Notes

n.1These verses are also found nearly verbatim in the Anityavarga (“Chapter on Impermanence”) in the Udānavarga.

n.2These manuscripts are CTRC Box 111, No. 5, folios 13a2–14b2 and CTRC Box 1112, No. 5, pp. 23–24. Ven. Vinītā has edited and translated the first of these mss. and provided a transliteration of the second. See Bhikṣuṇī Vinītā 2010, pp. 170–206.

n.3National Archives, Kathmandu: NAK 3/589, No. 8, 35a36b = NGMPP A 131–9, A 861/13 (dated 1860 ᴄᴇ), and NAK 3/641, No. 396, 376v = NGMPP A 131–10 (undated, but likely from the nineteenth century). Further information on these mss. may be found in Hidas 2021, pp. 368–77 and 378–89. Both of these are Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha collections. Neither of these manuscripts has been studied and thus neither transliterations nor editions are available.

n.4Folios 222b10–223b4 of a Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha manuscript from the private collection of Mr. Padmajyoti Dhakhwa of Patan. The colophon was added later and does not provide an exact date, stating simply that the manuscript was copied “80 years ago by Pandit Ratna Bahadur Vajracharya.” It is not clear, however, when this colophon was added and thus it is impossible to calculate when it was copied. It seems very likely, though, that the manuscript was copied in the latter half of the nineteenth century. See Shakya 1988 for a transliteration. However, this transliteration contains many variances in readings from the actual manuscript and it is unclear whether these are misreadings or silent emendations by Shakya. The edition of the Anityatāsūtra found in the appendix of this translation is partially based upon this manuscript.

n.5Société Asiatique, no. 14(36) in Filliozat 1941/42. Filliozat notes that the Anityatāsūtra witness here is part of a larger collection which she describes as “Recueil de dhāraṇī, stotra, çataka, etc.” (“a collection of dhāraṇī, stotra, śataka, etc.”) dating from 1823 (Filliozat 1941/42, pp. 17–34). Although she does not state it, this is almost certainly a witness of the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha collection. A transliteration has been published in Bhikṣuṇī Vinītā 2010.

n.6Royal Asiatic Society, London: Hodgson Collection, Ms. no. 55 (H. 147), 60a2–62a1. This is from a Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha manuscript dated 1791 ᴄᴇ. The witness was edited in Yamada 1972. However, this edition is now rather dated and a number of misreadings are to be found. The edition of the Anityatāsūtra found in the appendix of this translation is partially based upon this manuscript.

n.7Tōyō Bunko, Tokyo, Ms. No. 13.7. This manuscript is undated and has not been studied as far as we are aware. Further information may be found in Hidas 2021, pp. 360–67.

n.8Tokyo University Library, Tokyo. Kawaguchi and Takakusu Collection, Ms. 416 No. 8. 46a3–47b4. Like the above witnesses, this Anityatāsūtra is again a component work within a Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha collection. No date is provided for this manuscript, but it is listed as “modern” in the catalog notes, which would suggest it was copied in the nineteenth century ᴄᴇ. This is confirmed when it is compared with the witnesses held by the Royal Asiatic Society, which is an earlier witness in the same manuscript copying tradition. This witness was edited in Yamada 1972 and Kimura 1985. However, both Yamada and Kimura’s editions are now dated and a number of misreadings and unexplained variances are to be found. Nonetheless, both editions provide helpful information, Kimura’s especially concerning a number of textual parallels. The edition of the Anityatāsūtra found in the appendix of this translation is partially based upon this manuscript. The manuscript has been digitized and the Anityatāsūtra folios may be found here.

n.9For information on the Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha see Hidas 2021, which is a study on several manuscripts of this work.

n.10See the edition of the Anityatāsūtra in the appendix for further information on the relationship between these two manuscript witnesses.

n.11mi rtag pa nyid kyi mdo rdzogs so and ity āryānityatāsūtraṃ samāptaṃ.

