The Vajracchedikā-sūtra with gāthās compiled by Master Fu - Evertype

U 2300 (T I D)
[My Lord, whose name is exalted, they do] not [understand the explanation by Tathāgata]. If one asks,
‘Why?’ [The Buddha, god of gods, has deigned that a view of self,] a view [of a person,] a view of a
human being, [a view of] a life is not [a view of self, a view of person,] a view of human being and a
view of a life. […a view of self, a view of person,] a view of [human being] and a view of a life […]
[…] the explanation 186 [… …]
[Twenty second part:] [From its mark] it is not true and truthful 187
[Subhūti, if whoever any person during a countless, innumerable asaṃkhya] period fills the [world
with seven jewels and gave them as alms, and again] a son of nobles or daughter of nobles [raises]
U 2675 (T II M) + U 3591 + U 2248
a bodhisattva [mind …] divide the […] understand in detail and as accepted […] If writes an amuletdhāraṇī,
188 saying, ‘All unconditioned doctrines are [like a lamp(?)], like an illusion, like a bubble, like
a shadow, like a dew, like a lightning’s [flash]’ one [should] see 189 in this way.
For example a star, the sky, a lamp and an illusion, they are comparisons of all uncondioned,
[impermanent doctrines]. The causes and fruits produced by defiled knowledge who will recite,
considering them permanent.
186 There is no counterpart for this word in the Chinese original.
187 Lit. [Twenty second part] called [from its mark] it is not true and truthful.
188 This sentence is written in smaller script on the empty place after the punctuation mark. Zieme (1990: 35, fn.
71) writes, “Aus welchem Grund der Satz «wenn man die Amulett-Dhāraṇī schreibt» hier steht, ist mir nicht
klar.” The sentence is written by same person who wrote the further sentence in red ink. I think, here it was
implied that the famous gāthā was written by the Buddhists for taking protect by it, showing the importance of
the gāthā. It is worth noting that the Uyghur fragment Main 777 (T II S 12) edited by P. Zieme (1984) as part of a
“snake magic” (Schlangenzauber) originates from the same manuscript as U 769, which was identified as a
fragment of the Fu-Vajracchedikā. It is not to wonder if the Fu-Vajracchedikā was also considered as part of
magic texts including the snake magic. I express my sincere thanks for J. Wilkens for his important instruction
on this point.
189 Original Old Uyghur text has kör- ‘see’, it translates Chin. 觀 guan ‚to look at, observe’, which is often
rendered by means of kolula- in Old Uyghur Buddhist texts; see Hamilton 1986: ??, Kudara/Zieme 1985: 116 (l.
215 etc.)and Shōgaito 1993: 324. Usually, kör- renders 見 jian ‘to see’, although there are some texts, in which
kör- stands for 觀 guan; see Shōgaito 1984: 92, Shōgaito 2008: 571a. Mongolian and Sogdian versions of the text
also display the word for see; see Poppe 1971: 32; Zieme 1990: 36. All stands for Sanskrit draṣṭavya ‘zu sehend, zu
erkennend, zu verstehend; anzusehen als, zu betrachtend als’ (SWTF, 500). As Zieme (1990: 36) mentioned, BT I,
D displays bil- instead of kör-.