāna revelations, from Nyangral Nyima Ozer
(nyang ral nyi ma ’od zer,
1136–1204) onward. The importance that Aparimitāyurjñāna assumed in tantric
practice may be one of the reasons why this Aparimitāyurjñānasūtra was classified within most Kangyurs as
a tantra rather than as a sūtra.

By far the most widely used version of the text for recitation in
recent times has been the other version (1), Toh 674 and 849, and within
that “three oṁ” version
it is the slightly different dhāraṇī of Toh 849 that most readers will find
corresponds to practice texts in use in Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and
Dharma centers. Nevertheless, the present “two oṁ” version has been preserved over the
centuries in all Kangyurs, too, and readers familiar with the Chinese
versions of the sūtra will find it more familiar than the other version. The
text in this version is mentioned little in the literature of recent
centuries but, interestingly, the Druptap Küntü collection, already
mentioned above, contains two liturgical texts, both composed by Jamyang
Khyentse Wangpo in the late nineteenth century, in which he specifies that
it is the “two oṁ”
dhāraṇī that is to be recited, both from the tradition brought to Tibet by
Rechungpa. One is a longevity practice of Four-Armed White Amitāyus,
extracted from the texts of Riwoche, and the other a White
Aparimitāyurjñāna sādhana from the lineage that Rechungpa received from
Siddharājñī.

We are delighted to have translated and published this version of
The Sūtra of Aparimitāyurjñāna, little
known yet present in all Kangyurs, in the hope that it will stimulate the
interest of both practitioners and scholars.

The Translation

The Noble Mahāyāna

Sūtra of Aparimitāyurjñāna

Homage to all
the buddhas and bodhisattvas.

Thus did I hear at one time. The Bhagavān was staying in Śrāvastī,
in the Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, with a great saṅgha of bhikṣus
comprised of 1,250 bhikṣus, and with a great number of bodhisattva
mahāsattvas.

Then the Bhagavān said to Mañjuśrī Kumārabhūta, “Mañjuśrī, in the
upward direction there is a universe named Aparimitaguṇasaṃcaya. There, the tathāgata, arhat, perfectly awakened
buddha Aparimitāyurjñānasuviniścitatejorāja
resides, and with the wish to sustain life and extend life to its very
limit, teaches the Dharma to beings.

“Listen, Mañjuśrī Kumārabhūta, the lives of humans in this
Jambudvīpa are short; their lifespan is no more than a hundred years, and
most of them are seen to have premature deaths. Mañjuśrī, those beings who will write
out or cause to be written out this Dharma discourse called ‘Uttering the
Praise of the Qualities of the Tathāgata Aparimitāyurjñāna,’
and even those who hear or recite its title only, up to those who write a
copy, keep it at home, and offer flowers, perfume, incense, and garlands to
it, will, when their
lifespan is ending, still be able to live to a hundred years.

“Mañjuśrī, the lifespan of beings who hear the one hundred and eight names of
the tathāgata Aparimitāyurjñānasuviniścitatejorāja will be lengthened.
Those beings whose lifespan is coming to an end, who keep those names, will also have their
lifespan lengthened.

“Therefore, Mañjuśrī, the noble sons or noble daughters who wish to
have long lives, and who hear, write, or cause to be written the one
hundred and eight names of the tathāgata Aparimitāyurjñāna,
will obtain these qualities and benefits.

oṁ

namo bhagavate
aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

“Mañjuśrī, those who write or cause to be written these one hundred
and eight names of the tathāgata, who make a
text of them, keep it at home, and recite it, when their lifespan is coming
to an end they will still be able to live to a hundred years. When they pass
away from this world, they will be reborn in the tathāgata
Aparimitāyurjñāna’s
blissful buddha realm named
Aparimitaguṇasaṃcaya.”

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Then at that time nine hundred ninety million buddhas, with a single
intention and a single voice, uttered this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Then at that time eight hundred forty million buddhas, with a single
intention and a single voice, uttered this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Then at that time seven hundred seventy million buddhas, with a
single intention and a single voice, uttered this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Then at that time six hundred fifty million buddhas, with a single
intention and a single voice, uttered this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Then at that time five hundred fifty million buddhas, with a single
intention and a single voice, uttered this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Then at that time four hundred fifty million buddhas, with a single
intention and a single voice, uttered this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Then at that time three hundred fifty million buddhas, with a single intention and a single voice,
uttered this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Then at that time two hundred fifty million buddhas, with a single
intention and a single voice, uttered this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Then at that time tens of millions of buddhas, as many as there are
grains of sand in ten Ganges Rivers, with a single intention and a single
voice, uttered this Aparimitāyurjñāna
Sūtra.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Whoever writes or causes to be written this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra, when their lifespan is coming to an
end, will still be able to live to a hundred years and their lifespan will
be lengthened.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Whoever writes or causes to be written this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra will never be born among hell beings,
in the womb of an animal, or in Yama’s realm. They will never have an
unfortunate rebirth. Wherever they are reborn, in each rebirth they will
remember their previous lifetimes.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre
svāhā |

Whoever writes or causes to be written this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra will cause the whole collection of
eighty-four thousand Dharma teachings to be written.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Whoever writes or causes to be written this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra will cause the practice and the
continuation of the whole collection of eighty-four thousand Dharma
teachings.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Whoever writes or causes to be written this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra will be purified of the five karmas
that have immediate result at death.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Whoever writes or causes to be written this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra will be purified of their accumulation
of bad karma, even if it is the size of Mount Sumeru.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Whoever writes or causes to be written this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra will be invulnerable to any harm that
Māra, Māra’s gods, yakṣas, or rākṣasas may seek to inflict.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

