Indo-Tibetan sutra commentaries?

[Nicholas Weeks]

Were such shastras written? In the prajaparamita group, not counting the short ones like Heart sutra, did any Tibetan or Indian write a comprehensive line by line commentary on the 8K or 18K or 25K sutras?

How about the Avatamsaka or Lotus or Maharatnakuta - any full commentaries on these? Any other sutra commentary examples?

[Zhen Li]

I can't speak for the Tibetan side of things, but there is a recent Newar translation of Haribhadra's commentary on the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā which does add some extra layers of interpretation. I believe this is the citation for translation, but I don't have it with me so I can't double check: Jośī, Satyamohan, and Vijayaratna Vajrācārya. 2004. Astasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā: mhasīkegu lidhaṁsā halaṁjvalaṁ. Lalitpur: Lok Sāhitya Pariṣad

[Nicholas Weeks]

Thank you Zhen Li.

I was reminded by Bhikshu Dharmamitra that Vasubandhu & Nagarjuna have commentaries on the Ten Grounds Sutra. I do not know if these were line by line or just topical comments, but that is something at least.

[Malcolm]

Were such shastras written? In the prajaparamita group, not counting the short ones like Heart sutra, did any Tibetan or Indian write a comprehensive line by line commentary on the 8K or 18K or 25K sutras?

How about the Avatamsaka or Lotus or Maharatnakuta - any full commentaries on these? Any other sutra commentary examples?

Not line by line, but definitely there are comprehensive commentaries on the long PP sutras by Indians.

And there is an eight volume commentary on the Abhisamālaṃkara by Yagton, the longest, most comprehensive commentary on Prajñāpāramita ever written before or since.

[Zhen Li]

Will, I don't know why I overlooked that you were asking about Indian ones too, but the Abhisamayālaṁkārālokā Prajñāpāramitāvyākhyā by Haribhadra comments on the same text Malcolm refers to the commentary on. This is strictly speaking a commentary on what is considered an outline of the Prajñāpāramitā, that relies upon the Aṣṭasāhasrikā. To what extent it is a commentary one would find satisfying is debatable - but it's considered a classic. There's a translation by Gareth Sparham, Abhisamayalamkara with Vrtti and Aloka, in four volumes. It might be quite an expense for something you are not actually looking for though, so I'd recommend taking advantage of the preview tool on the Amazon pages to see what it's like before ordering.

[Nicholas Weeks]

Zhen-li, I am partly curious and also was wondering if the dearth of Indian commentaries on Mahayana sutras had something to do with the Tibetan focus on shastras.

Yes, I am familiar with Sparham's project, but it is too much material for me, so I settled on Groundless Paths from Snow Lion.

[Zhen Li]

I am not sure we can say there is a dearth or not. The question to answer would be, how many extant commentaries are there compared with extinct ones (Haribhadra references a handful of other commentaries that now are lost), and how were these sutras used and presented in India that differs from China, how popular they were, and whether or not they are all indeed Indian in origin such that their use and presentation might make commentaries necessary or not (e.g. who needs what to be explained?). If quantity and variations are anything to go by, Prajñāpāramitā literature, out of the Mahayana literature, was probably among the more popular among those who were redacting sutras. Most sutras may have been only in fairly elite and limited circulation, and even the quantity of variations in Prajñāpāramitā literature may do little to indicate how popular it may have been outside small circles of monks until Pala era, when colophons show a shift to lay patronage. And a Tibetan focus on commentaries wouldn't mean India would not have produced as many commentaries on Sutras. Of course, this is an interesting point, since Haribhadra's commentaries are actually commentaries on the Abhisamayālaṁkāra, which itself is taken to be a commentary/outline of Prajñāpāramitā.

[Nicholas Weeks]

Modifying my question a bit, I will stay with 'dearth' until I see a list of major Mahayana sutras commented on by non-Chinese/Korean/Japanese folk.

[Greg]

Modifying my question a bit, I will stay with 'dearth' until I see a list of major Mahayana sutras commented on by non-Chinese/Korean/Japanese folk.

The clear preference certainly seems to have been to approach the PP through the lens of the Abhisamayālaṁkāra most if not all of the time.