Notes

n.1Gayāśīrṣa­sūtra­vyākhyāna. Taishō 1531 and Toh 3991.

n.2Gayāśīrṣa­sūtra­miśrakavyākhyā. Toh 3992.

n.3Taishō 2059 L 376a18. See also Lamotte 2003, pp. 97–98.

n.4Toh 3915–3917. See the references given in the body of the translation.

n.5See the references given in the body of the translation.

n.6Oldenberg 1879, p. 34: atha kho bhagavā uruvelāyaṃ yathābhirantaṃ viharitvā yena gayāsīsaṃ tena cārikaṃ pakkāmi mahatā bhikkhusaṃghena saddhiṃ bkikkhusahassena sabbeh’ eva purāṇajaṭilehi.

n.7Sircar 1971, pp. 282–5.

n.8See Dharmachakra Translation Committee, trans., The Jewel Cloud , Toh 231 (2019).

n.9See UCSB Buddhist Studies Translation Group–2, trans., Victory of the Ultimate Dharma , Toh 246 (2021).

n.10Bodhiruci translated the sūtra (Taishō 465) and Vasubandhu’s commentary (Taishō 1531) into Chinese. Both texts were translated into Tibetan by Surendrabodhi and Yeshé Dé.

n.11In the Chinese translations, each practice is presented either as founded on the practice that follows it (Taishō 464 and 465) or else as dependent upon it (Taishō 467).

n.12Fairly late in our translation project, we received a draft translation of Gayāśīrṣa Hill prepared by Merrill Peterson and Dr. Lewis Lancaster.

n.13See Wayman 1984, p. 22; Wayman 1987, pp. 127–41.

n.14The terms gnas ’gyur ba and gnas gyur pa (āśrayaparā­vṛtti/āśrayaparā­vṛtta) appear in Vasubandhu’s Gayāśīrṣa­sūtra­vyākhyāna. See Comparative Edition, p. 941.

n.15See Ōtake 2013, pp. 134–40.

n.16Śākyabuddhi’s interpretation of the last three phrases is of interest for two reasons. First, he accommodates Vasubandhu’s commentary, according to which the sūtra’s phrases “without words,” “without syllables,” and “without verbal expression” mean “personally realized” (so so rang gis rig pa), “without appearance” (snang ba med pa), and “inexpressible” (brjod du med pa), respectively. Second, he employs ideas that are drawn from the Buddhist epistemological tradition, which supports the identification of the author of this sūtra commentary with the Śākyabuddhi who wrote a commentary on Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇa­vārttika. Śākyabuddhi explains here (Comparative Edition, p. 964): “Conceptual construction is called ‘word’ since it is the cause of verbal expression. Because that [conceptual construction] does not exist, it is said that it is without words” (sgra’i rgyu yin pa’i phyir rnam par rtog pa la sgra zhes brjod de/ /de med pa’i phyir sgra med pa ste). The term “verbal expression” (tshig gi lam), on the other hand, refers to “the superimposition of the aspect of a universal” (tshig gi lam ni spyi’i rnam par sgro btags pa ste). Śākyabuddhi maintains a distinction between the two by giving the two phrases separate senses: the former expression means that awakening is not the object of conceptualization, while the latter means that it is not the object of speech (sgra med pa zhes bya ba des ni rnam par rtog pa’i yul ma yin pa bstan to/ /’dis ni ngag gi yul ma yin pa bstan to). Vasubandhu’s glosses of the two sūtra phrases has guided Śākyabuddhi’s interpretive choice. “Inexpressible” apparently means not expressible by speech, while the personal realization of the true nature by the nondual wisdom is nonconceptual. For Śākyabuddhi, the basic point about words, syllables, and verbal expression is that all of them involve forms of superimposition, whether conceptually or verbally, while such forms do not exist in ultimate reality.

n.17Both “advance” and the word “engagement” that follows shortly after translate the Tibetan word ’jug pa, which corresponds to many Sanskrit words that are based on such verbs as pravṛt, prasthā, and praviś; each of these contains multiple meanings. “Advance” is used here only when it is preceded by slad du and phyir, suggesting the use of the dative form in the Sanskrit original, which in turn points to the function of the verb in the sense of “advancing” or “setting out.” In all other cases “engagement” is used for the sake of consistency.

n.18“Addition” is adopted here for gzhag pa. This is supported by the Chinese translations’ use of the terms zeng 增 (Taishō 464 XIV 482a12 and Taishō 466 XIV 487b17) and yi 益 (Taishō 465 XIV 484b13). Vasubandhu’s Gayāśīrṣa­sūtra­vyākhyāna also explains the sūtra’s terms dor ba med pa and gzhag pa med pa with the phrase skur pa dang / sgro btags pa rnam par spangs pa (“abandoning refutation and superimposition”).

n.19The Chinese and Tibetan translations of the names of the two deities and one bodhisattva who converse with Mañjuśrī present variances and do not support, in each case, a single hypothetical Sanskrit reconstruction. A possible Sanskrit reconstruction of the Tibetan name zla ba dri ma med pa’i gzi brjid ’od zer gyi ’od is *Candra­nirmalatejoraśmi­prabha.

