prāhāṇika. (P. padhānika; T. spong ba bsam gtan pa). In Sanskrit, lit. “characterized by religious exertion,” viz., a “meditating monk.” This term is used in the MULASARVĀSTIVĀDA VINAYA to refer to monks who specialize in meditation training or more generally to monks who are involved in ascetic practices (see DHUTAṄGA, DUṢKARACARYĀ).

Prajāpatī. (S). See MAHĀPRAJĀPATĪ.

prajñā. (P. paññā; T. shes rab; C. bore/hui; J. hannya/e; K. panya/hye 般若/慧). In Sanskrit, typically translated “wisdom,” but having connotations perhaps closer to “gnosis,” “awareness,” and in some contexts “cognition”; the term has the general sense of accurate and precise understanding, but is used most often to refer to an understanding of reality that transcends ordinary comprehension. It is one of the most important terms in Buddhist thought, occurring in a variety of contexts. In Buddhist epistemology, prajñā is listed as one of the five mental concomitants (CAITTA) that accompany all virtuous (KUŚALA) states of mind. It is associated with correct, analytical discrimination of the various factors (DHARMA) enumerated in the Buddhist teachings (dharmapravicaya). In this context, prajñā refers to the capacity to distinguish between the faults and virtues of objects in such a way as to overcome doubt. Prajñā is listed among the five spiritual “faculties” (PAÑCENDRIYA) or “powers” (PAÑCABALA), where it serves to balance faith (ŚRADDHĀ) and to counteract skeptical doubt (VICIKITSĀ). Prajñā is also one of the three trainings (TRIŚIKṢĀ), together with morality (ŚĪLA) and concentration (SAMĀDHI). In this context, it is distinguished from the simple stability of mind developed through the practice of concentration and refers to a specific understanding of the nature of reality, likened to a sword that cuts through the webs of ignorance (see ADHIPRAJÑĀŚIKṢĀ). Three specific types of wisdom are set forth, including the wisdom generated by learning (ŚRUTAMAYĪPRAJÑĀ), an intellectual understanding gained through listening to teachings or reading texts; the wisdom generated by reflection (CINTĀMAYĪPRAJÑĀ), which includes conceptual insights derived from one’s own personal reflection on those teachings and from meditation at a low level of concentration; and the wisdom generated by cultivation (BHĀVANĀMAYĪPRAJÑĀ), which is a product of more advanced stages in meditation. This last level of wisdom is related to the concept of insight (VIPAŚYANĀ). The term also appears famously in the term PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ or “perfection of wisdom,” which refers to the wisdom whereby bodhisattvas achieved buddhahood, as well as a genre of texts in which that wisdom is set forth.

Prajña. [alt. Prajñā] (C. Bore; J. Hannya; K. Panya 般若). The proper name of a northwest Indian monk who arrived in the Chinese capital of Chang’an during the middle of the ninth century. Prajña is best known for his forty-roll translation of the GAṆḌAVYŪHASŪTRA, the lengthy final chapter of the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA; his rendering, which was finished in 798, is thus considered the third and final (though shortest) translation of the Avataṃsakasūtra made in China. Five other translations are also attributed to Prajña and collaborators. While in China, Prajña was also associated with the Japanese monk KŪKAI (774–835), the founder of the SHINGONSHŪ of Japanese esoteric Buddhism.

prajñācakṣus. (P. paññācakkhu; T. shes rab kyi spyan; C. zhihui yan; J. chiegen; K. chihye an 智慧眼). In Sanskrit, “wisdom eye,” one of the five eyes or five sorts of vision (PAÑCACAKṢUS), which are similar to the five (or six) “clairvoyances” or superknowledges (ABHIJÑĀ). In Pāli texts, the wisdom eye is one of the five sorts of extraordinary vision of a buddha. In MAHĀYĀNA sources, the wisdom eye knows all conditioned (SAṂSKṚTA) and unconditioned (ASAṂSKṚTA) dharmas and is free from all projections.

prajñājñānābhiṣeka. (T. shes rab ye shes kyi dbang). In Sanskrit, lit., “knowledge of the wisdom empowerment,” with wisdom (PRAJÑĀ) here referring to a tantric consort. It is the third of the four empowerments or initiations employed in the ANUTTARAYOGATANTRAs, the other three being the vase empowerment (KALAŚĀBHIṢEKA) and the secret empowerment (GUHYĀBHIṢEKA) that precede it, and the fourth empowerment (CATURTHĀBHIṢEKA), which follows it. Having received the vase empowerment, in the secret empowerment the disciple ingests a drop of fluid (called BODHICITTA) that results from the sexual intercourse of his master and a consort. In the knowledge of the consort empowerment, the disciple engages in sexual union with the same consort, resulting in increasing levels of bliss, which is said to result as a drop (BINDU) that ascends through the central channel (AVADHŪTĪ). Although later monastic exegetes would interpret these empowerments symbolically, it appears that they were originally practiced as the tantric systems developed in India, and they continued to be practiced among certain groups of adepts in Tibet.

Prajñākaragupta. (T. Shes rab ’byung gnas sbas pa) (c. 750–810?). Author of a long (16,200-verse) commentary, the Pramāṇavārttikabhāṣya (alt. title Pramāṇavārttikālaṃkārabhāṣya) on DHARMAKĪRTI’s PRAMĀṆAVĀRTTIKA. The work was translated into Tibetan by Skal ldan rgyal po and BLO LDAN SHES RAB and was later revised by Kumāraśrī and ’Phags pa shes rab as Tshad ma rnam ’grel gyi rgyan. There are subcommentaries to the work by Jamāri and Jayanta, both of which are extant in Tibetan translation.

Prajñākaramati. (T. Shes rab ’byung gnas blo gros) (950–1030). Indian author of an important pañjikā (commentary) on ŚĀNTIDEVA’s BODHICARYĀVATĀRA. He also wrote a short but influential summary of Haribhadra’s ABHISAMAYĀLAṂKĀRAVIVṚTI. Tibetan sources list him among the so-called six gatekeepers of VIKRAMAŚĪLA, a monastery that flourished during the Pāla dynasty in northeast India. According to one account, the six gatekeepers were RATNĀKARAŚĀNTI at the eastern gate, Vāgīśvarakīrti at the southern gate, Prajñākaramati at the western gate, NĀROPA at the northern gate, and Ratnavajra and Jñānaśrī in the center.

prajñāpāramitā. (P. paññāpāramī; T. shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa; C. bore boluomiduo/zhidu; J. hannya haramitta/chido; K. panya paramilta/chido 般若波羅蜜多/智度). In Sanskrit, “perfection of wisdom” or “perfect wisdom”; a polysemous term, which appears in Pāli accounts of the Buddha’s prior training as a BODHISATTVA (P. bodhisatta), but is widely used in MAHĀYĀNA Buddhism. ¶ Prajñāpāramitā refers to a level of understanding beyond that of ordinary wisdom, especially referring to the the wisdom associated with, or required to achieve, buddhahood. The term receives a variety of interpretations, but it is often said to be the wisdom that does not conceive of an agent, an object, or an action as being ultimately real. The perfection of wisdom is also sometimes defined as the knowledge of emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ). ¶ As the wisdom associated with buddhahood, prajñāpāramitā is the sixth of the six perfections (PĀRAMITĀ) that are practiced on the bodhisattva path. When the practice of the six perfections is aligned with the ten bodhisattva bhūmis, the perfection of wisdom is practiced on the sixth BHŪMI, called ABHIMUKHĪ. ¶ Prajñāpāramitā is also used to designate the genre of Mahāyāna sūtras that sets forth the perfection of wisdom. These texts are considered to be among the earliest of the Mahāyāna sūtras, with the first texts appearing sometime between the first century BCE and the first century CE. Here, the title “perfection of wisdom” may have a polemical meaning, claiming to possess a wisdom beyond that taught in the MAINSTREAM BUDDHIST SCHOOLS. In addition to numerous descriptions of, and paeans to, emptiness, the perfection of wisdom sūtras also extol the practice of the bodhisattva path as the superior form of Buddhist practice. Although emptiness is said to be the chief topic of the sūtras, their “hidden meaning” is said to be the detailed structure of the bodhisattva path. A number of later commentaries, most notably the ABHISAMAYĀLAṂKĀRA, extracted terminology from these sūtras in order to systematize the presentation of the bodhisattva path. There are numerous sūtras with prajñāpāramitā in their titles, the earliest of which are designated simply by their length as measured in ŚLOKAs, a unit of metrical verse in traditional Sanskrit literature that is typically rendered in English as “stanza,” “verse,” or “line.” Scholars speculate that there was a core text, which was then expanded. Hence, for example, the prajñāpāramitā sūtra in eight thousand lines (AṢṬASĀHASRIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ) is often thought to be one of the earliest of the genre, later followed by twenty-five thousand lines (PAÑCAVIṂŚATISĀHASRIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀSŪTRA), and one hundred thousand lines (ŚATASĀHASRIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ), as well as compilations many times longer, such as XUANZANG’s translation of the MAHĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀSŪTRA. The texts known in English as the “Heart Sūtra” (PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀHṚDAYASŪTRA) and the “Diamond Sūtra” (VAJRACCHEDIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ) are both much shorter versions of these prajñāpāramitā sūtras. ¶ Perhaps because the Sanskrit term prajñāpāramitā is in the feminine gender, Prajñāpāramitā also became the name of a goddess, referred to as the mother of all buddhas, who is the embodiment of the perfection of wisdom. ¶ In the traditional Tibetan monastic curriculum, prajñāpāramitā is one of the primary topics of study, based on the Abhisamayālaṃkāra of MAITREYANĀTHA and its commentaries.

Prajñāpāramitāhṛdayasūtra. (T. Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i snying po’i mdo; C. Bore boluomiduo xin jing; J. Hannya haramitta shingyō; K. Panya paramilta sim kyŏng 般若波羅蜜多心經). In English, the “Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra” (or, in other interpretations, the “DHĀRAṆĪ-Sūtra of the Perfection of Wisdom”); a work known in English simply as the “Heart Sūtra”; one of only a handful of Buddhist SŪTRAs (including the “Lotus Sūtra” and the “Diamond Sūtra”) to be widely known by an English title. The “Heart Sūtra” is perhaps the most famous, and certainly the most widely recited, of all Buddhist sūtras across all Mahāyāna traditions. It is also one of the most commented upon, eliciting more Indian commentaries than any Mahāyāna sūtra (eight), including works by such luminaries as KAMALAŚĪLA, VIMALAMITRA, and ATIŚA DĪPAṂKARAŚRĪJÑĀNA, as well as such important East Asian figures as FAZANG, KŪKAI, and HAKUIN EKAKU. As its title suggests, the scripture purports to be the quintessence or heart (hṛdaya) of the “perfection of wisdom” (PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ), in its denotations as both supreme wisdom and the eponymous genre of scriptures. The sūtra exists in long and short versions—with the longer version better known in India and the short version better known in East Asia—but even the long version is remarkably brief, requiring only a single page in translation. The short version, which is probably the earlier of the two recensions, is best known through its Chinese translation by XUANZANG made c. 649 CE. There has been speculation that the Chinese version may be a redaction of sections of the Chinese recension of the MAHĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀSŪTRA (also translated by Xuanzang) as a mnemonic encoding (dhāraṇī) of the massive perfection of wisdom literature, which was then subsequently translated back into Sanskrit, perhaps by Xuanzang himself. Although there is as yet no scholarly consensus on the provenance of the text, if this argument is correct, this would make the “Heart Sūtra” by far the most influential of all indigenous Chinese scriptures (see APOCRYPHA). The long version of the text, set on Vulture Peak (GṚDHRAKŪṬAPARVATA) outside RĀJAGṚHA, begins with the Buddha entering SAMĀDHI. At that point, the BODHISATTVA AVALOKITEŚVARA (who rarely appears as an interlocutor in the prajñāpāramitā sūtras) contemplates the perfection of wisdom and sees that the five aggregates (SKANDHA) are empty of intrinsic nature (SVABHĀVA). The monk ŚĀRIPUTRA, considered the wisest of the Buddha’s ŚRĀVAKA disciples, is inspired by the Buddha to ask Avalokiteśvara how one should train in the perfection of wisdom. Avalokiteśvara’s answer constitutes the remainder of the sūtra (apart from a brief epilogue in the longer version of the text). That answer, which consists essentially of a litany of negations of the major categories of Buddhist thought—including such seminal lists as the five aggregates (skandha), twelve sense-fields (ĀYATANA), twelve links of dependent origination (PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA), and FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS—contains two celebrated statements. The first, made in reference to the first of the five aggregates, is “form (RŪPA) is emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ); emptiness is form” (RŪPAṂ ŚŪNYATĀ ŚUNYATAIVA RŪPAM). This is one of the most widely quoted and commented upon statements in the entire corpus of Mahāyāna sūtras and thus is not easily amenable to succinct explication. In brief, however, the line suggests that emptiness, as the nature of ultimate reality, is not located in some rarified realm, but rather is found in the ordinary objects of everyday experience. The other celebrated statement is the spell (MANTRA) that concludes Avalokiteśvara’s discourse—GATE GATE PĀRAGATE PĀRASAṂGATE BODHI SVĀHĀ—which, unlike many mantras, is amenable to translation: “gone, gone, gone beyond, gone completely beyond, enlightenment, svāha.” This mantra has also been widely commented upon. The presence of the mantra in the sūtra has led to its classification as a TANTRA rather than a sūtra in some Tibetan catalogues; it also forms the basis of Indian tantric SĀDHANAs. The brevity of the text has given it a talismanic quality, being recited on all manner of occasions (it is commonly used as an exorcistic text in Tibet) and inscribed on all manner of objects, including fans, teacups, and neckties in modern Japan.

Prajñāpāramitānayaśatapañcaśatikā. (T. Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i tshul brgya lnga bcu pa; C. Bore liqu fen; J. Hannya rishubun; K. Panya ich’wi pun 般若理趣分). In Sanskrit, “Way of the Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Fifty Lines,” a short PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ SŪTRA in fifteen chapters of ten lines each, spoken by different buddhas, including VAIROCANA. The presence of such terms as VAJRA, guhya, and SIDDHI have caused some to classify it as “tantric.” The scripture is cited by both CANDRAKĪRTI and HARIBHADRA and was translated into Chinese five different times, by XUANZANG, BODHIRUCI, VAJRABODHI, AMOGHAVAJRA, and DĀNAPĀLA.

Prajñāpāramitāpiṇḍārtha. (T. Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa don bsdus pa). In Sanskrit, “Summary of the Perfection of Wisdom,” a commentary on the AṢṬASĀHASRIKĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ attributed to DIGNĀGA; also known as the Prajñāpāramitāpiṇḍārthasaṃgraha and the Prajñāpāramitāsaṃgrahakārikā. It is a short work in fifty-eight lines, which summarize the perfection of wisdom under thirty-two headings, including the ten misconceptions (VIKALPA) and their antidotes, as well as the sixteen types of emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ). The opening stanza of the text is widely quoted: “The perfection of wisdom is nondual wisdom; it is the TATHĀGATA. That term [is used] for texts and paths because they have that goal.” The work provides a YOGĀCĀRA perspective on the PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ, presenting a more systematic outline of doctrines than is typically found in the diffuse prajñāpāramitā literature. Doctrinally, the work is closely related to the MADHYĀNTAVIBHĀGA. It appears to have been widely known; HARIBHADRA quotes from it five times in his ABHISAMAYĀLAṂKĀRĀLOKĀ. The text was translated into Chinese in 980 and into Tibetan in the eleventh century. There is a commentary on the text, entitled Prajñāpāramitāpiṇḍārthasaṃgrahavivaraṇa, by Triratnadāsa, a student of VASUBANDHU.

Prajñāpāramitāratnaguṇasaṃcayagāthā. (S). See RATNAGUṆASAṂCAYAGĀTHĀ.

Prajñāpāramitāsarvatathāgatamātā-Ekākṣarā. (T. Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi yum yi ge gcig ma). In Sanskrit, “Perfection of Wisdom in One Letter, the Mother of All Tathāgatas.” The shortest of all the PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ sūtras, it reads in its entirety: “Thus have I heard. At one time, the Lord (BHAGAVAT) was dwelling on Vulture Peak (GṚDHRAKŪṬAPARVATA) with a great assembly of 1,250 monks and many millions of bodhisattvas. At that time, the Lord said this to the venerable ĀNANDA: ‘Ānanda, keep this perfection of wisdom in one letter for the benefit and happiness of sentient beings. It is thus: A.’ So spoke the Lord and everyone—Ānanda, the monks, the BODHISATTVA-MAHĀSATTVAs—having understood and admired the perfection of wisdom, praised what the Lord had said.” “The Perfection of Wisdom in One Letter” thus refers to the letter “a,” the first letter of the Indic alphabet. See also A; AJIKAN.

