Issue

8th Issue (June, 2008)

Aṣtasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra:
Advanced Interpretationof Saddharma

Ng Yeow Foo
ngfoo@yahoo.com

Introduction

According to Edward Conze, the Prajñāpāramitā literature extended over 1,000 years and can be roughly divided into 4 phases of development:

1. The first phase consists of the elaboration of basic text (ca 100 BCE to 100 CE);
2. The second phase witnesses the expansion of the text into three or four lengthy treatises (ca 100 CE to 300 CE);
3. The third phase consists of the restatement of the teaching into few shorter sūtras.
4. The four phase is the period of Tantric influence where the text was condensed into dhāraṇīs and mantras.

Aṣtasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā (AP) which is rightly translated as ‘The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Line’ contained in 32 Chapters is the oldest Prajñāpāramitātext.

AP Sūtra is presented in two forms, one in verse and another in prose. The verse form of this Sūtra is handed down to us under the name of Prajñāpāramitā-Ratnaguṇasaṃcayagātha. It consists of 302 ‘Verses on the Perfection of Wisdom Which is the Storehouse of Precious Virtues’, in which the 41 verses of the first two chapters are opined by Conze (1978) as the original Prajñāpāramitā which may well go back to 100 B.C.[1] All others are just elaborations. The parts of AP in chapters 1-28 are considered early, and correspond to Chapters 1-2 of Ratnaguṇasaṃcayagātha, while chapters 29-32 of AP are obviously later than the remainder of the book[2] .

Being one of the earliest Mahāyāna sūtras, what then is the extent of its originality of Mahāyāna ideas? Is AP just a reinterpretation of early Buddhist teachings, or are there new things introduced in the early layers of the sūtras? To answer these questions, it is worthwhile to look at what have been discovered by the scholars like Edward Conze and Lewis R. Lancaster.

Prajñāpāramitā-Ratnaguṇasaṃcayagātha

The first two chapters of Ratnaguṇasaṃcayagātha, according to Edward Conze (i) introduce four new key terms; (ii) further develop certain ideas of the Hīnayānese; and (iii) indicate new source of teaching (Edward Conze thinks that this Sūtra assumes that all worth-while knowledge is due to revelation)[3] . The new key-terms are bodhisattva and mahāsattva, by which the newly developed Mahāyānese proclaiming its allegiance to a new type of saint, departing from the preceding conception of “Arhats”. Then, we have bodhiyāna which proclaims a new goal on a par with the full enlightenment of the Buddha; and sarvajñatām ca parigṛ̣hṇāti Śikṣamāno which means ‘and fully grasps the All-knowledge by this training’. This is where we sense the Buddha as omniscience, as distinct from that of other saints, leaning towards the Buddhological concept of the Mahāsāṃghikas. The fourth term, which is mentioned 11 times in the 41 verses of these two chapters - prajñavarapāramitāya caryā, is a Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit which means “the practice of wisdom, the highest perfection” as rightly translated by Conze[4] .

The new key-terms are to be found in the verse 16-23 of chapter 1, and the remainder of the two chapters with the doubtful exception of tathatā, is just simple reinstatement of the earlier Buddhist teachings. There are three topics which dominate the argument: (i) The all-important problem of self [where there is an emphasis on the achievement of the Bodhisattva who comprehends the dharmas as he should - “does not retire to into Blessed Rest. In wisdom he dwells.”, in contrast to a particular wanderer, Śereṇika who stopped short at the understanding of pudgalanairātmya (insubstantiality of being)]; (ii) Three aspects of the attitude a wise person should adopt towards all phenomena [namely aniketacāri, practice of non-apprehension (anupalabdhi), and treating all phenomena as illusory (māyā)]; (iii) Interpretation or rather reinterpretation of the higher stages of the Path. I would like to expand our discussion on the last topic of the argument particularly on definition of Nirvāṇa.

