Toh 310 — The Sūtra on Impermanence (2)

Anityatāsūtra

Translated by Charles DiSimone and Jin Kyoung Choi under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha

The Sūtra on Impermanence (2)

F.155.bRAS.60.a2TUL.46.a3PDP.222.b9Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas.^[1]

Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was staying in Śrāvastī, in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, along with a great community of monks numbering 1,250.^[2]

Then, the Blessed One addressed those monks: “Monks, all conditioned states are impermanent, uncertain, unreliable, subject to change. This being the case, monks, one should become disgusted with, indifferent to, not fixated upon,^[3] and liberated from all conditioned states.^[4]

“For all beings, all spirits, and all that draw breath, life indeed concludes with death, has its limit in death, F.156.a for there is nothing [PDP.223.a] that is born that will not die.

“Monks,^[5] those wealthy householder families, wealthy brahmin families, and wealthy warrior families who are of great wealth, of great affluence, having an abundance of jewels, rubies, pearls, beryl, conch shells, crystal, coral, [RAS.60.b] gold, silver, and luxuries; owning an abundance of treasuries and storerooms of money and grain; [TUL.46.b] having an abundance of male slaves, female slaves, servants,^[6] and laborers; and having an abundance of friends, counselors,^[7] relations, and relatives—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die.^[8]

“Monks,^[9] those consecrated kings and warriors, who have obtained strength^[10] and power through sovereignty over the people, who dwell having conquered the great circumference of the Earth—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die.

“Monks,^[11] those sages who are forest hermits, whose livelihood consists of fallen fruit,^[12] who eat fallen fruit, who are nourished by fallen fruit—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die.^[13]

“Monks,^[14] those gods of the realm of desire^[15]—the gods of the Heaven of the Four Great Kings, the gods of the Heaven of the Thirty-Three, the gods of Yāma Heaven, the gods of Tuṣita Heaven, the gods of the Heaven of Delightful Emanations, and the gods of the Heaven of Control of Enjoyments Created by Others—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die.

“Monks,^[16] those gods of the form realm^[17]—those who have obtained the first dhyāna, that is, those who attend Brahmā, those stationed before Brahmā, those in the assembly of Brahmā,^[18] and those Great Brahmā gods; [RAS.61.a] those who have obtained the second dhyāna, that is, those of limited radiance,F.156.b those of immeasurable radiance, and those who are radiant ones; those who have obtained the third dhyāna, that is, those of limited splendor, those of immeasurable splendor, and those of complete splendor; those who have obtained the fourth dhyāna, that is, those who are unclouded, those with abundant merit, those with great fruition, and those who have a nature that is free from perception; and those gods^[19] [of the Pure Abodes (śuddhāvāsa)], that is, those who are relatively not great, those without trouble, those of excellent appearance, those of excellent observation,^[20] and those who are highest—even for them [TUL.47.a] life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die.^[21]

“Monks,^[22] those gods of the formless realm^[23]—those gods belonging to the sphere of the infinity of space, those belonging to the sphere of the infinity of consciousness, those belonging to the sphere of nothingness, those belonging to the sphere of neither perception nor nonperception; even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die. These are the three worlds.^[24]

“Monks,^[25] those arhats, whose negative influences have been exhausted, who have fulfilled their duty, who have done what is to be done, who have laid aside their burdens, who have reached their own goals, those for whom the fetters of existence have been exhausted, whose minds have been completely liberated by proper, highest knowledge, those who have obtained the excellent perfection consisting of complete mastery of thought—even for them their pleasing^[26] bodies are subject to being given up.^[27]

“Monks,^[28] those pratyekabuddhas living alone like a rhinoceros, who live in crowds,^[29] who master themselves alone, who pacify themselves alone, who enter parinirvāṇa themselves alone—even for them their pleasing^[30] bodies are subject to being given up. [RAS.61.b]

“Monks,^[31] those tathāgatas,F.157.a arhats, complete and perfect buddhas, mighty with the ten powers, worthy of admiration, roaring a true lion’s roar, confident in the four confidences—confidence in ascending dharmas, confidence in all their teaching, confidence in comprehending the path to nirvāṇa, and confidence in their effort for the knowledge of exhausting negative influences^[32]—their bodies strong-limbed and firm like Nārāyaṇa—even for them their pleasing^[33] bodies are subject to being given up.

