Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines

1229. According to Ratnākara (F.175.a–b), the first (of the four groups of nine) conceptualizations about a (nominally existent) grasped object were explained at the end of the previous “Chapter on the Magical Illusion” (see n.1203.) The next three groups of conceptualizations will be explained in this chapter. Among the four groups, the second group (of nine) conceptualizations is about a grasped object (of spiritual disengagement), as explained in the Ornament. (This second group of nine conceptualizations is covered in the passage of the Twenty-Five Thousand at 53.1–26.) When bodhisattvas eliminate the faults of (these nine conceptualizations)‍—namely the deficiencies for realization and so on‍—then the basis for a partial cessation comes about due to the faults’ absence, and (the bodhisattvas further eliminate) nine conceptualizations that occur in the minds of disciples, since they have not eliminated those (yet). The interjection “ah!” concerns “the essence” in the sense of joy. The excellent fruit is perfect awakening, the essence (sāra) is what flows from that (anusāra). The bodhisattva goes about life based upon that essence. Śāriputra explains what that is as “this transcendent state of wisdom”‍—which in this context is described as the knowing of the absence of the two kinds of identity (personal identity and the identity of things in general). A bodhisattva “going about life” in that transcendent state of wisdom is not totally anxious (udvega) about cyclic existence and also not totally desirous (utkaṇṭhā) about nirvāṇa, because he or she is free of any mental perception of either of these. For this reason, the antidote (to the next conceptualizations) is that he or she should (aim further to) realize unsurpassed, perfect awakening. If he or she does not, then (by practicing the other) five transcendent states, he or she would either fall back into cyclic existence, or else, know (only) of the absence of personal identity in (a disciple-like) nirvāṇa. For this very reason, any bodhisattva lacking the transcendent state of wisdom does not earn the name “bodhisattva”‍—just as the perfectly anointed son of a universal emperor is not dubbed a universal emperor without the seven precious things (that a emperor must possess). Thinking like this is the (first) conceptualization about the deficiencies for realization. RK: māyopamaparivartasyānte prathamo grāhyavikalpa uktaḥ| itare trayo vikalpā iha sāraparivart e vaktavyāḥ| tatra dvitīyaṃ grāhyavikalpam adhikṛtya śāstram|…adhigamanyūnatā dau doṣe bodhisattvapraheye [’]bhāvān nivṛtti­pakṣādhiṣṭhāno navavidhaś ca śrāvakādīnāṃ manobhavas tair aheyatvāt|…sāre batāyam iti bata śabdo harṣe| utkṛṣṭaṃ phalaṃ samyaksaṃbodhiḥ| so ’nusāraḥ| tannimittaṃ bodhisattvaś carati| katama ity āha| ya ityādi| prajñāpāramitā cātra ubhayanairātmyajñānam ucyate| tasyāṃ carataḥ saṃsāre nātyantam udvego nirvāṇe nātyantam utkaṇṭhā| ubhayor anupalambhatvāt| tato ’yam anuttarāṃ samyaksambodhim adhigacched iti pratipakṣaḥ| anyathā tu saṃsāre vā patet pañcabhiḥ pāramitābhiḥ| nirvāṇe vā pudgalanairātmyajñānāt| ata eva ca vinā prajñāpāramitayā bodhisattvo bodhisattvākhyāṃ na labhate| tadyathā samyagabhiṣikto pi cakravartinaḥ putraś cakravartiśabdaṃ vinā saptabhī ratnair ity adhi­gamanyūnatāvikalpaḥ. Note: In the Sanskrit reported here, the first ellipsis marks where Ratnākara cites the Ornament (5.10–5.12), listing the nine conceptualizations about the grasped object of spiritual disengagement. The second ellipsis marks where Ratnākara makes a technical comment on the structure of all that is said here at the start, previous to the Buddha’s first comment.

1230. According to Ratnākara (F.175.b), (Śāriputra has called it) the “essence” (sāra, a noun etymologically connected with) approaching (saraṇam, in the sense that) the object of an action (karman) is the thing (i.e. the essence being approached). An approachable quality is a state easy to overcome, so (Subhūti calls it) the opposite, the “essenceless” indicating a state difficult to overcome. Hence a bodhisattva who goes about life in the transcendent state of wisdom is able to protect (the other five) transcendent states. The transcendent state of wisdom, as an analogy, is like an armed guard for women walking along a dangerous city street. Hence it is the antidote (to conceptualization). This (second) conceptualization is about the absence of any protection, i.e. thinking that the (practices of the five) transcendent states would be easy to overcome if the opposite were true (i.e., if the transcendent state of wisdom were not there to protect them). RK: saraṇaṃ sāraḥ, karma dharmaḥ| gamyatā sudharṣaṇatety arthaḥ| viparyayād asāro durddharṣaṇatā| ataḥ pāramitānāṃ durddharṣaṇatve sa carati yaś carati prajñāpāramitāyām| sā hi tāsāṃ parigrahasamarthā| tadyathā strīṇāṃ sadhūrtake nagaramārge śastrapāṇipuruṣa iti pratipakṣaḥ| anyathā sudharṣaṇāḥ syur iti parigrahābhāvavikalpaḥ. Note: Ratnākara’s initial etymology about approaching, or essence, is difficult to translate because he is stretching it in order to explain how it is that the first two statements of this chapter concern the first two of the nine conceptualizations taught in the corresponding section of the Ornament.

1231. Although the Sanskrit editions suggest that Subhūti repeats Śāriputra’s exclamation exactly (which would in itself be unusual in the context of the exchanges between the two interlocuotors), the Add.866 manuscript and Haribhadra’s lemma both read asāra (“essenceless”) in Subhūti’s response in place of Śāriputra’s sāra. This is corroborated by the Tibetan in all Kangyurs, and indeed by the equivalent passages in the three long Transcendent State of Wisdom sūtras, too. The passage that follows in the long sūtras, absent here, is a discussion of the “essencelessness” of all the dharmas (see the Eighteen Thousand, 59.1–2 ff. and Twenty-Five Thousand, 49.1-2 ff.).

1232. According to Ratnākara (F.175.b), they “should be paid homage” due to their cumulative progress, their independence, and their not turning back from their stated intention (i.e., the three objects of the third through fifth conceptualizations). Hence, they are explaining what the sentient beings “have accomplished” in terms of their progress (pratipatti) with the five transcendent states. RK: namaskartavyās ta iti kutaḥ? pratipattisākalyād aparādhīnatvād uddeśānivṛtteś ca| ata evāhuḥ yair ityādi| sarvam abhinirhṛtānī ti pratipattitaḥ pañcabhiḥ pāramitābhiḥ| ihety ubhaya­nairātmyavedinyām|

1233. According to Ratnākara (F.175.b), “In such” a transcendent state of wisdom means in the one that knows the absence of the two (kinds of) identity. For this very reason, such a transcendent state of wisdom is “profound”‍—and considering this is the antidote. The (third) conceptualization is about their lack of progress, thinking that without going about in that transcendent state of wisdom, bodhisattvas would lack progress, so they need to fight well against the Māras, like a warrior uses unbroken armor against opponents. Just as a universal emperor, due to his great might, is the chief of his subordinate regional governors, just so the transcendent state of wisdom is chief because of being free of mentally perceiving cyclic existence or nirvāṇa. Since those bodhisattvas, due to (practicing) the transcendent states, do not fall into cyclic existence, they likewise “never actualize the pinnacle of reality” by force of their knowing of the absence of personal identity (as the disciples and solitary realizers do). But the (fourth) conceptualization is about intending to proceed based on other (guides, i.e., not the transcendent state of wisdom), thinking that if the transcendent state of wisdom were not chief, he or she would (just as soon) actualize the pinnacle of reality as the lesser awakening (of the disciple path). RK: ata eva gambhīrāyām iti pratipakṣaḥ| tasyām acaratāṃ pratipattivaikalyaṃ syāt| tatas te mārādibhiḥ suyodhanāḥ syuḥ| akṣatakavacā iva yodhāḥ pratiyodhair iti prati­pattivaikalya­vikalpaḥ| bhūtakoṭir ityādi| yathā hi cakravartī pradhānaṃ mahāprabhāvatvāt koṭṭarājānaḥ tadanuvartinas tathaiva prajñāpāramitā pradhānaṃ tayā saṃsāranirvāṇayor anupalambhāt| yathā te pāramitābhiḥ saṃsāre na pātyante tathā pudgala­nairātmya­jñānavaśena bhūtakoṭiṃ na sākṣātkurvanti| yadi tu prajñāpāramitā pradhānaṃ na syāt tadā hīnabodhiṃ bhūtakoṭiṃ sākṣātkuryur eveti para­pratyayagāmitva­vikalpaḥ.

1234. According to Ratnākara (F.175.b), regarding this sentence, if one were to ask why not, it is because of the bodhisattva’s not turning back from his or her stated intention (uddeśa; ched du bya ba). The stated intention is his or her desire to reach perfect awakening. Why does he or she not turn back from that? A bodhisattva (at this point of the journey) does not turn back from that before reaching the transcendent state of wisdom, because he or she (has been) going about life in it for that very purpose. The same is true of the others, because he or she does not turn back also from those that have merged with that transcendent state of wisdom. It is like, for example, all the small rivers merging with a large river and then going only to the ocean without turning back. This (fifth) conceptualization is about not turning back from one’s stated intention. Although there should be a total of nine conceptualizations here (in this scripture), the others‍—concerning one’s own benefit in the long Transcendent State of Wisdom scriptures‍—must be supplied from there (since this scripture only hints at them with a few words). RK: tam evāhur ya ityādinā na sākṣātkurvantī ti| kutaḥ? uddeśānivṛtteḥ| uddeśaḥ samyaksaṃbodhau lipsā| kutas tasmād anivṛttiḥ ? yato na tāvat prajñāpāramitā tato nivartate, tadartham eva tasyāṃ caraṇāt| nāpītarāḥ| tadanupraviṣṭānāṃ tāsām apy anivṛtteḥ| tadyathā sarvāḥ kunadyo mahānadīm anupraviśya samudram eva gacchanti na nivartata ity uddeśanivṛttikalpaḥ|| navāpyete vikalpā mahatyor bhagavatyo svārthasampattim adhikṛtya yojitāḥ. Note: Since the sixth and seventh conceptualizations have two aspects‍—i.e., for one’s own and others’ benefit‍—Ratnākara proceeds to explain the sixth and seventh conceptualizations first in terms of one’s own benefit using passages from The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines, then returns to explain these same two conceptualizations in terms of the benefit of others according to this Eight Thousand scripture. The sixth and seventh conceptualizations are covered, in the Twenty-Five Thousand, by the passage 48.24–25. We note here again, as in note 1198, that the the conceptualizations mentioned here and in the notes above and below can be found set out‍—using the term “discriminations”‍—as subheadings in Conze’s 1975 translation of the long sūtras, pp. 460–80, and in Brunnhölzl vol. 1 pp. 58–9, and vol. 2 pp. 80–84 and 190–200.

1235. According to Ratnākara (F.175.b), in this Eight Thousand scripture, Subhūti addresses the two conceptualizations in relation to the benefit of others, in this passage here. To explain those (two conceptualizations, the first is) that to “don” (the armor) demonstrates what is difficult, because of the impossibility of bringing about the benefit of endless sentient beings. Nevertheless, the antidote is to consider that a bodhisattva should do exactly that (i.e., don the armor) because, without his or her being greatly disposed (toward their benefit) in this way, he or she would not be able to bring benefit to themselves or to others. But this (sixth) conceptualization is about limiting (oneself), thinking that one should put on the armor (only) for the sake of taming oneself because one cannot (really) do anything for the sake of all beings. RK: asyāṃ tu bhagavatyāṃ parārthasannāham adhikṛtya dvāv imau vikalpau subhūtir āhe tyādinā| atha khalv ityādinā tatra sannahyanta ity anena duṣkaratvaṃ darśitam anantānāṃ sattvānām arthasya kartum aśakyatvāt| tathāpy evam eva sannāhaḥ kartavya īdṛśīṃ mahāśayatām antareṇa svaparārthayoḥ kartum aśakyatvād iti pratipakṣaḥ| sarvasattvānām arthasya kenacid akaraṇād ātmavineyānām arthāya sannāhaḥ kartavya iti prādeśikatvavikalpaḥ.

