Notes
1. The exception within the six “mother” sūtras is The Verses that Summarize the Perfection of Wisdom (Prajñāpāramitāsaṃcayagāthā, Toh 13), because it is so condensed.
2. Mapping the correspondences between the Eight Thousand and the longer sūtras is complicated by the former’s very different—and sometimes surprising—placing of chapter breaks (see Conze 1978, p.49). Nevertheless, for most of the middle of the text, obvious points of correspondence can be identified, and in this translation have been pointed out in the notes. Nevertheless, at the beginning and toward the end of the text (i.e. its coverage of the first, and of the last three, of the eight main topics of the Ornament), the way the subject matter is covered is markedly more compressed in comparison to the longer sūtras (see notes n.64, n.1296, and n.1299). While the Ornament’s topics and subtopics can still just about be discerned in these parts of Eight Thousand, especially with the help of the commentaries written partly for just that purpose, the notion that the Ornament and its analysis of topics is based rather on the longer sūtras is quite clearly substantiated.
3. This manuscript, which consists of the 15 cm wide portion of a much longer birch-bark scroll, has on its recto and verso sides portions of text that, although considerably shorter, are comparable to portions of the first and fifth chapters of the Eight Thousand. It shows evidence of having been copied from an earlier manuscript, suggesting that the text itself dates to earlier than its carbon dating, possibly as early as the first or second century ʙᴄᴇ. For more information, see Falk and Karashima 2012, p. 34. See also Zacchetti 2015, pp. 181–82.
4. Sander 2000, pp. 3–5. See also Zacchetti 2015, p. 182.
5. Wogihara and Vaidya did not edit the text themselves, as is sometimes thought; they merely reproduced Mitra’s edition without looking at the manuscripts, occasionally introducing their own typos in the process.
6. See below and Shōji 2014.
7. Karashima 2011 and 2013a.
8. Nattier 2010.
9. Karashima 2010 attributes its translation to Dharmarakṣa and dates it to 265 ᴄᴇ.
10. See Jampa Samten 1992, p. 12, where some of this information is set out in a note (in Tibetan) under text no. 10, the first of three versions of the Eight Thousand in the Phukdrak Kangyur. But for a more detailed discussion see Olkha Lelung Jedrung, Lobsang Trinlé (’ol kha / dga’ sle lung blo bzang ’phrin las, 1697–1740), Narthang dkar chag rgyas pa (the extensive Narthang Kangyur catalog), folios 84.b–85.a, or Pedurma vol. 106, pp. 228–29 (the latter being considerably easier to read).
11. See Olkha Lelung Jedrung. As an analogy, he compares the two expressions “divine flowers and divine fragrant incense” and “divine flowers and incense,” differing only in their degree of contraction.
12. Degé dkar chag, folio 118.a. However, the statement could be taken to refer only to the name and thus to follow the opinion of Rinchen Chökyong Zangpo as summarized in the preceding paragraph.
13. Jampa Samten 1992, p. 12; Torricelli and Dudka 1999; Shōji 2014.
14. LTWA manuscript 23476; see Torricelli and Dudka 1999 and Shōji 2014.
15. LTWA manuscript 14523; see Torricelli and Dudka 1999, p. 33.
16. For one indication that the commentaries consulted may have included Ratnākaraśānti’s, see n.1359.
17. These are just two of the twenty types of saṅgha mentioned by the Ornament. But this distinction will hopefully suffice for the limited scope of this introduction.
18. Atiśa’s Extensive Biography (rnam thar rgyas pa) reports that he received the three traditional streams of interpreting the Transcendent State of Wisdom scriptures—the explanation by Mañjuśrī, the explanation by Maitreya, and the explanation according to sūtra and tantra—from Ratnākaraśānti, but does not specify what they are. In explaining the Eight Thousand’s bodhicitta section, Ratnākaraśānti cites both The Teaching of Akṣayamati (Akṣayamatinirdeśa, Toh 175) and Maitreya’s Ornament, suggesting that these might have been, respectively, the first two streams. It is not clear precisely which commentaries might constitute the “explanation according to sūtra and tantra.”
19. Although this commentary is not mentioned by name in subsequent Indian sources, it may have been orally transmitted to some degree in India, and might possibly be included in the tradition later attributed to Mañjuśrī. It is the colophon of Kumārajīva’s (fifth century) Chinese translation that attributes it to Nāgārjuna. Lamotte (III, p. ix) argued against this attribution. However, without ruling out Nāgārjuna as a possible originator, Zacchetti (2021, pp. 94–97) suggests that multiple compilers probably contributed to the work we now know today. Importantly, Zacchetti’s analysis raises questions about the application of Western notions of authorship to Indian scriptural and commentarial literature, where subsequent interpolations made in the service of perceived authorial intentions are still attributed to an important founding figure.
20. The Ornament seems to have been formulated to match most closely the larger Transcendent State of Wisdom sūtras, which in Asaṅga’s time were not as clearly differentiated into recensions named by their length as they were later, but of which the Twenty-Five Thousand (Toh 9) is the representative version usually taken as the “root text” whose content the Ornament summarizes and organizes into topics. The Ornament has been studied in India and Tibet for centuries, but it was never translated into Chinese and is not known in East Asian traditions.
21. This tradition of explanation is often associated with not just one but two commentaries, both incorporating in their titles the Sanskrit term bṛhaṭṭīkā, the other (Toh 3807) being a commentary on the Hundred Thousand alone, and both using similar approaches. See The Long Explanation of the Noble Transcendent State of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand, Twenty-Five Thousand, and Eighteen Thousand Lines (Āryaśatasāhasrikāpañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāṣṭādaśasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitābṛhaṭṭīkā, Toh 3808). The attribution of both texts was the subject of dispute in Tibet. Some attribute Toh 3808 to Vasubandhu, but others to Daṃṣṭrasena, who lived several centuries after Vasubandhu; Toh 3807 is more often attributed to Daṃṣṭrasena but may possibly have been composed in Tibet. For more information, see the introduction to the translation of Toh 3808. See also Sparham 2001.
22. The commentary is nevertheless said to follow more closely, rather, the longer sūtras.
23. Jaini’s (1979) edition was made from two incomplete Sanskrit palm-leaf manuscripts that had been discovered at Sakya Monastery by Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana during his second journey to Tibet in 1936, and photographed by him and Gendun Chöphel during his fourth journey in 1938 (see Sāṅkṛtyāyana 1937, MS nos. 200 and 201 pp. 24–5). While large parts are intact there are numerous missing passages, and in the notes to this translation citations from passages missing in Sanskrit are given from the Tibetan instead.
24. According to the eleventh-century Indian Buddhist scholar Advayavajra, the three Buddhist philosophical schools—known as Sautrāntika, Yogācāra, and Madhyamaka—all practiced the method of the transcendent states that was introduced in this scripture. In other words, based on its views the followers of Sautrāntika were able to practice Mahāyāna.
25. The Ornament is attributed in the Indo-Tibetan tradition to Maitreya, who taught it to Asaṅga as one of the “five treatises of Maitreya” (byams chos sde lnga). According to Makransky 1998 (p. 369 n3) and Brunnhölzl 2010 (vol. 1, p. 692 n98), this attribution was first made by Haribhadra (late eighth to early ninth century). For more about the Ornament and its history (especially with regard to its final chapter on the kāyas) see the introduction to Makransky 1998.
26. Tibetans primarily study the Ornament through Haribhadra’s short Commentary (Vivṛtti, ’grel pa don gsal, Toh 3793) and virtually no one studies the actual Prajñāpāramitā scriptures.
27. At less than seven hundred words (in English), the Heart Sūtra is one of the genre’s shortest scriptures, a fact that has clearly contributed to its popularity.
28. In the strictest Tibetan monastic university curricula, the Ornament is studied daily for three to six years. This is a sign of the scripture’s continued relevance today, but is also the reason why few students outside the monastic universities have any real idea about the purpose of studying the Transcendent State of Wisdom literature so seriously.
29. The wordplay is sometimes difficult to understand, in part because the terms in question were in other early Indic natural languages (Prākrits) rather than the Sanskrit in which the text survives. Some of these are discussed in Schmithausen 1979.
30. See Ducœur 2022, particularly on Burnouf’s methodology (pp. 5–12). See also Feer 1899 for Burnouf’s manuscript translation.
31. On Edward Conze’s 1958 English version, see above and, in more detail, below. Mention should also be made here of a recent unpublished English translation of the Chinese translation of an early, abbreviated version of the scripture.
33. For instance, the translation of pramāṇavantī as mtho zhing tshad dang ldan pa (30.8) could only have come from Ratnākaraśānti’s gloss of that word: pramāṇavantī ti pṛthūni tuṅgāni ca. The earlier Tibetan translation of Ratnākaraśānti’s Quintessence commentary enshrines an earlier translation of this term: tshad dang ldan pa zhes bya ba ni yangs shing mtho ba’o. Since Haribhadra is silent on this term, this earlier Tibetan translation was likely based on a Tibetan translator’s own interpretation, rather than a traditional Indian source.
34. See Harrison 2006, p. 136. Although this translation agrees with Harrison’s statement here and his general approach in the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā, there are additional concerns in translating the Eight Thousand, because it must coalesce with its long commentarial tradition.
35. Conze, 1958, preface; 1975, p. xvii.
36. Conze, 1973, p. 93.
38. Quintessence (F.19.a–20.b): bcom ldan ’das zhes bya ba la sogs pa la de ltar zhes bya ba ni dmigs pa dang rnam pa ji ltar bshad pa ltar ro| |zab mo zhes bya ba ni mos par dka’ ba’o| |shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa zhes bya ba ni drod ’bring dang chen po’i mtshan nyid do| |bshad pas ni tshig las so| | ston pa ni don las so| | |nye bar ston pa ni don la’o| |de yang shes pa skyes pas zhi gnas skyes par sems ma zhum zhes bya ba la sogs pas don snga ma bzhin du bshad do| |bsams pa ni lhag pa’i bsam pa’o| |des na gcig tu nges pa zhes bya ba’i don to| |mos pa ni zhi gnas dang lhag mthong gi stobs kyis nges par skyes pa’o| |ma bral bar zhes bya ba ni des gong nas gong du ’gro ba yin no.
40. In a different but comparable context involving the removal of repetitions from the Pali suttas, Lance Cousins (1997, pp. 261–62) writes, “Although there are obvious advantages to having the whole work in one volume, especially for the newcomer, the disadvantage is the systematic elimination of repetition. Many readers may see this as a gain, but it does amount to the deliberate removal of a meditative element from many suttas. In the original language, when the suttas are chanted rather than read, there is an effect upon the mind which is very much part of their traditional purpose. Moreover, the emphasis is often changed quite critically: when a phrase that is repeated in the original ten times is given only once in translation, it ceases to be a central part which is always retained in memory. The result is that what the sutta tries to stress as important becomes much less noticeable in translation.” It is beyond the scope of this introduction to address Conze’s flawed assumptions, which still influence the academic field of Buddhist studies today. For instance, although Conze mentioned the “piling up of synonyms” as aiding memorization, it is dubious whether there are, in fact, any such benefits.
