Notes

n.1In all Kangyurs, both printed and manuscript, the only minor variation being that the initial a of -āta- is shortened in the Peking and Yongle Kangyurs. The Tōhoku Catalog entry for the sūtra (but not the commentaries) also has this title.

n.2See Rhaldri (2010) and Jackson (2011).

n.3Including the Tōhoku Catalog’s (1934) Sanskrit transliteration of the titles of the associated commentaries (though not of the sūtra itself); the catalog of the Nyingma Edition of the Degé Kangyur published by Dharma Publishing (1977–83); and Tadeusz Skorupski’s Catalogue of the Stog Palace Kanjur (1985).

n.4See bibliography.

n.5See bibliography for some of these. Also Khomthar Jamlö (2014), vol. 1, p. 4, and vol. 6, pp. 1–2, for comments and a partial list; vol. 4 contains the two Indian commentaries and five of the six known Tibetan ones. See also Jackson (2009), p. 7, n. 17.

n.6See Khomthar Jamlö (2014), vol. 1, pp. 2–3, and Jackson (2009), p. 3. Lists of both sets can also be found in bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo (ed. Zhang Yisun) and dung dkar tshig mdzod chen mo, s.v. rgyal po mdo lnga and rgyal po mdo bcu.

n.7The accounts are found in the longer biographies of Guru Padmasambhava, e.g. in the twelfth-century Zanglingma (chapter 18) and the fourteenth-century Padma Kathang (chapter 70). For these, see bibliography under Nyangrel Nyima Özer and Orgyen Lingpa, respectively.

n.8See Khomthar Jamlö (2014), vol. 1, p. 3; Jackson (2009), pp. 5–6; and Jackson’s source, Lopez (1988), pp. 29–30 and 143. Lopez, in turn, is quoting (and translates at length) an eighteenth- to nineteenth-century Gelukpa author, Tendar Lharampa (bstan dar lha ram pa). The term ’bum [chen] sde lnga‍—although it does not seem to have been particularly widespread‍—was used at least as early as the tenth century.

n.9This appears to be the only Kangyur sūtra to be set in Akaniṣṭha (although a number of tantras are, too). As well as referring to the highest level of the realm of form, Akaniṣṭha here, according to the Indian and Tibetan commentaries, is also to be equated with the Ghana­vyūha (stug po bkod pa) buddhafield and indicates that the Buddha is present here in his saṃbhoga­kāya form, perceptible only to bodhisattvas on the highest levels.

n.10Prajñāsamudra’s commentary here explains that all phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa indeed have no true “outer” existence but are one’s own very mind of enlightenment, and that “great compassion” means applying all three levels of compassion, namely, (1) compassion that perceives sentient beings (sems can la dmigs pa’i snying rje) regarding their suffering; (2) compassion that perceives phenomena (chos la dmigs pa’i snying rje) regarding the impermanent, suffering, empty, and selfless nature of all phenomena; and (3) compassion that does not apprehend anything (dmigs pa med pa’i snying rje), and thus cultivating emptiness. The three together include all of the Buddha’s teaching.

n.11Although the subject “all phenomena” is omitted in this verse, it is implicit, as can be seen in the parallel construction in the preceding and following verses, each beginning with chos rnams. Significantly too, the earlier prose passage expressing this idea had chos thams cad (“all phenomena”) as the subject.

n.12Prajñāsamudra, commenting on this verse, first cites a passage from the Laṅkāvatāra­sūtra to the effect that the nature of phenomena is like illusions that are nonexistent, and then with reference to what he has said regarding the equivalent passage in prose (see note 11), comments: “When one has cultivated in this way [i.e., with an understanding of the illusory nature of phenomena], one gives rise to compassion which does not apprehend anything; this is the best type of compassion.” Degé F.173b.2–3: de ltar bsgoms na dmigs pa med pa’i snying rje skye ste / snying rje’i mchog yin no.