470. According to Ratnākara (F.92.b), “like this” means their being thus with a nature imagined. “These things” that are that way refers to the positive qualities (described) having a dependent nature. The “true nature of things” means their emptiness of that inherent nature, which is the perceptual object of a naive person. The Blessed One says “after rejoicing, he dedicates in that very same way” in this section on rejoicing because it is necessary that the rejoicing be dedicated. RK: evam iti parikalpitena svabhāvena itthaṃbhūtān, etān dharmān iti paratantrarūpān kuśalān| dharmate ti bālabuddhigocaraiḥ svabhāvaiḥ śūnyatā| anumodan ādhikāre ’pi tathā anumodya tathaiva pariṇāmayatī ti vacanam avaśyapariṇāmanīyatvāt.
471. According to Ratnākara (F.92.b), “liberation” means nirvāṇa, and nirvāṇa is the purity of the ultimate realm of things. The meaning is that all of these, i.e., “generosity” and so on, are just like that (i.e., the same) at the ultimate level. RK: vimuktir nirvāṇam| tac ca dharmadhātoḥ sarvāvaraṇaviśuddhitā, paramārthatas tathaiva sarvaṃ dānādīty arthaḥ.
472. According to Ratnākara (F.92.b), it says “by means of not dedicating” because that (dedication) also is not mentally perceived. With the words “nothing is transferred and nothing is destroyed,” the Blessed One explains how that could be so. The point is that a “dedication” either indicates a transference (of something from one state of existence) to another state or it means the destruction of a former state of existence and the arising of a subsequent state. In either case, since the source of things/qualities has no state of existence, (as he mentions in the bodhisattva’s dedication of the ultimate realm of things) neither transference nor destruction occurs. RK: apariṇāmanāyogeneti tasyāpy anupalambhāt| sa katham ity āha| asaṃkrāntito avināśata iti| tathā hy avasthāntarasaṃkrāntiḥ pariṇāmaḥ pūrvavināśāparotpattī vā| na ca dharmadhātor avasthā| na ca saṃkramo nāpi vināśa iti. According to Hari (373), insofar as everything is like an illusion, “nothing is transferred” because there is nothing cycling in cyclic existence, and “nothing is destroyed” because there is no destruction—these two phrases should be connected. Hari: māyopamatayā saṃsaraṇābhāvād asaṃkrāntito, vināśābhāvād avināśata iti yojyaṃ. Note: The English translation of this sentence follows the extant Sanskrit text. The Tibetan text differs slightly and would be translated, “By means of not dedicating to unsurpassed, perfect awakening the thing that is producing the merit associated with rejoicing, I dedicate it that way as the true nature of things since it is neither transferred nor destroyed (avināśataḥ).” / Our version of this: “Having rejoiced, I dedicate the thing that is producing the merit associated with rejoicing to unsurpassed, perfect awakening in the manner of not rejoicing, in accordance with the true nature of things, since there is no transference or destruction.” In fact the difference seems to be in one phrase added in Tibetan. Of course dharma/chos and vastu/dngos po both being translated as “things” is a little confusing and the connection between dharmas and dharmatā gets lost. Tib.: rjes su yi rang nas rjes su yi rang ba dang ldan pa’i bsod nams bya ba’i dngos po bla na med pa yang dag par rdzogs pa’i byang chub tu yongs su mi bsngo ba’i tshul gyis chos de dag gi chos nyid ji lta ba de ltar mi ’pho ba dang mi ’jig pas yongs su bsngo’o zhes bya ba’o.
473. According to Ratnākara (F.92.b), “practicing” ethical discipline means accepting the circumscriptions from a proper guru. RK: samādāye ti samyaggurutaḥ sāvadhikam ādāya.
474. According to Ratnākara (F.100.b), this chapter is the “Chapter on Getting Sidetracked” because it explains the seven ways of getting sidetracked. Nevertheless, it is called the “Chapter on Hell” because the part about hell is prominent. RK: nirhāra parivarto ’yaṃ saptāṅgasya nirhārasya dyotanāt| tathāpi nirayagranthasya bahutvān niraya parivarta ity ucyate.
475. The beginning of this chapter corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 25 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 34 in the Eighteen Thousand. Its content also includes the first part of Chapter 26 in the Twenty-Five Thousand (down to and including 26.24) and Hundred Thousand (down to and including 26.28), and of Chapter 35 in the Eighteen Thousand (down to and including 35.22); for the equivalent point in this chapter to the beginning of those new chapters in the long sūtras, see n.505.
476. According to Hari (379), there are two aspects of the path of cultivation, namely the path of cultivation with worldly influences (sāsrava), which was the concern of the immediately preceding chapter, and the path of cultivation without worldly influences (anāsrava), which is the concern of this chapter. To describe the first aspect that is characterized by accomplishment, Śāriputra expresses its nature with the words in the above sentence. He describes the “transcendent state of wisdom” as an actualization because it is a cause for actualizing the knowing of a tathāgata. “Knowing everything” refers to the nature of seeing physical form and so on in an accurate way. Hari: sāsravabhāvanāmārgānantaram anāsravo bhāvanāmārgo vaktavyaḥ. sa ca dvividha iti prathamam abhinirhāralakṣaṇaṃ bhāvanāmārgaṃ vaktuṃ svabhāvābhidhānād āha: atha khalv āyuṣmān ityādi. tathāgatajñānasya niṣpādanahetutvāt sarvajñajñānapariniṣpattiḥ. According to Ratnākara (F.93.a), the term “transcendent state of wisdom” refers to the nature of this very path of cultivation. When Śāriputra describes what that nature is like, we should understand the knowing of someone who has complete knowing as being actualized due to that. RK: ata āha| atha khalv ityādi| asya hi bhāvanāmārgasya svabhāvaḥ prajñāpāramitā| kīdṛśīty āha| sarvajñajñāna sya pariniṣpattiḥ yataḥ sā tathoktā.
477. According to Hari (379), “knows everything” refers to the nature of accurately seeing physical form and so on. Hari: sarvajñatvam iti rūpādyaviparītadarśanasvabhāva ity arthaḥ. According to Ratnākara (F.93.a), “knows everything” is the accomplishment of the knowing (of “everything”) together with its relinquishing (of “everything”). That is to say, “knowing” refers to a knowing that has relinquished the habitual tendencies (vāsana; bag chags) connected to all the obstructions (āvaraṇa). RK: sarvajñatvam iti sarvā varaṇavāsanānusandhiprahīṇaṃ jñā nam| prahāṇasampatsahitā jñānasampad ity arthaḥ.
478. According to Ratnākara (F.93.a), here the word “enlightening” either means that the state lights up, i.e., its accomplishment of relinquishing the causes of the darkness of all obscurations to be relinquished, or it means that its accomplishment of knowing causes the ultimate reality of all phenomena to appear. RK: atropapattir avabhāsa karoti| sarvāvaraṇatamaḥprahāṇam avabhāsaḥ | tatkareti prahāṇasampat| sarvadharmaparamārthapratibhāso vā avabhāsaḥ| tatkareti jñānasampat.
479. According to Ratnākara (F.93.b), he says “I pay homage” now and it “should be paid homage” every moment in the future. RK: ataś caināṃ namaskaromi sāṃpratam| namaskaraṇīye ti āyatyāṃ pratikṣaṇam.
480. According to Ratnākara (F.93.b), he expresses the “relinquishing” with the two words “unstained” due to not observing any obstructions and “free from all the stains” because of not observing that which belongs to the three worlds. RK: idānīṃ padadvayena prahāṇam āha| anupalipte ti sarvāvaraṇam alakṣayāt| sarvalokanirupalepe ti triadhātukam alakṣayāt.
481. According to Ratnākara (F.93.b), now he explains the knowing with these three descriptions. “Source of light” means it causes the ultimate reality of all things to be seen. “Removes the mental darkness” refers to the knowing that is the opposite of ignorant darkness. As the ultimate reality of the three worlds, it pervades the objects in all three worlds entirely. “Dispels” means destroys all counterproductive forces, i.e., blinding emotional defilements and beliefs. Up to here, he has spoken entirely of the benefits to oneself that are accomplished. RK: idānīṃ padatrayeṇa jñānam āha| sarvadharmaparamārthapratibhāsa ālokaḥ, tatkarā | atra dvau hetū padadvayenāha| timiram ajñānam, tadviparyayo vitimiraṃ jñānam ity arthaḥ| sarva samagraṃ traidhātuka traidhātukaparamārthaḥ tasmin vitimiram| tatkar ā ity ālambanavyāptiḥ| kleśāś ca dṛṣṭayaś ca tā evāndhakārā ḥ| sarv e ca te te ca teṣāṃ apanetrī ti sarvavipakṣakṣayaḥ| iyatā sarveṇa svārthasampattir uktā.
482. According to Ratnākara (F.93.b), next Śāriputra speaks of the accomplishment of the benefits to others. “Can be relied upon” by those wishing to reach all stages. It “leads to the highest stages” means to the stages of a stream enterer, once-returner, and so on, up to solitary realizer’s awakening. It “keeps” the thirty-seven “factors in awakening safe” because it removes hindrances to them. Up to here, it teaches the objective for those (on the path of cultivation) belonging to the disciples’ path. RK: parārthasampattim adhikṛtyāha| āśrayaṇīye tyādi āśrayaṇīyā sarva padaprepsubhiḥ, agrā ṇi padāni strotaāpattiḥ sakṛdāgāmitvaṃ yāvat pratyekabodhiḥ,tat kar ā| teṣām upāyaḥ saptatriṃśad bodhipakṣ yāḥ| teṣāṃ kṣemakarī vighnaharaṇāt| iyatā hīnayānikānām artha uktaḥ.
483. According to Ratnākara (F.94.a), the “five eyes” are essential for benefiting others. As a means to accomplish that benefit, the “transcendent state of wisdom” itself is (said to be) flanked by the “five eyes” based on the difference in cognitive objects. It itself is the (single) “sight” due to seeing the ultimate reality of all things with any difference. RK: pañcacakṣur ityādi te hi parārthapradhānāḥ| tasya saiva sādhanam ālambanabhedena pañcacakṣuḥparivārā| abhedena saiva cakṣu sarvadharmaparamārthadarśanāt. See also note 375 on “five types of extrasensory knowledge.” To summarize the explanation of the “five eyes” of bodhisattvas in the corresponding passage of the Twenty-Five Thousand (2.216–233): (1) The pure physical eye of bodhisattvas is able to see everything from one hundred leagues away up to the limits of the billionfold world system. (2) The pure divine eye of bodhisattvas is able to see the lives of the multitude of divine beings from birth to death just as they are, all the way up to the form realm heaven of Akaniṣṭha. (3) The pure wisdom eye of bodhisattvas is able to discern the nondual nature of all things, i.e., they see neither conditioned nor unconditioned things, good or bad things, and so on. (4) The pure Dharma eye of bodhisattvas is able to discern the Dharma and the faculties of those practicing it, from beginners up to those who are awakened. (5) The buddha eye is the knowing of all aspects of everything. It is obtained in a single moment of wisdom, after having attained the vajra-like meditative concentration, immediately preceding the realization of the mindset of awakening. By contrast, to summarize the “five eyes” of buddhas listed in the Mahāvastu 1.158–160: (1) The physical eye of buddhas is able to see the appearance and location of all the subtle, substantial (tattva), and luminous (prabhā) forms of other beings without obstruction, out to the limits of space, due to a vast accumulation of virtuous deeds. (2) The divine eye of buddhas is able to see very precisely, deeply, and clearly the multitude of divine beings, and into the mentally created (manomaya) forms, from the ground of the yakṣas up to very subtle form realms. (3) The wisdom eye of buddhas is able to see the nature of things more clearly than can stream enterers up through worthy ones (arhats). (4) The Dharma eye is the all-pervasive mental knowing in someone with the ten powers. (5) The Buddha eye is the knowing in someone with the eighteen distinctive qualities of a buddha. Cf. Dharmasaṃgraha, chapter 66.
