Notes

n.1Edgerton, Gokale, Reat, and Sastri all record the spelling of stamba (seedling) in the title śālistamba, rather than the more common stambha. Monier-Williams lists stamba as “prob. a phonetic variation of stambha.” Among the versions of the Tibetan translation consulted, all read stambha with the exception of Peking Yongle and Peking Kangxi, which read stamba. The Tibetan translations of the three Indian commentaries read stamba.

n.2The term translated here is sūtra (Tibetan mdo). In Indian literature a sūtra generally refers to the statement of a short rule or universal truth, e.g. an axiom, dictum, formula, or thread. A collection of such statements can also be called a sūtra. While, generally speaking, Buddhist sūtras present a complete speech of the Buddha including introductory and concluding statements, here we have a complete teaching of the Buddha in very few words but still resembling the general usage of the term.

n.3Owing to the multivalence of the term dharma / chos and the play between these different senses witnessed in this text, we have chosen to leave it untranslated as dharma / Dharma in certain passages. Where we do render it into English, explanatory notes are provided.

n.4The Sanskrit reads bhagavatā (Reat 1993, p. 27).

n.5A common name variant of Śāriputra. However, the Sanskrit (Reat, p. 28) and the Stok Palace version of the Tibetan (F.282b.6) both read Śāriputra.

n.6This entire sentence is missing from the available Sanskrit materials and the Chinese translation (Reat, pp. 28–29).

n.7“All dharmas” here has the sense of “all phenomena.” We leave the term untranslated here and throughout this passage to help convey the chain of associations communicated in the Sanskrit and Tibetan source texts through these uses of the multivalent term dharma / chos. See the following note, and note 12 for more on this multivalence.

n.8“Body of Dharma” here renders chos kyi sku. This section of the sūtra is not attested in the available Sanskrit material, so the available Sanskrit editions have actually been reconstructed from the Tibetan translation. Louis de La Vallée Poussin (1913, p. 72) and Sastri (1950, p. 3) reconstruct chos kyi sku here with dharmakāya, but we prefer‍—with Reat (p. 30)‍—the term dharmaśarīra because it is attested as a possible underlying Sanskrit term for the Tibetan chos kyi sku in the next paragraph (cf. Reat, p. 32 n5). Kamalaśīla interprets the term as the pristine wisdom, or suchness, that serves as a basis for the dharmas (i.e., awakened qualities) of a buddha. He states: “ ‘body of Dharma’ demonstrates the cause: that which serves as the cause of the dharmas (i.e., awakened qualities) of a buddha is pristine wisdom or pristine suchness‍—the body which is the body of Dharma” (Schoening, vol. 2, p. 473). Reat (ibid.) translates this term as “Dharma-body,” whereas Schoening (vol. 1, p. 237) renders it as “the body consisting of dharma(s).” As indicated by these different interpretations, the semantic range of the term dharmaśarīra (chos kyi sku) can include the interlinked notions of the “corpus” of the Buddha’s “teachings” or “doctrine” (Dharma), the “collection” of undefiled “qualities” (dharmas) that make a buddha a buddha, the physical body of the Buddha as an “embodiment” of “ultimate reality” (Dharma) and attendant “awakened qualities,” and, by extension, as Kamalaśīla’s interpretation suggests, the ethereal “body” of pristine wisdom that characterizes the Buddha’s awakening experience. The mutual implications of dharma as “doctrine,” “qualities,” and “reality” (and “phenomena” in general) is an important facet of the term’s multivalence in Buddhist literary sources. For more on the shifting semantic range of the terms dharma , dharmaśarīra, and dharmakāya, see Paul Harrison (1992). We have partially followed Reat in rendering this term with the slightly ambiguous “body of Dharma,” with the hope of not overly constraining the broad semantic range of the term and its possible commentarial interpretations.

n.9Dharmas (chos rnams) here seems to have the dual sense of “trainings” on the path and their associated “attainments” or “qualities” of attainment. Reat (p. 31) interprets dharmas here to mean only “rules, practices,” but this would not apply to “those beyond training.”