Prajñāpradīpa. (T. Shes rab sgron me; C. Boredeng lun shi; J. Hannyatōron shaku; K. Panyadŭng non sŏk 般若燈論釋). In Sanskrit, “Lamp of Wisdom,” the commentary on NĀGĀRJUNA’s MŪLAMADHYAMAKAKĀRIKĀ by the sixth-century master BHĀVAVIVEKA. The “Wisdom” in the title is a reference to Nāgārjuna’s text, the full title of which is Prajñānāmamūlamadhyamakakārikā. In his commentary on the first chapter of Nāgārjuna’s text, Bhāvaviveka criticized the earlier commentary by BUDDHAPĀLITA, saying that it is insufficient simply to employ consequences (PRASAṄGA) and that one must also use autonomous syllogisms (SVATANTRĀNUMĀNA). CANDRAKĪRTI, in his own commentary, the PRASANNAPADĀ, came to Buddhapālita’s defense and attacked Bhāvaviveka. It is largely based on this exchange that later Tibetan scholars came to categorize Bhāvaviveka as a *SVĀTANTRIKA and Buddhapālita and Candrakīrti as *PRĀSAṄGIKA. In addition to its intrinsic interest as a major work of an important Mahāyāna philosopher, Bhāvaviveka’s commentary is of historical interest because it makes specific reference to other commentators on Nāgārjuna, as well as the doctrines of various rival schools, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist. The text is lost in Sanskrit but is preserved in Chinese and Tibetan translations and has a lengthy commentary by AVALOKITAVRATA preserved in Tibetan translation.

prajñapti. (T. gdags pa/btags pa; C. jiaming; J. kemyō; K. kamyŏng 假名). In Sanskrit, “designation,” “imputation,” or “convention,” a term used to describe those things that are not intrinsic, ultimate, or primary, with phenomena whose reality is merely imputed (prajñapti), often contrasted with substantial phenomena (see DRAVYASAT). The various philosophical schools differ in the definition, extent, and deployment of the category, with the MADHYAMAKA arguing that all factors (DHARMA) are merely designations that exist only through imputation (PRAJÑAPTISAT), and nothing in the universe, including the Buddha or emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ) exists substantially (dravyasat). However, the fact that conditioned dharmas are mere imputations does not imply that they lack functionality as conventional truths (SAṂVṚTISATYA). According to a YOGĀCĀRA explanation in the CHENG WEISHI LUN (*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi), all dharmas are said to have only imputed existence because (1) “dharmas are insubstantial and are contingent on fallacious imagining” (wuti suiqing jia); and (2) “dharmas have real substance but are real only in a provisional sense” (youti shishe jia). The first reason is based on the Yogācāra argument that the diversity, duality, and reality of things are merely mental projections (see PARIKALPITA), and are therefore artificial and imagined, existing only as fallacious conceptions. The second reason is based on the Yogācāra tenet of PARATANTRA, the “dependent nature of things.” Accordingly, although things are “real” or “substantial” in that they have viable efficacy and functions, they are ultimately transformations of “activated” karmic “seeds” (BĪJA) stored within the eighth storehouse consciousness (ĀLAYAVIJÑĀNA). They are therefore said to be “dependent” on the consciousness and thus have only a “conditional” nature.

Prajñaptibhāṣya[pādaśāstra]. [alt. Prajñaptiśāstra] (T. Gdags pa’i gtsug lag bstan bcos; C. Shishe lun; J. Sesetsuron; K. Sisŏl non 施設論). In Sanskrit, “Treatise on Designations,” one of the earliest books of the SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMAPIṬAKA; it is traditionally listed as the fourth of the six ancillary texts, or “feet” (pāda), of the JÑĀNAPRASTHĀNA, which is the central treatise or body (śarīra) of the Sarvāstivāda abhidharma canon. The Prajñaptibhāṣya derives from the earliest stratum of Sarvāstivāda abhidharma literature, along with the DHARMASKANDHA and the SAṂGĪTIPARYĀYA. YAŚOMITRA and BU STON attribute authorship of the Prajñaptibhāṣya to MAHĀMAUDGALYĀYANA. Unlike the rest of the canonical abhidharma texts of the Sarvāstivāda school, there is not a complete translation of this text in Chinese; the entire text survives only in a Tibetan translation ascribed to Prajñāsena. Portions of the second section of the text are, however, extant in a late Chinese translation by Dharmarakṣa et al. made during the eleventh century. The Tibetan text is in three parts: (1) lokaprajñapti, which deals with the cosmogonic speculations similar to such mainstream Buddhist texts as the AGGAÑÑASUTTA; (2) kāraṇaprajñapti, which deals with the causes governing the various stereotypical episodes in a bodhisattva’s career (see BAXIANG), from entering the womb for his final birth to entering PARINIRVĀṆA; and (3) karmaprajñapti, a general discourse on the theory of moral cause and effect (KARMAN).

prajñaptisat. (T. btags yod; C. jiaming you; J. kemyōyu; K. kamyŏngyu 假名有). In Sanskrit, “imputed existence,” a term used by the Buddhist philosophical schools to describe the ontological status of those phenomena that exist as designations, imputations, or conventions. The term is often contrasted with DRAVYASAT, or “substantial existence,” a quality of those phenomena that possess a more objective nature. The various school of Buddhist philosophy differ on the meaning and extension of the category of prajñaptisat. The VAIBHĀṢIKA school of SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA held that the world is composed of indivisible particles of matter and indivisible moment of time, which are dravyasat, and that everything composed of an aggregation of those particles or moments is prajñaptisat. In MADHYAMAKA, all dharmas are prajñaptisat and no dharmas are dravyasat. See PRAJÑAPTI; DRAVYASAT.

Prajñaptivāda. (P. Paññattivādā; T. Btags par smra ba; C. Shuojiabu; J. Setsukebu/Sekkebu; K. Sŏlga pu 假部). In Sanskrit, “Teaching of Designations”; one of the two schools of the KAUKKUṬIKA branch of the MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA school of mainstream Buddhism, along with the BAHUŚRUTĪYA; it may have split off as a separate school around the middle of the third century CE. The Prajñaptivāda posits a distinction between reality and the way that reality is perceived by ordinary sentient beings. Beings use the “provisional designations” (PRAJÑAPTI) of concepts in order to describe what is real, but those concepts are merely imputations of reality and have only conventional validity (PRAJÑAPTISAT). The Prajñaptivāda also claims that the Buddha inevitably was compelled to use such provisional designations in order to convey his teachings to ordinary beings, a position distinct from the LOKOTTARAVĀDA, one of the other major branches of the Mahāsāṃghika, which claims that the Buddha articulated the entirety of his teachings in a single utterance that was altogether transcendent (LOKOTTARA). Little is known about the regional center or geographic extent of the school.

prajñāśikṣā. (P. paññāsikkhā; T. shes rab kyi bslab pa; C. huixue; J. egaku; K. hyehak 慧學). In Sanskrit, the “training in wisdom,” one of the three trainings (TRIŚIKṢĀ), together with the training in ethics (ŚĪLAŚIKṢĀ) and the training in meditation (SAMĀDHIŚIKṢĀ). See ADHIPRAJÑĀŚIKṢĀ and TRIŚIKṢĀ.

prajñāvimukta. (P. paññāvimutta; T. shes rab kyis rnam par grol ba; C. hui jietuo; J. egedatsu; K. hyehaet’al 慧解). In Sanskrit, “one who is liberated through wisdom.” The term refers specifically to a person who has attained liberation through insight (VIPAŚYANĀ) into the three marks of existence: impermanence (ANITYA), suffering (DUḤKHA), and nonself (ANĀTMAN). Anyone who has attained any of the four stages of sanctity (ĀRYA)—stream-entry, once-returning, nonreturning, or arhatship—is said to have attained liberation through wisdom. Such liberation is equivalent to enlightenment (BODHI), results in the permanent eradication of the contaminants (ĀSRAVAKṢAYA), and leads to the cessation of REBIRTH. In the Pāli abhidhamma and Sarvāstivāda ABHIDHARMA, the person “liberated through wisdom” is the sixth of seven types of enlightened disciples (ārya); the other six are: (1) the saddhānusāri (S. ŚRADDHĀNUSĀRIN), or faith-follower; (2) dhammānusāri (S. DHARMĀNUSĀRIN); (3) saddhāvimutta (S. ŚRADDHĀVIMUKTA), or one liberated through faith; (4) diṭṭhippatta (S. DṚṢṬIPRĀPTA), or vision-attainer; (5) kāyasakkhī (S. KĀYASĀKṢIN), or witnessing with this very body; (6) ubhatobhāgavimutta (S. UBHAYATOBHĀGAVIMUKTA), or liberated in both ways. The prajñāvimukta who has attained liberation through the contemplation of no-self is contrasted with cetovimukta (P. cetovimutta; cf. CETOVIMUKTI), or “one liberated through mind,” who has mastery of meditative absorptions (P. JHĀNA; S. DHYĀNA). The prajñāvimukta is also one of the VIṂŚATIPRABHEDASAṂGHA (“twenty varieties of the āryasaṃgha”) based on the list given in the MAHĀVYUTPATTI.

Prakaraṇapāda[śāstra]. (T. Rab tu byed pa’i rkang pa; C. Pinlei zu lun; J. Honruisokuron; K. P’umnyu chok non 品類足論). In Sanskrit, “Exposition”; a book from the later stratum of the SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA, which is traditionally listed as the first of the six ancillary texts, or “feet” (pāda), of the JÑĀNAPRASTHĀNA, the central treatise, or body (śarīra), of the Sarvāstivāda ABHIDHARMAPIṬAKA. The Prakaraṇapāda is attributed by tradition to Vasumitra and dates from c. 160 to 320 CE, probably following the compilation of the ABHIDHARMAMAHĀVIBHĀṢĀ. The treatise is extant only in a complete Chinese translation made by GUṆABHADRA and Bodhiyaśas between 435 and 443. The Prakaraṇapāda establishes the definitive Sarvāstivāda categorization of dharmas into a fivefold grouping: materiality (RŪPA), mentality (CITTA), mental concomitants (CAITTA or CAITASIKA), conditioned factors dissociated from thought (CITTAVIPRAYUKTASAṂSKĀRA), and uncompounded elements (ASAṂSKṚTADHARMA). This fivefold grouping is first employed in the ABHIDHARMAMAHĀVIBHĀṢĀ, whence it enters the mainstream of the Sarvāstivāda-VAIBHĀṢIKA analysis of dharmas and is subsequently adopted by several other Buddhist schools, including the SAUTRĀNTIKA, MADHYAMAKA, and YOGĀCĀRA (see BAIFA). The Prakaraṇapāda also adds a new listing of KUŚALAMAHĀBHŪMIKA, or factors always associated with wholesome states of mind. The Prakaraṇapāda was the first of the pādaśāstras to represent the mature synthesis of Sarvāstivāda doctrine, which was followed in later abhidharma manuals and primers. The text therefore represents a transitional point in Sarvāstivāda abhidharma writing between the pādaśāstras of the middle period and the commentarial writings of the later tradition.

Prakrit. (S. Prākṛta). A term that literally means “natural” in Sanskrit, used to designate a group of Indo-Āryan vernacular languages in ancient India. The term “Sanskrit” (saṃskṛta) has the sense both of “constructed,” “perfected,” or “refined,” and thus describes a classical language that may not ever have been used for everyday verbal communication. The earliest extant written forms of Prakrit are found in the inscriptions of AŚOKA. The Buddha is said to have spoken the Prakritic dialect of Māgadhī, the vernacular language of the Indian state of MAGADHA. Also important for Buddhism is the GĀNDHĀRĪ form of Prakrit, from the GANDHĀRA region of northwest India. These Prakrit dialects eventually evolved into many of the modern Indian vernacular languages, such as Bengali, Gujarati, Oriya, and Hindi. Although some scholars do not consider PĀLI and BUDDHIST HYBRID SANSKRIT to be Prakrits in the technical sense, they are clearly influenced by various Prakrits current at the time of their formation.

prakṛtiparinirvṛta. (T. rang bzhin gyis yongs su mya ngan las ’das pa; C. zixing niepan; J. jishō nehan; K. chasŏng yŏlban自性涅槃). In Sanskrit, “intrinsically extinguished”; a term used in a phrase common to the PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ literature, in which all phenomena in the universe are described as being “unproduced (anutpanna, see ANUTPĀDA), unceasing (aniruddha), primordially at peace (ādiśānta), and intrinsically fully extinguished (prakṛtiparinirvṛta).” It refers to the state of quiescence in which all phenomena in the universe naturally abide. In the MADHYAMAKA school, the term is sometimes used as a synonym for emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ). See also NIRVĀṆA.

prakṛtisthagotra. (T. rang bzhin gnas rigs; C. benxing zhu zhongxing; J. honshōjūshushō; K. ponsŏng chu chongsŏng 本性住種性). In Sanskrit, “naturally endowed lineage” or “intrinsic lineage.” In certain strands of YOGĀCĀRA thought, it is believed that there are two kinds of “seeds” (BĪJA) that lead to future KARMAN. The first is newly acquired karmic seeds (xinxun zhongzi), which are activated as suitable conditions arise and will expire once their karmic efficacy is spent. Second, there are also certain primordial seeds (benyou zhongzi), which remain indestructible and, in a sense, forever determine one’s spiritual tendency and potential. One such example is the “naturally endowed lineage” (prakṛtisthagotra) that determines if a person will ultimately become an ARHAT (via either the ŚRĀVAKA or PRATYEKABUDDHA paths), a buddha, or forever remain as an unenlightened “incorrigible” (ICCHANTIKA). That is, whether one will attain enlightenment or not, and what spiritual status one will ultimately reach, is “predetermined” by such a predisposition. In this controversial tenet, a person lacking the “primordial seed” necessary to qualify one as belonging to a MAHĀYĀNA “lineage” (GOTRA), for example, is forever deprived of the potential to cultivate the path to buddhahood. Together, and in contrast to, the “lineage that is conditioned by habits” (see SAMUDĀNĪTAGOTRA), they are known as “the two lineages: intrinsic and acquired” (xingxi er[zhong]xing). For the two kinds of karmic seeds, see ERZHONG ZHONGZI.

prakṛtiviśuddhi. (T. rang bzhin gyis rnam par dag pa; C. benxing jing; J. honshōjō; K. ponsŏng chŏng 本性淨). In Sanskrit, “intrinsic purity,” a term used to describe the inherent purity and luminosity of the mind, with the implication that all afflictions (KLEŚA) are therefore adventitious and extrinsic to the mind’s true nature.

pralambapādāsana. (T. rkang pa brkyangs pa’i ’dug stangs; C. chuizuzuo; J. suisokuza; K. sujokchwa 垂足坐). In Sanskrit, lit. “pendant leg posture”; a posture (ĀSANA) sometimes called the “seated” or “European” pose, where both legs of a figure hang pendant, feet on the ground, usually from a throne or seat. Tibetan images of MAITREYA are commonly found in this posture (and thus it is also known as the MAITREYĀSANA); he is said to sit in this pose so that he can easily stand in preparation for his descent to the world as the next buddha. This position is sometimes known as the BHADRĀSANA.

pramāda. (P. pamāda; T. bag med pa; C. fangyi; J. hōitsu; K. pangil 放逸). In Sanskrit, “heedlessness”; one of the forty-six mental concomitants (CAITTA) according to the SARVĀSTIVĀDA-VAIBHĀṢIKA school of ABHIDHARMA and one of the fifty-one according to the YOGĀCĀRA school, where it is listed among the twenty secondary afflictions (UPAKLEŚA). Heedlessness refers to a lack of vigilance in one’s interaction with the external world so that one neglects salutary (KUŚALA) actions that will be conducive to the benefit of both oneself and others (see SVĀRTHA; PARĀRTHA) and instead engages in morally questionable behavior. Heedlessness is the opposite of “heedfulness” (APRAMĀDA), which is considered foundational to any kind of ethical or virtuous behavior—so much so, in fact, that the Buddha is said to have recommended it in his last words delivered on his deathbed: “Indeed, monks, I declare to you: decay is inherent in all compounded things; strive on with heedfulness.” (P. handadāni bhikkhave amantayāmi vo: vayadhammā saṅkhārā; appamādena sampādetha.)

pramāṇa. (T. tshad ma; C. liang; J. ryō; K. yang 量). In Sanskrit, “means of knowledge,” or “valid knowledge,” defined technically as a consciousness that is not deceived with regard to its object. Many schools of Buddhism posit two forms of valid knowledge: direct perception (PRATYAKṢA) and inference (ANUMĀNA), with the former deriving from correct sense perception and the latter deriving from correct reasoning. Dharmakīrti states in his PRAMĀṆAVĀRTTIKA that there are two forms of valid knowledge (pramāṇa) because there are two objects of comprehension (prameya). The two types of objects are the manifest (ABHIMUKHĪ) and the hidden (PAROKṢA), with the former referring to objects that can be known through direct sense perception, the latter referring to those things that can be known only through inference. His limitation of forms of valid knowledge to only two is meant to distinguish Buddhist epistemology from that of the Hindu schools, where sound (śabda), especially in the sense of the sound of the Vedas, is counted as a valid form of knowledge. Discussions of these two forms of valid knowledge, especially as set forth in the works of DIGNĀGA and DHARMAKĪRTI, encompassed a range of topics in epistemology and logic that became very influential in medieval India (among both Buddhists and non-Buddhists), and then in Tibet; its influence was less strong in East Asia. Thus, although the term pramāṇa technically refers to one of these two valid forms of knowledge, it comes by extension to refer to medieval and late Indian Buddhist epistemology and logic, in the latter case, especially as it pertains to the formal statement of syllogisms (PRAYOGA) to an opponent.

pramāṇabhūta. (T. tshad ma’i skyes bu). In Sanskrit, “authoritative one”; an epithet of the Buddha, which has also been variously translated as “he who is [like] valid knowledge,” and “he who has come into existence as [a form of] valid knowledge.” The epithet is most famously ascribed to the Buddha by DIGNĀGA in his PRAMĀṆASAMUCCAYA, and is variously commented upon by later Buddhist logicians. According to some commentators, the Buddha, unlike various Hindu deities, is like a form of valid knowledge (PRAMĀṆA) because he is reliable, in the sense that he is not deceptive and because he makes known things that were not known before, such as the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS.

