231. This is a slightly abbreviated version of the passage associated with the (candidate for) stream enterer at PSP, 1–1: 81: santi śāradvatīputra bodhisattvā mahāsattvāḥ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caranto ghañamānā vyāyacchantaḥ sattvaparipākāyopāyakauśalyabalena srotaāpattiphalaṃ sākṣātkurvanti, na ca tena manyante (where ghañamānā vyāyacchantaḥ? is rendered at le’u brgyad ma, ga 69a1–2, as sbyor ba la brtson par byed pa la, “persevering at the practice”). This is omitted from Gilgit, Ghoṣa, the other editions of the Kangyur, and from the Twenty-Five Thousand, 2.165, and the Eighteen Thousand, 3.59.
232. tshe’i tshul bzhin du gnas, literally “remaining in the mode of a life”; the Eighteen Thousand, 3.66, has “for as long as they live.”
233. Gilgit, 29r1. Cp. Ghoṣa, p. 271, probably a mistake.
234. Kimura, 1–1:82, tataś cyut[v?]ā; Ghoṣa, p. 271, and Gilgit, 29r5, omit.
235. Tib rnam par mnan pa means “to press down on,” but Gilgit, 29b4-5, viṣkadya viṣkandya; Ghoṣa, p. 273, viṣkadya; Kimura, 1–1, avaskandakena. The Eighteen Thousand, ka 40b2 (3.75), thod rgal du means “leaping above.”
237. PSP, 1–1: 84, maṇimuktāsuvarṇarūpyapravāḍa.
238. Ghoṣa, p. 276, and Gilgit, 30r6.
239. le’u brgyad ma, ga 72a1–5, and PSP 1–1: 84–85: yāvad daśakuśalakarmapatheṣu sattvān pratiṣṭhāpya brahmakāyikeṣu yāvad akaniṣṭheṣu deveṣūpapadyamānā nānābuddhakṣetreṣv anuttarāṃ samyaksaṃbodhim abhisaṃbudhyante. ity akaniṣṭhaparamaḥ. santi śāradvatīputra bodhisattvā mahāsattvā ye catvāri dhyānāni niṣpādya dhyānebhyaḥ parihīṇāḥ prathamaṃ dhyānam āsādya (the translators read āsvādya, ro myongs) brahmakāyikeṣu deveṣūpapadyante, te punar dhyānāni niṣpādyākaniṣṭheṣūpapadya nānābuddhakṣetreṣv anuttarāṃ samyaksaṃbodhim abhisaṃbudhyante. iti plutaḥ. santi śāradvatīputra bodhisattvā mahāsattvā ye brahmalokāc cyutvā śuddhāvāseṣūpapadyante, te śuddhāvāsānām ekaṃ vā dve vā sthāne vilaṅghyākaniṣṭheṣu deveṣūpapadya nānābuddhakṣetreṣv anuttarāṃ samyaksaṃbodhim abhisaṃbudhyante. Haribhadra connects this with the first two of the three akaniṣṭhaparama (“those intent on Akaniṣṭha”), namely, the pluta (“floaters”) and ardhapluta (“floaters over half”). This is omitted from Gilgit, Ghoṣa, the other editions of the Kangyur, and the Twenty-Five Thousand and Eighteen Thousand.
240. This line takes up again from the le’u brgyad ma, ga 72b5, and PSP, 1–1: 85 ekajātipratibaddhāś ca bodhisattvā mahāsattvās tatra tatra buddhakṣetreṣūpapadya nānābuddhakṣetreṣv anuttarāṃ samyaksaṃbodhim abhisaṃbudhyante, which Haribhadra connects with the sarvasthānacyuta (“those who die in every place”), the third of the three divisions of the akaniṣṭhaparama (“those intent on Akaniṣṭha”). The reader is supposed to connect this last sentence with all ten directions. It is omitted from Gilgit, Ghoṣa, the other editions of the Hundred Thousand in the Kangyur, and from the Twenty-Five Thousand and Eighteen Thousand, as are the following two paragraphs also found at PSP, 1-1: 86, and the le’u brgyad ma, ga 72b6–7.
241. D has omitted the snyoms par ’jug pa (PSP, 1-1: 86, dhyānārūpyasamāpattīr) as has le’u brgyad ma, ga 72b6, where this is rendered gzugs med par sgrub par byed pa.
242. Cf. Ghoṣa, p. 280, and Gilgit, 30v9, durgativinipātaṃ prapatanti; PSP, 1-1: 86, apāyadurgativinipāteṣu; and le’u brgyad ma, ga 73a7, ngan song ngan ’gro log par ltung ba rnams su.
243. Alternatively, “Śāradvatīputra, there are bodhisattva great beings standing in the six perfections who illuminate the darkness of beings with wrong views with the illumination of the buddhadharmas, and they never separate themselves from the illumination of the buddhadharmas up until they fully awaken to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening.”
244. This is PSP, 1-1: 87–88. Haribhadra, having connected the immediately preceding passage with “candidates for arhatship” (arhattvapratipannaka), connects this with pratyekabuddhas. Again, it is omitted from Gilgit, Ghoṣa, the other editions of the Kangyur, and the Twenty-Five Thousand 2.197 and Eighteen Thousand 3.96.
245. Ghoṣa, p. 281, and Gilgit, 31r5, ayaṃ śāradvatīputra bodhisattvānāṃ mahāsattvānām [sam]udayo buddhadharmmeṣu. PSP, 1–1: 87, omits.
246. “Basic” means an immorality not contingent on a prior commitment to a code of conduct.
247. Ghoṣa, p. 286, ātmabhāva; alternatively, “become possessed of the sort of personality.”
248. According to traditional Indian cosmology, our human world of Patient Endurance (sahālokadhātu, mi mjed ’jig rten gyi khams) is said to comprise four continents (caturdvīpa, gling bzhi), namely Pūrvavideha (lus ’phags) in the east, Jambudvīpa in the south, Aparagodānīya (ba glang spyod) in the west, and Uttarakuru (sgra mi snyan) in the north. A single world system (cakravāla) extends from the realms of the hells, anguished spirits, and animals, through the human abodes, and through the celestial domains of the six god realms belonging to the realm of desire, the seventeen god realms of the realm of form, and the four activity fields of the realm of formlessness. In association with the four meditative concentrations, this single world system multiplies incrementally: the thousandfold world system (sāhasralokadhātu, stong ’gi ’jig rten gyi khams) comprises one thousand such parallel worlds, the millionfold world system (dvisāhasramadhyamalokadhātu, stong gnyis pa ’jig rten gyi khams ’bring po) one thousand of those, and the great billionfold world (trisāhasramahāsāhasralokadhātu, stong sum gyi stong chen po’i ’jig rten gyi khams) one thousand of those yet again. For an analysis of the divergent traditions associated with this cosmology, see Kloetzli 1983, pp. 23–90.
249. “All within range” has been added to the English translation here and below to make the meaning easier to understand.
250. “Know” is supplied from Kimura 1–1:94–5; Ghoṣa, p. 297, jānāti / yat kañcit samudayadharmmaṃ sarvvaṃ taṃ nirodhadharmmeti viditvā.