484. According to Ratnākara (F.94.a), these three hindrances obstruct seeing. Among them, “confusion” means ignorance; “mental darkness” means the cause of not seeing; and “blindness” is an eye disease. Here, the Sanskrit word “eliminate” (vikaraṇī) or destroy is a condensed way of expressing, according to common usage, that it causes the eye disease to heal (vi timirakaraṇī). RK: vyāpino darśanasya trayo vibandhāḥ| [mohatamastimiravikaraṇī ] | tatra moho ajñānam| tamo ’ndhakāram| timiraṃ cakṣurogaḥ| teṣāṃ vikaraṇī vidhvaṃsanī| saṃkṣepato vi timirakaraṇī timirasāmānyāt.
485. According to Ratnākara (F.94.a), “all things” here refers to the constituents (skandha), elements (dhātu), or bases (āyatana) that are the three natures, namely, the imagined, the dependent, and the real natures. Among those natures, it does not “create” (a) the imagined nature, because it does not exist in the manner of characteristics; (b) or the dependent nature imagining what is unreal, because that is the counterpart of the (nonexistent) imagined; or (c) the real nature that is the source of things (dharmadhātu) because it has no beginning or end. If you ask whether it creates accurate knowledge, no, when there is accurate knowledge it arises simply by removing the error from that which has no beginning or end. RK: kim utpādayatīty ata āha| sarvadharmāṇām akaraṇī ti sarvadharmāḥ skandhadhātvāyatanāni| teṣāṃ trayaḥ svabhāvāḥ| kalpitaḥ paratantraḥ pariniṣpannaś ca| tatra kalpitaṃ na karoti tasya yathālakṣaṇam asattvāt| paratantro abhūtaparikalpaḥ| <<tam api na>> karoti tatpratipakṣatvāt| pariniṣpanno dharmadhātuḥ| tam api na karoty anādinidhanatvāt| samyagjñānaṃ karotīti cet ? na| anādinidhanacittasantānabhrāntinivṛtyaiva samyagjñānasiddhe.
486. According to Ratnākara (F.94.a), it introduces them to the “path” of complete knowing. Up to here, it has explained the terms in the opening sentence that “the actualization of the knowing of someone with complete knowing” is “knowing” for the benefit of others. The idea is that when it has relinquished any connections to habitual tendencies, it is the complete knowing. RK: kasya mārge? sarvajñatāyāḥ| iyatā sarvajñajñānapariniṣpattir iti yad uktaṃ tat parārthe ’pi darśitam| yad uktaṃ sarvajñatvam iti tat parārthe ’py āha| sarvajñataive tyādinā| yadā hi vāsanānusandhiprahīṇatā tasyās tadāsau sarvajñatety arthaḥ.
487. According to Ratnākara (F.94.b), it neither makes any purifying “things arise” nor defiling “things cease.” The idea is that it “has not arisen or ceased” either ultimately or in the manner that they appear, because the ultimate (reality) of these things is the source of things (dharmadhātu). Hence, they do not arise or cease, because they have no beginning or end and because they do not exist the way they appear to foolish ordinary beings. RK: anutpādike tyādi anutpādikā sarvadharmāṇām iti vaiyavadānikānām| anirodhikā sarvadharmāṇām iti sāṃkleśikānām| anutpannāniruddh eti svayam, paramārthato yathāpratibhāsaṃ ceti bhāvaḥ| paramārtho hy eṣāṃ dharmadhātuḥ| tenaiṣām anādinidhana tvād bālapratibhāsinā rūpeṇātyantam asattvān na iṣām utpādanirodhau.
488. According to Ratnākara (F.94.b), it is called the “mother” or source of the bodhisattvas “in the light of its emptiness of its own inherent characteristics,” meaning, again, due to the third nature (of their three natures) being dependently arisen. Why is that? It bestows on them all the precious qualities of a buddha, since those causal states are the bodhisattva’s body. Hence, since it provides those to them, it is their source. Since the term “buddha” is used here (to qualify the type of qualities bestowed), the transcendent state of wisdom is implicitly understood to be the source of a buddha but not superior to the buddhas on that account. For this reason, he explains this more through her special qualities in the sentence beginning with the words “ten powers” and so on, which refers to the ten powers of the tathāgatas. RK: svalakṣaṇaśūnyatām upādāye ti pratītyasamutpannaṃ punar eṣāṃ tṛtīyaṃ svabhāvam upādāyā ha māte tyādi mātā jananī| kutaḥ ? sarvabuddhadharmā eva ratnā ni teṣāṃ dātrītvāt| tāny eva hi samagrāṇi hetvavasthāni bodhisatvānāṃ śarīram tata iyaṃ taddānāt teṣāṃ jananī| buddha grahaṇād buddhajananītvam arthād gamyate| na punas tāvatā buddhānām atiśayo gamyate| ato viśiṣṭair guṇaiḥ punas tad āha daśabale tyādinā| daśan tathāgatabalā ni| tatkar ā.
489. According to Ratnākara (F.95.a–b), a “ground for self-confidence” (vaiśāradyam) refers to (a buddha’s) innate property (bhāva) of being self-confident (viśāradaḥ) in proclaiming the truth proved in his experience (yuktavādī), like a (roaring) lion who is absolutely free of fear. The four grounds are (1) the self-confidence of being perfectly awake with respect to all things, (2) the self-confidence that all worldly influences have been permanently destroyed, (3) the self-confidence of having accurately ascertained and explained the things impeding awakening, and (4) the self-confidence concerning the way that the path leads beyond cyclic existence to all the accomplishments. Ratnākara unpacks the key terms in these four as follows: (1) “Being perfectly awake” refers to the tathāgata’s accomplishment of knowing, and (2) “all worldly influences permanently destroyed” refers to the accomplishment of relinquishing (negativity). This first pair of grounds describes a buddha’s personal benefits. (3) “Impeding awakening” refers to things that block nirvāṇa, and (4) “leads beyond cyclic existence” refers to the things that cause the attainment of nirvāṇa. This second pair of grounds is for the benefit of others, because he explains these things to others. Thus, the “transcendent state of wisdom” is said in this sentence to be the “source” of a buddha’s “grounds for self-confidence” for making these (four) true proclamations. RK: caturvaiśāradyakarītvād iti| siṃhavad atyantaniḥśaṃko yuktavādī viśāradaḥ| tasya bhāvo vaiśāradyam| catvāri vaiśāradyāni| abhisaṃbodhivaiśāradyam| āśravakṣayavaiśāradyam| āntarāyikadha[rma]vaiśāradyam| nairyāṇikadharmavaiśāradyaṃ ca| abhisambodhis tathāgatasya jñānasampat| āśravakṣayaḥ prahāṇasampat| tad ubhayaṃ svārthaḥ| āntarāyikā dharmā nirvāṇasya vibandhakāḥ nairyāṇikā dharmā nirvāṇasya prāpakāḥ| etad ubhayaṃ parārthaḥ| parebhyas tadākhyānāt| teṣu vaiśāradyam| tatpratijñāpratiṣṭhāpaneṣv ity arthaḥ| tatkar ā.
490. According to Ratnākara (F.95.a–b), “sentient beings have no protector” because they been drift about in the ocean of suffering from time without beginning without anyone even to protect them. “Protector,” i.e., someone to protect them, refers to the Blessed Buddha. The “transcendent state of wisdom” is the source of that protector. Up to here in the chapter concerns the actualization of the knowing of someone who has complete knowing. With the following sentence, he begins to explain precisely (what it is like) to know everything. RK: anāthāḥ sattvā anādau duḥkhasāgare bhramatām eṣām adyāpi trātur abhāvāt| teṣāṃ nāthas trātā bhagavān buddhaḥ| tatkar ā| iyatā sarvajñajñānapariniṣpattir eṣeti samarthitaḥ| eṣaiva sarvajñatvam iti samarthayitum āha| saṃsāretyā di.
491. According to Ratnākara (F.95.b), “cyclic existence” means the constituents with worldly influences. The “antidote” to that is what eliminates that. RK: saṃsāraḥ sāśravāḥ skandhāḥ| tasya pratipakṣā hantrī.
492. According to Ratnākara (F.95.b), someone might object that the transcendent state of wisdom is what eliminates that. To address this possible objection, he says “due to not being something permanent.” “Something permanent” here refers to the ultimate realm of things of all things (dharmadhātu) because it is a homogenous nature that has no beginning or end. If the ultimate realm of all things were the antidote, then there would be no cyclic existence from the beginning (because something permanent cannot produce different distinct effects). However, since the “transcendent state of wisdom” (is not something permanent like that), has a beginning, and leads one higher and higher, it alone is the antidote. This first half of the sentence expresses the accomplishment of relinquishing. The second half expresses the accomplishment of knowing. The transcendent state of wisdom “makes apparent” the ultimate “nature of all things” because it appears within those things. RK: dharmadhātur eva tasya hanteti ced āha| akūṭasthatām upādāye ti| dharmadhātur hi kūṭastho anādinidhanaikarūpatvāt| sacet pratipakṣaḥ syāt tadā ādita eva saṃsāro na syāt| prajñāpāramitā punar ādimatī, uttarottaragāminī ceti saiva tasya pratipakṣaḥ| anena prahāṇasampad uktā| jñānasampadam āha sarvetyādinā| sarvadharmā ṇāṃ svabhāvaḥ paramārthaḥ| tasya vidarśanī tatpratibhāsatvāt. Ratnākara’s idea of the transcendent state of wisdom (in his final comment just above) can be compared to the illumination of images on a movie screen. The illumination is what makes the movie images appear, and the illumination itself (which is the nature of all the movie images) is apparent within those images shining forth.
493. According to Ratnākara (F.95.b–96.a), “fully” means due to not lacking even one single thing. The “Dharma that has three sections and twelve aspects” refers to the teachings. Those themselves are (likened to) a “wheel” because they go round and round in the mindstreams of disciples. The “transcendent state of wisdom” is the “instigator” for setting those in motion, because it is due to it that the buddhas do so. The Dharma wheel consists in the four noble truths (1–4), each of which has three phases (a–c, making a total of twelve aspects). The four truths present the teachings as follows: “This is suffering. This is the source of suffering. This is the cessation of suffering. This is the path leading to the cessation of suffering.” The three phases of each of these four are (a) the phase of determining the nature of each of the four truths; (b) the phase of determining, respectively (for each truth), what is to be fully acknowledged, fully abandoned, actualized, and cultivated; and (c) the phase of determining what has been fully acknowledged, fully abandoned, actualized, and cultivated. Thus, subdividing the four truths by the three phases, the twelve aspects are, (1a–c) regarding the truth of suffering, the phase of determining its nature, what is to be fully acknowledged, and what has been fully acknowledged; (2a–c) regarding the truth of the source, the phase of determining its nature, what is to be fully abandoned, and what has been fully abandoned; (3a–c) regarding the truth of the cessation, the phase of determining its nature, what is to be actualized, and what has been actualized; and (4a–c) regarding the truth of the path, the phase of determining its nature, what is to be actualized, and what has been actualized. (The three phases and twelve aspects are set out and mentioned as such in the several canonical accounts of the Buddha’s first teaching in Sarnath. See, for example, The Sūtra of the Wheel of Dharma, 1.13.) RK: paripūrṇe tyādi paripūrṇam ekenāpy anūnatvāt, triparivartadvādaśākāraṃ ca yad dharmacakram dharmaḥ śāsanam tad eva cakraṃ, vineyasantāneṣu caṃkramaṇāt| tasya pravartan o pravartayitrī| buddhānāṃ tathaiva (tayaiva?) tasya pravartanāt| tatra dharmacakraṃ satyacatuṣṭayam| tasya trayaḥ parivartāḥ| idaṃ duḥkham| ayaṃ duḥkhasamudayaḥ| ayaṃ duḥkhanirodhaḥ| iyaṃ duḥkhanirodhagāminī pratipad iti| satyacatuṣṭayasya svabhāvaparicchedaḥ prathamaḥ parivartaḥ| tasyaiva yathākramaṃ parijñeyapraheyasākṣātkartavyabhāvayitavyatvaparicchedo dvitīyaḥ parivartaḥ| tasyaivātmanā parijñātaprahīṇasākṣātkṛtabhāvitatvaparicchedas tṛtīyaḥ| tasmāt triparivartaṃ tat| duḥkhasatyasya duḥkhasvabhāvaḥ parijñeyatvaṃ parijñātatvaṃ ceti traya ākārāḥ| samudayasatyasya tatsvabhāvaḥ praheyatvaṃ prahīṇatvaṃ ceti traya ākārāḥ| nirodhasatyasya tat svabhāvaḥ sākṣātkartavyatvaṃ sākṣātkṛtatvaṃ ceti traya ākārāḥ| mārgasatyasya tat svabhāvo bhāvayitavyatvaṃ bhāvitatvaṃ ceti traya ākārāḥ| tasmāt dvādaśākāraṃ tat.