n.12These colophons are: Lg29.4, mdo, Ha-L15 9b4–11b3: myi rtag pa nyid kyi mdo’ rdzogs s+ho / rgya gar kyi mkhan po ka ma la gub tra dang / zhu chen gyi lo tsha ba dge’ slong rin chen bzang pos bsgyur zhing zhus te gtan la phab pa / Lg59.4, mdo, Ha-L97 10b1–12a6: mi rtag pa nyid kyi mdo rdzogs s+ho / rgya gar gyi mkhan po ka ma la gub tra dang / zhu chen gi lo tsha ba rin chen bzang pos sgyur cing zhus te / gtan la phab pa / Ng22.51, mdo, za 308b5–310a8: myi rtag pa nyid kyi mdo’ / rdzogs s+ho / rgya gar gi mkhan po ka ma la kub ta dang / zhu chen gi lo tsa ba dge slong rin chen bzang pos bsgyur cing zhus te / gtan la phab pa /

n.13See Sakya Pandita Translation Group, trans., The Sūtra on Impermanence (1) , Toh 309 (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2021).

n.14See, for example, the Jarāmaraṇasutta (SN I 71 (SN 3.3)) and Vepullapabbatasutta (SN II 191–193 (SN 15.20)) in the Saṃyuttanikāya, and the Mahāsudassanasutta (DN II 169–199 (DN 17)) in the Dīghanikāya.

n.15See, for example, (the Mūlasarvāstivāda) Mahā­parinirvāṇa­sūtra (MPS 48.14) and NidSa 7.3,4.

n.16Brough 1962, p. 41.

n.17Such as those found in 1.­8 and 1.­12.

n.18Sanskrit: “Oṃ, homage to the Omniscient One.”

n.19Both the great community of monks and their number is omitted in Tibetan. The Chinese reads 1,250: 千二百五十人, while the Sanskrit variously reads 1,300 or 1,250 in the Nepalese and Potala transmissions, respectively. It seems that at some point there was a corruption in the Sanskrit transmission where the number diverged from the Chinese, and I have emended the Sanskrit edition to follow the Chinese and CTRC: mahatā bhikṣusaṃghena sārddhan ‹ardha›­trayodaśabhir bhikṣuśataiḥ. Interestingly, the great community of monks is included in the other Anityatāsūtra preserved in the Kangyur, Toh 309, which shares the same opening frame narrative reading: dge slong gi dge ’dun chen po dang thabs cig tu.

n.20Sanskrit omits.

n.21Cf. MPS 48.14; NidSa 7.3,4; DN II 198.18–23; SN II 178; and SN III 147.

n.22Tibetan omits.

n.23Tibetan omits.

n.24Tibetan omits.

n.25Tibetan reads “even for them life concludes in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die” (gson pa’i mtha’ yang ’chi bar ’gyur ba ste/ skye nas ’chi bar mi ’gyur ba med do).

n.26Tibetan omits.

n.27Tibetan omits.

n.28Tibetan omits.

n.29Referring to fruit harvested from the ground, i.e., not cultivated through agriculture. Skt. carries the sense of plucked, released, i.e., fallen. Tib. carries the sense of fruit already on the ground.

n.30Tibetan reads “even for them life concludes in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die” (gson pa’i mtha’ yang ’chi bar ’gyur ba ste/ skye nas ’chi bar mi ’gyur ba med do).

n.31Tibetan omits.

n.32kāmāvacarāḥ (gods of the realm of desire) is omitted in Tibetan but necessary in context with the next two sections, which go on to elaborate the certain death of gods in the form realm and the formless realm.

n.33Tibetan omits.

n.34Literally “those gods possessing form.”

n.35Tibetan omits.

n.36Tibetan omits.

n.37The Tibetan switches the order of sudṛśa and sudarśana, reading shin tu mthong ba dang | gya nom snang dang. Note: this is the case in the translated passage in note 39.

n.38The Tibetan in this section treats each consecutive level of the form realm deities as its own paragraph with the requisite introductory phrase and the running refrain of the sūtra (“Those … even for them life concludes with death…”). Degé contains all four sections, 1.8a–d, but Peking omits 1.8a & b. This fourfold way of interpreting this passage is not ideal as it conflates the gods of the Pure Abodes into the enumeration of the gods of the fourth dhyāna as can be seen in 1.8d below. The translation of the Tibetan (Degé) is: 1.8a “Those gods of the form realm who have obtained the first dhyāna‍—those who attend Brahmā, those stationed before Brahmā, and those Great Brahmā gods‍—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die. 1.8b “Those gods who have obtained the second dhyāna‍—those of limited radiance, [F.156.b] those of immeasurable radiance, and those who are radiant‍—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die. 1.8c “Those gods who have obtained the third dhyāna‍—those of limited splendor, those of immeasurable splendor, and those of complete splendor‍—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die. 1.8d “Those gods who have obtained the fourth dhyāna‍—those who are unclouded, those with abundant merit, those with great fruition, those who have a nature that is free from perception, and [those gods of the Pure Abodes]: those who are relatively not great, those without trouble, those of excellent appearance, those of excellent observation, and those who are highest‍—even for them life concludes with death, has its limit in death, for there is nothing that is born that will not die.”

