Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines

206. According to Ratnākara (F.54), Brahmā is the lord (pati) over the billionfold world system (sahā) and the Śuddhāvāsa heavens (“Pure Abodes”) in the form realm have as foundation the fourth meditation (dhyāna). They are called “Pure Abodes” because only noble ones are born in their five heavens, which (in ascending order) are called Avṛha, Atapa, Sudṛśa, Sudarśana, and Akaniṣṭha. The “five thousand” gods in the form realm, which belong to five retinues in these heavens, are attracted by pervasiveness of light and so on. According to Hari (129, Sparham II–III, pp. 71–72), some say Brahmā pervades the fourth meditation, but others say he pervades only the third level of the first meditation. See Sparham II–III, 71–72, for the two different stories about how Brahmā conceitedly (and mistakenly) believes that he is the Creator God (īśvara) of those who are actually born in that realm as a result of their merit. RK: eṣa eva trisāhasro lokadhātuḥ sahā| tasyāḥ patiḥ| brahma ṇaḥ kāy as tasmin bhavāḥ| iha tūttarapadavṛddhiḥ| caturthasya dhyānasyāśrayaṃ ca śuddhāvāsāḥ| avṛhā atapāḥ sudṛśāḥ sudarśanā akaniṣṭhāś ceti| kutaḥ śuddhāvāsāḥ ? āryāṇām eva teṣūtpādāt| teṣāṃ pañcānāṃ nikāyānāṃ pañca iva sahastrāṇi (sic) | etāvanta eta rūpiṇo devanikāyā yathodhvam (sic) utkṛṣṭāḥ prabhāprabhāvādibhiḥ| Hari: sahe lokadhātāv ā samantāt patiḥ sahāpatir nāyako devaputraḥ brahmā pi caturthadhyāna­prabhavaḥ. saṃvartanyaḥ punas tisro bhavanty agnyambuvāyubhir | iti nyāyād yathākramaṃ prathamādi­dhyānatrayasya vināśenatasyaiva cirasthāyitayā patitvābhimānād ity eke. apare tv anyathānyatara­sattva­syābhāsvara­devanikāyāc cyutvaikākinaḥ śūnye brāhme vimāne saṃutpannasya aho vatānye ’pi sattvā ihopapadyerann iti praṇi­dhānānantaraṃ puṇyādikṣayād apareṣāṃ kākatālīyanyāyena tatra samutpāde ’ham eṣām īśvara ityādy abhimānāt pratha­madhyānatṛtīya­bhūmiko brahmā sahāpatir iti varṇayanti.

207. According to Ratnākara (F.54, Jaini 21), the word “outshined” (abhibhūta) means that their light was “turned dark” (dhyāmikṛta). This happens at precisely the same time (as implied by the Sanskrit words in the sentence), since his manifestation of the proper mindset is capable of making those worldly benefits seem dark by comparison. The Blessed One is known by the epithet Outshiner of All, because of his manifestation of love in that mindset. The word “splendor” (avabhāsaḥ)‍—which refers to the halo born from the maturation of their own former actions‍—is something innate, not something they magically emanate (abhisaṃskārika). According to Hari (130, Sparham II–III, p. 72), “the maturation of their own former actions” means what emerges from the imprints of their own positive actions. The “splendor” is a light with beams. These gods are outshone “by his blessings” (adhiṣṭhāna), i.e., by the Buddha’s presence, and “by the Buddha’s majesty” (tejas), i.e., by means of the Blessed Buddha’s natural halo. Even though they themselves have great miraculous power, the idea is that all powers are bedazzled “by the Buddha’s miraculous power” (anubhāva). RK: yo ’pi teṣāṃ avabhāsaḥ so ’py abhibhūto dhyāmīkṛto ’bhūt| samakālam eveti yo ’pi so ’pi śabdārthaḥ| yogyatā hi cittotpādas tadarthadhyāmīkaraṇam| sarvābhibhūr bhagavān iti viditvā tadbhāve spṛhotpādanāt| avabhāsaḥ prabhā| svakarmaṇo vipaktir vipākaḥ| tasmāj jātaḥ sahajo nābhisaṃskārika ity arthaḥ| kena kāraṇenābhibhūtaḥ ? buddhādhiṣṭhānena buddhasannidhānena| kena kartrā? buddhatejasā buddhasya bhagavataḥ prakṛtiprabhayā| nanu te ’pi mahānubhāvāḥ kasmān na praticakrur ity ata āha buddhānubhāvene ti| buddhānubhāvena sarvānubhāvaḥ pratihanyataḥ iti bhāvaḥ. Hari: svakarmavipākajaḥ svaśubhakarmavāsananiryāto ’vabhāso raśmyālokaḥ.

208. According to Ratnākara (F.55.a, Jaini 21–22), the phrase “bodhisattva great beings’ transcendent state of wisdom” indicates the beginning of his explanation of the transcendent state of wisdom as the so-called “knowing of the paths” (mārgajñatā; lam mkhyen pa). The phrase “instruction in it” means the explanation of how to realize its goal, and the phrase “guidance in it” means the accompanying teaching on how to pursue that. RK: atha khalv ityādi| antikād iti sakāśāt| prajñāpāramitām iti bodhisatvānāṃ mahāsatvānām ity anena sambandhaḥ| mārgajñatām ity arthaḥ| upadiśyata iti upadeśaḥ| tasyā evārthasyāvagamāya vādo ’vavādaḥ tadanubandhāya śāsanī tatsahitā seti samāsaḥ.

209. According to Ratnākara (F.55.a, Jaini 22), a bodhisattva great being should “dwell in” it through the wisdom of having learned it, “train in it” through the wisdom of reflecting upon it, and “engage in meditation in it” through the wisdom of cultivating it. RK: sthātavyaṃ śrutamayyā prajñayā| śikṣitavyaṃ cintāmayyā| yogam āpattavyaṃ bhāvanāmayyā.

210. Subhūti’s remarks here apply, specifically, to the gods from the realms of the Pure Abode, who were born there because they had reached the stage of a non-returner in their last lifetime. That is to say, in the Disciple Vehicle, when a practitioner reaches any of the four irreversible stages that culminate in the complete cessation of rebirth, they are called having “entered an irreversible state of perfection” (samyaktvaniyāma) in the sense that they (now) have a fixed number of rebirths left before attaining the “irreversible state of perfection,” i.e., the nirvāṇa reached through the disciple path. In sequential order from lowest to highest, the four stages of disciple liberation: (1) a “stream enterer”‍—someone who is transformed beyond regressing from the liberation from cyclic existence‍—will be reborn in cyclic existence only seven more times (at most) before reaching nirvāṇa; (2) a “once-returner” will be reborn in cyclic existence one more time before reaching nirvāṇa; (3) a non-returner will never again be reborn in cyclic existence but will be born in one of the five heavenly Śuddhāvāsa form realms from where they will directly reach nirvāṇa; and (4) an arhat (“worthy one”)‍—etymologized in Sanskrit and Tibetan as someone who has completely conquered his enemy, i.e., overcome his defilements‍—will never be reborn anywhere and attains liberation instantly after death. So, Subhūti’s remark is addressing those among the gods who do not appear to qualify for Mahāyāna practice. Cf. Ratnākara (F.55.a, Jaini 22): yetv ityādi| hīnamārgalabhyaṃ nirvāṇaṃ samyaktvam tasmin niyamaḥ samyaktvaniyāmaḥ| taṃ avakrāntāḥ prāptāḥ.

211. According to Ratnākara (F.55.a–b, Jaini 22), those who “have closed themselves off” are bound by certain limitations (on the disciples’ path). For instance, they might be either a so-called stream enterer destined for arhathood in seven lifetimes or just go from birth to birth for a few more lifetimes. Either way, they are unable to develop the proper mindset because that mindset of awakening requires one to remain in cyclic existence to do the practices that cause one to reach supreme, perfect awakening. This paragraph explains the limitations of the scope of what is possible, because disciples on the so-called narrow path to peace never even wish for ultimate awakening, and hence are closed off from it. RK: baddhasīmāno baddhasetavaḥ| tadyathā śrotaāpanna­saptakṛdbhava­paramaḥ| dvitrijanmā kulaṃkulaḥ| anuttara­samyak­saṃbodhi­nimittaṃ yat punaḥ punaḥ saṃsaraṇaṃ tasmai cittam utpādāyitum abhavyāḥ| iti śamaikayānaiḥ śrāvakair uttamabodheḥ kadācid apy akāmanād yogyatāyā viṣayapratiniyamaḥ.

212. Both Ratnākara and Hari interpret the “the most distinguished qualities” to refer to the bodhisattva’s qualities of the mindset of awakening (bodhicitta) and so on. But Ratnākara, who holds the so-called “three-vehicle” (triyāna) theory, and Hari, who holds the so-called “single-vehicle” (ekayāna) theory, diverge in how they explain why Subhūti might seem to contradict himself about whether disciples, who are destined for complete cessation, can develop this mindset of awakening. For his part, Ratnākara’s “three-vehicle” theory generally follows the early Yogācāra position that the three distinct vehicles‍—i.e., the Disciple, Solitary Realizer, and Bodhisattva Vehicles‍—can only function to lead disciples to mutually exclusive terminal destinations. In this theory, Buddhist disciples are said to possess one of four types of dispositions or lineages (gotra; rigs), namely being either (a) fixed upon the state of a disciple, (b) fixed upon the state of a solitary realizer, (c) fixed upon buddhahood, or (d) not fixed in any one of the three types of awakening. Thus, Ratnākara (F.55.b) simply interprets this sentence, “But, if even they….I would not discount…,” as applying to the fourth type here, i.e., those disciples who are generally inclined toward awakening, but whose disposition is open to developing the proper mindset for supreme awakening through the bodhisattva path. RK: api tv ityādi utpādayerann ityetadantena vyāptiḥ| śrāvakair api bodhipariṇatikaiḥ samyaksambodhau cittasyotpādanāt| te hi svāṃ bodhim adhigamyāpi buddha­bodhi­sattvānāṃ lokottarāṃ vibhūtiṃ dṛṣṭvā vañcitam ivātmānaṃ manyamānās tathāgatair adhiṣṭhitās tad bodhau cittam utpādyācalyabhūmika­bodhi­sattvavan nirmitābhir upapattibhir bodhicaryāṃ caritvā parāṃ bodhim adhigacchantīti vyāptiḥ. For his part, Hari (132–35, Sparham II–III, pp. 73–78) interprets this passage as affirming his school’s “single-vehicle” (ekayāna) theory, i.e., that the Buddha taught three distinct vehicles as a provisional measure to attract disciples with different propensities, but in actuality he knew that they would all eventually end up entering the single definitive vehicle of the Mahāyāna. In his lengthy discourse here, Hari cites as support for his view other Mahāyāna scriptures, such as The White Lotus of the Good Dharma (Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, Toh 113), The Ten Bhūmis (Daśabhūmika, Toh 44-31), and The Sūtra on the Descent into Laṅka (Laṅkāvatāra, Toh 107). Hari: api tv ityādi… ity alaṃ prasaṅgena. Note: The translation “able to acquire” (adhyālambitavyāḥ) follows Ratnākara’s gloss (prāptavyaḥ), instead of the Tibetan, which suggests more “able to apprehend” (lhag par dmigs par bya).

