755. According to Hari (541), being merely due to a cognitive error, the emotional defilements are characterized as emotional defilements, actions, and births. (Those mindsets) are “defiled,” i.e., infected by force of their opposite, “by a lack of emotional defilement” at the ultimate level. “Not fixed by convention” means their activities are unrestricted. Hari: asaṃkleśasaṃkliṣṭānī ti bhrāntimātrāstitvāt. kleśakarmajanmalakṣaṇaiḥ saṃkleśais tattvato ’saṃkleśair viparyāsabalāt saṃkliṣṭāny upahatāni. asaṃketānīti apratiniyatavṛttīni. According to Ratnākara (F.129.b), “defilements,” i.e., afflictions, means polluted by the root and subsidiary emotional defilements. They are “defiled by a lack of emotional defilement,” meaning emotional defilement is absent. The mindsets are “not fixed by convention”—i.e., the verbal root √kit here is in the sense of dwelling—meaning that the defilements do not dwell in the mindsets’ true nature at all, because they are adventitious. RK: asaṃkleśasaṃkliṣṭānī ti saṃkliṣṭiḥ saṃkleśaḥ kleśopakleśair malinīkaraṇam| na saṃkleśo ’saṃkleśaḥ | tena saṃkliṣṭāni| yato ’saṃketāni| kita nivāse| cittadharmatayā na samyak sthānaṃ teṣām āgantukatvāt.
756. According to Ratnākara (F.129.b), the true nature of the mindsets that are “luminously clear” purely “by nature” are “undefiled,” i.e., permanently free of stains. RK: prakṛtī tyādi| cittadharmatā hi prakṛtya iva prabhāsvarā nirmalā nityam asaṃkliṣṭe ti. According to Hari (542), their mindsets are “luminously clear by nature”—meaning their innate, inherent nature in itself is completely pure—(a) because even though the mindsets as they are at the stage of an ordinary person have arisen from cognitive error and are thus impure, they lack any inherent nature, and (b) because one can encounter the antidote by wholeheartedly understanding, through valid cognition, the nature of forms endowed with the qualities of nonarising and so on, and hence, the attachment (rāga) and so on clouding those mindsets can be removed irreversibly. Hari: prakṛtiprabhāsvarāṇī ti pṛthagjanāvasthāyām aviśuddhabhrāntikāraṇanirjātatvena tathābhūtāny api cittāni naiḥsvābhāvyāt, pramāṇopapannānutpādādirūpātmāvabodhaparāyaṇatvena pratipakṣodayād apy anivartyānīti śakyāpaneyarāgādisahāyatvāt prabhāsvarāṇi pariśuddhanijasvabhāvamātrāṇi.
757. According to Hari (543), “stuck”—i.e., fixated due to attachment and so on—“in the unstuck,” i.e., in a place impossible to remain, such as in enjoying attainments and so on. Hari: anālayalīnānī ty asthānārhe ’nālaye samāpattyāsvādanādau rāgādihetutvena līnāny abhiniviṣṭāni. According to Ratnākara (F.129.b), “the unstuck” means not clinging. It means that they are “stuck by not sticking,” i.e., by not clinging, because a mindset is stuck, but its essential nature is not, insofar as a mindset’s essential nature is neither “me” nor “mine.” RK: anālayalīnānī ti| anālayo ’layanam| alayanenaiva līnāni| cittaṃ hi līnaṃ na cittaprakṛtiḥ| na hi cittaprakṛtir na mahyaṃ na meti vā. Note: The translation of the Sanskrit compound follows the Tibetan and Hari’s analysis of a locative relation, rather than Ratnākara’s suggestion of an instrumental relation.
758. According to Hari (543), in this context it is said that excited or agitatedly doubtful mindsets are handled by paying attention to emotionally moving things (like impermanence and death) that cause them to become tranquil (śamatha). Stuck or sluggishly doubtful mindsets are handled by paying attention to delightful things that cause them to become uplifted. Mindsets captured equally (by both excitement and sluggishness) are handled by paying attention to the effortlessness that causes equanimity. Thus, the “uplifted mindsets” are caused by freedom from attachment (rāga) and so on. But the “ungraspable”—i.e., something impossible to grasp (or be handled)—“cannot be uplifted” further. Hari: agrāhyāṇi subhūte tāni cittāni na pragrahītavyānī ti tatra: uddhatam auddhatyābhiśaṅki vā cittaṃ saṃvejanīyavastumanaskāreṇa śamathanimittena, līnaṃ layābhiśaṅki vā cittam abhipramodanīyavastumanaskāreṇa pragrahanimittena, samaprāptaṃ cittam anābhogamanaskāreṇopekṣānimittena ca gṛhītam. ity evaṃ virāgādihetutvena pragṛhītāni cittāni. punar agrahaṇārhatvenāgrāhyāṇi bhūyo na pragṛhītavyāni.
759. According to Hari (544), mindsets with worldly influences have innate natures that do not exist, because they are reversible due to encountering the antidote, and hence they are the same as something unreal. Hari: sāsravāṇi cittāni pratipakṣodayān nivartyatvenāvidyamānanijasvabhāvāni, tataś cāsattātulyāni. According to Ratnākara (F.130.a), “inherent nature” (svabhāva) means the thing existing (bhāva) only in itself (sva, ātma). Since that is lacking, they are “lacking inherent nature.” The fabricators of the unreal are worldly influences, in the sense that a mindset is proliferating due to them. Why do mindsets have worldly influences on account of their connection with those? Because they are “fabrications of something unreal,” in that they create the realms—i.e., desire, subtle form, and formless realms—that are not real. RK: ātmany eva bhāvaḥ svabhāvaḥ| tadabhāvād asvabhāvāni| visaraty ebhiś cittam ity āsravā asatsaṃkalpāḥ| tadyogāt sāsravāṇi| kutaḥ? yato ’satsaṃkalpāni| asatāṃ kāmarūpārūpyabhavānāṃ kalpanāt.
760. According to Hari (544), the mindsets free of worldly influences meet their end in the absence of the emotional defilements to be abandoned through seeing and cultivation (on the bodhisattva path), and hence they are “effortless,” in that they lead the mindstream to become completely purified automatically. Hari: abhāvagatikāni subhūte tāni cittāny anābhogānī ti anāsravāṇi cittāni darśanabhāvanāheyakleśānām abhāvaparyavasānāni, tataś ca svarasena pariśuddhasaṃtānapravartanād anābhogāni. According to Ratnākara (F.130.a), “in the state of absence” (is an adjectival compound meaning that these mindsets) have “absence,” i.e., emptiness, as their “state.” Thus, “effortless” means that the mindsets are free of worldly influences due to proliferating in the desire, subtle form, and formless realms. RK: abhāvagatikānī tyādi| abhāvaḥ śūnyatā| sā gatir eṣām iti tathoktāni| tasmād anābhogāni kāmarūpārūpyabhaveṣu visaraṇāt, tato ’nāsravāṇīty arthaḥ.
761. The next six paragraphs, including this one, concern the mindsets with and without the three poisons, namely, attachment, aversion, and confusion.
762. According to Ratnākara (F.130.a), a mindset has attachment; the essential nature of a mindset does not. This means that the mindset having attachment is absolutely free of attachment. The “voidness” means its emptiness. That it does “not have attachment” means it is free of attachment. RK: cittasya sarāgatā na cittaprakṛteḥ| tasmād vi naiva rāgaṃ sarāgāṇīty arthaḥ| yaś cittasya vigama ityādi| vigamaḥ śūnyatā| na sā sarāgate ti saiva vītarāgatety arthaḥ.
763. The next five paragraphs, including this one, concern mindsets connected with the three realms—desire, subtle form, and formless—i.e., mindsets that are subtle or gross, expansive or unexpansive, or beyond measure.
764. According to Hari (547), since, in reality, their connection with a cause is empty, they do not arise. Hence, those mindsets are “connected with not increasing” due to the absence of manifestation. The mindsets “belong to not increasing” because they are not bound for the worlds of desire and so on. Because they are not mentally perceived, “that is how” he discerns them as “subtle.” Hari: asamutthānayogāni subhūte tāni cittāny asamutthāna paryāpannānī ti tattvato ’nutpatteḥ kāraṇasambandhaśūnyatvenāsamutthānayogāni. prādurbhāvavirahāt. kāmādidhātāv apratibaddhatvāt tāni cittāny asamutthānaparyāpannāni. evam anupalambhād avipulāni. According to Ratnākara (F.130.b), because their connection with “increasing”—i.e., becoming gross—is refuted, the mindsets are connected with not increasing. Because their overextension is refuted, they “belong to not increasing” based on the true nature of things. Therefore, they are subtle. RK: asamutthāne tyādi samutthānaṃ vistāraḥ| tad yoga pratiṣedhād asamutthānayogāni| atiprasārapratiṣedhād asamutthānaparyāpannāni dharmatayā| tasmād avipulāni.
765. According to Hari (547), since they do not cease, they “do not shrink.” Since they do not arise, they “do not grow.” Hence, since they do not go anywhere and are “not void,” they “do not disappear.” Since their inherent nature is the ultimate realm of things, “that is how” he discerns “gross mindsets.” Hari: avināśābhāvān na hīyante, utpādābhāvān na vivardhante, ata eva kvacidgamanābhāvenāvigamatvān na vigacchanty, evaṃ dharmadhātusvābhāvyād vipulāni cittānī ti. Note: The words translated “voidness” (vigama) and “disappear” (vigacchanti) are both derivations of the Sanskrit verb vi-√gam, and hence a slight play on words here.
766. According to Hari (548), they “do not come from anywhere” because there is no coming to them from a past time due to the refutation of a real effect inherent in the cause (satkārya). They “do not go anywhere” because it is impossible to go to a future time due to disappearing entirely. They are not based anywhere because they lack a singular or plural nature even in the present. Hence, they are “unexpansive.” Hari: satkāryapratiṣedhenātītād adhvanas tadāgamanavaikalyād anāgatikāni cittāni. sarvātmanā vināśād anāgate ’pi kāle gamanānupapatter agatikāni. pratyutpanne ’py ekānekasvabhāvavaidhuryād aparyāpannāni. evam amahadgatāni.