251. This is the forbearance (kṣānti, bzod pa) for the truth that phenomena are nonarising, the realization that whatever the attainment, it has no intrinsic nature. An alternative translation is “receptiveness.”
252. This is the vow, while sitting under the Bodhi tree at the site of awakening, not to arise from meditation until perfectly and completely awakened.
253. Gilgit, 34r12, and Dutt āsannasthāyin. Twenty-Five Thousand, ka 75a3 (2.230); Eighteen Thousand, ka 48b5, (3.123); and le’u brgyad ma, ga 81a7, nye bar gnas. Ghoṣa, p. 300, āsattvasthāyin; Edg, s.v. āsattvasthāyin, “abiding until the coming into existence” of the buddhas.
254. Here, “in their final rebirth” renders srid pa tha ma pa (caramabhavika). A srid pa (bhava) is “an existence”; elsewhere rendered “process of rebirth” or just “existence.”
255. Ghoṣa, p. 301, janayitrī (“genetrix”).
256. Edg, s.v. pratyanubhavati (2) says “uncertain whether mg. is experiences, enjoys ... or gets”; cf. Daśabhūmikasūtra (Rahder, pp. 34–36).
257. The reading here has “broad” (yangs pa) without the Twenty-Five Thousand, ka 77a4-5, (2.236) “narrow” (dog pa’i sems la dog dog pa’i sems).
258. Gilgit, 35v2, has “collected” and “distracted” (saṃkṣipta and vikṣipta), and “circumscribed” and “expanded” (parītta and vipula), followed by “has gotten bigger” (mahadgata) and “immeasurable” (apramāṇa), apparently as opposites. The Twenty-Five Thousand 2.236 renders “has gotten bigger” (che bar gyur pa) by “evolving.” Kimura, 1–1:99, does not have apramāṇa.
259. This renders rnam pa dang bcas (sākāra) gtan tshigs dang bcas (Kimura, 1–1:100, sādṛśa; Gilgit, 35v11, sodeśa; Ghoṣa, p. 304, soddeśa) ngan rtags dang bcas (sadoṣa?). The Twenty-Five Thousand 2.237 accepts the variant reading found in KPD, vol. 26, n. 2 (Yongle and Peking), don rtags (sanirdeśaṃ), and renders it “indications.”
260. Bṭ1, p. 807: “Take ‘unlimited’ (ananta) with having forsaken the two limits (extremes) of superimposition and overnegation. They do not superimpose that there is ultimately an existent thing, and do not conventionally overnegate as nonexistence. ‘Because their minds are unattached (anavagṛhītacittatām upādāya)’ means they do not have a wrong view of, or settle down on, all three—the giver, the recipient, and the material gift— as existent things. Put it together as this: when they give without superimposing and overnegating, and when the three circles [i.e., the giver, the recipient, and the material gift] are purified, they cleanse the path to the knowledge of all aspects.”
262. Ghoṣa, p. 308, and Gilgit, 37r11–12, yathāprāvṛtaiś cīvarair bhagavantam abhicchādayanti sma; Kimura, 1–1:103, yathāvṛtaiś cīvarair abhicchādayām āsur. Tib renders abhicchādaya with yon du gsol ba, in the sense of making a payment for a received teaching. The sense of the Skt abhicchāday (“to cover”) is to cover or shower someone with gifts. All the Skt versions have nuns (bhikṣuṇī, dge slong ma) rather than monks, which makes good sense.
263. The Skt editions all have Mahāketu, not Mahāśrī; dpal is not attested as rendering ketu (the expected rendering is the Eighteen Thousand, ka 53b3 (3.147), me tog) in any of the reference works consulted. It is presumably an old translation, but has been translated literally.
265. This is a literal translation. The Twenty-Five Thousand (2.248) renders this, “Let us generate the merits through which we will be reborn in those buddhafields.”
266. Emend D thug to K thub; Gilgit, 38r6, anavamardanīya; Ghoṣa, p. 311, anavamṛdya; Lokesh Candra, Sanskrit Tibetan Dictionary, International Academy of Indian Culture, 2007, s.v. anavamṛdya.
267. Tib de’i slad du is an honorific form of de’i phyir that means both “because of/on account of that/those” and “to that end” (Twenty-Five Thousand 2.255 (ka 82b4)) depending on context. Gilgit, 38r6, and Kimura, 1–1:105, tair; Eighteen Thousand, ka 54b (4.2), de dag gis, Large Sutra, p. 93; Ghoṣa, p. 311, tena.
269. Bṭ1, p. 812: “For the happiness of perfect separation” means, at the time of nirvāṇa, excellently separated from both afflictive obstruction and obstruction to knowing; Edgerton, s.v. visaṃyoga.
270. Twenty-Five Thousand 2.272 renders these “coral flowers, large coral flowers, crocuses, and mangosteen leaves.”
272. It is “outer” in the sense of the environment seen from the perspective of a perceiving subject.
273. Emend kyis to kyi.
274. Ghoṣa, p. 334, tadyathāpi nāma subhūte atītānāṃ buddhānāṃ bhagavatāṃ yāvad eva nāma mātraṃ tiṣṭhati; Kimura, 1–1:114, omits.
275. The “phenomena” are the aggregates, sense fields, and sensory elements listed in the previous paragraphs. To not “mentally construct” or “conceptualize” any phenomenon means without projecting onto any of them an intrinsic nature or absolute truth. The earlier list of phenomena is now expanded to include all the dharmas, including those associated with bodhisattvas and buddhas.
276. Ghoṣa, p. 372, samyakprahāṇabhāvanāyai supports reading phyir as a dative of purpose but it accidentally omits smṛtyupasthāna.
277. Ghoṣa, p. 381, tathā hi te sarvvadharmmā na saṃvidyante / yañ cābhiniviśeta / yena vābhiniviśeta / yatra vābhiniviśeta. Bṭ1, p. 823: “This means that the name that might be attached, the attachment on account of which it might be attached, and the thing that it might be attached to—they all do not ultimately exist.”
278. Again, this rendering of skyon med pa incorporates the creative etymology of nyāma from ni plus āma (“raw”). If derived from niyāma it is “the secure state of a bodhisattva.”
280. Bṭ1, p. 825, glosses “in physical forms” (gzugs la, rūpe) and “in a bodhisattva” with “basis and based on” (gzhi dang gnas).
281. gzugs med pa zhig; PSP, 1-1: 132, arūpo, Ghoṣa, p. 382, ārūpi.
282. In the Tibetan corresponding to this paragraph, both for this text and for the Twenty-Five Thousand (3.180), the many instances of Sanskrit dhātu have been translated as the Tibetan dbyings rather than khams, which would be much more usual in the context of the basic constituents of a sentient being including the sensory elements, etc. We have nevertheless interpreted chos kyi dbyings (dharmadhātu) in this passage as referring to the sensory element of mental phenomena rather than to the “realm of phenomena” in its wider sense; see the glossary definition for “realm of phenomena.” It is not clear why the Tibetan translators preferred the term dbyings here.
283. Ghoṣa, p. 471, and Kimura, 1–1:146, prajñapayitum is rendered gdags (“to designate”) but can be rendered literally by “make known”; a prajñapti (gdags pa) is a “designation,” “representation,” or “concept.”