Pramāṇasamuccaya. (T. Tshad ma kun btus; C. Jiliang lun; J. Jūryōron; K. Chimnyang non 集量論). In Sanskrit, “Compendium on Valid Knowledge”; the most famous work of DIGNĀGA, the great Buddhist logician of the late fifth and early sixth centuries, and considered the foundational text of Buddhist logic and epistemology. In it, Dignāga describes direct perception (PRATYAKṢA) as being free from thought (KALPANĀ), and distinguishes between the objects of direct perception and thought, with direct perception able to discern specific characteristics (SVALAKṢAṆA), while thought deals only with general characteristics (SĀMĀNYALAKṢAṆA). In discussing the five sense consciousnesses and the mental consciousness (MANOVIJÑĀNA), he asserted that the sense consciousnesses operate exclusively through direct perception, whereas the mental consciousness knows objects through both direct perception and inference (ANUMĀNA). In explaining the function of thought, Dignāga described thought as operating through the negative route of APOHA, whereby thought does not perceive its object directly, but instead through the conceptual elimination of everything that is not the object. In this work, Dignāga also examines the elements of a logical syllogism (PRAYOGA) and the relations that must pertain among its various constituents in order for that statement to result in a correct inference.

pramāṇavāda. (T. tshad ma smra ba). In Sanskrit, “proponent of valid knowledge,” a term used to describe the tradition of Buddhist logic deriving especially from the work of DIGNĀGA and DHARMAKĪRTI. This tradition did not represent a self-conscious school of Buddhist philosophy, but rather an approach to issues in logic and epistemology that were central to SAUTRĀNTIKA, YOGĀCĀRA, and MADHYAMAKA. See PRAMĀṆA.

Pramāṇavārttika. (T. Tshad ma rnam ’grel). In Sanskrit, “Commentary on Valid Knowledge,” the most famous work of the great Buddhist logician DHARMAKĪRTI. The “Pramāṇa” in the title of text is a reference to DIGNĀGA’s PRAMĀṆASAMUCCAYA; Dharmakīrti’s work is ostensibly a commentary on Dignāga’s text, although in fact Dharmakīrti’s work makes significant refinements in, and occasional departures from, Dignāga’s views. The Pramāṇavārttika is written in verse, with a prose commentary by the author, in four chapters, dealing with inference for oneself (SVĀRTHĀNUMĀNA), the proof of valid knowledge (pramāṇasiddhi), direct perception (PRATYAKṢA), and inference for others (PARĀRTHĀNUMĀNA). The work was the subject of numerous commentaries in India, and later in Tibet, where it was studied by all sects and became one of the “five books” (zhung lnga) that provided the foundation for the DGE LUGS monastic curriculum.

Pramāṇaviniścaya. (T. Tshad ma rnam par nges pa). In Sanskrit, “Determination of Valid Knowledge,” one of the seven treatises of the Indian master DHARMAKĪRTI, perhaps second in fame to his PRAMĀṆAVĀRTTIKA, for which it serves as something of a summary. Following its translation into Tibetan by RNGOG BLO LDAN SHES RAB, it was the main text for the study of PRAMĀṆA (T. tshad ma) in Tibet, until Sa skya Paṇḍita’s TSHAD MA RIGS GTER that explained the Pramāṇavārttika in detail.

pramuditā. (T. rab tu dga’ ba; C. huanxi di; J. kangiji; K. hwanhŭi chi 歡喜地). In Sanskrit, “joyous,” the first of the ten bodhisattva BHŪMI, a list of ten stages (DAŚABHŪMI) deriving from the DAŚABHŪMIKASŪTRA (“Sūtra on the Ten Bhūmis”), a sūtra that is later subsumed into the massive scriptural compilation, the AVATAṂSAKASŪTRA. This first bhūmi coincides with the attainment of the path of vision (DARŚANAMĀRGA) and the remaining nine to the path of cultivation (BHĀVANĀMĀRGA). The first stage is called “joyous” because the bodhisattva rejoices at having seen reality for the first time, or because he feels joy at seeing that he is close to buddhahood, at which point he can achieve the aims of sentient beings. When the six perfections are aligned with the ten bhūmis, the pramuditā stage is an occasion for the bodhisattva to practice the perfection of giving (DĀNAPĀRAMITĀ) in particular and attracts disciples through the four means of gathering (SAṂGRAHAVASTU). The bodhisattva remains at this stage as long as he remains unaware of subtle ethical transgressions; morality (ŚĪLA) is fully perfected on the second stage. On the first bhūmi, it is said that a bodhisattva can (1) see one hundred buddhas, (2) be blessed by one hundred buddhas, (3) live for one hundred eons, (4) see the past and future in those one hundred eons with wisdom, (5) enter into and withdraw from one hundred SAMĀDHIs, (6) vibrate one hundred worlds, (7) illuminate one hundred worlds, (8) bring one hundred sentient beings to spiritual maturity using emanations, (9) go to one hundred pure buddha-fields (PARIŚUDDHABUDDHAKṢETRA), (10) open one hundred doors of doctrine, (11) display one hundred versions of his own body, and (12) surround each of those bodies with one hundred bodhisattvas. These numbers multiply as the bodhisattva proceeds to subsequent stages.

prāṇa. (T. srog; C. bona; J. hana; K. pana 波那). In Sanskrit, “wind,” “breath,” or “vital force”; the winds that course through the network of channels (NĀḌĪ) in the body, according to tantric physiognomy. There are various types of winds that perform functions such as movement, digestion, respiration, sexual activity, and sustenance of the life force. Much tantric practice is devoted, first, to causing these winds to flow freely through the system of channels and, subsequently, to gathering the various winds into the central channel in order to induce deep states of bliss.

prāṇāyāma. (T. srog rtsol; C. tiaoxi; J. chōsoku; K. chosik 調息). In Sanskrit, lit., “restraint of breath,” “restraint of wind”; a term used to encompass various practices of breath control. During his six years of practice of asceticism prior to his achievement of enlightenment, some traditions say that the Buddha became adept at the practice of holding his breath for extended periods of time but eventually abandoned it as a form of self-mortification. Nonetheless, elaborate practices of breath control are found throughout Buddhism, especially in Buddhist TANTRA. For example, at the beginning of a tantric meditative session, one is instructed to purify the breath by inhaling through one nostril and exhaling through the other by closing each nostril successively with the index finger. In the practice of ANUTTARAYOGATANTRA, the term is used broadly to refer to all forms of meditation, including the visualization of seed syllables (BĪJA) that are intended to cause the various winds to enter into the central channel (AVADHŪTĪ). Such practices are to be distinguished from “mindfulness of breathing” (ĀNĀPĀNASMṚTI), which involves mindful awareness of the natural process of inhalations and exhalations, rather than any attempt to control or restrain the breath.

praṇidhāna. (P. panidhāna; T. smon lam; C. yuan; J. gan; K. wŏn 願). In Sanskrit, “vow” or “aspiration”; a statement expressing the solemn wish that a specific aim be achieved. The most famous type of praṇidhāna is the vow the BODHISATTVA takes to become a buddha in order to liberate all sentient beings from suffering (see PŪRVAPRAṆIDHĀNA). Praṇidhāna is also listed as one of the ten perfections (PĀRAMITĀ) and as one of the ten powers (BALA) of a bodhisattva. A vow may take the form of an oath, in which one promises to achieve an aim, or the form of a prayer, in which one asks that an aim be fulfilled, often through dedicating merit toward that aim. The term occurs also in pūrvapraṇidhāna, or “prior vow,” a vow made in the past that has either been fulfilled in the present or will be fulfilled in the future, typically in conjunction with the aspiration to attain buddhahood. The term pūrvapraṇidhāna is used specifically in the MAHĀYĀNA to denote the vow made in the past by a bodhisattva to become a buddha himself, often specifying the place, the time, and the retinue that will be associated with that event. Since the buddhas succeeded in achieving their goal of buddhahood, their prior vows are therefore all considered to have been fulfilled. The most famous of all pūrvapraṇidhāna are the forty-eight vows that the monk DHARMĀKARA made before the buddha LOKEŚVARARĀJA, which ultimately led to his becoming the buddha AMITĀBHA and creating the pure land of SUKHĀVATĪ; these vows are described in the SUKHĀVATĪVYŪHASŪTRA and are foundational to the PURE LAND traditions of East Asia.

praṇidhānapāramitā. (T. smon lam gyi pha rol tu phyin pa; C. yuan boluomi; J. ganharamitsu; K. wŏn paramil 願波羅蜜). In Sanskrit, “perfection of aspiration,” “prayer,” or “resolve”; the eighth of the traditional list of ten perfections (PĀRAMITĀ). According to the system of the ten bodhisattva BHŪMI, this perfection, which is a subset of the “perfection of wisdom” (PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ), is practiced on the eighth bhūmi, called the ACALĀ (immovable). Here, all of the aspirations (PRAṆIDHĀNA; PŪRVAPRAṆIDHĀNA) made by the bodhisattva over the long path he has traversed leading up to buddhahood are considered to have been achieved.

praṇidhicittotpāda. (T. smon pa’i sems bskyed; C. yuan puti xin; J. ganbodaishin; K. wŏn pori sim 願菩提心). In Sanskrit, lit., “aspirational creation of the intention,” where “intention” or “thought” (CITTA) refers to BODHICITTA, the intention to achieve buddhahood in order to liberate all sentient beings from suffering. This is the first of two types of bodhicitta, the second being the PRASTHĀNACITTOTPĀDA, lit., the “creation of the intention to set out.” In his BODHICARYĀVATĀRA, ŚĀNTIDEVA compares the first type of bodhicitta to the decision to undertake a journey and the second type to actually setting out on the journey. In the case of the BODHISATTVA path, the first refers to the process of developing the aspiration to buddhahood for the sake of others, while the second refers to undertaking the various practices of the bodhisattva path, such as the six perfections (PĀRAMITĀ). These two forms of bodhicitta are meant to be developed in sequence.

prapañca. (P. papañca; T. spros pa; C. xilun; J. keron; K. hŭiron 戲論). In Sanskrit, lit. “diffusion,” “expansion”; viz. “conceptualization” or “conceptual proliferation”; the tendency of the process of cognition to proliferate the perspective of the self (ĀTMAN) throughout all of one’s sensory experience via the medium of concepts. The locus classicus for describing how sensory perception culminates in conceptual proliferation appears in the Pāli MADHUPIṆḌIKASUTTA. As that scripture explains, any living being will be subject to an impersonal causal process of perception in which consciousness (P. viññāṇa; S. VIJÑĀNA) occurs conditioned by an internal sense base (INDRIYA) and an external sense object (ĀYATANA); the contact among these three brings about sensory impingement or contact (P. phassa; S. SPARŚA), which in turn leads to the sensation (VEDANĀ) of that contact as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. At that point, however, the sense of ego intrudes and this process then becomes an intentional one, whereby what one feels, one perceives (P. saññā; S. SAṂJÑĀ); what one perceives, one thinks about (P. vitakka; S. VITARKA); and what one thinks about, one conceptualizes (P. papañca; S. prapañca). By allowing oneself to experience sensory objects not as things-in-themselves but as concepts invariably tied to one’s own perspective, the perceiving subject then becomes the hapless object of an inexorable process of conceptual subjugation: viz., what one conceptualizes becomes proliferated conceptually (P. papañcasaññāsaṅkhā; a term apparently unattested in Sanskrit) throughout all of one’s sensory experience. Everything that can be experienced in this world in the past, present, and future is now bound together into a labyrinthine network of concepts, all tied to oneself and projected into the external world as craving (TṚṢṆĀ), conceit (MĀNA), and wrong views (DṚṢṬI), thus creating bondage to SAṂSĀRA. By systematic attention (YONIŚOMANASKĀRA) to the impersonal character of sensory experience and through sensory restraint (INDRIYASAṂVARA), this tendency to project ego throughout the entirety of the perceptual process is brought to an end. In this state of “conceptual nonproliferation” (P. nippapañca; S. NIḤPRAPAÑCA), perception is freed from concepts tinged by this proliferating tendency, allowing one to see the things of this world as impersonal causal products that are inevitably impermanent (ANITYA), suffering (DUḤKHA), and nonself (ANĀTMAN). ¶ The preceding interpretation reflects the specific denotation of the term as explicated in Pāli scriptural materials. In a Mahāyāna context, prapañca may also connote “elaboration” or “superimposition,” especially in the sense of a fanciful, imagined, or superfluous quality that is mistakenly projected on to an object, resulting in its being misperceived. Such projections are described as manifestations of ignorance (AVIDYĀ); reality and the mind that perceives reality are described as being free from prapañca (NIṢPRAPAÑCA), and the purpose of Buddhist practice in one sense can be described as the recognition and elimination of prapañca in order to see reality clearly and directly. In the MADHYAMAKA school, the most dangerous type of prapañca is the presumption of intrinsic existence (SVABHĀVA). In YOGĀCĀRA, prapañca is synonymous with the “seeds” (BĪJA) that provide the basis for perception and the potentiality for future action. In this school, prapañca is closely associated with false discrimination (VIKALPA), specifically the bifurcation of perceiving subject and perceived object (GRĀHYAGRĀHAKAVIKALPA). The goal of practice is said to be a state of mind that is beyond all thought constructions and verbal elaboration. ¶ The precise denotation of prapañca has been the subject of much perplexity and debate within the Buddhist tradition, which is reflected in the varying translations for the term in Buddhist canonical languages. The standard Chinese rendering xilun means “frivolous debate,” which reflects the tendency of prapañca to complicate meaningful discussion about the true character of sensory cognition. The Tibetan spros ba means something like “extension, elaboration” and reflects the tendency of prapañca to proliferate a fanciful conception of reality onto the objects of perception.

prāpti. (T. ’thob pa; C. de; J. toku; K. tŭk 得). In Sanskrit, “possession,” “acquisition”; the first of the fourteen “conditioned forces dissociated from thought” (CITTAVIPRAYUKTASAṂSKĀRA) listed in the SARVĀSTIVĀDA-VAIBHĀṢIKA ABHIDHARMA and in the YOGĀCĀRA system. The function of prāpti is to serve as a kind of glue that causes the various independent constituents of existence (DHARMA) to adhere in seemingly permanent constructs. The leap the Sarvāstivāda school made was to assert that this factor of “possession” was a real dharma (DRAVYADHARMA), in distinction to other schools, which asserted that the notion of possession was simply an imputed designation (PRAJÑAPTI). Prāpti is the conditioned force that attaches a specific affliction, action, or dharma to the mental continuum (SAṂTĀNA) of the individual, thus helping to maintain the semblance of the continuity of the person. Prāpti also receives and retains the effects of positive and negative volitional actions (KARMAN) and thus ensures karmic continuity. This same notion of prāpti is also deployed to clarify how the afflictions (KLEŚA) can be eradicated in a cognition of the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (catvāry āryasatyāni): viz., that cognition brings to an end the “possession” of the afflictions, thus ensuring that they may never arise again. This factor is the opposite of the related dissociated force of “dispossession” (APRĀPTI). The PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ sūtras vehemently rejected any such notion of “possession,” even of NIRVĀṆA itself, which they claimed could neither be attained nor possessed.

prasāda. (P. pasāda; T. dad pa/dang ba; C. chengjing; J. chōjō; K. chingjŏng 澄淨). In Sanskrit, “clarity,” or “trust.” As “clarity,” the term is used to describe both the serene sense consciousnesses of someone whose mind is at peace as well as such a state of mind itself. As “trust,” the term is central to Buddhism, where it is employed in explanations of the psychology of faith or belief (see ŚRADDHĀ); it leads to zest or “desire-to-act” (CHANDA) that in turn leads to the cultivation of ŚAMATHA (serenity or calmness). These meanings of prasāda overlap when the term denotes the serenity or joy that results from trust. In the theology of the JŌDO SHINSHŪ school of Japanese PURE LAND Buddhism, it refers to a serene acceptance of the grace of AMITĀBHA.

prasajyapratiṣedha. (T. med dgag). In Sanskrit, “nonaffirming negative,” or “nonimplied negation,” a negative declaration (PRATIṢEDHA) that is expressed in such a way that nothing positive is implied. The most famous such nonimplied negation is emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ), which is the mere absence of intrinsic existence (SVABHĀVA). See also PARYUDĀSAPRATIṢEDHA.

prasaṅga. (T. thal ’gyur). In Sanskrit, “consequence”; in Buddhist logic, a statement made to an opponent that uses the opponent’s assertions to demonstrate contradictions in the opponent’s position. It is not necessary that the person who states the consequence accept the subject, predicate, and reason of the consequence. There is a difference of opinion as to whether the statement of the consequence is sufficient to bring about correct understanding in the opponent or whether an autonomous syllogism (SVATANTRAPRAYOGA) stating the correct position (that is, the position of the person who states the consequence) is also required. This was one of the points of disagreement that led to the designation of the *PRĀSAṄGIKA and *SVĀTANTRIKA branches of the MADHYAMAKA school.

*Prāsaṅgika. (T. Thal ’gyur ba). In Sanskrit, “Consequentialist,” one of the two main branches of the MADHYAMAKA school, so called because of its use of consequences (PRASAṄGA) rather than autonomous syllogisms (SVATANTRAPRAYOGA) in debates about the nature of reality. Its leading proponents include BUDDHAPĀLITA and CANDRAKĪRTI. The other branch of Madhyamaka is *SVĀTANTRIKA, represented by such figures as BHĀVAVIVEKA, JÑĀNAGARBHA, ŚĀNTARAKṢITA, and KAMALAŚĪLA. The designation “Prāsaṅgika” as a subschool of Madhyamaka does not occur in Indian literature; it was coined retrospectively in Tibet to describe the later developments of the Indian Madhyamaka school. In the doxographical literature of the DGE LUGS sect in Tibet, where *Prāsaṅgika is ranked as the preeminent school of Indian Buddhist philosophy, Prāsaṅgika differs from Svātantrika primarily on questions of the nature of emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ) and the correct role of reasoning in understanding it, although other points of difference are also enumerated, including the question of whether the arhat must understand the selflessness of phenomena (DHARMANAIRĀTMYA) in order to achieve liberation.

