{"id":1603,"date":"2017-09-07T23:53:12","date_gmt":"2017-09-07T23:53:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/?p=1603"},"modified":"2017-09-07T23:53:12","modified_gmt":"2017-09-07T23:53:12","slug":"the-three-natures-in-the-pancasatika-prajnaparamita","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/the-three-natures-in-the-pancasatika-prajnaparamita\/","title":{"rendered":"The Three Natures in the Pa\u00f1ca\u015batik\u0101 Praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Pa\u00f1ca\u015batik\u0101 Praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101 <\/em>s\u016btra, the s\u016btra on Perfection of Wisdom in Five Hundred Lines<\/em>, when describing the aggregates, etc., uses three terms that apparently refer to the three natures (svabh\u0101va<\/em>) taught in Yog\u0101c\u0101ra texts. As a Praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101 s\u016btra, it would be part of the second promulgation of the Dharma, while the s\u016btras behind the Yog\u0101c\u0101ra texts are part of the third promulgation of the Dharma. Because of this, the Tibetan teacher Dolpopa regarded the Pa\u00f1ca\u015batik\u0101 Praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101<\/em> as a text of definitive meaning (n\u012bt\u0101rtha<\/em>), and characterized it as one of the Buddha\u2019s own auto-commentaries (rang ‘grel<\/em>\u2005) on the extensive Praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101 s\u016btras. Dolpopa taught that the Praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101 s\u016btras should be understood by way of the three natures found in these \u201cauto-commentaries.\u201d However, one of the three terms used in the Pa\u00f1ca\u015batik\u0101 Praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101<\/em> in its Tibetan translation does not seem to fit well as referring to the three natures. The original Sanskrit text was long lost, and with no Indian commentary to consult even in Tibetan translation, there was no way to determine what was actually meant by this term. Fortunately, the Sanskrit original was recovered in Tibet and published in 2016 as number 20 of the important series, Sanskrit Texts from the Tibetan Autonomous Region.1 <\/sup><\/p>\n

The three terms in the Tibetan translation of the Pa\u00f1ca\u015batik\u0101 Praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101<\/em>, near the beginning, are dngos po med pa<\/em>, dngos po ngan pa<\/em>, and dngos po yod pa<\/em>, translated by Edward Conze in 1973 as \u201cnon-existence,\u201d \u201ca poorish kind of existence,\u201d and \u201cexistence,\u201d and translated by Cyrus Stearns in 2010 as \u201cnonexistent,\u201d \u201can inferior existence,\u201d and \u201cexistent.\u201d2<\/sup> These are supposed to correspond to the three natures: the imagined (parikalpita, kun brtags<\/em>), the dependent (paratantra, gzhan dbang<\/em>), and the perfect (parini\u1e63panna, yongs grub<\/em>). As may be seen, the second term in the Pa\u00f1ca\u015batik\u0101 Praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101<\/em>, dngos po ngan pa<\/em>, \u201ca poorish kind of existence,\u201d or \u201can inferior existence,\u201d does not seem to fit well in this scheme. Yet these English terms are fully accurate translations of the Tibetan term. With the Sanskrit now available, we can see what happened. The three Sanskrit terms are: abh\u0101va<\/em>, \u201cnon-existent,\u201d n\u00e2bh\u0101va <\/em>(na abh\u0101va<\/em>), \u201cnot non-existent,\u201d and sad-bh\u0101va<\/em>, \u201ctruly existent.\u201d3<\/sup> These correspond well to the three natures taught in Yog\u0101c\u0101ra texts: the imagined, the dependent, and the perfect.<\/p>\n

The Tibetan translator, perhaps to avoid the double negative that is in the Sanskrit, na abh\u0101va<\/em>, \u201cnot non-existent,\u201d chose dngos po ngan pa<\/em> to translate this second term, ostensibly \u201ca poorish kind of existence,\u201d or \u201can inferior existence.\u201d The common meaning of ngan pa<\/em> is indeed \u201cpoorish\u201d or \u201cinferior,\u201d as Conze and Stearns translated it. However, here the Tibetan translator apparently intended one of the uncommon meanings of ngan pa<\/em>, namely, asat<\/em>, \u201cnot true,\u201d thus yielding \u201cnot truly existent\u201d in contrast with the third term, \u201ctruly existent.\u201d This meaning of ngan pa<\/em> as asat<\/em> can be found in the Bodhisattvabh\u016bmi<\/em> (Nalinaksha Dutt edition, 1966, p. 98): asat-sa\u1e43kath\u0101<\/em>, ngan pa’i gtam<\/em>, \u201cuntrue conversation.\u201d Another example of this meaning can be found in the J\u0101takam\u0101l\u0101<\/em> (P. L. Vaidya edition, 1959, p. 159): asad-d\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6di\u1e25<\/em>, lta ba ngan pa<\/em>, \u201cfalse view.\u201d4<\/sup><\/p>\n