41. Cherry-picking comments or passages from the commentaries, as we have done in this translation, is certainly not ideal and runs the risk of producing many misconceptions about them. For the time being, however, it must suffice, since it is certainly better than nothing, while the project of translating the commentaries and making them available in full is a daunting one that 84000 may not complete for many years. At the very least, these footnotes may increase readers’ interest in reading the full texts of the commentaries in the future.
42. Gareth Sparham’s translation of Haribhadra’s Light commentary uses Conze’s translation for the root text without quoting it in extenso, making it difficult sometimes to figure out where the relevant passages are. Since Sparham cites the page numbers from Wogihara’s edition within his translation, the page numbers from Wogihara have been provided in the notes to help English readers navigate Sparham’s translation and to help Sanskrit readers read the edition itself.
44. The disagreement grew from the fact that the term was used somewhat vaguely within the scripture itself to refer to a path, a goal, a text, and even a mother-like goddess. Hence, the clarification of the term’s meaning became a primary concern for commentators seeking to interpret the rest of its subject matter.
45. The Sanskrit text in the footnotes has been extracted from Wogihara’s edition of Haribhadra’s Āloka and from Greg Seton’s unpublished Sanskrit and Tibetan edition of Ratnākaraśānti’s Sāratamā. However, the folio numbers given for the Śāratmā citations—whether provided in Sanskrit or (where the Sanskrit is missing) in Tibetan—are those of the Tibetan translation of the Śāratmā (snying po mchog) in the Degé Tengyur (Toh 3803, volume 89).
46. The notion that all heuristic analysis (nirvacana) involves merely fanciful, folk etymology is a misconception. In fact, heuristic analysis conveys important information about usage that needs to be considered when translating certain terms, especially those whose main referents are disputed.
47. In brief, Haribhadra breaks down the grammatical etymology of pāramitā as pāram+iḥ+tā—i.e., the state of one who goes to or reaches the other shore—where he explains the compound as consisting in a secondary (kṛt) suffix -iḥ (derived from the verbal root √i) in the sense of “he goes” (eti) to “the other shore” in the accusative case, based on a known exception to the rule that normally dictates all such declined endings be removed when forming a compound. Cf. Wogihara, p. 23.
48. The idea here is that naming a seed “apple” (i.e., apple seed)—even though no apple is perceived in the seed—is a figurative usage of the word “apple” that is based on the fact that a particular seed produces the fruit of an apple.
49. It should be noted that, although Haribhadra designates a buddha’s nondual knowledge as the true body of knowing (jñānadharmakāya), this body, for him, is only nominally called an “ultimate reality” in that it perceives the ultimate reality (i.e., the svabhāvikakāya). In actuality, it still falls within “conventional reality” (samvṛtisatya), because of its connection to appearances through the enjoyment and creation bodies (i.e. saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya). Cf. Makransky 1998, pp. 235–37.
50. Like Haribhadra, Ratnākaraśānti clearly suggests that the compound term be split as the “going to + wisdom’s other shore” (prajñāpāram+itā), where the other shore itself consists in wisdom. However, since Ratnākaraśānti’s Sanskrit comments exist only in a relatively imprecise Tibetan translation, it is not entirely clear whether he means that the final itā be interpreted grammatically as (a) a form of the Sanskrit verb √i combined with the abstract suffix -tā (similar to Hari but with different effect) to mean “the state of going” or (b) a feminine form of the past participle meaning “gone” or “set out for” (itā). Either way, Ratnākaraśānti’s additional remarks show that he interprets the itā as “the state of going to” or “the state leading to”—i.e., the path—rather than “the state once one has reached” it, i.e., the goal.
51. The idea behind naming the fruit (or result) after the seed (or cause) is like saying, after eating an omelet with many ingredients, that one has had “eggs” (a cause of that omelet) for breakfast.
52. Conze’s translation “they should course in perfect wisdom” gives the opposite impression from the verb (√car + locative), as if bodhisattvas must undertake some special mystical activity called “coursing” that no ordinary being understands how to do.
53. That is not to say, of course, that the actions bodhisattvas choose to do are entirely uninfluenced by their commitment to the transcendent state of wisdom. See, for example, the comment by Ratnākaraśānti mentioned in n.1194.
54. Although Conze and others translate citta, respectively, as “thought” or as “mind,” “heart,” and so on, these terms exclude either the cognitive or affective aspect of the word, and are often forced to fit unfamiliar contexts that make no sense except in Buddhist-English jargon. For instance, can one “give rise” (utpāda; bskyed) to a mind or heart, except in some metaphorical sense? Yet a mindset, by its nature, is something that can arise, be given rise to, and be developed and expanded. One need only look at how French translates citta as esprit and German as geist to see how much less our words “mind” or “heart” are able to account for both the cognitive and affective aspects of the term.
55. The scripture also uses the term “mindset” (citta) in the positive sense as a synonym of meditative concentration (samādhi). This usage was common especially in the context of the three trainings, which in early scriptures were listed as discipline, mindset, and wisdom instead of the more usual discipline, meditative concentration, and wisdom.
56. It is worth keeping in mind that Indian scholars, such as Haribhadra, Ratnākara, Prajñākaramati, Abhayākaragupta, and others, agree about the general usages of the term “mindset of awakening” (bodhicitta). But they disagree about what each usage’s precise referent is and whether it is a type of primary consciousness or a secondary mental state. For more on these different interpretations, see, for example, Padmakara Translation Group 2007, pp. 53–55. For more about the Sanskrit term citta, cf. Skorupski 2009, p. 165, n45, n59. For a taxonomy of various usages of the term bodhicitta, see Wangchuk 2007.
57. This problem is of far less prominence in the translation of other Prajñāpāramitā scriptures. The three Sanskrit terms used in the Ornament to distinguish the three kinds of sarvajñatā outlined here are hardly found at all in the text of the Eight Thousand. “Knowing of all the aspects” (sarvākārajñatā) occurs only once apart from in the heading of the first chapter (see n.65). “Knowing of the paths” (mārgajñatā) is not found at all. By contrast, in the long Prajñāpāramitā sūtras (the Hundred Thousand, Twenty-Five Thousand, and Eighteen Thousand) the differentiation into three is made much clearer by the very frequent use of distinct terms for them in the source texts. See the introduction to The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines, i.95. In the translation of that text (and of the Hundred Thousand), the term sarvajñatā (thams cad shes pa) by itself has been rendered “knowledge of all the dharmas” whenever (as is mostly the case) it denotes what is here—in the translation of the present text—termed the “complete knowing” of the Disciple Vehicle. The differentiation into three terms, in the longer sūtras, of the Eight Thousand’s single term is sometimes taken as one example of evidence for the longer sūtra’s later evolution.
58. For a discussion of some of the different Buddhist explanations of this term, see McClintock 2010.
59. Note, however, that “thing” has also been used in some passages to render the Tibetan dngos po, Sanskrit vastu. See n.391 and the end of n.472.
60. Most Tibetans followed Haribhadra, so they translated the negation here as meaning “without” or “lacking” any mindset (sems med pa/ sems ma chis pa), i.e., as a nonimplicative negation (med dgag). But some Tibetans, inspired by Ratnākara perhaps, translated it as a “nonmindset” (sems ma yin pa)—i.e., something that is “not” a mindset—suggesting an exclusion or implicative negation (ma yin dgag). For an example see F.45.a.4 in the Tibetan translation of Ārya Vimuktisena’s Vṛtti (Toh 3787), where Ngok Lotsāwa translates acittam as “not a mind” (sems ma yin pa).
61. These four bodies are based on Haribhadra’s explanation, which is more common in Tibetan lists of the seventy topics. Ratnākaraśānti divides these four topics differently, namely (1) natural body, (2) enjoyment body, (3) emanation body and (4) a buddha’s body of qualities and his activity.
62. In his dissertation, Shì Hùifēng explains the Eight Thousand to have the chiastic rhetorical structure “XY is ~Y” or “XY is not Y.” Shì’s conclusions are well considered and persuasive, but difficult to explain here and not directly relevant to summarizing the content. For ease, a simple rule of thumb for readers might be to regard the internal structure of each different chapter as involving a different rhetorical device, often with humorous undertones, such as its own setup, punchline, and so on, aimed at evoking various insight responses in the readers, rather than laughter, amusement, groans, or other responses.
63. Here and in what follows, the “Transcendent State of Wisdom” (capitalized) refers to the scripture (or scriptures), while the “transcendent state of wisdom” (lower case) refers to the practice or state.
64. Despite this chapter having the term “knowing of all aspects” in its title, only the term “the state of complete knowing” (sarvajñatā) or its counterpart term “the knowing of someone who has complete knowing” (sarvajñajñāna) appear in the body of the chapter. Indeed, the title term “knowing of all aspects” is not to be found either in this chapter or in the main part of the scripture. It appears to have been borrowed from the title of the first chapter of the Ornament—which is used in the commentaries by Haribhadra (Hari) and Ratnākaraśānti (Ratnākara or RK) as an outline for explaining this entire scripture from the perspective of their divergent philosophical positions of, respectively, Mādhyamika and Yogācāra. See also the introduction “State of Complete Knowing” and n.112. In order to show how the Eight Thousand’s single term “state of complete knowing” (sarvajñatā) corresponds, in different parts of the scripture, to only one of the three types of complete knowing to be realized according to the Ornament—namely the “knowing of all aspects” (sarvākārajñatā), the “knowing of all the paths” (mārgajñatā), and the “complete knowing (i.e., of the constituents)” (sarvajñatā)—their comments variously associate the term “state of complete knowing” with the fruition of either a disciple, a worthy one, a solitary realizer, a bodhisattva, or a buddha, as explained in the respective schools. Among these three terms, Hari and Ratnākara agree that “the knowing of all aspects” refers exclusively to a buddha’s knowing of everything, including both the nature of things and their diverse manifestations. But they disagree about the fundamental relationship between the knowing of all aspects and the transcendent state of wisdom. For Hari, the two terms are perfect synonyms. But Hari holds that, like naming an “apple seed” after its fruit, the name “transcendent state of wisdom” can sometimes be applied, in a figurative sense, to wisdom at different stages along the five paths insofar as they are causes of the actual transcendent state of wisdom that is a buddha’s knowing. For Ratnākara, these two terms are not perfect synonyms. The “knowing of all aspects” refers exclusively to a buddha’s knowing, whereas the term “transcendent state of wisdom” refers exclusively to the wisdom of noble ones at different stages, beginning on the path of seeing (darśanamārga) and ending with the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga) just before the attainment of the complete awakening of a buddha. Even though Ratnākara acknowledges that the term transcendent state of wisdom can refer to buddhahood, he says that usage is figurative. Although Hari’s and Ratnākara’s diametric opposition should be kept in mind when reading certain passages and their corresponding footnotes below, the two commentators do not diverge much in their basic reading of this scripture.
65. This first chapter of the Eight Thousand corresponds in content to Chapters 1–13 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and to Chapters 1–21 of the Eighteen Thousand. Some of the points within it that correspond to where new chapters begin in the long sūtras are marked in footnotes below. However, this first chapter is one of the two sections of the Eight Thousand that, compared to the long sūtras, are the most different in length and content—not just because of a different level of repetitive phrasing, but also because of differences in the content and order of the discussions. The other such section is Chapter 29 and the last parts of Chapter 28 (see n.1296 and n.1299), i.e. the end of the scripture apart from the Sadāprarudita narrative and the entrusting. Put succinctly, it is at the beginning and end that the Eight Thousand and the longer sūtras differ most.