1236. According to Ratnākara (F.176.b–77.a), with this following passage he intends to express the sameness, which is antidote to the (seventh) conceptualization about (results) being varied. The phrase “disciples to be tamed” means those beings who are tamable. Despite the problem (described in the first sentence), the next sentence explains what the (actual) difficulty is. RK: nānātvavikalpapratipakṣaḥ samatā| tām eva vivakṣuḥ paramaduṣkara tvam āha te ce tyādinā| vainayikā iti vinayārhāḥ sattvāḥ| tathāpi kasya duṣkaratety ata āha| evaṃ ce tyādi. Note: Ratnākara says the seventh conceptualization begins here, but describes various pieces gradually over the next fifteen sentences.

1237. According to Ratnākara (F.177.a), he says “space” and so on to strengthen the point with a simile. “Why is that?” asks the question why these are similar. His response comes in the following sentences. RK: dṛṣṭāntena dṛḍhīkartum āha| ākāśam ityādi| tatkasya hetor iti kutaḥ sādharmyād ity arthaḥ| ata uttaraṃ ākāśe tyādi.

1238. According to Ratnākara (F.177.a), “for this very reason” introduces a summary (of the difficulty). RK: anene ty upasaṃhāraḥ.

1239. According to Ratnākara (F.177.a), he says this sentence to further strength his point. The meaning is that sentient beings are like space. Why is there a struggle? He explains in the following clause connected through the Sanskrit word ca in the sense of a reason (and translated “because”). “Struggle” means conflict. The conflict is that he or she wishes to tame (existent) beings but they resist (being tamed) due to their not being existent. RK: punar dṛḍhīkartum āha| ākāśene tyādi| ākāśopamaiḥ sattvair ity arthaḥ| kuto vivāda ityāha| ayaṃ ce tyādi veditavyāntam| ca śabdo hetau| vivādaḥ kalahaḥ| sattvān ayaṃ vinetukāmas te cāsattvāt pariharantīti kalahaḥ. Note: Ratnākara’s catchy last comment is playing on the word sattva, which means both “sentient being” and “being existent.”

1240. According to Ratnākara (F.177.a), regarding “the disciples to be tamed” and so on, since there are no disciples to be tamed, there is likewise also no one taming them. So, due to the nonexistence of both tamer and tamed, the (bodhisattva undertakes deeds that are) the most extremely difficult. In this way, bodhisattvas should see the sameness of all beings and themselves, since this would enable them to work for the benefit of themselves and others. But he says the next sentence to address how one can be aware while going about life in this. RK: vainayike tyādi| yathā ca vineyā na santi tathā vinayitāpi| tata ubhayāsattayā sutarāṃ paramaduṣkaratā| evam iyaṃ bodhisattvena sarvasattvātmasamatā draṣṭavyā yataḥ śaknuyāt svaparārthau kartum| sa punar asyāṃ caran kathaṃ jñeya ityāha. Note: In line with Ratnākara’s comments about this line, the translation “voidness of bodhisattvas” is based on the Tibetan byang chub sems dpa’ dben par (*bodhisattvaviviktatā), instead of on the Sanskrit edition’s typo “voidness of beings” (sattvaviviktatā).

1241. According to Ratnākara (F.177.a), in this sentence “not disheartened” means not afflicted. This means he or she is extremely cheerful. RK: sa ced ityādi| na saṃsīdatī ti na khidyate sutarāṃ prīyata ity arthaḥ.

1242. According to Ratnākara (F.177.a), “How so?” asks the question what the cause of his or her delight (i.e., being the opposite of disheartened) is in going about life in this transcendent state of wisdom. This question implies that there is no cause because the bodhisattva sees the absence of any thing’s identity. The response (to this question) is the following sentence. RK: tatkasya hetor iti| mattasya prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caraṇaṃ kasya hetor naiva kasyacit| dharmanairātmyādarśanād iti bhāvaḥ| ata uttaraṃ sattvaviviktataye tyādi.

1243. According to Ratnākara (F.177.a), “In fact…” indicates a summary here. The antidote with all the details (described above) is that the “voidness of all things” is the same. The (seventh) conceptualization about varied results is thinking there are various beings and various dharmas, and hence the transcendent state of wisdom that has a single flavor does not exist. RK: evam ityādinā draṣṭavyāntenopasaṃhāraḥ| viviktatā hi sarvadharmā ṇāṃ samateti vistareṇa pratipakṣaḥ| nānā sattvā nānā dharmās tato nāsty ekarasā prajñāpāramiteti nānātvavikalpaḥ.

1244. According to Ratnākara (F.177.a), “is being described” means taught just now by me. The bodhisattva’s not being disheartened is connected to when the “voidness of all things” is taught, i.e., at that time he or she is going about life (in that understanding). (And when doing so), a bodhisattva is not confused about going or staying‍—thinking “Where should I go?” or “Where should I stay?”‍—because, by knowing the sameness of all things, he or she is unconfused about (there being) two transcendent states of wisdom. That is to say, a bodhisattva would (always just) go where awakening is, and stay in awakening. Going and staying like this involves the independent establishment of cause and result of the very same transcendent state of wisdom. So, where the transcendent state of wisdom goes or stays is exactly the same place where the other five transcendent states‍—who are dedicated to Her‍—go or stay. It is like, for example, wherever the precious wheel of a universal emperor goes or stays, all his armed guards go there too‍—considering this is the antidote. But the (eighth) conceptualization is about the confusion of going or staying, i.e., the uncertainty about going or staying due to the fact that the five transcendent states are not discerned and the sixth does not have any appearance. RK: evaṃ devaputrā ityādi| evaṃ bhāṣyamāṇāyām iti| evam idānīṃ mayā deśyamānāyāṃ sarva­dharma­viviktatāyām iti caryākāle deśyamānāyāṃ| bodhisattvo na saṃsīdatī ti sambandhaḥ| na saṃsīdatī ti sthānaprasthānayor na muhyati| kena gantavyaṃ kva vā sthātavyam iti| tayaiva sarva­dharma­samatāsaṃvedinyā prajñāpāramitayor asaṃmohāt| tathāhi| yena bodhis tena gantavyaṃ bodhau sthātavyam| te ca gatisthitī tasyā eva svādhīne hetuphalāvasthe| tato yena sā gacchati yatra vā tiṣṭhati tatpariṇāmitā api pañca pāramitās tenaiva gacchanti tatraiva tiṣṭhanti| tadyathā cakravartinaś cakraratnaṃ yena gacchati yatra vā tiṣṭhati sarvo balakāyas tenaiva gacchati tatraiva tiṣṭhatīti pratipakṣaḥ| avijñāḥ pañcapāramitāḥ ṣaṣṭhī nirābhāsā| tataḥ sthānaprasthānayor aniścayaḥ sthāna­prasthānasammoha­vikalpaḥ.

1245. According to Ratnākara (F.177.b), it is, for example, like the precious wheel of a universal emperor that goes at the front while the armed guards follow behind‍—considering this is the antidote. The (ninth) conceptualization is about proceeding backward, thinking that the five transcendent states proceed ahead on account of their having a noble objective, while the sixth one goes behind, on account of its subtlety. This ends the section that teaches the second group of nine conceptualizations about the grasped objects (of spiritual disengagement). RK: tadyathā cakravartinaś cakraratnam agrato gacchati paścād balakāya iti pratipakṣaḥ| udāraviṣayatvāt pañcapāramitāḥ prāk pravartante| sūkṣmaviṣayatvāt pṛṣṭhataḥ ṣaṣṭhīti pṛṣṭhato gamanavikalpaḥ|| ity ukto dvitīyo grāhyavikalpo navavidhaḥ.

1246. According to Ratnākara (F.177.b), the next nine kinds (of conceptualizations, those belonging to the third group of 36 as explained in note 1198) are taught in the long Transcendent State of Wisdom scriptures (see below). But here in the Eight Thousand, he explains (only) generally the nine conceptualizations about (really existent) grasping subjects together with their antidotes in the short section before the word “nor.” It says “already aware” because there is nothing that the Blessed One is not aware of. “A bodhisattva great being” refers here to the form of a really existent person according to worldly convention. The conceptualization about a really existent grasping subject concerns the cause of why he or she is “not disheartened.” The antidote to this is the freedom from mental perception. He explains this with the words “because of voidness,” i.e., because that does not exist. Since he himself is nonexistent, why be “disheartened”? RK: amī nava prabhedā mahatyor bhagavatyor uktāḥ| asyāṃ tu sāmānyena dravyasadgrāhakavikalpaṃ sapratipakṣam āha| atha khalv ityādinā nāpī tyataḥ prāk| jānanneve ti na hi bhagavataḥ kiñcid ajñātam asti| bodhisattvo mahāsattva iti lokaprasiddhito dravyasatpudgalarūpaḥ, sa kena kāraṇena na saṃsīdatī ti dravyasadgrāhaka­vikalpaḥ| tasya pratipakṣo ’nupalambhaḥ| tam evāha| viviktatvādityā dinā| asattvād ity arthaḥ| sa hi svayam asat kutaḥ saṃsīdatī ti. Note: This brief section includes all nine nominally existent grasping subjects, which Ratnākara comments about in reference to the longer Transcendent State of Wisdom scriptures. Those comments are not included here, since they do not help readers understand this specific text. This group of nine conceptualizations is covered in the Twenty-Five Thousand, 53.12–26.

1247. According to Ratnākara (F.177.b), the next nine kinds (the fourth group) of (thirty-six) conceptualizations (as explained in note 1198) are taught in the long Transcendent State of Wisdom scriptures (in the Twenty-Five Thousand, they are covered in the passage 53.55–68). But here in the Eight Thousand, beginning after the word “nor,” he explains (only) generally the nine conceptualizations about (nominally existent) grasping subjects together with their antidotes. The words “a thing” refer to the constituents of experience that are the scope for the designation of a self. He is not disheartened because he himself does not exist. RK: ete ’pi na va prabhedāḥ mahatyor bhagavatyor uktāḥ| asyāṃ tu sāmānyenaiva prajñapti­saṃgrāhaka­vikalpaṃ sapratipakṣam āha| nāpī tyādinā api tu khalv ity ataḥ prāk| kaścid dharma iti ātmaprajñaptiviṣayaḥ skandhādiḥ| na saṃsīdatī ti svayam asattvāt.

1248. According to Ratnākara (F.177.b), “a thing by which” refers to a mindset by which; “any thing” refers to a bodhisattva. RK: ata evāha| tatkasye tyādi| kaścid dharma iti skandhādi cittaṃ vā| so pī tyādi| yena dharmeṇe ti cittena yo dharma iti bodhisattvaḥ.