n.39Tibetan omits.

n.40Literally “those gods without form.”

n.41Sanskrit: traidhātukam idam. This sentence is omitted in the Tibetan.

n.42Tibetan omits.

n.43Tibetan: yid du ’ong ba. This is not present in any Sanskrit witness where only kāya (“body”) is mentioned and is also omitted in Chinese.

n.44That is, subject to death.

n.45Tibetan omits.

n.46tshogs na spyod pa (vargacārin), omitted in all Sanskrit witnesses and Chinese. This is the second, less famous but more gregarious, of the two classes of pratyekabuddha.

n.47Again, “pleasing” is only found in the Tibetan and is missing from both the Sanskrit and Chinese. See n.­43.

n.48Tibetan omits.

n.49āśrava­jñāna­prahāṇavaiśāradyam. A less precise translation would be “confidence in their knowledge of the abandonment of negative influences.” This is a problematic phrase within this interpretation of the caturvaiśāradya that is unique to The Sūtra on Impermanence. The equivalent in the standard list of the four confidences would be sarvāśravakṣaya­jñānavaiśāradyam (s.v. this entry in Mvy 130 (S. 132)), “confidence in the knowledge of exhausting negative influences,” which seems to be the intended meaning of āśrava­jñāna­prahāṇavaiśāradyam. However, prahāṇa in Sanskrit Buddhist literature generally, and in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, is not related to the Sanskrit term prahāṇa (“abandonment”), but rather the Pali term padhāna (“effort”), an important technical term. It seems that whoever added this explanation of the four confidences in the Sanskrit transmission of The Sūtra on Impermanence conflated the correct BHS usage of prahāṇa for the standard Sanskrit usage. This may bolster the conclusion we take from the manuscript evidence that these four terms laying out the four confidences were possibly later additions to the text.

n.50Once again, “pleasing” is only found in the Tibetan and is missing from both the Sanskrit and Chinese. See n.­44 and n.­48.

n.51The order of the description of buddhas is slightly different between the Sanskrit and Tibetan, and the Sanskrit adds a passage laying out the four confidences. It seems that this was a later addition in an effort to make the four confidences clearer to the reader. Interestingly, the explanation provided in the Sanskrit is a unique list that differs in wording from the four confidences. See the noted discussion on caturvaiśāradyaviśaradā in ap1.­12 of the Sanskrit critical edition (note n.­191). The translation of the Tibetan (Degé) is: 1.12 “Those tathāgatas, [F.157.a] arhats, complete and perfect buddhas, mighty with the ten powers, confident in the four confidences, worthy of admiration, their bodies strong-limbed and firm like Nārāyaṇa, roaring a true lion’s roar‍—even for them their pleasing bodies are subject to being given up.”

n.52This analogy of the unavoidable destruction of pots, which makes up the first half of this section, is omitted in the Peking and Choné Kangyurs.

n.53UV 1.3.

n.54UV 1.4. This verse is not present in the Sanskrit witnesses.

n.55UV 1.12 (with slight differences). This verse is not present in the Tibetan.

n.56UV 1.11 (with slight differences). This verse is not present in the Tibetan.

n.57UV 1.22 (with very slight differences). This verse is not present in the Tibetan.

n.58This conclusion to the narrative frame is shared verbatim in the other Anityatāsūtra translation in the Degé Kangyur, Toh 309.

n.59ekasmi, RAS.

n.60samaya, TUL.

n.61bhagavāṃ, RAS.

n.62|, TUL; RAS omits.

n.63°piṇḍadasyāme, CTRC (emended to °piṇḍadasyārāme). Shakya either incorrectly reads or silently emends to °piṇḍadasyārāme in his transliteration of PDP, which reads °piṇḍasyārāme along with RAS and TUL.

n.64sārddha, RAS; sārddhan, TUL; and sārddhaṃ, PDP.

n.65ardha°, CTRC. Yamada reads sārdham ardha­trayodaśabhir with a note indicating that ardha in his reading is supplied by the Chinese: 千二百五十人.

n.66RAS and TUL omit.

n.67bhikṣūnām, TUL.

n.68|, TUL.