66. This homage (one shared by only a handful of Kangyur texts) appears in the Tibetan, but not the Sanskrit.
67. According to Ratnākara (F.4.b–5.a), the term “blessed one” (bhagavān) can (be understood through creative etymology to) mean that he conquers the four māras (bhaṅgād; bcom pas na), or his wisdom conquers the four māras (shes rab; prajñā), or else he is the container (āśritatvād) for these blessed qualities. What are they? The Blessed One possesses (vat) the six blessed qualities, beginning with mastery (aiśvaryaḥ; dbang phyug) and so on. As (Vasubandhu’s) Vyākhyāyukti teaches, “Now, his six blessed qualities (bhaga) are (a) mastery, (b) beauty, (c) celebrity, (d) glory, (e) knowing, and (f) effort.” To explain these six “blessed qualities” (bhaga) of a Blessed One (bhagavān): (a) He has the blessed quality of self-mastery, because he is not dependent on anyone and has eliminated the obscurations together with the habitual tendencies. (b) He has the blessed quality of beauty, because his unsurpassable body is adorned with the thirty-two signs and eighty marks. (c) He has the blessed quality of celebrity, because his renown is known in all cardinal and intermediate directions. (d) He has the blessed quality of glory (śṛīḥ) upon which many blessed qualities depend, because the succession of worldly and spiritual blessed qualities depend on his blessed qualities. (e) He has the blessed quality of knowing, because he has the knowing of all aspects of everything knowable, and that knowing is pure, free of entanglement, and free of obstruction. (f) He has the blessed quality of doing heroic deeds, because he uninterruptedly does deeds for the sake of all others in every way. RK: bdud bzhi bcom pas na bcom ldan ’das sam| shes rab kyis bdud bzhi bcom pa dang ldan pas na bcom ldan ’das so| |yang na ’di dag brten pas na bcom ldan ’das te| rgyu nyid byed pa nyid du brjod par ’dod pa’i phyir ro| |de dag gang zhe na? dbang phyug la sogs pa drug ste| ji skad du rnam par bshad pa’i rigs pa las|| |dbang phyug dang ni gzugs bzang dang| |dpal dang grags dang ye shes dang| |brtson ’grus phun sum tshogs pa ste| |drug po de la ldan zhes bya|| zhes bshad pa lta bu ste| de la dbang phyug ni bcom ldan ’das te gzhan dbang ma yin pa’o| |phun sum tshogs pa ni sgrib pa bag chags dang bcas pa spangs pa’i phyir ro| |bcom ldan ’das kyi gzugs phun sum tshogs pa ste| sku bla na med pa’i mtshan dang dpe byad kyis rnam par mdzes pa’i phyir ro| |grags pa phun sum tshogs pa ni phyogs dang phyogs mtshams su sgra rnam par grags pa’i phyir ro| |phun sum tshogs pa mang po gang gis bsten pa de ni dpal te| bcom ldan ’das de’i phun sum tshogs pa dang ’jig rten dang| |’jig rten las ’das pa’i phun sum tshogs pa’i rim pas brten pa yin pa’i phyir ro| |ye shes phun sum tshogs pa ni shes bya thams cad ni rnam pa thams cad la ye shes dag pa chags pa med pa dang| thogs pa med pa’i phyir ro| |brtson ’grus phun sum tshogs pa ni gzhan gyi don rnam pa thams cad la bya ba rgyun mi ’chad par byed pa’i phyir ro. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 20. Note: The above translation omits the Sanskrit grammatical comment.
68. The Sanskrit term arhat refers to someone who has realized the goal of overcoming emotional defilements through the vehicle of the disciples, and possesses the fifteen qualities that follow in the main text. This term has been translated throughout as “worthy one” or simply “worthy” (when connected with a person). According to Ratnākara (F.5.b), the four main heuristic etymologies for the term arhat are (a) “someone who has eliminated the enemies” (ari+hatavān), which are the emotional defilements (kleśa); (b) “someone who is free of arising” (arohat), i.e., lacking rebirth; (c) “someone who worships” (ārādha ?) the Tathāgata through the perfect offering of practice; and (d) “someone who is worthy,” i.e., worthy of the generosity (niṇḍārha) of others and worthy of the veneration (pūjārha) of others. RK: dgra bcom pa nyid ni nyon mongs pa’i dgra rnams bcom pa dang ldan pas na dgra bcom pa’o| |yang na mi skye zhing yang skye ba med pas na dgra bcom pa’o| |yang na de bzhin gshegs pa la sgrub pa’i mchod pa yang dag par mchod pas mchod par byed pas na dgra bcom pa’o| |yang na lha dang mi rnams kyis mchod pa dang| sbyin gnas su ’os pas na dgra bcom pa’o. Note: This fourth etymology is closer to normal Sanskrit usage of the term arhat and thus has been adopted as the general translation throughout this scripture. However, keep in mind that Tibetan dgra bcom pa is based on the first etymological meaning, i.e., “eliminator of the enemies.” For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, pp. 22–23.
69. According to Ratnākara (F.5.b–6.a), because of their quality of meriting the generosity and veneration of others, they have “eliminated the worldly influences,” which entail a flow away from the virtuous roots and toward cyclic birth (in the world) and emotional defilements. There are four types of worldly influences: (a) worldly influence from desire, i.e., the five sense pleasures; (b) worldly influence from existence, i.e., the three types of existences; (c) worldly influence from ignorance, i.e., imputed and coemergent ignorance; and (d) worldly influence from wrong views, i.e., the sixty-two wrong views—all these are “eliminated.” Corresponding to those four, when the worldly influences are eliminated, one actualizes (a) the mass of discipline and meditative concentration, (b) the mass of liberation, (c) the mass of seeing the knowing of liberation, and (d) the mass of wisdom. Furthermore, there arise (a) accurate meditative concentration, (b) knowing that what has been eliminated will not arise (again), (c) accurate liberation, and (d) accurate view. Furthermore, there arise (a) full knowing of the cause of desire, (b) full knowing of the cause of the constituents of experience, (c) full knowing of the cause of the conditioning factors, and (d) full knowing of the cause of emotional defilements. Furthermore, there arise (a) the abandonment of the truth of the source of suffering, (b) the actualization of the truth of cessation, (c) the cultivation of the truth of the path, and (d) the full knowing of the truth of suffering. RK: de bas na mchod par ’os pa dang| sbying nas su gyur pa’i yon tan gyis zag pa zad pa ces smos te| skye ba dang| nyon mongs pa’i dge ba’i rtsa ba ni zag pa ste| |de dag ni (a) ’dod pa’i zag pa dang| (b) srid pa’i zag pa dang| (c) ma rig pa’i zag pa dang| (d) lta ba’i zag pa dang| rnam pa bzhi pa’o| |de yang go rims ci lta ba bzhin du (a) ’dod pa’i lnga dang| (b) srid pa’i gsum dang| (c) ma rig pa’i kun brtags pa dang| (d) lhan cig skyes pa dang lta ba drug cu rtsa gnyis te| zag pa ’di rnams zad pas na zag pa zad pa’o| de yang go rims bzhin du (a) tshul khrims dang| ting nge ’dzin gyi phung po gnyis dang| (b) rnam par grol ba’i phung po dang| (c) rnam par grol ba’i ye shes mthong ba’i phung po dang| (d) shes rab kyi phung po zag pa zad pa mngon sum du byed pa’o| yang (a) yang dag pa’i ting nge ’dzin dang| (b) zad la mi skye ba’i ye shes dang| (c) yang dag pa’i rnam par grol ba dang| (d) yang dag pa’i lta ba’o| yang (a) ’dod pa’i rgyu yongs su shes pa dang| (b) phung po’i rgyu yongs su shes pa dang| (c) ’du byed kyi rgyu yongs su shes pa dang| (d) nyon mongs pa’i rgyu yongs su shes pa’o| yang (a) sdug bsngal kun ’byung ba’i bden pa spang ba dang| (b) ’gog pa’i bden pa mngon sum du bya ba dang| (c) lam gyi bden pa bsgom pa dang| (d) sdug bsngal gyi bden pa yongs su shes pa’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 23. Note: Both commentators comment on each of the next fifteen words, but Hari’s interesting comments have not been included because it would make these notes too long and an English translation of them is available in Sparham 2006, i., pp. 177–81. The translation “worldly influences” (āsrava/āśrava; zag pa) derives from the etymology of the Skt./Pali term, in which the prefix ā can be interpreted either as meaning “away” or “toward,” i.e., an “outflux” or “inflow.” Cf. BHSD and PTSD āsrava for more information about the word and the three or four kinds of worldly influence.
70. According to Ratnākara (F.6.a–b), because of their quality of eliminating worldly influences, they “had no emotional defilements,” which are of four types: (a) emotional defilement associated with karma, which is what brings about suffering through emotional defilement; (b) emotional defilement associated with maturation, which brings about emotional defilement; (c) emotional defilement associated with the emotional defilements themselves, which is what brings about emotional defilements; and (d) emotional defilement associated with birth, which is emotional defilement. In the cessation of those, there is cessation of (a) “emotional defilements associated with karma,” i.e., due to the cessation of ignorance, the karmic conditioning factors cease; (b) “emotional defilements associated with maturation,” i.e., due to the cessation of karmic conditioning factors, consciousness, name and form, the sense organs, contact, and feeling all cease; (c) “emotional defilements associated with emotional defilements,” i.e., due to the cessation of feeling, craving, grasping, and becoming all cease; and (d) “emotional defilements associated with birth,” i.e., due to the cessation of becoming, birth, aging, and death all cease. These “emotional defilements” are (different types of) suffering. RK: de bas na zag pa zad pa nyid kyis rnam par dag pa’i yon tan ni nyon mongs pa med pa zhes bya ba smos te| kun nas nyon mongs pa med pa zhes bya ba’i don to| |kun nas nyon mongs pa med pa ni bzhi ste| (a) las kyi kun nas nyon mongs pa dang| (b) rnam par smin pa’i kun nas nyon mongs pa dang| (c) nyon mongs pa’i kun nas nyon mongs pa dang| (d) skye ba’i kun nas nyon mongs pa’o| |gang gis kun nas nyon mongs shing sdug bsngal bar byed pa dang| gang kun nas nyon mongs par byed pa dang| gang gis kun nas nyon mongs par byed pa dang| gang kun nas nyon mongs pa’o| |de la (a) ma rig pa ’gags pas ’du byed ’gag pa ni las kyi kun nas nyon mongs pa med ces bsam pa’o| (b) |’du byed ’gags pas rnam par shes pa dang| ming dang gzugs dang| skye mched drug dang| reg pa dang| (c) tshor ba ’gag pa ni rnam par smin pa’i kun nas nyon mongs pa med pa zhes bsam pa’o| | tshor ba ’gags pas sred pa dang| len pa dang| sred pa ’gags pa ni nyon mongs pa’i kun nas nyon mongs pa med ces bsam pa’o| (d) |srid pa ’gags pas skye ba dang| rga ba dang| ’chi ba ’gag pa ni skye ba’i kun nas nyon mongs pa med ces bsam pa’o| |kun nas nyon mongs pa ni sdug bsngal te. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, pp. 23–24.