767. According to Hari (548), in reality, they are “the same in terms of their sameness” because, in having the same lack of nature of a self and so on, they do not arise. But at the conventional level, they are “the same in terms of” their illusory “inherent nature” because they appear with a nature that bears all the qualities. Thus, they are “expansive.” Hari: tattvato ’nutpādarūpatvād ātmādiniḥsvabhāvatulyatvena samatāsamāni cittāni. tathyasaṃvṛtyā tu sarvaguṇāvāhakarūpeṇa pratibhāsanān māyāsvabhāvasamāni. evaṃ mahadgatāni.
768. According to Hari (549), since they “have no basis”—i.e., their determinate basis is not found—they are “beyond measure.” Hari: aniśrayatvād iti na hi pratiniyatas teṣām āśrayo vidyata ity apramāṇāni.
769. The next four paragraphs, including this one, concern mindsets connected with the defining characteristics of material and mental substances.
770. According to Hari (549), they have “similar perceptions” because of being the illusion-like self-knowing. Absolutely all knowings are forms of similar perceptions. “The inherent nature of mindsets,” i.e., their nature of accumulating latent tendencies, is due to their having accumulated virtuous and unvirtous latent tendencies. This is “how” he discerns “mindsets with manifestations.” (Note: Hari is using here the well-known creative etymology that momentary mindsets (citta) are something accumulated (cita) through virtue and nonvirtue). Hari: samadarśanāni subhūte tāni cittāni cittasvabhāvānī ti māyopamātmasaṃvedanatayā samadarśanāni. tulyopalambharūpāṇi sarvāṇy eva jñānāni kuśalākuśalavāsanābhiś citatvāc cittasvabhāvāni saṃcitavāsanārūpāṇi. evaṃ sanidarśanāni.
771. According to Hari (549–50), “has no characteristics” means that, at the ultimate level, it lacks the nature of existing. “Devoid of any object” means that it is impossible for there to be a connection between (a perceptual) cause and effect with their natures, respectively, being the past and the future. For these reasons, a “mindset is imperceptible and does not appear to the three types of eyes or to all” of the five types of “eyes,” namely the flesh, (divine, wisdom, dharma, and buddha eyes). Hari: tattvato vartamānasvarūpaviraheṇālakṣaṇatvād atītānāgatarūpābhyāṃ saha yathākramaṃ kāryakāraṇasambandhānupapattyā ’rthaviviktatvāt trayāṇāṃ māṃsādi cakṣuṣāṃ sarveṣāṃ vā pāñcānām aviṣayatvenānavabhāsagatam adṛśyaṃ cittaṃ. evam anidarśanāni.
772. According to Hari (552), “having fabricated” means having superimposed as having the nature of an arising and so on. “The unreal” means not existing. The “mindsets” are “empty”—i.e., lacking an inherent nature—and, at the conventional level, “contingent upon,” i.e., dependent upon, their “object.” Hari: asatā vidyamānenotpādādirūpeṇa saṃkalpitāny adhyāropitāni cittāni śūnyāny asvabhāvāny ālambanavaśikāni saṃvṛtyālambanaparatantrāṇi. evaṃ pramāṇabādhitatvāt sapratighāni.
773. According to Hari (552), the mindsets are “free of duality” since they lack arising or nonarising. They are “arisen”—i.e., existing at the conventional level—“in the unarisen,” i.e., absolutely not existing at the ultimate level. Due to the impossibility of any means of valid cognition, “that is how” he discerns the mindsets “without resistance.” Hari: utpādānutpādarahitatvenādvayabhūtāni. tattvato ’bhavanam eva saṃvṛtyā bhavanam ity abhūtasambhūtāni. evaṃ pramāṇopapannatvād apratighāni.
774. According to Hari (552–53), due to habitual fixation on a self and so on, the mindset that is inferior, i.e., has reached a lesser state. “In accordance with reality” means being aware of the lack of identity. “Not developing conceit” means the mental perception with beliefs about the perishable collection and so on. Therefore, at the conventional level, “that is how” he discerns it as “inferior.” Hari: ātmādyabhiniveśena sottarasya nyūnāvasthāṃ prāptasya cittasya yā yathābhūtatā nairātmyasaṃvedanatā na tatrāsti manyamānatā satkāyādidṛṣṭyupalambhatā. tasmād evaṃ saṃvṛtyā sottarāṇi.
775. According to Hari (553), at the ultimate level a mindset (cittam) is not “even” a mere “atom.” Hence, its substantial nature is not “mentally perceived.” Therefore, those mindsets are “free from proliferations” because they are lacking in any cause for material forms and so on due to their naturally pure nature at the level of an ordinary person, just like at the level of buddhahood. “This is how” he discerns them at the ultimate level as “superior.” Hari: yasmāt paramārthato ’ṇumātram api cittaṃ vastusvarūpaṃ nopalabdhaṃ tasmād buddhatvāvasthāyām iva pṛthagjanāvasthāyāṃ prakṛtivaiyavadānikasvabhāvena sarvarūpādinimittāpagamān niḥprapañcāni. evaṃ tattvato niruttarāṇi cittāni.
776. According to Hari (553), since the mindsets are different from their faults of arising and so on, they are “similar” to their “dissimilar” object to be grasped. Insofar as the active mindsets are the subjects grasping that (dissimilar object), they are “unconcentrated,” because they have not accomplished the meditative concentration out of their distraction. “This is how” he discerns them as “unconcentrated.” Hari: utpādādidoṣavaiṣamyād asamena grāhyeṇa samāni. tadgrāhakatvena pravṛttāni cittāni vikṣepād akṛtasamādhānatvenāsamavahitāni. evaṃ asamāhitāni.
777. According to Hari (553), since no faults can be (ultimately) different, the mindsets are “similar”—in the sense of being equal to the arising and so on—“to the similar,” i.e., the ultimate realm of things. They are “carried toward the similar” because they have counteracted distraction. At the ultimate level, they are “similar to space,” in that their inherent nature cannot be found. “This is how” he discerns them as “concentrated.” Hari: sarvadoṣavaiṣamyānupapatteḥ samo dharmadhātus, tena sahānutpādādinā tulyatvāt samāni. vikṣepāt kṛtapratīkāratvena samavahitāni. tattvato ’vidyamānasvabhāvatvenākāśasamāni. evaṃ samāhitāni.
778. According to Hari (553), “mindsets are naturally liberated” because, according to logic, there is no birth. They have the “inherent nature of not existing” because an existent nature cannot be found. Hence, they are “unliberated mindsets” because there is no liberation caused by removing bonds. Hari: nyāyānuyāyijanmarahitatvāt svabhāvavimuktāni cittāni avidyamānasattārūpatvād abhāvasvabhāvāni. tataś ca bandhāpanayanapūrvakamokṣābhāvād avimuktāni cittāni.
779. According to Hari (553), a mindset “does not exist” insofar as it lacks a singular or plural inherent nature. Hence, “the Tathāgata does not mentally perceive” any mindset in the three times. Therefore, those mindsets are “liberated” because the two types of obscurations are naturally absent. Hari: yasmād ekānekasvabhāvavaidhuryeṇāsattvāc cittaṃ traikālikaṃ tathāgaten ānupalabdhaṃ. tasmāt prakṛtyā dvividhāvaraṇavigamād vimuktāni.
780. According to Hari (554), since it “does not exist”—i.e., it lacks characteristics—the “mindset is imperceptible,” i.e., the imagined mindset (parikalpita; kun btags). “Since it is not real” —i.e., it lacks a cause—it is not “an object of consciousness”, i.e., the dependent mindset (paratantra; gzhan dbang). It “cannot be grasped” because, as its own nature is not found, it is not actualized, i.e., the actualized (pariniṣpanna; yongs grub) mindset. One should understand the qualities “imperceptible” and so on each to be connected with the three eyes, namely the divine, wisdom, and fleshly eyes, or, “insofar as they do appear,” to “any” of the five eyes—including the buddha eye and dharma eye with the other (three mentioned by name in the sentence). Hari: asattvāt subhūte ’dṛśyam iti lakṣaṇaśūnyatvenāsattvād adṛśyaṃ kalpitaṃ cittaṃ. hetvabhāvenābhūtatvād avijñeyaṃ paratantraṃ. svarūpāvidyamānatvena pariniṣpannatvād agrāhyaṃ pariniṣpannaṃ cittaṃ. pratyekaṃ prajñācakṣur ādibhis tribhiḥ sambandhanīyam. pañcānāṃ vā buddhadharmacakṣurādīnām anavabhāsagatatvād adṛśyā dikam avagantavyaṃ.
781. According to Hari (554), since these words are a concluding summary of the previous series of subtopics, this sentence is something to (logically) connect with each (of those subtopics) beginning with the Tathāgata knowing the “distracted mindsets” and so on up to this point. Hari: evaṃ hi subhūte prajñāpāramite tyādyupasaṃhārapadaṃ saṃkṣiptacittajñānādihārakānte ’pi pratyekaṃ sambandhanīyaṃ. According to Ratnākara (F.130.b), in this summarizing statement the word “world” (loka) refers to the sentient beings that constitute a world (i.e., not the outer world). RK: |’jig rten ni sems can gyi ’jig rten no.
782. According to Hari (556), in terms of a logical affirmation, an “acceptance” refers to any mindset’s movement toward its own premise (viṣaya). In terms of a logical negation, a “denial” refers to any mindset’s movement away from another’s premise. “What is accepted and denied” is based on what has arisen from these two. He uses the two distinct terms “sentient beings” and “individuals” to differentiate those beings known to be in the world and beyond the world. Hari: vidhimukhena yaḥ svaviṣaye cittaprasaraḥ so ’yam unmiñjaḥ. pratiṣedhamukhena viṣayāntarāc cittasyāpasarpaṇaṃ nimiñjaḥ. tatsaṃjātatvād unmiñjitanimiñjitāni. laukikalokottaraprasiddhibhedāt parasattvānāṃ parapudgalānām iti dvayam uktaṃ. Note: Both Ratnākara and Hari go on to explain “what is accepted and denied” (unmiñjitanimiñjitāni—lit. “what beings are open and closed to”) as referring to particular philosophical positions that those beings accept or deny.
783. According to Hari (556), absolutely “all mindsets” means the mindsets that arise based upon physical forms and so on in terms of what they affirm and deny. Hari: rūpaniśritānī tyādi. sarvāṇy eva vidhipratiṣedhamukhena rūpā dipañcaskandhāśritāny utpadyante cittānīty arthaḥ.
