Notes

n.1bde bar gshegs pa’i bstan pa’i gsal byed chos kyi ’byung gnas gsung rab rin po che’i mdzod, p. 920.6.

n.2The Tibetan text reads za len dra, which, considering the text’s references to the Tamasāvana Monastery and Trigarta, almost certainly refers to Jālandhara, but we cannot confidently explain whether this rendering is intentional or a corruption. Although the colophon could be read as meaning “the mountain on the northern border of Jālandhara,” such an interpretation is less likely because this and other sūtras state that Mount Uśīra is a border mountain of Madhyadeśa, and the travel logs of Xuanzang state that Jālandhara is to the northwest of Tamasāvana.

n.3Mount Uśīra is variously referred to (or written) as Uśīragiri or Uśīnaragiri in Sanskrit and Usīraddhaja in Pāli. Its orthography in Tibetan translations is not consistent. The mountain is also mentioned in chapter 49 of the Vajraḍāka­tantra (Toh 370, folio 112.b) and in the Āṭānāṭīyamahā­sūtra (Toh 656, folio 152.b).

n.4The orthography tamasāvana is often, and perhaps more convincingly, given as tāmasavana. Nevertheless, we find tamasāvana in Dutt’s edition (1947, p. 3) of the Mūla­sarvāstivāda Vinayavastu (Toh 1) and in Cowell and Neil’s edition (1886, p. 399) of the Divyāvadāna. The Tibetan translation of the sūtra presented here offers variously tamo, tama, and tamasa as alternatives, all of which are likely corruptions.

n.5See Bhaiṣajyavastu Translation Team, trans., The Chapter on Medicines, Toh 1-6 (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha), 7.215. This passage is not presently published in Sanskrit.

n.6See avadāna 27 in Cowell and Neil 1886, p. 399. For an English translation, see Strong 1989 (note that Strong mistranslates the relevant passage on p. 259). There does not appear to be a canonical Tibetan translation of this passage.

n.7This is pointed out by Demiéville 1924, p. 37. See Kṣemendra’s Bodhisattvāvadāna­kalpalatā, Toh 4155, ch. 56, Gopālāvadāna, in Das and Vidyābhūṣaṇa 1888–1918, pp. 136–45.

n.8A traditional Chinese measure of distance, today standardized at 500 meters (1,640 feet).

n.9See the translation and analysis in Waters 1904, p. 295ff.

n.10Here we emend the text from ltas kyi bya ba drug to las kyi bya ba drug. Although there are many possible *ṣaṭkarmans, we conjecture that the six activities of a brahmin are the most contextually appropriate.

n.11Our translation of “recuperated” is somewhat tentative. The Tibetan reads rta bstis.

n.12Although the text is not explicit, it appears reasonable to assume that Pradarśa’s five hundred childhood friends had traveled with him and comprise the remainder of the assembly referred to here.

n.13Here the text in fact reads dga’ bo, which typically translates the name Nanda. Nanda could refer to the disciple of the Buddha who was also his half-brother, or it could refer to the above-mentioned cousin of Pradarśa. Either way, the remark is, for us, cryptic. We conjecture, therefore, that the text should read kun dga’ bo and may refer to the narrative that Ānanda, who was present in the majority of the Buddha’s assemblies, did not achieve the state of being a worthy one until after the Buddha had passed into nirvāṇa.

n.14Here we follow Stok: gtong pa (“generous”). Degé: ston pa (“teacher”). Peking Yongle and Peking Kangxi: stong pa (“empty”).

n.15The Sanskrit name may be śaṅkhanābha, a word that also appears to refer, although with very limited attestation, to a poisonous root (see Slouber 2017, 167).

n.16Here we follow Choné and Peking Kangxi: e ni. Degé: ai ni.

n.17It is unclear what type of grass or plant this is. One possibility is rohiṇī, which, according to Meulenbeld (1974, p. 596), may refer to a number of plants and herbs. Another is rohītaka, which although a tree and not a plant, refers to Andersonia rohituka and, according to Monier-Williams (1899, p. 890), is also the name of a mountain that is “according to some a stronghold on the borders of Multan.”

n.18It is unclear what bhasabha grass may be.

n.19It is unclear what kind of grass kauśika might refer to. Kuśika, the word from which the former is possibly derived, refers to a number of trees.

n.20Here none of the witnesses that we have consulted mention solitary buddhas. Although this appears to be a transmission error as it contradicts the otherwise unchanging structure of the text, we have chosen not to emend in this case since the Tibetan sources appear to be in total agreement.

n.21Translation tentative. Tibetan reads chu ni gzigs par dbyung bar ’tshal lo. One possibility, assuming the text is correct, is that the gods and other beings are exhorting Pradarśa to extract, presumably by the use of miraculous powers, the Gloomy Forest, which is presently submerged underwater. This is not an entirely improbable possibility since a number of similar “founding myths” exist for other regions in which a Buddhist community was newly established, such as Kashmir, Khotan, and Nepal. For a detailed study of the topic, see Deeg 2016. This interpretation appears less likely, however, in light of the fact that the Gloomy Forest is said to be located on a mountain and that following this passage no further mention is made of water or its drainage.

n.22It is not clear when Pradarśa’s speech ends. It may continue for a few more paragraphs.

n.23We are unable to identify the tree to which this refers.

n.24We cannot be certain which tree is being referred to here with the Tibetan ’bra ho’i shing. It is possibly the brahman tree, which is mentioned in the second chapter of the Hevajratantra, Toh 417 where commentators identify it as bastard teak (Butea monosperma, Skt. palāśa).

n.25We are unable to identify the tree to which this refers.