213. Ratnākara (F.56.a) explains that the “pure” (brahma) refers here to nirvāṇa, so it basically means going about living life as a bodhisattva for the sake of awakening. RK: brahma nirvāṇaṃ tasmai caraṇaṃ brahmacaryam| taccaraṇaṃ bodhāye ti bodhaye| bodhicaryāṃ caratīti yāvat| yair iti vibhakti­pratirūpako nipāto yathārthaḥ. According to Hari (135), “engaged in pure spiritual practice “ means desisting from unchaste behavior. It means “having virtuous moral conduct, studying (the teachings), contemplating them, and (through meditation and other means) applying oneself toward cultivating them.” With these words, he is speaking about practicing the five lay precepts and so on as much as possible. Hari: brahmacaryam abrahmacaryād viratiḥ. vṛttasthaḥ śrutacintāvān bhāvanāyāṃ prayujyate | ity anena yathāsambhavaṃ pañca­śikṣāpadādikatvaṃ kathayati.

214. According to Hari (135), “for our sake” means done deliberately for us. The idea here is that it was based on the turning of the Dharma wheel that preceded the Disciple Vehicle. Hari: asmadarthe ’smākaṃ prayojanena kṛtenety arthaḥ. śrāvakayānapuraḥsarasya dharmacakrasya pravartanād iti matiḥ.

215. According to Ratnākara (F.56.a), to “dwell in the transcendent state of wisdom” means to be aware in the state of knowing it as the path. RK: prajñāpāramitāyāṃ sthātavyam iti mārgajñatāyāṃ veditavyam.

216. In the following, Subhūti demonstrates the way that “dwelling in the transcendent state of wisdom” effectively means “not dwelling” on any “thing.” Subhūti’s negation of each “thing” one by one (here and elsewhere) can be understood as performatively describing a certain kind of meditation on emptiness.

217. Here, “contact” refers to the mental process whereby the mental faculty, object, and consciousness meet, as described in the Abhidharma.

218. The four “applications of mindfulness” refer to the means of attending to mindfulness of four meditative objects, namely body, feelings, mind, and phenomena. According to the Madhyāntavibhāgabhāṣya (50), cultivating these four objects causes one to penetrate the four noble truths, i.e., mindfulness of body reveals the truth of suffering, mindfulness of feelings reveals the truth of the cause of suffering, mindfulness of mind reveals the truth of the cessation, and mindfulness of phenomena reveals the truth of the path. Here, the translation “applications” (upasthāna) has been adopted because it is so widespread, but the Sanskrit term upasthāna (literally meaning “standing near”) can be interpreted as either (a) a means of “standing near” or “attendance” of mindfulness (e.g., explained by Yaśomitra’s AKBh-Vyākhyā (53): vigrahas tv evaṃ kartavyaḥ. upatiṣṭhate ’nenety upasthānaṃ. smṛter upasthānaṃ smṛtypasthānam iti), i.e., close application of mindfulness or (b) “the thing that is stood near” or “the thing attended to” (e.g., explained by Ratnākara), i.e., the nearby abode of mindfulness. According to Ratnākara (F.37.b), “the term smṛtyupasthāna refers to that which, because it is considered, brings about the standing near of mindfulness. There are ‘four’ based on the different kinds of meditative objects.” RK: gang gi rjes su lta bas dran pa nye bar gnas pa de ni dran pa nye bar gzhag pa’o| |dmigs pa’i bye brag gis ni bzhi ste. Note: In this latter sense, one might translate them as the “four immediate dimensions of mindfulness” because body, feelings, mind, and phenomena are all objects immediately available that one can stand near or tune into with mindfulness.

219. This paragraph is referring to sublists within the thirty-seven factors in awakening (bodhipakṣyadharma) that encapsulate the path from first beginning to accumulate (saṃbhāra) merit and wisdom up until the point of buddhahood where training comes to an end (aśaikṣa). In those thirty-seven factors (4+4+4+5+5+7+8= 37), the four applications of mindfulness are as mentioned in the previous note; the four correct exertions are avoiding nonvirtue that has not yet arisen, abandoning nonvirtue that has arisen, adopting virtue that has not yet arisen, and maintaining virtue that has arisen; the four supernormal supports are devoted interest, diligence, attention, and discernment; the five faculties are faith, diligence, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom; the five strengths are also faith, diligence, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom, but at a different level; the seven aspects of awakening are mindfulness, wisdom, diligence, joy, relaxation, concentration, and equanimity; and the eight aspects of the path are accurate view, intention, speech, conduct, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and concentration.

220. These are the four technical terms that refer to the four stages beyond regressing that culminate in complete liberation according to the Disciple Vehicle.

221. These fruitions arise from the three vehicles for going beyond cyclic existence, namely, (1) the Disciple Vehicle, which leads to the state of a worthy one; (2) the Solitary Realizer Vehicle, which leads to the state of a solitary realizer; and (3) the Bodhisattva Vehicle, which leads to buddhahood.

222. The three sentences in this paragraph reprise the three different ways of categorizing all the same observable things, namely, according to the constituents (skandha), elements (dhātu), or bases (āyatana).

223. In this paragraph, Subhūti uses the word “notion” to express the Buddhist idea of a path, as represented by the thirty-seven factors mentioned above.

224. In the following, Subhūti uses the word “notion” to express the central Buddhist doctrinal ideas, known as either the three or the four marks (lakṣaṇa), on which one should not dwell.

225. In the Sanskrit phrase rūpaṃ śūnyam upalabhyate veti na sthātavyam, the placement of “or” (vā) is unusual and requires interpretation. The Tibetan has made a double emendation as if reading the Sanskrit rūpaṃ śūnyam iti upalabhyate iti na sthātavyam. In this translation, we have merely eliminated the vā and interpreted it rūpaṃ śūnyam upalabhyate iti na sthātavyam. This translation basically agrees with Tibetan.

226. The phrase “made prominent by the unconditioned” aims to capture the Sanskrit double meaning (hinted at in Hari’s comments below), namely (a) that the fruition is not a conditioned result, but noticeably comes to the fore when the conditioned obscurations cease, and (b) that this fruition, whose nature is not conditioned, is to be respected above all others. According to Ratnākara (F.58.a), the fruition is “made prominent by the unconditioned” because the dissipation of ignorance and defilements is something unconditioned. RK: asaṃskṛtaprabhāvitaṃ kleśāvidyākṣayasyāsaṃskṛtatvāt. According to Hari (143, Sparham II–III, p. 79), the idea behind being “made prominent by the unconditioned” is that, since its inherent nature has, ultimately, not come into existence, the path’s effect is a fruition born from the unconditioned. Subhūti teaches not dwelling on the various fruitions (being made prominent by the unconditioned) in order to counteract habitual fixation on the fruition in general, but the next sentence addresses one particular aspect of it. Hari: asaṃskṛtaprabhāvitam iti tattvato ’nutpāda­svabhāvatvān mārga­syāsaṃskṛtanirjātaṃ phalaṃ kāryam.

227. The last sentence of this paragraph appears in both the Tibetan and the Sanskrit (cf., e.g., the Cambridge MS Add.866, F.14.a.3). But it is incorrectly omitted in the modern Sanskrit editions and printings (Mitra, Wogihara, and Vaidya).

228. According to Hari (143, Sparham II–III, p. 79), in order to counter any habitual fixation on fruition in a particular context, Subhūti speaks of not dwelling on these beings as “worthy of offerings,” primarily because they are considered worthy of offerings insofar as they are distinguished fields of merit. Hari: viśiṣṭapuṇyakṣetratvena mukhyato dakṣaṇārhatvād (sic -dakṣiṇa Tucci p. 228:5) dakṣiṇīyaḥ.

229. The nirvāṇa dimension is an unconditioned space (beyond the three conditioned realms of existence) in which worthy ones (arhat) are said to abide. The technical terms “with some constituents remaining” (sopadhiśeṣa) and “without any constituents remaining” (anupadhiśeṣa) refer to the two types of arhats, who are distinguished on the basis of whether or not any of the constituents of their experience (upadhi, i.e. skandha) still remain (śeṣa) after they attain nirvāṇa. Cf. Ratnākara (F.58.a): anupadhiśeṣa iti upadhayaḥ skandhāḥ, ta eva śeṣāḥ, sopadhiṣeśe tadviparyayād anupadhiśeṣaḥ. Note: Most early Buddhists suggest that this state “without any constituents remaining” is equivalent to a worthy one’s final liberation at death, but some do seem to suggest that it can refer to the state of freedom from craving in worthy ones who are technically still alive. Cf. BHSD parinirvāṇa, PTSD parinibbana.

230. According to Ratnākara (F.58.a), the “complete nirvāṇa of a buddha” is one which is fixed neither in cyclic existence nor in nirvāṇa, because, respectively, all his defiled qualities are completely destroyed and endless qualities free of worldly influences continue for the sake of beings infinitely. RK: buddha­parinirvāṇe ti| saṃsāranirvāṇayor apratiṣṭhite na| yathākramaṃ sarva­ṣāṃkleśika­dharma­parikṣayāt, anāśravāṇāṃ ca dharmāṇām anantānāṃ jagadarthāya yāvad ākāśam avasthānāt.

231. The translation “never fixed in any dwelling” (apratiṣṭhita) attempts to capture the slight play on the etymologically connected word “dwelling” (sthita). According to Hari (152, Sparham II–III, p. 100), after he realizes complete awakening, “his mind is never fixed in any dwelling”‍—given that, in absolute reality, things do not appear‍—and thus he does not dwell on anything by means of a mental perception (upalambha). Hari: apratiṣṭhitamānasa ityādi. yasmād bodhim abhisambudhya tattvato dharmāṇām anidarśanād apratiṣṭhitaṃ mana eva mānasam asyety apratiṣṭhita­mānasas tathāgataḥ. tasmān na kvacid upalambhayogena sthita iti pūrveṇa sambandhaḥ. Cf. Apte pratiṣṭhita, set up, fixed, placed, installed.

232. According to Hari (151 ff.), “conditioned” here refers to the realm of desire and so on, whereas “unconditioned” refers to the actual nature (tathatā) and so on. Hari: sa naive tyādi. saṃskṛta iti kāmādike. asaṃskṛta iti tathatādike. According to Ratnākara (F.58.a), “nor is he somewhere removed from these” means that he has not abandoned the attainment (which was just described as being like space). RK: na ca tato vyutthita iti prāptāparihāṇitaḥ.

233. According to Ratnākara (F.58.a), that the Tathāgata is neither (a) “someone dwelling” nor (b) “someone not dwelling” means that he is not fixed in any dwelling (apratiṣṭhita) because of either not existing (permanently) or not being removed (permanently from cyclic existence). Just as was explained before (when the same phrases appeared in the preceding chapter), the second pair of negations‍—i.e., that he is also neither (c) “someone free of dwelling” nor (d) “not free from dwelling”‍—are refuting the idea that the Tathāgata is somehow in a continuous flow-pattern. Cf. RK: na sthito nāsthita ity apratiṣṭhitamān asattvād avyutthānāc ca| na viṣṭhito naviṣṭhita iti pravāhayogena pūrvavat.