494. According to Ratnākara (F.96.b), “dwell” means practice; “keep in mind” means recollect the qualities through venerating with offerings; and “pay homage” means through body, speech, and mind. RK: sthātavyam iti vartitavyam| pūjābhiḥ manasikartavyā guṇānusmaraṇaiḥ| namaskartavyā kāyavākcittaiḥ.
495. According to Hari (385), since the constituents are like an illusion, attaining them means accomplishing the transcendent state of wisdom. Hari: rūpasye tyādi. māyopamatayā rūpāder adhigamo mātur abhinirhāra ity arthaḥ.
496. According to Ratnākara (F.96.b), here the “transcendent state of wisdom” refers to the path of cultivation. That which is not mentally constructing, i.e., not mentally perceiving all things, is the accomplishment, i.e., actualization, of the transcendent state of wisdom. RK: prajñāpāramite ti bhāvanāmārgaḥ| yaḥ pañcānāṃ skandhānāṃ yāvat sarvadharmāṇām anabhisaṃskāro ’nupalambhaḥ so ’syābhinirhāraḥ pariniṣpādanam. According to Hari (385), “not mentally constructing anything” means applying oneself toward attainment through the nonarising of any particular thing, insofar as its nature is the actual nature. Hari notes further that, although some Sanskrit manuscripts read here “by not accomplishing” (instead of “by not mentally constructing”), that phrase too should be understood as having the very same meaning he just explained. Hari: tathatārūpatvāt sarvadharmaviśeṣānutpādanenādhigamaprayogo ’nabhisaṃskāras tena skandhānām adhigama iti yāvat. kvacid anabhinirhāreṇe ti pāṭhaḥ, tatrāpy ayam evārtho grāhyaḥ.
497. According to Ratnākara (F.96.b), “what thing” should be understood as what thing that has no worldly influences (i.e., is beneficial). RK: katamaṃ dharmam ity anāśravaḥ| na kaścid dharmam iti dharmāṇām arpaṇāyāś cānupalambhād ity arpaṇā. According to Hari (385), Śāriputra asks this for the sake of the conferral of realization by not mentally perceiving any things. Hari: sarvadharmānupalambhenābhisamayārpaṇārtham āha: evam abhinirhṛte tyādi.
498. According to Ratnākara (F.96.b), he says “nothing” because there is no mental perception of it conferring things. RK: na kaścid dharmam iti dharmāṇām arpaṇāyāś cānupalambhād ity arpaṇā. According to Hari (385), it “confers nothing” means that it causes a certain thing to appear in a practitioner’s mindstream as an erroneous mental perception and so on. Then “it is considered the transcendent state of wisdom” because (by understanding the mental perception to be erroneous) the transcendent state of wisdom is not erroneous—this is the idea here. Hari: na kaṃcid dharmam arpayatī ti yathopalambhādiviparyāso bhavati tathā kaṃcid dharmaṃ yogisaṃtāne samutpādayati. tadā prajñāpāramiteti saṃkhyāṃ gacchaty, aviparyastatvād iti matiḥ.
499. According to Ratnākara (F.97.a), in the manner of a “mental perception” means as a form grasped by the foolish. “Conception” means a label. “Mental construction” means a fabrication. RK: upalambho bālagrāhyeṇa rūpeṇa| nāma saṃjñā| [ abhi ] saṃskāraḥ kalpanā. According to Hari (386), “mental perception” means a mental perception of an external thing. “Name” refers to the four immaterial (i.e., mental) constituents. “Mental construction” means mental effort, thinking “Since a certain thing is like an illusion, it is real in that way,” and so on. Hari: tatropalambho bāhyārthopalambhaḥ. nāma catvāro ’rūpiṇaḥ skandhāḥ. abhisaṃskāro māyopamatayā kaścid evaṃtattvam ityādicittābhogaḥ. Note: The translations of abhisaṃskāra and nāma follow Ratnākara who disagrees slightly with Hari about which of the terms’ different meanings are most applicable here.
500. According to Ratnākara (F.97.a), in this reply, “it confers nothing” due to a practitioner not conceptualizing the conferral of things. “The manner in which it confers it” is through a practitioner not conceptualizing anything. RK: uttaraṃ yathe ty ādinā yathā nārpayatī ti dharmāṇām arpaṇāyāś cāvikalpanāt| tathe ti avikalpanayā.
501. According to Ratnākara (F.97.a), it “does not cause anything to arise” because of not conceptualizing any things that arise and so on—this is the idea. RK: na kañcid ity ādi| dharmāṇām utpādādīnāṃ cāvikalpanād iti bhāvaḥ.
502. sarvadharmāṇāmanutpādāya anirodhāya pratyupasthitā anupasthitā prajñāpāramitā. chos thams cad skye ba ma mchis pa dang/ ’gogs pa ma mchis pa’i slad du nye bar gnas la gnas pa’ang ma lags pa’i shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa. According to Ratnākara (F.97.a), it “does not take part” because it does not do anything. RK: ataś ca anupasthite ty akiñcitkaratvāt. Note that a possible alternative way of reading this passage might be to take pratyupasthitā to refer to anutpāda and anupasthitā to refer to anirodha: “takes part in the non-arising of all things, and does not take part in their nonceasing.” In context, however, such an interpretation would seem out of place. For comparison see the equivalent but rather different statements in the Twenty-Five Thousand (25.17–18) and Hundred Thousand (25.139–140), in which parts of Śakra’s statement appear instead in Subhūti’s following remark about such perspectives being misleading if taken as a way of notionally conceiving the transcendent state of wisdom.
503. Neither Ratnākara nor Hari comment here on the expression “specifically” (yad uta; ’di lta ste), which is used repeatedly throughout this passage. But since Ratnākara elsewhere (F.226.a) suggests that the expression highlights the particular quality of something that has been pointed out only generally, we can understand it to distinguish the transcendent state of wisdom from all other transcendent states in terms of its various particular qualities mentioned one by one below. Cf. RK: yaduta śabdaḥ sāmānyenoddiṣṭasya viśeṣaṃ dyotayati.
504. According to Ratnākara (F.97.a), “sentient being” means the substance of a person. In the phrases “free of the inherent nature” or “free of giving rise to one” like that (i.e., like the substance of a person), the term “inherent nature” refers to a defining characteristic, and “giving rise” means producing. The transcendent state of wisdom is free of both of these. RK: sattvaḥ pudgaladravyaṃ| tadvad asvabhāvajātikā| svabhāvaḥ lakṣaṇam| jātir utpattiḥ| tābhyāṃ rahitā.
505. It is this question of Śāriputra’s that opens Chapter 26 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and Chapter 35 in the Eighteen Thousand.
506. According to Ratnākara (F.98.b), “listen to it” means based on the words; “consider it” means based on the meaning; “bear it in mind” means for another time; “look into” it means when contemplating; and “reflect on” it means when cultivating it because of fixing it in the mind. RK: śakyā punar iti kāṅkṣā praśnaḥ| śrotuṃ śabdataḥ| upalakṣayitum arthataḥ| samanvāhartuṃ kālāntare smartum| upapādayituṃ cintākāle| upadhārayituṃ bhāvanākāle cetasi sthirīkaraṇāt.
507. According to Ratnākara (F.98.b), the pronoun “this” refers to what is appearing, “there” refers to the basis of what is appearing, and “by means of that” means by that which it is appearing. The “characteristic” is the defining characteristic, like, for instance, the dewlap of a cow and so on. The “indication” is an artificial mark like, for instance, the bell on a cow. The “sign” is an inherent quality like, for instance, the whiteness of a (white) cow. The word “expounded” means by others and “learned” means from someone else. RK: iyam iti pratibhāsamānā| ihāmutra ve ti pratibhāsamānādhārā| anene ti pratibhāsamānena| ākāreṇe ti lakṣaṇena| tadyathā gauḥ sāsnādimatvena| liṅgene ti kṛtrimeṇa cihnena| tadyathā gaurghaṇṭādinā| nimittene ti svābhāvikena cihnena| tadyathā gauḥśuklatvādinā| nirdeṣṭuṃ parasmaiḥ| śrotuṃ parasmāt.
508. According to Ratnākara (F.99.b), “for that reason” means due to lacking faith. RK: tata iti śraddhāviyogāt. According to Hari (397), they “drifted away” because of their distracted mindset—this must be supplied to express the meaning. Hari: tataḥ parṣadbhyo ’pakrāntā iti pratikṣepacitteneti śeṣaḥ.
509. According to Ratnākara (F.99.b), “the karmic deed of casting aside (vyasana) the Dharma” means dismissing the genuine Dharma. Each of them “performed it” because they did the karmic deed once; “repeated it” because they did it again and again; “concluded it” because they did it fully; and “reinforced it” because of gaining the potential to give fruit that will ripen. RK: dharmavyasanasaṃvartanīyaṃ karma saddharmapratikṣepaḥ| kṛta ṃ sakṛtkaraṇāt| sañcitaṃ punaḥ punaḥ karaṇāt| ācitaṃ paripūrṇam| upacitaṃ vipākadānaśaktilābhāt.
510. According to Ratnākara (F.99.b), “fully collected in body” means coming to listening (to the teachings), and “collected in mind” means undistracted. RK: kāyena sāmagrī śrotum āgamanam| cittena nirvikṣepatā.
511. According to Ratnākara (F.99.b), “neither perceive” means in terms of the text, “nor see” means in terms of its meaning, and “nor understand” means in terms of the distinctions between the three natures. Based on that, they do not “make it an experience” due to their misunderstanding. RK: na jānanti granthataḥ| na paśyanti arthataḥ| na budhyante svabhāvatrayabhedena| tato na vedayante ’viparītabodhāt. According to Hari (397), “neither perceive, nor see, nor understand” means, respectively, through the three ways of validly cognizing, i.e., direct perception, inference, and received tradition (āgama). For the phrase “make it an experience,” one should supply the phrase “for others.” Hari: pratyakṣānumānāgamapramāṇair yathāsaṃkhyaṃ na jānanti na paśyanti na budhyante. ata eva na vedayante parān iti śeṣaḥ. Note: The translation leans toward Ratnākara who appears to interpret vedayante differently from Hari. Cf. MW vedayante, “to experience,” “to make known.”