1249. According to Ratnākara (F.177.b), “true” and so on indicates his acceptance of this. This much teaches the antidote: Don’t be a really existent being! This is (connected with) the fourth conceptualization about lumping together designations, thinking that the constituents of experience and so on are the objective scope of ego (ahaṃkāra) or the mindset is the bodhisattva. Likewise, (with the word “true) the Blessed One teaches the transcendent state of wisdom to be the antidote to (all) four kinds of conceptualizations. RK: evam etad ityādir abhyupagamaḥ| iyatā pratipakṣa uktaḥ| mā bhūd dravyasat sattvaḥ| ahaṃkāraviṣayaḥ skandhādiś cittaṃ vā bodhisattva iti prajñapti­saṃgrāhaka­vikalpaś caturthaḥ|| evaṃ bhagavatā catur­vidhāvikalpa­prati­pakṣa­bhūtā bhagavatī vistareṇa deśitā. Note: Although Hari finds a few places below to connect with the two kinds of conceptualizations about the grasping subject (the third and fourth groups of nine), Ratnākara explains them only in relation to the long Transcendent State of Wisdom scriptures. Ratnākara’s comments have not been translated here, because they concern the Ornament of Clear Realization rather than this text per se.

1250. According to Ratnākara (F.177.b), he explains here how to know a bodhisattva. When it is “described” based on the text; “taught” based on the meaning; “explicated” based on explaining it entirely; and “expounded” based on telling the secret meaning, then a bodhisattva great being is not “disheartened,” meaning slowed down. Nor is he or she “dejected” due to fatigue; “sunk in despondency” due to constant fatigue; “deflated” due a mindset with a sinking feeling; “depressed” due to that sinking feeling being constant; “discouraged” due to turning away; “shattered” due to not facing it; “frightened” due to facing toward the fear; “terrified” because they are completely afraid; or “stricken with terror” in constant fear. One can be certain that “he or she goes about life in this transcendent state of wisdom” because a bodhisattva not going about in it would be automatically disheartened and so on. RK: bodhisattvas tu tasyāṃ caran yathā jñeyas tad āha| api tu khalv ityādi| bhāṣyamāṇe granthataḥ| deśyamāne arthataḥ| nirdeśyamāne nirviśeṣaṃ kathanāt| upadiśyamāne rahasyakathanāt| na saṃsīdati na mandībhavati| na viṣīdati khedāt| na viṣādam āpadyate santatakhedāt| nāvalīyate cittanamanāt| na saṃlīyate santataṃ tannamanāt| vipṛṣṭhaṃ vaimukhyāt| bhagnapṛṣṭhaṃ punar asāṃmukhyāt| nottrasyati trāsonmukhatvāt| na saṃtrasyati samyak trāsāt| nainam āpadyate sātatyena| tadā veditavyaṃ caraty asyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyām iti| asyām acarataḥ saṃsīdanādīnām avaśyaṃ bhāvāt.

1251. According to Ratnākara (F.180.a), beginning with this sentence, he expresses abundant praises for someone “going about life” in this way. They will “support” a bodhisattva through a particular pledge (of their resources) and “keep in mind” through remembering him or her. These (words) should also be the blessed buddhas teaching him or her the Dharma (mentioned below). RK: evam ityādinā| asyāṃ carato ’nuśaṃsātiśayān āha| anugṛṇhanti viśeṣādhānataḥ| samanvāharanti smaraṇataḥ| te ’pi tasya buddhā bhagavanto dharma deśayantī ti sambandhaḥ.

1252. According to Ratnākara (F.180.a), “names” means titles (or epithets); “familial lineages” means having descended from Garga and so on; “powers” means physical and intellectual abilities; “good qualities” means other qualities remaining (i.e., unmentioned); and “forms” is about one’s physical appearance. When “announcing” all these, the nature of them will be excellent beyond excellent. He will “utter,” i.e., express, verses to inspire others about their qualities. In the following, he describes whose qualities. RK: nāma cetyādi| nāma saṃjñā| gotraṃ gārgyādi| balaṃ kāyabalaṃ buddhibalaṃ ca| varṇaḥ pariśiṣṭā guṇāḥ| rūpaṃ varṇasaṃsthāne| etāni parikīrtayamānāḥ prakarṣeṇa prakarṣarūpam| udānam iti guṇaharṣodbhavāṃ gāthāṃ udānayanty udāharanti| kasya guṇā ityāha tasyetyādi.

1253. RK: sarvasaṃgāḥ sarve ’bhūtopalambhāḥ.

1254. The technical term translated here as “abilities from helpful external factors” (pratipakṣabalin; gnyen po’i stobs) concerns certain bodhisattvas who gain the specific “ability” to travel to buddhafields to hear the teachings and so on “from helpful external factors” like spiritual friends, worldly psychic abilities, or magical powers. These bodhisattvas are not realized themselves, and hence do not have their own power‍—which automatically comes with realization‍—to travel to buddhafields without the help of external factors. This term is related to “power of applying the antidotes” (gnyen po kun tu spyod pa’i stobs) and explains why, in general, one can experience healing benefits from applying certain practices as antidotes to one’s unhealthy mindsets.

1255. According to Hari (856), in the first clarifying sentence, the Blessed One mentions “the buddhafield of Akṣobhya” because fully purified mindstreams very often appear in his buddhafield. He also specifies other persons in the second sentence, where the mention of “the bodhisattva Ratnaketu” should be understood as a synecdoche for all bodhisattvas of a similar type to him. The general meaning of this paragraph is as follows: Aside from the bodhisattvas beyond regressing, there are (other) bodhisattvas living in the buddhafields of Akṣobhya and so on, whose names and so on are being announced. These bodhisattvas have gained this magical ability due to their parting with the conceptualizations that obstruct traveling anywhere they wish. This mastery is gained, somehow or other, previous to the Unmoving level (i.e., the eighth bhūmi where bodhisattvas can travel anywhere) through the power of external aids like, for instance, a particular virtuous friend and so on. Hari: pratipādayann āha: ya etarhītyādi. akṣobhyasye ti vacanaṃ bāhulyena tadbuddhakṣetre pariśuddha­saṃtatīnām utpādāt. anyān apy atideśayann āha : ye ’pi te subūta ityādi. ratna­ketu­bodhi­sattva­grahaṇaṃ tat­samānajātīya­bodhi­sattvopalakṣaṇa­paraṃ jñeyaṃ. prati­viśiṣṭakalyāṇa­mitrādi­pari­graha­balenācalāyā bhūmer api prāk kathaṃcid yathecchagamana-vyāghātavikalpavirahād ṛddhivaśitāṃ prāptā ye ’kṣobhyādibuddhakṣetre bodhisattvā viharanti te ’vinivartanīyān sthāpayitvā nāmādikīrtanaviṣayā vidyanta ity arthaḥ. Note: For the sake of clarity, the translation eliminates one long sentence repeating the qualification about buddhas teaching and uttering proclamations, etc.

1256. According to Hari (857), based on their motivation to follow their stated intention to reach the state that is foremost for any sentient being and so on, they “have firm conviction”‍—i.e., they keep in mind that all things are “free of arising” or “subsiding” (i.e., being empty). But they have “not yet” achieved the very advanced “stage of accepting all things to be free of arising” or the “level beyond regressing where they attain mastery.” This demonstrates their absence of conceptualization in exiting cyclic existence (to various buddhafields) based on a stated intention (uddeśa). Hari: adhimuñcantī ti sarvasattvāgratādyuddeśagamanābhiprāyeṇānutpattikāḥ. śāntā iti vā sarva dharmān manasikurvanti. na ca tāvat prakarṣavatīm anutpattika­dharmakṣāntim avinivartanīya­vaśitāprāptiṃ cādhigatā bhavantīty evam uddeśāniryāṇa­vikalpābhāvo darśitaḥ.

1257. According to Ratnākara (F.180.b), “one does not mentally perceive any thing” because various types of imagined things do not appear. He says “other than the actual nature” because only that very actual nature makes itself known. (tathatāvinirmukto), RK: tathatāvinirmukta iti| tathatāmātrasyeva prakhyānāt| parikalpitasya nānāvidhasyāpratibhāsanāt| na kaścid dharma upalabhyate.

1258. According to Ratnākara (F.180.b), “caught up” means distressed by. RK: sajjatī ti vihanyata ity arthaḥ.

1259. From this point in the chapter, the content corresponds to the initial passages of Chapter 50 in the Twenty-Five Thousand (50.1–5) and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 60 in the Eighteen Thousand (60.1–7).

1260. According to Ratnākara (F.180.b–81.a), “in the light of” means in consideration of; “speaks the truth” means speaks correctly. “I explain,” i.e., communicate, “whatever is conducive,” i.e., a path that is conducive. “The Dharma” here means the nirvāṇa of a buddha (rather than that of a worthy one). RK: ārabhye ti adhikṛtya| dharmavādī ti yuktivādī| dharmasye ti buddhanirvāṇasya| anudharmam anukūlaṃ mārgaḥ| vyākurvan ācakṣāṇaḥ| vyākaromy ācakṣe.

1261. According to Ratnākara (F.181.a), it is the “state”‍—i.e., meditative concentration‍—on all things being “void,” i.e., voidness or emptiness. And it is the “state”‍—i.e., meditative concentration‍—on all things being “free from mental perception.” RK: sarvadharmā ṇāṃ viviktaṃ vivekaḥ śūnyatā| tasmin vihāraḥ samādhiḥ| sarvadharmā ṇāṃ anupalambhaḥ| tasmin vihāraḥ.

1262. According to Ratnākara (F.181.a), here the Blessed One is demonstrating that a bodhisattva’s state is far superior to Subhūti’s. RK: yaḥ khalu punar ityādinā subhūter vihārād bodhisattvavihārasyotkṛṣtatvaṃ darśayati.

1263. According to Ratnākara (F.181.a), here “going about life” means going about in the actualization of the meditative concentration, and “abiding” means in the meditative concentration actualized. The rest is easy to understand, whereas what was explained right before was difficult to understand. RK: carataḥ samādhiniṣpattaye| viharato niṣpannena samādhinā| śeṣaṃ subodham| durbodhaṃ tu prāg eva vyākhyātam.

1264. The beginning of this chapter corresponds to a point within Chapter 50 in the Twenty-Five Thousand (50.6) and Hundred Thousand, and in Chapter 60 in the Eighteen Thousand, (60.8) and its content corresponds to the remainder of those chapters. In addition, from the point marked by note 1286, its content corresponds to that of Chapter 51 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 61 in the Eighteen Thousand.

1265. According to Ratnākara (F.193.b), in this chapter the bodhisattvas named Avakīrṇakusuma are foreordained for awakening. So “The Chapter on Avakīrṇakusuma” (lit. “Showered Blossoms”) is a synecdochic title for those (bodhisattvas who are foreordained in the chapter receiving this name). RK: avakīrṇakusuma nāmāno bodhisattvā iha parivarte bodhau vyākṛtāḥ| atas tair upalakṣitaḥ parivartas tat parivarta ḥ. Note: The meaning of the proper name Avakīrṇakusuma is central to understanding the chapter and also the name is applied within the chapter to multiple individuals, almost as an epithet.

1266. Here the text literally states “māndārava flowers and large (or great) māndārava flowers” (māndāravair mahāmāndāravaiś ca). But since the idea is that these flowers from the heavenly realms are rained down as blessings by gods, like small and large snowflakes, these two terms have been translated throughout as a “magnificent array of māndārava flowers” or just “māndārava flowers.”

1267. According to Ratnākara (F.181.a), the two immediately preceding chapters‍—i.e., “Chapter on Magical Illusion” and “Chapter on the Essence”‍—taught (a) the conceptualizations to be abandoned through seeing (as opposed to through cultivation) and (b) the fact that abiding in the transcendent state of wisdom on the path of seeing and so on automatically leads to awakening. Now this chapter teaches, firstly, the three causes that lead a bodhisattva to being (awake) and, subsequently, the defining characteristics of awakening. RK: māyopamasāraparivartābhyāṃ darśanaheyā vikalpā uktāḥ| darśanamārgādeś ca prajñāpāramitāvihārasyāvaśyakaṃ bodhiprāpakatvam uktam| tatas tasya tathābhāve kāraṇatrayam anena parivartena prathamaṃ vakṣyati paścād bodhilakṣaṇam. Note: Ratnākara continues here explaining the Ornament’s introduction of the three causes: (1) foreordainment that points others to the awakening, (2) the entrustment (of the scripture) to noble Ānanda in order to serve as a cause for awakening in future times, and (3) the defining characteristic of having an abundance of merit. These three causes are the overall outline for the first part of the chapter.