234. According to Hari (153), the meaning of the sentence is as follows: After realizing his awakening, a tathāgata does not perceive any things as ultimately real. and hence these things appear to have the nature of mere magical illusions. Hence, in order to realize the most sublime point of the Dharma‍—by cultivating the freedom from mental perception causally conducive to that authoritative person’s (i.e., the tathāgata’s) nonperception of things‍—one must not “abide” there out of being yoked to habitual fixation. That is to say, one must cultivate it like this extensively on the ten levels, such as being on the level of the path or fruit of a stream enterer and so on. Hari: tad ayaṃ vākyārthaḥ: yasmāt tathāgatena bodhim abhisambudhya tattvato na kecid dharmāḥ samupalabdhāḥ. tasmān māyāsvabhāvā evāmī bhāvāḥ pratibhāntīti pramāṇa­puruṣādarśana­kāraṇopapannānupalambha­bhāvanayāgra­dharmādhigamārthaṃ, vistareṇa srotāapatti­phala­prati­pannakatvādi­daśa­bhūmi­ṣvabhiniveśa­yogān na sthātavyam ity evaṃ bhāvanīyam iti. See also Sparham (II–III, p. 101) who offers an alternative interpretation of Hari’s comments.

235. This passage exploits Sanskrit ambiguity for the sake of humor and has been translated to preserve the two divergent ways to read the Sanskrit: (a) Subhūti is saying “…nothing (na kiṃcid) about it is pointed out…” because nothing about it can be pointed out insofar as it is beyond words, or (b) “a little (kiṃcid) something is (still) not (na) pointed out about it (by me)…” The gods misunderstand his meaning here to be the second, so they get excited that he is about to make some subtle point more clear.

236. According to Ratnākara, it is called the “loftiest point” because it is beyond the scope of anyone who is not a noble one, the “most subtle point” because it is beyond conceptual proliferations, and the “most profound point” because it is beyond measure. Compared to the disciple path, this knowing is more lofty, subtle, and profound. Cf. RK: anāryāṇām agocaratvena dūrāt | niṣprapañca­tvena sūkṣmāt | duravagāhatvena gambhīrāc chrāvakamārgād dūrataraṃ sūkṣmataraṃ gambhīrataraṃ jñānam| praviśati cetasā| deśayati granthataḥ| bhāṣate arthataḥ.

237. According to Ratnākara (F.59.a), a “magical illusion” is a false person that appears by the force of mantras and so on, while a “magical emanation” is manifested through (a meditator’s) supernatural power (ṛddhi). RK: mantrādibalena pratibhāsamāno mithyāpuruṣo māyā| ṛddhisandarśito nirmitaḥ| tābhyāṃ sadṛśāḥ.

238. According to Ratnākara (F.59.a), the gods think that being a magical illusion is just being false. But Subhūti thinks that an illusion and a dream are particular types of falsity, which share only falsity in common. Therefore, both a sentient being and a magical illusion are free of duality, because they are indistinguishable insofar as they are both false. For that reason, the unreality of a person’s substance is said to be like an illusory person. RK: māyopamās te sattvā na māye ti| mithyātvam eva māyātvaṃ manyante| subhūtis tu manyate mithyāviśeṣo māyā ca svapnaṃ ca tābhyāṃ sādṛśyaṃ mithyātvam eva| tasmān māyā ca sattvāś cety advayaṃ mithyātvena nirviśeṣatvād iti| tad evaṃ māyāpuruṣavat puruṣadravyāṇām asattvam uktam.

239. According to Ratnākara (F.59.a), “all things” ‍—i.e., all people and things‍—are like illusions, since, insofar as the substance of a person is not real, the things constituting persons are also not real. RK: sarvadharmā apī ti| puruṣadharmā api sarve māyopamāḥ| asati puruṣadravye taddharmāṇām apy abhāvāt.

240. According to Ratnākara (F.60.a), since there is nothing to be grasped, trees and so on do not exist. Likewise, since the mind is not grasping them, it too does not exist, and hence the flowers are unproduced even by that mind. RK: anirjātānī ti| yathā hi grāhyatvād vṛkṣādayo na santīti na tebhyo nirjātāni tāni| tathā manopi nāsti grāhakatvād iti tato py anirjātāni.

241. According to Hari (166), he “is explicating” the designation of things‍—i.e., the designation of the constituents (skandha) such as consciousness and so on‍—on account of explaining the meaning of his previous words, as an aid to wisdom through hearing. By not denying the acceptance of conventional reality, he is “not denying” the true nature. He is “dissecting it” on account of making his explanation more firm through logical reasoning, as an aid to wisdom through contemplation. He is “expounding it” precisely, on account of expounding the implicit stages of meditative concentration, as an aid to wisdom through cultivation. Hari: nāmapadaprajñaptiṃ vijñānādi­skandha­prajñaptiṃ. śrutamayajñānārthaṃ granthārthakathanān nirdiśati. samvṛtyābhyupagama­syāvirodhād dharmatayā na virodhayati. cintāmayajñānārthaṃ yuktyā sthirīkaraṇād uttānīkaroti. bhāvanā­maya­jñānārthaṃ dhyānakramopadeśād upadiśati. According to Ratnākara (F.60.b), here he is explaining designation with words, as a mere manner of speech. He expounds the fact that physical form, which is a mere designation, is nothing but the true nature, which is itself a mere designation. This section corresponds to the stage of warmth for a bodhisattva on the path of preliminary practice. RK: nāmapada iḥ prajñaptiḥ vyavahāraḥ| tān nirdiśati| na ca virodhayati tāṃ cottānīkaroti| tām eva copadiśati| tathā hi prajñaptimātraṃ rūpaṃ prajñaptimātram eva dharmatety upadiśati ity ūṣmā. The Sanskrit compound noun nāmapadaprajñaptiṃ is interpreted in slightly different ways by Ratnākara, Hari, and the Tibetan ming dang tshig tu btags pa, and has been translated to allow all three interpretations here.

242. According to Hari (172), in some scriptural passages, based on the Tathāgata’s miraculous power or authority alone, someone other than the Tathāgata will speak to articulate a consequence of the discussion through examining it and so on. But in the expounding of the transcendent state of wisdom, the Blessed One has empowered, in particular, only Subhūti. So this motivates the question and response about Subhūti’s speaking about this topic. Hari: kuto gaveṣitavye ti kasya nirdeśāt pratipattavyā bhāvayitavyety arthaḥ. śāriputra āha | prajñāpāramitā kauśika bodhisattvena mahāsattvenāyuṣmataḥ subhūteḥ parivartād gaveṣitāvyā || prasaṅgāgata­vacanārthaṃ nirūpaṇādidvāreṇa tathāgatānubhāvād evānyaḥ kaścit kvacin nirdiśati. mukhyataḥ punar bhagavatā prajñā­pāramitopadeśe subhūtir evādhiṣṭhita ity abhiprāyavān āha: prajñāpāramitā kauśiketyā di. parivartād iti nirdeśāt.

243. Neither Ratnākara nor Hari comment here on the Sanskrit expression yad uta (’di lta ste) that is used repeatedly throughout this passage. But Ratnākara (F.226.a) does explain later in the commentary that the expression highlights the particular quality of something that has been pointed out only generally. So, although the expression is represented merely as the comma following “great transcendent state,” “transcendent state beyond measure,” and so on, we can understand “this transcendent state of wisdom” to indicate its distinctiveness from all other transcendent states in terms of its various particular qualities mentioned one by one below. RK: yaduta śabdaḥ sāmānyenoddiṣṭasya viśeṣaṃ dyotayati.

244. Ratnākara’s comments on the response to this question (in the next few notes) should all be understood in the light of what he explained in chapter 1 with regard to designations being devoid of referents (F.46.b–47.a, repeated here from n.180): “A name is not the nature (svabhāva) of a referent, because one sees the mere referent before the linguistic convention (saṅketaḥ). Also, the referent is not the nature of the name, because one can ascertain (pratītiḥ) just a mere name whose referent is not found. And, since words are used even when there is no referent, a name has no referent. For this very reason, this designation has not come into being (anabhinirvṛttam), i.e., it is not established (siddham) as a designation (of a thing).” For edited Sanskrit and Tibetan text, see Seton 2016, Ai, p. 147 and Aii, p. 140. RK: nāmadheyamātram iti arthaśūnyaṃ nāma| tathāhi nārthasya svabhāvo nāma, prāk saṅketād arthamātradarśanāt| nāpi nāmnaḥ svabhāvo ’rthaḥ, aviditārthasya nāmnaḥ kevalasyaiva pratīteḥ, asaty api cārthe śabdaprayogāt| nirarthakaṃ nāma| ata eva tac ca nāmadheyam anabhinirvṛttaṃ, nāmadheyatvenāsiddham.

245. According to Ratnākara (F.62.a), the “thing” means the substance with the self (of a sentient being). That substance does not possess that “name” because such a thing (as a sentient being) does not exist. A nonthing (i.e., something lacking substance) does not possess a name, because (a name) expresses its own referent as a thing (that is heard). RK: na dharmādhivacanam iti dharma ātmadravyaṃ, na tasyādhivacanaṃ tasyābhāvāt| dharmatvena svārthābhidhānāt nādharmādhivacanam. Note: The Sanskrit word svārtha (translated as “its own referent”) in Ratnākara’s comment above is a multivalent part of the definition of a name. In essence, Ratnākara is suggesting here that the name “sentient being” cannot refer to a “nonthing” because the word “sentient being” communicates something that is neither a thing nor a nonthing.

246. According to Ratnākara (F.62.a), “bandied about” means employed in the scriptures. RK: prakṣiptam iti sūtraiḥ prayuktam.

247. According to Ratnākara (F.62.a–b), it is “adventitious” because, when examined, it goes away. It “has no substance” because there is no substance belonging to the self (ātma). RK: | kutaḥ ? yata āgantukaṃ sati vicāre calatvāt| yato ’vastukaṃ ātmadravyābhāvāt.

248. In the Sanskrit word anātmīya (translated here as “not characterized by a self”), the prefix an- clearly means “not” and the word ātmā clearly means “self,” but Ratnākara (F.62.b) suggests that the secondary nominal suffix -īya here can and should be interpreted in three different ways, making the term anātmīya mean (a) “not connected with a self” (b) “not possessed by a self” and (c) “not characterized by a self.” According to Ratnākara (F.62.b), each meaning can be understood in line with its own logic, namely, (a) “this name is not connected with a self,” because something (a sentient being) is called “a self” even based on an implied connection with a “self”‍—but since a “self” does not exist in absolutely any case, such a name (“sentient being”) would also not exist; (b) “this name is not something possessed by a self,” because the referent of the verbal expression “self” ‍—i.e., the constituents (skandhas) and so on‍—is what is possessed by a self, but that (referent of the name “sentient being”) is also absent; and (c) “this name is not characterized by a self” because‍—insofar as a name is an identification and what is characterized by a “self” is what is identified‍—that (which is characterized by the word “sentient being”) is absent. RK: ātmasambandhād apy ātmeti kiñcid ucyate| tad api nāsty ātmano ’tyantam asattvād ity anātmīyam| athavā ātma­prajñaptiviṣayaḥ skandhādir ātmīyas tasyāpy abhāvād anātmīyam| athavā nāma saṃjñā tasyātmīyaḥ saṃjñī| tadabhāvād anātmīyam.