512. This translation follows the Sanskrit which differs slightly from the Tibetan (F.101.b).
513. According to Ratnākara (F.100.a), “accumulations of karmic deeds” refers to the activity of karmic deeds. “Performing” means doing and “accomplishing” means increasing. RK: karmābhisaṃskāraḥ karmakriyā| upasthāpitene ti kṛtena| samutthāpitene ty upacitena.
514. According to Ratnākara (F.100.a), “dissolution of the universe” refers to the destruction of the universe (at the end of an eon). In it, everything from the level of the Uninterrupted Hell up to the Brahmā Heaven and so on is destroyed by fire. RK: saṃvartanī pralayaḥ, āvīcitalādā ca brahmalokādy asyām agninā kṣīyate sā tejaḥsaṃvartanī.
515. According to Ratnākara (F.100.a), they are “ejected” with a body of the intermediate state and “are reborn” with a body for their state of rebirth. RK: kṣepsyante antarābhavaśarīreṇa| upapatsyante upapattibhavaśarīreṇa.
516. According to Hari (397), “the five karmic deeds that ripen immediately” are (1) killing one’s mother, (2) killing one’s father, (3) killing a worthy one (arhat), (4) causing a split in the community, and (5) shedding the blood of a tathāgata with malicious mindset. These deeds are said to “ripen immediately” because they cause rebirth immediately (after death) in the Uninterrupted (avīci) Great Hell. Hari: pañce ti mātṛvadhaḥ pitṛvadho ’rhadvadhaḥ saṃghabhedas tathāgataduṣṭacittarudhirotpādaś cety etāni pañca karmāṇy anantaram avīcimahāniraye janmahetutvād ānantaryāṇi.
517. According to Ratnākara (F.100.a), these are types of persons who are “like” completely putrid “trees whose trunks are rotten” (kasambaka). When not eliminated, it also destroys leaves other than its own. RK: kasambakaṃ pūtipūrṇam| tadatyaktam anyāny api parṇāni nāśayati| jātir jātam | kasambaka vaj jātam eṣām iti kasambakajātāḥ. Cf. BHSD 174, kaśambakajātāḥ, “tree that is rotten inside.”
518. According to Ratnākara (F.100.a), “black” indicates a special type of grass, called kaṇḍā (probably a type of bamboo) in Prākṛit language. If it is not removed from a field, it also destroys the field. “Emerging” means coming out of. These black snakes are poisonous black vipers that attack, bite, and poison (their victims). RK: kṛṣṇā tṛṇaviśeṣaḥ prākṛtabhāṣayā kaṇḍā| sāpi kṣetrād anapanītā kṣetraṃ nāśayati| nirjātir niṣpattiḥ| kṛṣṇāvan nirjātir eṣām iti kṛṣṇānirjātikāḥ| kṛṣṇāhi kṛṣṇasarpaḥ saviṣaḥ saṃsraṣṭā daṣṭvā saviṣ īkaroti.
519. In this sentence, there is a slight play on different usages of the same Sanskrit word vyasana, implying that the karmic effect is similar to the cause, i.e., the karmic deed of “casting aside” (vyasana) leads to “misfortune” (vyasana). According to Ratnākara (F.100.a), “through their misguidance” means through their not following a path with faith, learning, and so on. “Misfortune” refers here to the suffering of the hells and so on. RK: anayene ti tebhyaḥ śrutaśraddhādinā ’mārgeṇa| vyasanaṃ nirayādiduḥkham.
520. According to Hari (400), the Buddha does not explain it, because hearing the precise extent of suffering to a body in the great hell—i.e., having the greatness of suffering explained—might become a cause for “hot blood to spurt out” and so on, due to their extremely fearful and forceful reactions against violent behavior. This sentence is an overview of what follows. Hari: yasmān mahānārakakāyapramāṇaṃ śrutvā duḥkhamahattvaṃ pratipadya mahābhayena sahasā pratipakṣasamudācārādivirodhenoṣṇarudhirāgamanādayaḥ syus tasmān nākhyāyata iti samudāyārthaḥ.
521. According to Ratnākara (F.100.a), “the lamp” is knowing of the ripened results of the deeds discussed in the passage. RK: ālokaḥ prakṛtasya karmaṇo vipākajñānam.
522. According to Hari (400), “the lamp for future generations” refers to the lamp of Dharma because of causing revulsion (saṃvega) toward doing negative deeds. Since it is the cause of lamp light, it is described (and translated here figuratively) as “lighting” the lamp. RK: paścimāyā janatāyā āloka iti aśuklakarmakāriṇaḥ saṃvegotpādād dharmālokaḥ| saṃvega iti taddhetutvāt tathoktaḥ.
523. According to Hari (400–1), this is said because they would perform positive physical, verbal, and mental deeds based on mindfulness and clear comprehension in sequential order. Hari: susaṃvṛtakāyakarmavākkarmamanaskarmaṇe ti yathākramaṃ smṛtisaṃprajanyatām upādāya kāyikavācikamānasikakuśalānuṣṭhānād uktam.
524. According to Hari (401), “such harmful words” here refers to saying things like “this is not the teaching of the Buddha.” Since it is merely implied here but not expressed, one should keep in mind that improper physical and mental deeds are also to be restrained. Hari: evaṃrūpeṇe ti naitad buddhavacanam ity evaṃsvabhāvena. asyopalakṣaṇamātratvāt viparītakāyamanaskarmaṇāpīti jñeyaṃ.
525. According to Hari (402), “to be repudiated” means by announcing there to be contradictions between one passage and another; “to be denied” means as explained previously (by denying the truth of it); and “to be rejected” means due to refutations of the means of valid cognition such as direct perception and so on. Hari: dūṣayitavyām iti parasparavirodhodbhāvanayā. pratikṣeptavyām iti pūrvavat. pratibādhitavyām iti pratyakṣādipramāṇabādhanāt. Note: “by denying the truth of it” comes from Hari (397) sāmarthyāpahnavāt pratikṣepsyanti.
526. According to Hari (403), “four characteristics” refers to the four causes of rejection: (1) being under the influence of Māra, (2) having no firm conviction in the profound truth, (3) being fixated upon the constituents and so on, and (4) embracing an unvirtuous spiritual friend. Hari: caturbhir ākārair iti mārādhiṣṭhāna-gambhīradharmānadhimokṣa-skandhādyabhiniveśa- pāpamitraparigrahaiś caturbhiḥ pratikṣepahetubhir ity arthaḥ. According to Ratnākara (F.100.b), when the Blessed One explains the four causes, the phrase “seek out different weaknesses to put others down while raising themselves up” refers to one of four. For this reason, he says the following sentence. The causes of casting aside (vyasana) the Dharma are taught to total six in number, but as abbreviated in the Ornament (AA 2.26–2.27), there are “four” mentioned here, because the other ones are included in the “and so on” of the phrase “being fixated upon the constituents and so on.” RK: punar aparam ityādinā caturo hetūnāha| ātmotkarṣī parapaṃsako doṣāntaraprekṣīty eko rāśiḥ| ata evāha| ebhir api caturbhir ityādi| tadatra dharmavyasanahetavaḥ ṣaḍ uktāḥ| śāstre tu saṃkṣepataś catvāraḥ| śeṣāṇāṃ skandhādyabhiniveśe ’ntarbhāvāt.
527. The beginning of this chapter corresponds to a point part of the way through Chapter 26 in the Twenty-Five Thousand (starting at 26.24) and Hundred Thousand (starting at 26.29), and of Chapter 35 in the Eighteen Thousand (starting at 35.23). This chapter also includes the entire content of Chapter 27 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand and Chapter 36 in the Eighteen Thousand—see n.533; and part of the content of Chapter 28 in the Twenty-Five Thousand (down to and including 28.41) and Hundred Thousand (down to and including 28.278), and of Chapter 37 in the Eighteen Thousand (down to and including 37.36)—see n.552.
528. According to Ratnākara (F.100.b), “listless” means weak-willed; “reliant upon” means confused by. RK: anarthikene ti mandacchandena| upastabdho vismitaḥ.
529. According to Ratnākara (F.101.a), the idea is that it is “supremely difficult to have conviction” in it because it is supremely profound. It is well known that a fetter that is previously fastened refers to a former impurity, whereas liberation, i.e., the subsequent removal of that fetter, refers to purity. But in this case purity means that both the fetter and the liberation are absolutely nonexistent. In this sense, the transcendent state of wisdom’s characteristic of purity is supremely profound. RK: paramaduradhimoc eti paramagambhīratvād iti bhāvaḥ| prākpravṛtto hi bandhaḥ prāgaśuddhiḥ paścāttannivṛttilakṣaṇo mokṣaḥ śuddhir iti prasiddham| iha tu bandhamokṣayor atyantābhāvaḥ śuddhir iti paramagambhīraṃ viśuddhilakṣaṇaṃ.
530. The “the fruit” here refers to the fruitional factors or dharmas, i.e. the phenomena that belong to the sphere of awakening itself rather than that of saṃsāra or the path.
531. According to Ratnākara (F.101.a), they are “free of duality” because of having the same nature, and “free from creating duality” because of not deviating (from that). The explanation of these first two is “not different, not separate.” RK: advayaṃ tādātmyāt| advaidhīkāram avyabhicārāt| anayor eva nirdeśo abhinnam acchinnam iti.
532. According to Ratnākara (F.101.b), here “the state of complete knowing” refers to the state of complete knowing of everything (i.e., the complete knowing of a buddha, not of a worthy one, arhat). That state of complete knowing of everything involves two kinds of purity. First, that which is the purity of the constituents one by one is the purity of the state of complete knowing of everything. Its purity is their purity. This is the first purity of the state of complete knowing of everything. Second, the purity of everything, one by one from the constituents up to the unmixed qualities of a buddha, which are the emptiness and so on, and the purity of the transcendent state of wisdom and of the state of complete knowing of everything—all this is “not different, not separate.” This is the second purity of the state of complete knowing of everything. This is not in the words of the sūtra, but through implication it is to be grasped. RK: sarvajñate ti sarvākārajñatā| tasyā viśuddhir dvividhā| yā skandhānām ekaśo viśuddhiḥ pāramitānāṃ ca sā sarvākārajñatāviśuddhiḥ| yā ca tasyāḥ sā teṣām ity ekā sarvākārajñatāviśuddhiḥ| adhyātmaśūnyatādīnāṃ skandhādīnāṃ ca yāvad āveṇikabuddhadharmāṇam ekaśo yā viśuddhir yā ca prajñāpāramitāyā yā ca sarvākārajñatāyāḥ sarvam etad abhinnam acchinnam iti dvitīyā sarvākārajñatāviśuddhiḥ| tad asyāṃ na paṭhyate upalakṣaṇatvāt tad grāhyam.
533. This statement of Śāriputra’s corresponds to the opening of Chapter 27 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand and Chapter 36 in the Eighteen Thousand.
534. According to Ratnākara (F.101.b–102.a), the “transcendent state of wisdom” means the purity of the transcendent state of wisdom. It is “profound,” i.e., difficult to fathom, “due to” everything “being pure,” i.e., absolutely empty. RK: prajñāpāramite ti prajñāpāramitāviśuddhir ity arthaḥ| sā gambhīrā duravagāhā sarvadharmāṇāṃ viśuddhatvād atyantaśūnyatvād. Note: The word “profound” and so on in this sentence and in the eight adjectival phrases below (each of which is followed by the Blessed One’s refrain “because it is pure”) are linked by Hari and Ratnākara to nine stages on the path of cultivation, even though Hari and Ratnākara do not necessarily agree how the adjectives link to those stages.