71. According to Ratnākara (F.6.b), because of their quality of becoming free from suffering due to emotional defilement, these worthy ones “had become self-controlled,” meaning (a) in control over the magical powers, (b) in control over the faculties (dbang po), (c) in control over samādhi, and (d) in control over wisdom (prajñā). In what way are they in control? (a) They have a special control over the world of beings and their environment. (b) Insofar as they are dear to the world, they have control over those beings through achieving control (dbang) of their conduct. (c) They have control over their minds. And (d) they have achieved control over themselves (rang la dbang) in the manner (bzhin du; tathā) of liberation from bondage through eliminating all karma and maturations. RK: de bas na nyon mongs pa med pas sdug bsngal med pa’i yon tan ni dbang du gyur pa zhes smos so |(a) |rdzu ’phrul la dbang ba dang| (b) dbang po la dbang ba dang|(c) ting nge ’dzin la dbang ba dang|(d) shes rab la dbang ba’o| |ji ltar de dag la dbang ba yin zhe na? go rims ji lta ba bzhin du (a) sems can dang snod kyi ’jig rten dag la khyad par du dbang du gyur pa dang|(b) spyod pa la dbang thob pas ’jig rten dga’ ba nyid kyis de dag dbang du ’gyur ba dang| (c) de dag gi sems dbang du gyur pa nyid dang| (d nyon mongs pa dang| las dang rnam par smin pa thams cad bcad pas ’ching ba las grol ba bzhin du rang la dbang thob pa nyid do. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 24.
72. According to Ratnākara (F.6.b), the “liberated mindset” results from having abandoned all emotional defilements (kleśa) connected with the different aspects of craving. And “their discernment is liberated” because they have abandoned all primary and secondary emotional defilements (kleśa) connected with ignorance that hinders it. RK: |sems shin tu rnam par grol ba zhes bya ba ni sems rnam par grol ba’o| |shes rab shin tu rnam par grol ba zhes bya ba ni shes rab rnam par grol ba’o| de la srid pa’i phyogs kyi nyon mongs pa spangs pas ting nge ’dzin dang snyoms par ’jug pa thob pa ni sems rnam par grol ba’o| |ma rig pa’i phyogs kyi nyon mongs pa dang| nye ba’i nyon mongs pa spangs pas thob pa dgra bcom pa thob pa’i lam gyi ye shes ni shes rab rnam par grol ba’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 24. According to Hari (9), generally the liberation of a mindset refers to the attainments of meditative concentration due to the relinquishing of all primary and secondary emotional defilements related to craving and ignorance, whereas the liberation of discernment refers to the knowing of someone on the noble path. Hence, by lacking the aspects of craving and ignorance, the pairing of liberation of mindset and discerment means, respectively, that one lacks attachment and one lacks ignorance. For this reason, after one attains that state, one can say both parts together—namely, they had “utterly liberated their mindset” and “utterly liberated their discernment”—by liberating the emotional obscurations through meditative attainments. Hari: tṛṣṇāvidyāpakṣasarvakleṣopakleśaprahāṇāt samādhisamāpattayaś cetovimuktir, arhanmārgajñānaṃ prajñāvimuktir iti kṛtvā tṛṣṇāvidyāpakṣāṇāṃ abhāvena yathākramaṃ rāgavirāgād avidyāvirāgāc cetaḥprajñāvimuktiḥ. atas tallābhāt samāpattikleśāvaraṇavimuktyā sarvathobhayabhāgavimuktāḥ suvimuktacittāḥ suvimuktaprajñāḥ. Note: In early Buddhist literature, the word “mindset” (citta) was sometimes used as a synonym of meditative concentration (samādhi), in the sense of a mind being set upon an object—especially in the context of the three trainings of the path, namely, ethical conduct (śīla), meditative concentration/mindset (samādhi=citta), and wisdom (prajñā). So one can understand here that when the mind is perfectly set, i.e., settled, it is liberated from craving. Note that here the English translation “discernment” for prajñā is used in place of the rendering “wisdom” that we have (somewhat reluctantly) used elsewhere throughout this translation, and will be used subsequently only when the term refers to the mental faculty that can be afflicted by ignorance.
73. The Sanskrit term ājāneya (cang shes pa) has been translated as “noble” but can also mean a “good breed” of person or animal. According to Ratnākara (F.6.b–7.a), the term “noble” (ājāneya; cang shes pa) refers to fearlessness (in the face of challenges). There are five types: (a) noble like a bull unafraid of lightning and so on; (b-c) noble like a horse or elephant unafraid in battle; (d) noble like a lion unafraid when attacked by another; and (e) noble like a worthy one (arhat) unafraid of death. In correspondence with these, they possess the four benefits of freedom from fear of anxiety: (a) they gain the ease that is free of the fear of suffering, because they have no misery, complaint, suffering, or distress; (b) they gain freedom from terror, because, without fear of anxiety, they do not fear being disgraced by themselves, others, misfortune, lacking livelihood, loss, misery, or death; (c) they gain freedom from fear itself, because, without anxiety about the eight worldly concerns, they cannot be sullied by seeking or avoiding gain or loss, fame or infamy, praise or blame, or happiness or suffering; and (d) they gain the comfort of freedom from the fear of unknowing, because their knowing is never lacking, uncertain, or mistaken. RK: |cang shes pa zhes bya ba ni ’jigs pa med pa ste| cang shes pa rnam pa lnga’o| |’di ltar (a) thog ’bab pa la sogs pa’i gnod pa’i dogs pa med pas khyu mchog cang shes pa’o| (b-c) |’thab mo’i ’jigs pa med pas rta cang shes dang| glang po cang shes pa’o| (d) |pha rol gyi gnod pa’i ’jigs pa med pas seng ge cang shes so| (e) |’chi ba’i ’jigs pa med pas dgra bcom pa cang shes so| |de bzhin du ’dir yang ’jigs pa’i bag tsha ba bzhi ste| (a) sdug bsngal gyis bag tsha ba dang| (b) ’jigs pas bag tsha ba dang| (c) ’jigs rten gyi chos kyis bag tsha ba dang| (d) mi shes pas bag tsha ba’o| |de dag med pas go rims bzhin du bde ba thob pa dang| mi skrag pa thob pa dang| mi ’jigs pa thob dang| dbugs dbyung ba thob pa zhes brjod do| |de la (a) mya ngan dang| smras sngags ’don pa dang| sdug bsngal ba| dang| yid mi bde ba med pas sdug bsngal gyis bag tsha ba med do| (b) |bdag gis smad pa dang| gzhan gyis smad pa dang| ngan song dang| ’tsho ba med pa dang| chad pa dang| mya ngan dang| ’chi ba’i ’jigs pa med pas ’jigs pa’i bag tsha ba med do| (c) |rnyed pa dang| ma rnyed pa dang| grags pa dang| ma grags pa dang| bstod pa dang| smad pa dang| bde ba dang| sdug bsngal dag gis ma gos pas ’jig rten gyi chos kyis bag tsha ba med do| (a) |mi shes pa dang| the tshom gyi shes pa dang| log pa’i shes pa rnam pa med pas mi shes pa’i bag tsha ba med do| |de bas na bag tsha ba med pa dang bral ba’i phyir cang shes pa’o. For edited Tibetan text, Seton 2016, Aii, pp. 24–25. Note: The translation of RK’s commentary combines each statement and reason into a single sentence for ease, even though these were explained by RK in two blocks.
74. The Sanskrit term mahānāga (glang po chen) has been translated as “exemplary” based on the commentary, but literally means “elephants.” According to Ratnākara (F.7.a), “elephant” is a figurative expression for the greatest of leaders (gtso bo chen po). Among their great accomplishments, some of these worthy ones possess the threefold knowledge. Others have attained experiential knowledge (pratisaṃvid). Others have realized the six extraordinary knowledges (abhijñā). Others have completely understood how to unpack and explain things. Others have attained independence. At the final point, worthy ones are exemplary because they have accomplished the Sage’s Dharma. RK: glang po chen po zhes bya ba ni gtso bo chen po ste| kha cig ni gsum rig pa dang| kha cig ni so so yang dag par rig pa thob pa| kha cig ni mngon par shes pa drug pa thob pa| kha cig ni kun shes pa brda sprod pa| kha cig ni gcig pur gnas pa thob pa ste| mthar thug pa thub pa’i chos rnyed pa’i phyir glang po chen po’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 25.
75. According to Ratnākara (F.7.a), these two phrases mean that the worthy ones have perfected the practice in every regard. “The task” is the liberation from all suffering through perfecting ethical discipline, concentration, and wisdom, because this must be ascertained. “The work” is the way of living life—with few desires, with contentment, with ascetic qualities, and amid the causes of joy and so on—because of living life according to one’s deepest wish. RK: bya ba byas pa| byed pa byas pa zhes bya ba ni rnam pa thams cad kyi sgrub pa yongs su rdzogs pa’o| |de’i phyir tshul khrims ting nge ’dzin dang| shes rab yongs su rdzogs pas sdug bsngal thams cad las rnam par thar ba ni bya ba ste nges par bya ba yin pa’i phyir ro| |’dod pa chung bas ’tsho ba dang| chog shes pas ’tsho ba dang| sbyangs pa’i yon tan gyi mig gis ’tsho ba dang| yang dag par mgu bar byed pas ’tsho ba la sogs pa ni byed pa ste| rang dgar spyod pa yin pa’i phyir ro| |de gnyi ga yongs su rdzogs pa ni bya ba byas pa dang byed pa byas pa’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 25.
76. According to Ratnākara (F.7.a–b), the four types of burdens being laid down by worthy ones indicate the different types of happiness that they enjoy, namely, (a) the burden of the constituents of experience (skandha) that is renounced because they have renunciation through their complete knowing of suffering, and hence they enjoy the happiness of being free of the constituents of experience; (b) the burden of the emotional defilements that is given up because they have given up by eliminating the cause, and hence they enjoy the happiness of liberation; (c) the burden of promises that has been brought to completion because they themselves have been brought to completion through cultivating the path, and hence they enjoy the happiness of full awakening; and (d) the burden of heroic deeds that has been perfected, because they have become perfected through actualizing the cessation, and hence they enjoy the happiness of tranquility. RK: |khur bor ba zhes bya ba la khur ni bzhi ste| (a) phung po’i khur dang| (b) nyon mongs pa’i khur dang| (c) dam bca’ ba’i khur dang| (d) brtson pa’i khur ro| (a) |yongs su dor ba’i phyir dang| (b) rab tu spang ba’i phyir dang| (c) mthar phyin dang| (d) yongs su rdzogs par bya ba’i phyir| de dag go rims bzhin du (a) bor ba ste| yongs su dor ba dang| spangs pa dang| mthar phyin pa dang| yongs su rdzogs pa’o| (b) |de yang sdug bsngal yongs su shes pa dang| kun ’byung pa spangs pa dang| lam bsgoms pa dang| ’gog pa mngon sum du byas pas so| (c) |de bor bas phung po med pa’i bde ba dang| rnam par grol ba’i bde ba dang| rdzogs pa’i byang chub kyi bde ba dang| nye bar zhi ba’i bde ba thob pa’o| (d) |de bas na khur bor ba nyid kyis khur por ba’i bde ba thob pa’i yon tan bstan to. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 26. Note: The translation of RK’s commentary combines the statements, reasons, and benefits into four sentences, even though the Tibetan has RK’s explanation in three separate blocks.
