Notes

n.1We have translated the Tibetan title according to versions given in the Stok, Narthang, Choné, Lhasa, and Urga editions of the Kangyur and listed in the Denkarma and Pangthangma imperial inventories: ’phags pa ri glang ru lung bstan pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. Note that the Phangthangma has glang tu instead of glang ru. Some editions of the Kangyur consulted in the comparative Pedurma edition omit the term “mountain” (ri) in the title.

n.2Another name by which Khotan is known in some Tibetan texts is kha sha or kha sa, which may be related to the Indic name Kaṃsadeśa. It is not clear where the Tibetan rendering li might have come from, and at some periods of Tibetan history not all scholars seem to have been clear about the country to which that name referred, some assuming it meant Nepal. Dungkar’s dictionary devotes no less than two columns to a discussion of different scholars’ views on the subject; see Dungkar 2002, pp. 1956-7. See also n.­3, and Stein 1907, p. 153.

n.3Indian Buddhist sources, including the Aśokāvadāna and Kunālāvadāna, give differing accounts of a son of Aśoka named Kunāla (or Kustana in the Kharoṣṭhī manuscripts, but according to Brough 1948, p. 334 n.6, following Lévi and Bailey, the indigenous form in Khotanese was Gostana), who‍—after having been blinded as a child by a jealous stepmother, or banished by Aśoka himself as a threat to his reign, or appointed as governor of Gandhāra‍—settled in Khotan as a founding ruler. His name constitutes one postulated origin of the name Khotan, and he is identified with Suckler of the Earth Breast in this and the other Tibetan texts on Khotan. See also n.­28 and n.­29.

n.4Rule by China, lasting from the late seventh to late eighth century ᴄᴇ, intervened between the two periods of Tibetan administration.

n.5See van Schaik 2016, pp. 50-52.

n.6See Snellgrove 1987, vol. 2, pp. 331-43; van Schaik 2016, pp. 51-61.

n.7In earlier centuries, Buddhist texts and other documents in Khotan were in Gāndhārī, written in the Kharoṣṭhī script.

n.8Denkarma, 300.b.7. The Denkarma being usually dated to 812 ᴄᴇ. See also Herrmann-Pfandt 2008, p. 155, no. 281. In the Denkarma, the text is somewhat oddly included under the rubric of sūtras belonging to the lesser vehicle.

n.9Phangthangma, 51.

n.10Stein 1907, p. 185. It is not clear whether Xuanzang encountered the sūtra itself or the summaries of its narrative found in the presumed Khotanese source texts of the Arhat­saṅghavardhana­vyākaraṇa (Toh 4202), li’i yul lung bstan pa (Toh 4202), Sūrya­garbha­paripṛcchā (Toh 257), and Candra­garbha­paripṛcchā.

n.11See Chomden Rikpai Raltri, (1) F.26.a et seq., (2) F.28.a et seq. Surprisingly, Chomden Rikpai Raltri seems to be the only scholar-compiler who mentions Khotanese at all in discussing the origins of the canonical texts. The paucity of references to Khotan may be related to a lack of consensus among scholars about the identity of the country called li yul; see n.­2 and Dungkar 2002, pp. 1956-7.

n.12The version of Toh 4202 preserved in the Degé Tengyur is treated as a single work, but it is believed to comprise two distinct texts, partly on the basis of parallel versions found as separate works in the Dunhuang manuscripts. The “Prophecy” proper (li yul lung bstan pa) is found on folios 168.b–171.b.6, and with no obvious break the “Annals” (li yul chos kyi lo rgyus) from folio 171.b.7 through to the end of the text on folio 188.a.

n.13For an account of the Buddhist “prophetic history” literature, including an analysis of the Khotanese texts mentioned here, see Nattier 1991. One common feature is reference to the canonical Kauśāmbī story of decline following sectarian rivalry after foreign invasion. The present sūtra makes no such reference and is less focused on decline than the other Khotanese texts, making it something of an outlier.

n.14Dharmachakra Translation Committee, trans. The Quintessence of the Sun , Toh 257 (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2022).