n.69anitā, RAS and TUL; anit*yā, PDP where a virāma is needlessly placed under the -t- ligature in the tyā conjunct. This virāma usage appears relatively often in the PDP manuscript. Yamada incorrectly notes that the anitā reading is only found in TUL (Yamada 1972, 31/1000 n. 7). anityā, CTRC.

n.70sarvasaskārā, RAS; sarvasaṃskārāḥ, CTRC.

n.71anāsvāsikā RAS and TUL; anāśvāsikā PDP and CTRC. Shakya reads anāsvāsikā in PDP, but it appears to be śvā in this manuscript.

n.72viparināma, RAS.

n.73|, TUL.

n.74yad, RAS and TUL; ye, PDP; omitted, CTRC. Shakya reads yad in his transliteration of PDP, but this cannot be. It seems possible that he was relying to some extent upon Yamada’s earlier edition.

n.75sarvvebhyaḥ, RAS.

n.76samskārebhya, TUL.

n.77nirvatum, RAS and TUL; nivartum, PDP; nivarttitaṃ, CTRC. Shakya reads nirvartitum in his transliteration of PDP, which is either a misreading or a silent emendation.

n.78viratkam, RAS, TUL, and PDP; ‹vi›raktum, CTRC.

n.79alam, RAS.

n.80|, RAS and TUL.

n.81sarveṣā, TUL.

n.82prānināṃ, TUL.

n.83āmaranāntaṃ, RAS; āmaraṇanāṃtaṃ, TUL; āmaraṇāntaṃ, PDP; maraṇānta‹ṃ›, CTRC. Shakya reads āmaraṇanta in his transliteration of PDP, missing the anusvara.

n.84jivita, RAS; jīvita, TUL and PDP; jīvitaṃ, CTRC.

n.85tasyāmaraṇaṃ, TUL.

n.86ra, RAS and TUL; ||, PDP. It appears both RAS and TUL suffered the same misreading in the copying tradition where a ra was copied instead of a daṇḍa here. This suggests that the manuscripts may descend from the same copying transmission. Kimura reads ca here in his edition of TUL (Kimura 1985, p. 98). While ca is not the correct reading, it does indeed bear a resemblance to ra. It seems he was perhaps trying to force a reading that made some sense.

n.87Cf. ŚPrSū 105: tatra yāni tāni kulāny āḍhyāni mahādhanāni mahābhogāni pra­bhūtavittopakaraṇāni prabhūtasvāpa­deyāni prabhūtadhana­dhānyakośakoṣṭhāgāra­saṁnicayāni prabhūtam­itrāmātyajñātisālohitāni prabhūtadāsīdāsa­karma­karapauruṣeyāṇi.

n.88The avagraha is missing in RAS, TUL (although no avagraha are used in this ms.), and PDP.

n.89CTRC omits.

n.90gṛhapatayo mahāsālakulā, RAS and TUL; gṛhapatayo mahāśākulā, PDP; gṛhapate­mahā­śalakhlāḥ, CTRC (emended to gṛhapati­mahā­śāla­kuklā).

n.91brāhmaṇa­mahā­sāla­kulā, RAS and TUL; °mahāśākulā, PDP; °sālakulāḥ, CTRC (emended to °mahāśālakulā).

n.92kṣatriyo mahāsākulā, RAS; kṣatriyo mahāsālakūla, TUL; kṣatriya­mahā­śākulā, PDP; kṣatriya­mahā­śāla­kulā{ḥ}, CTRC.

n.93āsāṃ, RAS, TUL, and PDP. Shakya incorrectly records āśāṃ in his transliteration of PDP. āḍhyā, CTRC, which seems to be the correct reading with āsāṃ a later corruption. Note, for example, DN I 134.22: aḍḍho mahaddhano mahābhogo.

n.94mahāhdano, PDP; mahādhanā{ḥ}, CTRC.

n.95There appears to have been some confusion here in the copying transmission of this work. prabhūta­maṇimāniṣka°, TUL and PDP (Shakya reads kya). Yamada reads ṣka in both RAS and TUL, but the akṣara conjunct in RAS seems to be an unsure kya where the scribe hedged his bet by making it also possibly discernable as ṣka. In the end, nkya is the reading that leads to a more coherent phrase and is used here. CTRC omits these words entirely.

n.96°śaṃkhasilā, TUL. TUL also omits rūparajata; prabhūta­jāta­rūpa­raja­tavittopakaraṇāḥ, CTRC omitting the first half of the compound.