1268. According to Ratnākara (F.181.b), all the monks are to be foreordained (as future buddhas) with the name Avakīrṇakusuma, which means “Showered Blossoms.” That is because the flowers brought by the gods were “showered” (on the Blessed One) by those (monks) to be foreordained. As a result, the (foreordainment) procedure and radiation of light rays took place, and the Blessed One, once asked by Ānanda, foreordained them. (Hence, they will be called Showered Blossoms because they showered the blossoms as an offering to the Blessed One). Their foreordainment is characterized as being for a particular world system elsewhere, because (the name of) the world system is not specified. RK: avakīrṇakusumanāmāno vyākartavyāḥ| tato devaiḥ puṣpam ānītaṃ vyākartavyair avakīrṇaṃ tato raśmīnāṃ niścārapraveśau| ānanda pṛṣṭena bhagavatā teṣāṃ vyākaraṇam| tat teṣāṃ vyākaraṇam anyasmin viśiṣṭe lokadhātāv iti lakṣyate lokadhātor anirdeśāt.

1269. Hari gives an extensive explanation of the cosmological reason why their lives and teachings are limited to the twenty-thousand-year time span. For those who are interested, see Sparham vol. 4, p. 202.

1270. According to Ratnākara (F.181.b), following that (foreordainment), the word “therefore” begins a brief summary that marks the end of the first cause of attaining awakening by means of abiding in the accomplished state. RK: tadanu tasmāt tarhī tyādinā upasaṃhāro vihartavyā ntaḥ| iti prakṛtena vihāreṇa bodhiprāpteḥ prathamaṃ kāraṇam.

1271. According to Ratnākara (F.181.b), he is basically describing the (seven) positive qualities of those who listen to it but do not dismiss it. Among these, “criticize it” means mentally blaming it; “reject it” means mentally renouncing it; “resent it” means being angry toward it; “suppress it” means placing it somewhere hidden; “repudiate it” means alleging it to be essenceless; “dismiss it” means making false refutations of it; and “wish to obstruct it” means negligence toward it. RK: tato ye cainām ityādinā veditavyā ntena ye py enāṃ śrutvā na pratikṣipanti teṣāṃ guṇam āha| atra pratikrośa ṇaṃ mānasī nindā| prativaha naṃ manasā tyāgaḥ| pratikop anaṃ tasmai kopaḥ| pratisaṃhara ṇaṃ guptau sthāpanam| pratiṣedha naṃ niḥsāratākhyāpanam| pratikṣep o ’sadbhūtabādhakābhidhānam| tadavyavasāyaḥ saptamaḥ.

1272. According to Ratnākara (F.181.b), in the passage up to this point, he has been explaining the two causes for falling to the disciples’ path, namely renouncing either the aspiration and so on, or the “observance” of them. RK: tataḥ kiñcāpī ty ādinā caritavate ty etadantena hīnayānāpatane kāraṇadvayam āha| praṇidhānā dinā visaṃvād itāṃ kṛtajñatāṃ ce ti| tad evaṃ ye hi kecid ityādinā vistareṇopodghātaṃ kṛtvā tasmāt tarhī tyādinā parīndanām āha| parīndanā samarpaṇā saivānubandhinī anuparīndanā.

1273. According to Ratnākara (F.181.b–82.a), after having fully introduced (the first cause of the three mentioned above), he now explains (the second, namely) “entrusting you,” which means assigning (him the responsibility to remember the scripture), and “transmitting it to you,” which just means entrusting it in perpetuity. “In the form of syllables” means the grouping together of syllables. What is the purpose (for this entrustment)? He says “to ensure that it be taken in” and so on. How is he entrusting Ānanda with this responsibility? He is saying you must do this so that it does not disappear. RK: tad evaṃ ye hi kecid ityādinā vistareṇopodghātaṃ kṛtvā tasmāt tarhī tyādinā parīndanām āha| parīndanā samarpaṇā saivānubandhinī anuparīndanā | akṣarasannipātād iti| akṣarasannipāto vyañjanakāyaḥ| tamadhikṛtyeti lyap lope pañcamī| kim artham ity āha| udgrahaṇāye tyādi| kathaṃ parīndanety ata āha| yatheyaṃ nāntarddhīyete ti| yatheyam antarhitā na syāt tathā tvayā karaṇīyam ity arthaḥ. Note: Ratnākara’s comments also give a grammatical justification for why the Sanskrit form saṃnipātād is in the ablative case here. It has not been translated here since it requires too much explanation and only pertains to Sanskritists.

1274. According to Ratnākara (F.182.a), from “if…” above down to the words “brings them forth” he gives a second introductory illustration of the point, and then a second entrustment of responsibility beginning “therefore” and so on. Within this section, the word “subsequently” means later; “lose it” means cause oneself to be deprived of it; “set it aside” means quickly lose track of it; and “forget it” means (simply) because you cannot remember. RK: ata ūrdhvaṃ sa ced ityādinā āhārike ty etadantena dvitīyam upodghātaṃ kṛtvā tasmāt tarhī tyādinā dvitīyā parīndanā| atra punar eve ti paścāt| nāśayer iti hārayeḥ| śīghram ananusaraṇāt utsṛjeḥ | smartum aśakyatvāt vismareḥ.

1275. According to Ratnākara (F.182.a), to “please” (my heart) means to win favor or to satisfy me. RK: ārādhana m ārāgaṇaṃ ca toṣaṇam.

1276. According to Ratnākara (F.182.a), their “mother” because she carries the seed (of them within); “engenders them” because she nourishes the seed (of them); and “gives them birth” because of causing them to appear. RK: mātā bījadhāraṇāt| jananī bījapuṣṭeḥ| janayitrī utpādanāt.

1277. According to Ratnākara (F.182.a), here “well pronounced” means read aloud clearly. RK: atra suniruktā supaṭhitā.

1278. According to Ratnākara (F.182.a), here the word “truth” (in “truth body” or “body of truth”‍—dharmakāya) refers to this very transcendent state of wisdom. That is those buddhas’ body (i.e., the scripture embodies the buddhas and the realization is their body). RK: dharmakāyate ti prajñāpāramitaiva dharmaḥ kāya eṣāṃ. Note: There is a play on the Sanskrit words dharmatā (viz. “true nature of things” vs. the nature of the Dharma teachings) and dharmakāya (viz. “truth body”, “embodiment of truth,” or body of Dharma teachings). In a different play on the word dharmakāya elsewhere (see 4.2 and n.339-n.342), he said, “The blessed buddhas are the bodies of the truth. But, monks, do not see this real body as that body. Instead, monks, see me through actualizing the body of truth (dharmakāya).”

1279. According to Ratnākara (F.182.a), “serve” means attend closely; “give offerings” (refers to offerings) such as flowers; “keep in mind” (refers to keeping in mind) the teaching and so on; “helpfulness” means longing to (earn) merit; “contentment” means being happy with that alone; and “goodness” means virtues and so on. RK: tatra kartavyam upasthānādi dātavyaṃ puṣpādi samanvāhartavyaṃ deśanādi| kalyāṇata iti puṇyakāmatayā| sparśavihārata iti tenaiva sukhībhāvāt| guṇavattaye ti kalyāṇādinā. Note: The translation “my welfare” follows Hari’s suggestion. Hari (872): tayāhitaiṣitaye ti tathāgatahitaiṣitayā.

1280. According to Ratnākara (F.182.a), he gives an introduction in the passage beginning with the words “should take in” (three paragraphs) above and ending with this sentence where he states that the transcendent state of wisdom is like the “teacher.”

1281. According to Ratnākara (F.182.a), “speak highly of,” i.e., praise it for “an eon” or “more than that” if one were to want the details. Nevertheless, he speaks of it “in brief.” RK: bhāṣeyam iti vadeyam| RK: kalpaṃ vā yāvat tato vā upari yadi vistara iṣṭaḥ syāt| kin tarhi saṃkṣepeṇānanda bhāṣeyam| yādṛśa ityādi.

1282. The next few paragraphs below, ending with the introduction of Akṣobhya, do not exist in either Mitra, Wogihara, or Vaidya’s edition. But the missing Sanskrit folio was later located by Conze and is translated here. Karashima, seemingly unaware of Conze’s 1952 edition of the missing folio, produced a new edition based on an (inferior) manuscript. Conze’s is to be preferred.

1283. The translation of time lengths is approximate, since the time units from ancient India do not necessarily correspond to our measurements, and different commentators disagree on how many of each unit makes another unit. For scholars interested, Ratnākara’s (F.182.b) comments on these time units are as follows: atra adhvaparyantaḥ kṣaṇaḥ| viṃśaṃ kṣaṇaśataṃ tatkṣaṇaḥ| tatkṣaṇāḥ ṣaṣṭir lavaḥ| lavās triṃśanmuhūrtaḥ| nālikā ghaṭikā. According to Apte, a muhūrtaḥ is one minute, a lavaḥ one second. No dictionary explains nālikā but Ratnākara’s gloss of it is one ghaṭikā, which according to Apte is 24 minutes.

1284. According to Ratnākara (F.182.b), both the appearance and disappearance of the Blessed Akṣobhya with his buddhafield and assembly is an illustration (for teaching a point). In this illustration, this place is “ocean-like” because of its expansiveness. “Deep” refers to the accomplishment of meditation. The state of “Akṣobhya” means the accomplishment of wisdom. RK: tato ’tha khalu bhagavān ityādinā akṣobhyasya bhagavataḥ sabuddhakṣetrasya sapariṣadaḥ sandarśanam antardhāyanaṃ ca dṛṣṭāntaḥ| atra sāgaropam atvam ativistīrṇatvāt| gambhīratvaṃ dhyānasampadā| akṣobhyatvaṃ prajñāsampadā.

1285. According to Ratnākara (F.182.b), to connect his point to the illustration (i.e., making Akṣobhya appear and disappear), the Blessed One says “such is the case with all things.” RK: dārṣṭāntike yojayitum āha| evam ānanda sarvadharmā ityādi.

1286. This translation follows the Tibetan, rather than the Sanskrit edition, which has the word “ungraspable” (agrahya) floating in this sentence, but unmentioned by any commentator.

1287. According to Hari (876), this is saying that an imagined (kalpita) thing is “not a knower” because it is “actionless in the same way that space is actionless.” A dependent (paratantra) thing is “not a seer” because it is “inconceivable just as an illusory person is.” An actualized (pariniṣpanna) thing is “has no capacity to do anything” because it is not an experiencer, since there is not an existent thing. Hari: etad uktaṃ bhavati : kalpito dharmo ’jānakaḥ yasmād ākāśanirīhakatayā nirīhakaḥ. tathā paratantro ’paśyakaḥ yato māyāpuruṣopamatvenā cintyaḥ. pariniṣpanno ’pi na kāryasamartho yasmād asadbhāvatvenāvedaka iti.

1288. According to Ratnākara (F.182.b), in this context “freedom from attachment” means either having no mental perceptions, or knowing that is free of any obstruction. RK: asaṅgatām iti nirupalambhatām apratihatajñānatāṃ vā. See n.555.

1289. According to Hari (877), because it is “a state free of existence” means because there is no dissipation of it. Hari: asattvād iti. kṣayābhāvād ity arthaḥ.