249. According to Ratnākara (F.62.b), “sense object” (anārambaṇam) means perceived object (viṣaya). Since a perceived object is absent, it is “lacking any sense object.” RK: ārambaṇaṃ viṣayas tadabhāvāt ānārambaṇam.

250. According to Ratnākara (F.62.a), he asks this in reference to the Buddha’s teaching so that he can then prove the absence of identity based also on the words of an authority. RK: atre ti śāstṛśāsane| etac cāptavacanād api nairātmyasiddhiṃ darśayitum āha.

251. According to Ratnākara (F.62.a), in this sentence, the “infinitude” is because they are beyond quantification. But “no sentient beings” are made to appear, because, when the lack of identity is proved through inference, self is also disproven based on these words of an authoritative person. To show this, he next says “suppose…” RK: kā satvānantate ti| gaṇanāti­krāntatvena na kācit, pramāṇasiddhe ’pi nairātmye āptavacanād api nātmasiddhir iti darśayitum āha| sacet yādi.

252. According to Ratnākara (F.62.b), “primordially pure” means nonexistent from the very beginning; “primordially absolutely pure” means nonexistent in every case. RK: ādiśuddhatvam ādita evāsattvam, pariśuddhatvaṃ sarvatrāsattvam.

253. According to Ratnākara (F.62.b), “by way of the infinitude of sentient beings” means because sentient beings lack the extremes of arising and ceasing. The infinitude is “for this very reason,” meaning it is not because sentient beings are beyond counting (as seemed to be suggested in the statements and questions above). RK: evaṃ sattvānantaye ti| satvānām utpāda­nirodhānta­virahāt sattvānantataye ti| evaṃ ce ty evam eva| na gaṇānati­krāntatveneti.

254. According to Ratnākara (F.63.a), in these three short exclamations, the word dharma has different meanings. The first dharma refers to the Dharma that is taught (by the Buddha). The second dharma refers to what is illuminated (by that teaching), i.e., the path of seeing (reality as it is). The third dharma refers to that very path of seeing, and the true nature (dharmatā), i.e., the original nature, of that path of insight, which is what gives rise to a tathāgata. RK: aho ityāścarye| dharma iti deśanādharmaḥ| punaḥ dharma iti dharmaprakāśito darśanamārgaḥ| tasyaiva dharmasya dharmatā prakṛtis tathāgatotpādanam.

255. Ratnakāra here (F.63.a) includes an interesting gloss on the term tathāgata‍—usually said to be one who has realized (āgata or gata) the actual nature (tathā)‍—saying that one becomes a tathāgata because of clarifying the actual way things are. Here, the syllable ta (in gata) is based on creative etymology from the verb √gad (to “articulate” or “enumerate”) as in verbs such as √pac. RK (F.63.a): yathā dharmās tathaiva gadanāt tathāgataḥ| gadeḥ pacādyac| nairuktas takāraḥ.

256. Here, Ratnākara (F.64.a) clarifies that “complete knowing” refers to the “complete knowing of all things.” RK: … sarvajñatāyāḥ sarvākārajñatāyā ity arthaḥ.

257. The beginning of this chapter corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 17 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 26 in the Eighteen Thousand. As the chapter continues, it also includes content corresponding to Chapters 18–21 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapters 27–30 in the Eighteen Thousand, starting respectively at the points below marked by the annotations n.269, n.302, n.309, and n.316.

258. The title term guṇa (Tib. yon tan) often refers, in general Sanskrit, to personal “positive qualities” or a thing’s “virtues” or even “merits,” but, in Buddhist Sanskrit, it also means “benefits” or “advantages.” Since the term guṇa is translated either as “positive qualities” or “benefits” according to context, it may be helpful to keep this double meaning in mind while reading this chapter and the next one, because neither the text itself nor the two commentators ever see any need to explain how the various qualities, benefits, and degrees of merit that result from paying tribute and so on‍—which are described at length in this chapter and the next‍—are implicitly linked to each other and this chapter title. For instance, Ratnākara (F.64.b) simply states at the start of this chapter that it correlates to verse 2.13c in the Ornament: “benevolence and so on”‍—i.e., the four immeasurable states, namely benevolence, compassion, rejoicing, and equanimity. RK: ’maitryādi’ iti śāstram| maitrī­karuṇāmuditopekṣāś catvāryapramāṇāni maitryādi. Also, as will be clear in notes below, Hari (188) also connects the “immeasurable (aprameya) benefits” (which come from lacking faults) directly with “the four immeasurable states” (apramāṇa).

259. Ratnākara and Hari contextualize this passage in the eighth of the sixteen moments of the path of insight (darśanamārga). According to Hari (187), to demonstrate the appearance of the fourth moment of (insight into) the origin (i.e., the fourth of the second set of four moments when realizing the second noble truth) as something experienced personally, the Blessed One made some of the gods of the desire realm and so on bear witness and addressed some others. Hari: samudaye caturthakṣaṇākāraṃ pratipādayituṃ pratyātmavedyatvena kāṃścit kāmāvacārādīn devaputrān sākṣiṇaḥ kṛtvā kāṃścid āmantritavān. According to Ratnākara (F.64.b), this very moment that is making them experience personally is aimed at causing the gods greater devotion as an antidote to their potentially falling into the disciples’ path (perspectives) in the eighth moment (of insight). Ratnākara (F.64.b): sākṣīkaraṇam aṣṭame kṣaṇe hīna­yāna­patana­prati­pakṣa­gauravātiśayotpādanāya tam eva kṣaṇam.

260. According to Ratnākara (F.64.b), the transcendent state of wisdom here refers to the moment of seeing due to the Blessed One’s introduction. This moment is called “transcendent state of wisdom” in the sense that it has arrived at the “other shore” (pāraṃitā<pāraṃgatā) that is the wisdom (prājñā) itself, i.e., the perfection is wisdom. What is it the other shore of? The ground from which there is (still the possibility of) falling into the disciples’ path. What is that wisdom? It is that seeing which consists in the four immeasurables. To explain, once bodhisattvas have attained that seeing, they see all beings as equal to themselves. Having benefited those lacking refuge, they must avoid falling at this point into the disciples’ path in which the benefit is only for one’s own self. Thus, the “transcendent state of wisdom” refers here to the insight whose nature is loving kindness, and so on. And, it is precisely the eighth moment. A bodhisattva “takes it in” through “mastering it” because of directly witnessing that transcendent state of wisdom. A bodhisattva “passes it on” because of it being illuminated to others who take it in themselves. RK: yo hīt yādinā prajñāpāramitām iti prakaraṇād darśanakṣaṇaḥ| prajñā saiva pāraṃgate ti pāramitā | kasya pāram ? hīnayāna­patanabhūmeḥ| kā cāsau ? yā catur(rṇāṃ) apramāṇātmakaṃ darśanam| tathāhi tatprāpto bodhisattvaḥ sarvasattveṣv ātmasamatādarśī tān aśaraṇān hitvā nātmanaḥ kevalasya hitam īha te yena hīnayāne nipatet| tasmān maitryādirūpaṃ darśanam atra prajñāpāramitā | saiva cāṣṭamaḥ kṣaṇaḥ| tāṃ yaḥ kaścid grahīṣyati yāvat paryavāpsyati sākṣātkaraṇāt| pravartayiṣyatī ti parebhyaḥ prakāśitāyās tasyās tair udgrahaṇāt.

261. According to Hari (188), “Māra” here refers to the god Māra who (among the four types of Māras) is a god of desire. “His demon cohort” are the gods who are part of his faction. They “prey on weakness” because they see what weaknesses arise, and they “seek ways to attack” because they always look for future opportunities to attack. The word avatāra‍—which is translated differently each of the three times it occurs in this sentence‍—means “faults,” or, more precisely, “weaknesses” or “vulnerable points” (that can be attacked). Hari: tatra māro devaputramāraḥ kāmadevaḥ. tatpākṣikā devaputrā mārakāyikā devatāḥ. samutpannāva­tāra­darśanād avatāraprekṣiṇyaḥ. anāgatāvatāra­paryeṣaṇād avatāragaveṣiṇyaḥ. avatāro doṣaś chidram iti yāvat.

262. According to Hari (188), the phrase “die on account of failing to avoid some cause of an untimely death” means to die, somehow, due to the coming together of circumstances, even though one’s natural lifespan (āyus) has not run out. The idea behind all these cases is that they never occur because his or her mindstream is utterly suffused with (the presence of the four immeasurables, namely) loving kindness, and so on. Hari: vidyamāne ’py āyuṣi kathaṃcit pratyayasāṃnidhyān maraṇaṃ viṣaṃāparihāreṇa kālakriyā. sarvaṃ caitan na bhavati. maitryādibhiḥ suparibhāvita­citta­saṃtatitvād iti matiḥ. For a gloss of this phrase, see Ratnākara (F.72.a); RK: viṣamo mṛtyuhetuḥ| tasyāparihāro viṣamāparihāraḥ.

263. Ratnākara explains two possible interpretations of the Sanskrit compound of three words that describe what the Great Kings promise to provide. Since the Tibetan also follows the second interpretation, the translation here does likewise. According to Ratnākara (F.65.a), in the first interpretation, they will “provide the protection” associated with “safeguarding” and “defending.” Among those, “safeguarding” means with weapons (such as swords, amulets) and so on, “defending” means by making efforts to guard him or her, and “protection” arises from their supernatural control over that person when someone spontaneously attacks. In the second interpretation, they will “safeguard” by providing all sorts of physical well-being, “defend” by warding off external attacks, and “protect” by preventing internal diseases and so on. RK: rakṣāvaraṇa sahitā guptiḥ| tatra śastrādinā rakṣā| rakṣaniyogād āvaraṇam| svayam upasaṁkramya tasyādhiṣṭhānāt guptiḥ| athavā śarīrasya sarvasukhopasaṃharaṇaṁ rakṣā| bāhyopakramanivāraṇam āvaraṇam| ādhyātmikarogādinivāraṇaṁ guptiḥ. Cf. MW rakṣā, “amulet.” For yet another way of understanding the three words in the compound, see also DOP p. 57, gutti, which cites rakkhāvaraṇaguttin ti rakkhāsaṃkhata c’eva āvaraṇasaṃkhata ca guttim. Also, for saṃvidhā, see PTSD saṅvidahati.

264. According to Ratnākara (F.65.b), the word “attack” means by chastising, “deny” means by quarreling, and “dispute” means with mutual hatred. RK: vigrahītavyaṃ tāḍanena| vivaditavyaṃ kalahena| virodhayitavyaṃ parasparadveṣeṇa| te ’bhiprāyā iti vigrahādyabhiprāyāḥ. The Tibetan translation rtsod par ’dod pa dang rgol bar ’dod pa dang ’gal bar has a slightly different flavor, but Ratnākara’s commentary was followed here.