n.97°koṣṭha­koṣṭhāgāra­saṃnicayāḥ, RAS; koṣṭha­koṣṭhāṃgāra­sanniccayāḥ, TUL; °kośa­koṣṭhāgāra­sannicayāḥ, PDP (Shakya incorrectly reads °koṣa° in his transliteration). CTRC omits this phrase. Yamada notes the reading in TUL but neglects to note the reading in RAS (Yamada 1972, 31/1000 n. 25). The same instance of either a simple error copying ṣṭa for śa or erroneous duplication of koṣṭha recorded in both RAS and TUL provides further evidence that these two manuscripts were produced within the same copying transmission.

n.98prabhūta­dāsidāsa­karma­kara­pauraṣeyāḥ, RAS and TUL; prabhūta­dāsīdāsa­karma­kara­pauruṣeyāḥ, PDP and CTRC (Shakya incorrectly reads °paurūṣeyo in his PDP transliteration).

n.99sārohitās, RAS.

n.100maraṇāṃtaṃ, TUL; maraṇānta‹ṃ›, CTRC.

n.101Shakya reads jīvita­maraṇaṃparya° in his transliteration of PDP but this cannot be.

n.102|, RAS and TUL.

n.103CTRC omits this section.

n.104mūrddhnābhiṣiktā, RAS and TUL (Kimura reads mūrdhā° in his edition of TUL with no notation indicating this was an emendation). mūrddhābhiṣiktā, PDP.

n.105°padaiśvaryāsthāma­vīryam, RAS and TUL (Kimura reads jānapadaiś caryā sthāmavīryam). jānapadaiśvaryya°, PDP (Shakya reads jānapadai śvarya° in his PDP transliteration).

n.106°paryaṃvasānaṃ, TUL (neither Yamada nor Kimura note this unnecessary anusvāra). °paryapasānaṃ, PDP (Shakya reads °vasānaṃ in his PDP transliteration).

n.107|, RAS and TUL.

n.108CTRC omits this section.

n.109bhikṣavaḥ, PDP.

n.110vānapasthāḥ, TUL.

n.111pramukta­phale bhojinaḥ, TUL.

n.112yāpaṃti, PDP (Shakya reads or perhaps emends yāpanti in his transliteration of PDP).

n.113jivitaṃ, RAS. Kimura emends to yāpayanti. While this section is missing in CTRC, Ven. Vinītā reports readings of yāpayanti in two other mss. (a second ms. witness at CTRC and a witness at the Société Asiatique).

n.114°paryaṃvasānaṃ, RAS and TUL.

n.115|, RAS.

n.116CTRC omits.

n.117cātumahā°, RAS and TUL; cāturmahā°, PDP, °kāyikā, CTRC.

n.118trayatriṃsā, RAS; traye triṃśā, TUL; trayastriṃśā, PDP; trāyatriśā, CTRC (emended to trayastriṃśā).

n.119CTRC omits.

n.120Shakya reads nāmās in his PDP transliteration, omitting the following devās, which is certainly there in the manuscript.

n.121CTRC omits.

n.122CTRC omits.

n.123nirmānaratayo, RAS.

n.124CTRC omits.

n.125jīvita, RAS; jivita, TUL.

n.126°paryyavasānaṃ, PDP (Shakya reads °paryavasānaṃ).

n.127|, RAS and TUL.

n.128CTRC omits.

n.129rūpino, RAS and TUL.

n.130°rābhino, TUL. Neither Yamada nor Kimura note the rā in their editions, silently emending to lā.

n.131brāhma°, TUL. Again, neither Yamada nor Kimura note this infelicity in their editions.

n.132brahmapārṣadyā, seen in RAS, TUL, and PDP, is omitted in both the Chinese and Tibetan. Shakya neglects to read brahmapārṣadyā in his PDP transliteration despite the fact that it is clearly attested (perhaps following the Tibetan?). brahmapāriṣadyā, CTRC.

n.133mahābrahma{{dvi}}ṇā, RAS; mahābra[hma]nā, TUL; mahābrahmāṇaḥ, PDP; mahābrahmaṇo, CTRC.

n.134dvitiya°, TUL.

n.135paritaśubhā, RAS and TUL; parītaśubhā, PDP (Shakya reads parītābhā); pārittābhā, CTRC (emended to parīttābhā).

n.136apramānaśubhā, RAS & TUL; apramāṇaśubhā, PDP (Shakya reads apramāṇābhā); apramāṇābhā, CTRC.