284. byang chub kyi sems, Gilgit, 472, bodhicitta, in place of the Twenty-Five Thousand’s (3.181) byang chub sems dpa’i sems (“the mind of bodhisattvas”). Kimura, 1–1:147, omits.
286. “Shoulder ornament” renders dpung rgyan (keyūra), “upper arm bracelet,” which is a royal insignia of victory.
287. skyon chen po. le’u brgyad ma has rtse mo’i skyon; the Eighteen Thousand has skyon gyi spyi gtsug. Edg, s.v. mūdhāma, comments on Ghoṣa’s reading skyon med pa, nyāma. Note that when nyāma is understood as niyāma it means “secure,” “fixed,” “definite.”
288. Here “immaturity,” skyon chen po (mūdhāma), is contrasted with the “maturity,” skyon med pa (nyāma, niyāma), that comes below.
289. “Maturity” renders skyon med pa.
291. “Impediment” renders gcod pa; Gilgit, 52v12, nīcaraṇa?
292. All the Tib editions of the Hundred Thousand omit sems; Ghoṣa, Kimura, and Gilgit all have citta, as does the Twenty-Five Thousand (“mindsets of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas”).
293. The absence of thams cad shes pa here, not just from D but from all the other versions (including gser bri ma, kha 79a) is noteworthy. Below (kha 9b (5.389)) thams cad shes pa is included in the list.
294. Alternatively, “a direct eyewitness to the attributes who witnesses with the body,” as in the Vṛtti of Ārya Vimuktisena (Pensa edition, p. 44): “Non-returners who have attained the cessation absorption are called those who witness with the body because they witness a nirvāṇa-like dharma with their body. Why do they witness with their body? Because it is produced based on the body, since they are without thought (cittābhāva).”
295. “Without afflicted mental states” renders araṇa; raṇa generally means “conflict,” so a more literal translation of araṇa would be “without conflict.” The translation reflects the Tibetan, which is nyon mongs pa med pa.
296. “Even” renders kyang (api). “Those” is only added because of the requirements of English syntax, but this reading is corroborated by Gilgit, 53r10: śrāvakabhūmav api śīkṣitukāmenāyuṣmansubhūte iyam eva prajñāpāramitā prayatnataḥ, etc. However, Kimura, 1–1:155, śrāvakabhūmāv api āyuṣman subhūte śikṣitukāmena bodhisattvena mahāsattvena iyam eva prajñāpāramitā; Ghoṣa, p. 503, śrāvakabhūmāv api śikṣitukāmenāyuṣman subhūte bodhisattvena mahāsattvena; and the Eighteen Thousand (7.30) explicitly say “bodhisattva great beings,” a reading with substantively different implications.
298. This renders Gilgit, 53v3, and Ghoṣa, p. 504, na sthitaṃ na viṣṭhitaṃ nādhiṣṭhitaṃ, literally “do not stand, do not not stand, and do not stand above.” Kimura, 1-1:156, differs. Bṭ1, p. 851, explains the three words as follows: “ ‘Blessed Lord, even those names are unstable, intangible, and powerless’ and so on. Even those names bodhisattva and perfection of wisdom are not real bases fit to be spoken, so it is teaching the elimination of the two extremes of ‘stable’ and ‘unstable.’ Were a real basis to exist, there are two alternatives: it would, as a conditioned phenomenon like a physical form and so on, be stable in a place or region, or, as an unconditioned phenomenon like space and so on, not be stable in a place or region. Hence, it is teaching that, insofar as those names are without real bases, they are not stable, and hence they are also not not stable. ‘Intangible’ means they are not even unstable. ‘Powerless’ means they are not, having eliminated both the extremes of stable and unstable, powerful [=super-stable (adhisthita)], stable, as a real basis that is not stable and is not not stable. Thus, having briefly taught the elimination of the overreification and overnegation from the perspective of both a bodhisattva and a perfection of wisdom that have or do not have a real basis, and the practice separated from grasping at the two extremes of the name bodhisattva and the name perfection of wisdom being stable and not stable,” etc.
299. The order of terms beginning with “realm of phenomena” is the order found at Ghoṣa, p. 544, and Kimura, 1–1:159 (dharmadhātu, tathāgata/tathatā, bhūtakoṭi, dharmmasthititā, dharmmaniyāmatā). Twenty-Five Thousand 5.12 follows the order at Kimura, 1–2:56, but with dharmadhātu given twice in the same list.
300. The reading in Ghoṣa is kiṃ na tad ity ucyate (“Why is it not called that?), and na should probably be emended to ca.
301. Twenty-Five Thousand, ka 130a (5.13), has btags par bstan (“teach to be a designation”) in place of brtags par bstan.
302. Here “reason” renders don gyi dbang. It intends the nexus between a basis of designation (in this case all the phenomena beginning with physical forms) and a thing designated (in this case the bodhisattva, or, more exactly, the term bodhisattva), each avoiding overreification and overnegation, respectively.
303. Twenty-Five Thousand, ka 135a (5.22), adds the meditative stabilities and the extrasensory powers here; Ghoṣa, p. 565, omits.
304. N, K; D omits.
305. Bṭ1, p. 878: “There, in ‘they should not dwell in syllables,’ they should not dwell by viewing the syllables, the seed syllables a and so on, as existent things. ‘They should not dwell in syllable accomplishments.’ Syllable accomplishment is the production of the knowledge that causes the realization of the meaning, anutpāda (‘nonproduction’), after resorting to the seed syllable a, and so on, used as a dhāraṇī. This teaches that they should not stand there either. That dhāraṇī knowledge is a product of such explanations as ‘a is the door to all dharmas because they are unproduced from the very beginning.’ That statement of the seed syllable, furthermore, becomes a condition for full awakening when certain bodhisattva great beings with sharp faculties resort to and have meditated on the single meaning of nonproduction. It becomes a condition for full awakening when those with middling faculties resort to two syllables and have become familiar with two statements. And it becomes a condition for full awakening when many statements become a condition for full awakening when those with dull faculties resort to them and have become familiar with them. Hence it says ‘they should not dwell in singular expressions, dual expressions, or plural expressions.’ ”
306. “The notion that physical forms are impermanent” renders Ghoṣa, p. 568, rūpam anityam iti.
307. The inclusion of thams cad shes pa nyid in the list here is noteworthy. Ghoṣa, p. 601, omits.
309. “Investigate” renders Ghoṣa, p. 613, vyupaparīkṣa. The Tibetan is brtag (the future tense form of rtog pa). For an alternate rendering, see Twenty-Five Thousand 5.50: “determine that all phenomena are the emptiness … determine that there is no mental wandering.”
310. D tshad ma mchis par nges pa. Ghoṣa, p. 613, niyata (nges pa). The “immeasurable” here is enlightenment.
311. Ghoṣa, p. 615, and Kimura, 1–1:172, sarvvajñajñāne.
312. The list omits thams cad shes pa nyid.
313. LSPW, p. 135; Twenty-Five Thousand 5.56; le’u brgyad ma, ga 145b1; PSP, 1-1: 173; and Ghoṣa, p. 633, apārapāragatām.