^[34]

“Monks, just as pots made by potters, [PDP.223.b] whether unfired or fired, are destroyed, conclude in destruction,^[35] it is exactly so, monks, for all beings, all spirits, and all that draw breath—[TUL.47.b] life indeed concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die.”

So said the Blessed One. After the Sugata said this, the Teacher spoke further:

“Alas, conditioned states are impermanent, subject to arising and decaying.

Having arisen, they are sure to be destroyed; happiness is to bring them to rest. [1]^[36]

“What joy, what pleasure is there in a conflagration?

You dwell having entered into darkness—why do you not seek for a lamp? [2]^[37]

“Just as clay pots that are made by the potter

All end in destruction, so it is with the lives of beings. [3]^[38]

“Just as ripe fruit is forever in danger of falling,

So it is with beings born of conditioned states—always afraid of death. [4]^[39]

“All that is accumulated is exhausted in the end; what is elevated falls in the end.

Unions end in separation; [RAS.62.a] life indeed concludes with death.” [5]^[40]

So said the Blessed One. The assembly was delighted, and those monks rejoiced at the speech of the Blessed One.^[41]

Here ends the noble “Sūtra on Impermanence.”

Notes

Sanskrit: “Oṃ, homage to the Omniscient One.”
back
Both the great community of monks and their number is omitted in Tibetan. The Chinese reads 1,250: 千二百五十人, while the Sanskrit variously reads 1,300 or 1,250 in the Nepalese and Potala transmissions, respectively. It seems that at some point there was a corruption in the Sanskrit transmission where the number diverged from the Chinese, and I have emended the Sanskrit edition to follow the Chinese and CTRC: mahatā bhikṣusaṃghena sārddhan ‹ardha›trayodaśabhir bhikṣuśataiḥ. Interestingly, the great community of monks is included in the other Anityatāsūtra preserved in the Kangyur, Toh 309, which shares the same opening frame narrative reading: dge slong gi dge ’dun chen po dang thabs cig tu.
back
Sanskrit omits.
back
Cf. MPS 48.14; NidSa 7.3,4; DN II 198.18–23; SN II 178; and SN III 147.
back
Tibetan omits.
back
Tibetan omits.
back
Tibetan omits.
back
Tibetan reads “even for them life concludes in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die” (gson pa’i mtha’ yang ’chi bar ’gyur ba ste/ skye nas ’chi bar mi ’gyur ba med do).
back
Tibetan omits.
back
Tibetan omits.
back
Tibetan omits.
back
Referring to fruit harvested from the ground, i.e., not cultivated through agriculture. Skt. carries the sense of plucked, released, i.e., fallen. Tib. carries the sense of fruit already on the ground.
back
Tibetan reads “even for them life concludes in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die” (gson pa’i mtha’ yang ’chi bar ’gyur ba ste/ skye nas ’chi bar mi ’gyur ba med do).
back
Tibetan omits.
back
kāmāvacarāḥ (gods of the realm of desire) is omitted in Tibetan but necessary in context with the next two sections, which go on to elaborate the certain death of gods in the form realm and the formless realm.
back
Tibetan omits.
back
Literally “those gods possessing form.”
back
Tibetan omits.
back
Tibetan omits.
back
The Tibetan switches the order of sudṛśa and sudarśana, reading shin tu mthong ba dang | gya nom snang dang. Note: this is the case in the translated passage in note 39.
back
The Tibetan in this section treats each consecutive level of the form realm deities as its own paragraph with the requisite introductory phrase and the running refrain of the sūtra (“Those … even for them life concludes with death…”). Degé contains all four sections, 1.8a–d, but Peking omits 1.8a & b. This fourfold way of interpreting this passage is not ideal as it conflates the gods of the Pure Abodes into the enumeration of the gods of the fourth dhyāna as can be seen in 1.8d below. The translation of the Tibetan (Degé) is: 1.8a “Those gods of the form realm who have obtained the first dhyāna—those who attend Brahmā, those stationed before Brahmā, and those Great Brahmā gods—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die.1.8b “Those gods who have obtained the second dhyāna—those of limited radiance, F.156.b those of immeasurable radiance, and those who