Prasannapadā. (T. Tshig gsal). In Sanskrit, “Clear Words,” the commentary on NĀGĀRJUNA’s MŪLAMADHYAMAKAKĀRIKĀ by the seventh-century Indian master CANDRAKĪRTI; its full title is Mūlamadhyamakavṛtti-Prasannapadā. Among Candrakīrti’s major works, it is regarded as second in importance only to his independent treatise, the MADHYAMAKĀVATĀRA, which was composed earlier. Apart from its importance as a commentary on Nāgārjuna’s text, Candrakīrti’s work is also important as the locus classicus for the division of Madhyamaka into the *SVĀTANTRIKA and *PRĀSAṄGIKA. Candrakīrti’s was the third in an influential series of commentaries. The first was that of BUDDHAPĀLITA. The second was the PRAJÑĀPRADĪPA of BHĀVAVIVEKA, who criticized Buddhapālita’s commentary on the first chapter of Nāgārjuna’s text, specifically the section in which Buddhapālita refutes the Sāṃkhya position that an effect is produced from a cause that is the same nature as itself. In the Prasannapadā, Candrakīrti defended Buddhapālita and attacked Bhāvaviveka. It is based largely on these exchanges that later Tibetan scholars came to designate Buddhapālita and Candrakīrti as *Prāsaṅgikas and Bhāvaviveka as a *Svātantrika. Candrakīrti’s commentary is also valued by scholars for its many citations from Mahāyāna sūtras. The Prasannapadā has attracted the attention of modern scholars, in part because, unlike the commentaries of Buddhapālita and Bhāvaviveka, for example, it has been preserved in Sanskrit.

Prasenajit. (P. Pasenadi; T. Gsal rgyal; C. Bosini wang; J. Hashinoku ō; K. Pasanik wang 波斯匿王). In Sanskrit, the proper name of the king of the region of KOŚALA during the time of GAUTAMA or ŚĀKYAMUNI Buddha. Prasenajit’s capital was the city of ŚRĀVASTĪ, where the Buddha delivered many of his sermons. During his reign, Kośala was one of the two most powerful kingdoms in the Indian subcontinent, along with MAGADHA, and seems to have exerted political control over the neighboring ŚĀKYA kingdom, where the Buddha was born. According to the tradition, Prasenajit was born in the same year as the Buddha. Because of his dedication to the propagation, protection, and preservation of the Buddhist order (SAṂGHA), Prasenajit is often used as an example of Buddhist notions of proper kingship. In fact, several of the Buddha’s sermons are given in response to a question asked by Prasenajit. Such devotion can also be seen in one particular distinction held by Prasenajit: legend has it that he was first person to have an image made of the Buddha. (Elsewhere, this distinction is given to King Udāyana or Rudrāyana; see UDĀYANA BUDDHA.) According to the thirteenth-century Sinhalese source, the Kosalabimbavaṇṇanā (“Laudatory Account of the Kosala Image”), Prasenajit was disappointed when he went to visit the Buddha but found that the Buddha was away from his residence. He therefore requested that an image of the Buddha be made that would function as his double; the Buddha answered that whoever might create such an image would accumulate immeasurable merit. This first image was said to have been made of sandalwood and to have displayed the thirty-two marks of a great man (MAHĀPURUṢALAKṢAṆA); when the Buddha first came to see the image that Prasenajit had commissioned, it rose to greet him. Many members of Prasenajit’s family also played important roles in Buddhist literature. His wife, MALLIKĀ, was the person who initially encouraged him to become a follower of the Buddha. One of Prasenajit’s sons was prince JETA, from whom the banker ANĀTHAPIṆḌADA (P. ANĀTHAPIṆḌIKA) purchased the JETAVANA (Jeta’s grove) to donate to the Buddha; this was one of the Buddha’s favorite residences and the place where many of his sermons were delivered. Prasenajit was the father of the princess Śrīmālādevī, the protagonist of the ŚRĪMĀLĀDEVĪSIṂHANĀDASŪTRA. He was also the father of VIRŪḌHAKA, who, when he learned that his mother was not of noble birth, made war on the ŚĀKYA clan. Prasenajit’s sister was VAIDEHĪ, the wife of king BIMBISĀRA.

Prasphuṭapadā. (T. Tshig rab tu gsal ba). In Sanskrit, “The Clearly Worded,” a work by the Indian scholiast Dharmamitra (c. ninth century); the full title of this text is Abhisamayālaṃkārakārikāprajñāpāramitopadeśaśāstraṭīkā-prasphuṭapadā or “The Clearly Worded, Commentary on Treatise Setting Forth the Perfection of Wisdom, the Verses of the Ornament of Realization.” The Prasphuṭapadā is a subcommentary on HARIBHADRA’s ABHISAMAYĀLAṂKĀRAVIVṚTI, which is intended to clarify points on the ABHISAMAYĀLAṂKĀRA, one of five texts that were purportedly revealed to ASAṄGA by the BODHISATTVA MAITREYA in the fourth or fifth centuries CE. The Prasphuṭapadā was written shortly after the composition of the Abhisamayālaṃkāravivṛti in the early ninth century. In the Prasphuṭapadā, Dharmamitra seeks to clarify Haribhadra’s views as they appear in the Vivṛti, rather than put forth his own ideas regarding the Abhisamayālaṃkāra. In his work, Dharmamitra explains a number of doctrinal elements that would have a great impact on later forms of Tibetan Buddhism, including the TATHĀGATAGARBHA doctrine and the theory of multiple buddha bodies (BUDDHAKĀYA). For instance, in the Prasphuṭapadā, Dharmamitra asserts that the enjoyment body (SAṂBHOGAKĀYA) is accessible only to a bodhisattva who has reached the tenth stage (BHŪMI) of the bodhisattva path (see BODHISATTVABHŪMI). Dharmamitra’s text, together with the Durbodhāloka, the subcommentary on the Abhisamayālaṃkāravivṛti by DHARMAKĪRTIŚRĪ (the teacher of ATIŚA DĪPAṂKARAŚRĪJÑĀNA), is often cited in Tibetan PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ commentaries.

praśrabdhi. (P. passaddhi; T. shin tu sbyang ba; C. qing’an; J. kyōan; K. kyŏngan 輕安). In Sanskrit, “serenity,” “calm”; one of the forty-six mental concomitants (CAITTA) according to the SARVĀSTIVĀDA-VAIBHĀṢIKA school of ABHIDHARMA, one of the fifty-one according to the YOGĀCĀRA school, where it is listed among the salutary (KUŚALA) mental states and one of the fifty-two in the Pāli ABHIDHAMMA. Praśrabdhi refers to the state of mind associated with concentration (SAMĀDHI), referring especially to the serenity that brings pliancy to the mind and body that enables the adept to direct the mind and body toward wholesome actions.

prasthānacittotpāda. (T. ’jug pa’i sems bskyed; C. xing putixin; J. gyōbodaishin; K. haeng porisim 行菩提心). In Sanskrit, lit., “creation of the intention to set out,” where “intention” or “thought” (CITTA) refers to BODHICITTA, the wish to achieve buddhahood in order to save all sentient beings from suffering. This is the second of two types of bodhicitta, the other being PRAṆIDHICITTOTPĀDA, lit., “the aspirational creation of the intention.” In his BODHICARYĀVATĀRA, ŚĀNTIDEVA compares the first type to the decision to undertake a journey and the second type to actually setting out on the journey. In the case of the BODHISATTVA path, the first refers to the process of developing the aspiration to buddhahood for the sake of others, while the second refers to the undertaking the various practices of the bodhisattva path, such as the six perfections (PĀRAMITĀ). These two forms of bodhicitta are meant to be developed in sequence.

pratāpana. (P. mahātapa; T. rab tu tsha ba; C. dajiaore; J. daishōnetsu; K. taech’oyŏl 大焦熱). In Sanskrit, “very hot,” one of the hot hells in Buddhist cosmology; its prefix distinguishes it from another hell, which is merely “hot” (TĀPANA). Pratāpana is the seventh of the eight hot hells in increasing order of horror, and is thus exceeded in this regard only by the worst hell of all, the “interminable” (AVĪCI). The sufferings of the pratāpana hell include being cast into a vast cauldron of molten metal and having one’s body wrapped with rods of burning iron.

pratibhāna. (P. paṭibhāna; T. spobs pa; C. biancai; J. benzai; K. pyŏnjae 辯才). In Sanskrit, “eloquence,” or “ready speech,” referring typically to the ability to inspire others through one’s words. Pratibhāna is included among the four types of analytical knowledge (PRATISAṂVID) that are mastered by BODHISATTVAs at the ninth BHŪMI. In the East Asian tradition, a bodhisattva is said to have, or is exhorted to attain, eight qualities of true eloquence when delivering Buddhist teachings. He should display eloquence that is (1) free of hectoring and bellowing (since an accomplished bodhisattva inherently possesses such majestic charisma that he does not need to inveigle his audience to pay attention); (2) unconfused and organized in his delivery; (3) confident and unfazed; (4) unconceited; (5) meaningful, wholesome, and conducive to skillfulness; (6) profound, interesting, and informed; (7) free from harshness; (8) seasonable, adaptive, and responsive to the conditions at hand.

pratibhāsa. (T. snang ba; C. xianxian; J. kengen; K. hyŏnhyŏn 顯現). A polysemous term in Sanskrit, whose denotations include “appearance” and “perception.” The term is often used to describe what is perceived by consciousness (VIJÑĀNA), as opposed to the true nature of the object perceived. The term therefore often carries a negative connotation of something ephemeral and deceptive. Tantric literature describes a practice of “pure appearance” in which the ordinary world is visualized as a MAṆḌALA and one’s own body is visualized as the body of a buddha.

pratideśanā. (P. paṭidesanā; T. so sor bshags pa; C. huiguo; J. keka; K. hoegwa 悔過). Often translated from Sanskrit as “confession,” but meaning something closer to “disclosure” or “acknowledgment”; the practice of acknowledging one’s misdeeds. It is the central practice of the fortnightly UPOṢADHA rites, where monks and nuns “disclose” or “confess” their transgressions of the PRĀTIMOKṢA precepts and is also an important part of MAHĀYĀNA liturgy, in which misdeeds are revealed during an additional recitation during the upoṣadha rites, or, in the absence of a community (SAṂGHA), to an image of the buddha or to visualized buddhas. In the prātimokṣa, the related term PRATIDEŚANĪYA refers specifically to four infractions that need only be acknowledged.

pratideśanīya. (P. pāṭidesanīya; T. so sor bshags par bya ba; C. duishou/boluotitisheni; J. taishu/haradaidaishani; K. taesu/parajejesani 對首/波羅提提舍尼). In Sanskrit, lit., “entailing acknowledgment” or “disclosure”; a group of four ecclesiastical offenses related to the receiving and eating of food, which are to be disclosed to, or confessed before, another monk. These offenses include (1) receiving food from an unrelated nun in an uninhabited area, (2) not dismissing a nun who is giving orders while monks are eating, (3) consuming food received from a “family in training,” that is, a family too poor to provide alms, and (4) consuming unsolicited food received in one’s own residence in the wilderness while one is not ill. In certain recensions of the PRĀTIMOKṢA, such as the Pāli and MŪLASARVĀSTIVĀDA, the offenses entailing acknowledgment form a separate category of transgressions from other misdeeds that require confession, in that the words used in acknowledging the violation are specifically prescribed for these four rules.

pratigha. (P. paṭigha; T. khong khro; C. chen; J. shin; K. chin 瞋). In Sanskrit, “aversion,” “hostility,” or “repulsion,” one of the primary mental afflictions (KLEŚA) and closely synonymous with “ill will” (DVEṢA). In the VAIBHĀṢIKA school of SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA, pratigha is listed as the second of the six fundamental afflictions (MŪLAKLEŚA), along with greed (RĀGA), ignorance (AVIDYĀ), conceit (MĀNA), doubt (VICIKITSĀ), and wrong views (DṚṢṬI). These six kleśas, along with bhavarāga (the desire for continued existence) constitute the latent afflictions (anusayakilesa) in the Pāli ABHIDHAMMA. The YOGĀCĀRA school also uses the same list of six fundamental kleśas, including pratigha but replacing māna with stupidity (mūḍhi). In Buddhist psychology, when contact with sensory objects is made “without introspection” (ASAṂPRAJANYA), aversion can arise. Since aversion is a psychological reaction that is associated with repulsion, resistance, and active dislike of a displeasing stimulus, it can also generate secondary mental afflictions (UPAKLEŚA) that have pratigha as their common foundation, including “anger” (KRODHA), “enmity” (UPANĀHA), “agitation” (PRADĀSA), “envy” (ĪRṢYĀ), and “harmfulness” (VIHIṂSĀ). Because pratigha includes both cognitive and affective dimensions, it is not removed through insight upon entry into the path of vision (DARŚANAMĀRGA), but is abandoned only after repeated training on the path of cultivation (BHĀVANĀMĀRGA).

prātihārya. (P. pāṭihāriya; T. cho ’phrul; C. shixian; J. jigen; K. sihyŏn 示現). In Sanskrit, “wonder” or “miracle,” miraculous powers generally said to be exclusive to a buddha. In this sense, the term is sometimes distinguished from ṚDDHI, or “magical powers,” which results from the attainment of states of DHYĀNA. Among the many miracles ascribed to the Buddha, two are particularly famous and are widely depicted in Buddhist iconography. Both took place at ŚRĀVASTĪ, where the Buddha defeated a group of TĪRTHIKAs. The first is the so-called “dual miracle” (YAMAKAPRĀTIHĀRYA) in which the Buddha caused both fire and water to emanate from his body. The second is the “great miracle” (MAHĀPRĀTIHĀRYA) in which the Buddha, seated on a great lotus, multiplied himself until the sky was filled with buddhas, some seated, some standing, some walking, some lying down, each teaching the dharma. Three categories of miracles (triprātihārya) are also enumerated. The first, the “miracle of magical power” (rḍdhiprātihārya) includes the myriad supranormal powers of the Buddha, including the power to fly and to appear and disappear. The second, the “miracle of foretelling” (ādeśanāprātihārya), refers to the Buddha’s ability to know the thoughts of others. The third, the “miracle of instruction,” is the Buddha’s unique ability to teach the dharma. Eight deeds of the Buddha, sometimes referred to as miracles, are commonly depicted during the Pāla period. Taking place at the eight “great sites” (MAHĀSTHĀNA), the eight are (1) the miracle of his birth at LUMBINĪ, (2) the defeat of MĀRA and achievement of buddhahood at BODHGAYĀ, (3) the turning of the wheel of the dharma (DHARMACAKRA) at ṚṢIPATANA (SĀRNĀTH), (4) miracles performed at ŚRĀVASTĪ, (5) the descent from the TRĀYASTRIṂŚA heaven at SĀṂKĀŚYA, (6) the taming of the elephant NĀLĀGIRI at RĀJAGṚHA, (7) the receipt of the monkey’s gift of honey at VAIŚĀLĪ, and (8) the passage into PARINIRVĀṆA at KUŚINAGARĪ. (See also BAXIANG).

pratijñā. (T. dam bca’; C. lizong; J. risshū; K. ipchong 立宗). In Sanskrit, lit., “promise,” but used in Buddhist logic (HETUVIDYĀ) to mean “thesis” or “proposition,” that is, the position that one is seeking to prove to an opponent. In this sense, it used synonymously with PAKṢA and SĀDHYA (“what is to be established”). A thesis is composed of a subject and a predicate; for example, “the mountain is on fire,” or “sound is impermanent,” with mountain and sound being the subject. There is considerable discussion in Buddhist logic on what constitutes a valid thesis. According to DIGNĀGA, a thesis is a proposition intended by its proponent as something to be stated alone (i.e., without reasons or examples) and whose subject is not contradicted by direct perception (PRATYAKṢA), inference (ANUMĀNA), valid authorities (PRAMĀṆA), or what is commonly accepted as true. In the works of Dignāga and DHARMAKĪRTI (and their commentators), there is also considerable discussion of whether, in debating with an opponent, one’s own thesis needs to be explicitly stated, or whether it can be implied. The term pratijñā is also important in the MADHYAMAKA school, deriving from NĀGĀRJUNA’s famous declaration in his VIGRAHAVYĀVARTANĪ that he has no thesis, which became in Tibet one of the most commented upon statements in Madhyamaka literature.

