Notes

n.1This situation is not entirely dissimilar to the way the Buddha and his teachings are described in the early chapters of The Secrets of the Realized Ones (Toh 47).

n.2The phrase used for these five philosophical views in versions of the text found in Kangyurs of the Tshalpa line is chos la brtags pa’i mtha’ lnga po, which has been translated as “five analytic positions concerning things.” However, in the Stok Palace Kangyur the phrase used is chos la brtags pa’i thabs lnga po, which could be translated as “five methods for analyzing things.”

n.3According to the Degé Kangyur catalog, all the works in this section of the mdo sde (Toh 94–286) are considered Mahāyāna sūtras.

n.4Denkarma, fol. 300.b, chos nyid rang gi ngo bo nyid las mi g.yo bar snang ba bstan pa. It gives its length as 90 ślokas. This sūtra is not, however, listed in the Phangthangma, the other extant imperial catalog likely compiled some years earlier.

n.5Avadhūtipa, folios 215.a–215.b. The author makes no mention of the title, saying simply “the sūtra,” which he cites as the scriptural authority for a statement about nondual wisdom made in a Yogācāra text that invokes scriptural authority and reasoning as its basis.

n.6Atīśa Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna, folio 284.a. The title as cited by Atīśa is: ’phags pa chos nyid rang gi ngo bo nyid las mi g.yo bas tha dad par bstan pa’i mdo.

n.7In Chomden Raltri’s survey, a sūtra called chos nyid rang gi ngo bo nyid las mi g.yo bar tha dad par thams cad la snang ba (exactly the title of the sūtra given in the colophons of the Kangyur version) is listed among those whose attribution is unknown (Tib. sus byas mi shes par snang ngo). Chomden Raltri, folio 67.a. Also transcribed in Schaeffer and van der Kuijp 2009, pp. 255–56.

n.8Butön, chos ’byung, folio 154.a. Butön gives the title as chos nyid rang gi ngo bo nyid las mi g.yo bar tha dad par thams cad la snang ba bstan pa and, following the Denkarma, cites the length of the missing text as 90 ślokas.

n.9The version of the sūtra that Yaktön cites (pp. 90–106), apart from some minor differences in punctuation and two brief passages in transposed order, is the same Tibetan translation as found in the Kangyurs; no Sanskrit title is given; in the Tibetan title, there is no stong pa and the la don after thams cad is present in both the initial title and the colophon title; the phrase for the five views (see n.­31) is that of the Themphangma Kangyurs; and the translators’ colophon attributing the text to Dānaśīla and Yeshé Dé is present but without the editorial note mentioning Dānaśīlā’s comment.

n.10The colophons of the Tshalpa Kangyurs also report a tradition that Dānaśīla himself considered this discourse to be the source of various philosophical treatises and the different views of Madhyamaka that later developed. This second line of the colophon is, however, absent from the Stok Palace Kangyur version, which was the only Thempangma-lineage Kangyur consulted for this translation.

n.11On this topic, see Almogi 2008, especially pp. 115–18. See also Skilling 1994.

n.12The Denkarma lacks the word “differently” (tha dad par) and Atīśa’s text is missing “appearing” (snang ba). Both sources lack the word “all” (thams cad).

n.13For example, the placement of thams cad la inside an adverbial construction is unnatural to Tibetan, as thams cad usually requires a preceding noun to qualify what is being referred to. Among all the titles in the Kangyur that contain the word thams cad (there are almost one hundred such titles), in only a handful is the term not preceded by a noun‍—and, of these, the title of this text is the only one belonging to a sūtra. Besides this oddity, it is also unusual to have an adverbial construction (thad dad par… snang ba) separated by an unrelated element (thams cad).

n.14The other sūtras where this term is found are Toh 10, Toh 46, Toh 120, and Toh 287.

n.15There are approximately forty sūtras in the Kangyur that were translated from Chinese, if one also includes those with uncertain status. See Silk 2019 and Li 2021.

n.16The sūtra is mentioned in Amé Zhab, folio 55.b–56.a, but with several preceding folios of relevant discussion and the other citations mentioned.

n.17chos thams cad rang bzhin ma skyes pa/ ngo bo nyid kyis mi gnas pa/ las dang bya ba’i mtha’ thams cad dang bral ba rtog pa dang rtog pa’ yul las ’das pa/ thog ma med pa’i dus nas spros pa rnam par dag pa. A further note on the phrase las dang bya ba’i mtha’ thams cad dang bral ba is included where it occurs in the translation.