n.20Sanskrit cited in Tucci 1958, p. 187: kimārambhā mañjuśrīḥ bodhisattvānāṃ caryā kimadhiṣṭhānā/ mañjuśrīr āha/ mahā­karuṇārambhā devaputra bodhisattvānāṃ caryā sattvādhiṣṭhānā. This passage is also cited in Tsongkhapa’s The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path (p. 293).

n.21grangs, rtsis, and shod dgod pa. These three forms of knowledge are enumerated in the lists given in the Sanskrit Bodhisattva­bhūmi, where they follow the order of gaṇana (= rtsi), nyasana (= shod dgod pa), and saṃkhyā (= grangs). See Wogihara 1971, 7.4–5, 103.3, and 210.13. See Edgerton 1953, s.v. “nyasana.” For some examples of the lists that include some or all of these terms in the Chinese translation of the Yogācārabhūmi, see Taishō 1579 XXX 289b3 (Manobhūmi), Taishō 1579 XXX 361b7 (Śrutamayībhūmi), Taishō 1579 XXX 479b19–20, and Taishō 1579 XXX 528b9 (Bodhisattva­bhūmi).

n.22A possible Sanskrit reconstruction of the Tibetan name ’od rnam par nges pa’i ’od zer gyi ’od is *Avabhāsaviniścayaraśmi­prabha.

n.23This passage is cited in all three books of Bhāvanākrama. The Sanskrit is in Tucci 1958, p. 194: dvāv imau bodhisattvānāṃ saṃkṣiptau mārgau/ dvābhyāṃ mārgābhyāṃ samanvāgatā bodhisattvā mahāsattvāḥ kṣipram anuttarāṃ samyaksambodhim abhisaṃbhotsyante/ katamau dvau/ upāyaś ca prajñā ca. It is partially cited in Tucci 1978, p. 14, where the following alternative reading appears: yad uta prajñā copāya(ś ca). For a partial citation of the passage in the second Bhāvanākrama, see Gyaltsen 1997, p. 127. Partial citation of this passage also appears in Tsongkhapa’s The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path, pp. 344 and 775. In the latter instance, the Tibetan passage occurs within a larger quotation from the third Bhāvanākrama (Tucci 1971, pp. 13–15), where Gayāśīrṣa Hill is cited.

n.24Sanskrit cited in Tucci 1958, p. 194: upāyaḥ saṅgrahajñānaṃ prajñā paricchedajñānam.

n.25Taishō 465 (XIV 485c10), Yong xiuxing zhi 勇修行智, agrees with the Tibetan name ye shes sgrub pa’i dpa’ bo.

n.26The Chinese translation by Bodhiruci of the Northern Wei renders the phrases corresponding to ldan pa med pa and ldan pa in Tibetan as buxiangying 不相應 and xiangying 相應 (Taishō 465 XIV 485c12). In the Chinese translation by Bodhiruci of the Great Zhou, a very similar pair of terms, feihehe 非和合 and hehe 和合相, meaning “not conjoined” and “conjoined,” are used (Taishō 467 XIV 491b12). These Chinese equivalents suggest that the underlying Sanskrit could be viprayukta and samprayukta or phrases that could be understood to be referring to them at least on one level. The use of the Tibetan equivalents ldan pa med pa and ldan pa is consistent with this speculation. Śākyabuddhi’s commentary explains, “In this context, by ‘object’ truth is intended” (don ni ’dir de bzhin nyid la dgongs so). Comparative Edition, p. 995. de bzhin nyid or tathatā refers to emptiness that is the ultimate reality. Being unconditioned, as the sūtra immediately points out, the ultimate reality is not associated with the mind in the Abhidharma sense. On the other hand, gnosis identified as the path, says the sūtra, is associated with the mind.

n.27This sūtra passage about the object serves as an occasion for an interpretation presented by Śākyabuddhi from the perspective of Yogācāra philosophy. For the relevant section of his commentary, see Comparative Edition, pp. 995–98.

n.28’du ba. The Sanskrit term is likely saṃyojana or saṃyoga. Kumārajīva translates the term in the technical sense of jieshi 結使 (Taishō 464 XIV 483b4) or “binding.” The term jieshi is known to have been used as an equivalent for saṃyojana. See Ogiwara 2003, s.v. “saṃyojana.” For saṃyojana as a technical term that is used to describe kleśa, see Abhidharmakośa 5.41–5.45 and its bhāṣya. For all the uses of the terms saṃyojana and saṃyoga in the Abhidharma­kośabhāṣya along with its Tibetan and Chinese translations, see Hirakawa 1973, s.v. “saṃyojana,” “saṃyoga.” Other Chinese translations adopt the general senses of “correspondence” (xiangying 相應, Taishō 465 XIV 486a23 and Taishō 467 XIV 491c23) and “conjunction” (hehe 和合, Taishō 466 XIV 489a15). Vasubandhu’s Gayāśīrṣa­sūtra­vyākhyāna explains that this item involves “investigation into matters associated with advantages and disadvantages” (don dang don ma yin pa dang ldan pa la rtog pa).

n.29See three parallel Chinese translations at Taishō 464 XIV 483b9–10, Taishō 465 XIV 486b1–2, and Taishō 467 XIV 492a1.

n.30Sanskrit cited in Tucci 1958, p. 193: prati­pattisārāṇāṃ bodhisattvānāṃ bodhir nāprati­pattisārāṇām. Tsongkhapa cites this passage in The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path, p. 340.