prātimokṣa. (P. pāṭimokkha; T. so sor thar pa; C. boluotimucha; J. haradaimokusha; K. parajemokch’a 波羅提木叉). In Sanskrit, “code” or “rules,” referring to a disciplinary code of conduct (of which there are several versions) for fully ordained monks (BHIKṢU) and nuns (BHIKṢUṆĪ), or a text that sets forth that code, which probably constitutes the oldest part of the various Buddhist VINAYAs. The pre-Buddhist denotation of prātimokṣa is uncertain, and may perhaps mean a promise that is to be redeemed; the Buddhist etymologies seem to indicate a “binding obligation” and, by extension, a monastic regulation. Indian Buddhist schools tended to define themselves in terms of the particular monastic code to which they adhered, and differences in the interpretation of the rules of conduct resulted in the convening of councils (SAṂGĪTI) to adjudicate such differences and, ultimately, in the schisms that produced the various mainstream Buddhist schools. Several different recensions of the prātimokṣa are extant, but there are three main lineages followed within the Buddhist tradition today: the THERAVĀDA pāṭimokkha followed in Sri Lankan and Southeast Asian Buddhism; the DHARMAGUPTAKA prātimokṣa followed in Chinese and Korean Buddhism; and the MŪLASARVĀSTIVĀDA prātimokṣa followed in Tibetan Buddhism. Despite divergences in the numbers of rules listed in these codes (the Theravāda, for example, has 227 rules for bhikṣus, the Dharmaguptaka 250, and the Mūlasarvāstivāda 253, and all have considerably more rules for bhikṣuṇī), there is substantial agreement among the prātimokṣa of the various mainstream Buddhist schools. They are all similarly structured, with separate codes for monks and nuns, enumerating a set of categories of transgressions: (1) PĀRĀJIKA transgressions of ethical expectations that were so serious as to bring “defeat” and in some vinaya traditions to require expulsion from the order, e.g., engaging in sexual intercourse and murder; (2) SAṂGHĀVAŚEṢA, transgressions entailing temporary suspension from the order, such as masturbation, acting as a go-between for sexual liaisons, or attempting to cause schism in the order (SAṂGHABHEDA); (3) ANIYATA, undetermined cases exclusive to monks who are found with women, which require investigation by the saṃgha; (4) NAIḤSARGIKAPĀYATTIKA, transgressions requiring confession and forfeiture of a prohibited object, such as hoarding excessive numbers of robes (CĪVARA), begging bowls (PĀTRA), and medicine, or keeping gold and silver; (5) PĀYATTIKA, transgressions that can be expiated through confession alone, such as lying; (6) PRATIDEŚANĪYA, minor transgressions to be acknowledged, related to receiving and eating food, which were to be confessed; (7) ŚAIKṢA, minor training rules governing monastic etiquette and deportment, such as not wearing robes sloppily or eating noisily, violations of which were called DUṢKṚTA, lit. “bad actions.” Both the bhikṣu and bhikṣuṇī prātimokṣa also include (8) ADHIKARAṆAŚAMATHA, seven methods of resolving ecclesiastical disputes. Regardless of the school, the prātimokṣa was recited separately during the fortnightly UPOṢADHA ceremony by chapters of monks and nuns who gather inside a purified SĪMĀ boundary. All monks and nuns were expected to have confessed (see PĀPADEŚANĀ) to any transgressions of the rules during the last fortnight prior to the recitation of the code, thus expiating them of that transgression. At the conclusion of the recitation of each category of transgression, the reciter questions the congregation as to whether the congregation is pure; silence indicates assent.

prātimokṣasaṃvara. (T. so sor thar pa’i sdom pa; C. boluotimuchahu/biejietuo lüyi; J. haradaimokushago/betsugedatsu ritsugi; K. parajemokch’aho/pyŏrhaet’al yurŭi 波羅提木叉護/別解律儀). In Sanskrit, “restraint proffered by the disciplinary code” (PRĀTIMOKṢA); one of the three types of restraint (SAṂVARA) mentioned in the VAIBHĀṢIKA school of SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA, which are associated with “unmanifest material force” or “hidden imprints” (AVIJÑAPTIRŪPA). In Sarvāstivāda literature, three types of restraint (saṃvara) against unwholesome (AKUŚALA) actions are mentioned: (1) the restraint proffered to a monk or nun when he or she accepts the disciplinary rules of the order (prātimokṣasaṃvara); (2) the restraint that is produced through mental absorption (dhyānasaṃvara); and (3) the restraint that derives from being free from the contaminants (anāsravasaṃvara). The restraint inherent in the disciplinary code creates a special kind of “force field” that automatically protects and dissuades monks and nuns from unwholesome activity, even when they are not consciously aware that they are following the precepts or when they are asleep. This specific type of restraint is what makes a person a monk or a nun, since just wearing robes and following an ascetic way of life would not in themselves be enough to instill in him or her the protective power offered by the prātimokṣa. This particular type of avijñaptirūpa thus creates an invisible and impalpable barrier that helps to protect the monk or the nun from unwholesome action. The prātimokṣasaṃvara is incorporated into later MAHĀYĀNA Buddhist and tantric Buddhist codes (see SDOM GSUM; TRISAṂVARA).

Prātimokṣasūtra. (T. So sor thar pa’i mdo; C. Jie ben; J. Kaihon; K. Kye pon 戒本). In Sanskrit, “Sūtra on the Code,” a scripture that provides a separate listing of the code of conduct and monastic rules (PRĀTIMOKṢA) for monks (BHIKṢU) and for nuns (BHIKṢUṆĪ). Several of the mainstream Buddhist schools, including the MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA and MŪLASARVĀSTIVĀDA schools, had a separate text, called the Prātimokṣasūtra, that listed the prātimokṣa rules for monks and for nuns. There is no such separate text in the THERAVĀDA school, where the pāṭimokkha is included in the SUTTAVIBHAṄGA, the first major section of the Pāli VINAYAPIṬAKA, which includes the mahāvibhaṅga with the rules for monks and the bhikkunīvibhaṅga with the rules for nuns.

pratinivāsana. See NIVĀSANA.

pratipakṣa. (P. paṭipakkha; T. gnyen po; C. duizhi; J. taiji; K. taech’i 對治). In Sanskrit, lit., “opposite”; a “counteragent” or “antidote,” a factor which, when present, precludes the presence of its opposite. In Buddhist meditation theory, an antidote may be a virtuous (KUŚALA) mental state (CAITTA) that is applied as a counteragent against a nonvirtuous (AKUŚALA) mental state. The Buddhist premise that two contrary mental states cannot exist simultaneously leads to the development of specific meditations to be used as such counteragents, sometimes called the five “inhibitory” contemplations (C. zhiguan, tingguan): (1) lust (RĀGA) is countered by the contemplations on impurity (AŚUBHABHĀVANĀ), e.g., the cemetery contemplations on the stages in the decomposition of a corpse; (2) hatred (DVEṢA) is countered by the divine abiding (BRAHMAVIHĀRA) of loving-kindness (MAITRĪ); (3) delusion (MOHA) is countered by contemplating the twelvefold chain of dependent origination (PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA); (4) ego-conceit (asmimāna) is countered by the contemplation on the eighteen sense-fields (DHĀTU); and (5) discursive thought (VITARKA) is countered by mindfulness of breathing (ĀNĀPĀNASMṚTI). Progress on the path to liberation is also described technically in terms of the abandonment of a specific afflictive state (KLEŚA) through the application of its specific antidote. Thus, afflictions and their antidotes are enumerated for the nine levels of SAṂSĀRA (the sensuous realm, or KĀMADHĀTU, the four levels of the subtle-materiality realm, or RŪPADHĀTU, and the four levels of the immaterial realm, or ARŪPYADHĀTU). In each case, the antidote is an increasingly powerful level of wisdom (PRAJÑĀ) that displaces increasingly subtle levels of the afflictions. Both the four types of noble persons (ĀRYAPUDGALA) and the ten stages (BHŪMI) of the bodhisattva are defined by which antidotes have been successfully applied to eradicate specific afflictions. Thus, the accumulation and application of various antidotes is one of the practices that a bodhisattva must learn to perfect. The Buddha is said to have taught 84,000 antidotes for the 84,000 afflictions.

pratipatti. (P. paṭipatti; T. sgrub pa; C. xiuxing; J. shugyō; K. suhaeng 修行). In Sanskrit, “practice,” “progress”; one of four aspects of the truth of the path (MĀRGASATYA), the fourth of the so-called FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (catvāry āryasatyāni). The other aspects are mārga (path), nyāya (correct method), and nairyāṇika (providing a definite escape). As a word descriptive of the path, pratipatti is a word for all the practices, from the beginning practices of neophytes up to the final practices of noble beings (ĀRYA). In all cases the practice avoids the extremes (see MADHYAMAPRATIPAD) of self-indulgence and self-mortification, or the extreme views of eternalism (ŚĀŚVATADṚṢṬI) and annihilationism (UCCHEDADṚṢṬI). See also PAṬIPATTI.

pratirūpaka. (S). See SADDHARMAPRATIRŪPAKA.

pratisaṃkakṣikā. (S). See SAṂKAKṢIKĀ.

pratisaṃkhyānirodha. (T. so sor brtags ’gog; C. zemie; J. chakumetsu; K. t’aengmyŏl 擇滅). In Sanskrit, “analytical cessation,” the permanent elimination of an affliction (KLEŚA) that occurs as a result of meditative analysis of the true nature of phenomena; one of the uncompounded factors (ASAṂSKṚTA–DHARMA) recognized in both the VAIBHĀṢIKA school of SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA and the YOGĀCĀRA schools. The “true cessations” or “truth of cessation” (NIRODHASATYA) that constitute the third of the four noble truths (see NIRODHASATYA) involve analytical cessations. Analytical cessations are permanent phenomena because they are the permanent absence of a specific kleśa, essentially serving as a kind of “place marker” that ensures that a kleśa, once eliminated, can never recur. Analytical cessations are distinguished from nonanalytical suppressions (APRATISAṂKHYĀNIRODHA), which are neither an object of knowledge nor the result of insight; they suppress the production of any kind of dharma, ensuring (in the Sarvāstivāda interpretation) that they remain positioned in future mode and are never again able to arise in the present. The state of the analytical cessation of all the kleśas is synonymous with NIRVĀṆA.

pratisaṃlayana. (P. paṭisallāna; T. nang du yang dag ’jog pa; C. yanmo/jimo; J. enmoku/jakumoku; K. yŏnmuk/chŏngmuk 宴默/寂默). In Sanskrit, “seclusion” or “retirement”; withdrawing to a secluded place, such as the proverbial “root of a tree,” so that one may rest or, in its technical usage, so that one may train in meditation free of distractions. By extension, pratisaṃlayana refers also to the mental “isolation” or “seclusion” that accompanies meditative practice. Pratisaṃlayana is listed as one of the constituents of practice (yogāṅga) and is sometimes described as a specific type of meditative absorption (DHYĀNA) in its own right.

pratisaṃvid. (P. paṭisaṃbhidā; T. so sor yang dag par rig pa; C. wu’ai jie; J. mugege; K. muae hae 無礙解). In Sanskrit, “analytical knowledge,” of which there are four kinds: knowledge of (1) factors or phenomena (DHARMA), viz., one makes no mistakes in understanding causes, conditions, or the relationships pertaining between objects; (2) meaning (ARTHA), viz., to have no limitations with regard to the content, meaning, and analysis of one’s teachings; (3) etymology or language (NIRUKTI), viz., the ability to comprehend all languages, including those of the divinities (DEVA) and other nonhuman beings (YAKṢA, GANDHARVA, ASURA, GARUḌA, KIṂNARA, MAHORĀGA), and to penetrate the full range of etymological or linguistic expressions; and (4) eloquence (PRATIBHĀNA), viz., ease in offering explanations and/or the ability to inspire others with one’s words. These four types of knowledge are associated with both the attainment of arhatship and the achievement of the ninth of the ten stages (DAŚABHŪMI) of the BODHISATTVA path. In Chinese, these were known as the “unconstrained knowledges” (wu’ai jie).

pratisaraṇa. [alt. pratiśaraṇa] (P. paṭisaraṇa; T. rton pa; C. yi; J. e; K. ŭi 依). In Sanskrit, “reliance,” “support,” or “point of reference”; four things to be relied upon in the interpretation of a given teaching. The four are (1) to rely on the meaning (ARTHA), not the mere “letter” (vyañjana) or words; (2) to rely on the teachings (DHARMA), not the person (PUDGALA) who delivers those teachings; (3) to rely on true gnosis or knowledge (JÑĀNA), not the unreliable testimony of the ordinary consciousnesses (VIJÑĀNA); (4) to rely on the definitive meaning (NĪTĀRTHA), not the provisional meaning (NEYĀRTHA).

pratiṣedha. (T. dgag pa; C. zhe; J. sha; K. ch’a 遮). In Sanskrit, “negative” or “negation,” the refutation of an opponent’s position. The term is also used to mean “negative phenomenon,” that is, a phenomenon that is understood through the elimination of another factor. Examples would include ĀKĀŚA (“space,” when defined as the lack of obstruction) and ANĀTMAN (nonself), the absence of a self. In Buddhist logic, there are two types of negation, the “affirming negation” (PARYUDĀSAPRATIṢEDHA), which negates something while implying the existence of something else, and the “nonaffirming negation” (PRASAJYAPRATIṢEDHA), which negates without such implication.

pratiṣedhya. (T. dgag bya). In Sanskrit, “object of negation,” that factor which is eliminated through the process of understanding a particular negative phenomenon (PRATIṢEDHA). The term is used especially in the context of discussions of nonself (ANĀTMAN) and emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ), where the precise nature of what is being negated (that is, the meaning of self) is of great importance. If self is defined too narrowly, the conception of self that is the root cause of suffering may not be eliminated; if self is defined too broadly, there is a danger of falling into nihilism by denying even the conventional existence of such things are rebirth, KARMAN, and the efficacy of the path (MĀRGA).

pratiṣṭhā. (P. patiṭṭhā; T. rab tu gnas pa; C. jianli; J. konryū; K. kŏllip 建立). In Sanskrit, lit. “establishment,” or “installation,” but often having the sense of “consecration,” especially of a monastery, temple, or buddha-image. There are numerous forms of consecration ceremonies across the Buddhist world. In the case of the consecration of buddha images, these ceremonies seek to cause the buddha to “enter” into his physical representation. In some cases, this consecration is done by reciting the life story of the Buddha in the presence of the image; in other cases, the DHARMAKĀYA of the buddha is invoked and requested to enter into the image. See also DIANYAN; KAIYAN; BUDDHĀBHIṢEKA.

pratiṣṭhitanirvāṇa. (T. gnas pa’i mya ngan las ’das pa; C. zhu niepan; J. jūnehan; K. chu yŏlban 住涅槃). In Sanskrit, “static NIRVĀṆA” or “localized nirvāṇa,” a term used in the MAHĀYĀNA, often pejoratively, to describe the nirvāṇa of the ARHAT, which is “static” or “located” in a state of isolated serenity that transcends SAṂSĀRA. This type of nirvāṇa is contrasted with the “unlocalized nirvāṇa” (APRATIṢṬHITANIRVĀṆA) of a buddha which is not localized in either saṃsāra or the isolation of the arhat, but is instead a dynamic state that allows him to participate in the world while remaining forever untainted by it.