314. Ghoṣa, p. 681, satatasamitam (khor zug rtag par); cf. Jäschke s.v. khor mo yug.
315. Bṭ1, p. 904: “Because of philosophical error they have a philosophical view of, and are intent on [or believe in], a physical form that is an existing thing. Because of perceptual error, they grasp the mental image of good or bad and so on. Because of mental error they are attached to [or settle down on] and possess the functioning reality (dngos po) of physical form. ‘They engage in the conditioning of physical forms.’ This means that when they thus, because of such philosophical error, perceptual error, and mental error, see a physical form that is an existing thing and practice like that, they make a physical form a conditioned thing that will arise and cease and so on and do not practice the perfection of wisdom.” Bṭ3 4.612, explaining the three in the different order found at Eighteen Thousand, ka 88a (9.6), says: “ ‘Possess’ (gnas, adhisthā), ‘form a notion’ (kun tu shes, saṃjñā), and ‘believe’ (mos, adhimuc) in form. They ‘possess’ because of mental (citta) error, ‘form a notion’ (’du shes, saṃjñā) because of perceptual error, and ‘believe’ (lta ba, dṛṣṭi) because of philosophical error.” See also Bṭ3, n.591.
316. “Actualize” renders mngon du bya ba. Ghoṣa, p. 764, sākṣāt karttuṃ (“directly witness”).
317. This renders the Tib based on Gilgit, 59v10–11, and Ghoṣa, p. 765, where there are just the separate statements (rūpaṃ) na carati and (rūpam) asya nimitte na carati. Alternatively, the lhag bcas in mi spyod de and the cing in mi spyod cing may suggest “they do not engage with physical forms, which is to say (de), they do not engage with mental images of physical forms; (cing) they do not engage with the notion that physical forms are permanent,” and so on, making clear that permanence and so on are the nimittas.
318. The eighteen sensory elements (dhātu) begin here because the set of twelve sense fields (āyatana), which come after the five aggregates (skandha), are complete.
319. The presence of thams cad shes pa nyid (sarvajñatā) here is noteworthy.
320. The translators evidently read upalabh in place of upe or understood upe as upalabh. The Mvy does not attest dmigs as a translation of upe in any of its forms.
321. This renders de; Twenty-Five Thousand, ka 152a (6.14), cing. Cf. Gilgit, 60r11–12, anupādattā; Ghoṣa, p. 825, and Kimura, 1–1:182, (tena) anupāttaḥ.
323. Alternatively, “assured of the crest of the victory banner.”
324. This meditative stability named excellently well established and the following meditative stabilities named well-engaging king of meditative stabilities, diffusion of light rays, without mistakes, because of the diffusion of light rays not making mistakes, and power of effort (rab tu bde bar gnas pa, ting nge ’dzin gyi rgyal po bde bar ’jug pa, ’od zer rab tu ’gyed pa, ’khrul pa med pa, ’od zer rab tu ’gyed pas ’khrul pa med par byed pa, and brtson pa’i stobs) are probably the result of a cascade of copying errors. They are missing from the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand; from Gilgit, 60v4–5, Ghoṣa, p. 826, and Kimura, 1–1:183; and are not found in the Mvy. In the later list (8.109) they are missing from Ghoṣa, p. 1267, and are omitted from the Choné Kangyur.
325. Eighteen Thousand 7.8, rājamudra. Missing from the Twenty-Five Thousand’s list, and from Gilgit, 60v6, Ghoṣa, p. 826, and Kimura, 1–1:183.
326. Eighteen Thousand 7.8, trimaṇḍalapariśuddha. Missing from the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand, and from Gilgit, 60v6, Ghoṣa, p. 826, and Kimura, 1–1:183.
327. This and the next are missing from the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand. They may simply be intended or accidental alternative renderings of siṃhavijṛmbhita, which can mean a lion’s yawn and a lion’s stretch. Mvy gives forms of prasṛ like prasāraṇa (“spreading,” “stretching out,” “extending”) for forms of rkyong, and gives glal as rendering forms of (vi)jṛmbh.
328. Myv attests both snrel zhi and snrel gzhi. Mvy snrel zhi snyoms par ’jug pa renders vyāstakrantakasamāpatti. dag yig gsar bsgrigs, Zi ling: Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe bskrun khang, 2003, glosses this as “crowning” (thod rgal ba’i don), equating vyatyasta with vyāstakrantaka = vyākrantaka or vyutkrānta.
329. This is missing from the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand, and from Gilgit 60v7–8, Ghoṣa p. 826, and Kimura 1-1:183.
330. This is missing from the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand.
331. Skt MSS have śuddhāvāsa (pure abode) or śuddhābhāsa (pure illumination); however, Kimura gives śuddhasāra in a later list, and this is the reading adopted here.
332. This is missing from the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand.
333. This renders D jig pa, C ’jigs pa (“fearless”), also in the Twenty-Five Thousand, perhaps reading vibhaya in place of Gilgit, 60v10, and Ghoṣa vivarṇa; Kimura vivṛta.
334. This is missing from the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand.
335. This is missing from the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand. Gilgit, Ghoṣa, and Kimura omit.
336. This renders chos kyis ’phags pa (dharmodgata); cf. the Twenty-Five Thousand’s chos kyi ’phags pa, g.1081.
337. This and the following two meditative stabilities are missing the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand, and from Gilgit, Ghoṣa, and Kimura.
338. This, rnam par nges pa (*viniścaya), and the following meditative stability are missing from the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand.
339. Alternatively, where objective supports have been cut off. Gilgit, 60v14, āraṃbanaccheda; Ghoṣa, p. 831, and Kimura, 1–1:184, āvaraṇa (“obscuration”).
340. This meditative stability named entering into names and signs and the following named free from activity are missing from the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand.
341. nges par gnas pa, Kimura (consistently with tathatā) sthitaniścita. Cf. the Twenty-Five Thousand and Eighteen Thousand, ka 152ab (15.105), sems med par gnas pa, and Ghoṣa, p. 832, sthitaniścitta, (abiding without mentation).
342. This renders gnas su bya ba med pa, niradhiṣṭhāna (“without anything to serve as a foundation”).
343. This is missing from list in the Twenty-Five Thousand.
344. This compound is rendered slightly differently in the Twenty-Five Thousand (g.212).
345. This and the next six meditative stabilities are missing from the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand. The name of the bodhisattva Ratnagarbha is rendered rin chen snying po (“Jewel Heart”).
346. This renders mngon par dmigs pa med pa; alternatively, “without a manifest objective support.”
347. This is missing from the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand.
348. This is missing from the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand.
349. This and the next four are missing from the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand.
350. This differs slightly from the name in the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand (g.1114).
351. This and the next two are missing from the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand.
352. This assumes kun tu rtog pa is derived not from saṃkḷp but from saṃvīkṣ.
353. This is missing from the list in the Twenty-Five Thousand.
354. I.e., of all phenomena.
355. “Fixated” renders chags par bya ba, Ghoṣa p. 842 abhiniviṣṭāḥ.
356. Skt vid means both “exist” and “know”; saṃvid has the same two meanings, perhaps intensified (“completely exist” or “completely know”). In Skt, therefore, the sentence means, at one and the same time: “As they are not known, so are they known. Thus, not being known, one says ‘ignorance,’ ” and, “As they do not exist, so do they exist. Thus, not existing, one says ‘not existing.’ ”
357. Ghoṣa, p. 863, adds “great loving kindness” here.
358. Gn1, p. 916: “when ordinary foolish people mistakenly see the nonexistent as existent they imagine and become fixated on all sorts of various things.”