1290. According to Ratnākara (F.182.b), “measure” refers to a limitation in terms of spatial extension; “dissipation” refers to a limitation in terms of time; “limit” refers to a limitation in terms of number; “bound up with measures” means accurately defined or delimited by any measure. “Because it is immeasurable” means because it is free of mental perception. “Dissipation” is a depletion, while a complete dissipation is an absence. (So its inexhaustibility means it cannot even be depleted, let alone become completely absent). RK: pramāṇaṃ vaipulyaniyamaḥ| kṣayaḥ kālaniyamaḥ| paryantaḥ saṃkhyāniyamaḥ| pramāṇabaddhe ti pramāṇaparicchinnā| aprameyatvād ity anupalambhāt| kṣayo ’pacayaḥ| parikṣayo ’bhāvaḥ.

1291. This point in the chapter corresponds to the beginning of Chapter 51 in the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and of Chapter 61 in the Eighteen Thousand.

1292. According to Ratnākara (F.183.a), why is it “as inexhaustible as space”? He says “because it is free of the arising of all things.” There are no things that have arisen, so the transcendent state of wisdom, which is characterized as free of mentally perceiving those things, is also “as inexhaustible as space.” RK: ākāśākṣayatvād iti ākāśavad akṣayatvāt| kuta ity āha sarvadharmānutpādata iti| anutpannā sarvadharmāḥ| atas teṣām anupalambhalakṣaṇā prajñāpāramitāpy ākāśa vad akṣaye ti.

1293. According to Ratnākara (F.183.a), he or she “should realize” the transcendent state of wisdom means he or she should make it be directly perceived (within his or her experience through reflexive awareness). “Through the inexhaustibility of physical forms” and so on means based on their nonarising. The same is true for ignorance and so on. RK: abhinirhartavye ti pratyakṣīkartavyā| rūpā dīnām akṣayatvene ti teṣām anutpādataḥ| evam avidyā dīnām.

1294. According to Ratnākara (F.183.a), “two extremes” refers to (eternalistic) creation and (nihilistic) destruction. The “middle” refers to the continuity of what has arisen. “Unique” means not in common with others (like the disciples and solitary realizers). RK: antadvayam utpattivināśau madhyam utpannasya sthitiḥ| āveṇiko ’nyair asādhāraṇaḥ.

1295. According to Ratnākara (F.183.a), he or she does not identify “any thing” included within the (five) constituents of experience. Why not? Because of their dependent arising. “Permanent” means it has no beginning or end; “fixed” means sturdy; “lasting” means endless. And he or she does not identify an “agent or an experiencer” because there is no impeller or grasper. The text should be easy to understand from here to the next occurrence of the phrase “unsurpassed awakening.” RK: na ca kiñcid dharmam iti skandhaiḥ saṃgṛhītam| kutaḥ ? pratītyotpādadarśanāt| nityam ity anādinidhanam| dhruvam iti sthiram| śāśvatam ity anidhanam| kārakaṃ vedakaṃ ve ti| īhatur gṛhītuś cābhāvāt. Note: Following this comment, Ratnākara focuses for the rest of the chapter on the many topics in the corresponding verses from the Ornament. So he says little directly about what follows from here.

1296. From this point in the chapter, which corresponds to a point within Chapter 51 in the Twenty-Five Thousand (51.13) and Hundred Thousand, and within Chapter 61 in the Eighteen Thousand (61.13), it becomes difficult to discern the parallels between the Eight Thousand and the long sūtras. The latter embark on an extensive explanation structured according to the six transcendent states that fills several of their subsequent chapters.

1297. According to Ratnākara (F.189.b), he says “wishing to gain all the skills in means” and so forth. Here, the “means” (upāya)-‍—in the literal sense that it brings one closer (upeyate)‍—is the state of complete knowing. “Skill” (in those means) refers to the removal of incorrect perceptions. RK: sarvopāyakauśalyāni parigrahītukāmene tyādi| upeyata ity upāyaḥ sarvākārajñatā| tasmiṃ kauśalyāni vipratipattīnām apohanāni.

1298. As mentioned in note n.1296, from a point near the close of the previous chapter it is no longer easy to point to parallels between the Eight Thousand and the long sūtras. Essentially, the last three of the topics of the Ornament are covered in the Eight Thousand only by tersely expressed and schematic lists of points, as in the present chapter, while in the long sūtras they are set out and described at great length. Thus for Chapters 52–72 of the Twenty-Five Thousand and Hundred Thousand, and for Chapters 62–83 in the Eighteen Thousand, there are no passages in the Eight Thousand that correspond directly. At the end of the text, however, the narrative of Sadāprarudita and Dharmodgata, and the entrusting of the text to Ānanda, have close parallels in the Twenty-Five Thousand and the Eighteen Thousand, as detailed in notes n.1339, n.1397, and n.1438.

1299. According to Ratnākara, the “Chapter on the Approach” (writing where his comments on this chapter end, F.220.b) is the chapter articulating the approach (i.e., how to “comprehend,” “pursue,” “follow,” and “conform to” the transcendent state of wisdom). RK: anugama sya vācakaḥ parivarto ’nugamaparivartaḥ. Note: The translation “approach” (anugama; rjes su rig pa) aims to capture the range of meaning of the Sanskrit word anugama, which mainly means “following” (in all physical and intellectual senses of the word), “comprehending,” and “conforming to.” Ratnākara glosses the term differently to make clear which sense is intended in that sentence; e.g., one should “approach” means (1) one should know (anugantavye ti veditavyā), (2) one should follow (anugantavye ti anusartavyā), and (3) one should listen by means of the grouping together of syllables (anugamiṣyatī ti vyañjanakāyena śroṣyati).

1300. According to Ratnākara (F.193.b–94.a), the phrase “in this way” refers to the next three sentences that will be explained. The phrase “transcendent state of wisdom” here refers to the progressive trainings (on a bodhisattva’s path of cultivation). The phrase “should approach” means should be aware of. RK: evam iti vakṣyamāṇena vākyatrayeṇa| prajñāpāramite ty anupūrvakriyā| anugantavye ti veditavyā. According to Hari (893), the Blessed One has (just) described the path of cultivation. Now he will explain the four types of conceptualizations of grasped objects and grasping subjects to be eliminated on that (path of cultivation) through the antidotes to the counterproductive forces. To introduce those (in terms of their progressive realization), he says “furthermore” and so on in this sentence. Hari: bhāvanāmārgam evam abhidhāya tatra praheyaś caturvidho ’grāhyagrāhaka vikalpaḥ vipakṣa­prati­pakṣaprati­pādanatvena vaktavya ity upodghātayann. Note: Both commentators agree that this chapter concerns the “progressive realization” (anupūrvābhisamaya) of the transcendent state of wisdom (i.e., the sixth of the eight main topics in the Ornament). In this topic, the Buddha outlines the way that a bodhisattva progressively moves along the stages of the path of cultivation. However, in the long Transcendent State of Wisdom sūtras, the four sets of nine conceptualizations eliminated on the path of cultivation, covered in the Twenty-Five Thousand, for example, in 53.69–198, are counted according to Conze 1975 (pp. 505–523) within the fifth topic, the “culminations.” Indeed the last three of the eight topics (VI–VIII, see Synopsis of the Text According to the) are covered in a considerably more expanded way in the long sūtras than in the present text, in which they are all included in this chapter and the next.

1301. According to Ratnākara (F.194.a), first the phrase “all things” refers to the six transcendent states, because these alone constitute the path to awakening and the word “thing” (dharma) here describes the path. So “being free from attachment to all things” (i.e., to all transcendent states) means having neither attachment to them nor having any obtacles (in practicing them). Through (freedom from attachment), the bodhisattvas “approach (i.e., are aware of) the transcendent state of wisdom” in each progressive stage to be practiced, beginning with the first arising of the proper mindset and so on and ending with causing beings to ripen. RK: tatrādau sarvadharmāḥ ṣaṭpāramitāḥ| tāsām eva bodhimārgatvāt| dharmaśabdasya ceha mārgavācitvāt| sarvadharmā ṇām asaṅgatā niḥsaṅgatā nirvighnatā| bodhisattvair anukramakaraṇīyeṣu prathamacittotpād ādiṣu sattvaparimocanānteṣu tayā sā ’nugantavyā. According to Hari (893), among the (four types of conceptualizations, see preceding note), the Blessed One explains the meaning of the first‍—namely, the first nine types of conceptualizations of grasped objects‍—with the words “one should approach the transcendent state of wisdom by being free from attachment to all things.” That is to say, in order to eliminate the conceptualization of “things” altogether, a bodhisattva should cultivate the path of cultivation through being free of any habitual fixation toward anything. In the context of this section on the (thirty-six) conceptualizations (to be eliminated on the path of cultivation), one should understand the meaning of the “transcendent state of wisdom” to be synonymous with the meaning of “the path of cultivation.” Hari: tatra ca prathamo grāhyavikalpo viṣayabhedān navadheti prathamavikalpārtham āha : sarvadharmāsaṅgataḥ prajñā­pāramitānugantavye ti. dharma saṃkṣepa­vikalpaprahāṇārthaṃ sarva­dharmānabhiniveśād bhāvanāmārgo bhāvayitavyaḥ. evam uttaratra vikalpādhikāre prajñāpāramitārtho bhāvanāmārgārtha ity agantavyam. Note: The idea is that each moment of the transcendent state of wisdom along the path of cultivation is a distinct instance of a similar seeing of emptiness that counteracts a particular conceptualization to be eliminated progressively along that path. So, in that sense, each moment of the “transcendent state of wisdom” constitutes another progressive (and cumulative) step of the path of cultivation itself. So, Hari is recommending here that we understand each mention of “transcendent state of wisdom” in each sentence (throughout the chapter) as a different step along the path of cultivation. And Ratnākara is clarifying that the “approach” to each step is to be aware of what each sentence describes.

1302. According to Ratnākara (F.194.a), here “all things” refers to the six objects of recollection (i.e., the Buddha, Dharma, Saṅgha, ethical discipline, nonattachment, and gods). How could these be “things”? Because they are maintained within the mind. Furthermore, even merit is called a “thing” (by people) in the world, and these comprise the merit that consists in cultivation. “Not differentiating” all things means that they are (seen as) the same, not different, because their inherent nature is nonexistent. A bodhisattva should “approach” that (i.e., be aware of it) as mentioned before. RK: sarva­dharmāsambhedataḥ prajñāpāramitā ’nugantavye ti| sarvadharmāḥ ṣaḍanusmṛtayaḥ| tāḥ kathaṃ dharmāḥ ? cittadhāraṇāt| api ca puṇyam api loke dharma ucyate| tāś ca bhāvanāmayaṃ puṇyam| sarvadharmāṇām asaṃbhedato ’bhinnatā samatā| abhāvasvabhāvatvāt| tayā ’nugantavye ti pūrvavat. Note: Ratnākara’s immediately subsequent commentary goes on to explain how on the path of cultivation, a bodhisattva recollects the six objects of recollection “without being attentive” (amanasīkāra) to any object separate from a subject grasping it. Hari’s commentary in this chapter‍—which is uncontradicted by Ratnākara‍—connects each sentence with the antidotes to the thirty-six conceptualizations to be eliminated on the path of cultivation. These thirty-six conceptualizations are different from those that are to be eliminated on the path of seeing (as discussed in previous chapters, see n.1203; see also n.1300). Hari’s commentary will not be translated here. For those interested, see Sparham vol. 4, pp. 223–40.