pratītyasamutpāda. (P. paṭiccasamuppāda; T. rten cing ’brel bar ’byung ba; C. yuanqi; J. engi; K. yŏn’gi 起). In Sanskrit, “dependent origination,” “conditioned origination,” lit., “origination by dependence” (of one thing on another); one of the core teachings in the Buddhist doctrinal system, having both ontological, epistemological, and soteriological implications. The notion of the conditionality of all existence is foundational in Buddhism. According to some accounts of the Buddha’s life, it constituted the fundamental insight on the night of his enlightenment. In other accounts, in the first seven days and nights following his enlightenment, he sat contemplating the significance of his experience; finally on the seventh night he is said to have contemplated the fully realized chain of dependent origination in both forward and reverse order. In one of the earliest summaries of the Buddha’s teachings (which is said to have been enough to bring ŚĀRIPUTRA to enlightenment), the Buddha is said to have taught: “When this is present, that comes to be. / From the arising of this, that arises. / When this is absent, that does not come to be. / From the cessation of this, that ceases.” (P. imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti/imasuppādā idaṃ uppajjati/imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti/imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati). This notion of causality (idaṃpratyayatā) is normatively described in a sequence of causation involving twelve interconnected links (NIDĀNA), which are often called the “twelvefold chain” in English sources: (1) ignorance (AVIDYĀ, P. avijjā), (2) predispositions, or volitional actions (S. SAṂSKĀRA, P. saṅkhāra), (3) consciousness (S. VIJÑĀNA, P. viññāṇa), (4) name and form, or mentality and materiality (NĀMARŪPA), (5) the six internal sense-bases (ĀYATANA), (6) sensory contact (S. SPARŚA, P. phassa), (7) sensation, or feeling (VEDANĀ), (8) thirst, or attachment (S. TṚṢṆĀ, P. taṇhā), (9) grasping, or clinging (UPĀDĀNA), (10) existence or a process of becoming (BHAVA), (11) birth or rebirth (JĀTI), and (12) old age and death (JARĀMARAṆA), this last link accompanied in its full recital by sorrow (śoka), lamentation (parideva), pain (DUḤKHA) grief (daurmanasya), and despair (upāyāsa). Some formulations of the chain, as in the MAHĀPADĀNASUTTANTA, include only ten links (skipping the first two), suggesting that the standard list of twelve links developed over time. (The commentary to the Mahāpadānasuttanta explains away this inconsistency by noting that the ten-linked chain does not take past lives into account but applies only to the current life.) Each link in this chain of causality is said to be the condition for the following link, thus: “dependent on ignorance, predispositions (S. avidyāpratyayāḥ saṃskārāḥ; P. avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā), … dependent on birth, old age and death (S. jātipratyayāṃ jarāmaraṇaṃ; P. jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṃ).” This chain of dependent origination stands as the middle way (MADHYAMAPRATIPAD) between the two “extreme views” (ANTAGRĀHADṚṢṬI) of eternalism (ŚĀŚVATADṚṢṬI)—viz., the view that there is a perduring soul that continues to be reborn unchanged from one lifetime to the next—and annihilationism (UCCHEDADṚṢṬI)—the view that the person ceases to exist at death and is not reborn—because it validates the imputed continuity (SAṂTĀNA) of the personality, without injecting any sense of a permanent substratum of existence into the process. Thus, when the Buddha is asked, “Who is it who senses?,” he rejects the question as wrongly framed and rephrases it as, “With what as condition does sensation (vedanā) occur? By contact (sparśa).” Or when asked, “Who is it who is reborn?,” he would rephrase the question as “With what as condition does birth (jāti) occur? By becoming (bhava).” Accurate understanding of dependent origination thus serves as an antidote (PRATIPAKṢA) to the affliction of delusion (MOHA) and contemplating the links in this chain helps to overcome ignorance (AVIDYĀ). ¶ The twelvefold chain of dependent origination is generally conceived to unfold in what are referred to as the “forward” and “reverse” orders, although in fact both versions proceed through the chain in the same sequence. First, as a progressive process of ontological becoming (bhavānulomaparīkṣā), the forward version of the chain describes the process by which ignorance ultimately leads to birth and death and thus the full panoply of existence in the turning wheel of SAṂSĀRA; in forward order, the chain is therefore an elaboration of the second noble truth, the truth of the origin of suffering (SAMUDAYASATYA). Second, the reverse order of the chain describes a negative process of soteriological eradication (kṣayavyayānulomaparīkṣā), where the cessation of ignorance serves as the condition for the cessation of predispositions, and so on through the entire chain until even old age and death are eradicated and the adept is released from continued rebirth in saṃsāra; in reverse order, the chain is therefore an elaboration of the third noble truth, the truth of the cessation of suffering (NIRODHASATYA). As a chain of ontological becoming, some traditional commentators organize the twelve links as occurring during the course of a single lifetime. Other commentators instead divide the twelve links over three lifetimes to illustrate explicitly the process of rebirth: ignorance and predispositions are assigned to a previous lifetime; consciousness, name and form, sense-fields, contact, sensation, thirst, grasping, and becoming are assigned to the current lifetime; and this leads to future birth, and eventual old age and death, in the immediately following lifetime. According to this interpretation, ignorance does not refer to a primordial ignorance, but rather to a specific moment of unsystematic reflection on things (AYONIŚOMANASKĀRA) that prompts a volitional action (saṃskāra). The predispositions created by that action imprint themselves on consciousness, which refers here to the “linking consciousness” (pratisaṃdhivijñāna) that links the past and present lives, a consciousness that is reborn, developing into a body with internal sense organs and a mind with sensory consciousnesses, which come into contact with external sensory objects, giving rise to sensations that are pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. Sensations of pleasure, for example, can give rise to attachment to those sensations and then clinging, an intensification of that attachment. Such clinging at the end of life sustains the process of becoming, which leads to rebirth in the next existence, where one once again undergoes aging and death. This sequence of dependent conditions has repeated itself since time immemorial and will continue on indefinitely until liberation from rebirth is achieved. To illustrate the role of pratītyasamutpāda in the cycle of rebirth, its twelve links are sometimes depicted around the perimeter of the “wheel of life” (BHAVACAKRA). ¶ In the Upanisāsutta of the SAṂYUTTANIKĀYA, the standard twelvefold chain of dependent origination is connected to an alternate chain that is designated the “supramundane dependent origination” (P. lokuttara-paṭiccasamuppāda; S. lokottara-pratītyasamutpāda), which explicitly outlines the process leading to liberation. Here, the last factor in the standard chain, that of old age and death (jarāmaraṇa), is substituted with suffering, which in turn becomes the first factor in this alternate series. According to the Nettipakaraṇa, a Pāli exegetical treatise, this chain of supramundane dependent origination consists of (1) suffering (P. dukkha; S. duḥkha), (2) faith (P. saddhā; S. ŚRADDHĀ), (3) delight or satisfaction (P. pāmojja; S. prāmodya), (4) rapture or joy (P. pīti; S. PRĪTI), (5) tranquillity or repose (P. passaddhi; S. PRAŚRABDHI), (6) mental ease or bliss (SUKHA), (7) concentration (SAMĀDHI), (8) knowledge and vision that accords with reality (P. yathābhūtañāṇadassana; S. YATHĀBHŪTAJÑĀNADARŚANA), (9) disillusionment (P. nibbidā; S. NIRVEDA), (10) dispassion (P. virāga; S. VAIRĀGYA), (11) liberation (P. vimutti; S. VIMUKTI), and (12) knowledge of the destruction of the contaminants (P. āsavakkhayañāṇa; S. āsravakṣayajñāna; see ĀSRAVAKṢAYA). The Kimatthiyasutta of the AṄGUTTARANIKĀYA gives a slightly different version of the first links, replacing suffering and faith with (1) observance of precepts (P. kusalasīla; S. kuśalaśīla) and (2) freedom from remorse (P. avippaṭisāra; S. avipratisāra). ¶ Another denotation of pratītyasamutpāda is a more general one, the notion that everything comes into existence in dependence on something else, with such dependence including the dependence of an effect upon its cause, the dependence of a whole upon its parts, and the dependence of an object on the consciousness that designates it. This second meaning is especially associated with the MADHYAMAKA school of NĀGĀRJUNA, which sees a necessary relation between dependent origination and emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ), arguing that because everything is dependently arisen, everything is empty of independence and intrinsic existence (SVABHĀVA). Dependent origination is thus central to Nāgārjuna’s conception of the middle way: because everything is dependent, nothing is independent, thus avoiding the extreme of existence, but because everything is originated, nothing is utterly nonexistent, thus avoiding the extreme of nonexistence. In East Asia, and specifically the HUAYAN ZONG, this second interpretation of dependent origination is also recast as the unimpeded (wu’ai) “dependent origination of the DHARMADHĀTU” (FAJIE YUANQI), in which all things throughout the entire universe are conceived as being enmeshed in a multivalent web of interconnection and interdependency.

Pratītyasamutpādahṛdayakārikā. (T. Rten cing ’brel bar ’byung ba’i snying po’i tshig le’ur byas pa; C. Shi’er yinyuan lun; J. Jūniinnenron; K. Sibi inyŏn non 十二因論). In Sanskrit, “Verses on the Essence of Dependent Origination,” a work attributed to NĀGĀRJUNA by BHĀVAVIVEKA. The work seeks to reconcile the two major meanings of PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA: that of a twelvefold sequence of cause and effect and a more general sense of phenomena arising in dependence on causes, which he sets forth in his MŪLAMADHYAMAKAKĀRIKĀ. Nāgārjuna qualifies the twelve links in the chain of causation under three headings, with ignorance (AVIDYĀ), attachment (TṚṢṆĀ), and grasping (UPĀDĀNA) classified as afflictions (KLEŚA); predispositions (SAṂSKĀRA) and existence (BHAVA) as action (KARMAN); and the remaining seven as forms of suffering (DUḤKHA). Those five that are classified as kleśa and karman are also causes; the remaining seven are effects. The “essence” of pratītyasamutpāda in the title is the lack of self in both the person (PUDGALA) and the aggregates (SKANDHA).

*Pratītyasamutpādaśāstra. (C. Yuansheng lun; J. Enshōron; K. Yŏnsaeng non 生論). In Sanskrit, “Treatise on Dependent Origination,” a work by Ullaṅgha in thirty verses, with a prose explanation. The work is lost in Sanskrit and was translated into Chinese by Dharmagupta in 607 during the Daye era (605–616) of the Sui dynasty.

Pratītyasamutpādavibhaṅganirdeśasūtra. (T. Rten cing ’brel bar ’byung ba dang po dang rnam par dbye ba bstan pa zhes bya ba’i mdo). In Sanskrit, “Sūtra Setting Forth the Divisions of Dependent Origination,” also known as the Pratītyasamutpādādivibhaṅganirdeśasūtra, a work discovered inscribed on two bricks at NĀLANDĀ monastery. The sūtra was commented upon by VASUBANDHU in his Pratītyasamutpādavyākhyā, with a subcommentary by Guṇamati.

prativedha. (P. paṭivedha; T. khong du chud pa; C. tongda; J. tsūdatsu; K. t’ongdal 通達). In Sanskrit, “penetration,” or “direct realization,” signifying the direct realization of the truth. Commonly, this realization, or actualization, of the truth is contrasted with the textual study of descriptions of the truth (PARIYATTI), or the soteriological practice of it (PAṬIPATTI). Prativedha is the culmination and fulfillment of these two prior disciplines. Thus the dharma is to be first studied, then practiced, and ultimately realized. In Pāli sources, paṭivedha (S. prativedha) is stratified into four degrees of liberation, beginning with the attainment of a “stream-enterer” (P. sotāpanna, S. SROTAĀPANNA), then “once-returner” (P. sakadāgāmi, S. SAKṚDĀGĀMIN), “nonreturner” (P. anāgāmi, S. ANĀGĀMIN), and finally arahant (S. ARHAT). It is understood that the last of these four degrees of penetration into the truth frees one from suffering and the prospect of further rebirth.

pratyakṣa. (T. mngon sum; C. xianliang; J. genryō; K. hyŏllyang 現量). In Sanskrit, “direct perception,” cognition that is unmistaken in the sense that it correctly apprehends qualities such as shape and color, and is nonconceptual, in the sense that it does not perceive its object through the medium of an image, as does thought (KALPANĀ). In Buddhist epistemology, direct perception is one of only two forms of valid knowledge (PRAMĀṆA), along with inference (ANUMĀNA). Four types of direct perception are enumerated. The first is sensory direct perception, in which the five external sense objects are perceived directly by the sense consciousnesses (VIJÑĀNA), in reliance on the five sense organs (INDRIYA). This form of direct perception is to be differentiated from SAṂJÑĀ, also sometimes translated as “perception.” The latter term refers to the specific function of consciousness to apprehend the various characteristics of a given object or to differentiate between two objects. The second kind of direct perception is mental direct perception (MANONUBHAVAPRATYAKṢA), which, according to one interpretation, includes a brief and unnoticed moment of direct perception by the mind at the end of sensory direct perception, with that moment of mental direct perception inducing the conceptual cognition of the object. Mental direct perception also includes the five ABHIJÑĀ, which result from states of deep concentration. The third type is self-knowing direct perception (svasaṃvedana), a function of self-consciousness, which observes a consciousness apprehending its object. It is this form of direct perception that makes possible memory of former moments of consciousness. The fourth type is yogic direct perception (YOGIPRATYAKṢA), which occurs only on one of the noble paths (ĀRYAMĀRGA), where the truth is directly perceived through a union of ŚAMATHA and VIPAŚYANĀ.

pratyālīḍha. (T. g.yon brkyang ba; C. zhanzuo; J. tensa; K. chŏnjwa 展左). In Sanskrit, lit., “extended to the left”; a term used to describe the Buddhist iconographical posture (ĀSANA), in which the figure holds the left leg bent forward at the knee with the right leg extended back in a lunging posture. While the term generally refers to standing postures, it may also apply to seated poses, and is distinguished from ĀLĪḌHA, where the leg positions are reversed. In Tibetan tantric art, the pratyālīḍha posture is often found in deities of the PITṚTANTRA class. See also ĀSANA.

pratyāstaraṇa. (P. paccattharaṇa; T. gding ba; C. woju; J. gagu; K. wagu 臥具). A sheet or mat permitted as one of the possessions of a Buddhist monk. The Buddha initially had allowed monks to place their few belongings on a piece of cloth. When monks pointed out to the Buddha that their sitting mat (NIṢĪDANA) was too small for lying down, he allowed them to have a larger piece of cloth that they could spread on the ground or the floor of their cell where they could rest or sleep.

pratyātmādhigama. (T. so sor rang gis rig pa; C. neizheng; J. naishō; K. naejŭng 内證). In Sanskrit, “specific understanding” or “individual understanding,” a term used to describe the personal realization of a buddha, which is entirely nonconceptual and inexpressible. It is this realization that a buddha then compassionately translates into concepts and words in order to teach the dharma to sentient beings.

pratyavekṣaṇājñāna. (T. so sor rtogs pa’i ye shes; C. miao guancha zhi; J. myōkanzatchi; K. myo kwanch’al chi 妙觀察智). In Sanskrit, “wisdom of specific knowledge” (the Chinese means “wisdom of sublime investigation”); one of the five wisdoms (PAÑCAJÑĀNA) of a buddha in the MAHĀYĀNA, and specifically in the YOGĀCĀRA school, which are said to be achieved when consciousness is purified of afflictions (KLEŚA); each of these wisdoms thus entails a transformation of the one or more of the eight consciousnesses. According to the CHENG WEISHI LUN, pratyavekṣaṇājñāna is a transformation of the sixth MANOVIJÑĀNA and is a buddha’s direct understanding of the general and specific characteristics of all the phenomena in the universe.

pratyaya. (P. paccaya; T. rkyen; C. yuan; J. en; K. yŏn ). In Sanskrit, “condition”; referring generally to the subsidiary factors whose concomitance results in the production of an effect from a cause, especially in the compound HETUPRATYAYA (“causes and conditions”). For example, in the production of a sprout from a seed, the seed would be the cause (HETU), while such factors as heat and moisture would be conditions (pratyaya). Given the centrality of the doctrine of causality of Buddhist thought, detailed lists and descriptions of conditions appear in all strata of Buddhist literature. In the context of epistemology, in the case of the perception of a tree by a moment of visual consciousness (CAKṢURVIJÑĀNA), the prior moment of consciousness that leads to this specific visual consciousness is called the immediately antecedent condition (SAMANANTARAPRATYAYA), the tree is called the object condition (ĀLAMBANAPRATYAYA), and the visual sense organ is called the predominant condition (ADHIPATIPRATYAYA); the “cooperative condition” (SAHAKĀRIPRATYAYA) is the subsidiary conditions that must be present in order for an effect to be produced, such as for light to be present in order to generate visual consciousness, or the presence of heat and moisture for a seed to grow into a sprout. ¶ A much more detailed roster of these conditions occurs in a detailed list of twenty-four conditions enumerated in the PAṬṬHĀNA, the seventh book of the Pāli ABHIDHAMMAPIṬAKA, a work that applies twenty-four specific conditions to the mental and physical phenomena of existence and presents a detailed account of the Pāli interpretation of the doctrine of dependent origination (P. paṭiccasamuppāda; S. PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA). The twenty-four conditions are (1) the root condition (hetupaccaya), the condition upon which mental states entirely depend, such as a tree depending on its root. These root conditions are greed (LOBHA), hate (P. dosa, S. DVEṢA), and delusion (MOHA) in the case of unwholesome mental states, or greedlessness (alobha), hatelessness (adosa; DVEṢA), and undeludedness (amoha) in the case of wholesome mental states. Without these roots being present, the respective mental states cannot exist. (2) The object condition (ārammaṇapaccaya) is an object of perception and as such forms the condition for mental phenomena. External sense objects, such a sound, comprise the object conditions for the five physical sense consciousnesses, while mental objects such as thoughts, emotions, and memories comprise the object condition for the single internal sense consciousness of mind. (3) The dominant condition (adhipatipaccaya) gives rise to mental phenomena by way of predominance and can be one of four types: intention (chanda), energy (viriya), consciousness (citta), and investigation (vīmaṃsā). At any given time only one of the four conditions can predominate in a state of consciousness. (4) The proximate condition (anantarapaccaya) and (5) the immediately antecedent condition (samanantarapaccaya) refer to any stage in the process of consciousness that serves as the condition for the immediately following stage. For example, an eye consciousness that sees a visual object functions as the immediately antecedent condition for the arising in the next moment of the mental consciousness that receives the visual image. The mental consciousness, in turn, serves as the immediately antecedent condition for the mental consciousness that performs the function of investigating the object. (6) The cooperative condition (sahajātapaccaya) is any phenomenon or condition the arising of which necessitates the simultaneous arising of another thing; for example, any one of the four mental aggregates (P. khandha; S. SKANDHA) of feeling (vedanā), conception (P. saññā; S. SAṂJÑĀ), conditioning factors (P. saṅkhāra; S. SAṂSKĀRA), and consciousness (P. viññāṇa; S. VIJÑĀNA) functions as the cooperative condition for all the rest, since all four invariably arise together in the same moment. (7) The condition by way of mutuality (aññāmaññapaccaya) refers to the fact that all simultaneous phenomena, such as the mental aggregates mentioned above, are mutually supportive and so are also conditioned by way of mutuality; they arise and fall in dependence on one another. (8) The support condition (nissayapaccaya) is a preceding or simultaneous condition that functions as a foundation for another phenomenon in the manner of earth for a tree. An example is the five external sense organs (eye, ear, nose, tongue and body) and the one internal mental sense organ (mind), which are the preceding and simultaneous conditions for the six kinds of consciousness that arise when sense organs come into contact with their respective objects. (9) The decisive support condition (upanissayapaccaya) is anything that functions as a strong inducement to moral, immoral, or neutral mental or physical action. It is of three kinds: (a) by way of object (ārammaṇa), which can be any real or imaginary object of thought; (b) by way of proximity; and (c) by way of natural support (pakati), which includes such things as mental attitudes and associations with friends that can act as natural inducements to either wholesome or unwholesome behavior, or climate and food that induce health or illness of the body. (10) The prenascent condition (purejātapaccaya) is something previously arisen that forms a base for something arising later. An example is the five physical sense organs and the physical base of mind that, having already arisen, form the condition for the arising of consciousness through their operation. (11) The postnascent condition (pacchājātapaccaya) refers to consciousness arisen through the operation of the senses, because it serves as the necessary condition for the continued preservation of this already arisen body with its functioning senses. (12) The repetition condition (āsevanapaccaya) refers to impulsion moments of consciousness (javana) that arise in a series, each time serving as a condition for succeeding moments by way of repetition and frequency. (13) The action condition (kammapaccaya) refers to the KARMAN or karmic volitions (kammacetanā) of a previous birth that functioned to generate the physical and mental characteristics of an individual’s present existence. (14) The karmaresult condition (vipākapaccaya) refers to the five karmically resultant external sense consciousnesses that function as simultaneous conditions for other mental and physical phenomena. (15) The nutriment condition (āhārapaccaya) is of four kinds and refers to material food (kabalinkārāhāra), which is food for the body; sensory and mental contact (phassa), which is food for sensation (vedanā); mental volition (CETANĀ = karman), which is food for rebirth; and consciousness (viññāna), which is food for the mind-body complex (NĀMARŪPA) at the moment of conception. (16) The faculty condition (indriyapaccaya) refers to twenty of twenty-two faculties (INDRIYA) enumerated in the Pāli abhidhamma out of which, for example, the five external sense faculties form the condition for their respective sense consciousnesses. (17) The meditative-absorption condition (jhānapaccaya) refers to a list of seven jhāna factors as conditions for simultaneous mental and corporeal phenomena. They are thought (vitakka), imagination (vicāra), rapture (pīti), joy (sukha), sadness (domanassa), indifference (upekkhā), and concentration (samādhi). (18) The path condition (maggapaccaya) refers to twelve path factors that condition progress along the path. These are: wisdom (paññā), thought-conception (vitakka), right speech (sammavācā), right bodily action (sammakammanta), right livelihood (sammajīva), energy (viriya), mindfulness (sati), concentration (samādhi), wrong views (micchāditthi), wrong speech (micchāvācā), wrong bodily action (micchākammanta), and wrong livelihood (micchājīva). (19) The association condition (sampayuttapaccaya) refers to the four mental aggregates of feeling (vedanā), perception (saññā), mental formations (saṅkhāra), and consciousness (viññāṇa), which assist one another by association through sharing a common physical base, a common object, and arising and passing away simultaneously. (20) The dissociation condition (vippayuttapaccaya) refers to phenomena that assist other phenomena by virtue of not having the same physical base and objects. (21 and 24) The presence condition (atthipaccaya) and the nondisappearance condition (avigatapaccaya) refer to any phenomenon that through its presence is a condition for other phenomena. (22 and 23) The absence condition (natthipaccaya) and the disappearance condition (vigatapaccaya) refer to any phenomenon, such as a moment of consciousness, which having just passed away constitutes the necessary condition for the immediately following moment of the same phenomenon by providing an opportunity for it to arise. ¶ The SARVĀSTIVĀDA school also recognizes a list of four conditions, all of which appear in the preceding Pāli list and thus appear to have evolved before the separation of the SARVĀSTIVĀDA and STHAVIRANIKĀYA schools: (1) HETUPRATYAYA, or condition qua cause, corresponding to no. 1 in the Pāli list; (2) SAMANANTARAPRATYAYA, or immediately antecedent condition, corresponding to no. 5 in the Pāli list; (3) ĀLAMBANAPRATYAYA, or object condition, corresponding to no. 2 in the Pāli list; (4) ADHIPATIPRATYAYA, or predominant condition, corresponding to no. 3 in the Pāli list. These four pratyaya first appear in the first-century CE VIJÑĀNAKĀYA and antedate the related Sarvāstivāda list of six “causes” (HETU).