784. According to Hari (558), this sentence means (as Nāgārjuna taught in the Root Verses on the Middle Way, RKIV, v.18): “You have asserted that which is dependent arising to be emptiness itself.” In essence, this section describes his full knowing of what is accepted and denied as the actual nature, because he fully knows the constituents from the perspective of the actual nature. Hari: tathā subhūte tathāgato rūpaṃ jānāti yathā tathate ti yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaḥ śūnyatā saiva te matā | iti tathatākāreṇa rūpādiskandhaparijñānād unmiñjitādīnām api tathatāparijñānam iti yāvat.
785. According to Hari (558), he “shows the actual nature” means he establishes the actual nature in accord with all phenomena as having a single nature. With these words, he describes the knowledge of showing the actual nature. tathatāṃ prajñapayatī ti sarvadharmānuyāyinīṃ tathatām ekarūpeṇa vyavasthāpayati. anena tathatāprajñapanajñānam uktaṃ.
786. The implication here is that the Tathāgata is one who has arrived at or realized (āgata) the actual nature (tathatā).
787. According to Hari (558), he taught the “imperishability” of the actual nature as “imperishable,” by saying (in the Twenty-Five Thousand, 28.73), “It is the true nature of things that is already established, whether or not the tathāgatas arise.” Hari: akṣayākṣayaivākhyāte ti utpādād vā tathāgatānām anutpādād vā tathāgatānāṃ sthitaivaiṣā dharmāṇāṃ dharmateti vacanād akṣayā tathatākṣayatvena nirdiṣṭā.
788. This point in the chapter corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 33 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 43 in the Eighteen Thousand. The content of the rest of this chapter corresponds to the content of the entirety of these chapters in the long sūtras.
789. According to Ratnākara (F.133.a), “things” here refers to the wisdoms. RK: chos zhes bya ba ni ye shes rnams so.
790. The implication here is that the Tathāgata is one who has arrived at or realized (āgata) (the characteristics) as they are (tathā).
791. The beginning of this chapter corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 34 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 44 in the Eighteen Thousand. Its content corresponds to the first part of those chapters, down to 34.16 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and the similar passage in the Hundred Thousand, and down to 44.13 in the Eighteen Thousand.
792. According to Ratnākara (F.136.b), it is “profound” because it provides assistance with a great task. “Oh!” is an exclamation of joy. RK: bya ba chen pos nye bar gnas so zhes bya ba la sogs pa gsungs te| gang gi phyir bya ba chen pos nye bar gnas pa de’i phyir zab pa’o| |kye ma ’i sgra ni dga’ pa’o. Note: This chapter plays upon slightly different usages of the Sanskrit word kṛtya. One should understand the translation of the singular “task” to mean a “service” (kṛtya) being performed for others and the translation of the plural “tasks” to mean the “duties” (kṛtya) of others being performed. Cf. BHSD pratyupasthita + krtyena, in the sense of “waits upon” others “with service.”
793. According to Ratnākara (F.136.a), in the last chapter the Blessed One explained the defining characteristics that consist in (the three types of complete) knowings. So now he will explain the distinctive characteristics. RK: shes pa’i bdag nyid kyi mtshan nyid bshad nas khyad par gyi mtshan nyid brjod par bya. According to Hari (569), this sentence describes distinctive characteristics through the first modifiers “inconceivable,” “incomparable,” “immeasurable,” and “incalculable,” which, respectively, summarize the four instants within (the realization of) the truth of suffering. Hari: acintyakṛtyene tyādi. acintyātulyāprameyāsaṃkhyeyatābhis tāvadviśeṣair yathākramaṃ duhkhasatyacatuḥkṣaṇasaṃgṛhītair viśeṣalakṣaṇam uktaṃ. Note: The other twelve (of the sixteen) instants in the realization of the three other noble truths are connected to other passages elsewhere.
794. According to Hari (570), previous masters say that, in this context, the four states, i.e., “the state of a tathāgata” and so on, should be connected with four types of wisdom, namely, mirror-like wisdom and so on. The “task” is “inconceivable” because it actualizes the state of a tathāgata and so on. The “task” is “incomparable” and so on should also be construed in just the same way in subsequent passages. Hari: tatra tathāgata tvam ityādipadacatuṣṭayam ādarśādijñānacatuṣṭayabhedena yojyam iti pūrvācāryāḥ. tathāgatatvādiniṣpādanād acintyakṛtyatvam. evam eva uttaratrāpy atulyakṛtyatvādikaṃ yojyaṃ. According to Ratnākara (F.136.b), “the state of a tathāgata” means one can speak to the way things actually are; “the state of a buddha” means one is oneself perfectly awakened; “the state of a self-existent being” means one has achieved mastery over all things; and “the state of knowing of someone who has complete knowing” means the pure, unobstructed knowing of all aspects of everything. RK: de la de bzhin gshegs pa nyid ni chos ji lta na bzhin du gsungs pa’o| sangs rgyas nyid ni rang nyid mngon par rdzogs par byang chub pa’o| |rang byung nyid ni chos thams cad la dbang bsgyur ba nyid do| |thams cad mkhyen pa nyid ni chos thams cad kyi rnam pa thams cad la dag pa dang thogs pa med pa’i ye shes so.
795. According to Hari (571), in this sentence the word “mindset” refers to a mental consciousness; “mental activity” refers to a mental action (karma) and the verbal and physical actions born from it; and “mental factor” refers to understanding (prajñā) and so on (i.e., the other mental factors conjoined with consciousness). The idea is that none of these “lead to it”—i.e., to buddhahood and so on—in the manner of a real thing that supports it, because buddhahood is free of all error (whereas they are not free of error). Hari: cittaṃ manovijñānaṃ. cetanā mānasaṃ karma tajje vākkāyakarmaṇī. caitasiko vā prajñādiḥ. ālambakabhāvenātra buddhatvādau na pravartate, sarvaviparyāsāpagamād iti bhāvaḥ.
796. According to Hari (571), “cannot be compared” means its own nature cannot be determined by the intellect. Hari: tulayituṃ ve ti buddhyā svarūpam avadhārayituṃ.
797. According to Hari (571), it is “immeasurable” since it cannot be measured by anything. Hari: aprameyaṃ hī ti yasmāt pramātum aśakyaṃ.
798. According to Hari (571), it is “incalculable” since it cannot enumerated as one and so on. Hari: asaṃkheyaṃ hī ti yasmād ekatvādinā gaṇayituṃ na pāryate.
799. According to Hari (571), “how could there be anything superior to him?” asks how, since there is nothing equal to him, there could be something more distinguished than something unequaled. For this reason, he says “equal to,” i.e., the same as, that which has an “unequaled” nature. Hence, “equal to the unequaled” refers to the Blessed One who has complete knowing. Hari: kutaḥ punar uttara iti samābhāvād asamasya kasmāt punar uttaraḥ prativiśiṣṭo bhaviṣyati. ato ’samenātmanā samas tulya ity asamasamo bhagavān sarvajñaḥ.
800. The Sanskrit omits this sentence entirely, but here we are following the Tibetan which reads the same sentence twice, once for monks and once for nuns, because it makes sense given the distinction between lay practitioners in the next line. Since Skt. reads bhikṣuśatānām only, one could argue that this compound could have been (with some creativity) construed as bhikṣubhikṣuṇiśatānām, although the Tibetan comes up with a different number of nuns.
801. According to Hari (576), the “state of complete knowing is entrusted to it” means the state of complete knowing is invariably connected to or dependent upon the transcendent state of wisdom. Hari: sarvajñatā samāyukte ti sarvākārajñatā prajñāpāramitāyāṃ pratibaddhā.
802. According to Ratnākara (138.a), “nevertheless” and so on teaches about fortunate disciples. Those “who possess the causes” are from the noble family. Those “who have performed services for former conquerors” means they have earned the merit that is beneficial. “Over a long period” means over a long lime. “Planted” means accumulated. “Roots of virtue” means they have received (the teachings of) the Blessed Mother and so on. RK: ’on kyang zhes bya ba la sogs pas ni skal ba dang ldan par bstan to| |rgyu phun sum tshogs pa zhes bya ba ni rigs dang ldan pa’o| |sngon gyi rgyal ba la bgyi ba bgyis zhes bya ba ni phan pa’i bsod nams byas pa’o| |yun ring po ni dus yun ring po’o; | bskrun pa ni bsags pa’o| |dge ba’i rtsa ba ni bcom ldan ’das yum thob pa la sogs pa’o.
803. The beginning of this chapter corresponds to points within Chapter 34 of the Twenty-Five Thousand (34.17) and Hundred Thousand, and within Chapter 44 of the Eighteen Thousand (44.14). From the point marked by note 801 until the end of the chapter, the content corresponds to the entirety of Chapter 35 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 45 in the Eighteen Thousand.
804. According to Ratnākara (F.139.a), in this context, “confused” means lacking in certainty; “doubtful” means having second thoughts; “worried” means turned around about it. RK: rmongs pa ni nges pa med pa’o| the tshom ni yid gnyis so| |som nyi ni phyin ci log go.
805. According to Ratnākara (F.139.a), “keeping it on him or her physically” means keeping (a physical representation of the Transcendent State of Wisdom) in the area of his heart. RK: |lus la thogs pa ni snying ga’i phyogs su thogs pa’o.
806. According to Hari (584), he or she is “like cotton wool”—i.e., similar to a cotton cloth constructed by creating unwoven ends—due to having a similarly flimsy character. Hari: tūlapicūpamaś ce ti tūlavartikaraṇāya saṃskṛtaṃ tūlakaṃ tūlapicuḥ. tenānavasthitasādharmyāt sadṛśas tadupamaḥ.
808. This point in the chapter corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 35 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 45 in the Eighteen Thousand. The content of the remainder of the chapter corresponds to the entirety of these chapters.
809. According to Hari (588–89), “without caulking the holes” through plugging any leaks with bark caulk and “without doing any repairs” through replacing any rotten wood. “He might board the ship buckling beneath its load” means he sets out carrying a heavy load. Hari: anākoṭitām iti udakapraveśasthāne valkalādānāt. aparikarmakṛtām iti pūtikāṣṭhānapanayanāt. bhārārtām abhirūḍha iti gurubhārabharitām utkalitaḥ.
