Prajñāpāramitā means "the Perfection of Wisdom" or "Transcendental Knowledge" in Mahāyāna Buddhism. Prajñāpāramitā refers to a perfected way of seeing the nature of reality, as well as to a particular body of Mahāyāna scriptures (sūtras), known as the Prajñāpāramitā sutras, which includes such texts as the Heart Sutra and Diamond Sutra.
The word Prajñāpāramitā combines the Sanskrit words prajñā "wisdom" (or "knowledge") with pāramitā, "excellence," "perfection," "noble character quality," or "that which has gone beyond," "gone to the other side," "transcending." Prajñāpāramitā is a central concept in Mahāyāna Buddhism and is generally associated with ideas such as emptiness (śūnyatā), 'lack of svabhāva' (essence), the illusory (māyā) nature of things, how all phenomena are characterized by "non-arising" (anutpāda, i.e. unborn) and the Madhyamaka thought of Nāgārjuna.Buswell, Robert; Lopez, Donald S. Jr., eds. (2014), The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, Princeton University Press, p. 945, "In the PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ literature and the MADHYAMAKA school, the notion of production comes under specific criticism (see: VAJRAKAṆĀ), with NĀGĀRJUNA famously asking, e.g., how an effect can be produced from a cause that is either the same as or different from itself. The prajñāpāramitā sūtras thus famously declare that all dharmas are actually ANUTPĀDA, or 'unproduced'."King, Richard (1995), Early Advaita Vedānta and Buddhism: The Mahāyāna Context of the Gauḍapādīya-kārikā, SUNY Press, p. 113, "It is equally apparent that one of the important features of the prajnaparamita position is that of the nonarising (anutpada) of dharmas." Its practice and understanding are taken to be indispensable elements of the Bodhisattva path.
According to Edward Conze, the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras are "a collection of about forty texts ... composed somewhere on the Indian subcontinent between approximately 100 BC and AD 600."Conze, E. Perfect Wisdom: The Short Prajnaparamita Texts, Buddhist Publishing Group, 1993. Some Prajnāpāramitā sūtras are thought to be among the earliest Mahāyāna sūtras.Williams, Paul. Buddhist Thought. Routledge, 2000, p. 131.Williams, Paul. Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd edition. Routledge, 2009, p. 47.
History
Earliest texts Western scholars have traditionally considered the earliest sūtra in the Prajñāpāramitā class to be the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra or "Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines", which was probably put in writing in the 1st century BCE.Mäll, Linnart. Studies in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā and other essays. 2005. p. 96 This chronology is based on the views of Edward Conze, who largely considered dates of translation into other languages. This text also has a corresponding version in verse format, called the , which some believe to be slightly older because it is not written in standard literary Sanskrit. However, these findings rely on late-dating Indian texts, in which verses and mantras are often kept in more archaic forms.
According to Edward Conze, the PP literature developed in nine stages: (1) An urtext similar to the first two chapters of the Sanskrit Ratnagunasaṃcaya Gāthā; (2) Chapters 3 to 28 of the Ratnagunasaṃcaya are composed, along with the prose of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā. This base text was further expanded with (3) material from the Abhidharma, and (4) concessions to the "Buddhism of Faith" (referring to Pure Land references in the sūtra). This process led to (5) further expansion into larger PP sūtras as well as (6) contraction into the shorter sūtras (i.e. Diamond Sūtra, Heart Sūtra, down to the Prajñāpāramitā in One Letter). This expanded corpus formed the basis for the (7) Indian PP Commentaries, (8) Tantric PP works and (9) Chinese Chan texts. Jan Nattier also defends the view that the Aṣṭasāhasrikā developed as various layers were added over time. However, Matthew Orsborn has recently argued, based on the chiastic structures of the text that the entire sūtra may have been composed as a single whole (with a few additions added on the core chapters).
A number of scholars have proposed that the Mahāyāna Prajñāpāramitā teachings were first developed by the Caitika subsect of the Mahāsāṃghikas. They believe that the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra originated amongst the southern Mahāsāṃghika schools of the Āndhra region, along the Kṛṣṇa River.Guang Xing. The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikaya Theory. 2004. pp. 65-66 "Several scholars have suggested that the Prajnaparamita probably developed among the Mahasamghikas in Southern India, in the Andhra country, on the Krsna River." These Mahāsāṃghikas had two famous monasteries near Amarāvati Stupa and Dhānyakataka, which gave their names to the Pūrvaśaila and Aparaśaila schools.Guang Xing. The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikaya Theory. 2004. p. 66 Each of these schools had a copy of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra in Prakrit. Guang Xing also assesses the view of the Buddha given in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra as being that of the Mahāsāṃghikas. Edward Conze estimates that this sūtra originated around 100 BCE.