535. According to Ratnākara (F.102.a), “free of transmigrating” means not being reborn in other forms of existence, “because it is pure.” RK: sā apratisandhir asaṃkrāntir bhavāntare viśuddhatvād.
536. According to Ratnākara (F.102.a), “free of emotional defilement because it is pure” is because everything is undefiled in its nature. RK: sā asaṃkleśo viśuddhitvāt prakṛtyasaṃkliṣṭatvāt sarvadharmāṇām.
537. According to Hari (410), it “does not know” inherent natures, and it does not “conceive” distinctions, “because it is pure” because it is the antidote to the (cognitive and emotional obscurations of) three realms of existence. Hari: na jānātī tyādi. svarūpaṃ na jānāti. prabhedaṃ na saṃjānīte, viśuddhatvād iti traidhātukapratipakṣatvāt. According to Ratnākara (F.102.a), it “does not know” means it does not grasp, and it does not “conceive” means it does not conceptualize. RK: na jānatī ti na gṛṇhāti| na saṃjānīta iti na vikalpayati.
538. According to Ratnākara (F.102.b), in the next eight exchanges Śāriputra raises the first two possible objections and Subhūti the subsequent six. Each statement (is followed by a question mark because it) implies a question and so on concerning the reasons for precisely that conclusion by asking what, in regard to what, or in what manner is this so? The Blessed One’s responses give the reasons for those conclusions. RK: atra ca siddhānta eva kā kvā kuta etad iti hetusāpekṣāś codyasūcanādyāni| siddhāntahetavaḥ parihārāḥ| tatra dve codye śāriputrasya ṣaṭ subhūteḥ.
539. According to Ratnākara (F.102.b), “performs no service or disservice” is the conclusion. The implied question or objection is: Why is this the case, because if it does nothing, then how could it be the path? The reply “because it is pure” means: since the state of complete knowing is the purity of the source of everything (dharmadhātu), and that is pure, i.e., pure by nature. For this reason, the transcendent state of wisdom does nothing for it, but it counteracts the adventitious obscurations. RK: nāpakāraṃ karoti na copakāram iti siddhāntaḥ| sa kutaḥ ? yadi hy akiṃcitkarī kathaṃ sā mārga iti codyam| viśuddhitvād iti parihāraḥ| sarvajñatā hi dharmadhātuviśuddhiḥ sa ca viśuddhaḥ prakṛtiśuddhaḥ| tataḥ sā asyākiñcitkarī| kevalam āgantukāvaraṇakṣayaṃ prativyāpriyate.
540. According to Ratnākara (F.102.b), “neither apprehends nor disregards” is the conclusion. The implied question or objection is: Why is this the case, because if it does not apprehend, then it must either be a conceptualization or (at least) not wisdom itself. The reply “because it is pure” means that in the same manner and for the very same reason that it does not see things as things, it sees them as the nature of things. And in this very sense, it is pure. RK: na gṛṇhāti na tyajatī ti siddhāntaḥ| sa kutaḥ ? yadi hy asau gṛṇhāti vikalpaḥ syāt| atha na gṛṇhāti prajñaiva na syād iti codyam| viśuddhatvā di parihāraḥ| yathā hi yata evāsau dharmān dharmalakṣaṇair na paśyaty, ata eva dharmatayā paśyati| ata eva viśuddhaḥ| viśuddhatvāt na gṛṇhāti na ca tyajatī ti.
541. According to Ratnākara (F.102.b–103.a), the purity of the constituents is taught to be the purity of the fruit, i.e., the purity of complete knowing. And their purity is because of the purity of the self, because the purity, i.e., absolute nonexistence, of a self is the same as theirs is too. The implied question or objection is: Why is this the case, because if the constituents, fruits, and complete knowing are absolutely nonexistent, then there would be nothing. The reply “because it is absolutely pure” means that at the absolute level, those things simply have no existence as particulars. For this reason, those things do exist as the true nature of things, i.e., their emptiness. RK: skandhaviśuddhitaḥ phalaviśuddhiḥ sarvajñatāviśuddhiś coktā| sā ca teṣāṃ viśuddhir ātmaviśuddhyā| yathā hy ātmano viśuddhir atyantam asattā tathā teṣām apīti siddhāntaḥ| sa kutaḥ ? yadi hi skandhaphalasarvajñatānām atyantam asattā tadaitā(te)na kiñcid iti codyam| atyantaviśuddhitvād iti parihāraḥ| atyantam asanta eva dharmāḥ svalakṣaṇaiḥ| ata eva tacchūnyatālakṣaṇayā dharmatayā santīty arthaḥ.
542. Ratnākara’s explanation of the reasons for the conclusions here and below are only slightly different from his explanation above, so his comments will not be reproduced here or below.
543. According to Ratnākara (F.103.b), the “transcendent state of wisdom” here is referring to a (disciple’s) complete knowing (i.e., not a bodhisattva’s or a buddha’s). The phrase “this shore’s bank” refers to cyclic existence. “The opposite shore’s bank” refers to nirvāṇa. It also does not dwell between the two shores. The meaning here is that none of these three are perceived. RK: ’prajñāpāramitā’ iti sarvajñatā|’ nāpare tīre’ iti saṃsāre| ’na pare tīre’ iti nirvāṇe| nāpi tayor antarāle sthitā’| trayaṃ nopalabhyata ity arthaḥ. Note: By identifying the “transcendent state of wisdom” with a disciple’s complete knowing, Ratnākara is commenting on this sentence as the beginning of the third of eight topics in the Ornament. Just above in his comments, he explains that the shift of topics happens mid-chapter here at this point and this third topic has eight subtopics. Cf. RK (F.103.b): prathamaparivartena sarvākārajñatoktā| ito ’rdhasaptamaiḥ parivartair mārgajñatā| aṣṭam anavamayoḥ parivartayor ardhābhyāṃ sarvajñatā vaktavyā| tasya aṣṭau vastūni.
544. According to Ratnākara (F.104.a), “attachment” refers to preoccupation (sakti), i.e., the imagination of something unreal. RK: saṅgaḥ saktir abhūtaparikalpaḥ. According to Hari (414), “names” refers to the mere designations of transcendent state of wisdom and so on, and “signs” refers to the things that are imagined and so on. “Attachment” refers to the error of dwelling in preoccupation. This is taught to be like when things conjured up by an illusionist appear, but a person, out of habitual fixation on existence, has not recognized their nature to be the appearance of something without essence. Similarly, the disciples and so on who have not recognized the nature of existence are not fully aware of the fact that (cyclic existence and nirvāṇa) are the same, because, insofar as they lack the skill in means of a virtuous friend and so on, they can become attached to perceiving things as errors when understanding them by means of signs. Hence, they come to be distant from the mother of the conquerors (i.e., the transcendent state of wisdom). On the other hand, bodhisattvas, who have cast away the erroneous signs and habitual fixations on existence, are fully aware of all the qualities of physical form and so on and are fully aware of the fact that they are the same. Hence, they come to be close to the mother of the conquerors. Subhūti expresses this implicitly through saying the following line: “It is amazing” and so on. Hari: tatra prajñāpāramitetyādivyapadeśamātraṃ nāma. kalpitādilakṣaṇaṃ vastu nimittaṃ. saktisthānaviparyāsaḥ saṅgaḥ. etad uktaṃ : māyākāranirmitavastunaḥ pratibhāse ’viditatatsvarūpasya bhāvābhiniveśitayā naiḥsvābhāvyāpratibhāsa iva kalyāṇamitrādyupāyakauśalavaikalyān nimittayogena pratipattau viparyāsalakṣaṇopalambhasaṅgasambhavāt, tatsamatāparijñānam avijñātabhāvarūpāṇāṃ śrāvakādīnām nāstīty atas teṣāṃ dūrībhāvo jinajananyā iti. bodhisattvādīnāṃ tūtsāritabhāvābhiniveśabhrāntinimittānāṃ rūpādisarvadharmaparijñānam eva tatsamatāparijñānam ity atas teṣāṃ samyag āsannībhāvo ’syā mātur iti sāmarthyāt kathitam ity āha: āścaryaṃ bhagavann ityādi.
545. According to Ratnākara (F.103.b), “described” it in terms of the sixteen characteristics on the path of seeing, “explicated” it in terms of the twelve preliminary practices, and “pinpointed” it, because it is not fixed in either cyclic existence or nirvāṇa. RK: ākhyātā ṣoḍaśabhir dṛṣṭimārgalakṣaṇaiḥ| sunirdiṣṭā dvādaśabhiḥ prayogaiḥ| supariniṣṭhitā saṃsāranirvāṇayor apratiṣṭhānāt.
546. According to Ratnākara (F.104.b), the first conceptualization—“first mindset of awakening”—is an attachment and the second conceptualization—“I dedicate it”—is dedicating it after having conceptualized it as such. These are attachments because that mindset does not exist as a past thing and awakening does not exist as a future thing. Since someone might ask whether that “essential nature of a mindset” permanently exists, the next sentence states that it is “not possible” because one cannot dedicate something permanent. Therefore, these conceptualizations are attachments, due to their construction of something unreal. RK: idaṃ tad prathamaṃ bodhicittam iti| eṣa vikalpaḥ prathamaḥ saṅgaḥ| bodhau pariṇāmayāmī ti| evaṃ vikalpya pariṇāmanā dvitīyaḥ| katham imau saṅgau ? tasya cittasyātītatvenāsattvāt| bodheś cānāgatatvena| cittaprakṛtiḥ sadāstīti ced āha| na ce tyādi| na śakyā iti nityasya pariṇāmāyogāt| tasmād ubhau vikalpau, abhūtakalpanāt.
547. According to Ratnākara (F.105.a), “for this very reason” means due to the cause of relinquishing attachments. “Helps others recognize it” means by helping those who have not heard it previously to delight in it. “Helps them practice it” means by making them accurately understand how to practice. “Helps inspire them” means by urging along those who are slow. “Helps them rejoice” means by congratulating heroic efforts undertaken. It is “in conformity with the truth” due to the perfectly relinquishment of attachments. RK: tasmāt tarhī tyādinā| tasmād iti svayaṃ saṅgavivarjanāt kāraṇāt| tarhī ti pare ṣāṃ sandarśanā dikāle| sandarśayate ti pūrvamaśrutavataḥ rocayatā| samādāpayate ti anuṣṭhānāya samyag grāhayatā| samprahaṣayate ti mantharān protsāhayatā| sampraharṣayate ti ārabdhavīryān sādhukāraiḥ| bhutānugamaḥ saṅgatyāgāt.
548. According to Ratnākara (F.105.a), “does not bring him- or herself down” means does not do anything offensive to the buddhas. The second half of the sentence explains the benefit to being in accordance with reality oneself. RK: na kṣiṇot īti buddheṣv aparāddhaṃ na karoti| svayam bhūtānugame ’nuśaṃsam āha| imāś ce tyādinā.
549. According to Hari (418), he or she would “pay attention through signs” because they are face to face with the Tathāgata’s physical body (rūpakāya) and so on as a perceptual object. Hari: nimittato manasikarotī ti rūpakāyādyālambanenābhimukhīkaraṇāt.
550. According to Ratnākara (F.105.a–b), it “cannot be dedicated” because this would involve the three times. It “cannot be made a sign” and “cannot be made an object” because it does not create something previously inexistent and because it is difficult to recognize, since it “cannot be seen, heard, considered, or known,” i.e., insofar as it is not understood, respectively, through the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body or mind. RK: na sā śakyā pariṇāmayitum iti tryadhvaprasaṅgāt| na nimittīkartuṃ nārambaṇīkartum iti apūrvatvenākāraṇatvāt durbodhatvāc ca| yato na sā dṛṣṭaśrutamatavijñātā cakṣuṣā śrotreṇa ghrāṇajivhākāyair manasā vā ’pratītatvāt yathākramam.