n.10We opted to interpret this passage according to Kamalaśīla’s commentary: “It is constant because it has been taught as a dharma that is thus unborn in all times. This shows that since the three times too are ultimately of one taste, it is unchanging (Śālistamba[ka]ṭīkā, p. 395: dus thams cad du ’di ltar skye ba med pa’i chos gsungs pa dang ldan pas na rtag pa’o/ /’dis ni dus gsum yang don dam par ro gcig pas ’gyur ba med par bstan to/).” However, the Sanskrit versions also allow another interpretation by which “permanent / always / constant” (satatasamitam) qualifies “without life force” (ajīvam / nirjīvam), thus meaning, “always without life force.” This is also supported by the Śālistambaṭīkā ascribed to Nāgarjuna (p. 805). Reat (pp. 32–33) translates this passage with “always and ever devoid of soul,” and he translates from the Chinese (Taishō 709) with “eternal, continuously arising without soul.” Note also the very similar passage at 1.59.

n.11The Sanskrit (Reat, p. 32) has śiva, “glorious,” “auspicious,” “propitious,” suggesting that the Tibetan zhi ba might have been a transliteration of the Sanskrit. However, Kamalaśīla (Schoening, vol. 2, pp. 479–480) interprets it to mean “tranquil,” “peaceful.”

n.12In Tibetan “by nature” could also refer to all aspects listed above; however, in Sanskrit, and according to Kamalaśīla (Schoening, vol. 2, pp. 481–482), it only modifies “never stilled” (avyupaśama­svabhāva).

n.13The available Sanskrit (Reat, p. 32) for this passage reads: anuttara­dharma­śarīraṃ buddhaṃ paśyati| ārya­dharmābhisamaye samyag-jñānād upanayenaiva|. The corresponding section in the Tibetan Degé and other versions recorded in the Pedurma comparative edition read: ’phags pa’i chos mngon par rtogs te/ yang dag pa’i ye shes dang ldan pas bla na med pa’i chos kyi skur sangs rgyas mthong ngo gsungs so/. The Stok Palace version of the Tibetan differs from the Degé and all other versions recorded in the Pedurma comparative edition; it also more closely reflects the Sanskrit. The Stok Palace (F.284a.4-5) reads: yang dag pa’i ye shes thob pas/ ’phags pa’i chos mngon par rtogs pas bla na med pa’i chos kyi skur sangs rgyas mthong ngo gsungs so/ (“By attaining right knowledge and thereby realizing the Dharma of the noble ones, he sees the Buddha, the body of the unsurpassable Dharma”). The Tibetan thob pa, “to attain,” is a conceivable rendering of the Sanskrit upanaya, which Reat renders as “exertion.” Kamalaśīla (Schoening, vol. 2, pp. 483–484) interprets this phrase to mean, “Whoever sees dependent arising in this manner sees the Dharma of accomplishment and the Dharma of fruition, because ultimately everything is the same taste, and because the Buddha Bhagavān too is the nature of the body of the ultimate Dharma which was thus taught. Therefore, it is taught that whoever sees the Dharma thus taught sees the Buddha… Whoever comprehends dependent arising thus taught realizes the Dharma of the noble ones; this means ‘comprehending the Dharma of the ultimate meaning.’ Whoever comprehends the Dharma of the ultimate meaning is endowed with perfect wisdom. Whoever is endowed with perfect wisdom abides in the wisdom of equanimity and thus does not perceive any difference between dependent arising, the Dharma, and the Buddha.” The Śālistamba[ka]-ṭīkā attributed to Nāgārjuna (Schoening, vol. 2, p. 393) interprets the phrase as: “ ‘Unsurpassable’ means that that there is no special dharma whatsoever that is superior to this, hence it is ‘unsurpassable.’ ‘Body of Dharma’ means the Dharma-body itself. … ‘Buddha’ is so-called because of comprehending dharma(s). Thus, one who sees dependent arising sees the nature of one who awakens to the unexcelled Dharma, beyond further training.” Akin to the reconstruction presented above in note 7, this phrase on its own carries the semantic range of the Buddha as an embodiment of the unsurpassable nature of “reality” (Dharma), the unsurpassable “doctrine” (Dharma) that teaches it, and the unsurpassable “qualities” of awakening (dharmas) incumbent upon becoming an awakened one (Buddha). Reat (p. 32) translates the phrase as “he sees the unsurpassable Dharma-body, the Buddha, by exertion based on right knowledge in clear understanding of the noble Dharma.” Schoening (vol. 1, p. 241) translates the final section as, “sees the Buddha, the body consisting of unsurpassable dharma(s).” In interpreting “unsurpassable” to modify “dharma,” and not the whole phrase “body of dharma,” we attempt to follow the interpretations of the commentaries and Schoening. We also leave “dharma” untranslated here in an attempt to capture something of the multiple entendre of the term. See Harrison (1992) for observations about possibly earlier, non-metaphysical senses of dharmakāya and the associated term dharmaśarīra in Mahāyāna literature.