1303. According to Ratnākara (F.195.b), a “thing” is defined as that which bears its own particular characteristic, so here “all things” refers to the constituents of experience, elements, bases, aids to awakening, transcendent states, and so on, all the way up to the state of knowing of all aspects. That one should be aware of their “nonoccurrence” refers to the progressive training to be aware of their nonoccurrence, i.e., their inherent nature being not existent. To explain, Ratnākara quotes (though it is not clear from where), “They have no inherent nature. The inherent nature that they have is a lack of inherent nature. So, a bodhisattva training in the transcendent state of wisdom develops the first proper mindset, then develops firm conviction that all things have the inherent nature of being not existent, and then cultivates the four applications of mindfulness, the four correct exertions, and so on, up to the state of knowing of all aspects. Then, having realized that the nonexistent inherent nature of all things, he or she sets in motion the Dharma wheel and liberates beings from cyclic existence through the three vehicles.” This is the thirteenth progressive training in all things having the inherent nature of nonexistence. RK: sarva­dharmāsambhavataḥ prajñā­pāramitā’nugantavye ti| svalakṣaṇadhāraṇāt dharmāḥ| skandhā dhātava āyatanāni bodhipakṣāḥ pāramitā yāvat sarvākārajñateti sarvadharmāḥ| teṣām asaṃbhavata ity asaṃbhavajñānato ’nupūrvakriyā veditavyā| asaṃbhavo ’bhāvasvabhāvatā| tathā hi‍— “teṣāṃ nāsti svabhāvaḥ| yasya svabhāvo nāsti so ’svabhāvaḥ| sa prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caran prathamacittotpādam upādāya sarvadharmāṇām abhāvasvabhāvatām adhimucya catvāri smṛtyupasthānāni catvāri samyakprahāṇāni yāvat sarvākārajñatāṃ bhāvayati| so ’bhāvasvabhāvān sarvadharmān abhisaṃbudhya dharmacakraṃ pravartayati| tribhiś ca yānaiḥ sattvān saṃsārāt parimocayati” iti dharmāṇām abhāvasvabhāvatayā trayodaśyānu­pūrva­kriyāḥ.

1304. According to Ratnākara (F.195.b–96.a), the objections to the previous sentence were uttered by themselves (in a previous chapter), but the responses are (now) to be explained. The basic objection is this: If a perfection whose inherent nature is nonexistent is to be cultivated, then cultivating it would be fruitless, like cultivating the horns of a horse (which do not exist). He rebuts that here: “All things are equal to the unchanging,” i.e., to the ultimate realm of things (dharmadhātu), and not (equal to) mere nonexistence. The ultimate realm of things being taken as a meditative object is the cause of all the noble qualities. That is why it is called the ultimate realm of things (viz. the absolute source of qualities/things). So, how could that be fruitless? RK: ita ūrdhvaṃ codyāni svayam ūhyāni parihārās tu vaktavyāḥ| yady abhāvasvabhāvāḥ pāramitā bhāvyante tadā tadbhāvanā niṣphalā turagaviṣāṇabhāvanāvad iti codyam| parihāram āha| sarvadharmā nirvikārasamā itī tyādi| nirvikāro dharmadhātus tena samāḥ sarvadharmā nābhāvamātreṇa| dharmadhātuś cālambyamāna āryadharmāṇāṃ hetur bhavati| ata eva dharmadhātur ity ucyate| tatkuto vaiphalyam? Note: Ratnākara begins to explain each step along the path more specifically according to his own viewpoint by rebutting opponent objections to his school’s explanation of how the path actually works.

1305. According to Ratnākara (F.196.a), the freedom from the form of “a self” because a self has no characteristics and from the form of “representations” because there is no grasped object or grasping subject. “Wisely knowing” means perceiving through a valid means of cognition, because knowing a “self” would be knowing it to be a lasting, single essence, but the constituents of experience and so on are not like that. Hence, they are proven to be “free of self.” And since there is no grasped object or grasping subject they are also proven, based on that alone, to be free of representational form, because (a representation) does not have the characteristic of a grasping subject. Due to the absence of a grasping subject, there is also nothing grasped. So, the nonexistence of all things is proven. RK: anātmavijñaptita ity ātmavilakṣaṇatvād anātmā kāreṇa grāhyagrāhakavaidhuryād avijñapty ākāreṇa ca| prajñānubodhanata iti pramāṇena pratīteḥ| ātmā hi nityaikarūpo jñātā na ca skandhādaya ithambhūtāḥ| tasmād anātmatvena siddhāḥ| grāhyagrāhakavaidhuryāc ca| ata eva cāvijñaptyākāreṇāpi siddhāḥ| grāhakalakṣaṇatvāt tasyāḥ| grāhakābhāvād grāhyam api nāstīti siddhaḥ sarvadharmāṇām abhāvaḥ.

1306. According to Ratnākara (F.196.a–b), the objection here is this: Those physical forms themselves are what is expressed by the words “physical forms” and so on, and the expression of those physical forms by those words exists in the world as conventional expressions or agreements among listeners. So, how could all things be nonexistent? The rebuttal is this sentence. A “mere name” means a name is empty of any referent (i.e., a particular thing it refers to). “All things are talked about by way of” that (mere name), because the referent of those (words) is a mind’s representational form, which is neither perceived as external (to mind), nor (does it arise) from advancing toward something external. Also, there is no external referent, because even without an external thing, the referent arises from the word. Someone might object, “But the referent of the word is mind in the form of something external.” (To this we respond that) the mental formations are not the referent as a physical form, since they are fundamentally distinct things, or else there could be no contradiction between the two, and having a mind would mean having a referent. Therefore, due to the absence of any referent, he says that such a thing is “talked about by way of a mere name or conventional expression.” Someone might object, “Conventional expressions exist to that extent.” The Blessed One rebuts this with the next sentence. They do not “arise anywhere” because of the nonexistence of any referent. They do not “arise from anywhere” because of the nonexistence of a thing that expresses it. Also, it is “not a thing”‍—i.e., not something thing physical, verbal, or mental‍—because the expresser and what is expressed do not exist. The next sentence says “all things” and so on to summarize this. Those things are “not a conventional expression or utterance” because they to not exist in these (expressions or utterances), and for this reason, too, they are “not uttered.” RK: rūpādiśabdair ye ’bhilapyante ta eva rūpādayaḥ| asti ca loke tais teṣām abhilāpaḥ| śrotṝṇāṃ vyavahāraḥ saṃvādaś ca| tatkuto ’bhāvaḥ sarvadharmāṇām iti codyam| parihāram āha| nāmamātreṇe tyādinā| arthaśūnyaṃ nāma nāmamātram| tena te sarvadharmā abhilapyante| na hi buddhyākāra eṣām artho bāhyatvena pratiyate, bāhye ca pravṛtteḥ| nāpi bāhya evārthaḥ, asaty api bāhye śabdād arthagateḥ| buddhir eva bāhyarūpeṇa śabdārtha iti cet| na caitasyā artho rūpaṃ, atyantabhedāt| abhede vā na visaṃvādaḥ syāt| buddhimantaś cārthavantā bhaveyuḥ| tasmād arthābhāvān nāmamātreṇa vyavahāramātreṇābhilapyante| vyavahāras tāvad astīti ced āha| vyavahāraś cetyādi| na kvacid ity arthābhāvat| na kutaścid iti vācakābhāvāt| nāpi kaścid iti na vāciko na ca kāyiko nāpi mānasaḥ| vācyavācakayor abhāvāt| sarvadharmā ity ādinopasaṃhāraḥ| avyavahārā avyāhārā iti teṣu tayor abhāvāt| ata eva cāvyāhṛtāḥ. Note: This philosophical discussion of the lack of any true relationship between words and their referents is common to all Mahāyāna schools. But Ratnākara’s explanation (in this context) is emphasizing his particular Yogācāra viewpoint of things’ lack of externality. Hari and scholars of other schools, of course, explain this differently.

1307. According to Ratnākara (F.196.b), the objection here is, “Since physical forms are established by means of valid cognition, their emptiness should also be established by means of valid cognition. Hence, the transcendent state of wisdom should be established by means of valid cognition, since it has that (emptiness) as its object. But this is not asserted by you.” The Blessed One rebuts this with the next sentences: “through the lack of any valid means of cognizing anything” because there is no valid means of cognition. To explain: There is no valid means of cognizing anything because it is characterized by nonexistence, just like space, which is characterized as a lack of physical forms, and hence there is no valid means of cognizing its emptiness, because there is nothing that can delimit that. Therefore, the transcendent state of wisdom is like that too, because it cannot be separated from its object (i.e., emptiness). RK: nanu rūpādīnāṃ pramāṇavattvāt tacchūnyatā api pramāṇavatya iti tadālambanā prajñāpāramitā pramāṇavatī syāt| na ceṣyata iti codyam| parihāram āha| sarvadharmāṇāṃ apramāṇata iti| apramāṇatvāt| tathā hi sarvadharmāṇāṃ nāsti pramāṇam abhāvalakṣaṇatvāt| ākāśasyeva rūpā bhāvalakṣaṇasya, tatas tacchūnyatānām api nāsti pramāṇam avacchedakābhāvāt| tataḥ prajñāpāramitāyā apy ālambanābhedāt. Note: Ratnākara’s explanation (in this context) is emphasizing his particular Yogācāra viewpoint on the means of valid cognition. Hari and scholars of other schools, of course, explain this differently.

1308. According to Ratnākara (F.196.b-97.a), the objection is this: So if physical forms and so on do not exist, then what is appearing as physical forms and so on? The conventional signs of things are not the reality of things, because they lack the nature of being either the same or different, and something without the nature of shining forth cannot be connected to illumination. But the conventional signs of the things are the representational forms of the cognitive errors of things, since those (cognitive errors) that are shining forth, due to having the nature of illumination, are appearing with false forms, because nonerroneous (natures) are characterized as appearing as something false. This may be so, but it does not prove the transcendent state of wisdom. That must be nonerroneous, while a mind with forms would just be erroneous. On the other hand, the mind cannot be without representational forms as they appear even in sleep. The Blessed One rebuts this with the next sentence, “through the freedom from signs of all things” and so on. The freedom of signs in all things comes from the disappearance of signs, and hence is a state of knowing that does not have appearances, i.e., representational forms. Based on that, one should recognize the transcendent state of wisdom‍—the basic idea is like in the attainment of the formless realm due to the abandonment of all forms. RK: yadi tarhi rūpādayo na santi kimiti nīlādayaḥ prakhyānti| dharmanimittāny etāni na dharmavastūni| ekānekasvabhāvavirahāt, aprakāśātmanaḥ prakāśāyogāc ca| dharmanimittāni tu dharmabhrāntīnām ākārāḥ| tā hi prakāśarūpatvāt prakāśamānās tair asadbhir api rūpaiḥ prakhyānti| asatkhyātilakṣaṇatvād abhrāntīnām| yady eva, na siddhayati prajñāpāramitā| sā khalv abhrāntā sākārā tu buddhir bhrāntaiva| na ca nirākārā buddhiḥ svapne py anubhūyata iti codyam| parihāram āha| sarvadharmānimittata ityādinā| sarvadharme ṣv ānimittaṃ nimittāstamayāj jñānasya nirābhāsatā nirākāratā| tataḥ prajñāpāramitā veditavyā| ākāraparivarjanād ārūpyasamāpattivad iti bhāvaḥ. Note: Ratnākara’s explanation (in this context) is emphasizing his particular Yogācāra viewpoint on the relationship between conventional signs, error, and the unerroneous knowing. Hari and scholars of other schools, of course, explain this differently.