359. Ghoṣa, p. 877, niryāti (“are not emancipated in” or “do not go forth to”); Kimura, 1–1:190, niryāsyati. The Tib ’byung ba has been rendered both by “go forth [to]” and by “emancipated [in],” depending on the context.
360. Ghoṣa, p. 905, saṃjñāsamajñāprajñaptivyavahāraḥ. Āryavimuktisena (Pensa 69, translated Sparham vol. 1, p. 75) says, “A saṃjñā (=notion, name) is the word for the causal sign (nimitta) of something; a samajñā (=symbol, denomination, literally ‘same knowledge’) is the word for the knowledge ‘me’ that goes in tandem with (sameta) the something (as in ‘I see the form with my eye,’ etc.). A prajñapti (=designation) is the representation (vijñāpana) within which there is settling on known and knowledge as object and subject. A vyavahāra (term, conventional expression) is [the Bodhisattva as mere] different (vividha) activity (vyavahāra) connected with things received or not received from others.”
361. “Denomination” renders nāmaprajñapti (ming du gdags pa); cp. dharmaprajñapti (“designation for something”). The idea is that a name, as much as the named, is also just designated.
362. “Are in their essential nature no essence” renders dngos po ma mchis pa’i rang bzhin (abhāvasvabhāvaḥ). In the list of emptinesses this abhāvasvabhāvaḥ is consistently rendered dngos po med pa’i ngo bo nyid (“essential nature of nonentities”).
363. “Find agreeable” renders mos pa (rocana); Conze has “find pleasure in.”
364. Cp. Ghoṣa, p. 923, tasyā yā teṣāṃ sarvvākārajñatāpratisaṃyuktānāṃ manasikārāṇām anutsarjanatā anikṣiptadhuratā iyaṃ bodhisattvasya mahāsattvasya vīryyapāramitā.
365. “Deny any opportunity for … to impede” (bgegs su ’gyur ba … skabs [alternatively] go mi ’byed pa, na … tad; avakāśaṃ dadati … ye paripanthakārāḥ).
366. This renders the past passive participle in active voice. Literally it says they have “been fully taken hold of” (yongs su zin pa, parigṛhīta), which in this context means that the bodhisattvas have been guided or mentored by a learned compassionate guru teaching the two truths, and by skillful means and great compassion (saṃparigraha). Cf. Abhisamayālaṃkāra 1.37.
367. Here the first “unconditioned” renders asaṃskṛta and the second anabhisaṃskāra (“not an enactment”). Ghoṣa, p. 994, asaṃskṛtaśūnyatānabhisaṃskāreti.
368. Gilgit, 66r11, smṛtyupasthānabhāvatāyai dharmaṃ deśayati; Ghoṣa, p. 1001, accidentally omits this statement here but attaches it to the end of the rest of the correct exertions and so on; Kimura, 1–2:11, omits.
369. Ghoṣa, p. 1036, as expected, has mahāmaitrī (“great loving kindness”) here, but both D and S omit it.
370. The Hundred Thousand and the Twenty-Five Thousand both render Kimura, 1–2:12, apagatasarvākārajñatāpratisaṃyuktair manasikāraiḥ prajñāpāramitāṃ bhāvayati upalabhate, tayā ca prajñāpāramitayā manyate, literally “bereft of attentions connected with all-aspect omniscience they contemplate the perfection of wisdom and apprehend it, and on account of that perfection of wisdom give rise to conceit.”
371. Ghoṣa prajñāpāramitāyāṃ carann anupāyakuśalo veditavyaḥ.
372. ngo bo dmigs pa.
373. This renders Ghoṣa, p. 1185, virecayati vichandayati; cp. Kimura, 1–2:14, just vivecayati.
374. rang bzor byas pa (“made up by [the forgers] themselves”); Ghoṣa, p. 1185, kuvitarkā (“from bad ideas”); Kimura and Gilgit, 67a5, kavikṛtāny (“composed by poets”).
375. Kimura, 1–2:14; Ghoṣa, p. 1186; and Gilgit, 67.9, upadiś, ācakṣ. Although here, and at Twenty-Five Thousand, ka 175b (7.57), bdud (māra) is qualified by the plural marker dag, only in the Twenty-Five Thousand are those doing the revealing and explaining qualified by the plural marker ’di dag ni. The reading here (except for the first plural marker) follows the Skt that has the evil associate not teaching others that such fake buddhas are indeed fake, not the fake buddhas not revealing themselves to be fake.
376. The Choné and Yungdrung versions of the Hundred Thousand omit these five aggregates, as do all other versions, including S. Twenty-Five Thousand 7.61 starts with mig, “eyes.”
377. Here ’dems is an incompleted voluntary form of gdam; Ghoṣa, p. 1190, avadaty anuśāsti.
378. “Basis” (gnas) and “word” (tshig) both render pada. “Actual entity denoted by/that is a word” renders padārtha. “Is without a basis/footing/place” renders padaṃ na vidyate. Cf. Kimura, 1–2:17, padaṃ na vidyate nopalabhyate (“a basis does not exist and cannot be apprehended”). The Sanskrit terms padārtha and its negative or opposite apadārtha are crucial to an understanding of the text. The Sanskrit pada, starting from its basic meaning of a footstep or track, also means a mark, standpoint, token, portion, sign, a matter, or a word; artha (or ārtha) has an even wider range of meanings including aim, purpose, cause, motive, use, object, and meaning. The Tibetan translators of this text and of the Hundred Thousand have rendered the two compounds as tshig gi don and tshig gi don med pa, of which the literal translations in English might be “the meaning of the word” and “the absence of meaning of the word.” However, don here must be understood as referring not to “meaning” in the sense of a definition of some kind, but rather to the actual thing denoted by the word. Note that the Tibetan of the Eighteen Thousand (11.2 et seq.) renders the two compounds gzhi’i don and gzhi med pa’i don, i.e., using a different interpretation of pada and a different analysis of the second compound.
379. The Twenty-Five Thousand omits these six elements, as does Ghoṣa, p. 1195, and Bṭ1, na p. 946.
380. Here “without any basis” renders padaṃ na vidyate, “because … are nonexistent” renders avidyamānatvāt, and “there is no actual entity denoted by the word” renders padārtho na vidyate.
381. This is the twentieth of the twenty “sub-eons” making up the third (eon of destruction) of the four subdivisions of a “great eon” (mahākalpa). The other three major divisions of a great eon are the eon of arising, of duration, and (after the eon of destruction), of voidness.
382. “False” renders asadbhūtatā (a-sadbhūta-tā =yang dag pa ma yin pa), rendered into Tib here as myed pa yang dag pa nyid (=asad-bhūta-tā), literally “the fact that they are really nonexistent.”