are radiant—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die.1.8c “Those gods who have obtained the third dhyāna—those of limited splendor, those of immeasurable splendor, and those of complete splendor—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die.1.8d “Those gods who have obtained the fourth dhyāna—those who are unclouded, those with abundant merit, those with great fruition, those who have a nature that is free from perception, and [those gods of the Pure Abodes]: those who are relatively not great, those without trouble, those of excellent appearance, those of excellent observation, and those who are highest—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die.”
back
Tibetan omits.
back
Literally “those gods without form.”
back
Sanskrit: traidhātukam idam. This sentence is omitted in the Tibetan.
back
Tibetan omits.
back
Tibetan: yid du ’ong ba. This is not present in any Sanskrit witness where only kāya (“body”) is mentioned and is also omitted in Chinese.
back
That is, subject to death.
back
Tibetan omits.
back
tshogs na spyod pa (vargacārin), omitted in all Sanskrit witnesses and Chinese. This is the second, less famous but more gregarious, of the two classes of pratyekabuddha.
back
Again, “pleasing” is only found in the Tibetan and is missing from both the Sanskrit and Chinese. See #UT22084-072-010-76.
back
Tibetan omits.
back
āśravajñānaprahāṇavaiśāradyam. A less precise translation would be “confidence in their knowledge of the abandonment of negative influences.” This is a problematic phrase within this interpretation of the caturvaiśāradya that is unique to The Sūtra on Impermanence. The equivalent in the standard list of the four confidences would be sarvāśravakṣayajñānavaiśāradyam (s.v. this entry in Mvy 130 (S. 132)), “confidence in the knowledge of exhausting negative influences,” which seems to be the intended meaning of āśravajñānaprahāṇavaiśāradyam. However, prahāṇa in Sanskrit Buddhist literature generally, and in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, is not related to the Sanskrit term prahāṇa (“abandonment”), but rather the Pali term padhāna (“effort”), an important technical term. It seems that whoever added this explanation of the four confidences in the Sanskrit transmission of The Sūtra on Impermanence conflated the correct BHS usage of prahāṇa for the standard Sanskrit usage. This may bolster the conclusion we take from the manuscript evidence that these four terms laying out the four confidences were possibly later additions to the text.
back
Once again, “pleasing” is only found in the Tibetan and is missing from both the Sanskrit and Chinese. See #UT22084-072-010-77 and #UT22084-072-010-84.
back
The order of the description of buddhas is slightly different between the Sanskrit and Tibetan, and the Sanskrit adds a passage laying out the four confidences. It seems that this was a later addition in an effort to make the four confidences clearer to the reader. Interestingly, the explanation provided in the Sanskrit is a unique list that differs in wording from the four confidences. See the noted discussion on caturvaiśāradyaviśaradā in #UT22084-072-010-285 of the Sanskrit critical edition (note #UT22084-072-010-292). The translation of the Tibetan (Degé) is: 1.12 “Those tathāgatas, F.157.a arhats, complete and perfect buddhas, mighty with the ten powers, confident in the four confidences, worthy of admiration, their bodies strong-limbed and firm like Nārāyaṇa, roaring a true lion’s roar—even for them their pleasing bodies are subject to being given up.”
back
This analogy of the unavoidable destruction of pots, which makes up the first half of this section, is omitted in the Peking and Choné Kangyurs.
back
UV 1.3.
back
UV 1.4. This verse is not present in the Sanskrit witnesses.
back
UV 1.12 (with slight differences). This verse is not present in the Tibetan.
back
UV 1.11 (with slight differences). This verse is not present in the Tibetan.
back
UV 1.22 (with very slight differences). This verse is not present in the Tibetan.
back
This conclusion to the narrative frame is shared verbatim in the other Anityatāsūtra translation in the Degé Kangyur, Toh 309.
back

Предыдущая сутта Следующая сутта