551. According to Hari (422), “no one becomes perfectly awakened” because one’s essential nature is the inherent nature of the actual nature. Hence, since one does not realize it through any aspects of the Buddha’s unmixed qualities of physical form and so on, it is held to transcend thought. For this reason, it is difficult to recognize—this is the point. Hari: na kaścid abhisambudhyata iti rūpādyāveṇikabuddhadharmādyākāraiḥ prakṛtes tathatāsvābhāvyād anabhi(P.118b)sambodhena yasmāc cintātikrāntatvam iṣyate, ato ’syā durbodhateti yāvat.
552. This statement of Subhūti’s corresponds to the opening of of Chapter 28 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand and Chapter 37 in the Eighteen Thousand.
553. According to Ratnākara (F.106.a–b), in response to the question of how the practice is to be done, here “physical forms” and so on refers to all things, but the constituents of experience are used as a way of implying this. In this passage, the idea that “he or she does not go about life in physical forms” up to “consciousness” means that he or she does not conceive of physical forms and so on. The practice with respect to physical forms and so on is expressed as “he or she goes about life in the transcendent state of wisdom” at that time. RK: kathaṃ prayogaḥ kartavyaḥ? atra rūpādayaḥ sarvadharmāḥ| skandhās tūpalakṣaṇam| rūpe yāvad vijñāne na caratī ti rūpādīn na sañjānīta ity arthaḥ| tadā carati prajñāpāramitāyām iti rūpādiprayogaḥ.
554. According to Hari (425), “wonderful” is because he expresses one other way (to practice) by explaining another topic. By explaining practice in this way, he explains the state of being “with attachment,” i.e., the constituents of experience as having the nature of a mental perception, and “without attachment,” i.e., the transcendent state of wisdom as having the nature of being free of any mental perception. Hari: anyārthakathanena prakārāntarābhidhānād āścaryaṃ, yasmād evaṃ prayogakathanena sasaṅgatā rūpādīnām upalambharūpatvam, asaṅgatā ca mātur anupalambhasvabhāvatā kathitā.
555. According to Hari (426), this sentence explains the practice of not being attached to physical forms and so on. The term “with attachment” means with a mental perception, and “without attachment” means free of mental perception. Hari: rūpādiṣv asaṅgaprayogam āha rūpaṃ sasaṅgam asaṅgam ityādinā. sasaṅgam asaṅgam iti sopalambham anupalambham ity arthaḥ. Note: The second half of this chapter is framed by the central play on the Sanskrit words sasaṅga/asaṅga. The translation “with/without attachment” aims to capture the meaningful ambiguity in the Sanskrit that could mean either subjectively “attached/unattached” or objectively “impeding/not impeding.” This ambiguity allows for cyclic existence/nirvāṇa to be presented as objectively impure/pure according to disciples and as only subjectively impure/pure by bodhisattvas.
557. Most other terms in this sentence were explained in previous footnotes. According to Hari (455–56, regarding a later passage), the four types of “experiential knowledge” concern (1) the teachings (dharma), i.e., methods; (2) meanings (artha), i.e., the defining characteristic of things; (3) expressions (nirukti), i.e., the language of the people; and (4) illumination (pratibhāna), i.e., the distinctions of things. These (types of experiential knowledge) arise from complete knowing’s non-attachment and non-resistance, because the resistance of the cognitive obscuration disappears when they are attained. Hari: pratisaṃvitpāramiteyam iti paryāye dharmalakṣaṇe janapadabhāṣāyāṃ dharmaprabhede ca yathākramam adhigatāsvādanajñeyāvaraṇapratighātābhāvena sarvajñānāsaṅgāpratighātitām upādāya dharmārthaniruktipratibhāna pratisaṃvid ākārāś catvāraḥ.
558. According to Ratnākara (F.106.b), it is not “attached” due to lacking any attachment, and hence it is not “fettered” by defilements in the three realms. Therefore, it is not “liberated” from the defilements, nor has it “transcended” the three realms. RK: asakte tyādi| sarvasaṅgābhāvād asaktā| tato na baddhā kleśais traidhātuke| tato na muktā kleśaiḥ| na samatikrāntā traidhātukam.
559. According to Ratnākara (F.106.b), the meaning of the word “afflicted” is “attached” (in the first sentence) and “resentful” in the second. RK: saṃkliśyate śabdasyārthaḥ pratihanyata iti dvitīyasyānunīyata iti. Cf. BHSD anunaya.
560. According to Ratnākara (F.107.a), it is a “cultivation of space” (viz. the cultivation of something like space) because there is no appearance of a single characteristic (in it). RK: ākāśabhāvanā ekalakṣaṇatāpratibhāsāt.
561. According to Hari (429), it has been said, “After perceiving everything to be, in reality, like space, there can be nothing superior to the wisdom and so on. However, performing difficult noble deeds (with that in mind) is superior because one puts on the armor for the sake of the complete knowing of all aspects.” Hari: etad uktaṃ: ākāśopamān api sarvadharmān adhyālambya tattvataḥ sambhavatprajñādiprakarṣābhāve ’pi sarvākārajñatāyāḥ kṛtaśaḥ saṃnāhakaraṇād atiśayo duṣkara iti. According to Ratnākara (F.107.a), he explains this bodhisattva to be someone who aims for perfect awakening for the sake of all beings. “With space” means with a method that is like space, because there is no giving up of such (a method). Hence, since sentient beings are not something perceived and are infinite, the performance of difficult noble deeds arises from an awakening (of a bodhisattva) motivated by the benefit of all. RK: ayaṃ sann āha iti yaḥ sarvasattvārthāya samyaksambodhau| ākāśene ti ākāśanibhena yogena tadatyāgāt| tato duṣkaratā sattvānām anupalambhād anantāc ca viśvārtham uddiśya bodheḥ.
562. According to Hari (429), the two comparisons—“like space” and “like the source of qualities” (dharmadhātu)—are taught due to the difference between worldly and spiritual accomplishments. Hari: ākāśasamānāṃ dharmadhātusamānām iti laukikalokottaraprasiddhibhedena dvayam uktaṃ.
563. According to Hari (429), he or she has “attained the armor of the perfection of great heroic perseverance” means that in the activities connected with the armor-like practice, he or she has acomplished great efforts filled with emptiness and compassion. He or she has “donned the armor” means he or she endures the three types of difficult noble deeds (regarding noble motivation, practice, and conduct). Hari: mahāvīryapāramitāsaṃnāhaprāpta iti saṃnāhaprayogakāritreṣu śūnyatākaruṇāgarbhamahāvyavasāyasampannaḥ. saṃnāhaṃ saṃnahyata iti trividhaduṣkaram utsahate.
564. According to Ratnākara (F.107.a), the question is: “where” in the resultant state “will a bodhisattva great being, who engages in such a meditation” in the causal state, “become engaged in meditation”? RK: ya evaṃyogam āpatsyata iti hetvavasthāyām, kva sa iti phalāvasthāyām.
565. According to Hari (430), “in space” means in the emptiness of the object to be known (jñeya); “in intermediate space” means in the lack of inherent nature of knowledge (jñāna). Hari: ākāśa iti jñeyaśūnyatve. abhyavakāśa iti jñānaniḥsvabhāvatve. According to Ratnākara (F.107.a), “space” means outer space, where stars travel. But here it refers to perfect awakening, because it has a similar quality. “Intermediate space” refers to a hidden, formless place above Mount Meru on the earth. But here it refers to an arhat’s awakening, because it has a similar quality. RK: ākāśa iti ākāśaṃ tārāpatham| iha tu tatsādharmyād anuttarā bodhiḥ| abhyavakāśaṃ bhūmerūpariṣṭhād acchannam arūpiṣṭhānam| iha tu tatsādharmyādd hīnabodhiḥ| tad ubhayaṃ phalam| tasya yathābhavyaṃ prāpter avandhyaprayogaḥ. Note: these two (ubhayam) are (1) bodhisattvas in “space” who attain bodhi and (2) worthy ones in the space of the formless realm.
566. Neither commentator explains the meaning of the word “keeps” in this particular case. Although Schopen 1977 (p. 142) argued convincingly that “keeps” here originally meant “carries around,” the translation is purposely ambiguous. On the one hand, previously when the scripture was speaking of relics, Ratnākara (F.69.a) explains the word “keeps” as signifying carrying them in a small casket and so on (dhārayed vā karaṇḍādivahanāt). But on the other, when the scripture was speaking of the transcendent state of wisdom in the context of protection, Ratnākara (76.a) explains the point to be that one “keep it in one’s heart” (dhārayed iti hṛdaye sthāpayet).
567. According to Ratnākara (F.107.b), Śakra wants to safeguard, defend, and protect. But Subhūti explains to him that the transcendent state of wisdom is the so-called “protector” accompanied by the “safeguarder” and “defender.” RK: śakras tasya bodhisattvasya rakṣāvaraṇaguptiṃ kartukāmaḥ| rakṣāvaraṇā bhyāṃ sahitā guptis tathoktā| taṃ subhūtir āha. See also n.263.
568. According to Ratnākara (F.107.b), both the large scriptures (on the transcendent state of wisdom) set out seven types of appearances (instead of just the one here, an echo), saying, “All things are like magical illusions, mirages, dreams, echoes, false appearances, reflections, or cities of gandharva ghosts.” RK: mahatyor bhagavatyoḥ saptadhā khyātiḥ paṭhyate| “māyā-marīci-svapna-pratiśrutkā-pratibhāsa-pratibimba-gandharvanagaropamāḥ sarvadharmāḥ” iti. See, for example, the Twenty-Five Thousand, 61.2 (although it should be noted that the similes there are eight in number, do not correspond exactly, and come in a different context). Also, according to Ratnākara (F.107.b–8.a), there are two types of transcendent state of wisdom, namely, the spiritual and the pure worldly, as is taught in The Dhāraṇī “Entering Into Nonconceptuality” (Avikalpapraveśadhāraṇī, Toh 142, 1.13): “A bodhisattva who dwells in the source free of conceptualizations sees all things as homogenous like space. In post-meditation, he or she sees all things—with knowledge that is undistinguished from the object of knowledge—to be like magical illusions, mirages, dreams, false appearances, echoes, reflections, water-moons, and magical creations.” Thus, it concerns the spiritual when he mentions “space” in this passage, and it concerns the pure worldly when he says the bodhisattva “recognizes” (it as an echo). RK: dvividhā prajñāpāramitā lokottarā śuddhā laukikī ca| yathoktaṃ drumavikalpapraveśāyāṃ dhāraṇyām avikalpadhātupratiṣṭhito bodhisattvo jñeyanirviśiṣṭena jñānena ākāśasamatalān sarvadharmān paśyati| tatpṛṣṭhalabdhena māyāmarīcisvapnapratibhāsapratiśrutkāpratibimbodakacandranirmitasamān sarvadharmān paśyati” iti| ato lokottaram adhikṛtyāha ākāśasye tyādi| śuddhalaukikīm adhikṛtyāha| tatkim ityādi| parijānātī ti. More generally, note that although an echo is the most common simile in this scripture, there are also passages with series of four or five similes at 9.17 and 30.5.
