The Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra

[Nicholas Weeks]

This is the longer BDK version translated by Harrison, the one Rulu translated is a shorter one.

This is an under appreciated sutra nowadays. A sample from chapter five on Non-attachment:

The Buddha said to Bhadrapala: "How should this meditation for
bodhisattvas be undertaken? Just as I, the Buddha, am now preaching
sutras in your presence, bodhisattvas should think that the
Buddhas are all standing before them; they should call to mind in
full the Buddhas, who are upright, whom everyone wants to see.
They should think of each and every mark, recalling that no one
can see the tops of the Buddhas' heads. They should think of all
this in full, and they will see the Buddhas.

They should think:
I myself will also be like this, I will also acquire such bodily marks
as these, and will also attain such morality and meditation as
these.' They should think: 'Will I attain this through the mind or
will I attain it through my body?' They should think again: 'The
Buddha did not attain it by means of the mind, nor did he attain it
by means of the body. Buddhahood is not attained by means of the
mind, nor is it attained by means of form. Why? As for mind, the Buddha
has no mind; as for form, the Buddha has no form. It is
not by means of this mind and form that one attains supreme and
perfect awakening. Why? The Buddha's form has come to an end,
the Buddha's feelings, conceptions, birth-and-death, and consciousness
have come to an end, and what the Buddha preaches has
come to an end, which is not perceived or known by fools, but is
understood by the wise.

[Nicholas Weeks]

More from ch. five, page 36:

They should think: What kind of thoughts
should one have to attain Buddhahood? Should one attain Buddhahood
by means of the body, or should one attain it by means of
wisdom?' Furthermore, they should think: 'One does not attain
Buddhahood through the body, nor does one attain it through wisdom.'
Why? If one looks for wisdom one cannot find it. Even if one
looks for the I, it cannot ever be found. Nothing is attained, nothing
is seen. All dharmas are originally nonexistent. To think that
they exist causes attachment. If they do not exist, to say perversely
that they do is also attachment. One neither thinks of these two,
nor does one incline to what is between them. It is for this reason
alone that they are not on either side, nor in the middle, they
neither exist, nor do they not exist. Why? All dharmas are empty;
they are like nirvana; they are indestructible, imperishable, and
unsteady; they are neither here nor there; they are markless; they
are unwavering. What does it mean to say they are unwavering?
Wise men cannot calculate them, therefore they are unwavering.
Thus, Bhadrapala, when the bodhisattvas see the Buddha, the
thoughts in the bodhisattvas' minds are free of attachment.

[Nicholas Weeks]

End of prose section in ch. five, pp. 36-7:

Why?
I have preached nonexistence, the sutras preach nonexistence, and
if one is not attached to that, has destroyed the root and cut off the
root, this is nonattachment. Thus, Bhadrapala, these bodhisattvas
who cultivate this meditation should have this vision of the Buddha,
yet they should not become attached to the Buddha. Why? If
they have any attachments they will burn themselves. It is like a
great lump of iron placed in a fire and heated until it is red: no
wise person would grasp it with his hand. Why? It would burn a
person's hand. In the same way, Bhadrapala, if they see the Buddha
the bodhisattvas will not become attached to him; and they
will not become attached to form, feelings, conceptions, birth-and-death,
and consciousness. Why? Those who become attached burn
themselves. If they see the Buddha they should simply reflect on his
merits, and they should seek the Mahayana." The Buddha said to
Bhadrapala: "These bodhisattvas should not have any attachments
in the meditation. If they do not become attached they will quickly
master this meditation."

[avatamsaka3]

I've just found a text called "The Teaching in Seventeen Chapters for Great Being Bhadrapala". Do you know what the relationship is between this text and this Sutra? It seems similar in some aspects, and different in others.

[Nicholas Weeks]

I've just found a text called "The Teaching in Seventeen Chapters for Great Being Bhadrapala". Do you know what the relationship is between this text and this Sutra? It seems similar in some aspects, and different in others.

No, but the PS Sutra is very old and exists in differing recensions and translations. Here is what Harrison says in his Introduction to his BDK translation;

Finally, the least problematical of the Chinese versions of
the PraS is Taisho 416, the Dafangdeng-daji-jing-xianhu-fen (i.e. the
"Bhadrapala Section" of the Mahavaipulya-mahasamnipata-sutra)
in five volumes, produced by Jnanagupta et al. in 595 C.E. The text
differs in certain respects from that translated by Lokaksema, and it
is also interesting to note that by this time the PraS was regarded as
part of the massive compendium of Mahayana sutras known as the
Mahasamnipata.