n.14“Things” here renders dharma / chos. Note the associations the source text is making in this and the next passage between dharma / chos as “phenomena,” “reality,” and “doctrine.”

n.15The sense of “Dharma” here seems to be both “doctrine” and “reality,” i.e., the “doctrine” as “law” (Dharma), which describes the “true nature” (dharmatā) of “reality” (Dharma). According to Kamalaśīla (Schoening, vol. 2, p. 487), the phrase functions as a synonym for “true nature” (dharmatā, chos nyid). We leave it untranslated here so as not to constrain this double entendre.

n.16The available Sanskrit (Reat, p. 33) reads niyāmatā. Edgerton describes this term, as rendered into Tibetan with the phrase chos mi ’gyur ba nyid, as “the doctrine’s being unchangeably the same.” Kamalaśīla (Schoening, vol. 2, p. 487) has the Tibetan nges par ’gyur ba, and interprets it as, “purely immutable, meaning, one should know that things are dependent on certain specific causes.” Once again, “Dharma” here seems to refer both to the nature of reality and to the doctrine that describes this reality.

n.17Although the Tibetan dus is most often rendered with the general term “time,” the Sanskrit ṛtu suggests a specific time span. Also compare with Kamalaśīla’s Śālistamba[ka]ṭīkā, (p. 405): “As for ‘season,’ the division by specific momentary conditions of the earth, etc., is considered a specific aspect of time (dus kyang sa la sogs pa’i gnas skabs kyi bye brag gis rab tu phye ba nyid dus kyi bye brag tu dgongs pa’o//).”

n.18Here, “time” as an agent is rejected, not change in time. (cf. Reat, p. 39 n4).

n.19The sentence, “The sprout…has not ceased,” is not found in the known Sanskrit sources. Reat thus assumes it might be displaced from the similar sentence in the next paragraph (Reat, p. 40 n2).

n.20myu gu. This term is missing from the available Sanskrit materials (Reat, p. 47 n16).

n.21The Tibetan gso ba, literally “nourishment,” but here translated as “soul,” is not found in the Sanskrit sources (Reat, p. 50). Also compare with Schoening (vol. 1, p. 296 n2). Generally, however, the list of items in the Tibetan translation featuring gso ba appears in several Sanskrit Buddhist texts. Sastri (p. 9 n45) refers to such an occurrence in Prajñākaramati’s Bodhi­caryāvatāra­pañjikā (where it is, however, marked as a quote from a Prajnāpāramitā text) and inserts poṣa based on that. De La Vallée Poussin (p. 79) also inserts poṣa, but does not reference a source. Edgerton, under his entry for poṣa (which he defines as, “person, individuality, soul, spirit”), mentions gso ba as a common Tibetan rendering. He surmises that the Tibetan translation comes from the notion that the Sanskrit poṣa derives from puṣ, “to thrive, nourish,” when it more likely derives from puruṣa.

n.22In all the Śālistamba sources that are not from the Kangyur, i.e. Śikṣāsamuccaya, Bodhi­caryāvatāra­pañjikā and Bhāmatī (cf. Reat, pp. 49–50), the passage on name and form is more explicit; in all of these sources an additional passage clarifies that “name and form” includes all five aggregates: the four immaterial aggregates that emerge together with consciousness are subsumed under “name,” while physical form is subsumed under the aggregate of “form.” This point is also clarified later in the sūtra.

n.23The “three factors” here, in which “factor” renders chos ( dharma ), are object, sense faculty, and consciousness (Reat, p. 52 n19).

