Pracjnaparamita in 25,000 lines

[Leo Rivers]

My general impression is that the Pancavimsatisahasrika-prajnaparamita-sutra is the "standard edition" of this collection of materials, the one that outlines reference, and the one that lay behind the Nagarjuna shastra.

My further impression is that Conze's long 100,000 version is a constructiced hybrid. I have aways had a high impression of him but I have heard people actually hiss at this.

Is the Pancavimsatisahasrika-prajnaparamita-sutra available in english somewhere?

And does it include the Wisdom chapter?


(Side note: that new interview with Paul Williams is, ahem, a Revelation....)

[Malcolm]

My general impression is that the Pancavimsatisahasrika-prajnaparamita-sutra is the "standard edition" of this collection of materials, the one that outlines reference, and the one that lay behind the Nagarjuna shastra.

My further impression is that Conze's long 100,000 version is a constructiced hybrid. I have aways had a high impression of him but I have heard people actually hiss at this.

Is the Pancavimsatisahasrika-prajnaparamita-sutra available in english somewhere?

And does it include the Wisdom chapter?


(Side note: that new interview with Paul Williams is, ahem, a Revelation....)

The answer, Leo, is no, not yet.

Conzes "Large Sutra" thus is an abridgement of the 18,000 and 25,000 line version. Conze's book is a construction from the 18,000 and 25,000 line version with some comparisons to the 100,000 line version.

There are basically two versions of the 25,000 line sutra: the unarranged version that lacks the headings of the Abhisamaya-alaṃkara and the collated version that possesses the topic headings of the AA.

[Anders]

ven. Huifeng to thread?

(Side note: that new interview with Paul Williams is, ahem, a Revelation....)

Do you have a link for this?

[Leo Rivers]

Anders asked

Do you have a link for this?

Here it is

Paul Williams critique of Pure Land] http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=10129&p=127952&hilit=Paul+Williams#p127952

Paul: I have spoken about Pure Land in my ‘Unexpected Way’ book ..... The Buddha Nature in Pure Land, and/or Amitabha Buddha in Pure Land, are not the Creator God we as Christians depend on for our very being, and worship, ..... More importantly, I consider Pure Land is built on a myth (i.e. ‘myth’ in a sense including historical falsehood – ..... I have no reason to accept the existence of Amitabha Buddha, whereas I do consider there are excellent reasons to accept the existence of God, and of course Our Lord was certainly a historical figure, as was the crucifixion and, for me, the resurrection. I deal with all of this in my ‘Unexpected Way’.

And folksplease reference the full quote for an accurate, fair and balanced, perspective on this man's opinions.

I am myself open to criticism in my beliefs as a Buddhist because I am an atheist and do not believe in reincarnation or see it as necessary, even though the Buddha himself obviously did. The question of how different a place we come from and its impact on scholarly objectivity is HUGE.

But please let's talk about the Prajnaparamita in 25,000 lines some,...

[Leo Rivers]

There are basically two versions of the 25,000 line sutra: the unarranged version that lacks the headings of the Abhisamaya-alaṃkara and the collated version that possesses the topic headings of the AA.

Am I to expect that the

the unarranged version

is the version to see as more original in spirit and text, then?

[Malcolm]

There are basically two versions of the 25,000 line sutra: the unarranged version that lacks the headings of the Abhisamaya-alaṃkara and the collated version that possesses the topic headings of the AA.

Am I to expect that the

the unarranged version

is the version to see as more original in spirit and text, then?

They are more or less identical. The headings of the AA merely show how the text was read after Ārya Vimuktisena's seminal AA commentary based on the PP in 25,000 lines was written.

[Huifeng]

My general impression is that the Pancavimsatisahasrika-prajnaparamita-sutra is the "standard edition" of this collection of materials, the one that outlines reference, and the one that lay behind the Nagarjuna shastra.

Depends what one means by "standard". For a start, the present Sanskrit text is later than the Chinese translations, as the Sanskrit text continued to change after that. And there were always several slightly different versions of the text.

Moreover, due to the present view of the textual history of the Prajnaparamita genre, the so-called Pancavimsati (actually, this name is a later name) is not the basic text. The smaller text (such as the so-called Astasahasrika and parallels) is the basic text, from which the Pancavimsati and others expanded.

Nagarjuna's (or whoever the author was) was based on a parallel text, but before the present so-called Pancavimsati.

My further impression is that Conze's long 100,000 version is a constructiced hybrid. I have aways had a high impression of him but I have heard people actually hiss at this.

Conze never did the 100,000, his "Large Sutra" is based on the Pancavimsati and Astadasa, as he states very clearly in his Preface. Philologically speaking, this is somewhat of a travesty, because he is not translating any actual text, but making a composite. It is what is called a "text that never was". (Though, not as bad as Hixon...)

Is the Pancavimsatisahasrika-prajnaparamita-sutra available in english somewhere?

Conze's Frankenstein translation is the closest thing we have. Except for the first three chapters in Zacchetti's book, and the parts of the start of the Upadesa from Lamotte, Dharmamitra / Kalavinka, and others. (And the first 40% of it in draft from Chinese sitting on my hard drive! Won't be seeing the light of day for some years, believe me!)

And does it include the Wisdom chapter?

Which chapter is that, specifically? Vidya?

(Side note: that new interview with Paul Williams is, ahem, a Revelation....)

??

~~ Huifeng

[Huifeng]

You may want to check out this old old article on my Prajnacara Blog:

http://prajnacara.blogspot.tw/2008/10/s ... sutra.html

For older equivalents to the Pancavimsati:
T222 –《光讚般若經》Guangzan Banruo Jing
T221 –《放光般若經》Fangguang Banruo Jing
T223 –《摩訶般若經》Mohe Banruo Jing

Regarding "standard text", maybe this:
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SŪTRAS:

Ugh, flipping through this, haha, not my best...

~~ Huifeng

[Leo Rivers]

I've been away, a belated THANKS Prof. Huifeng .

Vasbandhu's commentary on the Lotus Sutra uses a later-date expanded Sanskrit text. But humorously, the Chinese translators of his shastra swap the earlier beloved Kumarajiva version's text for the Sanskrit text Vasubandhu was using when dubbing in the Lotus Sutra quotes in the process of translating it.

And the remark about Paul Williams was in reference to an interview in which he voiced his powerful Christian convictions. It is the manner of his assertions more than his convictions that somewhat caught my attention. But due diligence is in order, I have my own biases that may make me too sensitive to this.