With the help of the original Sanskrit, we can now see that these three terms in the Pa\u00f1ca\u015batik\u0101 Praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101<\/em> do in fact correspond well to the three natures taught in Yog\u0101c\u0101ra texts. Three other terms that apparently refer to the three natures taught in Yog\u0101c\u0101ra texts are used in another Praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101 text that Dolpopo regarded as being of definitive meaning (n\u012bt\u0101rtha<\/em>), and that he characterized as one of the Buddha\u2019s own auto-commentaries (rang ‘grel<\/em>\u2005) on the extensive Praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101 s\u016btras. The Maitreya Parip\u1e5bcch\u0101<\/em> or \u201cQuestions of Maitreya\u201d chapter of the Praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101 s\u016btras in 25,000 and 18,000 lines, when describing the aggregates, etc., uses parikalpita<\/em>, \u201cimagined,\u201d vikalpita<\/em>, \u201cconceptually differentiated,\u201d and dharmat\u0101<\/em>, \u201ctrue nature\u201d (Tibetan kun brtags pa<\/em>, rnam par brtags pa<\/em>, and chos nyid<\/em>\u2005). These, too, correspond well to the three natures: the imagined, the dependent, and the perfect.<\/p>\n

An extensive commentary on all three of the large Praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101 s\u016btras, those in 100,000 lines, 25,000 lines, and 18,000 lines, directly equates the three natures taught in Yog\u0101c\u0101ra texts with the three terms found in the \u201cQuestions of Maitreya\u201d chapter, and uses these terms throughout in its explanations.5<\/sup> Dolpopa drew heavily upon this commentary, called in short the B\u1e5bhat-\u1e6d\u012bk\u0101<\/em>, \u201cLarge Commentary,\u201d and known in Tibet as the Yum gsum gnod ‘joms<\/em>, \u201cDestruction of Objections to the Three Mother S\u016btras.\u201d6<\/sup> Most of Tibetan tradition, including Bu-ston who edited the Tengyur, regarded it as being written by the early Indian teacher Vasubandhu, famous for his Yog\u0101c\u0101ra treatises. Tsongkhapa, however, held that it was written by the much later writer Da\u1e43\u1e63\u1e6dr\u0101sena, because it included some late references. It is of course possible that Da\u1e43\u1e63\u1e6dr\u0101sena merely added some things to the earlier text by Vasubandhu. In any case, the method of understanding the Praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101 s\u016btras by way of the three natures taught in Yog\u0101c\u0101ra texts goes back at least to Dign\u0101ga, who is traditionally regarded as a direct disciple of Vasubandhu. Dign\u0101ga wrote in his Praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101-pi\u1e47\u1e0d\u0101rtha<\/em>, verses 27-29:7<\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101y\u0101\u1e43 hi tr\u012bn sam\u0101\u015britya de\u015ban\u0101 |
\nkalpita\u1e43 paratantra\u1e43 ca parini\u1e63pannam eva ca || 27 ||<\/p>\n

The teaching in the Perfection of Wisdom is based on three:
\nthe imagined, the dependent, and the perfect.<\/p>\n

n\u00e2st\u00eety-\u0101di-padai\u1e25 sarva\u1e43 kalpita\u1e43 viniv\u0101ryate |
\nm\u0101y\u00f4pam\u00e2di-d\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6d\u0101ntai\u1e25 paratantrasya de\u015ban\u0101 || 28 ||<\/p>\n

By the words, \u201cdoes not exist,\u201d etc., all the imagined is refuted.
\nBy the examples, like an illusion, etc., the teaching of the dependent [is given].<\/p>\n

caturdh\u0101 vyavad\u0101nena parini\u1e63panna-k\u012brtanam |
\npraj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101y\u0101\u1e43 hi n\u00e2ny\u0101 buddhasya de\u015ban\u0101 || 29 ||<\/p>\n