n.137Kimura misreads abhāsvarās, needlessly emending to ābhāsvarās. Shakya misreads ābhāśvarās when ābhāsvarās is clearly attested.

n.138tṛtīya­dhyāna­lābhineḥ, CTRC (emended to °lābhinaḥ).

n.139paritaśubhā, RAS and TUL; parītaśubhā, PDP; parīttaśubhā, CTRC.

n.140apramānaśubhāḥ, RAS; apranaśubhā, TUL; apramāṇaśubhā, PDP; apramāṇa{bhāḥ}śubhāḥ, CTRC. Yamada and Kimura both give incorrect readings for TUL with Yamada reporting that both RAS and TUL read apramāna° and Kimura reading apraṇa°. At this point in TUL a dittographical error appears where the previous phrase is copied again with new errors: ābhāsvarās tṛtīyadhyanarābhinaḥ paritaśubhā apramānaśubhāḥ. Yamada does not note the errors in the dittography while Kimura notes them incorrectly, falsely reporting °lobhinaḥ and apraṇaśubhā.

n.141°kṛtsnāś, CTRC.

n.142°lābhinaḥ, CTRC.

n.143Yamada erroneously states that RAS reads anabhakāḥ (Yamada 1972, 32/999 n. 54).

n.144bṛhataphala, CTRC.

n.145asaśisatvā, RAS; asaṃgītvā, TUL; asaṃjñisatvā, PDP (Shakya omits this word in his transliteration); asaṅgisattvā, CTRC.

n.146sudarśāḥ, RAS and TUL. Kimura silently emends (or misreads) sudṛśāḥ in his TUL edition. sudṛśāḥ, PDP and CTRC.

n.147sudarśanāḥ, CTRC (emended to sudarśanā).

n.148CTRC omits.

n.149°paryyavasānaṃ, PDP.

n.150|, RAS and TUL.

n.151bhikṣava, PDP (Shakya reads bhikṣavaḥ); CTRC omits.

n.152’rūpino, RAS; rūpino, TUL; ārupiṇo, PDP; arupiṇo, CTRC.

n.153ākāśānaṃtyāyatanopagā, RAS; ākāśānaṃ*tyāyatanopagā, TUL; ākāśānant*yāyatanopagā, PDP (Shakya reads ākāśānantāyatanopagā); ākāśānantyayatanopagā, CTRC.

n.154vijñānānaṃtyā°, RAS and TUL; vijñānānant*yā°, PDP (Shakya reads vijñānantyā°); vijñānānantyāyatanopagā{ḥ}, CTRC.

n.155ākiṃcityā°, RAS; ākiṃciṃtyā°, TUL (Yamada does not note this reading but Kimura does); akiñcinyā°, CTRC.

n.156naivasaṃjñānām asaṃjñā°, TUL; °sa‹ṃ›jñāyatanopagāḥ, CTRC.

n.157CTRC omits.

n.158devās, PDP; CTRC omits.

n.159PDP and CTRC omit.

n.160maraṇāṃtam, TUL.

n.161jīvita, TUL.

n.162|, RAS and TUL.

n.163The Tibetan omits this phrase. The Chinese reads it as beginning the next section, which is not ideal.

n.164||, RAS and PDP. There is no daṇḍa in TUL.

n.165CTRC omits.

n.166kṣīṇāsravāḥ, PDP.

n.167kṛtakaraṇīyā{ḥ}, CTRC.

n.168apahitabhārā, PDP; apakṛtabhārāḥ, CTRC.

n.169anuprāsvakārthāḥ, TUL. Indeed, in RAS we find ānuprā‹‹pta››svakārthāḥ with pta added later. This, as well as the additional errors introduced in TUL not present in RAS, further suggests that RAS is the older witness in the copying transmission in which RAS and TUL are both almost surely instances.

n.170parikṣīna°, TUL. Neither Yamada nor Kimura note this reading.

n.171CTRC omits.

n.172sarvacetovasi°, RAS and TUL (Kimura reads sarvacetovaśi° likely in a silent emendation); CTRC omits.

n.173apy āyaṃ, CTRC.

n.174kāya, PDP; kāyo, CTRC. yid du ’ong ba’i lus, Tib. (manojñākāya).

n.175nikṣepana°, RAS (Yamada does not note this reading); nikṣapa°, TUL (neither Yamada nor Kimura note this reading, silently emending to nikṣepaṇa°); nikṣepadharmmāḥ, CTRC.