n.24The Tibetan here, yid la byed pa dang ldan pa, reflects a rendering of the Sanskrit phrase manasi­kāra­yukta, partially attested in the Śikṣāsamuccaya and Mahāyāna­sūtra­saṁgraha as manasi­kāra­saṁprayukta (Reat, p. 52 n32).

n.25Sanskrit sources read anyo anyopa­stambhana, here appearing in the Tibetan translation as rten pa / brten pa.

n.26The Sanskrit āyadvāra (Reat, p. 53) here includes the āya part of āyatana, and is defined by Edgerton as “cause or means (lit. door) of arrival or origin.” The Tibetan skye ba’i sgo gives the sense of “door of arising.”

n.27The Sanskrit reads upakleśa here (Reat, p. 53), whereas the Tibetan reads nyon mongs (kleśa). However, since nye ba’i nyon mongs (upakleśa) appears in the previous discussion of “anxiety,” we have opted for the Sanskrit.

n.28Ngo bo here in the Tibetan phrase sdug pa’i ngo bo dang/ bde ba’i ngo bo is a conceivable rendering of rūpa, “form” (Negi, vol. 3, p. 977), in the corresponding Sanskrit phrase priya­rūpa­śāta­rūpa (Reat, p. 55).

n.29Khu is missing “five” here; this is reflected in the Sanskrit (Reat, pp. 54–55).

n.30The Sanskrit resources depict this phrase in the masculine singular nominitive dvādaśāṅgaḥ pratītya­samutpādo; all the qualifyiers in the passage follow suit.

n.31This is following Reat (p. 57), with vedayitā (masculine singular nominitive of vedayitṛ), and Kamalaśīla’s commentary (Schoening, vol. 2, p. 509), with myong ba po.

n.32“Something” here (and in the following two instances) renders chos ( dharma ).

n.33“Something” here, again (and in the following two instances), renders chos ( dharma ).

n.34Although the Tibetan here has the rather ambiguous myong ba dang ldan pa, the available Sanskrit reads āsvāda-anuviddhaṁ (Reat, p. 60).

n.35“Things” here renders chos rnams (dharma).

n.36“Thing” here in “nothing” renders chos (dharma).

n.37“Thing” here renders chos (dharma).

n.38Kamalaśīla’s commentary (Schoening, vol. 2, p. 517) interprets the Tibetan phrase rtag par rgyun du not to modify the adjacent srog med pa, as suggested by the available Sanskrit and Tibetan, but as the “constant and uninterrupted” quality of dependent arising itself.

n.39The singular number here is according to the Sanskrit and Tibetan of the Stok Palace version; the Degé and other versions recorded in the Pedurma comparative edition all read plural ’di dag.

n.40This renders dge mtshan dang bkra shis (kautukamaṇgala). Reat (p. 72) translates this as, “rites and rituals”; Schoening (vol. 1, p. 329) translates it as, “festive and salutary.” Monier-Williams understands the term kautukamaṇgala not as a dvandva compound, but as “an auspicious ceremony (esp. the ceremony with the marriage-thread preceding a marriage).” Kamalaśīla (Schoening, vol. 2, p. 520) presents only the phrase dge mtshan dang ldan pa, “endowed with kautuku (‘interest or curiosity’),” which he interprets as follows: “This refers to things like riddles, tales, legends, song, dance and the like that bring one enjoyment, because one becomes infatuated.”

n.41The passage, “prone to agitation or dullness,” is missing in the available Sanskrit sources and has been reconstructed from the Tibetan by de La Vallée Poussin and Sastri as vā unmiñjita­nimiñjitāni, and unmiñjitāni nimiñjitāni ca, respectively (Reat, p. 72). However, Kamalaśīla seems to have had a version similar to the Tibetan, since he states in his Śālistamba[ka]ṭīkā (p. 422): “ ‘Agitation or dullness’ means the mind is either distracted or withdrawn. These are features of dogma.” (lhag par g.yo ba dang bral bar g.yo ba zhes bya ba ni/ sems rgyas pa dang zhum par gyur pa ste/ de dag ni lta bar song ba’i bye brag go/).

n.42Unlike other trees, the palm tree does not produce cambium‍—the layer that closes a wound and protects the trunk from rotting. As a result a palm tree dies when its head is cut off.