265. Ratnākara: balādhānene ti tadyogena sāmarthyādhānāt.

266. The words “desire and so on” (rāgādi) refer to the Abhidharma list of so-called root afflictions (rtsa nyon drug), namely, attachment, anger, pride, ignorance, wrong views, and doubt.

267. According to Ratnākara (F.66.a), “to speak” means to instruct others in the transcendent state of wisdom and so on, and “agreeably” means in a way that is acceptable (to listeners) because one has been in their place oneself too. The word “gently” means kindly, because one speaks politely to them and out of generosity and so on. To speak “fittingly” is by saying what will only be of benefit. To speak “coherently” is by not speaking with a mixture of unbeneficial things in addition to beneficial ones. RK: prajñāpāramitādīnāṁ parebhya upadeśo vacanam| ādeyaṁ grāhyam| tadasya, svayam api teṣu sthitatvād ity ādeyavacanaḥ| mṛdu priyaṁ vacanam asyeti mṛduvacanaḥ| dānādīnāṃ teṣu ca sthitānāṃ varṇabhāṣaṇāt| mitavacano hitasyaiva vacanāt| aprakīrṇavacano hitasyāpy ahitamiśrasyāvacanāt.

268. According to Ratnākara (F.66.a), it “tames” by neutralizing anger. It “transforms” by destroying the egoic mind characterized by arrogance. RK: paridamayati krodhāsaṃśamanāt| pariṇāmayati unnatilakṣaṇasya mānasya kṣayanayanāt. Note: There is a slight play on the Sanskrit word pariṇāmayati, which is used here to mean “transforms” but will be later used in this passage to mean “dedicates.”

269. This point in the chapter corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 18 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 27 in the Eighteen Thousand.

270. The verb “mounted” (samārūḍhaḥ) could mean on a horse or a chariot‍—it seems to have been elided in the Tibetan translation.

271. Here begins a play on the word vidyā, which means both “knowledge” and “magical incantation” (vidyā; rig sngags), i.e., a particular type of knowledge. According to Ratnākara (F.67.a), the transcendent state of wisdom as a vidyā is “great” because its power is unobstructed in all times, in all places, and against all counterproductive forces, respectively. Cf. RK: tatkasya hetor iti tad apatanaṃ kutaḥ ? uttaraṃ mahāvidye tyādinā| sarvakālaṃ sarvatra deśe sarvavipakṣeṣu vāpratihataprabhāvatvād yathākramaṃ mahatī.

272. According to Ratnākara (F.67.a), he or she “gazes at” the mindsets of sentient beings in order to tame them and so on. RK: vyavalokayiṣyatī ti vinayanādyartham.

273. According to Ratnākara (F.67.a), “why is that” means why is that a knowing of someone who has complete knowing? RK: tatkasya hetor iti tat sarvajñajñānaṃ kutaḥ?

274. The phrase “this knowledge as a magical incantation” translates the single word vidyā in order to capture the meaningful word play in which the word vidyā can be understood as referring to both its more general and limited meanings. According to Ratnākara (F.67.b), the logic of the three descriptions in this sentence is this: All the qualities of a buddha are to be attained, and these must be known reflexively (pratyātmavedya). For that reason, if a bodhisattva were not to attain those, then he or she would not become knower of everything. So it says “nothing that a bodhisattva will not come to attain.” And for that reason, a knower of everything knows everything to be attained and anything else. So there would also be nothing that he or she does not “come to know.” Since this includes here the most excellent actualized knowing, he also says there is nothing that a bodhisattva does not “come to actualize.” Thus, the word “or” here has the sense of interrelated options (that express three different aspects of the attainment of complete knowing). RK: na tat kiñcid asti yan na prāptam iti| sarve hi buddhadharmāḥ prāptavyāḥ| te ca pratyātmavedyāḥ| tato yady anena prāptā na syur nāyaṃ sarvavid bhavet| tasmān na tat kiñcid asti yad asya na prāptaṃ syāt| tataḥ prāpyam itarac ca sarvaṃ jānātīti na tat kiñcid asti yad asya na jñātaṃ syāt| prakarṣagataṃ ca sākṣātkārijñānam iha gṛhyate| tata āha| na kiñcid asti yad asākṣātkṛtaṃ syāt ? iti vā śabdāḥ parasparāpekṣayā vikalpārthāḥ.

275. The term non-human (amanuṣya) means not human, and includes here demons, ghosts, gods, benevolent spirits, and malevolent spirits.

276. According to Ratnākara (F.68.a), “freedom from anxiety, hatred, and fear” refers to a single immeasurable quality possessed by those who have great loving kindness. That the buddhas “nurture” them means they produce them. They “manifest” them because Māra and his army approach as obstacles. RK: abhayam avairam anuttrāsaṃ mahāmaitrīnām ekam apramāṇam| prabhāvayantī ti niṣpādayanti prakāśayantī ti sasainyasya mārasya vighnato pi kramaṇāt.

277. According to Ratnākara (F.68.a), “in effect” means that it is similar to a stūpa, which “should be tended to” because it is worthy of (being venerated with activities such as) the removal of left-over devotional offerings (nirmālya) and so on. RK: tadbhūtas tattādṛśaḥ| nirmālyāder akarṣārhatvāt| apacāyanīyaḥ.

278. According to Ratnākara (F.69.a), “write down” is done by himself and “make into a book” is done by someone else. The word “heavenly” means superior, because it excludes (inferior) rapidly deteriorating flowers and so on. “Flowers” means those with open blossoms; “wreaths” here are garlands of flowers; “perfumes” means scented woods; “fragrant oils” means made from the tamāla tree (whose fruit is used for marking the forehead). The “aromatic powders” are agarwood, sandalwood, and so on; “fabrics” means cloth; “devotional offerings” means food and so on; and a “wide variety” means from the different types of food, drinks, and so on. One should connect the verb “pay tribute” with the “flowers” and so on‍—it means one should make devotional offerings to venerate it. “Revere” means with devotion; “respect” means with affection; “venerate” means with hands reverently folded in añjalī, verses of praise, and so on; “honor” means circling it clockwise; and “tend to” means removing leftover devotional offerings. RK: likhitve ti svayam| pustakagatāṃ vā kṛtve ti pareṇa| divyābhir iti viśiṣṭābhiḥ| javā[bhisa]ktapuṣpādi­varjanāt| puṣpā ṇi muktakusumāni| mālyā ni srajaḥ| gandhā gandha dārūṇi| vilepanā ni sa (ta)māla bhavāni| cūrṇā agarucandanādīnām| cīvarā ṇi vastrāṇi| pūjā bhir iti nivedyādibhiḥ| bahuvidhā bhir iti bhakṣyalehyādibhedāt| puṣpādibhiḥ satkuryād iti sambandhaḥ, pūjayed ity arthaḥ| gurukuryād iti gauraveṇa| mānayed iti premnā(mṇā)| pūjayed iti praṇāmāñjali­stutyādibhiḥ| arcayed iti dakṣiṇāvartaiḥ| apacāyed iti nirmālyādyapanayanaiḥ.

279. This section of the chapter involves a play on the multivalent Sanskrit word śarīra (translated here as “body” or “physical relic”) and its synonym ātmabhāva (translated here as “physical body” or adjectivally “own unique physical”). According to Hari (209), here “the physical body of the state of complete knowing manifested” means the produced bodily nature that is appropriate for the realization of the state of complete knowing. Hari: sarva­jñatātmabhāvo ’bhinirvartāta iti sarva­jñajñānādhigama­yogyaśarīra­svabhāvo niṣpāditaḥ. According to Ratnākara (F.69.a), that “physical body” that is “manifested” is nothing but “the state of complete knowing.” Cf. RK: yo ’yaṃ sarvajñatātmabhāva iti sarvajñata ivātmabhāvaḥ, sa nirvartitaḥ.

280. Hari and Ratnākara explain the following passages differently, because of their disagreement about the fundamental relationship between the transcendent state of wisdom, the state of complete knowing, and a buddha who has complete knowing, as mentioned previously in the notes to chapter 1.

281. According to Ratnākara, the term “own unique physical body” (ātmabhāva) is used because it is designated as self, and as a “body” refers to his body with physical form (rūpakāya). Cf. RK: ātmabhāvaś cāsau ātmaprajñapteḥ śarīraṃ ca rūpakāyas.

282. According to Hari (211), “this” refers to “the obtaining of his own physical body.” The word “revealed” means explained (by the Buddha). Here, “buddha” refers to that whose nature is the body with physical form (rūpakāya) and so on. Hari: enam ity ātma­bhāva­śarīra­pratilambham. prabhāvane ti prakāśanā. buddho rūpakāyādisvabhāvaḥ. According to Ratnākara (F.69.b), the four being “revealed” means they are ascertained in the world. RK: loke pratītiḥ prabhāvanā.

283. According to Ratnākara (F.69.b), in this context the first set of activities from “write” it to “master” it are for one’s own benefit. The activities that follow are for the benefit of others. Among those benefiting others, “pass it on” is the overview. The next three verbs flush out the overview: “teach” according to its meaning; “expound it,” which means give detailed instructions; “explain” based on the text; and “recite,” which means the repeated practice of reciting. RK: likhiṣyanti yāvat paryavāpsyantī ti svārthaḥ| tata ūrdhva parārthaḥ| tatra pravartayiṣyantī ty uddeśaḥ| tribhir nirdeśaḥ| deśayiṣyantī ty arthataḥ| upadekṣyantī tity avadiṣyanti| uddekṣyantī ti granthataḥ| svādhyāsyantī ti svādhyāyam ity abhyāsaḥ.

284. According to Ratnākara (F.69.b), “not be aware” means they do not hear of it through words; “not know” means they do not come across a book; and “not be made to know” means they do not make themselves aware of the meaning. The words “or if” indicate a different angle on his question. RK: na jñāsyantīti na śroṣyanti śabdataḥ| na vetsyantī ti pustakaṃ na lapsyante| na vedayiṣyantī ti vedanaṃ vedaḥ arthajñānam| tat karotīti ṇic| arthaṃ na jñāsyantīty arthaḥ| ute ti prakārāntaram. Note: This reading follows the Skt. and Ratnākara’s comments, not the Tibetan, in which the differences between the parts of the question are not brought out.

285. According to Ratnākara (F.69.b), the phrase “knowledge-based” here means based on having understood the four noble truths by means of their spiritual knowing. The words “clear trust” refer to the mental factor due to which the mind is made absolutely free of dirt, like water made free of dirt by a jewel that clarifies (prasāda) the water. RK: avetye ti lokottareṇa jñānena satyān jñātvā| prasādaḥ cittagato dharmaḥ| yena cittam atyantam akaluṣīkriyate| udakam iva dakaprasādena maṇinā. Cf DOP p. 259, avetyaprasādena, “trust founded on knowledge,” “intelligent trust”‍—citing almost verbatim this quote from Pali sources. Cf. PTSD avecca, “certainly”; -pasādo, “perfect faith.” Saṃyuttanikāya 229 (yo ariyasaccāni avecca passati).