n.176|, RAS.

n.177pratyaka°, RAS.

n.178ātmāna, RAS and PDP; ātmā, TUL; ātmānaṃ, CTRC.

n.179damanti, RAS; damaṃti, TUL; damayaṃti, CTRC.

n.180ātmāna, PDP.

n.181samayanti, RAS and TUL. Shakya reads śamayati in his transliteration of PDP but śamayanti is quite clear.

n.182parinivāpayanti, RAS; parinirvāyanti, PDP.

n.183yid du ’ong ba’i lus, Tib. (manojñākāya).

n.184nikṣapanadharmaḥ, TUL. Neither Yamada nor Kimura note this reading.

n.185|, RAS and TUL.

n.186CTRC omits.

n.187samyaskaṃbuddhā, TUL.

n.188°balina, CTRC.

n.189udārāṣabhāḥ, TUL. Neither Yamada nor Kimura note this reading. udārabhava, CTRC. Shakya incorrectly reads udārārṣamāḥ in his transliteration of PDP.

n.190samyak{a}°, CTRC. Shakya reads °nādineś in his transliteration of PDP.

n.191catuvaiśāradya, RAS and TUL. Kimura does not note this reading in TUL. mi ’jigs pa bzhis bsnyengs pa mi mnga’ ba, Tib. CTRC diverges here from the other mss., omitting the following four items. Ven. Vinītā reads catu‹r›­vaiśāradya­viśāradā dṛḍhanārāyaṇa° here in what is an earlier transmission of this work. It may be that these four confidences were expanded in later transmissions such as we see in RAS, TUL, and PDP. Ven. Vinītā reads viśāradā as the final member of a compound here, but due to the additional four terms in RAS, TUL and PDP we find the very similar viśadā instead as the initial member of a compound before dṛḍhanārāyaṇa°. It would not be difficult to see viśāradā becoming viśadā as is the reading in the other mss. where the intervening four words are not omitted, and it is likely that this is just what happened with what should be the final member of a compound being split by the addition of the four vaiśāradas. I have emended the reading accordingly to restore the compound.

n.192dharmārohana°, TUL; CTRC omits.

n.193||, PDP.

n.194sarvadha­dharmadyasanā°, TUL. Yamada does not note this dittography of dha and metathetical dyasa for deśa. Kimura somewhat confusingly reads sarva­dharmābhyasana° missing the dittographical error completely and reading bhya for dya and na for nā. CTRC omits.

n.195||, PDP.

n.196nirvāṇamārga°, RAS and TUL; CTRC omits. Shakya reads °mārga° in his PDP transliteration.

n.197||, TUL and PDP; CTRC omits.

n.198CTRC omits.

n.199||, PDP.

n.200°nārāyana°, RAS. °sa‹ṃ›hatana°, CTRC. See n.­191 for peculiarities in how this phrase has been transmitted.

n.201yid du ’ong ba’i sku, Tib. (manojñākāya). Note that the previous two instances in ap1.­10 and ap1.­11 read lus instead of sku. Stok Palace here reads yid du mi ’ong ba’i.

n.202nikṣepana°, RAS and PDP (Shakya reads nikṣepaṇa, but this is impossible); nikṣapana°, TUL. °dharmmāḥ, CTRC.

n.203|, RAS.

n.204kumbhākāra°, RAS; kuṃbhākāra° TUL (Kimura reads kuṃbha°); kumbhakāra°, PDP and CTRC.

n.205bhāṇḍā, RAS & TUL.

n.206Shakya misreads śrāmāni in his PDP transliteration.

n.207pakkāni, RAS; bakkāni, TUL. Yamada reads pakvāni (RAS) and vakvāni (TUL). Kimura reads vakkāni and emends to vakrāni. Interestingly, RAS and TUL both appear to transmit the Pali equivalent, pakkāni, for the Sanskrit pakvāni seen in both PDP and CTRC. See n.­236.

n.208vā sarvāni tāni, CTRC.

n.209°paryyantāni, RAS and PDP (Shakya reads °paryantāni). CTRC omits.

n.210°paryavaśāny, RAS and TUL.

n.211avam, TUL. Yamada does not note this reading; Kimura does but emends to ayam.

n.212Shakya overlooks this in his PDP transliteration.

n.213prāṇīnā, TUL. Yamada reads prāṇinā.