In 2012, Harry Falk and Seishi Karashima published a damaged and partial Kharoṣṭhī manuscript of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā.Harry Falk and Seishi Karashima, A first‐century Prajñāpāramitā manuscript from Gandhāra — parivarta 1 (Texts from the Split Collection 1). Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University XV (2012), 19-61. It is very similar to the first Chinese translation of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā by Lokakṣema (ca. 179 CE) whose source text is sometimes assumed to be in the Gāndhārī language, although this is debated; Lokakṣema's translation is also the first extant translation of the Prajñāpāramitā genre into a non-Indic language. The "Split" manuscript is evidently a copy of an earlier text, which according to the radiocarbon dating reported by Falk dates to the 1st or early 2nd century.
In contrast to western scholarship, Japanese scholars have traditionally considered the Diamond Sūtra (Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra) to be from a very early date in the development of Prajñāpāramitā literature.Williams, Paul. Mahāyāna Buddhism: the Doctrinal Foundations. London, UK: Routledge. . p.42 The usual reason for this relative chronology which places the Vajracchedikā earlier is not its date of translation, but rather a comparison of the contents and themes.Schopen, Gregory. Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India. 2005. p. 55 Some western scholars also believe that the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra was adapted from the earlier Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra.
Examining the language and phrases used in both the Aṣṭasāhasrikā and the Vajracchedikā, Gregory Schopen also sees the Vajracchedikā as being earlier than the Aṣṭasāhasrikā.Schopen, Gregory. Figments and Fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India. 2005. pp. 31-32 This view is taken in part by examining parallels between the two works, in which the Aṣṭasāhasrikā seems to represent the later or more developed position. According to Schopen, these works also show a shift in emphasis from an oral tradition (Vajracchedikā) to a written tradition (Aṣṭasāhasrikā).
In an Encyclopedia article on the topic of Prajñāpāramitā literature published in 2015, however, Zacchetti reports that that the research conclusions proposed by Kajiyoshi have by now been generally accepted. Kajiyoshi identified the first chapter of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā as the starting point leading to a process of textual expansion and subsequent contraction responsible for the extant form of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā and the subsequent emergence of the different members of the Prajñāpāramitā textual family.
Larger Prajñāpāramitā sutras
The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (T. Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag nyi shu lnga pa; C. Mohe bore boluomi jing, 摩訶般若波羅蜜經) is one of the largest PP sutras, comprising three volumes of the Tibetan Kangyur (26-28). It was also one of the most important and popular PP sutras in India, seeing as how there are numerous Indian commentaries on this text, including commentaries by Vimuktisena, Haribhadra, Smṛtijñānakīrti, and Ratnakarashanti. The sutra also survives in the original Sanskrit, which was found in Gilgit. It also exists in four Chinese translations.
According to Nattier, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā is basically the Aṣṭasāhasrikā base text which has been "sliced" up and filled with other material, increasing the length of the text considerably. This process of expansion continued, culminating in the massive Śatasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (100,000 lines), the largest of the PP sutras.
According to Joseph Walser, there is evidence that the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (25,000 lines) and the Śatasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (100,000 lines) have a connection with the Dharmaguptaka sect, while the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (8,000 lines) does not.Williams, Paul. Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. 2008. p. 6
Other PP texts were also composed which were much shorter and had a more independent structure from the Aṣṭasāhasrikā. Regarding the shorter PP texts, Conze writes, "two of these, the Diamond Sūtra and the Heart Sūtra are in a class by themselves and deservedly renowned throughout the world of Northern Buddhism. Both have been translated into many languages and have often been commented upon.".Conze, Edward. The Short Prajñāpāramitā Texts. 1973. p. 9 Jan Nattier argues the Heart Sutra to be an apocryphal text composed in China from extracts of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā and other texts c. 7th century. Red Pine, however, does not support Nattiers argument and believes the Heart Sutra to be of Indian origin."The Heart Sutra Translation and Commentary", 2004. p.22-24
Esoteric Prajñāpāramitā texts During the later phase of Indian Buddhism, Tāntric Prajñāpāramitā texts were produced from the 8th century up to the 11th century CE. These later esoteric Prajñāpāramitā sutras are generally short texts which contain mantras and/or dhāraṇīs and also reference esoteric Buddhist (Mantrayana) ideas. They often promote simple practices based on recitation which lead to the accumulation of merit and help one reach awakening.Bianchini, Francesco (2020). Tradition and Innovation in late South Asian Buddhism: The Impact of Spell Practices on the Recasting of Prajnaparamita Scriptures. St John’s College, The University of Oxford.