When whoever writes or causes to be written this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra dies, six hundred
ninety million
buddhas will give them prophecies directly, and a thousand buddhas will extend their hands to
them. They will go from buddha realm to buddha realm. Have no doubt,
hesitation, or uncertainty about this.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ puṇye puṇye mahāpuṇye
aparimitāyurpuṇya-jñāna saṃbhāropacite | oṁ
sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe
mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Whoever writes or causes to be written this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra will be followed by
the four Mahārājas, who will guard, protect, and hide them.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Whoever writes or causes to be written this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra will be reborn in the
world of Sukhāvatī, the buddha realm of the tathāgata
Amitābha.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Wherever this sūtra is written or caused to be written, that place will be a
stūpa and worthy of
veneration. Those birds and animals born in the animal realm who happen to
hear this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra will all
become perfectly awakened in the highest, most complete awakening.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Whoever writes or causes to be written this Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra will never be reborn
in a female state.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Whoever makes a gift of even a single kārṣāpaṇa coin with regard to this
Dharma discourse, the Aparimitāyurjñāna
Sūtra, will have made a gift of the whole trichiliocosm filled
with the seven jewels.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Whoever makes an offering to this Dharma discourse will comprehend the entirety of the good
Dharma.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

As a comparison, it is possible to calculate the extent of the
accumulation of merit that comes from making offerings of the seven jewels
to the tathāgatas Vipaśyin, Śikhin, Viśvabhu, Krakucchanda, Kakutsunda Kanakamuni, Kāśyapa,
Śākyamuni, and so on, but it is impossible to calculate the extent of the
accumulation of merit for Aparimitāyurjñāna.

As a comparison, it is possible to calculate the extent of the
accumulation of merit that comes from making a gift of a heap of jewels the
same as Sumeru, the king of mountains, but it is impossible to calculate the
extent of the accumulation of merit for Aparimitāyurjñāna.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

As a comparison, it is possible to count each drop that makes up
all the water in the four great oceans, but it is impossible to calculate
the extent of the accumulation of merit for Aparimitāyurjñāna.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

Whoever writes or causes to be written, honors, and makes offerings to this
Aparimitāyurjñāna Sūtra will have paid
homage and made offerings to all tathāgatas in all the buddha realms in the
ten directions.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

The Buddha has risen high through the power of
generosity,

The lion among men has realized the power of generosity,

And upon the compassionate one’s entry into his city

The resounding of the power of generosity is heard.

The Buddha has risen high through the power of good conduct,

The lion among men has realized the power of good conduct,

And upon the compassionate one’s entry into his city

The resounding of the power of good conduct is heard.

The Buddha has risen high through the power of patience,

The lion among men has realized the power of patience,

And upon the compassionate one’s entry into his city

The resounding of the power of patience is heard.

The Buddha has risen high through the power of diligence,

The lion among men has realized the power of diligence,

And upon the compassionate one’s entry into his city

The resounding of the power of diligence is heard.

The Buddha has risen high through the power of meditation,

The lion among men has realized the power of meditation,

And upon the compassionate one’s entry into his city

The resounding of the power of meditation is heard.

The Buddha has risen high through the power of wisdom,

The lion among men has realized the power of wisdom,

And upon the compassionate one’s entry into his city

The resounding of the power of wisdom is heard.

oṁ namo
bhagavate aparimitāyurjñāna-suviniścita-tejorājāya tathāgatāya arhate
samyaksaṃbuddhāya | tadyathā | oṁ sarva-saṃskāra-pariśuddha-dharmate
gagana-samudgate svabhāva-viśuddhe mahānaya-parivāre svāhā |

This is what the Bhagavān taught, and Mañjuśrī Kumārabhūta, the
complete assembly, and the world with its devas, humans, asuras, and
gandharvas were delighted and praised the Bhagavān’s words.

The Noble Mahāyāna
Sūtra of Aparimitāyurjñāna is concluded.

Notes

Bibliography

Source Texts

Sanskrit

Sanskrit Manuscript Scans

Sanskrit Online (transliteration)

Tibetan

The “Two oṁ” Version

The “Three oṁ” Version

Dunhuang Manuscripts

The Sūtra in Other Tibetan Collections

Related Texts

Kangyur

Tengyur

Other

Modern Sources

ten royal sūtras

Aparimitāyurjñānasuviniścitatejorāja
aparimitāyurjñānasuviniścitatejorāja
tshe dang ye shes
dpag tu med pa shin tu rnam par gdon mi za ba’i rgyal po
ཚེ་དང་ཡེ་ཤེས་དཔག་ཏུ་མེད་པ་ཤིན་ཏུ་རྣམ་པར་གདོན་མི་ཟ་བའི་རྒྱལ་པོ།
tshe dang ye shes
dpag tu med pa shin tu rnam par nges pa’i gzi brjid kyi rgyal
po
ཚེ་དང་ཡེ་ཤེས་དཔག་ཏུ་མེད་པ་ཤིན་ཏུ་རྣམ་པར་ངེས་པའི་གཟི་བརྗིད་ཀྱི་རྒྱལ་པོ།

Kunga Lekrin

Minling Terchen

Ngawang Kunga Sönam

Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo

Patsap Nyima Drak

Ralpachen

Rechungpa

ras chung pa
རས་ཆུང་པ།

Trisong Detsen