810. The beginning of this chapter corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 36 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 46 in the Eighteen Thousand. The chapter goes on to entirely include (where marked by note 826) the corresponding content of Chapters 37 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand and Chapter 47 of the Eighteen Thousand; and also (where marked by note 835) the beginning of Chapter 38 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand and of Chapter 48 in the Eighteen Thousand.
811. According to Ratnākara (F.140.a), “meditation” (yoga) refers to either a preliminary practice (prayoga) or an applied practice (abhiyoga). RK: yogam iti prayogam abhiyogaṃ vā. According to Hari (594), “engage in meditation” means be engrossed in practice through not apprehending a recipient, giver, or gift and so on. Hari: yogam āpadyasve ti deyadāyakapratigrāhakādyanupalambhayogena pratipattiparo bhava.
812. According to Hari (594), “do not hold fast” means to not cling to it through fixating on physical form and so on. Hari: mā rūpataḥ parāmṛkṣa iti mā rūpādyabhiniveśayogena grahīr ity arthaḥ. According to Ratnākara (F.140.a), “do not hold fast” means do not cling to it as having the nature of those things (i.e., physical forms and so on). RK: parāmṛkṣa iti tadbhāvena mā grahīḥ.
813. According to Hari (594), “not held fast” means at the ultimate level, there is no way to contemplate it because its nature is nonarising. Hari: aparāmṛṣṭā hītyādi. tattvato ’nutpādarūpatvāt sarvākārajñatā na kenacit prakāreṇa pratyavamarśaṇīyā. According to Ratnākara (F.140.a), “not held fast” means it is not conceptualized through any qualities. RK: aparāmṛṣṭe ti sarvadharmair avikalpitā.
814. The text here contains a meta-textual instruction for reciters to “repeat” (peyālam) the above, while substituting certain lines for the five other transcendent states one by one. In this translation, rather than simply write “repeat,” the refrain has simply been translated and inserted, because it would take a reader more time to figure out a note about what to repeat, than to read through the extra half page of spelling it out. According to Hari (594), one should repeat the four-line refrain that extends from the previous “…dedicate them all to unsurpassed, perfect awakening” to “state of complete knowing is not held fast” for each of the transcendent states, while inserting the phrases about ethical discipline and so on. Hari: peyālam iti tat sarvam anuttarāyām ityādi yāvat kulaputra sarvajñat ety ayaṃ granthaḥ śīlādipāramitācatuṣṭaye ’tideśanīyaḥ.
815. According to Ratnākara (F.140.a), “getting familiar with” means practicing repeatedly. RK: parijayo ’bhyāsaḥ.
816. According to Hari (595), “in the way just mentioned” refers here to their doing (those difficult noble deeds) regularly to actualize the state of a buddha. Hari: evaṃrūpam iti buddhatvaniṣpādakam avikalaṃ kāraṇam ity arthaḥ.
817. As negative mental states, duḥkha and daurmanasya can range in degree and quality. They have been translated “suffering” and “despair” here, since duḥkha and daurmanasya together seem to characterize cyclic existence and since these are meant as umbrella terms for the negative tinge of all experience in cyclic existence. Cf. BHSD, daurmanasya, “dejected”; Apte, daurmanasya, “mental pain,” “despair.”
818. According to Hari (597), “freedom from clinging” means freedom from the arising of physical forms and so on. A “sanctuary” is in the sense of removing the causes of suffering. Hari: aśleṣāye ti rūpādyanutpādāya. layanam iti duḥkhahetunivartanārthena.
819. According to Hari (598), in the sense of reaching the highest point, “the ultimate destination” means the nonarising of physical forms, i.e., their lack of inherent nature, is “not the physical forms” at the conventional level. Hari: yat subhūte rūpasya pāraṃ na tad rūpaṃ iti prakarṣagamanārthena, rūpasya yat pāram anutpādo niḥsvabhāvatā na tad rūpaṃ bhavatī ti saṃvṛtyā.
820. According to Hari (598), “already awakened” means that due to (realizing) the nature of emptiness, “the bodhisattvas” would have understood “all things,” even now, just as someone on the stage of a buddha (would understand them). The idea (behind Subhūti’s question) is that, based on this fact, it would serve no purpose to apply oneself toward (accomplishing what is taught in) this scripture. Hari: abhisambuddhā eve ti idānīm api śūnyatārūpatvād buddhatvāvasthāyām ivādhigatāḥ sarvadharmās tasmād etatsūtrābhiyogo vyartha iti bhāvaḥ.
821. According to Hari (599), he asks “how so” meaning how could they be awakened, because conceptualizations, which are by nature erroneous, still exist (for those bodhisattvas). To address this doubt, he explains the next sentence. Its meaning is that there is absolutely no conceptualization in the ultimate destination of physical form and so on, because the ultimate destination is the nature of the nonarising of conceptualization. Hari: bhrāntyātmakavikalpasadbhāvāt katham abhisambuddhā iti tat kasya hetor ity āśaṅkyāha : na hy atre tyādi. vikalpasyānutpādarūpatvād rūpādipāre vikalpo naivāstīty arthaḥ.
822. According to Hari (599), after the phrase “already awakened to all things” one should supply the phrase “only at the level of ultimate reality.” That said, the overall idea here is that, at the level of conventional reality, applying oneself to the (teachings in this) scripture is effective for removing the superimpositions to which one is attached since the beginning of time. Hari: abhisambuddhā eva bhavanti sarvadharmā iti tattvata eveti śeṣaḥ. saṃvṛtyā punar anādikālīnasamāropāpanayanāya sūtrābhiyogaḥ saphalo bhaved iti bhāvaḥ.
823. RK (F.141.b): anutpādaś cānirodhaś ceti samāhāradvandvaḥ| prakṛtiḥ sarvadharmāṇāṃ dharmatā| tayā teṣām anutpādānirodhāya dharmadeśanāt pariṇāyakāḥ pari to netāraḥ paramārthabodhakā iti pariṇāyakakāritram.
824. According to Hari (602), the “resting place of the world” means the basis (of everything), because it is a summary of three types of operative functions. Among those, he will explain below how (they serve as) the basis, due to effortlessness, activity, and benefiting beings in terms of teaching of the qualities within the rubric of the complete knowing of everything. First, he teaches the functioning of their effortlessness in the following sentences. Hari: lokasya gatir bhavantī ti trividhakāritravyāpāropasaṃhārād āśrayā bhavanti. tatra sarvajñatādhikāradharmadaiśikatvenānābhogapravṛttasattvārthopasamhārād āśrayā bhavantīty anābhogakāritraṃ tāvat kathayann āha: iha subhūta ityādi.
825. It is difficult for an English translation to capture this passage’s play on two Sanskrit words, gati and gatikā, both of which can refer either to going to a destination or to the destination itself (in the sense of either a state of existence or a refuge). In line with the commentators’ explanations, the word gati is translated as “resting place” and the word gatikā as “rest upon” because the primary usages here are connected with the idea of a resting place in the sense of refuge. According to Hari (602), they “rest upon space” means they are dependent upon space. Hari: ākāśagatikam ity ākāśaniṣṭhaṃ. According to Ratnākara (F.141.b), since (going to) the “resting place” of a village just means arriving there, the resting place of the fruit of the three vehicles by going effortlessly also just means arriving there. But that resting place does not require effort, because a person does not go there physically or mentally, but arrives there, nevertheless, absolutely without effort. Thus, all things “rest upon space” because (coming or going to) the resting place of space does not involve coming or going to space, i.e., it is just (all things’) inherent nature. Therefore, they rest upon space means they are like space. RK: grāmasya hi gatiḥ prāptir eva| evam anābhogena gamanena yānatrayaphalasyāpi gatiḥ prāptir eva| sā tu nirābhogā| na hi pumān kāyena cetasā vā gantvā tat prāpnoti kintv ābhogata eva| tathā hy ākāśagatikāḥ sarvadharmāḥ| na hy ākāśasya gati r āgati r vā| svabhāva evāsya gatiḥ| tasmād ākāśagatikā ity ākāśasamāḥ.
826. According to Hari (602), “space” refers to the mere absence of a substance. It does “not come to rest” because there is no coming from a past time. It does “not go to rest” because there is no going to a future time. Hari: tatra: dravyābhāvamātram ākāśaṃ. atītāt kālād āgamanābhāvād anāgataṃ. anāgate ca kāle gativaikalyād agataṃ.
827. According to Ratnākara (F.141.b–142.a), “not created” because it is not arisen. It is “not transformed” because it does not arise in another state. It is “not conditioned” because it is not created through causes and conditions being combined. It is the opposite of being “stationed” due to abiding after arising; of being “fixed” due to abiding everywhere; and of being “established” due to dwelling in anything at all. RK: akṛtam anutpāditatvāt| avikṛtam avasthāntarānutpādanāt| anabhisaṃskṛtaṃ hetupratyayaiḥ sambhūya tasyākaraṇāt| sthitam utpadya vṛtteḥ| saṃsthitaṃ sam antataḥ sthiteḥ| vyavasthitaṃ kvacid eva sthiteḥ| eṣāṃ viparyāsād āsthitam asaṃsthitam avyavasthitam | According to Hari (602), “not created” because an agentive cause does not exist. It is “not transformed” because there is no cause of its destruction. It is “not conditioned” because conditioning factors cannot be fixed. Due to lacking inherent nature in the three times, it is, respectively, “not stationed,” “not fixed,” and “not established.” Hence, it has “neither arisen nor ceased.” Hari: kārakahetor sattvād akṛtaṃ. vināśahetuvirahād avikṛtaṃ. sthāpakasaṃskārānupapatter anabhisaṃskṛtam. kālatraye svabhāvaviyogād yathākramam asthitaṃ, asaṃsthitaṃ avyavasthitaṃ. ataś cānutpannam aniruddham.
828. According to Hari (602), “in being like space, they are free of conceptualization” means because they are homogenous (like space), they lack conceptualization. Hari: ākāśakalpatvād avikalpā iti svatulyatvān nirvikalpāḥ. According to Ratnākara (F.142.a), “free of conceptualization” means free of effort, because things consist in only their true nature—this is the idea. RK: ākāśakalpatvād avikalpā nirābhogāḥ| dharmatāmātratvād dharmāṇām iti bhāvaḥ.