383. “Bases [of meritorious deeds] from having carried out one’s assigned duty” tentatively renders nyams su blang ba dang ldan pa’i [bsod nams kyi las kyi] dngos po, based on Ghoṣa, p. 1258, vaiyāvṛttasahagatam; cf. Edgerton vaiyāpatya. Although Gilgit, 70r2, and PSP, 1-2: 24, upāyakauśalam is supported by Eighteen Thousand 11.36 and le’u brgyad ma, ga 181b5, thabs mkhas pa (“skillful in what is connected with one’s assigned duties”), Ghoṣa’s auṣadhika (“[bases of meritorious deeds] to do with medicines”) is a good reading.
384. “Verbal abuse” renders zhe gcod pa (elsewhere tshig tsub pa) (paruṣa/pāruṣya). Shouting at the person so much it upsets them.
385. “Perverse pride” renders log pa’i nga rgyal (mithyāmāna). bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo, s.v. log pa’i nga rgyal, “being full of oneself because of seeing what is bad in oneself as good.”
386. “Indeterminate” renders lung du ma bstan pa, “not taught in the scripture [as virtuous or nonvirtuous].”
387. This translation is based on the catasraḥ arūpyasamāpattaya[ḥ] (Gilgit 70r8). Tib gzugs myed pa bzhir skyes pa (“born in the four formless states”) appears to be a mistaken reading of samāpatti as meaning utpatti.
390. “With certainty” renders nges pa (niyata) in the sense of destined to progress to and attain their respective goals. Bṭ1, p. 959: “Thus it says ‘beings with certainty’ of the great number of beings, each ascertained as being in different lineages.” “Lead … to consummation” renders phul byed par ’gyur bas (agratām kariṣyati); cf. LSPW, pp. 168–69, “cause to achieve … the highest.” Edgerton s.v. kṛ says “Sometimes the Caus. of √kṛ is used for the simple verb or without a causal signification. ” This would then mean “is the culmination.” The first way of rendering this means the Blessed One thinks bodhisattvas are called great beings because they bring all the beings destined to different goals to the culmination or highest state (phul, agratā). The second means he thinks they are called great beings because they are the foremost or the culmination of all those progressing to different goals. Cf. Abhisamayālaṃkāra 1.42 that glosses this part of the Sūtra with samuddeśa (“the motivating aims”) and says the first of the aims is sarvasattvāgratācitta (“[setting] the mind on the consummation of all beings”).
391. “Equanimity” (sems mnyam pa nyid, samacittatā) here means a mind that sees all beings in the same way.
392. “Unadulterated” (ma ’dres pa, avyavakīrṇa) means not influenced by the thoughts of personal freedom that śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have.
393. Gilgit, 71r14, ekanaya.
394. “On top of that” renders gong du. Ghoṣa mahāsattvenāttaryavaṃ [uttaram evaṃ?] cittam.
395. “Led to consummation” renders phul du ’gyur pa as meaning phul byed du ’gyur pa based on Ghoṣa, p. 1266, sarvvasattvānām agryatāṃ kārayiṣyati. Literally, the Tib suggests it is the mind of the bodhisattva that is in the consummate state, rather than being in that state because of leading all beings to it.
396. “Practice and engage in having an appreciation” renders mos pa’i rnal ’byor la brtson pa (ārāmatāyogānuyukta); alternatively, (Eighteen Thousand, ka 118b (11.67)) “be preoccupied with delight (kun tu dga’ ba’i) in.” Āryavimuktisena (AAV, cf. Sparham 2006–11 vol. 3, p. 69) says, “It uses both the word yoga and anuyoga (“yoga that follows”) to indicate [those who] practice (yoga), and then again engage in (anuyoga) the truth of suffering and origin, and the truth of cessation and path, respectively, in a temporal sequence.”
398. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit.
399. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit.
400. Alternatively, “that has followed the stream” (śroto’nugata).
401. This renders seng ge rnam par bsgying pa. Emend Ghoṣa, p. 1267, siṃhavikrīḍita to siṃhavijṛṃbhita.
402. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit this and the following one.
403. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit.
404. Alternatively, nyon mongs pa, raṇa means “conflict.”
405. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit.
406. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit.
407. Ghoṣa again has vivarṇa.
408. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit.
409. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit.
410. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit this and the following two meditative stabilities.
411. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit this and the following meditative stability.
412. Again, Ghoṣa, p. 1268, reads āvaraṇa (“obscuration”) in place of ālambana.
413. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit this and the following meditative stability.
414. Ghoṣa, p. 1268, sthitaniścitta.
415. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit this *sthitaniścita.
416. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit.
417. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit.
418. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit this and the next six meditative stabilities.
419. K, N, and C omit. Ghoṣa, p. 1269, sarvvākāravaropeta.
420. Following this in the earlier list 6.163 (kha 184b) but missing here is flash of lightning that does not cause pain.
421. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit.
422. This and the preceding one are the meditative stabilities at Ghoṣa, p. 835, araṇa-samavasaraṇa, and araṇa-saraṇa-sarvva-samavasaraṇa. Here the list at Ghoṣa, p. 1269, has only araṇasarvasamarasaraṇe!
423. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit this and the next four meditative stabilities.
424. D adds another meditative stability called dispelling the defects of speech here. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit it.
425. Ghoṣa, K, N, and C omit this and the next two meditative stabilities.
426. The sentence found here in Twenty-Five Thousand 8.64 is, “So if one were to ask why, it is because that mind is not mind and there is indeed no attachment to that which is not mind” (de ci’i phyir zhe na / ’di ltar sems ni sems ma mchis pa ste/ sems ma mchis pa de la yangs chags pa med do). This is cited below (8.144).
427. Here “physical forms would therefore be without attachment” (gzugs kyang chags pa myed do, rūpam asaktam) means that physical forms are not things that anybody could get attached to.
428. K, N. D omits “great loving kindness.”
429. In both the Eight Thousand (W83) and Twenty-Five Thousand (PSP, 1-2: 33) Subhūti says the line cited here: acittatvāt tatrāpi citte asakta iti; Lhasa Kangyur brgyad stong 17a7, sems med pa’i phyir sems de la ma chags shing [yongs su ma zin]. The earlier line in the Twenty-Five Thousand (ka 192a6 (8.64)) differs slightly: de ci’i phyir zhe na/ ’di ltar sems ni sems ma mchis pa ste/ sems ma mchis pa de la yangs chags pa med do (“So if you ask why, it is because that mind is not mind and there is indeed no attachment to that which is not mind”). Either this line has dropped out earlier from the Eighteen Thousand and the Hundred Thousand, or this is a cross-reference to another scripture.