286. According to Ratnākara (F.70.a), these are the four fruits (of the Disciple Vehicle): the first fruit is being the “stream enterer” is itself; the second and third fruit is being a “once-returner” and a “non-returner.” The fourth fruit is the state of a worthy one (arhat). RK: śrotasa āpattiḥ saiva phalam| sakṛdāgāmino ’nāgāminaś ca phalam| arhato bhāvo ’rhatvaṃ caturthaphalam.

287. According to Ratnākara (F.70.a), “heroic perseverance” means enthusiastic effort in virtuous deeds. RK: vīryaṃ kuśale karmaṇy utsāhaḥ.

288. According to Ratnākara (F.70.a), “weak-willed” means unsteady; “weak mindsets” means poor concentration; “faulty conceptions” means faulty mindfulness; “insufficient conviction” means little faith; and “inferior wisdom” means little investigation of reality. The feebleness of their (five) powers, such as faith and so on, is expressed by these words about their lackluster perseverance and so on. Among those, (a) “slothful, lackluster perseverance” pertains to their power of perseverance; (b) “weak mindsets” pertains to their the power of concentration; (c) “faulty conceptions” pertains to their power of mindfulness; (d) “insufficient conviction” pertains to their power of faith; and (e) “inferior wisdom” (hīnaprajñā) pertains to their power of wisdom. RK: sattvaṃ dhairyaḥ| cittaṃ samādhiḥ| saṃjñā smṛtiḥ| adhimuktiḥ śraddhā| tattvapravicayaḥ prajñā| śraddhādindriyāṇāṃ daurbalyaṃ hīnavīryādipadair ucyate| tatra hīnavīryaiḥ kusīdair iti viryendriyasya hīnasattvaiḥ| hīnacittair iti samādhīndriyasya| hīnasaṃjñair iti smṛtīndriyasya| hīnādhimuktikair iti śraddhendriyasya| hīnaprajñair iti prajñendriyasya.

289. According to Ratnākara (F.69.b), he or she “constantly” listens and so on, and fully pursues questions in order to cut through doubts. RK: abhīkṣṇaṃ śravaṇādi paripraśnaś ca saṃśayacchedārthaḥ.

290. According to Ratnākara (F.69.b), the “seven precious substances” are gold, silver, beryl (vaiḍūrya), coral, emerald, red pearl, and white pearl. RK: saptaratnāni tadyathā suvarṇa rūpyaṃ vaiḍūrya musāragalvaṃ aśmagarbhaḥ lohitikā muktā karketanaṃ ca.

291. The description that follows in the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts is all included in one extremely long sentence that carries on for over one full folio. It has been broken into several sentences here for the sake of readability. A few transition words have been added to help get the sense across.

292. According to Ratnākara (F.76.a–b), one should “listen to it” based on the text and the meaning; “take it in” means repeat it; “keep it in mind” means make it stay in one’s heart; “chant” means read aloud; and “master” means completely understand. Up to here is taught for one’s own benefit. The words “pass it on” mean transmit it to others‍—this is the overview. The next three verbs are the detailed explanation of this: One should “teach” based on speaking about the text; “expound” based on the meaning; and “explain” means instruct. Up to here is taught for the benefit of others. Finally, “recite it” means repeat it more and more because it brings benefit to oneself again and again. RK: tena śṛṇuyād granthato ’rthataś ca| udgṛhṇīyād āvartayet| dhārayed iti hṛdaye sthāpayet| vācayet pāṭhayet| paryavāpnuyād iti sarvathā avagaccheta| iyatā svārtho uktaḥ| pravartayed iti pareṣu sañcārayet| ayam uddeśaḥ| paro nirdeśaḥ| deśayed granthato bhāṣaṇāt| upadiśed arthataḥ| uddiśed ity avavadet| iyato parārthaḥ| svādhyāyed iti sutarām abhyaset| punaḥ punaḥ svārthakaraṇāt. Ratnākara’s comments made later in the text, from the beginning of chapter 5 where these exact same terms are repeated (see 5.1; and notes n.360–n.363), have been copied here (into this note and the three that follow) in order to give readers some context for understanding the terminology here, since neither Hari nor Ratnākara comment on them specifically in this first occurrence of the passage.

293. According to Ratnākara’s creative etymologies annotated to the later parallel passage in chapter 5 (F.76.b, see 5.1; and n.361), “elucidate” (samprakāśayed) means consistently (sam-/santata) make clear (-prakāśayed) the transcendent state of wisdom based on the words in the text. The phrase “in detail” means doing so from multiple angles. The word “unpack” means expanding upon those words. The phrase “mentally investigate it” means one should learn it by heart, connect with it, and observe it, because these steps produce tranquility (śamatha). Next, one should “fully examine it,” because thinking analytically about it produces insight (vipāśyanā). Up to here, he explains what should be done. But if that is not possible, he explains another possibility, with the words “or…at the very least,” and so on. RK: parebhyaś ca samprakāśayed iti san tataṃ prakāśayed granthataḥ| vistareṇe ti bahubhyaḥ prakāśanāt| vivṛṇuyād iti vi stareṇeti vartate| manasā ’nvavekṣete ti cittenānubudhya saṃyojya paśyet| sa(śa)mathotpādanāt| parimīmāṃsām iti vicārāṇāṃ vipaśyanotpādanāt| iyatā caryoktā| asyā abhāve pakṣāntaram āha| pustake ty ādinā| ata eva antaśaḥ śabdaḥ.

294. According to Ratnākara (F.76.b, see n.362), one should “maintain” precisely this “book,” meaning that one should keep it from perishing (which in India would have been done with string and two slabs of wood to protect it). One should “preserve” this in one’s home and so on. RK: pustakagatām iti| mam eva dhārayed iti| avinaśvarī kuryāt| sthāpayed iti svagṛhādau.

295. According to Hari (218), the “guidance” refers to this very scripture that is the Mother Transcendent State of Wisdom and is the guidance of the buddhas. Since we cannot read, study, and so on without a book of the Transcendent State of Wisdom, he says may it “not be cut off.” Hari: mā buddhanetrī tyādi. buddhā nāṃ netrī nāyikā mātā prajñāpāramitaiva. asyāḥ pustakavaikalyena pāṭhasvādhyāyā dyasambhavāt samucchedo mā bhūt. According to Ratnākara (F.76.b–77.a, see n.363), the “buddhas” are the gurus of the world; we should show gratitude toward them. Their “guidance” is the wisdom that brings one to awakening. After wandering for three countless kalpas, they first developed it and then established it perfectly within their own tradition for the benefit of future beings. Since it has now reached us, we should not let “the buddhas’ guidance here be cut off”‍—meaning we should make sure it remains. To “provide assistance (anugrahopasaṃhāraḥ kṛta; phan gdags pa) to bodhisattva great beings” refers to what should be accomplished. And, it will be accomplished by “this guidance’s continued existence,” i.e., by its remaining in the world. RK: buddhāś ca lokaguravas teṣāṃ ca kṛtajñair asmābhir bhavitavyam| teṣām iyaṃ netrī bodheḥ prāpikā prajñā| tais trikalpāsaṃkhyeyā pariśrameṇotpādya samyag anāgatajanatārthāya svavaṃśe ’vasthāpitā| yāvad asmān upagatā| tato mā buddhanetrī samucchedo bhūd ity apīmāṃ sthāpayet|… bodhisattvānāṃ cānugrahopasaṃhāraḥ karaṇīyaḥ| sa ca kṛto bhaviṣyati| anayā sthāyitayā netryavaikalyena. Note: The Sanskrit word netrī means “guide rope” and can be translated more abstractly as “way” or even “guideline,” but it refers here more to the material teachings that help guide beings to awakening. Cf. DOP, Part II, pp. 639–640 s.v. netti.

296. According to Hari (218), “a clear mindset that trusts” is a mindset that is well disposed because one sees the goodness (in the transcendent state of wisdom). That he or she would “develop the mindset of awakening” means that they would produce the particular mindset based on the bodhisattva’s vow that causes complete, perfect awakening. Hari: prasannacitta iti bhadratādarśanād abhimukhacittaḥ. bodhāya cittam utpādye ty anuttara­samyak­sambodhi­nimittaṃ bodhi­sattva­saṃvaragrahaṇād viśiṣṭaṃ cittaṃ kṛtvā.

297. The Buddha’s comparison (between the benefits of venerating stūpas and the benefits of venerating the transcendent state of wisdom) repeats a number of times below with only slight variation before moving to a different topic. Although Conze paraphrases this passage and eliminates all repetitions, this repetition seems to be an integral part of the scripture and likely serves several purpose here, one of which seems aimed at helping readers exhaust their conceptual limits performatively.

298. This paragraph follows the Sanskrit and Tibetan description of the offerings, which differs slightly from the above, even though neither commentator mentions it. The Sanskrit edition is lacking this final sentence, which appears in the Tibetan and has been included here, since it matches previous passages above.

299. Neither Hari nor Ratnākara explains this particular sentence. But since they make comments in other contexts about the relationship between the transcendent state of wisdom and the knowing of someone who has complete knowing (as mentioned in n.112), we might refer to those here. According to Ratnākara’s general viewpoint, the transcendent state of wisdom and the knowing of someone who has complete knowing are not mainly synonyms but are related as a cause and effect. So, for Ratnākara, this passage would suggest, more straightforwardly, that one should venerate the cause (the transcendent state of wisdom) of the state of complete knowing (which as a tathāgata is already appreciated), more than its results (the physical relics left by the tathāgata). According to Hari’s comments on another passage (2011–12), Dignāga’s Pīṇḍārtha 1.1 says, “The transcendent state of wisdom is the Tathāgata, the nondual knowing.” According to this principle, the transcendent state of wisdom is mainly just the Tathāgata, the body of truth (dharmakāya). For this reason, the text says “more merit would be earned” because one would be venerating the body of truth (dharmakāya), which is the knowing of someone who has complete knowing, through venerating her (figurative quality) as the mother (of the buddhas), which sheds light on that (body of truth itself). But, in regard to venerating the Tathāgata through his reflection‍—i.e., his body with physical form (rūpakāya)‍—the text suggests that there is not much merit because of not grasping the body of truth as superior. Hari: prajñāpāramitā jñānam advayaṃ sā tathāgata ity nyāyān mukhyato dharmakāyas tathāgata eva prajñāpāramitā. atas tad dyotikāyā mātuḥ pūjayā sarvajñajñānasya dharmakāyasya pūjanād bahutaraṃ puṇyaṃ prasavati. rūpa­kāya­prati­bimba­tathāgatapūjāyāṃ tu prati­viśiṣṭa­dharma­kāyāsaṃgrahān nādhikaṃ puṇyam iti.

300. This passage was translated following Ratnākara’s multiple word glosses (F71.a–b) such as tulanāya na kṣamate. Cf. BHSD kṣamati.

301. According to Ratnākara, “ ‘Lord’ (marṣa) is a form of address whose meaning is ‘noble one.’ ” RK: mārṣe ti āmantraṇam| āry etyarthaḥ.

302. This point in the chapter corresponds (more or less) to the beginning of Chapter 19 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 28 in the Eighteen Thousand.