829. According to Hari (603), all things have the nature of “emptiness” and so on (below), because their nature is not to arise. Their nature is “emptiness” because of being like an illusion; “free from signs” because all signs are lacking; “free of inclinations” because of going beyond the scope of desire; and “free of conditioning” because of being luminously clear by nature like the sky. “They do not depart from that resting place” means they do not go beyond that inherent nature. Hari: anutpādasvabhāvatvāt sarvadharmāḥ śūnyatādisvabhāvāḥ. tatra: māyopamatvāc chūnyatā. sarvanimittavigamād ānimittaṃ. prārthanāviṣayātikrāntatvād apranihitaṃ. gagaṇavat prakṛtiprabhāsvaratvād anabhisaṃskāraḥ. tāṃ gatāṃ na vyativartanta iti taṃ svabhāvaṃ nātikrāmanti.
830. According to Hari (604), all things rest upon “freedom from arising” because they are separated from any imagined suffering; “freedom from birth” due to lacking dependently constructed (vikalpita) suffering; and “freedom from any state of being” due to detachment from suffering in its true nature. Hari: kalpitaduḥkhavivekād anutpādagatikāḥ. vikalpitaduḥkhavirahād ajātāgatikāḥ. dharmatāduḥkhaviyogād abhāvagatikāḥ.
831. According to Hari (604), all things rest upon “the dream” because, insofar as the dream-like mere appearance is existing, what is imagined does not (actually) arise. They rest upon “the self” because, in the same way that a self is not found to exist because it is refuted by valid cognition, the arising of anything dependently constructed (vikalpita) does not exist. Hari: kalpitasamudayābhāvāt svapnopamapratibhāsamātrasya vidyamānatvena svapnagatikāḥ. yathātmā pramāṇabādhitatvān na vidyate tadvad vikalpitasamudayāsattvād ātmagatikāḥ.
832. According to Ratnākara (F.142.a), “maintained the practice” means they observe the practices, i.e., the six transcendent states. RK: caritāḥ ṣaṭpāramitā rakṣantīti caritāvinaḥ. Cf. BHSD caritāvin, “those who have pursued the religious course.”
833. This point in the chapter corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 37 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and the Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 47 in the Eighteen Thousand.
834. According to Ratnākara (F.142.b), the Buddha is speaking here of those whose “inherent nature” is “devoid of needing” i.e., wishing, “to withdraw,” i.e., to heal. This describes their four “natures,” namely, (1) being devoid of emotional defilements, (2) being devoid of the marks of emotional defilements, (3) being devoid of the signs of emotional defilements, and (4) being devoid of counteracting antidotes. Among those, (1) “emotional defilements” refers to attachment and so on; (b) “marks of emotional defilements” refers to the negativities in the body and so on that have created the emotional defilements; (3) “signs of emotional defilements” refers to improper attentiveness and so on; and (4) “counteracting antidotes” refers to nonattachment for attachment, nonaggression for aggression, and nondelusion for delusion. RK: vinayo ’panayaḥ| tam arhantīti vainayikāḥ | tair viviktaḥ svabhāva eṣām iti tathoktāḥ| iyatā catvāraḥ svabhāvā uktāḥ| kleśavivekaḥ| kleśaliṅgavivekaḥ| kleśanimittavivekaḥ| vipakṣapratipakṣavivekaś ca| tatra kleśo rāgādiḥ| kleśaliṅgaṃ kleśakṛtaṃ kāyādidauṣṭhulyam| kleśanimittam ayoniśomanasikārādi| vivakṣapratipakṣau rāgārāgau dveṣādveṣau mohāmohau ca.
835. In order to capture the play on words in the passage that follows, the Sanskrit term saṃnaddha is rendered in English here as both “donned” and “fastened”—as in the Tibetan, which uses the two translations bgos pa and ’brel pa.
836. According to Ratnākara (F.142.b), “would not hope for” means would not see it as something to be gained. Here, a bodhisattva should not see there to be “three” possible states. The idea is that a bodhisattva should see there to be only one (possibility, i.e., buddhahood). RK: na pratikāṃkṣitavyānī ti na labhyatvena draṣṭavyāni| atra trīṇi na draṣṭavyānīty ekam eva sthānaṃ draṣṭavyam iti bhāvaḥ.
837. According to Hari (609), not “possible states” means it is not a possibility, due to their lacking the causes (for such lesser attainments). Not “appropriate places” means they would have no occasion to do so, since such a fruition is not possible. Hari: hetuvaikalyād asthānam asambhavaḥ. phalāsambhavād anavakāśo ’navasaraḥ.
838. According to Ratnākara (F.143.a), “actualized” means like a real thing. RK: pariniṣpanno vastubhūtaḥ. According to Hari (610), “nothing is actualized” refers to the characteristics of an agent, an object, and an action and so on. Hari: na hi kaścid dharmaḥ pariniṣpanna iti kartṛkarmakriyādilakṣaṇaḥ.
839. According to Ratnākara (F.143.a), it is a “cultivation of space” and “a cultivation of all things” because, insofar as the true nature alone is seen, there is no perception of all things. It is “a cultivation of freedom from attachment” and “a cultivation of the infinite” because it includes all things through the state of complete knowing. It is “a cultivation of the infinite” because nonperception is not obstructed toward all things and all things are infinite. It is “a cultivation of the nonexistent” because the grasped object is not perceived. It is “a cultivation free of apprehending” because the grasping subject is not perceived. RK: ataś cākāśabhāvanaiṣā sarvadharmabhāvanā ca dharmatāmātradarśanād dharmāṇāṃ cānupalabdheḥ| ata ev āsaṅga bhāvanaiṣā ’nantabhāvanā ca sarvadharmeṣv anupalabdher avyāghātād dharmāṇāṃ cānantyāt| asato bhāvanā ’sadbhāvanā grāhyānupalambhāt| aparigrahabhāvanā grāhakānupalambhāt. According to Hari (610), a “cultivation of space” means a cultivation like an illusion at the ultimate level. In the following sentences, he explains that very cultivation in terms of the divisions of the state of complete knowing of all things and so on. Among those, it is “a cultivation of all things” because the state of complete knowing of all things includes the nonarising of any realization. It is “a cultivation of freedom from attachment” because it trains in all paths without habitual fixation through the knowing of the path. It is “a cultivation of the nonexistent” because it has the nature of the special path through the comprehension of all aspects. It is “a cultivation free of apprehending” because it has the characteristic of the path to the conclusion through the realization of the culmination. Hari: tatra sarvākārajñatayā sarvābhisamayānutpādasaṃgrahāt sarvadharmabhāvanā. mārgajñatayānabhiniveśena sarvamārgaśikṣaṇād asaṅgabhāvanā. sarvajñatayāśeṣavastusaṃgrahād anantabhāvanā. sarvākārābhisambodhena viśeṣamārgarūpatvād asadbhāvanā. mūrdhābhisamayena niṣṭhāmārgalakṣaṇatvād aparigrahabhāvanā.
840. According to Ratnākara (F.143.a), “deeply reflected upon” means it is taken as meditative object. Each Sanskrit adjectival compound with the words “inclined,” “bent,” and “predisposed” implies a substratum (ādhāraḥ) that is the “mindstream,” i.e., the causal continuum of a mindset. RK: vyavacārite ty ālambitā| nimnaprāgbhārapravaṇa śabdā ādhārārthāḥ| taiḥ saha bahuvrīhiḥ| santatiś cittasantānaḥ.
841. The words “transcendent state of wisdom” have been added here for clarity, following Ratnākara (F.143.a–b) who states, “After the phrase ‘such a deep reflection,’ we should add the words ‘of the transcendent state of wisdom.’ ” RK: iyaṃ sā vyavacāraṇe ti prajñāpāramitāyā iti śeṣaḥ.
842. This point in the chapter corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 38 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and the Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 48 in the Eighteen Thousand. In the long sūtras, the gods’ questions and the Buddha’s reply are considerably longer, but culminate in the mention of the Buddha’s initial reluctance to teach the profound Dharma he had discovered on awakening, as related in many of the accounts of his life.
843. The content of this chapter corresponds to all the remaining content of Chapter 38 in the Twenty-Five Thousand (beginning at 38.15) and the equivalent in the Hundred Thousand, and to all the remaining content of Chapter 48 in the Eighteen Thousand (beginning at 48.9).
844. This chapter plays on different usages of the Sanskrit word dharma, meaning “truth,” “things,” “teachings,” “qualities,” and “virtues.” It also plays on several other words, as will be seen below.
845. The translation follows the glosses by RK: ataś ca apratihatalakṣaṇo ’pratihatasvabhāvaḥ| sarvapadā nāṃ sarvavastūnāṃ anupalabdhitaḥ.
846. According to Hari (617), “beyond any simile” means beyond comparison. It has “no counterpart” because there is nothing like it. RK: apratimo nirupamaḥ advitīyatvād iti sadṛśābhāvāt.
847. According to Hari (617), “because it lacks any opposition” means because it has fully transcended all counteractions (needed to remove ignorance). The “unopposed nature” means the nature that is not counteracted. Hari: niṣpratyarthikatvād iti sarvapratipakṣasamatikrāntatvāt, apratilakṣaṇo ’pratipakṣalakṣaṇaḥ. According to Ratnākara (F.144.a), it has an “unopposed nature” means it lacks the nature of a perception, because it “lacks any opposition” to it, i.e., it has no opposing thing (to perceive). RK: prati bodhakaṃ lakṣaṇam asye ti pratilakṣaṇaḥ| tadabhāvād apratilakṣaṇaḥ| niṣpratyarthikatvād iti virodharahitatvāt.
848. According to Hari (617), “not truly come into being” means unborn. Hari: anabhinirvṛttatvād iti ajātatvāt. According to Ratnākara (F.144.a), “because it has not truly come into being,” i.e., there is absolutely no support anywhere for something that has not truly come into being. RK: anabhinirvṛttatvād iti| na khalv anabhinirvṛttasya kvacit pratiṣṭhā.
849. According to Hari (617), it is “not arising because all births are free of birth,” i.e., because its nature is not found in any state of existence, such as the god realms and so on. Hari: sarvopapattyanupapattitvād iti devādisarvagatiṣv avidyamānarūpatvād anutpādaḥ. According to Ratnākara (F.144.a), “not an arising” means it is free of arising. The reason is “because all births are free of birth.” To explain, there is no arising of something existent, because it cannot have the property of arising. There is also no arising of something nonexistent, because it is absolutely nonexistent, like the horns of a donkey. RK: yato ’nutpāda utpādarahitaḥ| kuto ’nutpādaḥ ? sarvotpattīnām anutpattitvāt| na hi satām utpattir utpattilakṣaṇāyogāt| nāpy asatām| asattvād eva kharaviṣāṇavat.