77. According to Ratnākara (F.7.b), the attainment of one’s own benefit has two aspects, namely, getting rid of what is harmful and attaining the benefit. Among these, the first is when, because of getting rid of ignorance, one gets rid of all the obscurations of emotional defilements. The second is when, because of giving rise to knowledge (rig pa), one achieves nirvāna. RK: |bdag gi don rjes su thob pa zhes bya ba ni rang gi don thob pa la rnam pa gnyis te| gnod pa spangs pa dang| don thob pa’o| |de la dang po ni ma rig pa spangs pas nyon mongs pa’i sgrib pa thams cad spangs pa’o| |gang yang rig pa bskyod pas mya ngan las ’das pa thob pa ste| de ni gnyis pa’o.
78. According to Ratnākara (F.7.b), these are the causes for persons to have nine types of “worldly ties”: because of their connection with worldly existence, there is (a) wrong view, (b) clinging, (c) doubt, (d) jealousy, (e) miserliness, (f) aversion, (g) pride, (h) ignorance, and (i) desire for the world. “Exhausted” means destroyed. Out of those, the first three (a−c) are “exhausted” (zad pa) by the accurate view without worldly influence (anāsravaḥ). The middle three, (d−f)—and part of the ninth, (i), which concerns the desire realm—are exhausted by concentrating in the samādhi without worldly influence. The remainder, (g−i), are exhausted through knowing on the path of worthy ones. RK: srid par kun tu sbyor ba yongs su zad pa zhes bya ba ni srid par kun tu sbyor ba ni dgu ste| skyes bu srid par sbyor bar byed pa dang| srid par ’ching bar byed pa’i phyir (a) lta ba dang| (b) mchog tu ’dzin pa dang| (c) the tshom dang (d) phrag dog dang|(e) ser sna dang| (f) khong khro dang|(g) nga rgyal dang|(h) ma rig pa dang|(i) srid pa’i ’dod chags so| |lta ba la sogs pa yang yin kun tu sbyor ba yang yin pas lta ba la sogs pa kun tu sbyor ro| |’di dag yongs su zad pa gang yin pa de ni de skad du brjod do| |yongs su zad pa ni rab tu nyams pa’o| (a−c) |de las dang po gsum ni zag pa med pa’i yang dag par lta bas zad pa’o| (d−f) |bar ma gsum dang dgu pa’i phyogs gcig ’dod pa’i khams kyi phyogs ni zag pa med pa’i ting nge ’dzin la snyoms par ’jug pas zad pa’o| (g−i) |lhag ma gsum ni dgra bcom pa’i lam gyi ye shes kyis zad pa’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, pp. 26–27.
79. According to Ratnākara (F.7.b–8.a), the term “accurate understanding” here indicates their firm belief in the qualities of the Three Jewels, in the teachings of the three vehicles, in the four truths, and in the thirty-seven factors in awakening. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 27.
80. According to Ratnākara (F.8.a), they were able to concentrate themselves in the nine concentrations (samādhi), to remain in them, to get up from them, and to stop them as they wished, whenever they wished, and to whatever extent they wished, in the order of ascending, descending, and so on. RK: yang dag pa’i shes pas sems shin tu rnam par grol ba zhes bya ba la yang dag pa’i shes pa ni yang dag pa’i rtog pa des sems shin tu rnam par grol ba’o| |yang dag par mos pa ste gang du mos she na dkon mchog gsum gyi yon tan dang| theg pa gsum dang ldan | |pa ston pa dag dang| bden pa bzhi dang| byang chub kyi phyogs kyi chos rnams la’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 27.
81. The translation “venerable” is based on the Pali āyasmant because it has become somewhat of a standard English term. That said, according to Ratnākara (F.8.a), the Sanskrit term āyuṣmant literally means “full of life” and should be understood as follows: “Life” (āyus), the first part of the Sanskrit compound word, refers to something people want because it brings joy. When someone is “full of” (-mant) that, he or she is cheerful. RK: tshe dang ldan pa zhes bya ba’i khyad par ni dga’ bar bya ba’i phyir te| ’jig rten na tshe ’di ’dod pa yin no| |de bas de dang ldan pa ni dga’ ba yin no. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 27. According to Hari (11), since it refers to someone whose life is desired, the term venerable is an expression venerating the welfare and happiness (of being a monk). Hari: ākāṃkṣitāyur bhavato ity āyuṣmān hitasukhapūjāvācakaḥ. For information on the slightly different understanding of the epithet in Paḷi sources, see, e.g., PTSD āyusmant (“feeling vitality”) with PTSD āyasmant (“old, venerable”).
82. This point corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 3 in the Twenty-Five Thousand, Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 6 in the Eighteen Thousand. It comes so early in this chapter because the three long sūtras contain a long and detailed scene-setting introduction (nidāna) (here in the Eight Thousand represented only by the opening “Thus did I hear…” statement and a brief description of the qualities of the disciple attendants), followed by the Buddha’s dialogue with Śāriputra and other disciples covered in Chapter 2 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and in Chapters 2–6 in the Eighteen Thousand.
83. According to Ratnākara (F.8.b–9.a), the word “venerable” is as explained previously. An “elder” is worthy of offerings or veneration, because he or she is a leader (in the community). As a worthy one, Subhūti is foremost among those who abide without conflict. The Blessed One “addressed” him for a purpose. “What is that?” He says, “Please illuminate” and so on. In this sentence, the word “Subhūti” is in the vocative to request something of him alone. “Please illuminate” means make yourself have the presence of mind to explain. Although a request (for teaching) should be made to a guru and not to a disciple, this request is made just to ensure that the disciples respect the Dharma, since it will be explained later that the elder Subhūti stands on the ground of having accomplished the task of the transcendent state of wisdom. Starting with what topic? The Blessed One says “starting with the transcendent state of wisdom.” Here, the transcendent state of wisdom refers to the dharmakāya and its activity (i.e., the final of the Ornament’s eight realizations), because (Subhūti is to start with) the fruit of the transcendent state of wisdom. He should explain “starting with” that fruit—i.e., about it—because it is the supreme goal of persons. One might wonder for whose sake he should “illuminate” this. So the Blessed One says “for the bodhisattva great beings,” meaning for their sake. Then, one might wonder about the nature of what is to be illuminated. So he says “the way that” and so on. “The way that” means the manner in which, i.e., through hearing, contemplating, and cultivating. “In the transcendent state of wisdom” means in the three kinds of complete knowing (i.e., the first three of the Ornament’s eight realizations). It says “in” it because the transcendent state of wisdom is the path and the path is the basis for going. In it, one should “go beyond,” i.e., go completely beyond. One might ask, “Where is one to go?” First, the practice, then the culminating practice, then the successive practice, and the final (instantaneous) practice (i.e., the fourth through seventh of the Ornament’s eight realizations). One should go completely (through those). Thus, the eight realizations are all explained through this pair of terms (i.e., the terms “transcendent state of wisdom” and “going beyond”). “Who should go beyond?” He says the bodhisattva great beings—meaning those who have developed the mindset of awakening… With the Blessed One’s two terms, namely “bodhisattva” and “great being,” he teaches the development of the mindset of awakening (the first subtopic). In the first term, “bodhisattva,” sattva means the person who has the intention, wish, and desire for the highest bodhi, i.e., perfect, complete awakening. In the second term, “great being,” the word “great” refers to any desire to achieve the most supreme awakening on behalf of sentient beings. So “great being” refers to a being of great courage. RK: |tshe dang ldan pa ces bya ba ni snga ma bzhin no| |gnas brtan zhes smos pa ni mchod pa’i don te glang po chen po yin pa’i phyir ro| |de yang dgra bcom pa nyid yod na nyon mongs pa med pa la gnas pa’i mchog yin pa’i phyir ro| |bka’ stsal te zhes bya ba ni rab tu sbyar ba’i phyir ro| |ji ltar zhe na? spobs par gyis shig |ces bya ba la sogs pa gsungs te| rab ’byor zhes bya ba ni bod pa’i tshig go| |de nyid la gsol ba gdab pa’i phyir| spobs par gyis shig ces bya ba ni khyed kyi blo mngon du phyogs par gyis shig pa yin no| |gal te yang bla ma la gsol ba gdab cing slob ma la ma yin pa de lta mod kyis| gsol ba gdab pa de ni chos la gus pa bya ba nyid de| de ltar yang gnas brtan rab ’byor ni shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa la bya ba byas par gnas pa yin no| |zhes ’chad par ’gyur bas so| |gang gis dbang du byas she na| gsungs pa shes rab kyi pha ral tu phyin pa las brtsams te | zhes gsungs te| shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i ’bras bu yin pa’i phyir shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa ste| chos kyi sku | |mdzad pa dang bcas pa’o| |de las btsams pa ni skyes bu dam pa’i don gyi phyir te| thabs las byung ba nyid yin pas de bstan zhes bya ba’i don to| |gang gi phyir spobs par byed ce na| byang chub sems dpa’ sems dpa’ chen po rnams zhes gsungs te| de rnams kyi don zhes bya ba’i don te| |gang gi phyir de’i don gyi phyir rgyu mtshan dang| rgyu mtshan can gyi ’brel ba ste| de bas ’brel ba tsam smra bar ’dod pa’i drug po khyad par brjod par ’dod pa ni bzhi bar ’gyur ro| |de nas gang gi bdag nyid du spobs par bya zhe na? gsungs pa| ci nas zhes bya ba la sogs pa ste| ci nas zhes bya ba ni bar du’o| |thob pa dang bsam pa dang bsgom pa’i rang bzhin gyi shes rab kyi pha rol phyin pa thams cad mkhyen pa nyid rnam pa gsum yin te| gang gi phyir de ni lam yin te| lam yang ’gro ba’i gzhi ste| nges par ’byung ba dang ba dang ma lus pa ’gro bar gyis shig pa’o| |’gro ba des cir ’gyur zhe na? sbyor ba dang| sbyor ba’i rab dang| sbyor ba’i go rims dang| sbyor ba’i mtha’o| |de dag lus pa med par gyis shig pa’o| |de ltar tshig gnyis pi de ni mngon par rtogs pa brgyad rab tu ston cig pa’i| |gang nges par ’byung bar ’gyur zhe na? byang chub sems dpa’ sems dpa’ chen po zhes gsungs so| |byang chub tu sems bskyed pa nyid ces bya ba’i don to|… |de bas na bcom ldan ’das kyis dang po’i tshig gnyis po ’dis sems bskyed pa gsungs so| | byang chub ni yang dag par rdzogs pa’i byang chub| khyad par du gyur pa de la ’dis sems pa dang| bsam pa dang ’dod pa ni sems dpa’o| |sems can thams cad kyi mchog tu byed par ’dod pa gang yin pa de ni chen po ste| sems can chen po ni ’dir sems dpa’ chen pa’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, pp. 28–29. According to Hari, since Subhūti is there, the Blessed One, under the auspices of a Dharma teaching, says to Subhūti “illuminate” and so on. This means come face to face (with the transcendent state of wisdom, so that you can be courageously eloquent about it), in all respects, with the special knowledges of things, meanings, expressions, and illumination. Hari: pratibhātv ityādi. dharmadeśanādhikārād vidyamānatve ’pi he subhūte viśiṣṭadharmārthaniruktipratibhānapratisaṃvit sarvathā te tavābhimukhībhavatu. Note: RK is explaining how this single sentence by the Blessed One is suggesting he explain all eight of the Ornament’s eight realizations. RK’s comments also include a justification of some grammar that has not been translated here. Hari gives an extensive commentary on the entire sentence that is very much worth reading but is too long and complex to include here. The particular manner in which Subhūti will “illuminate” the transcendent state of wisdom provides the crucial context for understanding the first chapter, and arguably the whole scripture. For a brief overview of Ratnākara’s and Hari’s divergent explanations of the scripture’s topic as implied by this opening sentence, see Seton 2016, pp. 235–70. Note: Ratnākara is suggesting that the first sentence introduces the Ornament’s first subtopic, “developing the mindset of awakening,” which he explains in terms of twenty-two similes that can be subdivided into eighty dispositions.
