Notes

n.1Equivalent to folios 165.a.5–166.b.2 in the Degé edition.

n.2“If to grasp onto the view ‘The impermanent is permanent’ were an error, Why isn’t grasping onto the view ‘In emptiness there is nothing impermanent’ an error?” Garfield 1995, p. 65.

n.3Candrakīrti also refers to the same part of the sūtra, but with an abbreviated citation, in the Prasannapadā’s first chapter (1.77), in a discussion on whether illusory phenomena can be causes of defilement or purification. See MacDonald 2015, pp. 177–80.

n.4The seven vajra topics are (1) the Buddha, (2) the Dharma, (3) the Saṅgha, (4) the element (Skt. dhātu, Tib. khams), (5) enlightenment (Skt. bodhi, Tib. byang chub), (6) buddha qualities (Skt. guṇa, Tib. yon tan), and (7) buddha activity (Skt. samudācāra, Tib. sangs rgyas kyi ’phrin las).

n.5[Ratnagotra­vibhāga-] Mahāyānottara­tantraśāstravyākhyā (Toh 4025). The only extant Sanskrit text and the Chinese include both verses and prose commentary. Chinese tradition, somewhat indirectly, attributes the treatise as a whole not to Maitreya-Asaṅga but to one *Sāramati.

n.6The citation corresponds to F.172.b.2–3 in the present text. See also n.­28.

n.7rgyud bla ma’i tshig don rnam par ’grel pa.

n.8Brunnhölzl 2014, pp. 503–4.

n.9Brunnhölzl 2014, p. 9.

n.10Brunnhölzl 2014, p. 10.

n.11Sthīrādhyāśaya­parivarta is attested in the Degé, Dodedrak, Lhasa, Phajoding Ogmin, Phajoding Khangzang, and Ragya Kangyurs, while Dṛḍhādhyāśaya­parivarta is attested in the Chizhi, Dongkarla, Phukdrak, Gondhla, Gangteng, Hemis, Namgyal Collection, Neyphuk, Tashiyangtse, Ulaanbaatar, Stok, and Shey Kangyurs.

n.12The following Kangyurs lack a Sanskrit title: Berlin, Choné, Lithang, London, Narthang, Peking 1737 (Qianlong), and Urga.

n.13Johnston 1950, p. 2.

n.14Macdonald 2015, p. 338; Kosaka 2021, p. 76.

n.15Denkarma F.297.b.5; see also Hermann-Pfandt (118), pp. 66–67. Phangthangma, p. 9. Chomden Rigpai Raltri, F.12.a ; see also Schaeffer and van der Kuijp (6.45), p. 126. Butön, F.151.a (p. 933); see also Nishioka (304), p. 74. It seems most likely that the length reported in these lists is an error propagated from one to the others, but a possibility remains either that they are referring to a different work, or that the present text is an extract from a longer original. Hermann-Pfandt points out that no longer text of similar title has been identified anywhere. The catalogs of the Degé (F.130.a) and Narthang (F.98.a) Kangyurs both mention the discrepancy in length compared to the early inventories, and while the Degé catalog mentions that early inventories described the text as having two chapters (although in fact none of the extant inventories do so), the Narthang catalog implies that it still does have two chapters (although this is not the case in any extant version, including the one in the Narthang). Some of the inventories and some of the catalogs misspell brtan pa in the title as bstan pa.

n.16At this point in the text the citation in the Prasannapadā begins (see Introduction i.­3).

n.17Skt. niḥsaraṇa in the Prasannapadā citation, and Tib. nges par ’byung ba in the Prasannapadā Tibetan translation. All Kangyurs, however, read simply ’byung ba.

n.18The text of this paragraph to this point is the abbreviated citation in the first chapter of the Prasannapadā mentioned in n.­1; see also MacDonald 2015, pp. 177–80.

n.19Where the Tibetan reads gsad/bsad here, “killed,” the citation in the Prasannapadā, according to most Sanskrit manuscripts in Kosaka’s (2021, p. 79) critical Sanskrit edition, read viruddha (“opposed,” “hindered,” “arrested”). However, one manuscript gives vibuddha (“awake”), which seems unlikely based on the context, although gsad/bsad could be taken as misspellings of sad (“to awaken”).

n.20Degé and Stok both read des bdag gsad du ’ong ngo. The citation in the Prasannapadā in Kosaka’s (2021, p. 79) critical Sanskrit edition reads sa mā māṃ jīvitād vyaparopayet.

n.21The Sanskrit of the corresponding phrase in the citation in the Prasannapadā is rather different and matches better the phrases that follow for hatred and ignorance: sarvabālapṛthagjanā rāgakoṭiṃ virāgakoṭim aprajānanto rāgakoṭibhayabhītā virāgakoṭiṃ niḥsaraṇaṃ paryeṣante (“Not knowing that the extent of desire is the extent of freedom from desire, they are afraid of the perils of the extent of desire and seek escape from the extent of freedom from desire.”). The Tibetan, not only in all Kangyurs but also in the Tibetan translation of the Prasannapadā, omits that mention of “the extent of freedom from desire.” See Kosaka (2021), pp. 80 and 117.

n.22At this point in the text the citation in the Prasannapadā ends (see Introduction i.­3).

n.23Tib. med cing yod pa ma yin pa.

n.24Translated according to the Degé and most other Kangyurs, which read shes shing rtogs bzhin du. Narthang and Lhasa Kangyurs here read shes shing dogs bzhin du, “knowing but doubting,” but the former reading seems preferable, being the better parallel to the tathāgata “knowing and seeing” (mkhyen cing gzigs bzhin du) in the next paragraph.

n.25Lit. “to make an eye consciousness.”

n.26Lit. “that make an eye consciousness.”

n.27Stok Palace gives bsregs pa (“has burned up”) instead of sreg pa (“is the burning up”), which matches the usage of past participles in some of the other proclamations.

n.28This statement by the Buddha is cited in the Ratnagotra­vibhāgavyākhyā (Toh 4025, folio 74.b.6-7) as the scriptural basis for the first three of the “seven vajra points” (the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha) that provide the Ratnagotra­vibhāga’s (Toh 4024) structure. The citation in the Sanskrit of the Vyākhyā reads: anidarśano hyānanda tathāgataḥ | sa na śakyaścakṣuṣā draṣṭum | anabhilāpyo hyānanda dharmaḥ | sa na śakyaḥ karṇena śrotum | asaṃskṛto hyānanda saṅghaḥ | sa na śakyaḥ kāyena vā cittena vā paryupāsitum (Johnston 1950:2). Note that the present text of the sūtra itself differs from the citation in the Sanskrit, and also the Tibetan of the Vyākhyā in the Tengyur, in including “speech” in the final phrase.

n.29The Stok Palace manuscript reads “they should be held as worthy of honor. They should be viewed as a field of merit,” referring to the noble sons and daughters themselves.