850. According to Ratnākara (F.144.a), it is “not a pathway” because it is not a pathway, i.e., a road, to the lower births, higher births, or nirvāṇa. For that reason, it says “it is free from the mental perception of all paths.” RK: durgatipathaḥ sugatipatho nirvāṇapathaś ceti panthānaḥ| tadabhāvād apathaḥ | ata evāha| sarvapathānupalabdhitvāt.
851. According to Hari (618), using the phrase “born after” means to suggest that the “disciple” is a child of “the Blessed One” who is born after him, i.e., just like the Tathāgata. Hari: bhagavataḥ sambandhī śrāvako ’yam anu paścāj jātas tathāgata ivety anujātaḥ. According to Ratnākara (F.144.a), in the phrase “born after,” the word “after” (anu) is in the sense of a similarity (i.e., he takes after the Blessed One). RK: anu ḥ sādṛśye. Note: To capture the implications within the play on the Sanskrit word anujātaḥ the Tibetan translates it here as “born after in a similar manner” (rjes su mthun par skyes), but later as “born after” (rjes su skyes pa). The English translation leaves “born after” throughout the chapter, since this phrase in English can have a similar range of implications.
852. According to Ratnākara (F.144.b), “how so” implies the question how does he have the quality of being “born after”? In the following response, the idea is that the son (i.e., Subhūti) is like the Blessed One (i.e., the father), because they both explain emptiness. RK: tat kasye tyādi tat kasyānujātatvaṃ? uttaraṃ tathā hī tyādinā| bhagavata eṣa putraḥ sadṛśaś ca śūnyatāvāditvād iti bhāvaḥ.
853. Subhūti’s quotation of Śakra’s statement ends here. But Subhūti continues to refer to himself in the third person throughout the rest of his explanation of their statement below.
854. According to Hari (618), “being unborn” means, ultimately, not having arisen. Hari: ajātatvād iti tattvenānutpannatvād. According to Ratnākara (F.144.b), with the words “in being unborn” he explains another implication of being “born after” him. The idea here is that the father and son are similar in terms of “being unborn.” You might ask, “If unborn, then how can they be father and son?” The idea is that they are father and son at the conventional level. RK: ajātatvād ity anujātatve hetum āha| ajātatvena pitāputrayoḥ sādṛśyād iti bhāvaḥ| yady ajātaḥ tau kathaṃ pitāputrau? saṃvṛtyeti bhāvaḥ. Note: Some readers may wonder whether a line of text was accidentally omitted here, because Subhūti’s mention of “being unborn” is not a direct reference to anything said above (as some might expect it to be). Although a scribal error could certainly have dropped a sentence about being “unborn” from the root texts at some point, one can easily justify the idea of “being unborn” here, as it is implied by the above words “not an arising” and “free of birth.”
855. According to Hari (618), Subhūti is the disciple “born after” and has “followed after”—i.e., attained or subsequently reached sameness with—the “actual nature” of that very Tathāgata. Hari: anujātas tathāgatasya śrāvakaḥ subhūtis tasyaiva tathatām anuyātah prāptas tādātmyenānugataḥ. According to Ratnākara (F.144.b), with the words “followed after,” he explains another implication (of being called “born after”). He has “followed after,” i.e., gone after “the Tathāgata’s actual nature.” Thus, he is born after the Tathāgata. The idea is that after following the Tathāgata, he is “born after,” i.e., after following him. RK: anuyāta ity ādinā hetvantaram āha| anuyāto ’ nugatas tathāgatasya tathatām| tato ’py anujātas tathāgatasya| anugamya jāto ’nujāta iti bhāvaḥ.
856. According to Ratnākara (F.144.b), one might ask whether he is still someone who has “followed after” once he has attained the state of a worthy one (arhat) or just before then? Subhūti addresses this by explaining it with the following sentence—“From the very beginning…”—and so on. RK: kiṃ punaḥ prāpte ’rhattve ’nuyātaḥ kiṃ vā pūrvam evety ata āha| ādita ityādi. Note: The Sanskrit editions and manuscripts have many typos confusing the two words anuyāta and anujāta, probably due to the close similarity of the syllables jā and yā in Middle Indic. In any event, here (and elsewhere), the English translation follows the evidence of the Tibetan Degé edition wherever it is clear.
857. According to Hari (619), “due to which he is born after the Tathāgata” means as consequence of attaining the actual nature, he is “born after” (the Tathāgata). Hari: ato ’nujāta iti tathatāprāptiyogād anujātaḥ.
858. According to Ratnākara (F.144.b), it is “not the actual nature” because the term “actual nature” has no referent to be expressed. RK: atathate ti| tathatāśabdānabhidheyatvāt. According to Hari (617), to be precise, the phrase “not an actual nature” means that the “actual nature” too is an illusion-like convention, since a refutation without an object (to refute) is not possible. Hari: atathate ti nirviṣayapratiṣedhānupapattes tathatāpi sāṃvṛtī māyopameti yāvat. From here forward, the Tibetan begins to translate anujātaḥ simply as rjes su skyes pa (“born after”), with the subsequent implications of the term in mind.
859. According to Hari (620), one might ask how Subhūti could be “born after” since his nature, in reality, is the actual nature of all things. So, Subhūti begins to explain with this sentence. The “continuum” refers to the actual nature of a causal stream at the conventional level. Hari: tattvato dharmatārūpatve katham anujāta ity āha : tathāgatasye tyādi. sthitite ti sāṃvṛtyā prabandhadharmatā. According to Ratnākara (F.144.b), with these words he explains another implication of being “born after” him. The continuum of things (including consciousness) is the actual nature. Since this cannot be superseded, it is established as that (actuality). RK: anujātatve hetvantaram āha tathāgatasye tyādinā| tathatā hi dharmāṇāṃ sthitiḥ| anatikramaṇīyatvāt tathāvasthitā.
860. According to Ratnākara (F.144.b–145.a), it is “unchanging” because it continues in its former inherent nature; “free of change” because it does not arise in another inherent nature; “nonconceptual” because it does not have the inherent nature of conceptualization; and “free of conceptualization” because it does not have the objective scope of conceptualization. RK: yathe tyādinā| pūrvasvabhāvānuvṛtteḥ avikārā | svabhāvāntarānutpatteḥ nirvikārā | vikalpasvabhāvābhāvād avikalpā | vikalpāviṣayatvāt nirvikalpā. According to Hari (620), it is “unchanging” and “free of change” because, in it, there is, respectively, neither an increase nor a decrease, and it is “nonconceptual” and “free of conceptualization” because it is devoid of any conceptualization of self or other. Hari: tatrādhikanyūnavikārābhāvād yathākramam avikārā nirvikārā, svaparavikalpaviyogād avikalpā nirvikalpā. Note: The Tibetan differs slightly from the Sanskrit reading seen by the commentators.
861. According to Ratnākara (F.145.a), it “not obstructed anywhere” because it is all pervasive. RK: na kvacit pratihanyata iti sarvagatatvāt.
862. According to Ratnākara (F.145.a), it is “only one single” is the assertion. Someone might ask whether it is “single” due to belonging to a same category? He says no, it is “free of duality.” To explain, duality is a division. Due to lacking division, it is “free of duality”—meaning it just “one.” To this, someone might object that even “one single” (actual nature) must be divided by virtue of its relationships, in the same way that spaces to the east and west can be divided. Similarly, it must be a division to speak of the actual nature of physical forms, the actual nature of feelings, and the actual nature of conceptions. In response to this possible objection, Subhūti says it is “free from creating duality.” Also, for these two reasons (i.e., being “free of duality” and “free from creating duality”), it is called the “actual nature free of duality” (advayatathatā). Generally, it is called the “actual nature” because of being always exactly like that (actuality) (tathā). In the phrase “actual nature free of duality,” the description “free of duality” is used because that (actuality) is indivisible on its own, and the description “actual nature” is used because it is indivisible due to (its relationships with) others. RK: ekaivaiṣe ti pratijñā| tat kim ekajātīyatvād ekā ? nety āha| advaye ti| dvayaṃ bhedas, tadabhāvād advaye ty eko śabdasyārthaḥ| ekam api sambandhibhedād bhidyate| tadyathā pūrvākāśam aparākāśam iti| tadvad rūpatathatā vedanātathatā saṃjñātathatety eṣa bhedo bhavatīti ced āha| advaidhīkāre ti| ataś ca advayatathatā| nityaṃ tathaiveti tathatā| advayā ca svayam abhedāt tathatā ca parato ’py abhedād ity advayatathatā. Note: Ratnākara’s comments also clarify that the Sanskrit advayatathatā (i.e., “nondual actual nature”) is technically a descriptive determinative compound (karmadhāraya). The translation here follows the Sanskrit commentaries and takes it to be the predicate of the previous sentence, whereas the Tibetan translation treats it as the mere subject of the following sentence.
863. According to Ratnākara (F.145.a), the actual nature is “not in anything” and “not the result of anything,” i.e., it is not something based in anything or caused by anything, like, for instance, water in a well or like a shoot of barley. Therefore, since it is not connected to anything, the actual nature is “not a property of anything.” Since it is not a property of anything, it is “a nondual actual nature free of duality and free of creating duality.” For this reason, it is (described above as) not obstructed anywhere. RK: na kvacid ityādinā| tat khalu tasya bhavati yad yadādhāraṃ yaddhetukaṃ vā| tadyathā kūpodakaṃ yavāṅkura iti| tathatā tu na kvacit nā pi kutaścit| tasmāt kvacid apratibaddhatvān na sā kasyacit| yataḥ sā na kasyacit tataḥ sā ’dvayā ’dvaidhīkārā ’dvayatathatā| tato na kvacit pratihanyate.
864. According to Ratnākara (F.145.b), the “actual nature” is “uncreated” because it is permanent. It “never becomes anything that is not the actual nature” because it is always exactly like that (actuality) (tathā). Therefore, it is “nondual” (also in this sense) because it is indivisible by time divisions. RK: akṛtatathataye ti| akṛtā cāsau nityatvāt tathatā ca| na sā kadācin na tathate ti nityaṃ tathaiva bhāvāt| tataḥ sā ’dvaye ti kālabhedenāsyābhedāt.