84. According to Hari (28), illumination (pratibhāna) is coherent, fluid expression. Hari: pratibhānaṃ yuktamuktābhidhānaṃ. Cf. Kośabhāṣya (Pradhan 418, pp. 17–18): “The special knowledge of illumination (pratibhāna) is beyond regressing, intuitive knowing at play in coherent, fluid expressions, and clarifications arising from the mastery of meditative concentration.” (Note that the translation “wisdom (prajñā) and illumination”—rather than the Tibetan interpretation “illumination of wisdom”—is based on Ratnākara’s (D11.b) gloss of the Sanskrit compound term prajñāpratibhāna. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 35.) Yuktamukta (Tib. rigs pa dang grol ba) as a quality of pratibhāna is mentioned in a wide variety of canonical texts, including the Vinayavibaṅgha (Toh 3) and Vinayottaragrantha (Toh 7a) and many of the Vinaya commentaries in the Tengyur. See also Upholding the Roots of Virtue (Toh 101), n.73.
85. The terms “person’s doing” and “natural outcome” are technical terms for two among the five classifications of results, namely, (1) the result of ripening (vipākaphala), (2) the result that is the natural outcome (niṣyandaphalā), (3) the result that is predominant (adhipatiphala), (4) the result of a person’s doing (puruṣakaraphala), and (5) the result of divestment (visaṃyogaphala). For more on these, see, for instance, the Abhidharmasamuccayabhāṣya (Tatia 1976, p. 110). For edited Tibetan text of Ratnākara’s comments on this section, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 37.
86. According to Ratnākara (F.11.b–12.a), here, among the six verbs beginning with “say” and so on, the first three are talking about just the words of the scripture. “Say” means talk about the scripture and so on to the Blessed One’s assembly; “teach” means talk about this existence and so on to them; “expound” means talking about it to anyone to be tamed after going (to other assemblies) in the different directions; “express” means teach the Blessed One’s assembly whatever the scripture’s topics are; “clarify” means teach precisely that to others; and “elucidate” means explain it by oneself after going (to other assemblies). RK: |smra ba zhes bya ba la sogs pa’i tshig drug ste| |de la dang po’i gsum gyis ni mdo la sogs pa’i tshig brjod do| |smra ba ni bcom ldan ’das kyi ’khor rnams la mdo la sogs pa smra ba’o| |ston pa ni de nyid du srid pa la sogs pa smra ba’o| |lung ’bogs pa ni phyogs dag tu nye bar song nas gdul bya de dag la smra ba’o| |de ltar gang dang gang nyid kyi dngos po bcom ldan ’das kyi ’khor la brjod pa ni bcom ldan ’das kyi ’khor la bstan pa’o| |’chad pa ni de nyid du gzhan dag la bstan pa’o| |yang dag par rab tu ston pa ni kun tu song nas rang nyid ’chad pa’o| |smra ba la sogs pa de dag thams cad ni de bzhin gshegs pa’i skyes bu byed pa des byin gyis brlabs pa ’am mthu yin pa’i phyir nyan thos kyis ni ma yin te| rang dbang med pas so. Note: This is a well-known early Buddhist principle. For instance, according to the Mahāvibhāṣāśāstra, the Blessed One is said to have specifically allowed abhidharma specialists to teach anything that does not contradict the nature of the truth (dharmatā) and so on. For more on this principle, see Dhammajoti 2015, p. 2.
87. See preceding note.
88. According to Ratnākara (F.12.b), the different means of valid cognition (pramāṇa; tshad ma) are connected with three verbs used here: The phrase “do not find” means not to detect any real thing, based on the meaning of the word. The meaning is that a so-called bodhisattva is not perceived because, just like a hare’s horns, it is negated by reliable evidence. The phrase “do not mentally perceive” means through direct perception. Here, based on what is born from authoritative testimony, there is nonperception and negation. The phrase “do not identify” means through inference. Undeceived, knowledgeable ordinary and noble persons negate a so-called bodhisattva by correct inference regarding the logical consequences of such a view. RK: ma ’tshal zhes bya ba ni ma dmigs pa’o| |tshad mas gnod pa yin pa’i phyir ri bong gi rva bzhin no zhes bsams so| |de nyid la gnas pa bstan pa ni mi dmigs pa yang dag par rjes su ma mthong zhes bya ba la| mi dmigs zhes bya ba ni yid ches pa’i lung las skyes pa des mi dmigs shing gnod pa yin no| | yang dag par rjes su ma mthong zhes bya ba ni mi slu ba dang mkhas pa’i skye bo dang thun mong yin pa’i phyir dang| lta ba’i rjes su ’gro ba’i rjes su dpag pa’i gnod pas yang dag par rjes su ma mthong ngo. For edited Tibetan text of Ratnākara’s comments on this section, see Seton 2016, Aii, pp. 38–39, 56.
89. According to Ratnākara (F.13.a), he says “nor…transcendent state of wisdom.” This means the grasper ceases and is not there, because what is (supposedly) grasped by it is not there. But the transcendent state of wisdom itself does not cease, because the denial here is of what is not appearing (i.e., grasper and grasped) in pure self-illumination (i.e., the transcendent state of wisdom itself). RK: shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa yang zhes bya ba ni ’dzin pa bkag cing med de de’i gzung ba med pa’i phyir ro| |de nyid dgag pa med de gsal ba yang dag par de nyid la gsal ba med pa’i gnod pas so. For edited Tibetan text of Ratnākara’s comments, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 39. Note: This explanation is from the perspective of RK’s Yogācāra position, which takes the transcendent state of wisdom to be ultimately real, pure self-illumination. Hari takes the transcendent state of wisdom to be a relatively real perceiver of ultimate reality.
90. According to Ratnākara (F.12.a–b), the repeated word “bodhisattva” in this sentence marks the transition to the subtopic “practical instructions” (the second subtopic of the first main topic in the Ornament, see introduction, “Synopsis of the Text According to the Ornament”). RK: de nas gdams ngag gi skabs la babs nas| gnas brtan rab ’byor gyis ji skad bshad pa bzhin sdud pa pos| de nas sangs rgyas zhes bya ba la sogs pa smras so| |byang chub sems dpa’ sems dpa’ zhes bya ba’i tshig gnyis ni de dang de yin zhes rtogs par byed pa.
91. According to Ratnākara (F.14.a–b), (a) in the phrase “the mindset does not become deflated,” the “mindset”—in thinking about the meaning as it has just been described—is “not deflated,” i.e., not especially despondent, because he or she is reflecting upon that meaning (i.e., emptiness) alone; (b) “not depressed” means while subsequently applying him- or herself continuously (to that meaning), even then he or she is not deflated; (c) “not dejected” means when he or she recollects (the meaning) after recognizing that the mind has wandered elsewhere because it was naturally distracted, he or she is not upset; (d) “not sunk in despondency” means as his or her mindset has become very stable, when it gets increasingly subtle because of not proliferating into other coarse understandings, then he or she is not upset; (e) “his or her”—i.e., the bodhisattva’s—“mental attitude does not become discouraged” means with respect to that very state, he or she still pacifies the mind in order to remain neutral even while remaining in meditative concentration, because he or she sees the qualities of meditativate concentration; (f) “not shattered” means he or she does not get distracted by the lack of joy or inclination in the light of the (meaning), because of seeing the faults of distraction; (g) “not frightened” means even when covetousness or dissatisfaction arise, he or she does not get afraid and also overcomes that which arises, because he or she sees the faults of distraction. (h) “not terrified” means he or she is not frightened about the formation of any mental object that occurs of its own accord automatically in his or her mind that is free of faults, and hence he or she does that (i.e., declines to get involved in them); and (i) “not stricken with terror” means his or her mindset becomes perfectly (settled), and without any effort he or she is neither terrified nor totally frightened by any occurrence in the mind, because he or she perceives the occurrences in a natural and spontaneous way. This is the meaning. RK: (a) sems mi zhum pa zhes bya ba ni ji ltar thob pa de nyid la don la sems pa la sems khyad du mi gsod mi zhum ste| de nyid du nges par brtag pa’i phyir ro|| (b) kun tu zhum par mi bgyid ces bya ba ni sems kyi rgyun du ’jug pa la yang rjes su mi ’brang zhing zhum par mi bgyid do| (c) |mi ’gong zhes bya ba ni sems rang bzhin gyis g.yo ba’i phyir| gzhan du song ba la yang kun nas shes par byas nas sdud pa na skyo ba med pa yin no| (d) |mi gsod [F.14v] par mi ’gyur zhes bya ba ni sems shin tu brtan par gyur na yang rang bzhin gyis rtogs pa rags pa gzhan du mi ’phro ba’i phyir gong nas gong du phra mor byed pa na skyo ba med pa yin no| (e) |de’i zhes bya ba ni byang chub sems dpa’o| |yid phyir phyogs par mi bgyid ces bya ba ni ting nge ’dzin la gnas par byas pa yin yang bar mar gnas pa’i phyir te| de lta mod kyi de nyid du sems ’dul bar byed de| ting nge ’dzin gyi yon tan rnams mthong bas so| (f) |bcom zhing phyir phyogs par mi ’gyur zhes bya ba ni de la dga’ ba med pa dang| mos pa med pas rnam par g.yeng ba byed pa med par ’gyur te| rnam par g.yeng ba’i skyon rnams mthong ba’i phyir ro| (g) |mi skrag ces bya ba ni brnab sems dang| yid mi bde ba la sogs pa skyes pa na yang mi skrag pa yin te| ’on kyang de nyid ’joms pa ni yin te| g.yeng ba’i skyon mthong ba’i phyir ro| (h) |mi dngang zhes bya ba ni sems skyon med pa rang gis ngang gis ’byung ba nyid kyi don gang yin pa’i ’du byed de la mi dngang zhing de byed pa zhes bya ba’i don to| (i) |dngang bar mi ’gyur zhes bya ba ni sems yang dag par ’gyur te| ’bad pa med par rang gi ’byung bas dngang ba dang| yang dag par dngang ba de med pa yin te| lhun gyis grub pa nyid ngang gis ’byung ba ’dzin zhes bya ba’i don to. For edited Tibetan text of them, see Seton 2016, Aii, pp. 42–43. Note: Ratnākara is suggesting here that these nine mental states correspond to the nine stages of resting the mind in meditative concentration, which results in tranquility (śamatha). Below, he says that the last four of these nine stages are combined with the four stages of seeing clearly (vipaśyanā).