n.18In his Jewel Ornament of Liberation (commonly known in Tibetan as the dwags po thar rgyan), Gampopa Sönam Rinchen (sgam po pa bsod nams rin chen, 1079–1153) quotes the text verbatim. Gampopa 2005, pp. 304–05. Ken Holmes translates the passage as “every phenomenon is, by its very nature, unborn, essentially nonabiding, free from the extremes of acting and action, and beyond the scope of thought and nonthought.” Holmes, trans. 2017, p. 477.

n.19In the first volume of the Trilogy of Rest (rdzogs pa chen po ngal gso skor gsum), Longchenpa (klong chen rab ’byams pa dri med ’od zer, 1308–64) paraphrases thus: chos nyid mi g.yo ba’i mdo las/ chos thams cad rang bzhin gyis ma skyes pa/ ngo bo nyid kyis mi g.yo ba/ bya ba’i mtha’ dang bral ba/ spros pa’i yul las ’das pa/ gzod ma nas mnyam pa nyid do zhes so. Longchenpa 2005, p. 505. This text has been translated into English: Padmakara Translation Group, trans. 2017.

n.20For example, Ngawang Drakpa (1520–80) quotes it verbatim in his gdams ngag mdzod [Treasury of Instructions]. In the collected works of Jatsön Nyingpo (’ja’ tshon snying po, 1585–1656) (’ja’ tshon pod drug vol. 1), it is found paraphrased (with gter shad) thus: chos nyid mi g.yo ba’i mdo las chos rnams thams cad rang bzhin gyis ma skyes pa༔ ngo bo nyid kyis mi gnas pa༔ las dang bya ba’i mtha’ dang bral ba༔ rtogs ma rtogs pa’i yul las ’das pa༔ ye nas spros pa thams cad rnam par dag pa’o.

n.21Guru Tashi 1990, p. 1037.

n.22See Tsukinowa 1971, pp. 432–45.

n.23ri dags kyi rgyal po’i chos kyi khang pa na. This locale does not appear to be attested in any other sūtra.

n.24ji ltar snang ba bzhin du yod pa. This common-sense view might broadly be construed as resembling the philosophical realism later associated with Vaibhāṣika. Precisely how this sūtra should be understood in relation to the development of doxographical categories to describe different philosophical positions remains unclear.

n.25chos thams cad sems tsam las ma gtogs par gzhan med pa. This second view bears resemblance to the Cittamātra (Tib. sems tsam, “mind only”) position often associated with Yogācāra.

n.26sems nyid kyang ma skyes pa yin pa. The third, fourth, and fifth views bear some resemblance to Madhyamaka views.

n.27chos thams cad sgyu ma bzhin du snang zhing sgyu ma bzhin du ma grub pa. This fourth view brings to mind the Indian subclassification of Madhyamaka into the Māyopamavāda (Tib. sgyu ma lta bur ’dod pa) and Apratiṣṭhānavāda philosophical positions discussed in Almogi 2010.

n.28The phrase las dang bya ba’i mtha’ thams cad dang bral ba is unusual and could be interpreted in various ways. The words las and bya ba can translate the Sanskrit karman and kriyā, respectively “the act” and “the performance of the act.” The Tibetan bya ba, as a future optative form of the verb “to do,” can also denote “that which is to be done” or “duty,” and often translates the Sanskrit words kārya and kṛtya. The Tibetan term mtha’ is used to translate both the Sanskrit terms anta and koṭi and can cover a semantic range from “extreme” to “limit,” “boundary,” “scope,” or “end.” The term mtha’ is also used in some contexts for “position” or “view,” as in “the established position” (Tib. grub mtha’, Skt siddhānta), and this is a use also encountered in this text. The most likely interpretation here, in the context of the true nature of things, is to see in this a reference to the Sanskrit compound kartṛkarmakriyā, “the actor, the act, and the performance (of the act).” As such, the phrase is about the absence of duality: “without all (dualistic distinction between) the extremes of deed and doing.”

n.29chos thams cad rang bzhin ma skyes pa/ ngo bo nyid kyis mi gnas pa/ las dang bya ba’i mtha’ thams cad dang bral ba rtog pa dang rtog pa’i yul las ’das pa/ thog ma med pa’i dus nas spros pa rnam par dag pa. This fifth and last position has been cited by several influential Tibetan figures, as mentioned in the introduction.