865. According to Ratnākara (F.145.b), “anywhere” means in all the world systems, and “anything” means in all things. It is “nonconceptual” because it does not conceptualize and “free of conceptualization” because it has eliminated all conceptualizations. RK: sarvatre ti sarvalokadhātuṣu| sarvadharmaṣv iti sarvavastuṣu| avikalpā teṣām avikalpanāt| nirvikalpā tathaiva sarvavikalpānāṃ prahāṇām. Note: Ratnākara’s comments also clarify that the Sanskrit akṛtatathatā is technically a descriptive determinative compound (karmadhāraya). The translation already takes this into account.
866. According to Ratnākara (F.145.b), he explains another implication (of being called “born after”). It is not “anywhere different” means it is not something different from his not mentally perceiving a divider. RK: hetvantaram āha yathe tyādinā nānyatre ti nānyā bhedakatvānupalabdheḥ.
867. According to Ratnākara (F.145.b), in this final phrase, “that actual nature” is “not anywhere different” because there is no second (reality). RK: dvitīyābhāvād ananyā cāsau tathatā ceti ananyatathatā.
868. According to Ratnākara (F.145.b), “in doing so” means in such an encounter. “No one”—i.e., neither Subhūti nor anyone else—“has become similar to anything,” i.e., to the Tathāgata or anything else. The idea here derives from his seeing all things and persons as lacking identity. RK: atre ty asminn upagame| na kaścit subhūtir anyo vā| na kvacid iti tathāgate ’nyasmin vā ’nugatim upagataḥ| dharmapudgalanairātmyadarśanād iti bhāvaḥ. Cf. Hari: anugatim sadrṣatā.
869. According to Ratnākara (F.146.a), the implication here is that the word tathāgata (“arrived at the actuality”) refers to someone who “arrives at” (āgata) “the actual nature” (tathatā) or someone who knows actual nature, because any (Sanskrit verb) meaning “to go to” or “arrive at” means “to know.” RK: gamir jñānārthaḥ tathatāgatā ’nena tasmāt tathāgata iti bhāvaḥ.
870. In this description of an auspicious earthquake, a modular element of many Buddhist texts, the Sanskrit uses six different verb roots each repeated with adverbial prefixes that establish three degrees of intensity for each. A literal translation would be: “The earth shook (akampat), shook excessively (prākampat), and shook completely excessively (saṃprākampat). Then, the earth trembled (acalat), trembled excessively (prācalat), and trembled completely excessively (saṃprācalat). Then, the earth cracked open (avedhat), cracked open excessively (prāvedhat), and cracked open completely excessively (saṃprāvedhat). Then, the earth rattled (araṇat), rattled excessively (prāraṇat), and rattled completely excessively (saṃprāraṇat). Then, the earth lurched (akṣubhyat), lurched excessively (prākṣubhyat), and lurched completely excessively (saṃprākṣubhyat). Finally, the earth thundered (agarjat), thundered excessively (prāgarjat), and thundered completely excessively (saṃprāgarjat).” Ratnākara (F.146.a) explains the “six changes (ṣaḍvikāram) displaying the eighteen great signs” when a tathāgata’s actual nature is being explicated, saying that among the six changes, three verbs refer to movements, and three verbs refer to sounds. By dividing these six into mild, medium, and strong, there arise “eighteen signs.” Among these, the three movements are (1) trembling in its parts, (2) shaking entirely, and (3) lurching, i.e., trembling absolutely profusely. The sounds are (4) cracking open, (5) rattling like a cup hit with a stick, and (6) thundering like fresh rain clouds. Six changes are also described (as an additional passage in many texts, but not here) as follows: “The earth rode up in the east and plunged down in the west. It rode up in the west and plunged down in the east. It rode up in the south and plunged down in the north. It rode up in the north and plunged down in the south. It rode up in the center and plunged down at the perimeters. It rode up at the perimeters and plunged down in the center.” RK: asyāṃ deśyamānāyāṃ yad adbhutam abhūt tad āha| asyām ityādinā| ṣaḍavikāram aṣṭādaśamahānimittaṃ yathā bhavati tathā akampata yāvat saṃprāgarjat| atra trayo dhātavaś calanārthāḥ| trayaḥ śabdārthāḥ| mṛdumadhyādhimātrakriyābhedād aṣṭādaśamahānimittāni bhavanti| tatra cala nam aṅgataḥ| kampa naṃ sākalyena| sākalyenātyantaṃ kampanaṃ kṣobha ḥ| vedha ḥ śabdaḥ| raṇ itaṃ daṇḍāhatakāṃsīvat| garja naṃ navamahāmeghavat| ṣaḍvikārās tadyathā-“pṛthivyāḥ pūrvā digunnamati, paścimā ’vanamati| paścimā digunnamati, pūrvā ’vanamati| [dakṣiṇā digunnamati], uttarā ’vanamati| uttarā digunnamati, dakṣiṇā ’vanamati| madhye unnamati|ante ’vanamati| ante unnamati madhye ’vanamati” iti.
871. The genitive word “of” should mean “like” here. Cf. RK: kiṃvad ityāha| tathāgatasya ce tyādi.
872. According to Ratnākara (F.146.a), “no things are observed” is the major premise and no things “are mentally perceived” is the inferential reason (that proves the premise). The things “that could be born after” the Tathāgata are his own qualities. The things “that could cause him to be born after themselves” are actions. RK: na saṃvidyanta iti pratijñā| nopalabhyanta iti hetuḥ| yair iti svadharmaiḥ| anujāyete ti kartari liṅ| ye ce ti tāthāgatā dharmāḥ| anujāyerann iti karmaṇi liṅ. Note: Ratnākara’s comments also explain the optative verbs here as being, respectively, agentive and objective.
873. According to Ratnākara (F.146.a), one might ask how is the “actual nature” a “practice”? It becomes such, through remaining in nothing but that. RK: tathatā kathaṃ caryā? tanmātre ’vasthānāt.
874. According to Ratnākara (F.146.b), here ends the defining characteristics of the knowing aspects, distinctive qualities, functions, and natures (i.e., the fifth subtopic of the Ornament’s fourth topic, realizing all the aspects). Now the factors conducive to liberation will be taught. In order to make clear what is implied by the explanation of the things some bodhisattvas lack, he begins, “As I understand,” and so on. RK: iha jñānaviśeṣakāritrasvabhāvalakṣaṇe ukte| bodhisattvānāṃ mokṣabhāgīyaṃ vaktavyam| tac ca tadvirahiṇāṃ bodhisattvānām arhattvaprāptikāraṇanirdeśena sūcitaṃ vyaktikartuṃ| śāriputra āha| yathāhaṃ bhagavann ityādi.
875. According to Ratnākara (F.146.b), he or she should “cultivate the transcendent state of wisdom” in order to know the ultimate reality of all things and in order not to create conventional signs while going about life in the transcendent states of generosity and so on. Regarding the phrase “skill in means,” the means is never abandoning the mindset of knowing of all aspects and perfectly dedicating all merit to awakening. RK: prajñāpāramitā bhāvayitavye ti sarvadharmaparamārthajñānāya| caryamāṇasya ca dānapāramitāder animittīkaraṇārtham| upāyakuśalene ty upāye kuśalena| tatropāyaḥ sarvākārajñatācittasya nityam atyāgaḥ| sarvapuṇyānāṃ ca bodhau samyakpariṇāmanā.
876. According to Ratnākara (F.147.b), he dwells in the true nature of things “by the method of being free from dwelling on anything,” i.e., by means of not dwelling on all things. The “true nature of things alone,” i.e., when pure, means awakening, and hence the basic reason (for dwelling in that alone) is that it is pure by nature. RK: sarvadharmāsthānayogene ti| sarvadharmaṣv asthānam eva yogo nyāyaḥ| tena dharmatāyāṃ sthitaḥ| dharmataiva śuddhā bodhiḥ| sā ca prakṛtyaiva śuddheti bhāvaḥ.
877. According to Ratnākara (F.147.b), “the perspective of the reality of things” means the mode of examining the ontological nature of things. RK: dharmanayajātiḥ dharmāṇāṃ tattvaprakāraḥ.
878. According to Ratnākara (F.148.a), the question is how a bodhisattva should “dwell” in terms of being disposed toward them and “should train” in terms of repeated practice. RK: sthātavyam iti spṛhaṇataḥ| śikṣitavyam abhyāsataḥ.
879. According to Ratnākara (F.148.b), the “noble truths” means the (four) noble truths of suffering and so on as the objects that are, respectively, fully acknowledged, eliminated, actualized, and cultivated when realizing the five resultant wisdoms as a stream enterer and so on, up to the point of “the attainment of a bodhisattva’s irreversible fault-free state.” RK: satyeṣv iti duḥkhādisatyaviṣayeṣu yathākramaṃ parijñānaprahāṇasākṣātkriyābhāvanāsu strotaāpattyādipañcaphalajñānasākṣātkriyāyāṃ yāvad bodhisattvanyāmāvakrāntau. Note: Ratnākara’s commentary on the above paragraph explains the previous steps on the path leading up to “attainment of a bodhisattva’s irreversible fault-free state” (bodhisattvanyāmāvakrānti)—i.e., the path of insight (darśanamārga)—which is effectively the bodhisattva’s irreversible state of perfection (samyaktvaniyāmāvakranti). But these comments have not been included here due to requiring additional contextualization beyond the scope of these notes. The translation “irreversible fault-free state” (nyāma) makes an attempt to account for the well-known play on the Sanskrit word nyāma, meaning irreversible (ni+yāma) and fault-free (ni+āma). Cf. BHSD niyāma, nyāma.
880. The beginning of this chapter corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 39 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 49 in the Eighteen Thousand. From the point marked by n.909, the chapter goes on to include content corresponding to the whole of Chapter 40 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 50 in the Eighteen Thousand.