92. According to Ratnākara (F.14.b), he says this sentence in order to teach the ultimate bodhisattva and so on. “Precisely this state” refers to meditative concentration, which the bodhisattva has, because it is a particular type of mindset. “Precisely this state” refers to the transcendent state of wisdom that he or she alone is endowed with and “the instruction.” When someone with those two is “abiding in such a mindset”—i.e., when he or she is abiding in meditative concentration—then the “instruction” is not to abandon it and the “guidance” is connected to that. RK: don dam pa nyid kyi byang chub sems dpa’ la sogs pa bstan par bya ba’i phyir ’di nyid ces bya ba la sogs pa gsungs so| |ting nge ’dzin ’di nyid byang chub sems dpa’ yin te| sems kyi khyad par yin pa’i phyir ro| |’di nyid ces bya ba ni de dang ldan pa nyid shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa dang gdams pa yin no| |gang de gnyis dang yang dag par ldan pa ni de ltar gnas na zhes bya ba la ting nge ’dzin ’di nyid la gnas na ’di mi gtong ba yin te| de nyid gdams pa dang rjes su ’brel ba’i rjes su bstan pa’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 43. Note: Schmithausen (1977, pp. 46–47) postulates that these pronouns have problematic antecedents and were later additions to an earlier scripture. But RK treats them as pointing directly to something in a bodhisattva’s immediate experience.
93. According to Haribhadra (37), he or she is “going about life” with unconcentrated knowing (jñāna), and “cultivating” (bhāvanā; sgom) with concentrated knowing (jñāna). Hari: caratety asamāhitena jñānena. bhāvayateti samāhitena.
94. According to Ratnākara (F.17.b–18.a), “furthermore” means that this paragraph relies (ltos pa) upon the practice instructions (explained in RK’s commentary on the Ornament). When “going about life in the transcendent state of wisdom,” the meditative reference point is the impermanence of the three noble truths and so on. His or her meditative perspective is nonattachment (anabhiniveśa; mngon par zhen pa med pa) and so on. So he or she is “going about life” in the freedom from reference points. When “cultivating” the transcendent state of wisdom—i.e., gradually cultivating it—his or her meditative reference point is the noble truth of the path included within the three former truths, which is the freedom from any reference point. Hence, the meditative perspective is the freedom from “conceit” that is to be known through cultivating that. He or she should “train in such a way that” means he or she should train without conceit and without being enmeshed. In the phrase “even that mindset of awakening,” that “mindset”—which is unequaled, because the disciples and solitary realizers do not share it—is a vast mindset because it is the source of benefiting sentient beings uninterruptedly. The term “mindset of awakening” (bodhicitta) should be understood here as the “mindset” whose nature consists in “awakening” (*bodhyātmakacittam). The word “even” is for emphasis. Therefore, the mindset of bodhisattvas is asserted to possess particular nobility compared to the mindset of all sentient beings. So if a bodhisattva’s mindset “would not develop conceits even about that,” then what need is there to speak of an ordinary mindset. RK: gzhan yang zhes smos pas ni gdams ngag la ltos pa’o| |shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa la spyod ces bya ba ni bden pa gsum dang ’brel ba’i mi rtag pa nyid la sogs pa ni dmigs pa’o| |mngon par zhen pa med pa la sogs pa ni rnam pa ste| mi dmigs par spyod pa’o| | shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa bsgom pas zhes bya ba smos pa ni rim gyis bsgom pa zhes bya ba’i don to| |bden pa gsum gyi ’og tu lam gyi bden pa’i dmigs pa ni dmigs pa med pa’o| |des rlom sems med pa ni rnam pa bsgoms pas shes par bya ba yin no| |de ltar bslab par bgyi’o zhes bya ba ni mngon par zhen pa med cing rlom sems med pa de ltar bslab par bya’o| |des kyang zhes bya bas ni gang de’i sems mnyam pa med pa yin te| nyan thos dang| rang sangs rgyas la sogs pa dang thun mong ma yin pa’i phyir ro| |sems rgya chen po rnam pa thams cad du dus chad pa med par sems can gyi don gyi bya ba rnams kyi ’byung gnas su gyur pa’i phyir ro| |byang chub sems zhes bya ba ni byang chub kyi bdag nyid kyi sems so| |kyang gi sgra ni lhag pa’i don to| |de’i phyir byang chub sems dpa’ rnams kyi sems ni sems can thams cad las khyad par du ’phags pa yod par ’dod de| des kyang rlom sems su mi byed na tha mal pa’i sems kyis lta smos kyang ci dgos zhes bya ba’i don to. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 52. Note: See the introduction to this translation for more on the term “mindset of awakening” (bodhicitta), its translation, and its interpretation in India (see introduction, “Mindset of Awakening”).
95. According to Ratnākara (F.18.a), “why is that?” asks the question what is the meditative perspective due to which he or she does not develop conceits about that. “It is because” and so on expresses the answer. He says, “That mindset is free of a mindset” because it (de) does not appear as either (gnyis la) the grasped or the grasper. But one might think that the mindset does not exist, so he also states that it is “the luminously clear essential nature of a mindset.” One might ask, “How is that mind luminously clear?” The mind is primordially free of attachment and so on, because those are adventitious by nature. For precisely that reason, the subsequent (phyis) freedom from those (i.e., attachment and so on) does not exist. RK: |de ci’i slad du zhe na? zhes bya ba ni rnam pa gang gis de la rlom sems med pa yin zhe na? ’di ltar zhes bya ba la sogs pas lan smras so| |sems de ni sems ma mchis pa zhes bya ba ni gzung ba dang ’dzin pa gnyis la de mi snang ba’i phyir ro| |gal te sems med na ’on kyang de sems kyi rang bzhin ni ’od gsal ba zhes smos so| |ji ltar ’od gsal ba yin zhe na? gang gi phyir sems ni ’dod chags la sogs pa dang dang po nas mi ldan pa yin te| de dag ni rang bzhin gyis glo bur ba yin pa’i phyir ro| |de nyid kyi phyir phyis kyang bral ba med do. For edited Tibetan text of his broader comments, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 52. According to Hari (38–39), it is a nonimplicative negation. Hence, that (relative) “mindset” of awakening, which is not distinct from the perspective of the freedom from habitual fixation and so on, is ultimately “free of a mindset” since the luminously clear essential nature of a mindset is free of identity that is simple (i.e., partless) or complex (i.e., has parts). Note: In accordance with their respective philosophical positions of Yogācāra and Madhyamaka, Ratnākara and Hari disagree about whether the negation here is an exclusion/implicative negation (paryudāsa; ma yin dgag) or an absolute, nonimplicative negation (prasajyapratiṣedha; med dgag). In his Instructions on the Transcendent State of Wisdom, Ratnākara explains that the negation in this sentence is an exclusion (paryudāsa). Hence, that “mindset” of awakening is, on the one hand, “free of a mindset” insofar as there is no subject grasping or object grasped; on the other hand, it is “a mindset,” insofar as it consists in nothing but reflexively aware illumination.
96. According to Ratnākara (F.18.a), “Then the venerable Śāriputra said …” thus, he knew, but asked the question to cause Subhūti to explain it. The next sentence is Subhūti’s reply to his question, in which he explains it. RK: |shA ri’i bus ’di skad ces smras so zhes bya ba ni de ltar shes kyang rab ’byor gyis ston par bya pa’i phyir dris so| |de skad ces smras pa zhes bya ba la sogs pas ni rab ’byor gyis dris pa’i lan ston to. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 52.
97. According to Ratnākara (F.18.a), “definitely not” means (an existence or nonexistence) is “not mentally perceived” because there is no proof of them, and also “not found” because there is disproof of them. Their negation perfectly transcends both existence (bhāva; dngos po) and nonexistence. “Does that mindset exist?” asks the question “does that nonexistence (nāstitā; med pa nyid) exist?” RK: |de ni med do zhes bya ba de ni mi dmigs pa ste| sgrub par byed pa med pa’i phyir ro| |de nyid pa yang ma yin te| gnod par byed pa yod pa’i phyir ro| |dngos po dang| dngos po med pa las yang dag par ’das pa ni gnod par byed pa yin no| |yod dam zhes bya ba ni ci de med pa nyid ces bya ba’i don to. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 52.
98. According to Ratnākara (F.18.a–b), even just based on Śāriputra’s question, Subhūti thought that Śāriputra was not clear, so to clarify, Śāriputra asks, “What is the state free of a mindset?” RK: de tsam gyis kyang rab ’byor gyis bsams pas gsal por ma gyur nas| gsal bar bya ba’i phyir dris pa ni de gang yin zhes bya’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 52.
99. According to Ratnākara, Subhūti replies “the state free of a mindset is free of changing” because it is luminously clear by nature and untainted by changes. It is also “free of conceptualization” because all conceptual proliferations have subsided in it and it is not the content of any representational forms (ākāra; rnam pa). Hence, he or she “does not create conceits even about such a mindset” because, in that state, the mindset is simply nonexistent (sems med pa)—in other words, because that mindset is simply the emptiness of a mindset (sems stong pa nyid tsam las). Thus, the meditative reference point is “that mindset is free of a mindset (sems med pa), because it is naturally luminously clear.” The meditative perspective is the freedom from conceits. One should also understand here implicitly that just as the mindset is free of a mindset, so too physical form and so on are free of physical form and so on. RK: |rab ’byor gyi lan ni sems med pa de ni ’gyur ba med pa rnam par rtog pa med pa zhes smos te| sems rang bzhin gyis ’od gsal ba dang| ’gyur ba ma gos pa’i phyir ’gyur ba med pa’o | |spros pa thams cad nye bar zhi ba dang| rnam pa thams cad kyi spyod yul ma yin pa’i phyir rnam par rtog pa med pa’o | |de lta bas na de lta bu’i sems kyis kyang rlom sems su mi bya ste| de la yang sems med pa tsam gyi phyir te| sems stong pa nyid tsam las zhes bya ba’i don to| |de ltar na sems de yang sems med pa yin te rang bzhin gyis ’od gsal ba ni dmigs pa’o| |de la yang rlom sems med pa ni rnam pa’o| |ji ltar sems la sems med pa ste nye bar gzugs la sogs pa la yang gzugs la sogs pa med pa nyid du don gyis shes pa yin no. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, pp. 52–53. According to Hari (40), it is “free of changing” because the freedom from a mindset mentioned here (at the yogi’s conventional level) is a cause, step by step, for the actualization of freedom from change at the level of a buddha. It is “free of conceptualization” because it is a cause of a buddha’s actualization of freedom from error (at that level too).