n.30snying rje dang ldan pa’i skur byas nas. Translation tentative. The Yongle and Peking Kangyurs here have bkur (“praise”) rather than the Degé Kangyur’s skur (“in form/body”).

n.31chos la brtags pa’i mtha’ lnga po. Here and passim the Stok Palace Kangyur has the alternative reading chos la brtags pa’i thabs lnga po, “five methods for analyzing things.” Although this might be considered a preferable reading, for consistency we have followed the Degé reading.

n.32gang zag gi rigs ni [du] mchis lags sam. The additional du is present in both the Narthang and Stok Palace Kangyurs.

n.33sbyangs pa dang ma sbyangs pa dbang las. In Tibetan, the meaning of the verb sbyong (past: sbyangs) covers both “purify” (Skt. viśodhana) and “practice” (abhyāsa).” In the absence of an English equivalent with the same semantic field, we have opted here for “purification through practice” at first use, and then simply “purification” in what follows.

n.34The Degé Kangyur reads rtog pa, “notions,” but according to the Comparative Edition the most common reading in other recensions, as well as the Stok Palace version, is rtogs pa, “understanding,” in common with the following lines. Therefore, we have opted for the latter.

n.35The translation of this whole analogy is tentative. It is not clear what bsten pa’i las refers to here and passim. The interpretation adopted is that it refers to the work of evaluating gemstones. Tib. rin po che de yang sems can rnams kyis bsten pa’i las byas pa dang ma byas pa yod de/ gang zag rtog pa med pa dang log par rtog pa rnams ni chos la brtag pa’i mtha’ lnga la mi brten [var.: rten; Stok: sten] pa ste/ rin po che bsten pa’i las ma byas pa’i gang zag gis rin po che ma rnyed [Yongle: mi snyed; Narthang, Lhasa: mi rnyed] pa dang dgos pa mi ’byung ba [+de] bzhin du de dag la mi dpyod mi sems pas khams gsum las mi thar ba yin no/.

n.36khyad par du bsags pa. Here the Stok Palace version reads khyam par du bsags pa.

n.37Translation tentative. bsten pa’i las byas pa ni khyad par du bsags pa dang cher bsags pa dang cung zad bsags pa rnams la rin po che’i dgos pa yang rim pa gsum du ’byung ba bzhin du yang dag pa phyin ci ma log pa dang lhag ma bzhi po brgyud par brtag pa theg pa che chung rim pa gsum yang dpe rim pa bzhin no.

n.38mdo sde bcu gnyis. This appears to be a reference to the “twelve branches of the teachings” more commonly known in Tibetan as gsung rab yan lag bcu gnyis (Skt. dvādaśāṅgapravacana).

n.39While the Degé Kangyur here reads rgya mtsho la, “to the ocean (or great lake),” which makes sense, the Stok Palace Kangyur reads rgya mtsho nas, “from the great lake.” This latter reading has been preferred since the directional prepositions in the Degé reading seem internally contradictory later in the analogy, and the passage appears to allude to classical Indian cosmology whereby the four great rivers (Gaṅgā, Sindhu, Vakṣu, and Sītā) flow through Jambudvīpa from the great lake Anavatapta near its center. On this idea, see Sadakata 1999, p. 33.

n.40The Degé Kangyur here reads bab par ’dra bas; however, the Stok Palace version, which has been preferred, reads bab par ’dus pas. The Stok Palace reading also more closely aligns with the readings found in the Narthang and Choné Kangyurs: bab par’du pas.

n.41de’i gzhi ma nor ba’i rang gis [var.:gi] ngo bo ni chos de dag gi rang bzhin skye ba med pa yin no. Reading the variant gi, as found in the Yongle, Peking, and Lhasa Kangyur recensions of the text.

n.42chos rnams kyi dngos po rtag pa ther zug dang / med pa dang chad pa’i mtha’ gnyis po bsal na. A reference to the “two extremes of eternalism and nihilism,” more commonly known in Tibetan as rtag pa dang chad pa’i mtha’ gnyis, Skt. śāśvatānta ucchedānta.

n.43chos nyid rang gi ngo bo nyid las mi g.yo bar tha dad par thams cad snang ba’i mdo. The title given here differs slightly from the title given at the beginning of the sūtra, as explained in i.­12.

n.44sde snod kyi bstan bcos dang dbu ma’i lta ba tha dad rnams ’di las’phros pa yin. The Stok Palace Kangyur does not contain the second sentence of the colophon. See n.­10.