881. According to Ratnākara (F.149.a), here “attributes” refers to that with which things appear or manifest; “indications” refers to that through which things are approached or gone toward; “signs” refers to that through which things are examined or evaluated. Even though the three (terms) have a single referent, the underlying basis is piled up with synonyms (paryāya) in order to individually remove the doubts of different beings. Alternatively, it is (just) another repetition (paryāya) (i.e., distinctions without a difference). For this very reason, in the question “how else” and so on, the phrase “or else” (vā) should be connected with “how,” meaning by what means (other than the characteristics, etc.) can we recognize them. RK: ākriyante vyajyanta ebhir iti ākārāḥ| liṅgyante gamyanta ebhir iti liṅgāni| nimīyante nirūpyanta ebhir iti nimittāni| ekārthatve pi trayāṇām upādānanaṃ sattvāntaraśaṅkāyā vyavacchedārtham paryāyaskandham| athavā aparaḥ paryāyaḥ| katham ityādi| ata eva vā śabdaḥ| kathaṃ ve ti kena prakāreṇa jānīyāma iti sambandhaḥ. Note: Earlier Ratnākara distinguished these same Sanskrit terms with a slightly different meaning. An “attribute” (ākāraḥ) is the defining characteristic, like, for instance, the dewlap of a cow and so on. An “indication” (liṅgam) is an artificial mark, like, for instance, the bell on a cow. A “sign” (nimittam) is an inherent quality, like, for instance, the whiteness of a (white) cow.
882. According to Ratnākara (F.149.a), the Sanskrit word ca here is used in the sense of a reason (and translated as “because”) meaning since, “in their actual nature, they all are free from duality.” “They all” are just the actual nature, because all things, such as physical forms and so on, do not exist in the manner of observable characteristics, and hence the actual nature is neither a single thing, nor a “duality,” nor a plurality. For this reason, “free from duality” means not separate from the actual nature; “free from creating duality” means not divided from it; “nonconceptual” is in the sense of lacking the inherent nature of conceptualization; and “free of conceptualization” is because it is beyond the scope of conceptualization. “That actual nature” that has such characteristics is “arrived at” as “the true nature of things.” RK: sarvāś ca ityādi| ca śabdo hetau| yasmāt sarvā etās tathatayā ’dvayāḥ| rūpādīnāṃ sarvadharmāṇāṃ yathālakṣaṇam asattvāt tathataivaitāḥ| tathatā caikaiva na dve na bahavyaḥ| tasmāt tathatayā ’dvayā abhinnāḥ| advaidhīkārā acchinnāḥ| vikalpasvabhāvavirahāt avikalpāḥ | vikalpāgocaratvāt nirvikalpāḥ itīti| evaṃlakṣaṇā yā tathatā tāṃ tathatāṃ dharmatām avatarati.
883. According to Ratnākara (F.149.b), this sentence explains how they arrive. “When they dwell in” this actual nature—meaning because they see nothing but that—they “do not conceptualize it” accurately or “imagine it” in a false way. They arrive at it “in this way” i.e., this being so. RK: katham avataratīty āha tathatāyām ityādi| sthitas tanmātradarśanāt| na kalpayati samyak na vikalpayati vitatham| evam avataratī ty evaṃsaty avatarati.
884. According to Ratnākara (F.149.b), “to arrive at that actual nature” refers to what is arrived at through the steps explained. “Even when they just hear (śrutvāpi)” means right after they hear. “Subsequently” means also at a later time. They do not become “worried” means they do not object to it, in connection with their knowing “what it is not like.” “Perplexed” (vimati) should be construed heuristically as not conjuring up “different (vi) thoughts (mati)” about it, i.e., either what it is like or not like. For this reason, he says such individuals are not “doubtful or confused,” i.e., as a refutation of his misunderstanding. RK: evam avatīrṇa ityādi| uktena krameṇāvatīrṇaḥ san| yathe ti yayā mātrayā śrutvāpī ti śravaṇānantaram api| tato pi vātikramye ti tata uttarakālam api| na kāṅkṣatī ti na bādhate| naivam itī ti sambandhaḥ| vi vidhā matiḥ vimatiḥ| tan na karoti| evaṃ vā na veti| ata evāha na vicikitsatī ti| na dhandhāyatī ty apratipatteḥ pratiṣedhaḥ.
885. According to Ratnākara (F.149.b–50.a), “in the fact that” everything is just the actual nature and there are no physical forms and so on, they have “firm conviction” based on their faith and “immerse themselves” based on their understanding. RK: api tv ityādi| tathataiva sarvaṃ na santi rūpādaya ity adhimuñcati śraddhayā| avagāhate prajñayā.
886. According to Ratnākara (F.150.a), “they do not look up to,” i.e., do not view with reverence, the “other renunciants,” i.e., those ascetics who draw one away from these teachings. He explains what that means with the next phrase: “thinking” that these renunciants “know” through worldly knowing or “see” through spiritual knowing. RK: anyeṣām iti| ito dharmād vāhyānām śramaṇānām iti pravrajitānām| mukham ullokayati praṇataḥ paśyati| kim itīty āha| ime ityādi| jānanti laukikena jñānena| paśyanti lokottareṇa.
887. According to Ratnākara (F.150.a), they do “not give” any donations out of devotion. They do “not depend” in the sense that they do not serve them or seek refuge in them (instead of in the Three Jewels). RK: dātavyam iti bhaktito deyam| vyapāśrayata iti sevate śaraṇaṃ vā gacchati.
888. According to Hari (667), explicitly the Buddha is saying that such bodhisattvas would not be “reborn in the lower realms,” i.e., have a rebirth in a hell, hungry ghost, or animal realm, but implicitly this includes not being born with false views, in a place where the Buddha’s teachings cannot be heard, or in barbarian cultural settings. The phrase “nor take the form of a woman” precludes their becoming a woman, and one can surmise that these bodhisattvas also do not come to lack the intellectual or sensory faculties (necessary to have access to the teachings), and based on the Sanskrit word ca that implies “nor” elsewhere, i.e. the bodhisattvas also do not take birth among the long-lived gods. Hari: nāpāyeṣūpapadyata iti narakapretatiryagupapattyabhāvaḥ sākṣāt kathitaḥ. upalakṣaṇatvād asya mithyādṛṣṭibuddhavacanāśravaṇapratyantajanapadotpādābhavo grāhyaḥ. na ca strībhāvaṃ parigṛhnātī ti strībhāvapratiṣedhavacanād indriyajaḍamūkabhāvaṃ na gṛhṇātīti labhyate. ca śabdān na dīrgḥāyuṣkadevopapattiṃ gṛhṇātity arthaḥ. Note: In ancient India, a woman was considered the property of a man without the ability to do as she pleased, meaning that women were not freely able to listen to or practice the Buddhist teachings. Hence, this was considered an undesirable birth.
889. According to Ratnākara (F.150.b), any “teaching” refers to (the twelve categories of teachings), such as scriptures, songs, and so on. They give the teaching for the benefit and welfare of others, while thinking, “May it be for their benefit and welfare alone.” RK: yaṃ yaṃ dharmam iti sūtrageyādikam| dadāti ca parasmai hitāya sukhāya caiṣa bhavatv iti teṣām eva hitasukhāya.
890. According to Ratnākara (F.150.b), the five hindrances (to spiritual practice) are longing for sensory pleasure, malevolence, sluggishness and tiredness, excited agitation, and doubtfulness. The Blessed One says (only) “they rarely feel sleepy or lazy,” but by implication they are free of (all the five) tendencies, i.e., not endowed with them. RK: pañca nivaraṇāni| kāmacchando vyāpādastyānamiddham auddhatyakaukṛtyaṃ vicikitsā ce ti| ebhir asaṃvāso ’samanvāgamaḥ| tam āha| alpastyānamiddhaś ca bhavatī ty upalakṣaṇatvāt.
891. According to Ratnākara (F.150.b), the Blessed One says “free of negative propensities.” (In the Ornament, this is described as) “having eliminated all,” i.e., whatever there are, of the “negative propensities,” e.g., the bonds of hatred. RK: sarva yathā bhavati tathā ’nuśayasya dveṣānubandhasya hānaṃ sarvānuśayahānam| tad āha niranuśayaś ca bhavatī ti.
892. According to Ratnākara (F.150.b), “wandering” means distracted. RK: bhrāntaṃ vikṣiptam.
893. According to Ratnākara (F.150.b), “hastiness” means without looking carefully at the ground. The implication is that (if hasty) they would be distracted in moving about, standing, sitting, or lying down. So, mindfulness and monitoring toward these things is the tenth indication possessed by that bodhisattva. RK: sahase ti asamīkṣya bhūmim| upalakṣaṇaṃ caitac caṃkramasthānaniṣadyāśayaneṣu vikṣepasyeti| smṛtisaṃprajanyaṃ daśamaṃ teṣu talliṅgam.
894. According to Ratnākara (F.150.b), “not infested with lice” means not having lice, because the word yūkila follows the principle of the suffix meaning “possessing” (ilac), as in having a tail (picchila) (Cf. Kāś. om V.2.100). RK: yūkāyogād yūkilaḥ| picchāditvād ilac. Note: BHSD, yūkila, cites this very line and incorrectly supposes yūkila to be a scribal corruption.
895. According to Ratnākara (F.151.a), they do not “appear” means they are not born in or on their bodies in order to feed on them. RK: sambhavanti jāyante kāyasya bhakṣaṇāya.
896. According to Ratnākara (F.151.a), “noblest” means most distinguished. RK: abhyudgatānī ti prativiśiṣṭāni. Cf. Tib. ’jig rten thams cad las mngon par ’phags pa yin no.
897. According to Ratnākara (F.151.a), they have “a mindset with few concerns” because their concerns are few and their mindset is undistracted. They are free of “a mindset of crookedness,” i.e., dishonesty. “Blameshifting” is something that serves as a means of hiding one’s own faults and “deceit” is something that aims to deceive others. “Falsity” is feigning to possess qualities that one does not have in order to deceive others. RK: cittālpakṛtyatā alpatvād avikṣepāc ca| citta sya kauṭilyaṃ kuṭilatā| yat tu svadoṣapracchādanopāyas tac chāṭhyam, yat paravañcanāya sa vaṅkaḥ| paravañcanārtham abhūtasvaguṇasaṃdarśanaṃ māyā.
898. According to Ratnākara (F.151.a), “renounce” means to confess this as a sin. “Abandon it” means absolutely give it up as a principle. RK: pratideśayet ye ayam atyayato deśaya| pratiniḥsaje ti pratiniyamenātyantikatvena parityaja.
899. According to Ratnākara (F.151.a), “as I suggest” refers to abandoning the mindset of awakening. RK: evam iti bodhicittatyāge sati.