100. Śāriputra’s comment may include a broad notion of “conflict” (raṇa), i.e., Subhūti does not get caught in contradictions due to the debate challenges by Śāriputra, the wisest and most intelligent of the Buddha’s disciples. But the Tibetan translation interprets this conflict as “emotional defilement” (nyon mongs). For more on the designation of Subhūti as foremost among those free of conflict, see the Araṇavibhaṅgasutta in Majjhima Nikāya 3:231–237. See also AKBh 417 and MSABh 20–21.44.1 to 20–21.45.1, where freedom from conflict (araṇa) is explicitly associated with a lack of emotional defilements. Further details of Subhūti’s other designations as “foremost among…” can be found in the Introduction to The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines (Toh 9), i.78–90.
101. According to Ratnākara, “never to be lacking” the transcendent state of wisdom means increasing it even more and more. This statement corresponds to the particular meditative reference point and meditative perspective at the stage of initial warmth (in the four stages of insight on the path of preliminary practice). RK: shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa dang ma bral zhes bya ba des de’i gong nas gong du yang ’phel ba yin te| de ni dro ba chung ngu’i dmigs pa dang rnam pa’i khyad par dag go. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 53.
102. According to Ratnākara (F.18.b–19.a), in this statement the phrase “wishes to train” means wishes to accomplish, and the word “for” indicates the factor motivating that training (nimitta); the phrase “listen to” means listen to texts; the phrase “take it in” means repeat it; the phrase “keep it in mind” means mentally retain it; the phrase “chant it” means say it aloud so that one does not forget it; the phrase “master it” means make oneself know everything together with the meaning; and the phrase “pass it on” means teach the words and the meaning to others so that by virtue of one’s own merit they may enter the path and come to be completely awakened. RK: |sa la zhes bya ba ni rgyu mtshan gyi don to| |slob par ’dod pas zhes bya ba ni sgrub par ’dod pas so| |mnyen par bya ba ni gzhung nyan pa’o| |gzung bar bya zhes bya ba ni bzlas par bya ba’o| |bcang bar bya zhes bya ba ni sems la gzhag par bya ba’o| |bklag par bya zhes bya ba ni mi brjed pa’i don du rjod par byed pa’o| |kun chub par bya’o zhes bya ba ni don dang ldan pas thams cad shes pa nyid du bya ba’o| |rab tu ston par bya pa’o | |zhes bya ba ni gzhan dag la don dang gzhung gi don dag| | bstan pas bdag nyid kyi bsod nams kyi stobs kyi gzhan dag rjes su gzung ba ni byang chub pa’i don du gnas pa yin no. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 55. According to Hari (42), the phrase “wishes to train” means wishes to do the practice; the phrase “listen to” means determining the words and meaning through both hearing consciousness and mental consciousness being drawn toward it; the phrase “take it in” means paying attention with a consciousness that is contemplating it; the phrase “keep it in mind” means perfecting it through practice with a consciousness that is cultivating it; the phrase “chant it” means vocalizing the text as a daily undertaking; the phrase “master it” means scripture and realization; and the phrase “pass it on” means elucidating it for others by explaining it and so on. Note: a “level” (bhūmi) refers here to the stable condition of a practitioner’s knowing achieved at a particular stage of the path, e.g., the ten bodhisattva levels leading to buddhahood. Also, instead of “keep it in mind” (dhārayitavyā), Schopen’s review of Edward Conze’s translation (p. 142) suggests the verb to mean he or she “carries around” (dhārayiṣyati) the scripture. But the commentators say something different here.
103. According to Ratnākara (F.19.a), the phrase “engage in meditation” (yogam āpattavyam; rnal ’byor du bya) means attain tranquility (śamatha) and extraordinary insight (vipaśyanā; lhag mthong). RK: |bslab par bya’o zhes bya ba ni sems dpas so| |rnal ’byor du bya’o zhes bya ba la rnal ’byor ni zhi gnas dang lhag mthong ngo| |de bya’o zhes bya ba ni thob par bya ba’o. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 55. According to Hari (42), one should “engage in meditation” because of one’s fundamental mindset bringing about a state of concentration (samādhi). Note: the same Sanskrit phrase yogam āpattavyam is translated by Conze (86) as “exert himself.”
104. According to Ratnākara (F.19.a), “for the level of a bodhisattva” means the ten levels from the first called “Delighted” up through the last called “Clouds of Dharma.” There are ten types of “skill in means” explained below in Chapter 20, at the end of section on realization of all aspects (the fourth main topic in the Ornament). “Endowed with” means possessing that. “To achieve” means to perfect. These are the distinctions of the causes alone. RK: |byang chub sems dpa’i sa la zhes bya ba ni rab tu dga’ ba nas chos kyi sprin gyi bar rnam pa bcu’o| |thabs mkhas pa ni ’og nas bshad pa’i rnam pa kun mngon par rdzogs par rtogs pa’i mjug nas ’byung ba’i rnam pa bcu’o| |de dang ldan pa ni yod pa’o| |yongs su bsgrubs pa ni kun nas mthar phyin pa’o| |de dag ni rgyu nyid kyi khyad par ro.
105. This point in the chapter corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 5 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 8 of the Eighteen Thousand.
106. According to Ratnākara (F.19.a–b), the word “unconscionable” here means that making something appear or disappear would only do something that does not fit the occasion. Here, to “appear” means to understand it through words, whereas to “disappear” means to cause the ascertainment of something else through words. The phrase “by means of the mere designation” means by words empty of any meaning. Here, the designation “bodhisattva” is either being put forth as an example of an empty word, or—in the case that something that appears or disappears is held, respectively, to be affirmed or denied by that word—it is not a so-called bodhisattva. RK: glo ba la gcags pa’i dngos po nyid ni yid la gcags pa ste| rigs pa ma yin pas byas pa nyid kyis so| |’du ba dang ’jig pa zhes bya ba la sgra las rtogs pa ni ’du ba’o| |sgra las gzhan gyi nges pa skyed pa ni ’jig pa’o| |ming tsam gyis zhes bya ba ni don gyis stong pa’i ming ste| ’di lta ste byang chub sems dpa’ zhes bya ba lta bu’o| gang dag ’du ba dang ’jig pa gal te bya ba dang| dgag pa yin par ’dod par gyur pa de’i tshe ni ’di lta ste |byang chub sems dpa’ byang chub sems dpa’ ma yin zhes bya bar gsungs bar ’gyur ro. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 56. According to Hari (44), he says it would be “unconscionable”—i.e., a regrettable thing—because he has a feeling connected with the fact that he does not perceive any existent referent of the term. This feeling is expressed by speaking of making one “appear,” i.e., affirming one, or “disappear,” i.e., denying one, in accord with what Dharmakīrti says (Pramāṇavarttika, IV.225), “A conventional designation (vyavahara) is just a sound, nothing else, except for its activity to affirm or deny …”. Since these two words—“appear” and “disappear”—include all its functions, a designation is taught here to be nothing more than this, i.e., sound. Hari: kaukṛtyam iti saṃvedananiṣṭhatvād viṣayasthiter anupalambhād etat kaukṛtyaṃ cetaso vipratisāritā. tad evāha yo ’ham ityādinā. āyavyayam iti vidhir āyaḥ. vyayo niṣedhaḥ. vidhānaṃ pratiṣedhaṃ ca muktvā śābdo ’sti nāparo vyavahāra iti kṛtvā padadvayenaiva sarvasaṃgrahād iha tāvanmātrakam uktaṃ.
107. This tetralemma about “dwelling” (sthita)—which effectively involves single, double, and triple negatives—sets up a play on the phrase “free of dwelling” (asthāna; mi gnas pa) below. According to (F.19.b), the designation “not dwelling” refers to it not having permanence, i.e., becoming a real particular or remaining in any condition. The words “nor not dwelling” mean it is not a dwelling in change or a dwelling in a permanent continuity. Since the basic idea is that nothing could appear or disappear, the last two phrases, “something free of dwelling” and “not something not free of dwelling,” have similar meanings. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 57. RK: (a) |mi gnas zhes bya ba ni khyad par du ’gro ba ste| ther zug tu gnas pas rtag pa med pa zhes pa’i don to| (b) |mi gnas pa la yang ma lags zhes bya ba ni ’gyur ba’i gnas pa dang| rgyun gyis rtag pas gnas pa ma yin zhes bya ba’i don to| | rigs pa ’dis ’du ba dang ’jig pa yod pa ma yin no zhes bya bar bsams so| |de bzhin du (c) gnas pa med pa dang| (d) gnas pa med pa ma yin pa’o. According to Hari (45), the designation is something “not dwelling” as an object, because it has the nature of a continuous series. Nor is the designation “not dwelling.” This accords with the following logical principle (in Jñānagarbha’s Distinguishing the Two Truths): “At the ultimate level, there clearly can be no negation because it has nothing to be negated, and the application of a negation would not be proper without a particular scope. Also, if a conceptualization were taken as the basis for negation, then that conceptualization is something relative, not at the ultimate level.” The designation is “something free of dwelling” because of being unlike a continuous series. And it is “not something not free of dwelling” because it is not something that exists. Hari: tad api nāmadheyam ālambanaṃ na sthitaṃ prabandharūpeṇa. niṣedhyābhāvataḥ spaṣṭaṃ na niṣedho ’sti tattvataḥ na ca nirviṣayaḥ sādhuḥ prayogo vidyate nañaḥ || vikalpāpāśrayatve vā sāṃvṛtaḥ syān na tāttvika iti nyāyān nāsthitaṃ. na viṣṭhitaṃ prabandhavisadṛśatvena. tathaiva nāviṣṭhitaṃ tat kasya hetoḥ ||avidyamānatvena tasya nāmadheyasya.
108. According to Ratnākara (F.19.b), this repeat of the above four possibilities can be understood slightly differently. In that sentence, the word “thus” means “given that words and their meaning are not two things.” Next, (a) the words “not dwelling” mean it is not something that remains in the actual nature. (b) The words “nor not dwelling” mean it is not just a state of nondwelling—here the idea is that insofar as it is an ascertainment of conventional daily dealings, it is not merely an imputation. (c) The words “nor something free of dwelling” means that the mere imputation is not something dwelling in physical form or any other manner of constituents of experience or elements—hence, the idea here is that it is not something inexpressible. (d) The words “nor something not free of dwelling” means it is not something absolutely free of dwelling insofar as it actually is something that can express conventional daily dealings. RK: de ltar zhes bya ba ni don dang ming gnyis med pas so| (a) |mi gnas shing zhes bya ba ni de kho na nyid la rnam par gnas pa ma yin pa’o| (b) |mi gnas pa yang ma lags | zhes bya ba ni gnas pa yang ma yin pa nyid tha snyad nges pa yin pa’i phyir de ni btags pa tsam ma yin| zhes bsam pa yin no| (c) |rnam par gnas pa yang ma lags | zhes bya ba la brags pa tsam de yang gzugs la rnam par gnas pa ma yin| phung po dang| khams la sogs pa’i ngo bo rnam pa sna tshogs su gnas pa ma yin no| |gang gi phyir des na brjod par bya ba ma yin no zhes bya bar bsams so| (d) |rnam par mi gnas pa yang ma yin te | zhes bya ba ni gtan du rnam par mi gnas pa ma yin te| gang zhig gis tha snyad tsam du brjod par nus pa’i phyir ro. For edited Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Aii, p. 57.