430. “Nonexistent physical forms” renders gzugs myed pa, construing the compound arūpam as a tatpuruṣa (in Whitney’s nomenclature, a “descriptive compound”). The negative prefix a- is descriptive of rūpam, hence “a nonexistent form” is a type of form. Bṭ1 says: “It teaches that there the nonexistent mind is called nonexistent mind because of the nonexistence, in the mind of the realm of phenomena, the intrinsic defining characteristic of which is a thoroughly established phenomenon, of imaginary mind. In ‘but nonexistent physical forms also would be without attachment to physical forms,’ the nonexistent physical forms are called nonexistent physical forms because the physical forms of the realm of phenomena, the intrinsic defining characteristics of which are thoroughly established phenomena, are not imaginary existent physical forms. Hence, nonexistent physical forms, the intrinsic nature of which are thoroughly established phenomena, are ‘without attachment to’ imaginary ‘physical forms.’ If the compound were to be construed as a bahuvrihi (‘possessive compound’) it would mean ‘[physical form, ultimately, the emptiness of it] in which there is no physical form.’ ”
431. “Mounted upon” renders yang dag par gnas pa. Both the Hundred Thousand, the Twenty-Five Thousand, and the Eighteen Thousand render Kimura, 1–2:44, and Ghoṣa, p. 1329 samārūḍha as yang dag par gnas; also, earlier, Kimura 1–2:33, Ghoṣa, p. 1298, and Gilgit, 74r9, samārūḍha. The Hundred Thousand and the Twenty-Five Thousand also appear to render this word occasionally by gnas alone; le’u brgyad ma, ga 200a1, zhugs, and ga 200a2, ’dzeg pa; Abhisamayālaṃkāra, 1.45d, adhirohinī; and mngon rtogs rgyan, ka 4a6, ’dzegs.
432. Ghoṣa, p. 1303, adhivāsanatā; Gilgit, 73v9, omits. Kimura, 1–2:35, has vyupaparīkṣaṇā, as does Ghoṣa, p. 1325, below, rendered at 8.233 (F.109.a) just by rtog pa. Āryavimuktisena (AAV, Sparham 2006–11 vol. 1, p. 95): “They have perfection of patience armor when they endure, find pleasure in, and thoroughly investigate the dharmas of the knowledge of all aspects (they endure it at the initial occurrence, find pleasure from the second instant, etc., and thoroughly investigate by investigating from various angles).”
433. “Overwhelm” renders zil gyis gnon (abhibhū); alternatively, “eclipse” or “tower over.”
434. Ghoṣa, p. 1311, udānam udānayanti / nāmadheyañ ca kīrttayanti śabdam udīrayanti / ghoṣam anuśrāvayanti.
437. Ghoṣa, p. 1315, ākāśākāraliṅganimittaiḥ.
438. Ghoṣa, p. 1324, brjod, ākhyā (“describe”); ’chad, deśaya (“explain”); ston, prakāśaya (“teach”); ’grel, visarjaya (“interpret”); rnam par ’byed, uttānīkṛ (“analyze”); gsal bar byed, vivañc (“elucidate”).
439. Ghoṣa, p. 1325, has sarvvajñatā (“omniscience”) in place of “meditative concentrations,” and pariṇāmayati (“dedicate [the merits] to”) in place of “descend to.”
440. “Definitively discern” renders rab tu rtog (pratyavekṣ); alternatively, “understand analytically,” “contemplate.”
441. Bṭ1, p. 1014: “the mind is ‘undistracted’ by grasping at signs with respect to all phenomena, and absorbed.”
442. In both Skt and Tib the subject of the verb “engage” (pravṛt, ’jug) is “understanding”; thus, literally, this says “understanding does not engage with.”
443. “Undivided” renders ma ’dres pa (avyavakīrṇa); literally “not mixed with anything else.”
444. Here the translators render bhāvanāvibhāvanā by bsgom par rnam par bsgom pa. LSPW, p. 184, “a development in the sense of annihilation,” renders le’u brgyad ma, ga 200b1, bsgom pa rnam par gzhig pa’i don du; the Eighteen Thousand renders it variously as “investigation” or “disintegration” of meditation.
446. K, N, D omits the eighteen emptinesses.
447. This is related to the earlier list that was introduced by de ni (Ghoṣa, p. 1401, yad)—all the phenomena that are ultimately unfettered and unliberated (the portal of the Dharma)—the objects in which the bodhisattvas “dwell.”
448. Ghoṣa, p. 1405, niyojayiṣyati; Kimura, 1–2:58, parinirvāpayiṣyaty.
449. Below, 10.1, this question “because of just what” (ci tsam gyis na) is introduced simply by “how” (ji ltar na).
450. “Go forth” renders ’byung (niryā). It also means “to emerge from,” “to be emancipated from,” “escape,” and, later in this text, “the absence of a vehicle.”
451. “Nature” here renders prakṛti, rendered “inherent nature” when one in the list of emptinesses.
452. This translates D without emendation. Bṭ1, pp. 1034–35, says “ ‘the emptiness of that emptiness that is the emptiness of phenomena.’ That emptiness that is the emptiness when you say ‘phenomena are empty’ is also nonexistent as an inherent nature of emptiness, so, it, empty of an inherent nature, is called ‘the emptiness of emptiness.’ ” K, N have de in place of D des. Cf. Gilgit, 83v7–8, tatra katamā śūnyatā śūnyatayā sarvadharmāṇāṃ śūnyatā / tayā śūnyatayā śūnyā śūnyatā iyam ucyate śūnyatāśūnyatā, “Here, what is the emptiness of the emptiness on account of the emptiness of all phenomena? The emptiness empty of that emptiness. This is called ‘the emptiness of emptiness.’ ”
453. This definition of a physical form (rūpa) relates the word to a causal form of the verb rup; MW “to suffer violent pain.”
454. “Poisonous” renders gdug pa; Ghoṣa, p. 1410, āśīviṣa (“snake poison”).
455. “Gateway to arising” renders skye ba’i sgo (=āpattidvāra?); cf. Ghoṣa, p. 1410, āpaddvāra (“gateway to misfortune”).
456. “Becoming completely collected” renders yang dag par ’dus pa (saṃgraha).
457. “Emancipation” renders ’byung ba, which might also be rendered as “emergence.” Ghoṣa’s nairyāṇika is the definition of the truth of the path that “causes emergence” in the sense that it causes emancipation. It is not likely that ’byung ba here means actual emancipation.
458. “The liberations” renders rnam par grol ba (vimokṣa), of which there are eight. It is defined as “liberating” (rnam par ’grel pa, vimocanā).
459. The translators read niścita (“ascertained”) in place of Ghoṣa nicita.
460. “Direct perception” renders mngon sum (pratyakṣa); alternatively, in reference to the object of knowledge, pratyakṣa means “directly appearing,” “obvious.”
461. “Union” renders ’dus pa (sāṃyogika); Eighteen Thousand, ka 146a (15.29), ’dus pa las byung ba’i chos (“a phenomenon that has arisen from a union”) is a better translation.
462. These four render bhāva (“entity”), abhāva (“nonentity”), svabhāva (“essential entity” or, more literally, “entity from itself”), and parabhāva (“entity on account of something else”), respectively.
463. It is noteworthy here that the Tibetan translators render Ghoṣa, p. 1411, svabhāva ucyate prakṛtir aviparītaṃ as rang bzhin zhes bya ba ni ngo bo nyid ma nor ba, using rang bzhin to render svabhāva and ngo bo nyid to render prakṛti, the opposite of the usual usage of these two Tibetan terms in this text.
464. “Ranges over” renders spyod. The translators perhaps read anucarati in place of Ghoṣa, p. 1415; Kimura, 1–2:65; and Gilgit, 85r4, anubhavati (“experiences”).
465. Ghoṣa, p. 1415; Kimura, 1–2:66; Gilgit, 85r8; and the Eighteen Thousand, ka 148b, omit this meditative stability; the Twenty-Five Thousand, 226a (8.248), has “all phenomena are sealed with the unchanging seal.”