n.214amarānāṃ, TUL; āmaraṇāntaṃ, PDP.

n.215CTRC omits.

n.216jātasya°, CTRC.

n.217Shakya misreads īdam in his PDP transliteration.

n.218Shakya oddly reads a double -n- for bhagavān nidam in his PDP transliteration.

n.219uktyo, RAS and TUL; ukto, PDP; uktvā, CTRC.

n.220°parā ’vāca, RAS; athāparāvāca, TUL; °paro vāca, PDP; athāparam etad uvāca, CTRC.

n.221°dhārminaḥ, RAS and TUL; °dhārmiṇaḥ, PDP.

n.222||, PDP.

n.223utpādya, PDP.

n.224nirūdhya°, RAS. Yamada does not note the correct reading of nirudhya° in TUL and thus reads following RAS in his edition.

n.225°samaḥ, RAS and TUL.

n.226|, TUL. This verse is not present in CTRC and appears verbatim in UV 1.3.

n.227yathāpi, CTRC and UV (1.12).

n.228mṛti°, TUL. Shakya reads mutti° in his PDP transliteration. mṛ{r}tttikā°, CTRC.

n.229kṛta, TUL.

n.230||, PDP.

n.231sarvaṃ, PDP (Shakya reads sarva), CTRC, and UV.

n.232Shakya reads sattvānāṃ in his PDP transliteration.

n.233jivitaṃ, RAS; jītan, TUL.

n.234The final half-pāda is slightly different in the Sanskrit Udānavarga: evaṃ martyasya jīvitam, UV (1.12).

n.235|, TUL; PDP does not record any daṇḍa here. This verse appears in UV 1.12 with minor variations, which have been discussed in the previous notes.

n.236pakkānāṃ, RAS; kkānāṃ, TUL. Yamada reads kvā here in both RAS and TUL while Kimura reads kkā in TUL. However, it seems clear that kkā is transmitted in these mss. as the word is recorded in Pali. Cf. pakkānaṃ in Sn V.576 (p. 113). See n.­207.

n.237śaśva‹‹tāṃ››, RAS with tāṃ seemingly added later by another hand. nityaṃ, CTRC and UV 1.11.

n.238yaṃ, TUL. °yam, CTRC and UV 1.11.

n.239||, PDP.

n.240This third half-pāda in the verse reads evaṃ jātasya martasya in CTRC and UV 1.11, displaying a different transmission than the tathā saṃskārajāḥ satvānāṃ we see in RAS, TUL, and PDP.

n.241saskā°, RAS and TUL.

n.242satvā, TUL and PDP. satvā‹‹nāṃ›› with ṇāṃ likely added later by another hand. It is possible that the corrections made in RAS were made after TUL was copied or were made at least at some point when RAS was not an available witness for use as an exemplar in the copying of TUL within this manuscript transmission. Indeed, while it is almost certainly the case that RAS and TUL are both products of the same copying tradition with RAS being the earlier witness, it is in no way certain that the scribe who copied TUL had access or even knowledge of RAS and may have been working from some intermediate witness within the transmission. This third half-pāda in the verse reads evaṃ jātasya martasya in CTRC and UV.11.

n.243nitya, TUL.

n.244°yam, CTRC and UV 1.11.

n.245This verse appears in UV 1.11 with minor variations, which have been discussed in the previous notes.

n.246kṣāyāṃ, TUL.

n.247niścayāḥ, TUL.

n.248patanāntā, RAS, TUL, and PDP (Shakya reads patanāntāḥ).

n.249||, PDP.

n.250This third half-pāda is slightly different in UV: saṃyogā viprayogāntā, UV 1.22.

n.251This verse is not present in CTRC and appears in UV 1.22 with minor variations, which have been discussed in note .

n.252bhagavānn, RAS and TUL.

n.253ātamanās, RAS and TUL.

n.254CTRC omits te ca parṣado.

n.255bhagavata, CTRC.

n.256bhā‹ṣi›tam, CTRC.

n.257abhyandann, PDP.

n.258°sutraṃ, TUL.

n.259pañcamaṃ samāptam, CTRC noting the place of the sūtra within the work. RAS contains no numeration for the sūtra, while TUL lists as 8 and PDP as 596. The Anityatāsūtra witnesses in RAS, TUL, and PDP are all entries in larger Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha manuscripts. It is clear that the order or contents of these Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha collections was not set as can be seen in the various extant mss. See Hidas 2021 for discussion on a number of such mss.