569. According to Ratnākara (F.108.a–b), he or she does “not develop conceits about those things” by fixating on existence; does “not identify” through viewing (incorrectly); does “not perceive” through grasping; and does “not conceive of” by imagining. These are the four ways of fabricating a grasper. Then, to explain the four ways of fabricating something to be grasped, he says that they are “not found,” i.e., not considered existent; “not seen,” i.e., not viewed, “not encountered,” i.e., not grasped; and “not mentally perceived (upalabhyante), i.e., not conceptualized. Without these eight ways of fabricating a grasper and a grasped, that the bodhisattva great being “abides” means that he or she goes about life that way with respect to all things. RK: ataś ca tān iti sarvadharmān na manyate bhāvābhiniveśena| na samanupaśyati dṛṣṭyā| na jānāti grahaṇena| na sañjānīte kalpanayā| iti caturvidhaṃ grāhakakalpanam| tathaiva grāhyavikalpanam āha te ce tyādinā| na vidyanta iti sattvena na manyante| na saṃdṛśyanta iti na dṛśyante| na saṃvidyanta iti na gṛhyante| nopalabhyanta iti na vikalpyante| ity evam aṣṭadhā grāhyagrāhakayor akalpanena viharatī ti sarvadharmeṣu carati.
570. In the Tibetan translation, the passages that constitute this paragraph and the preceding one are linked without a break, and can be interpreted as implying that the thousand buddhas, as well as Maitreya, will all teach this chapter. Since Maitreya’s teaching of it is taken up as a topic at the start of the following chapter, however, that is where the emphasis must lie.
571. The beginning of this chapter corresponds to passages in Chapter 28 in the Twenty-Five Thousand (28.42) and Hundred Thousand (28.279), and in Chapter 37 in the Eighteen Thousand (37.37). Note that the mention of names and sounds etc. here is reflected, in the long sūtras, in their mention in the closing passages of the preceding chapters that monks named Subhūti will continue, in the dispensations of future buddhas including Maitreya, to question their buddhas using these very same words. This chapter goes on to include (from the point marked by note 582) the content of the whole of Chapter 29 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 38 in the Eighteen Thousand.
572. According to Ratnākara (F.117.a), this chapter is called “praise” because (its description of the many) aspects of the transcendent state of wisdom is a praise to it. RK: bcom ldan ’das ma la rnam pa ’di rnams kyis bstod de des na bstod pa’i don gyi le’u ni bstod pa’i le’u’o.
573. According to Hari (435), it is to explain the path of insight that Subhūti says “transcendent state of wisdom.” This term now refers—within the topic of (a worthy one’s) complete knowing—to the path of seeing that consists in sixteen moments (derived from subdividing each of the four noble) truths into (four aspects), namely (1) the receptivity to the knowledge of the truth, (2) the knowledge of the truth, (3) the subsequent receptivity to the truth, and (4) the subsequent knowledge of the truth. Hari: adhunā darśanamārgārtham āha: prajñāpāramiteti pratisatyaṃ dharmajñānakṣāntir dharmajñānam anvayajñānakṣāntir anvayajñānam ity evaṃ ṣoḍaśakṣaṇātmakaḥ sarvajñatādhikāre darśanamārga ity arthaḥ. Note: Hari (435–41) and Ratnākara (F.109.b–112.b) demonstrate in the next ten or so back-and-forths between interlocutors precisely how the different statements correlate to these sixteen moments on the path of seeing. But these comments have not been included in the notes (except for glossing an unusual usage) because they are not easily extracted from others concerning the Ornament.
574. According to Ratnākara (F.108.b–109.a), “a mere name” means that the transcendent state of wisdom is a (mere) designation, but not the referent, because there is no relation between a name and a referent, and hence one cannot cognize the referent (transcendent state of wisdom) from the name (transcendent state of wisdom). Otherwise, if one were to say “I myself am a god,” then one would turn into that very god—such would be the absurd consequence. The next sentence comes, nevertheless, in case someone insists that it does exist in a mere designation: “Its name…” and so on. “As such” (idam) means with these very words. That name is “not mentally perceived” because it is impossible (for one to perceive a thing) in a sound that is empty of a referent. “Simply consists in a sound” means that it is both the expression and what is expressed. So, whether or not that very name appears together with a referent or without a referent, it is impossible (for one to perceive a thing in it) and it is established as not existing (as such). RK: |ming tsam mo zhes bya ba ni ming yin gyi don ma yin te| ming dang don ni ’brel ba med pa nyid| |kyis de dag las don rtogs pa med do| |gzhan du na bdag nyid ni lha yin no zhes smras na| lha nyid du ’gyur ba thal bar ’gyur ro| |de lta mod kyi ming tsam na yod do zhe na| de’i phyir ming de yang zhes bya ba la sogs pa gsungs so| |’di zhes bya ba ni ming tsam nyid kyis so| |mi dmigs pa zhes bya ba ni don gyis stong pa’i sgra la mi rigs pa’i [phyir] ro| |de ci’i phyir zhe na| ngag gis dngos po zhes bya ba ni brjod par byed pa brjod par bya ba’i don dang bcas zhes bya ba’i don to| |don dang bcas kyang rung don med kyang rung ste| ming de nyid mi rigs te med par grub bo.
575. According to Ratnākara (F.109.a), if one were to ask how the transcendent state of wisdom is not mentally perceived, the transcendent state of wisdom is without either name or referent because they are contradictory to the transcendent state of wisdom. In that regard, it has no referent, and there is no cognition of a referent from a sound that has no relation with a referent. One might (object by) saying that the reason it has no referent is that it has no relation with a thing. That being so, through the sound the thing (i.e., transcendent state of wisdom) would not be affected, nor would there be any engagement with the thing that is (the sound’s) referent. (To respond to this objection), it is for this very reason that the transcendent state of wisdom (is said) not to exist as a name or a referent; that is to say, not mentally perceiving any referent means not mentally perceiving a transcendent state of wisdom. RK: ji ltar de mi dmigs she na| shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa la ming dang don ni med de shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa dang ’gal ba’i phyir ro| |de la de’i don kyang med de| don dang ’brel ba med pa’i sgra las ni don rtogs pa med de| gal te dngos po dang ’grel [sic ’brel?] ba med pa’i phyir don ni med pa yin no zhe na| de ltar na sgra las dngos po gos par mi ’gyur te| don gyi dngos po la yang ’jug par mi ’gyur ro| |de’i phyir shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa ni ming dang don med pa ste| don mi dmigs pa ni shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa mi dmigs pa’o.
576. According to Hari (437), it is free of “stains” because, insofar as it lacks either arising or nonarising, it is not stained by the root or gross defilements. It is free of “apprehending” because, insofar as it lacks either visibility or invisibility, it has no defilements. Hari: rūpanirupalepāparigrahataye ti samudayāsamudayavisaṃyogāt sarvakleśopakleśanirupaliptam| iti ṣaṣṭhaḥ. prabhavāprabhavābhāvenāsamkleśāt parigrahe ṇa nirmuktam| iti saptamaḥ.
577. According to Ratnākara (F.110.b), just as an echo is like space in not expressing anything whatsoever about a mountain or a valley, just so all things are also “inexpressive” (and “inexpressible”) like space. In that regard, the “transcendent state of wisdom is completely pure.” RK: tshig tu med pa dang| brjod du med pa ni ji ltar brag ca ni ri dang| ri sul du nam mkha’ ltar cung zad kyang brjod pa med pa’o| |de bzhin du chos thams cad kyang nam mkha’ ltar brjod du med pa ste| de ni shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa yongs su dag pa’o. Note that the Tibetan translation of the Quintessence as cited here enshrines an earlier Tibetan rendering of apravyāhāra as tshig tu med pa instead of the one used in the Tibetan translation of the Eight Thousand, smrar med pa.
578. According to Hari (440), the “great jewel” is a state of nonconceptualization as a countermethod that causes the actualization of the fruit, because it involves no conceptualization of any things as one attends to it for the sake of the welfare and happiness of all beings, and because, for the sake of this jewel, which is nonconceptual and virtuous by nature, there is no mixing of measures with countermeasures (in order to realize it). Hari: sarvasattvahitasukhā dyarthaṃ pratyupasthita tvena sarvadharmavikalpābhāvād avikalpakakalyāṇaprakṛtiratnārthena nyāyānyāyāsaṃśleṣāt phalasākṣātkaraṇaṃ pratyupāyo ’vikalpakatvaṃ mahāratnam iti caturdaśaḥ.
579. According to Ratnākara (F.111.b), “in a manner free from dissolution” means by way of lasting. RK: mi ’jigs pa’i tshul gyis zhes bya ba ni rtag pa’i tshul gyis so.
580. According to Hari (440), the transcendent state of wisdom “does not cling to” any imagined thing, “does not defile” any dependent thing, and “does not apprehend” any actualized thing—these are the three different meanings (of “thing” in this sentence). It is taught (in this section) that it does not conflate things with signs since it is free of any practice or lack of practice. Hari: kalpitabhāvaṃ nāvalīyate, paratantraṃ na saṃkliṣyate, pariniṣpannaṃ na parigṛhṇātī ty arthabhedaḥ. etad uktaṃ: pratipattyapratipatti-vinirmuktatvena dharmāṇāṃ nimittair asaṃsarga iti pañcadaśaḥ. According to Ratnākara (F.111.b), this sentence responds to the question, “If one attends to it for the benefit and welfare of beings, does it then involve conceptualization?” He states that it “does not cling to,” i.e., it does not fixate; “does not defile,” i.e., does not dwell; and “does not apprehend,” i.e., does not conceive. Hence, nonconceptualization means that it is not conceptualizing in these three ways. RK: gal te phan pa dang bde ba’i phyir nye bar gnas na de lta na ni rnam par rtog par ’gyur ro zhe na| rab ’byor shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa zhes bya ba la sogs pa gsungs te| zhum par mi ’gyur zhes bya ba ni mngon par zhen pa med pa’o| |mi sbyor zhes bya ba ni mi gnas pa’o| |yongs su mi ’dzin zhes bya ba ni yang dag par mi shes pa ste| de’i phyir rnam par mi rtog pa ni rnam pa gsum du rnam par mi rtog pa’o.
581. Here, instead of the Sanskrit edition’s “because it is free of mental perception” (anupalabdhitaḥ), the Tibetan translation (F.113.b) reads “because it is unarisen” (ma skyes pa’i phyir).
582. According to Hari (441–42), after having explicated the topic of complete knowing in detail, he summarizes it in the context of the three types of complete knowing by including the entire meaning within this sentence. In this sentence, “not entering anything” means not coming into being through the door of giving rise to the proper mindset; “not settling down on anything” means not establishing itself through the practice instructions and so on; “not revealing anything” means in the form of a universal through the armor-like practice; “not demonstrating anything” means in the form of a particular through the practice of setting out; “not leading toward” means not procuring anything through the practice of accumulation; and “not leading away from” means not causing anything to depart through the practice of going beyond cyclic existence. Hari: vistareṇa nirdiśyaivaṃ sakalārthasaṃgrāhakatvena trisarvajñatāmadhye sarvākārajñatām upasaṃharann āha: sā khalu punar ityādi. tatrāveśikā cittotpādadvāreṇotpādikā, niveśikā vavādādinā pratiṣṭhāpikā, saṃdarśikā saṃnāhapratipattyā sāmānyarūpeṇa, nidarśikā prasthānapratipattyā viśeṣarūpeṇa, āvāhikā sambhārapratipattyā prāpikā, nirvāhikā niryāṇapratipattyā niṣkarṣikā. sarvatra na kasyacid dharmasyety abhisambandhanīyaṃ. According to Ratnākara (F.112.a–b), “not…anything” means no mindset or any concurrent constituent of a mindset. “Not entering anything” means not closely placing anything on a meditative focus; “not settling down on anything” means not producing a tranquil mental state (śamatha) while placing anything on that meditative focus; “not revealing anything” means not generating insight (vipaśyanā); “not demonstrating anything” means because nothing is actualized; “not leading toward” means not attaining anything as a result; and “not leading away from” means that it itself does not lead to the end of anything. RK: chos gang yang zhes bya ba ni sems dang sems las byung ba mtshungs par ldan pa’o| |’jug par byed pa ni dmigs pa la nye bar ’jog par byed pa’o| |nges par ’jog par byed pa ni de nyid la ’jog cing zhi gnas skyed par byed pa’o| |yang dag par ston par byed pa ni lhag mthong skyed par byed pa’o| |nges par ston par byed pa na mngon sum du byed pas so| |yongs su thob par byed pa ni ’bras bur gyur pa’i chos thob par byed pa’o| |nges par thob par byed pa ni de nyid mthar phyin par ’dren pa ste| thams cad kyang med do zhes bya ba dang sbyar ro.