1309. According to Ratnākara (F.197.a), the objection is this: This is the perfect attentiveness of the ultimate realm of things based on eliminating signs, but not the transcendent state of wisdom. The Blessed One rebuts this with the next sentence, “through penetrating all things” and so on. The penetrating insight (prativedha) is taught here with the word “penetrating” (nirvedha). The penetration of all things is the actualization of knowing that has penetrating insight into their actualized nature (pariniṣpanna). Based on that (penetration), the transcendent state of wisdom is (known) through that characteristic. This is the meaning here. RK: nanv ayaṃ vikalpanimittānāṃ parivarjanād dharmadhātoḥ samyaṅmanasikāro na punaḥ prajñāpāramiteti codyam| parihāram āha sarvadharmanirvedhata ityādi| nirvedhaśabdenātra prativedha uktaḥ| sarvadharmāṇāṃ pariniṣpannena rūpeṇa prativedho jñānasākṣātkriyā sa teṣāṃ nirvedhaḥ| ta ta iti tena lakṣaṇena prajñāpāramitā ity arthaḥ. Note: Ratnākara’s explanation (in this context) is emphasizing his particular Yogācāra viewpoint on the fact that conventional signs disappear (rather than being merely seen through). Hari and scholars of other schools, of course, explain this differently. Ratnākara continues to make lengthy comments in opposition to his opponent’s “objections” for all subsequent sentences. But only his rebuttals or responses on difficult points will be translated below.

1310. According to Ratnākara (F.197.b), “the natural purity of all things” means the purity belonging to the nature of all things. He or she “should approach,” i.e., should accomplish, “the transcendent state of wisdom” with that (purity) as his or her aim. RK: sarva­dharma­prakṛtipariśuddhita ityādi| sarvadharmā ṇāṃ prakṛtis tasyāḥ pariśuddhis tatas tena prayojanena prajñāpāramitā ’nugantavyā| anuṣṭhātavyety arthaḥ.

1311. According to Ratnākara (F.197.b), he says “through not speaking of all things” and so on, because all things are beyond words. That is, a word does not make their inherent nature shine forth by pointing toward it alone, and hence he or she must “approach the transcendent state of wisdom” to see the ultimate truth (of all things). RK: sarvadharmāvacanata ityādinā| sarvadharmāṇām avacanāt| vācā svarūpam aprakāśya kevalaṃ sūcanāt| paramārthadarśanāya prajñāpāramitā ’ nugantavyā.

1312. According to Ratnākara (F.198.a), he or she should “approach the transcendent state of wisdom through the noncessation of all things” because there is no destruction of things free of worldly influences (anāśrava; zag med). What is their noncessation like? It is “equal to relinquishing” them, because relinquishing them according to the explanation (of the transcendent state of wisdom) is no different. RK: sarvadharmāṇām anirodhata iti| anāśravāṇāṃ dharmāṇām akṣayāt prajñāpāramitā ’nugantavyā| katham anirodhaḥ? prahāṇasamatayā| nirdeśatvena prahāṇād aviśeṣāt.

1313. According to Ratnākara (F.198.a), he or she should “approach the transcendent state of wisdom through attaining the nirvāṇa” of all defiling things. “Being the same in their actual nature” means knowing that they are just the way their nature is. RK: sarvadharmāṇām iti sāṃkleśikānāṃ sarvadharmāṇāṃ nirvāṇa prāptitaḥ prajñāpāramitā ’nugantavyā| yathā teṣāṃ tathatā tathaiva ta iti jñānaṃ tathatāsamatā.

1314. According to Ratnākara (F.198.a), the next sentence addresses how there is sameness with the actual nature. All things do not “come” from the future time and do not “go” to the past time, (a) because that from which it can come or toward which it can go does not exist, (b) because there is no “knowing” time in mere reflexive awareness, and (c) because coming and going are preceded by knowing. Therefore, they are not “born due to their absolute freedom from birth.” RK: tayā kathaṃ tathatāsamatety āha| sarvadharmā ityādi| nāgacchanty anāgatād adhvanaḥ, na gacchanty atītam adhvānaṃ, yata āgantavyaṃ yatra ca gantavyaṃ tayor asattvāt| yataś ca ajānānāḥ svasaṃvinmātre ’dhvanām ajñānāt| jñānapūrvakatvāc ca gatyāgamanayoḥ| tasmāt ajātā atyantājātita iti.

1315. According to Ratnākara (F.198.a), not seeing “a ‘self’ or an ‘other’ ” because of not seeing a difference in that he or she sees all beings as the same as themselves. RK: As is stated in The Teaching of Vimalakīrti (7.11), “The buddha-qualities…grow in those who, after having produced a Sumeru-like mountain of egoistic views, conceive the spirit of enlightenment, from which all the buddha-qualities then arise.” RK: ātmā para iti yo bhedaḥ tasyādarśanāt sarvasattvānām ātmasamatādarśanād ity arthaḥ| tathā coktam āryavimalakīrtinirdeśe “sumerusamāṃ satkāyadṛṣṭim utpādya bodhicittam utpādyate| tataḥ sarvadharmā virohanti” iti.

1316. According to Ratnākara (F.198.b), above, after the word “ocean,” the Blessed One explains‍— as an antidote to conceiving (of the bodhisattva’s path) as “difficult”‍—the ways that things should be carefully considered. Among those ways, he says this first (among the sentences below that are related) to uproot the conception of difficulty sentient beings have regarding the state of a worthy one. In this context, the usage of the conventional expression “all things” is (limited to) sentient beings. They are “noble worthy ones since they are pure by nature,” i.e., due to their merely having the nature of all things. RK: ita ūrdhvaṃ duṣkara­saṃjñāpratipakṣeṇa yathā yathā pravekṣaṇīyaṃ tad āha samudraśabdād arvāk| tatrādau sattvānām arhattvadiṣu duṣkara­saṃjñānirāsārtham āha| sarvadharmāḥ sattvavyahāraviṣayāḥ| āryārhantaḥ yataḥ prakṛtipariśuddha| dharmatāmātratvāt.

1317. According to Ratnākara (F.198.b), “since they are not imposed upon by burdens” means because existence lacks an inherent nature. RK: bhārānāropaṇataye ti niḥsvabhāvatvāt bhāvasya.

1318. According to Ratnākara (F.198.b), he says this sentence in order to uproot the conception of it being “difficult” to travel to the buddhafields of the ten directions for the sake of taming beings. “Physical forms have no place, given the inherent nature of their essential nature” because that essential nature does not have a place‍—insofar as it is not a thing that disintegrates‍—nor is it a “location” because, like space, it has no parts. RK: sattvavinayāya daśadigbuddha­kṣetra­gamanena duṣkara­saṃjñānirāsāyāha| sarvadharmāṇāṃ adeśāpradeśata iti| adeśatvāc ca prakṛtisvabhāvata iti| rūpā dīnāṃ prakṛtis tasyāḥ svabhāvataḥ| na hi tasyā deśo ’patanadharmatvāt| nāpi pradeśo niraṃśatvād ākāśavat.

1319. According to Ratnākara (F.198.b-99.a), in regard to taming bodhisattvas, he says “through neither liking nor disliking.” Here, the word “liking” means total excitement about nirvāṇa. Since bodhisattvas lack that, they do not have a “liking.” The word “disliking” means total depression about cyclic existence. Since bodhisattvas lack that, they do not have a “disliking.” The transcendent state of wisdom is (approached) through neither of these. RK: bodhisattvavinayanam adhikṛtyāha| aratyaviratita iti| ratir atyantam utkaṇṭhā nirvāṇe| tadabhāvo bodhisattvānāṃ aratiḥ| viratir atyantam udvegaḥ saṃsāre| tadabhāvo bodhisattvānām avirati| tābhyāṃ prajñāpāramitā.

1320. According to Ratnākara (F.199.a), “neither passion nor dispassion” and so on is something to carefully consider in order to renounce (the world further). RK: araktāviraktataye tyādinā vairāgyāya pratyavekṣā.

1321. According to Ratnākara (F.199.a), “all things are detached” means not habitually fixated upon. They are “devoid of either attachment or freedom from attachment” means devoid of attachment or its antidote, because neither of these is mentally perceived. This is something to carefully consider in order to eliminate conceptualization. RK: sarvadharmā asaktā ity anabhiniviṣṭāḥ| saṅgāsaṅgā saṅgatatpratipakṣau| tadvigatās tayor anupalambhād iti vikalpaprahāṇāya pratyavekṣā.

1322. According to Ratnākara (F.199.a), here “all things” means all the (true) paths, i.e., the seven realizations (among the eight described in the Ornament). These are (called) “awakening” because they procure (unsurpassed, perfect) awakening. For this very reason, he says “since they are awakening through becoming aware of the knowing of a buddha.” The awakening, literally, is “becoming aware of,” i.e., procuring (the knowing of a buddha). This is the careful consideration aimed an awakening. RK: sarvadharmāḥ sarvamārgāḥ saptābhisamayāḥ| ta eva bodhiḥ| bodhiprāpakatvāt| ata evāha| bodhiḥ| buddhajñānāvabodhanataye ti| avabodhana prāpaṇa iti bodhiḥ| sulabhāvabodhanāya pratyavekṣā. Note: There are generally three types of “awakening” (bodhi) connected with disciples, solitary realizers, and buddhas. But a bodhisattva eschews the first two awakenings for the awakening of a buddha. Since the bodhisattvas on the ten levels have wisdom equal to or greater than the disciples and solitary realizers, Ratnākara is (in a manner of speaking) explaining that bodhisattvas are awakening, i.e., in the process of awakening. To allow for a distinction between the process of awakening and its end result, the Sanskrit words bodhi and avabodhana (which are etymologically related) are translated respectively as “awakening” and “becoming aware.”

1323. According to Ratnākara (F.199.a), “all things,” due to bearing their own inherent characteristic, are “empty, free from signs, and free from inclinations.” They are “empty” because, in being nothing but consciousness, they are devoid of a (separate) object; they are “free from signs” because all conventional signs disappear (in that consciousness upon awakening); and they are “free from inclinations” because the inclinations of the three realms are absent in their body consisting of error. These three provide an abbreviated summary of the path. RK: sarvadharmāḥ svalakṣaṇadhāraṇāt| te śūnyānimittāpraṇihitā vijñāna­mātratvenārthavirahāt sarvanimittāstamayāt| bhrāntiśarīre traidhātu­kapraṇidhānābhāvāc ca yathākramam| iti mārgasaṃkṣepaḥ. Note: Ratnākara is unique in saying that bodhisattvas deliberately aim upon awakening to manifest a body consisting of error (i.e., the two form bodies) for the sake of beings. It is a little like a dream body deliberately manifested for others. No other Buddhist scholar agrees with this view. For more on error within Ratnākara’s philosophical system, see Seton 2022.

1324. According to Ratnākara (F.199.a), here “all things” refers to all the bodhisattva paths. They are “medicine” in the sense of curing the severe disease of longing for the disciples’ path. He explains why that is by saying “since they are preceded by benevolence,” i.e., because “benevolence” is a precursor of those paths. RK: sarvadharmāḥ sarva­bodhisattva­mārgāḥ| bhaiṣajyam iti hīnayāna­spṛhāmahāvyādhiharāḥ| kuta ityāha| maitrīpūrvaṅgamataye ti| yato maitrī teṣāṃ puraḥsarī.

1325. According to Ratnākara (F.199.b), furthermore, they are abiding in “benevolence” (and so on), because they are abiding in the four immeasurable states. RK: api ca| sarva caturbhir apramāṇaiḥ saha viharaṇāt matrīvihāriṇaḥ.

1326. According to Ratnākara (F.199.b), “like Brahma” means equal in terms of his purity. Very similarly, the general point is “faults do not arise in them” and the specific explanation is “due to their freedom from the arising of all faults.” Here “all faults” refers to the opposites of (the four immeasurables of) benevolence and so on‍—respectively, malevolence, harming, joylessness, and the pair of attachment and aversion. RK: brahmabhūtā iti brahmaṇā tulyāḥ| tadvad eva doṣānutpādanād ity uddeśaḥ| sarvadoṣānutpādanata iti nirdeśaḥ| sarvadoṣā maitryādīnāṃ vipakṣo yathākramaṃ vyāpādo vihiṃsā aratiḥ pratighānunayau ca. Note: Brahman, brahma, or brahmā can refer to the being or to purity, etc., and has been translated different ways in the text and Ratnākara’s comments to bring out the meaning.