303. In contrast to the Sanskrit text as translated here, following Vaidya’s edition and some others, the Tibetan has negatives (byang chub kyi yan lag dang mi ldan pa’i, “not conducive to awakening” or “not governed by the factors of awakening”) for this and the sets of factors that follow, and conforms to the Sanskrit of Mitra’s and Wogihara’s root texts which read bodhyaṅga-viprayuktāni here in place of bodhyaṅga-samprayuktāni as in the preceding passage (n.302).

304. The interpretation of this analogy (also to be found in the long sūtras, e.g. the Twenty-Five Thousand at 19.14) is somewhat difficult. Hari suggests that oṣadhītārāḥ can be understood as a dvandvā (like the Tibetan sman dang skar ma) or a karmadhāraya compound. We have followed the Tibetan but it is worth noting that Hari (75) takes oṣadhi to refer to annual plants (not necessarily medicinal) and tārā to refer to the two auspicious planets (not necessarily stars). Hari: oṣadhītārā iti oṣadhyaś ca vrīhyādayaḥ, tārāś ca śukrabṛhaspatiprabhṛtaya iti tathoktāḥ. osadhya eva vā kāścin niśi tārā ivāvabhāsamānās tathocyante. tāsāṃ candraraśmibhir āpyāyanāt kāyaparipuṣṭiḥ prabhāvātiśayaś cotpadyata iti yathākramam āha : yathābalaṃ yathāsthāmam iti. akārānto ’pi auṇādikaḥ sthāmaśabdo grāhyaḥ. avabhāsayantīti svabhāvaṃ daṛśayanti. nakṣatrāṇi ceti puṣyādayaḥ. See MW oṣadhī; PTSD osadhi, osadhitārakā. BHSD oṣadhi. Wogihara’s root text reads oṣadhītārā, whereas Vaidya reads oṣadhīḥ tārā. According to Bill Mak (email communication June 9, 2020), ancient Indians saw the brilliance of the sun and the moon as literally taking away the brilliance of the stars and lunar mansions. Also, in popular Indian literature, medicinal plants are said to be nourished by the light of the moon (a.k.a. oṣadhipati), which they absorb. These plants are then thought to shimmer in a star-like way that can be seen only when the moon disappears.

305. According to Ratnākara (F.72.a), the (genuine) Dharma here means nirvāṇa, since it is the most sublime Dharma. That very Dharma is impartiality because the three vehicles maintain it. That very Dharma is peace because it pacifies the emotional defilements. The “ways of life” are aimed at each of those qualities. “Virtuous ways of life” means behaving in wholesome ways. RK: dharmo nirvāṇaṃ sarva­dharmotkṛṣṭatvāt| sa eva samaḥ yānatrayasya dhāraṇatvāt| sa eva sa (śa)maḥ kleśaduḥkhopasa(śa)matvāt| tasmai caryā| kuśalaṃ sucaritaṃ tasya caryā.

306. According to Ratnākara (F.72.a), “punishment” includes penitent fasting and so on. RK: daṇḍa upavāsanādiḥ.

307. The Sanskrit term parigṛhīta has been translated consistently as “supported by” so that readers will be able to track the same term as it used in slightly different ways throughout the scripture. One should understand “supported by” here to imply that a bodhisattva is “shielded” from harm by the transcendent state of wisdom.

308. According to Ratnākara (F.72.a), its quality of supporting “attends” to those beings, because being that way is its inherent nature. RK: parigṛhītatvaṃ pratyupasthite ti| tatsvabhāvena tathābhāvāt. According to Hari (239), the term “transcendent state of wisdom” refers here to a bodhisattva cultivating it, because the context here is an explanation of the benefits that belong only to bodhisattvas. The word “benevolence” means something to be shown by a friend. “Offering” that means exhibiting that. Since that offering would be illusory and so on, he says “in the form of a benevolent mindset,” which basically means in the form of a mindset aimed at benefiting them. The “compassion” toward someone merely deserving to be shown compassion is based on a figurative usage of that term. “Offering” it means being moved in that direction. Since that also could involve a different motive, he says “in the form of a compassionate mindset” means in the form of a mindset aimed at removing suffering.

309. This point in the chapter corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 20 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 29 in the Eighteen Thousand.

310. Ratnākara (F.72.a) specifies that (as usual in sūtra narrative) their military arrays had four divisions: elephant corps, cavalry, infantry, and chariot corps. RK: balakāyo balasamūhaḥ| tasya catvāry aṅgāni gajavājipattirathāḥ.

311. These names reference four kingdoms during the time of the Buddha. As Ratnākara (F.72.a) states, Bimbisāra was ruler of Magadha. Prasenajit was sovereign of Śrāvastī. “Śākyas” refers to the ruling warriors born from the Śākya clan (into which Siddhārtha Gautama was born). The Licchavis governed Vaiśālī. RK: bimbisāro magadhādhipaḥ| prasenajit srāvastīpatiḥ| śākyāḥ śākyakulajāḥ kṣatriyāḥ| licchavayo vaiśālakāḥ.

312. The māndārava flower (which can also be spelled other ways, e.g. mandārava, etc.) is a type of heavenly flower rained down on the Buddha as tribute.

313. There may be a slight play here on the Sanskrit word tathatvam, a synonym of tathatā. In Sanskrit, the syntax can be taken to mean either that they train and so on “to be in accord with” the transcendent state of wisdom, or that they train and so on “to attain the actual nature” (tathatvāya; de bzhin nyid du), i.e., the true nature (tathatā) (of things). According to Ratnākara (F.72.b), the “actual nature” is the nature of the way that the transcendent state of wisdom is. RK: yathā prajñāpāramitā tathābhāvaṃ tathātvam. Note: tathatvam and tathātvam are variant spellings in Buddhist Sanskrit.

314. According Hari (245), “closely attended” means by donating to the tathāgatas’ retinues, by listening to what they taught, and through offerings to venerate them. (Hari also comments on why the Sanskrit compound word should be understood the way it is translated above). Hari: tathāgataparyupāsitā iti tāthāgatāḥ parivārapradānena taduktaśravaṇena ca pūjādibhiś ca paryupāsitā yais te tathoktāḥ. niṣṭhāntaṃ pūrvaṃ nipatatīti vyabhicāralakṣaṇatvāt paryupāsita śabdasya na pūrva nipātaḥ.

315. According to Ratnākara (F.72.b), in this analogy here the transcendent state of wisdom itself is the “ocean.” RK: prajñāpāramita iva mahāsamudraḥ.

316. This point in the chapter corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 21 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 30 in the Eighteen Thousand.

317. According to Ratnākara (F.72), one can understand the Sanskrit here to mean he speaks its “praises” or speaks of its “positive qualities.” RK: varṇaḥ stotraṃ guṇā vā.

318. According to Hari (247), the Blessed One praises “the positive qualities of the transcendent state of wisdom and mentions its name,” because it “takes the fore over the other transcendent states” such as generosity, insofar as the dedication of these five transcendent states to the state of complete knowing happens at the beginning (of practicing these five) through the purity of the three applications (i.e., through the transcendent state of wisdom seeing the emptiness of any giver, gift, or recipient, etc.). Hari: prajñāpāramitā hī tyādi. yasmāt trimaṇḍala­viśuddhyā dānādīnāṃ sarvajñatāyāṃ pariṇāmenādau pravṛttatvāt pūrvaṃgamā tasmāt tadvarṇaṃ bhāṣe nāmadheyaṃ ca parikīrtayāmī ti pūrveṇa sambandhaḥ.

319. According to Hari (247), to the phrase “if generosity were not dedicated to the state of complete knowing” one should add the phrase “by the transcendent state of wisdom” and understand it to mean “if generosity were not given, in a manner free of mental perception (of giver, gift or recipient), for the purpose of buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings.” Hari: apariṇāmitaṃ dānaṃ sarvajñatāyām iti anupalambhayogena sarvasattvārthaṃ buddhatvāyāniryātitaṃ, prajñāpāramitayeti śeṣaḥ.

320. According to Ratnākara (F.72.b), the transcendent state of wisdom is a perfection because it alone is transcendently perfect. The others are transcendent states because they are dedicated by that very wisdom to the state of complete knowing. RK: prajñāpāramitā hi svayem eva paramatvāt pāramitā, itarās tayaiva sarvajñatāyāṃ pariṇāmitatvena.

321. According to Hari (249), “leader” here is due to leading generosity and so on to buddhahood, and “guide” because it drives away all sudden attacks or occurrences. Hari: dānādīnāṃ buddhatve nayanān nāyikā. sarvopadravanirākaraṇāt pariṇāyikā. According to Ratnākara (F.72.b), a “leader” here is someone who draws others in his or her direction; a “guide” is someone who fosters growth in others (like a mother). RK: nāyike ti saṃgrāhikā| pariṇāyike ti saṃvardhikā.

322. We have followed the Tibetan, which has taken some license to add reasons to the Sanskrit here, but shifted them slightly to capture the analogy and the Sanskrit. wording. The Sanskrit (Vaidya 40–41) reads tadyathāpi nāma ānanda mahāpṛthivyāṃ bījāni prakīrṇāni sāmagrīṃ labhamānāni virohanti| mahāpṛthivī ca teṣāṃ bījānāṃ pratiṣṭhā| mahāpṛthivī­pratiṣṭhitāni ca tāni bījāni virohantihere. The Tibetan reads kun dga’ bo ’di lta ste dper na sa chen po la sa bon btab pa tshogs pa dang phrad na skye bar ’gyur te | sa chen po ni sa bon de dag gi gzhi yin pas sa chen po la brten nas sa bon de dag skye bar ’gyur ro.

323. Here, we should understand the analogy as follows: (1) The five seeds are dāna, etc.; (2) the transcendent state of wisdom governs those seeds being able to grow, i.e., governs their being transcendent states. (3) The six transcendent states, even when full-grown, are founded upon the earth. (4) The transcendent state of wisdom is the name of all conditions being fulfilled.

324. According to Hari (250), the idea here is that these are not all the qualities of the whole mother transcendent state of wisdom, because of the absolute abundance of qualities that she possesses. RK: na tāvad ime bhagavann ity ādi. prajñāpāramitāyāḥ sarve guṇā iti samastāyā mātur amī sarve guṇā na bhavanti tasyā guṇātyantaprācuryād iti matiḥ.

325. According to Hari (250), he explains here what other qualities the transcendent state of wisdom has. The “limited amount” of her that has been “taken in” by me here directly from the Blessed One has already been “passed on” to those non-Buddhist wandering ascetics who were caused by it to turn back just a moment ago‍—meaning that she has these qualities (in addition to those already mentioned by the Blessed One). Hari: kasyās tarhy amī guṇā ity āha: atha hi maye tyādi. bhagavato ’ntikād asyā yaḥ pradeśo mayodgṛhītaḥ sa cānantaram evānyatīrthyādi­nirākṛtau pravartitas, tasyā amī guṇā ity arthaḥ.

326. Accoding to Hari (252), “to arouse bold illumination” means to cause free and coherent expression. Hari: pratibhānam upasaṃhartavyam iti yukta­muktābhidhānam utpādayitavyaṃ. chanda iti vaktukāmatā. See also n.84.