pratyekabuddha. (P. paccekabuddha; T. rang sangs rgyas; C. yuanjue/dujue; J. engaku/dokukaku; K. yŏn’gak/tokkak 覺/獨覺). In Sanskrit, “individually enlightened one” or “solitary buddha”; an ARHAT who becomes enlightened through his own efforts without receiving instruction from a buddha in his final lifetime. Unlike the “perfectly enlightened buddhas” (SAMYAKSAṂBUDDHA), the pratyekabuddha refrains from teaching others about his experience because he has neglected to develop the same degree of great compassion (MAHĀKARUṆĀ) that motivates the samyaksaṃbuddhas. Even though he does not teach others, he may still guide by example, or through the use of gestures. Pratyekabuddhas are also distinguished from those who achieve the goal of arhat via the ŚRĀVAKA (“disciple”) path, because śrāvakas are unable to achieve enlightenment on their own and must be instructed in the principles of Buddhism in order to succeed in their practice. A pratyekabuddha is also distinguished from the śrāvaka by the duration of his path: the pratyekabuddha path is longer because he must accumulate the necessary amount of merit (PUṆYA) to allow him to achieve liberation without relying on a teacher in his final lifetime. A pratyekabuddha is said to achieve liberation through contemplation of the principle of dependent origination (PRATĪTYASAMUTPĀDA), which accounts for the Chinese translation of yuanjue (“awakening via conditionality”). Two types of pratyekabuddhas are commonly enumerated in the literature: those who wander alone “like a rhinoceros” (KHAḌGAVIṢĀṆAKALPA) and the “congregators” (VARGACĀRIN). According to the MAHĀYĀNA, the path of the pratyekabuddha, together with the path of the śrāvaka, constitutes the HĪNAYĀNA, or “lesser vehicle”; these two categories are also often referred to as the “two vehicles” (C. ER SHENG) and their followers as “two-vehicle adherents.” These lesser “two vehicles” contrast with the third and highest vehicle, the BODHISATTVAYĀNA.

pratyekabuddhayāna. (T. rang rgyal gyi theg pa; C. yuanjue sheng; J. engakujō; K. yŏn’gak sŭng 覺乘). In Sanskrit, “pratyekabuddha vehicle”; one of the three vehicles (TRIYĀNA), along with the ŚRĀVAKAYĀNA and the BODHISATTAYĀNA. MAHĀYĀNA sūtras and treatises classify the pratyekabuddhayāna as a form of the HĪNAYĀNA. Like the śrāvakayāna, the path of the PRATYEKABUDDHA culminates in achieving the enlightenment of an ARHAT, although according to some sources the path of the pratyekabuddha takes longer because he must master that path on his own, without instruction from a buddha in his final lifetime. In the ABHISAMAYĀLAṂKĀRA, pratyekabuddhas are said to eliminate the misconception of objects (grāhyavikalpa), but to be unable to eliminate the misconception of a subject (grāhakavikalpa); see GRĀHYAGRĀHAKAVIKALPA.

pratyekanaraka. (P. paccekaniraya; T. nye ’khor ba’i dmyal ba; C. gu diyu; J. kojigoku; K. ko chiok 孤地獄). In Sanskrit, “neighboring hell” or “surrounding hell,” a group of hells (S. naraka; cf. NĀRAKA). In traditional Buddhist cosmology the main hells are a system of eight hot hells and eight cold hells, located beneath the surface of the continent of JAMBUDVĪPA. According to the ABHIDHARMAKOŚABHĀṢYA, four neighboring hells are located on each of the four sides of the eight hot hells. It is said that, as the hell denizens exit one of the hot hells, they must pass through these four. The four are named: (1) KUKŪLA or “heated by burning chaff,” a pit of hot ashes where the hell denizens are burned; seeing what appears to be water ahead, they plunge into (2) KUṆAPA, “mud of corpses,” a swamp of rotting corpses; emerging from this, they set out on (3) KṢURAMĀRGA, “razor road,” a road made of sword blades, which the hell denizens must walk before entering a grove of swords (ASIPATTRAVANA) where blades fall from the trees and where they are forced to climb trees embedded with iron spikes (AYAḤŚĀLMALĪVANA); finally they enter (4) NADĪ VAITARAṆĪ, “river difficult to ford,” a river of boiling water in which the hell denizens are forced to swim.

Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhisūtra. (T. Da ltar gyi sangs rgyas mngon sum du bzhugs pa’i ting nge ’dzin gyi mdo; C. Banzhou sanmei jing; J. Hanju zanmaikyō; K. Panju sammae kyŏng 般舟三昧經). In Sanskrit, “Sūtra on the SAMĀDHI for Encountering Face-to-Face the Buddhas of the Present,” often known by its abbreviated title Pratyutpannasamādhisūtra; one of the earliest MAHĀYĀNA SŪTRAs, and one of the very first Mahāyāna sūtras to be translated into Chinese, by the Indo-Scythian monk LOKAKṢEMA in 179 CE. (There are also three other Chinese translations, as well as Tibetan and Mongolian recensions.) The sūtra sets forth a meditation and visualization practice (which seems related to the traditional “recollection of the Buddha,” or BUDDHĀNUSMṚTI), whereby one is able to come directly into the presence of the buddhas of the present in various world systems. An adept was to sit in meditation for up to seven days, facing the direction of his or her preferred buddha and visualizing that buddha’s thirty-two major marks (MAHĀPURUṢALAKṢAṆA) and his eighty minor characteristics (ANUVYAÑJANA) until he had a vision of that buddha in his world system. Through this visualization, one could receive the teachings of one’s preferred buddha, transmit those teachings to others, and then be reborn in that buddha’s realm (BUDDHAKṢETRA). Because AMITĀBHA is used as an example of how to apply this technique, this sūtra is retrospectively associated in East Asia with PURE LAND traditions. The sūtra also contains expositions of the doctrine of emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ), in which the insubstantiality of meditative experiences can be extended to all phenomena, a perspective that seems to adumbrate later YOGĀCĀRA views on the projection of external phenomena by the mind. Like many other early Mahāyāna sūtras, the text also extols both lay and monastic practice, the worship of STŪPAs, the making of buddha images, and the veneration of texts. Because the sūtra describes a technique for hearing (viz. learning) new Buddhist teachings even after ŚĀKYAMUNI Buddha has passed into PARINIRVĀṆA, this technique might have been employed to authenticate the production of new Mahāyāna sūtras.

pravāraṇā. (P. pavāraṇā; T. dgag phye; C. zizi; J. jishi; K. chaja 自恣). In Sanskrit, “invitation” or “presentation,” the monastic ceremony that marks the end of the annual rains retreat (VARṢĀ). (The Tibetan translation denotes the “separation from prohibition” that accompanies the end of the rains retreat; the Chinese translation zizi has the connotation of “self-indulgence,” suggesting that monks are then free to “follow their own bent.”) The purity of the SAṂGHA is reaffirmed by each monk by asking the community whether he committed any infraction of the code of discipline (PRĀTIMOKṢA) during the period of the retreat. In the Southeast Asian traditions, the ceremony is held at the end of the rains retreat (varṣā) on the full-moon day of the seventh or eighth lunar month (usually between September and November), at which time each monk resident at a monastery invites the monastic community to point out any wrongs he may have committed that were either seen, heard, or suspected. The pravāraṇā must be performed at a single site by all eligible members of a given saṃgha, although if a monk is ill, he may dispatch his invitation through an intermediary. A monk guilty of an offense that has not been expiated may not participate. According to VINAYA strictures, the pravāraṇā ceremony may not be performed in the presence of the following kinds of persons: nuns, women in training to become nuns, male and female novices, persons who have seceded from the order, monastics guilty of a PĀRĀJIKA offense, monks who refuse to acknowledge their own wrongdoing (of three kinds), eunuchs, false monks who wear monastic attire without having been ordained, monks who have joined other religions, nonhumans, patricides, matricides, murderers of an ARHAT, seducers of nuns, schismatics, those who have shed the blood of a buddha, hermaphrodites, and laypersons. Traditionally on the pravāraṇā day, laypeople would come to the monastery and make offerings of necessary requisites to the monks throughout the day on behalf of their parents and deceased ancestors. The Chinese pilgrim YIJING (635–713) in his NANHAI JIGUI NEIFA ZHUAN describes pravāraṇā as an elaborate communal festival, with senior monks delivering protracted dharma lectures throughout the day and night; lamps were lit and flowers and incense offered as laypeople distributed gifts to the entire saṃgha.

pravrājanīyakarman. (P. pabbājanīyakamma; T. bskrad pa’i las; C. quchu jiemo; J. kushutsukonma; K. kuch’ul kalma 驅出羯磨). In Sanskrit, “eccclesiastial act of banishment,” a temporary expulsion from full participation in the SAṂGHA, as a result of certain misdeeds. A monk may be subject to such banishment if he is guilty of corrupting good families (kuladūṣaka) or indulges in frivolous worldly behavior such as wearing garlands, playing, singing, or dancing; if he is quarrelsome or indiscreet in his behavior, or adheres to perverse doctrinal views; and if he criticizes any of the three jewels (RATNATRAYA) of the Buddha, the DHARMA, or the saṃgha, harms others through unwholesome speech and action, or engages in wrong livelihood. A monk against whom a pravrājanīyakarman has been passed must leave his monastery and take up residence elsewhere while observing a number of restrictions. He may not confer UPASAṂPADĀ ordination or offer guidance (NIŚRAYA) to, or accept the services of, a novice; he may not accept an invitation to preach to nuns or actually preach to nuns; he should not repeat the offense for which he was banished or any similar or more serious offense; he should not criticize the decision passed against him or criticize the person(s) responsible for the decision. He may not object to the presence of any other monk at the UPOṢADHA or PRAVĀRAṆĀ ceremonies or interrogate another monk about alleged offenses; he may not reprimand other monks or cause a quarrel among other monks. When the saṃgha is satisfied that he has been rehabilitated, it is enjoined to revoke the act of banishment and restore the monk to full membership in the saṃgha.

pravrajita. (P. pabbajjā; T. rab tu byung ba; C. chujia; J. shukke; K. ch’ulga 出家). In Sanskrit, lit. “going forth,” to leave behind the household life of a layperson in order to enter the monastic community as a religious mendicant; also pravrajyā and other variations. The term is often seen translated into English as “gone forth into homelessness” (the Chinese translation literally means “leaving home”). Pravrajita/pravrajyā is a technical term that refers to the lower ordination of a person as a ŚRĀMAṆERA or ŚRĀMAṆERIKĀ, that is, as a male or female novice. Admission of a novice into the SAṂGHA is performed with a simple ceremony. According to the Pāli tradition, the candidate shaves his hair and beard and, attiring himself in a monk’s robe (CĪVARA) received from a donor, he presents himself before an assembly of monks, or a single monk of ten years’ standing or more. Squatting on his haunches and folding his hands, the candidate recites the refuge formula three times (TRIŚARAṆA), whereupon he is made a novice. In most VINAYA traditions, a novice must observe ten precepts (ŚIKṢĀPADA, ŚRĀMAṆERASAṂVARA): abstaining from (1) killing, (2) stealing, (3) sexual intercourse, (4) lying, (5) intoxicants, (6) eating after midday, (7) dancing, singing, music, and other unseemly forms of entertainment, (8) using garlands, perfumes, and unguents to adorn the body, (9) using high and luxurious beds and couches, and (10) accepting gold and silver. The MŪLASARVĀSTIVĀDA VINAYA (which is followed in Tibet) expands these ten precepts to thirty-six. After receiving the lower ordination, the novice is required to live under the guidance (NIŚRAYA) of a teacher until he or she receives higher ordination (UPASAṂPADĀ) as a fully ordained monk (BHIKṢU) or nun (BHIKṢUṆĪ). The novice may not attend the reading of the PRĀTIMOKṢA during the bimonthly UPOṢADHA (P. uposatha) ceremony, or participate in any formal acts of the order (SAṂGHAKARMAN), such as giving ordination, and so on. At the beginning of his dispensation, the Buddha did not confer the lower ordination of a novice separately from the higher ordination, or upasaṃpadā, of a fully ordained monk. In all cases, candidates simply took the going forth as a fully ordained monk by taking the refuge formula. Later, “going forth” and higher ordination (upasaṃpadā) were made into separate ceremonies to initiate candidates into two hierarchically ranked institutions: the novitiate and full monkhood. The following types of persons may not be ordained as novices: branded thieves, fugitives from the law, registered thieves, those punished by flogging or branding, patricides, matricides, murderers of ARHATs, those who have shed the blood of a buddha, eunuchs, false monks, seducers of nuns, hermaphrodites, persons who are maimed, disabled, or deformed in various ways, and those afflicted with various communicable diseases.

pravrajyā. (S). See PRAVRAJITA.

prāyaścittaka. (S). See PĀYATTIKA.

prayer flag. See RLUNG RTA.

prayer wheel. See MA ṆI ’KHOR LO.