Meaning of Nirvāṇa

In chapter 1 verse 22 of Ratṇaguṇasaṃcayagātha, there is an explanation on the meaning of Nirvāṇa: “Thus transcending the world, he eludes our apprehensions. ‘He goes to Nirvāṇa,’ but no one can say where he went to. A fire’s extinguished, but where, do we ask, has it gone to? Likewise, how can we find him who has found the Rest of the Blessed?” Conze (1968) claims that there is nothing original about this, and he relates it to one of the best-known passages of Suttanipāta (vv. 1074, 1076) as just a variation of it[5] :

“‘Just as a flame tossed about by the force of the wind, Upasīva,’ said by the Blessed One, ‘goes out and no longer counts as a flame, so a sage released from his mental body goes out and no longer counts as a sage.’”
Sn.v.1074

“’There is no measuring of one who has gone out, Upasīva,’ said the Blessed One. ‘That no longer exists for him by which they might speak of him. When all phenomena have been removed, then all ways of speaking are also removed.’”
Sn.v.1076
However, interestingly, if we look at the AP itself, the chapter 2 (on “The Saints and Their Goal are Illusion”) speaks of Nirvāṇa even as a magical illusion, like a dream. And that various classes of saints, from Stream-winner to Buddhahood are also like a magical illusion, like a dream. Although it sounds like a metaphysical speculation, it may not be the case; it could be related to a meditative insight instead. And probably from this interpretation of Nirvāṇa, Nāgārjuna got his inspiration for expounding the teaching of Nirvāṇa and Saṃsāra as being the same [both are illusory, both are anutpāda (unarising)]. While the traditional meaning of Nirvāṇ̣a was kept intact, there seems to be a reasonable effort by the author of AP to break away from the final shackle of attachment, leaping into the realm of perfect wisdom.

Conception of Dharma-kāya and its changes within AP

According to Lancaster (1975)[6] , only in the later part of AP, there is the theory of the two bodies of the Buddha, the rūpa-kāya and the Dharma-kāya. From his study of the Lokakṣema text, the earliest ideas in Mahāyāna s³tras contain only one Buddha body. The body of the Buddha is described as bound by the chain of causation similar to all other physical bodies, but with the results of many lifetimes of meritorious act, there is a glorified and perfected rūpa-kāya. In the early translations of the AP, the conception of the abstract Dharma-kāya of the Buddha is absent, with one exception in the passage where Dharma-kāya is translated as “the collection of Buddha’s sūtras”. Hence, we can conclude that the earliest Mahāyāna ideas pertaining to the body of Buddha is nothing different from that of the Hīnayāna, at least according to the contents in the prajñāpāramitā texts.

Conze (1968) seems difficult to believe that the historical Buddha had actually preached these texts (perhaps by looking at the size of the texts itself). This of course has been ignored in the first two chapters of Ratnaguṇasaṃcayagātha, but to him it is necessary to think out a new Buddhology and introduce some kind of “direct transmission from mind to mind” that was effected by the doctrine of Dharma-kāya in the later part of the texts[7] .

Conclusion

It is the wondrously profound wisdom that will ‘ship’ one to the Other Shore that the AP is trying to ‘preach’ to its audience. It mediates the transition between the archaic Buddhist thought and the innovative novelty among those who were unsettled with the traditionally acclaimed Goal. Prajñāpāramitā texts themselves are very complicated, ‘perfumed’ with layers and layers of development over a 1,000 years long. It is essential to examine the earliest layers of the texts to analyse what had happened during the transition period. We see the preservation of some early Buddhist thoughts in this layer (traditional definition of Nirvāṇa and Dharma-kāya concept), while the efforts of introducing the new concepts have begun to find their way here. The change might be a result of being contended to meet the demands of the milieu for a ‘not so common’ Goal.

Editor’s Note

When a Mahāyāna Sūtra is enlarged, there is propensity among common Buddhist learners to conceive erroneously and accuse that the sūtra was fabricated. Such misinterpretation or mispresentation vanishes when a Buddhist learner apprehends that the ancient Indian religious philosophers advocated a religious tradition or norm of composing commentaries. These commentaries are further commented upon by sub-commentaries as further exegesis or elaborations to the original religious sūtra. Such ancient Indian commentarial literature civilization of composing commentaries after commentaries resulted in the production of voluminuous sūtras. The voluminuous exegetical literature are detailed exposition of what were spoken in brief by Śākyamuni Buddha. Without the aids of exegetical literature, the obstruse Word of the Tathāgata could not be easily comprehended. The development of ancient Vedas till the consummation of the Vedānta of ancient Brahminism and modern Hinduism bears convincing witness to this ancient Indian exegetical literature civilization.

The writer is currently working as a pharmacist in Singapore. He has a MA degree in Buddhist studies from the Post-graduate Institute of Pāli and Buddhist Studies of Kelaniya University, one of the eminent centres of Buddhist Studies in Sri Lanka.