1327. According to Ratnākara (F.199.b), “due to the freedom from inclination” means due to lacking excitement about nirvāṇa, and “due to the freedom from revulsion” means due to total depression in cyclic existence. This ends the thirteen kinds of progressive realizations in an uninterrupted series (i.e., the sixth of eight topics in the Ornament). Next he explains the realization in a single moment (i.e., the seventh topic of the Ornament) RK: apraṇihitata iti nirvānotkaṇṭhāvirahāt| apratihatita iti saṃsāre atyantānudvegāt| iti trayodaśavidho ’nupūrvābhisamayaḥ sānuṣaṅgaḥ|| ekakṣaṇābhisamayo vaktavyāḥ.

1328. According to Ratnākara (F.199.b), here, both the transcendent state of wisdom‍—due to its being a support (to the bodhisattva)‍—and the state of knowing all aspects‍—due to its never lacking the (proper) attentiveness‍—are referred to as (the single term) “the transcendent state of wisdom,” denoting the (ocean-like) deep and vast single moment of the mindset of generosity and so on. Its “limitlessness” is the state of attracting the qualities free of worldly influences (anāsrava). He or she “should approach” that, i.e., be aware of that, because their mutual connection (i.e., between qualities and the bodhisattva’s limitless transcendent state of wisdom) was practiced for a long time. He explains how that is so, with the phrase “through it being as limitless as the ocean.” The limitlessness of the deep and vast “ocean” is the thing that attracts all the rivers inclined toward it, all at once, because they merge with one another. The phrase “as limitless as the ocean” is a simile meaning that the transcendent state of wisdom is like that. This sentence corresponds to the realization of all the qualities free of worldly influence in one single moment (as described in the Ornament). RK: atra prajñāpāramitā parigṛhītatvāt, sarvākārajñatā manasikārā­virahitatvāc ca| gambhīrodāra ekaiko dānādicittakṣaṇaḥ prajñāpāramitety ucyate| tasyāparyantatā anāśravadharmākarṣakatvam| teṣām anyonyasambandhasya cirapariśīlitatvāt anugantavyā veditavyā| atha mity āha| samudrāparyantataye ti| gambhīrodārasya samudrasyāparyantatā sakṛd aparyantanimnagā­jalākarṣakatvam| tāsāṃ parasparasaṃsargāt| tayā samudrāparyantatayā upamayā| tadvad ity arthaḥ| iti sarvānāśravadharmaikacittakṣaṇābhisamayaḥ.

1329. According to Ratnākara (F.200.a), here the “transcendent state of wisdom” is at the stage with the qualities of maturation and all the positive qualities (whether with or without worldly influences). For this very reason, “the limitlessness” of those is the single flavor of existence and nonexistence within those, and also the noneffort (toward them) because that is born from the maturation (of those qualities). He explains how this is so with the illustrating example “as limitless as the sky,” i.e., space, because its single flavor with regard to both physical substances and their nonexistence is limitless and effortless, because it does not stir (in either case). Thus, the limitlessness of both is similar. This is the second point (in the seventh topic of the Ornament): the realization of the qualities of maturation and the positive qualities in a single moment of a mindset. RK: prajñāpāramitā yāḥ vipākadharmatāvasthā sarvaśuklamayī ca| ata evāparyantatā| teṣu sarveṣu bhāvābhāvaikarasā| nirābhogaś ca vipākajatvāt| tasyā aparyantatā veditavyā | katham ityāha| gaganāparyantatayā dṛṣṭānteneti| gaganam ākāśam| tac ca rūpidravyābhāvaikarasam aparyantaṃ nirābhogaṃ ca parispandābhāvāt| ata ubhayor api aparyantatā sadṛśīti vipākajasarvaśukladharmaikacittakṣaṇābhisamayo dvitīyaḥ.

1330. According to Ratnākara (F.201.a), here, since there is a lack of characteristics in all things, which are like a magical illusion, the “transcendent state of wisdom” refers to knowing them with their single flavor. Hence, even though the transcendent state of wisdom has that single flavor, one should know that “multifaceted nature” with the illusory appearances of all things through the illustrating example of the multifaceted nature of “Mount Meru.” For just as space has no form, it appears as multifaceted as Mount Meru, because on the four sides of Meru it appears with all the colors. So, this is the third point (in the seventh topic of the Ornament): the realization in a single moment of a mindset with all qualities belonging to it being free of characteristics. RK: māyopameṣu sarvadharmeṣv alakṣaṇatvena yad ekarasaṃ jñānaṃ seha prajñāpāramitā| atas tasyā ekarasatve pi māyopamaiḥ sarva­dharma­pratibhāsair yā vicitratā sā meruvicitratayā dṛṣṭāntena veditavyā| yathā hy ākāśasya nīrūpatvād asatī meruṇā vicitratā ’vabhāti| merupārśvānāṃ caturvarṇānāṃ dikṣu tatsarvavarṇatayā prakhyānāt| tathā tasyā ity alakṣaṇa­sarva­dharmaika­citta­kṣaṇābhisamaya­stṛtīyaḥ.

1331. According to Ratnākara (F.201.b), here the “transcendent state of wisdom” refers to the fourth realization in a single moment. That is “limitless” because this realization knows the pure ultimate reality of all things like the pure, unadulterated sky. So, one “should approach,” i.e., know, that transcendent state of wisdom. He explains how so with the limitlessness of all “physical forms” and so on. How are they limitless? Because the dualistic appearances disappear and it is only as long as there is duality that there is a limit due to be circumscribed (by that duality). RK: iha caturtha ekakṣaṇābhisamayaḥ prajñāpāramitā | asyā aparyantatā| sarva­dharma­paramārthasya kevalasya kevalavimalanabhani­bhasya tena saṃvedanāt| sā veditavyā| katham ityāha| rūpā dīnām aparyantaye ti| kathaṃ teṣām aparyantatā ? dvaya­prati­bhāsāstamayāt| yāvat khalu dvayaṃ tāvat paryantaḥ parimitatvāt.

1332. According to Ratnākara (F.202.b), absolutely everything is a pure crystal devoid of faults such as fear and so on. Among (crystals), any others beside the sun and moon are metaphors for the liberation body of the disciples and solitary realizers. The sun and moon are also pure crystals, yet their superiority is that they produce rays of light pervading all directions. So, these two are for comparing (the disciple and solitary realizer liberation bodies) to the liberation body of the buddhas that gives rise to infinite knowing and infinite objects of knowing. Hence, it is called the body of qualities (dharmakāya), because it is the basis for infinite qualities. So, here, the “transcendent state of wisdom” refers to the infinite knowing born from the purity of the ultimate realm of things (dharmadhātu). He or she should know “the limitlessness” of objects of knowing belonging to “the transcendent state of wisdom” through the example of it “illuminating; limitlessly like the sun’s halo of rays.” To explain, as the perfect purity of the buddha qualities, the ultimate realm of things is like the sun. The wisdom born from it is the “transcendent state of wisdom,” which is like the sun’s halo of rays. Its limitless illumination is like the sun’s rays illuminating limitlessly. As the perfect purity of the buddhas is due to this illumination, it is the natural body (svābhāvikakāya) and the power of its knowing is demonstrated with respect to objects of knowing everywhere. RK: sarva eva trāsādidoṣarahitāḥ sphāṭikāḥ śuddhāḥ| tatra candrasūryābhyām anye śrāvakapratyekabuddhānāṃ vimuktikāyasyopamāḥ| sūryācandram asāv api śuddhasphāṭikau| tayor etad adhikaṃ yat tau daśadigvyāpiraśmijālaṃ janayataḥ| tatas tāv anantajñeyaviṣayam anantaṃ jñānam utpādayato buddhānāṃ vimuktikāyasyopamāne| ata evāsau dharmakāya ity abhidhīyate| anantadharmāśrayatvāt| tad iha dharmadhātuviśuddhijam anantaṃ jñānaṃ prajñāpāramitā| tasyā aparyanta jñeyāvabhāsanatā veditavyā sūrya­raśmi­maṇḍalāparyantāvabhāsanatayā dṛṣṭāntena| tathā hi buddhadharmāṇāṃ suviśuddho dharmadhātuḥ sūryavat| tajjā prajñā prajñapāramitā sūryaraśmimaṇḍalavat| tayā yad aparyantāvabhāsanaṃ tad ravi­raśmi­maṇḍalenāparyantāvabhāsanavat| tad anena buddhānāṃ suviśuddho dharmadhātuḥ svābhāvikaḥ kāyas tasya ca sarvatra jñeye jñānavaśitā darśitā. Note: Ratnākara, like other Yogācāra scholars, takes “natural body” (svābhāvikakāya) to be a synonym of the truth body (dharmakāya), which is the source of all qualities, and hence can be understood to mean “body of qualities” (dharmakāya) in certain contexts. Hari explains the natural body (svābhāvikakāya) and truth body (dharmakāya) as two separate bodies, meaning that there are four bodies, not three as Ratnākara is explaining here. For more on the Indian controversy around the number of bodies intended here, see Makransky 1997.

1333. According to Ratnākara (F.203.a), much about the enjoyment body is to be explained (in relation to this next sentence). Regarding the enjoyment in it, he says this sentence. Here, the “transcendent state of wisdom” refers to the realization (saṃbodha) of the supreme Mahāyāna Dharma, which belongs to both the teacher teaching it and the bodhisattvas listening to it. That realization itself is the enjoyment, because it is the thing causing enjoyment. However, the main “enjoyment” (in the enjoyment body) is born from the “transcendent state of wisdom” as the experience of the enjoyable feeling (sukha) of pleasure, joy, and delight characterized by mild, medium, and exceeding mental satisfaction. Hence, one should know “the limitlessness” of that “transcendent state of wisdom.” The Blessed One explains how this is so through the phrase “due to the limitlessness of all sounds” in the sense of it being a cause (hetau tṛtīyā). The “limitless sounds” of the teachings refers to both what is generating the sound and the sound generated, which, respectively, belong to the two realizations (of the tathāgata and of his retinue of bodhisattvas). What are those “all” like? They are all varied, because they appear in and through all representational forms (ākāra) in conformity with the minds of disciples. How are they “limitless”? They are “limitless” because the teaching by that endless body is unlimited. Also, the realization of the tathāgata is “limitless.” RK: sāmbhogikasya kāyasya bahu vaktavyam| tatra sambhogam adhikṛtyāha| sarvaśabdāparyantatayā prajñāpāramitāparyāntatānugantavye ti śāstur deśayataḥ śrṛṇvatāṃ ca bodhisattvānāṃ yaḥ parama­mahā­yāna­dharmasaṃbodhaḥ sā prajñāpāramitā| sa eva sambhogaḥ sambhogakāraṇatvāt| yaḥ punas tajjānāṃ mṛduma­dhyādhimātra­saumanasya­lakṣaṇānāṃ ratiprītiprāmodyānāṃ sukhasya cānubhavaḥ sa mukhyaḥ sambhogaḥ| tasyāḥ prajñāpāramitāyā aparyantatā veditavyā| katham ity āha| sarva­śabdhāparyāntataye ti| hetau tṛtīyā| yatas tayoḥ sambodhayor yathākramam aparyantā deśanāḥ śabdajanyā janakāś ca te kathaṃ sarve ? nānā vineyānurūpaiḥ sarvair ākāraiḥ prathanāt| katham aparyantā ḥ ? anidhanena tena kāyena deśanāyā niravadhikatvāt| tāthāgatasyāpi sambodhasyāparyantatā. Note: Ratnākara explains the next eight sentences as corresponding to numerous different qualities of the enjoyment body, including the thirty-two major and eighty minor marks, and many others. His explanation of these goes on for many, many pages and will not be translated here.