prayoga. (T. sbyor ba; C. jiaxing; J. kegyō; K. kahaeng 加行). In Sanskrit, “application,” “preparation,” “joining together,” “exertion.” The term is widely used in soteriological, tantric, and astrological literature. It also functions as a technical term in logic, where it is often translated as “syllogism” and refers to a statement that contains a subject, a predicate, and a reason. A correct syllogism is composed of three parts, the subject (dharmin), the property being proved (SĀDHYADHARMA), and the reason (HETU or LIṄGA). For example, in the syllogism “Sound is impermanent because of being produced,” the subject is sound, the property being proved is impermanence, and the reason is being produced. In order for the syllogism to be correct, three relations must exist among the three components of the syllogism: (1) the reason must be a property (DHARMA) of the subject, also called the “position” (PAKṢA), (2) there must be a relationship of pervasion (VYĀPTI) between the reason and the property being proved (SĀDHYADHARMA), such that whatever is the reason is necessarily the property being proved, and (3) there must be a relationship of “exclusion” or reverse pervasion (vyatirekavyāpti) between the property being proved and the reason, such that whatever is not the property being proved is necessarily not the reason. ¶ In the PRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀ exegetical tradition based on the ABHISAMAYĀLAṂKĀRA, prayoga is the word used for the fourth to seventh of the eight ABHISAMAYAs (“clear realizations”). According to Ārya VIMUKTISENA’s commentary (Vṛtti), the first three chapters set forth the three knowledges (JÑĀNA) as topics to be studied and reflected upon (see ŚRUTAMAYĪPRAJÑĀ, CINTĀMAYĪPRAJÑĀ); the next four chapters set forth the practice of those knowledges, viz. the practice of the knowledge of a buddha. This practice is called prayoga. It is primarily at the level of meditation (BHĀVANĀMAYĪPRAJÑĀ), and it leads to the SARVĀKĀRAJÑATĀ, a buddha’s omniscient knowledge of all aspects. The first prayoga is habituation to the perfect realization of all aspects (sarvākārābhisambodha); the second is learning to remain at the summit of the realization (mūrdhābhisamaya; cf. MŪRDHAN); the third is a further habituation to each aspect, one by one (anupūrvābhisamaya); and the fourth is the realization of all aspects in one single instant (ekakṣaṇābhisamaya). This is the moment prior to omniscience. This prayoga is first detailed in twenty subtopics beginning with the cryptic statement that the practice is no practice at all; the 173 aspects (ĀKĀRA) that together cover the entire range of a bodhisattva’s practice are set forth at all the stages of development, through the paths of vision (DARŚANAMĀRGA) and cultivation (BHĀVANĀMĀRGA) up through the bodhisattva stages (BHŪMI) to the purification of the buddha-field (BUDDHAKṢETRA) and final instants of the path. Through the first of the four prayogas, the bodhisattva gains mastery over all the aspects; through the second, he abides in the mastery of them; with the third, he goes through each and makes the practice special; and with the fourth, he enters into the state of a buddha. See also PRAYOGAMĀRGA.

prayogamārga. (T. sbyor lam; C. jiaxing dao; J. kegyōdō; K. kahaeng to 加行道). In Sanskrit, “path of preparation,” the second stage of the five-path (PAÑCAMĀRGA) soteriological schema, which follows the path of accumulation (SAṂBHĀRAMĀRGA) and precedes the path of vision (DARŚANAMĀRGA). It is said to provide the “preparation” for the direct perception of reality that will occur on the path of vision. The path of preparation begins with the attainment of an understanding of reality at a level of concentration that is equal to or exceeding the state of serenity (ŚAMATHA). This understanding corresponds to the “wisdom generated by meditation” (BHĀVANĀMAYĪPRAJÑĀ). The path of preparation has four levels (see NIRVEDHABHĀGĪYA): heat (ŪṢMAN), peak (MŪRDHA), forbearance (KṢĀNTI), and supreme worldly dharmas (LAUKIKĀGRADHARMA). Like the preceding path of accumulation, it is not a “noble path” (ĀRYAMĀRGA) because the direct perception of reality has not yet not occurred here. With the completion of the path of preparation and the attainment of the path of vision, one passes from the state of being an ordinary being (PṚTHAGJANA) to that of a noble person (ĀRYA).

precepts. See ŚĪLA.

precepts, eight. See AṢṬĀṄGASAMANVĀGATAM UPAVĀSAM; ŚĪLA.

precepts, five. See PAÑCAŚĪLA.

precepts, three categories of. See ŚĪLATRAYA.

prediction [of future buddhahood]. See VYĀKARAṆA.

predispositions. See VĀSANĀ.

preliminary practices. See SNGON ’GRO.

preta. (P. peta; T. yi dwags; C. egui; J. gaki; K. agwi 餓鬼). In Sanskrit, lit. “departed one” or “ghost”; typically translated into English as “hungry ghost” (reflecting the Chinese rendering egui). The realm of hungry ghosts is one of the three or four unfortunate realms of rebirth (APĀYA; DURGATI), along with hell denizens (NĀRAKA), animals (TIRYAK), and sometimes demigods or titans (ASURA). Ghosts are most commonly depicted as having distended abdomens and emaciated limbs, like a human suffering from extreme malnutrition. Some traditions also say that they have gullets the size of the eye of a needle, so they are never able to consume enough to satiate their appetite. (This depiction of pretas as big-bellied and small-mouthed does not appear in Pāli and Southeast Asian sources until some late cosmological texts that date to the second millennium CE, suggesting that this is a north Indian or Sanskritic tradition, not a Pāli development.) Pretas are said to have been reborn in their unfortunate condition as a consequence of greed and avarice in a previous life. They spend their existence wandering in a futile search for food and drink; when they approach a river to drink, the water turns into blood and pus, and when they find food, they are unable to digest it due to various impediments, such as knots in their throats, or suffer when it is swallowed, when food turns into spears and molten iron. Traditions vary as to the location of the realm of ghosts, but there are many stories of the Buddha and his monks encountering ghosts. Feeding these departed spirits is an important ritual for Buddhist monks in many societies (see FANG YANKOU). Stories of encounters with such ghosts, who typically recount the unwholesome past deeds that led them to rebirth in such an unfortunate state, are common in Buddhist literature, as in the Pāli PETAVATTHU. The realm of the pretas also includes other ogres and goblins, such as PIŚĀCA.

Pretamukhāgnivālayaśarakāra. (S). See FANG YANKOU.

Pretapurī. (S). One of the twenty-four sacred sites associated with the CAKRASAṂVARATANTRA. See PĪṬHA.

pride. See MADA.

prīti. (P. pīti; T. dga’ ba; C. xi; J. ki; K. hŭi 喜). In Sanskrit, “rapture,” “joy,” “zest”; the third of the five factors of meditative absorption (DHYĀNĀṄGA) and the fourth of the seven factors of enlightenment (BODHYAṄGA); rapture helps to control the mental hindrances (NĪVARAṆA) of both malice (VYĀPĀDA) and sloth and torpor (STYĀNA–MIDDHA). A sustained sense of prīti is obstructed by malice (vyāpāda), the second of the five hindrances to DHYĀNA. Prīti refreshes both body and mind and manifests itself as physical and mental tranquillity (PRAŚRABDHI). The most elemental types of prīti involve such physical reactions as horripilation (viz., hair standing on end). As the experience becomes ever more intense, it becomes “transporting rapture,” which is so uplifting that it makes the body seem so light as almost to levitate. Ultimately, rapture becomes “all-pervading happiness” that suffuses the body and mind, cleansing it of ill will and tiredness. As both a physical and mental experience, prīti is present during both the first and second of the meditative absorptions associated with the subtle-materiality realm (RŪPĀVACARADHYĀNA), but fades into equanimity (UPEKṢĀ). In the even subtler third dhyāna, only mental ease (SUKHA) and one-pointedness (EKĀGRATĀ) remain. Divinities in the ŚUDDHĀVĀSA realm (viz., the five “pure abodes,” the upper five of the eight heavens associated with the fourth dhyāna) and the ĀBHĀSVARĀLOKA (heaven of universal radiance) divinities are said literally to “feed on joy” (S. prītibhakṣa; P. pītibhakkha), i.e., to survive solely on the sustenance of physical and mental rapture.

prītijanana. (P. pītijanana; T. dga’ ba bskyed; C. faxi J. hōki; K. pŏphŭi 法喜). In Sanskrit, lit. “joy inducing,” viz. “joy of dharma,” referring to the uplifting feelings of rapture that derive from properly observing precepts (ŚĪLA, e.g., to be morally “blameless” and harboring no regrets or shame) and from hearing, understanding, or practicing the dharma. Depending on its intensity, this joy may manifest in different ways, ranging from a radiant complexion, horripilation, and goose bumps, to ecstatic physical levitation. In the context of meditative absorption (DHYĀNA), such rapture is said to be conducive to the development of concentration and tranquillity.

priyavādita. (S). See SAṂGRAHAVASTU.

progressive instruction. See ANUPUBBIKATHĀ.

pṛṣṭhalabdhajñāna. [alt. tatpṛṣṭhalabdhajñāna] (T. rjes thob ye shes; C. houde zhi; J. gotokuchi; K. hudŭk chi 後得智). In Sanskrit, “subsequent wisdom” or “subsequently obtained wisdom”; a term used to describe one of the states of the noble path (ĀRYAMĀRGA). The attainment of the path of vision (DARŚANAMĀRGA) marks the first achievement of meditative equipoise (SAMĀHITA) in which the meditator has a direct and nonconceptual vision of reality. When the meditator withdraws from that state of direct realization to again perceive various phenomena, this state is called “subsequent wisdom.” Reality is no longer being directly and exclusively perceived, but the power of that vision is said to infuse one’s subsequent experience of the world, so that while objects may once again appear to be real, the meditator does not assent to that false appearance. Following the attainment of the path of vision, the meditator continues to proceed along the path through periods of meditative equipoise and subsequent wisdom.

pṛthagjana. (P. puthujjana; T. so so skye bo; C. fanfu; J. bonbu; K. pŏmbu 凡夫). In Sanskrit, “ordinary being,” or “common person”; sentient beings who are still bound by the ten fetters (SAṂYOJANA) and thus have not attained the path of a noble person (ĀRYAMĀRGA)—that is, they have not yet become a stream-enterer (SROTAĀPANNA) or achieved the path of vision (DARŚANAMĀRGA). The ordinary being is often compared (unfavorably) to the noble person (ĀRYA) in Buddhist texts. It is said, for example, that the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (catvāry āryasatyāni) are called “noble” because they are true for noble persons, not for ordinary beings. Elsewhere, it is said that the suffering (DUḤKHA) associated with conditionality itself (SAṂSKĀRADUḤKATĀ) is like a wisp of wool in the palm of the hand for an ordinary person, in the sense that it is easily unnoticed; for the noble person, however, it is like a wisp of wool in the eye: It is utterly impossible not to notice it, and immediate effort is made to remove it.

pṛthivī. [alt. pṛthivīdhātu] (P. paṭhavī; T. sa; C. dida; J. jidai; K. chidae 地大). In Sanskrit, lit. “earth” or “ground,” viz., the property of “solidity”; one of the four “great elements” (MAHĀBHŪTA) or “major elementary qualities” of which the physical world comprised of materiality (RŪPA) is composed, along with wind (viz. motion, movement, VĀYU, P. vāyu/vāyo), water (viz. cohesion, ĀPAS, P. āpo), and fire (viz. temperature, warmth, TEJAS, P. tejo). “Earth” is characterized by hardness and firmness, and can refer to anything that exhibits solidity. Because earth has temperature (viz. fire) and tangibility (viz. water), and is capable of motion (viz. wind), the existence of the other three elements may also be inferred even in that single element. In the physical body, this element is associated with hair, bones, teeth, organs, and so on. ¶ Pṛthivī, “Earth,” is also the proper name of the goddess of the earth, also known as STHĀVARĀ, or “Immovable,” who played a crucial role in the story of GAUTAMA Buddha’s enlightenment. When the BODHISATTVA’s right to occupy the sacred spot beneath the BODHI TREE was challenged by MĀRA, Gautama touched the earth (BHŪMISPARŚAMUDRĀ) with his right hand, calling on the goddess of the earth to testify to his boundless meritorious deeds over his past lives. She responded by causing a mild earthquake or, in other versions of the story, emerging from the earth to bear witness. See also THORANI.

Pucheng. (C) (普成). Son of the early Chinese lay figure FU DASHI (497–569). See FU DASHI.

puch’ŏ[nim]. (K) (). Standard term for “buddha” in Korean. The compound is composed of the transcription puch’ŏ (buddha), typically followed by the honorific suffix nim. See BUDDHA.

pudgala. (P. puggala; T. gang zag; C. ren/buteqieluo; J. nin/futogara; K. in/pot’ŭkkara 人/補特伽羅). In Sanskrit, “person.” Although all Buddhist schools deny the existence of a perduring, autonomous self (ĀTMAN), some schools accepted the provisional existence of a person that is associated with one or more of the aggregates (SKANDHA). There is a wide range of opinion as to the precise status of the person. Most Buddhist schools hold that the person is a provisional designation (PRAJÑAPTI), but differ as to which among the constituents of mind and body could be designated by the term “person,” with some schools asserting that all five aggregates are designated as the person, while others that only the mental consciousness (MANOVIJÑĀNA) is the person. The philosophical challenge faced by the Buddhist schools is to be able to uphold the continuity (SAṂTĀNA) of the accumulation and experience of KARMAN over the course of a single lifetime as well as potentially infinite lifetimes in both past and future, while simultaneously upholding the fundamental impermanence of mind and matter and the absence of a permanent self (ANĀTMAN). The VĀTSĪPUTRĪYA and the SAṂMITĪYA responded to the problem of accounting for personal continuity and rebirth when there is no perduring self by positing the existence of an “inexpressible” (S. avācya) “person” that is neither permanent nor impermanent and which is neither the same as nor different from the aggregates (skandha), but which is the agent of cognition and the bearer of action (KARMAN) from moment to moment and lifetime to lifetime. This position was criticized by other Buddhist schools, including in the ninth chapter of the ABHIDHARMAKOŚABHĀṢYA, where VASUBANDHU condemns this view as the heretical assertion of a permanent self or soul (ĀTMAN). Pudgala is more generically also used in a salutary sense in connection with noble persons (ĀRYAPUDGALA) who have achieved one of the four stages of sanctity. See also ŚREṆIKA HERESY.

pudgalanairātmya. (T. gang zag gi bdag med; C. renwuwo; J. ninmuga; K. inmua 人無我). In Sanskrit, “selflessness of the person,” one of two types of nonself or selflessness, along with DHARMANAIRĀTMYA, the nonself or selflessness of phenomena. The absence of self (ANĀTMAN) is often divided into these two categories by MAHĀYĀNA philosophical schools, with the selflessness of persons referring to the absence of self among the five aggregates (SKANDHA) that constitute the person, and the selflessness of phenomena referring to the absence of self (variously defined) in all other phenomena in the universe, specifically the factors (DHARMA) that were posited to be real by several of the abhidharma traditions of mainstream Buddhism, and especially the SARVĀSTIVĀDA. Numerous meditation practices are set forth that are designed to lead the realization of the selflessness of the person, many of which involve the close mental examination of the constituents of mind and body to determine which might constitute, individually or collectively, an independent and autonomous agent of actions and the experiencer of their effects, that is, the referent of the “I” and for whom possessions are “mine.” The central claim of Buddhism is that there is no such self to be found among the constituents of the person; thus, the realization of this fact constitutes a liberating knowledge that brings an end to suffering and the prospect of further rebirth. The relation between the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena is discussed at length in Buddhist philosophical literature. In some Mahāyāna systems, the selflessness of persons is considered to be less profound than the selflessness of phenomena, since an adept is able to achieve liberation as an ARHAT through cognition of the selflessness of persons alone, while cognition of the selflessness of phenomena is required of the BODHISATTVA in order to achieve buddhahood.

pudgalātmagraha. (T. gang zag gi bdag ’dzin; C. renwozhi; J. ningashū; K. inajip 人我執). In Sanskrit, lit.,“conception of a self of a person” or the “grasping at the personal self,” a term that is used in combination with DHARMĀTMAGRAHA, the “conception of the self of phenomena.” In the MAHĀYĀNA philosophical schools, the notion of self (ĀTMAN) is expanded beyond that of a permanent soul in each person, to a broader sense of independent existence or intrinsic existence (SVABHĀVA) that is falsely imagined to exist in all objects of experience. Sentient beings are thus said to falsely imagine the presence of such a self in two broad categories: persons (PUDGALA) and all other phenomena (DHARMA). Wisdom (PRAJÑĀ) entails understanding the lack of self in these two categories, referred to as the selflessness of persons (PUDGALANAIRĀTMYA) and the selflessness of phenomena (DHARMANAIRĀTMYA). Among the path theories of YOGĀCĀRA and MADHYAMAKA, there are differences of opinion as to whether the conception of the self of persons is more easily uprooted than the conception of the self of phenomena. In addition, although all agree that both forms of the conception of self must be eradicated by the BODHISATTVA in order to become a buddha, there are differences of opinion as to whether both must be eradicated by the ŚRĀVAKA and PRATYEKABUDDHA in order to become an ARHAT.

pudgalavāda. (P. puggalavāda; T. gang zag smra ba; C. buteqieluo lun; J. futogararon; K. pot’ŭkkara non 補特伽羅論). In Sanskrit, “proponents of a person” or “personalists,” a term (not apparently employed by its adherents) used to refer to several mainstream (that is, non-MAHĀYĀNA) schools of Indian Buddhism (including the VĀTSĪPUTRĪYA and the SAṂMITĪYA) that responded to the problem of how to account for personal continuity and rebirth when there is no perduring self (ANĀTMAN) by positing the existence of an “inexpressible” (S. avācya) “person” that is neither permanent nor impermanent and which is neither the same as nor different from the aggregates (SKANDHA), but which is the agent of cognition and the bearer of action (KARMAN) from moment to moment and lifetime to lifetime. Although its adherents presumed that this position conformed to the Buddha’s dictum that there was no self to be discovered among the aggregates, it was criticized by other Buddhist schools, including in the ninth chapter of the ABHIDHARMAKOŚABHĀṢYA, where it was seen as the heretical assertion of a permanent self or soul (ĀTMAN). Despite vehement opposition from rival mainstream Buddhist schools, Chinese pilgrims reported the prominence in India of schools that held pudgalavāda positions, although whether all the monks of a particular ordination lineage held all the philosophical positions associated with this tradition remains a question. The problem of personal and karmic continuity from lifetime to lifetime without positing a perduring a self or soul is a persistent issue throughout the history of Buddhist thought, and it is addressed in the Mahāyāna, for example, through the YOGĀCĀRA school’s doctrine of the foundational consciousness (ĀLAYAVIJÑĀNA). See also ŚREṆIKA HERESY.