583. According to DOP p. 272, cela-ukkhepa (Skt. cailavikṣepa), the waving of garments is a sign of applause.
584. According to Ratnākara (F.112.b), it is teaching that all things (dharma) are not perceived, due to which there is no Dharma whatsoever that one can “awaken to.” For this reason, there is not any purifying Dharma that is “taught” to “anyone.” RK: chos thams cad ni dmigs pa med de| gang gi phyir byang chub par ’gyur ba’i chos gang yin pa de yang med do zhes ston to| |gang gi phyir rnam par byang ba’i chos gang zhig gang la ston par ’gyur ba ni med do.
585. According to Ratnākara (F.112.b), the phrase “not come into being” means not arisen. “No things” refers to defilement here. RK: mngon par ma grub pa ni ma skyes pa’o| |chos gang yang zhes bya ba ni kun nas nyon mongs pa’o.
586. According to Ratnākara (F.112.b), the three states of meditative concentration—the “empty state,” the “signless state,” and the “uninclined state”—are described here as examples of things that purify. RK: stong pa nyid la sogs pa’i ting nge ’dzin gsum ni rnam par byang ba rnams kyi dper brjod pa’o.
587. According to Ratnākara (F.112.b), the “teaching” refers here to the teaching on the absolute. RK: bstan pa ni don dam pa bstan pa’o.
588. According to Ratnākara (F.112.b), the basic meaning of the latter part of the paragraph from “not actualized by anyone” up to “made venerable” is based on the nonexistence of precisely that thing that constitutes a person. RK: sus kyang bstan pa med ces bya ba la sogs pa nas| sbyin pa’i gnas su byas pa med do zhes bya ba ga las shes she na| gang zag gi dngos po ’di nyid med pa’i phyir ro zhes dgongs so.
589. From this point on until the end of the chapter, the content is equivalent to that of chapter 29 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of chapter 38 in the Eighteen Thousand. Note that the points presented in this section as simply being stated by Subhūti are presented in the long sūtras in the form of Subhūti and the Buddha in dialogue.
590. Using the outline of the eight topics in the Ornament, Ratnākara (F.112.b-13.b) explains that this sentence begins the fourth of eight topics, namely the practice (prayoga) aimed at realizing all the aspects (sarvākārābhisambodhi) to be known by a buddha who achieves the “complete knowing of all aspects of everything” (sarvākārajñatā). According to Ratnākara, by definition these “aspects” are the perspectives by which one’s knowing of things is circumscribed when focused on meditative objects, such as the four noble truths and so on. The fourth topic speaks first of twenty-seven aspects (ākāra)—from the first aspect of things’ being “nonexistent” all the way up to their twenty-seventh aspect of being “unmoving”—that are realized by a buddha. Among the twenty-seven, the first twelve consist in four perspectives on the first three noble truths of suffering, source, and cessation. The latter fifteen concern the fourth noble truth, that of the path. In the first sentence here, the first, “nonexistent transcendent state” means the transcendent state of the aspect of nonexistence. All subsequent transcendent states should be understood this way too (i.e., the transcendent state of the corresponding aspect). The four aspects regarding the truth of suffering: “nonexistence,” “equality,” “voidness,” and “indestructibility” are explained in this paragraph. Here, when Subhūti says that the transcendent state of nonexistence is “like space,” it is because physical forms and so on are nonexistent. That is to say, in the same way that the nonexistence of any physical substance is the defining characteristic of space, so too the nonexistence of any inherent nature is the defining characteristic of physical forms and so on. RK: …asatpāramiteyam iti asadākārām ārabhya yāvad acalapāramiteyam ity acalākārāḥ| teṣu catvāraś catvāro duḥkhasamudayanirodhasatyeṣu pariviṣṭāḥ| pañcadaśa mārgasatye| asadākārapāramitā| asatpāramitā| evam uttarā api sarvāḥ| tatra duḥkhe catvāraḥ-asat-samatā-vivikta-anavamṛdya| ākāśasamatām iti| ākāśavad rūpāder asattām| yathā hy ākāśasya rūpidravyābhāvo lakṣaṇaṃ tathā rūpādīnāṃ svalakṣaṇābhāvaḥ.
591. According to Ratnākara (F.113.b), the “equality” of pleasure and pain is the freedom from mental perceptions of any things. RK: sarvadharmānupalabdhisamatām iti sarvadharmānupalabdhir eva sukhaduḥkhayoḥ samatā.
592. According to Ratnākara (F.113.b), “absolute emptiness” means the emptiness of both a person and an inherent nature. RK: atyantaśūnyatām iti pudgalena svabhāvena ca śūnyatām ity arthaḥ.
593. According to Ratnākara (F.113.b), the “transcendent state that cannot be harmed” means it has that as its aspect. “What cannot be harmed” means the lack of a self, because, while suffering is the cause of harm, a self is that which is to be harmed. Thus, we should understand “from the perspective of its freedom from the mental perception of any things” to refer to those things that harm or are harmed. RK: bādhakaṃ duḥkhaṃ bādhyatvād avamṛdya ātmā| anavamṛdyā ’nātmā| tadākāratvāt anavamṛdyapāramitā| sarvadharmāṇāṃ bādhyabādhakānām anupalabdhitāṃ nirūpalambhatāṃ upādāya.
594. According to Ratnākara (F.113.b), among the next four aspects, which concern the truth of the source, the “footing” is a cause, i.e., the previous constituents; the “inherent nature” is the thing that belongs to self, i.e., the activity of the body; “speaking” is the activity of the speech; and “naming” is the activity of the mind. The absence of these is, respectively, freedom from “footing”, “inherent nature”, “speaking”, and “naming.” It is called such and such transcendent state, because each transcendent state has one of these as its aspect. The phrase “not being mental or physical” means the absence of the “mental,” i.e., immaterial constituents, and “physical,” i.e., material constituents. Since “coming” and “going” are the activity of the body, “not coming or going” is referring to the absence of that. Since the cause of speech is conceptualization, “freedom from conceptualization” is referring to the absence of that. RK: samudaye catvāraḥ| tathā hi– padaṃ hetuḥ prāktanāḥ skandhāḥ. svabhāva ātmano bhāvaḥ kāyakarma| vacanaṃ vākkarma| nāma manaskarma kleśāś ca| eṣām abhāvo yathākramam| apadam, asvabhāvaḥ, avacanam, anāma| tadākāratvāt tatpāramitā| anāmāśarīratām iti| nāma arūpiṇaḥ skandhāḥ| śarīraṃ rūpaskandhaḥ| tayor abhāvo ’nāmaśarīratā| gatyāgatī kāyakarma| tadabhāvo ’nāgatir agatiś ca| vācāṃ hetur vikalpaḥ| tadabhāvo ’vikalpatā.
595. According to Ratnākara (F.113.b), the next group of four aspects concern the truth of cessation. To explain, “unmoving,” “unseizable,” “not dissipating,” and “nonarising” refer to the absence of, respectively, moving, being graspable, dissipating, and arising. It is called such-and-such transcendent state because each transcendent state has one of these as its aspect. The lack of moving is the fact that all things are unmoving. All things are ungraspable because one thing does not grasp another thing. The “association with a nondissipating thing” means it has no “association” with a “thing” that is “dissipating.” “Not coming into being” means the absence of arising. RK: nirodhe catvāraḥ| tathā hy asau gamanaṃ vā syāt grāhyaṃ vā kṣayo vā utpattir vā| eṣām abhāvo yathākramaṃ agamanaṃ, asaṃhāryaṃ, akṣayaḥ, anupapattiḥ| tadākāratvāt tatpāramitā| sarvadharmāṇām agamanatā gatyabhāvaḥ| sarvadharmāṇām agrāhyatā| na hi dharmo dharmaṃ gṛṇhātīti| kṣaya eva dharmaḥ| tena yogaḥ| tadabhāvād akṣayadharmayogatā| abhinirvṛttir utpattiḥ| tadabhāvād anabhinirvṛttitā.
596. According to Ratnākara (F.113.b–14.a), the next fifteen aspects concern the truth of the path. Being “free of doing” is the path, because a doer is not mentally perceived by means of it. RK: akārako mārgas tena kārakānupalabdheḥ.
597. According to Ratnākara (F.114.a), being “free of knowing,” i.e., not seeing, is the path, because a knower or seer is not mentally perceived by means of it. RK: ajānak āpaśyako mārgas tena jānakapaśyakānupalabdheḥ.
598. According to Ratnākara (F.114.a), being “free of transmigration” is the path, because of seeing the impossibility of death and rebirth by means of it. RK: asaṃkrāntir mārgas tena cyutyupapattyor ayogadarśanāt.
599. According to Ratnākara (F.114.a), being “beyond taming” is the path, because, by means of it, there is no conforming (vinaya) to the nature of things in the three times. RK: avinayo mārgas tena tryadhvasamāyā dharmaprakṛter avinayāt.
600. According to Ratnākara (F.114.a), the path is “a dream,” because even without a seer, one sees the object. The path is “an echo,” because even though the object does not exist, one mentally perceives the object. The path is “a reflected image,” i.e., a reflection, because even though the object does not exist, one sees the object. The path is “a mirage,” because even though no constituent in its water exists, it appears to worldly people tormented by thirst for it. The path is “a magical illusion,” because it appears without any sign. The phrase “causing discernment of nonarising” means that these five metaphors illuminate the path as nonarising, because such and such appears even without a cause for appearing. RK: svapno mārgaḥ vinaiva draṣṭāram arthadarśanāt. pratiśrutko mārgaḥ, asati śabde śabdopalambhāt| pratibhāsaḥ pratibimbaṃ sa mārgaḥ, asaty arthe ’rthadarśanāt| marīcir mārgaḥ, asati tajjalaskandhe pipāsataptalokadhātoḥ pratibhāsāt| māyā mārgo ’nimittā pratibhāsāt| anutpādavijñāpanatām iti yataḥ pañcabhir apy ebhir anutpādo mārga ādīpyate| pratibhāsahetum antareṇa tathā tathā pratibhāsāt.
601. According to Ratnākara (F.114.a), the path is “undefiled” because, by means of it, “attachment” and so on are not mentally perceived. RK: asaṃkleśo mārgas tena rāgādyanupalabdheḥ.
602. According to Ratnākara (F.114.a), the path is “nonpurifying” because, by means of it, a defiled sentient being (i.e., the basis to be purified) is not mentally perceived. RK: avyavadānaṃ mārgas tena kliṣṭasattvānupalabdheḥ.
603. According to Ratnākara (F.114.a), the path is “unstained” because the ultimate realm of things, like space, appears free of stains by means of it. RK: anupalepo mārgaḥ, ākāśavan nirupalepasya dharmadhātos tena darśanāt.
604. According to Ratnākara (F.114.a), the path is “unproliferating” because it is the antidote to proliferation. RK: aprapañco mārgaḥ prapañcapratipakṣatvāt.