327. The italicized comment “repeat the above refrain for this and the following” (peyālam) is a translation of what appears in the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts themselves. According to BHSD peyāla, the scribes used this abbreviation to avoid rewriting the refrain, but this comment often implies that the full text is to be recited.

328. According to the Hari (260), “that location” refers to the house, monastic residence, or palace (mentioned just above). Hari: tatra gṛhādāv.

329. According to the Hari (260), “smells an otherworldly scent” means he senses through his nasal consciousness a particular scent, which surpasses any in the human world. Hari: amānuṣaṃ gandhaṃ ghrāsyatī ti manuṣyalokāti­krāntaṃ viśiṣṭaṃ gandhaṃ ghrāṇa­vijñānenānu­bhaviṣyati.

330. According to Hari (260), “pure” in terms of internal purity due to not doing anything evil; “clean” in terms of external purity due to wearing clean clothes and so on. Hari: sarva­pāpākaraṇād adhyātmaśuddhyā caukṣasamudācāraḥ. vivikta­vastrādyupabhogena bāhyapariśuddhyā śucisamudācāra ḥ. According to Ratnākara (F.72.a), here “pure” is due to lacking impurity; “clean” is due to its association with flower offerings and so on. RK: aśucyabhāvāt caukṣaḥ| puṣpādiyogāt śuciḥ.

331. According to Hari (261), “increasingly trusting” means increasingly faithful due to seeing it with complete deep belief. Hari: prasādabahula ity abhisam­pratyaya­darśanād abhivardhamāna­śraddhaḥ.

332. Here, the phrase “this Dharma guide” refers to the transcendent state of wisdom in written form, which has been passed on to beings so that they can be brought to the state of complete knowing. Since neither Hari nor Ratnākara comments on the second clause of this sentence, the English translation has followed the Tibetan interpretation of the ambiguous Sanskrit compound gurugauravatāparipūri. But it may be worth pointing out that this phrase could also be translated “because of being filled with respect for its importance” or perhaps, in a different context, “out of fulfilling one’s devotion to it as the guru.”

333. According to Hari (262), no “physical exhaustion” means no fatigue due to travel and so on; no “mental exhaustion” means no fatigue due to a lack of alms-offerings and so on. Hari: kāyaklamatha iti deśāntaragamanādinā na kāyakhedaḥ. na cittaklamatha iti piṇḍapātādivaikalyān na cittakhedaḥ. According to Ratnākara (F.72.a), “exhaustion” here means affliction. RK: klamathaḥ pīḍā.

334. The Tibetan has not been precisely followed here, since it seems slightly corrupt and does not record the Sanskrit’s second ca. Tib. lus kyi nang du mdangs rab tu bcug zas shin tu bde ba myong bar ’gyur. Cf. MW prakṣepa, “adding to,” “increasing”; laghu, “in good health.” Conze’s interpretation of ojaḥprakṣiptaṃ ca kayaṃ sukham ca pratisaṃvedayati, laghu laghu ca pratisaṃvedayati is “when food is thrown into it, the body will still feel at ease and exceedingly light.” According to Schopen 1977 on Conze (pp. 149–50), there is a note on ojas (p. 29, n.2) in Jean Filliozat, Etude de démonologie indienne. Le Kumâratantra de Râvana et les textes parallèles indiens, tibétains, chinois, cambodgiens et arabes. Paris: Cahiers de la Société Asiatique IV, 1937.

335. According to Ratnākara (F.72.a), “thinking of food” means bringing it to mind. RK: saṃjñā smṛti.

336. Schopen, in his article on Conze (Schopen 1977, pp. 148–49), argues, in essence, that upasaṃhartavyaṃ is a corruption of an idea from the earlier tradition, in which the job of nonhumans (amanuṣyāḥ) is to “steal energy” from people, as opposed to devas, whose job it is to give it back to them. For that reason, Schopen suggests that we should read here apahartavyam instead of upasaṃhartavyaṃ. Given the elliptical nature of his comments, though, it is not clear whether Schopen would also insert a negation, i.e., no energy would be stolen by them, and hence a bodhisattva would still have more energy. In any event, Schopen’s point here does not seem to have bothered either Indian commentator, perhaps because Hari and Ratnākara had a more flexible understanding of nonhumans, i.e., gods.

337. The content of this chapter corresponds to the content of Chapter 22 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 31 in the Eighteen Thousand.

338. As mentioned in the note to the title of chapter 3 (n.257), the multivalent term guṇa can be translated either as “positive qualities” or “benefits” depending on context. Although the previous chapter title was more about the “benefits,” this chapter emphasizes a bit more the “positive qualities” that lead to those benefits. Hence, even though there is some blurring of the lines between these two meanings, it is helpful, once again, to keep in mind that these different translations derive from the same word in Sanskrit.

339. In the following famous and important quote, there is a play on the multivalent words dharma (“teachings,” “truth,” “qualities”) and kāya (“body,” “collection,” “embodiment”) that cannot be translated into English in a way that captures the meaning, nor can the complex interpretive issues surrounding this passage be explained in these notes. Nonetheless, the English translation of dharmakāya in this case as the “body of truth” aims to approximate a parallel pun in English by playing on similar ambiguities that, in their own right, could be interpreted to fit the various doctrinal and interpretive differences by Hari and Ratnākara. For a historical and philological discussion of the complex Sanskrit linguistic, grammatical, and terminological issues at play in this and other similar passages, see Harrison 1992.

340. Ratnākara makes no direct comment on this sentence, but Hari explains it‍—in a passage too long and complicated to summarize here‍—as the thesis statement of a logical syllogism that proves his explanation of the transcendent state of wisdom as a synonym for a buddha’s knowing. Thus, according to Hari (268), the first statement of the quote here should be understood, according to what the Buddha taught elsewhere, as suggesting that the blessed buddhas have the nature of the transcendent state of wisdom, which is to say, have the inherent nature of illusion-like nondual knowing. Hari: yasmād uktaṃ pradeśāntare bhagavatā: dharmakāyā māyopamādvaya­jñāna­svabhāvāḥ prajñāpāramitātmakā buddhā bhagavanta iti.

341. Sanskrit: mā khalu punarimaṃ bhikṣavaḥ satkāyaṃ kāyaṃ manyadhvam; Tibetan: dge long dag ’di la ni sku dam par ma ’dzin par. According to Ratnākara (F.73.b), satkāya refers here to the Buddha’s body with physical form (rūpakāya). RK: sīdatīti sat| anityaḥ| sac cāsau kāyaś ceti satkāyo rūpakāyaḥ. Indeed, taking our cue from the Tibetan rendering sku dam pa, we have translated satkāya here as “this real body” and not as “the transitory collection,” which elsewhere translates satkāya in the most common context of its being the focus of erroneous views, the meaning rendered as ’jig tshogs in Tibetan,. While for the context of the present passage BHSD suggests that sad comes from √ās in the sense of a “real” physical body, see n.1343 for Ratnākara’s comments using another etymology for the “transitory collection” sense, i.e. when not referring to the Buddha’s body. According to Hari (269), this sentence expresses the quality to be logically proven about the “satkāya”‍—referring here to the bright (body of the Buddha) shining forth with the major and minor marks‍—namely that monks should consider it to have the nature of a conglomeration of atoms. Hari: mā khalu punar imaṃ lakṣaṇa­vyañjanojjvalaṃ śobhanaṃ satkāyaṃ he bhikṣavaḥ para­māṇusaṃcaya­svabhāvaṃ manyadhvam iti sādhyadharmaḥ kathitaḥ. Note that in similar passages from Pali the term “putrid body” or “corrupt body” (pūtikāya) is used in place of satkāya, e.g. Saṃyuttanikāya iii, 120.

342. Here, the words “body of truth” refer to the “collective representation of the teachings” on the transcendent state of wisdom or “essence of the teachings,” i.e., the actual transcendent state of wisdom that sees the truth. Based on this punchline, a reader is intended to re-evaluate that former understanding of “body of truth” (above in the first sentence). It can now be reinterpreted to mean that the Buddha’s true body is the teachings (or the qualities they point to), which must be actualized. Although Ratnākara and Hari disagree about how to understand this quote in relation to the transcendent state of wisdom (mentioned in the next sentence), they generally agree that the dharmakāya must be understood as eternal and can only be “seen” through realizing it oneself, not through considering the truth to be represented by the “real” or existent body that constitutes the buddha’s body with physical form (rūpakāya). According to Ratnākara (F.73.b), in the phrase “through actualizing the body of truth,” the word “truth” (dharma) refers to the noble path. That preeminent path‍—which is nothing but the transcendent state of wisdom‍—is not impermanent, because it is a constant stream. RK: dharma­kāya­pariniṣpattita iti| atrāryamārgo dharmaḥ| sa ca prakarṣagataḥ prajñāpāramitaiva| nānityaḥ pravāhanityatvāt. According to Hari (269), the phrase “through actualizing the body of truth” expresses the cause, suggesting that the monks should see him as the (fruit) actualized through actualizing‍—i.e., directly witnessing‍—the illusion-like nondual knowing. Hari: dharma­kāya­pariniṣpattito māyopamādvaya­jñāna­sākṣātkriyāniṣpattyā niṣpannaṃ māṃ drakṣyathe ty anena hetur uktaḥ.

343. According to Ratnākara (F.73.b–74.a), the word “pinnacle” refers to the highpoint of “reality”‍—i.e., of those real things‍—because there is no reality beyond that, and because what is “revealed” (prabhāvita<vyāhṛta) at that very highpoint is identical to it (i.e., subject and object are not separate at the level of nondual reality). Śakra next explains the word “body” (as intended in the last line of the above quote) with the following phrase‍—“that is to say, the transcendent state of wisdom”‍—referring to the ultimate truth as nothing but the actual nature. The basic point here is that “the transcendent state of wisdom” that sees that truth is not separate from it. RK: bhūtakoṭiprabhāvita iti| bhūtā ni tattvāni teṣāṃ koṭir agram| tato ’dhikasya tattvasyābhāvāt| tasyām eva prabhāvito vyāhṛtas tādātmyāt. katamaḥ kāya ity āha| yadute tyādi| tathatāmātra­paramārthaṃ, taddarśanī prajñāpāramitā na tato bhidyata iti bhāvaḥ. According to Hari (269), in the phrase “what is revealed at the pinnacle of reality,” the word “reality” means the real body, i.e., the Tathāgata’s body. This is “revealed,” i.e., accomplished, “through actualizing the body of truth.” The following phrase‍—“that is to say, the transcendent state of wisdom”‍—means the Tathāgata’s body has the transcendent state of wisdom as its nature. Hari: eṣa can tathāgatakāyo bhūta kāyo bhūta­koṭiprabhāvito dharma­kāya­pariniṣpattyā niṣpanno, yad uta prajñāpāramitā tatsvabhāva iti.

344. According to Ratnākara (F.74.a), the assembly hall Sudharma is located in the southwestern section of the heavenly city of Sudarśana. RK: ata eva sā sudharme tyucyate| asya ca sudarśanasya devanagarasya dakṣiṇapaścimadigbhāga iti.