By the fourfold purification, the perfect is taught.
\nFor in the Perfection of Wisdom there is no other teaching of the Buddha.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Dolpopa, then, was not innovating when he advocated understanding the Praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101 s\u016btras by way of the three natures taught in Yog\u0101c\u0101ra texts. He was merely following a much older Indian tradition. This led him to find correspondences to these three natures in the Praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101 s\u016btras themselves, such as the Pa\u00f1ca\u015batik\u0101 Praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101<\/em>. He quoted the whole opening section of this s\u016btra at the beginning of his concise text, Ngo sprod khyad ‘phags<\/em>, \u201cExceptional Introduction.\u201d8<\/sup> He then equated its three terms with the three natures taught in Yog\u0101c\u0101ra texts. He said the same thing, again equating its three terms with the three natures, in his Autocommentary to the \u201cFourth Council\u201d<\/em>.9<\/sup> Thus, the Pa\u00f1ca\u015batik\u0101 Praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101<\/em> with its three terms corresponding to the three natures was regarded by Dolpopa as a text of considerable importance for understanding the Praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101 s\u016btras.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Notes<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Pa\u00f1ca\u015batik\u0101 Praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101: Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts<\/em>, critically edited by Li Xuezhu and Fujita Yoshimichi. Beijing: China Tibetology Publishing House, and Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2016.<\/li>\n
  2. \u201cThe Perfection of Wisdom in 500 Lines,\u201d in The Short<\/em> Praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101<\/em> Texts<\/em>, translated by Edward Conze (London: Luzac & Company, 1973), p. 108. Relevant sentence quoted by Cyrus Stearns in The Buddha from D\u00f6lpo: A Study of the Life and Thought of the Tibetan Master D\u00f6lpopa Sherab Gyaltsen<\/em> (Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications, 2010), p. 101, with reference to Dolpopa\u2019s comment on it in his Autocommentary to the \u201cFourth Council\u201d<\/em>, p. 233. In the 1999 first edition this quotation is on pp. 96-97, and the three terms are translated as: \u201ca nonexistent entity, a base entity, and an existent entity.\u201d<\/li>\n
  3. These three terms first describe the neuter word r\u016bpam<\/em>, \u201cform\u201d (p. 1), so according to their masculine gender they would be nouns rather than adjectives; e.g., \u201cnon-existence\u201d rather than \u201cnon-existent.\u201d However, to call form \u201cnon-existence\u201d does not make sense to me. So bh\u0101va<\/em> is probably used here as the noun, \u201can existent\u201d (an existing thing). The sentence, then, would say: \u201cform is a non-existent, not a non-existent, and a truly existent.\u201d This is rather awkward English. I think the same idea is conveyed by translating these terms as if they were adjectives: \u201cform is non-existent, not non-existent, and truly existent.\u201d This is what I have done, even though it is not a literally accurate translation.<\/li>\n
  4. These examples are found in J. S. Negi, Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary<\/em>, Sarnath, Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, vol. 3, 1995. I have only added the English translations.<\/li>\n
  5. \u0100rya-\u015bata-s\u0101hasrik\u0101-pa\u00f1cavi\u1e43\u015bati-s\u0101hasrik\u00e2\u1e63\u1e6d\u0101da\u015ba-s\u0101hasrik\u0101-praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101-b\u1e5bha\u1e6d-\u1e6d\u012bk\u0101<\/em>.<\/li>\n
  6. For the English translation of this title, I follow Stearns, 2010 (see note 2 above), p. 97.<\/li>\n
  7. The original Sanskrit was first edited by Giuseppe Tucci and published in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society<\/em> in 1947, which I have scanned and posted here: http:\/\/www.downloads.prajnaquest.fr\/BookofDzyan\/Sanskrit%20Buddhist%20Texts\/prajnaparamita_pindartha_1947.pdf. It was published again in 1959 by Erich Frauwallner in the Wiener Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die Kunde S\u00fcd- und Ostasiens<\/em> in 1959, which I have scanned and posted here: http:\/\/www.downloads.prajnaquest.fr\/BookofDzyan\/Sanskrit%20Buddhist%20Texts\/prajnaparamita_pindartha_1959.pdf. Although Tucci also included an English translation, I have here re-translated these verses more literally.<\/li>\n
  8. The Ngo sprod khyad ‘phags<\/em> is found in volume 12 of the 13-volume modern typeset edition of the collected writings of Dolpopa, pp. 40-52 (jo nang kun mkhyen dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan gyi gsung ‘bum<\/em>, [Beijing:] krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang, 2011). For the English translation of this title, \u201cExceptional Introduction,\u201d I follow Stearns, 2010 (see note 2 above), p. 422. Matthew Kapstein describes it as: \u201cAn \u2018introduction\u2019 (ngo-sprod\u2005<\/em>) to the ultimate and definitive significance (nges-don mthar-thug<\/em>) of the doctrine.\u201d (The ‘Dzam-thang Edition of the Collected Works of Kun-mkhyen Dol-po-pa Shes-rab Rgyal-mtshan: Introduction and Catalogue<\/em>, p. 66. Delhi: Shedrup Books, 1992). The opening section of this s\u016btra that Dolpopa quoted (pp. 40-43) corresponds to the Sanskrit edition (see note 1 above), sections 1 and 2, pp. 1-4.<\/li>\n
  9. Translated by Stearns, 2010 (see note 2 above), p. 233, and quoted by him on p. 101. In the 1999 first edition this is quoted on p. 96.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The Pa\u00f1ca\u015batik\u0101 Praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101 s\u016btra, the s\u016btra on Perfection of Wisdom in Five Hundred Lines, when describing the aggregates, etc., uses three terms that apparently refer to the three natures (svabh\u0101va) taught in Yog\u0101c\u0101ra texts. As a Praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101 s\u016btra, it would be part of the second promulgation of the Dharma, while the s\u016btras behind the Yog\u0101c\u0101ra […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1603","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1603","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1603"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1603\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1605,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1603\/revisions\/1605"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1603"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1603"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1603"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}