466. Ghoṣa, p. 1416, yatra samādhau niyatvā na bhidyate (“having become certain with respect to this meditative stability they are not split apart”); Eighteen Thousand 15.45 “meditative stabilities are not broken apart.” Cf. Kimura, 1–2:66, “are not split apart by any meditative stability.” Bṭ1, pp. 1044–45, “because it is not destroyed by the sides opposing…”
467. Ghoṣa, Kimura rājasupratiṣṭhānena (“like a king who has been well consecrated”).
468. There is no explanation of this in Bṭ1.
469. “Well-founded” renders ’dzugs; in the earlier lists ’jug and ’jugs.
470. There is no explanation of this and the following two meditative stabilities in Bṭ1.
471. Gilgit, 85v3, mudram[=ām] ādhārayati. Bṭ1, p. 1047: “ ‘If, among them, you ask what is the meditative stability named sealed with the seal, abiding in that meditative stability they are sealed with the seal of all meditative stabilities.’ When they are absorbed in that meditative stability they realize that the import of all the meditative stabilities is that all phenomena are, from the beginning, unarisen, and because it does not deviate from that meaning as it has been realized, like affixing a seal it is called ‘sealed with the seal.’ ”
472. There is no explanation of this in the Twenty-Five Thousand or Bṭ1, and Ghoṣa, p. 1417; Kimura, 1–2:67; and Gilgit, 85v5, omit it.
473. Bṭ1, p. 1048: “ ‘If, among them, you ask what is the meditative stability named permeation of space, abiding in that meditative stability space is permeated extensively with all the meditative stabilities.’ It is called ‘permeation of space’ because, when they are absorbed in this meditative stability, space is permeated with the forces and various miraculous displays of all the meditative stabilities, or, because the force of this meditative stability, like space, expands and permeates all meditative stabilities.”
474. Ghoṣa, p. 1417; Gilgit, 85v6; and Kimura, 1–2:67, omits. Bṭ1, p. 1048: “ ‘If, among them, you ask what is the meditative stability named vajra maṇḍala, abiding in that meditative stability they apprehend the maṇḍalas of all meditative stabilities.’ It is called ‘vajra maṇḍala’ because, when they are absorbed in this meditative stability, there is the achievement of the collection of meditative stabilities, which, like a vajra, cannot be pierced by hindrances like Māra and so on. Take ‘maṇḍala’ here in this context as a collection or many gathered together.”
475. The other lists, and Bṭ1, omit this meditative stability. Ghoṣa, p. 1417, and Gilgit, 85v6, have raṇajaha here; Kimura, 1–2:67, differs.
476. “Slip in” renders ’dzul. There is no explanation of this meditative stability in Bṭ1.
477. There is no explanation of this meditative stability in Bṭ1.
478. Jāschke, s.v. lham me (snang), lhan ne (snang), and lhang nge (snang), all as different forms of the same word meaning “clear and distinct.”
479. Ghoṣa, p. 1418, and Gilgit, 85v9, yatra samādhau sthitasya na cittaṃ na cetasikā dharmmā pravarttante.
480. There is no explanation of this meditative stability in Bṭ1.
481. There is no explanation of this and the next meditative stability in Bṭ1.
482. There is no explanation of this and the next meditative stability in Bṭ1.
483. Ghoṣa, p. 1420, samantāloko nāma; Bṭ1 kun tu lta ba (“total seeing,” “observing everything”).
484. There is no explanation of this and the next two meditative stabilities in Bṭ1.
485. There is no explanation of this and the next meditative stability in Bṭ1.
486. Kimura, 1–2:71; there is no explanation of this and the next meditative stability in Bṭ1.
487. This reading is corroborated by the explanation at Bṭ1, pp. 1061–62, and Gilgit, 86v11, cāraṃ na samanupaśyati.
488. There is no explanation of this meditative stability in Bṭ1.
489. There is no explanation of this meditative stability in Bṭ1.
490. “Stretch” renders rgyud (Bṭ1, p. 1064, rgyu?), apparently for pariccheda.
491. There is no explanation of this meditative stability in Bṭ1.
492. There is no explanation of this and the next seven meditative stabilities in Bṭ1.
493. The S Hundred Thousand, nga 137a4–5, Kimura, Ghoṣa, Gilgit, the Twenty-Five Thousand, the Eighteen Thousand, and Bṭ1 all have this and following meditative stability in a different order.
494. There is no explanation of this in Bṭ1.
496. Bṭ1, p. 1069: “Take ‘contradiction’ as obstruction on the side opposing meditative stability; take ‘refutation’ as hindrance that blocks meditative stability.”
497. S Hundred Thousand, nga 137a4–5, gdung ba med pa’i glog gi ’od (“nonafflictive lightning light”). Bṭ1, p. 1071, gives an explanation. Kimura, 1–2:74; Ghoṣa, p. 1425; and Gilgit, 87v10, all omit, and have mahāvyūha for the next entry, rgyan chen po.
498. There is no explanation of this in Bṭ1.
499. Bṭ1, p. 1073: “They do not even apprehend the foundation of all meditative stabilities—the transcendental knowledge that is the transformation of the basis-of-all consciousness (kun gzhi rnam par shes pa) devoid and purified of the object that is grasped and the subject that grasps.”
500. There is no explanation of this and the next four meditative stabilities in Bṭ1.
501. Again, D includes a second meditative stability here, dispelling defects of speech, with exactly the same explanation. There is no explanation of it in Bṭ1.
502. There is no explanation of this and the next two meditative stabilities in Bṭ1.
503. This renders Gilgit, 88r13, saṃghāṭīcīvarapātradharaṇe. The Sanskrit saṃghāṭīcīvara is rendered sbyar ma, more usually rnam sbyar (as at Eighteen Thousand ka 156a, (16.5)). The idea is that when they go out to beg with a begging bowl, they also wear uttarāsaṅga. The modern Tibetan chos gos (“religious garb”) that renders cīvara (“the robes”) usually refers exclusively to the outer robe (uttarāsaṅga).
504. The klama in Ghoṣa, p. 1429, śayitanidrāklamaprativinodite is rendered mya myo (perhaps rmya, “to feel dull,” “to lose energy”).
505. A more literal translation is “… mindful when breathing in, they are mindful, fully aware ‘I am breathing in.’ ”
506. “Epidermal skin, inner skin, flesh” renders bags pa (= pags pa), glog pa (= slog pa), and sha. Ghoṣa, p. 1439 tvak carma māṃsā. The differences likely derive from observations of the outer covering of a body made while skinning an animal.
507. “Viscera” renders nang grol. Eighteen Thousand ka 157a1 (16.9) glang pa (Mvy audarīyaka, “pertaining to the abdomen”); Ghoṣa, p. 1431, udarayantraṃ (?) suggests the abdominal walls. Kimura, 1–2:77, udaraṃ (“stomach”).
508. “Filthy excretions” renders dri ma (malā), explained by Monier-Williams, s.v. malā, as “any bodily excretion or secretion.”
509. rab rib snang ba, perhaps reading timirabhāsa in place of Ghoṣa, p. 1434, tirobhūtāni (“indistinct”), and Kimura, 1–2:80, tirovārṣikāṇi, which might be rendered “in which the years have disappeared.”