n.15The passage starts in the text in the Degé Kangyur, vol. 66 (mdo sde, za) F.236.a et seq. This text, also known as the Sūrya­garbha­paripṛcchā, is part of the Mahāsannipāta or “Great Collection” of texts, and other passages mentioning the same story are found in another work belonging to the same collection, the Candra­garbha­paripṛcchā. This latter work is represented in the Kangyur only by an excerpt (Toh 356) which does not seem to include such passages.

n.16See Stein 1907, p. 160.

n.17Brough 1948 outlines the parallels between the legends of Gośṛṅga and Svayambhū and their sources, while von Rospatt 2009 (pp. 63–64 n58) points out the differences, as well as the problems with Brough’s reflections on how the Newars might have adopted elements of the Gośṛṅga legend from Tibetan sources.

n.18Discussed at some length in Dungkar 2002, pp. 1956-7, and in Brough 1948, p. 338.

n.19Dungkar 2002 (p. 1956) attributes to him the couplet: sa nus bzung ba’i li yul de/ rgya bod mtshams kyi bal po min (“This Liyul of Sustained by the Earth Breast / is not the Nepal on the border of India and Tibet”).

n.20Chopel 2014, p. 56–57. Note that the text he names as li yul lung bstan (“The Khotan Prophecy”) could refer either to this sūtra, or to the text li’i yul lung bstan pa in the Epistles section of the Tengyur (Toh 4202).

n.21See Stein 1907, in particular pp. 185–90.

n.22Thomas 1935, in particular pp. 1–38.

n.23It is not clear what the “place of the mighty great sages” (thub pa drang srong chen po’i gnas) may refer to. The same expression is used below in the following paragraph referring to the Gomasalaganda stūpa; otherwise, the only other mentions in the Kangyur of such a place are (1) in the Vimala­prabhā­paripṛcchā, Toh 168, another text focusing on Khotan (see i.­9) in which it also seems to be an epithet of the Gomasalaganda stūpa and perhaps other sacred Khotanese sites; and (2) in the setting of The Ākāśagarbha Sūtra (Toh 260) in which it is described as being on Khalatika mountain.

n.24The Vaiśalī region lies to the north of Rājagṛha, on the other side of the Ganges.

n.25dge ba. This is probably derived from the name Khema (the equivalent of Sanskrit kṣema) for Khotan, as found in the Kharoṣṭhī texts. See Thomas 1938.

n.26Reading bdag nyid kyis based on K and Y. S and D: bdag nyid kyi.

n.27Translation tentative. Tibetan: bzlas brjod.

n.28This sentence might seem confusing but is probably a very terse reference to the complex story told in other texts, notably the Kuṇālāvadāna, about Aśoka’s son and potential heir Kuṇāla who, blinded and / or banished to Gandhāra, later introduced Indian culture to Khotan. The name Kuṇāla has also been rendered Kustana, and the indigenous form in Khotan may have been Gostana. The identification of Kustana or Gostana with Suckler of the Earth Breast, and the notion that at some point in his youth he may have been adopted by the Chinese king is set out in the Tengyur text li’i yul lung bstan pa (Kaṃsadeśa­vyākaraṇa, Toh 4202), folios 174b.6–175.b.2; for an English translation, see Thomas 1935, pp. 97–100. See also n.­3 and n.­29.

n.29This a reference to the “folk etymology” whereby the name Khotan is derived from the Sanskrit name of Suckler of the Earth Breast, Kustana or Gostana. See Stein 1907, vol.1, p. 153.

n.30Translated based on S: lha thams cad nga la phyag ’tshal. D: lha thams cad la phyag ’tshal.

n.31D: ko shed. S: ku shed.

n.32Translation tentative. Tibetan: thor khong du byas pa.

n.33D: de’i dge ’dun las mnod par bya’o. S: de’i dge ’dun la mchod par bya’o.

n.34Translated based on K and S: phyi se. D: pi se.

n.35D: chos kyi spyod pa. S: spyod pa.

n.36Tibetan chad pa, which could also mean “punishment.”

n.37Translated based on S: chang khyu. D: chang byu.

n.38D: spyod yul. S: spyod lam.

n.39D: che thang du rgud par. S: tshe thung du rgud par.

n.40Translated based on S: ’jol nyog. D: ’jol nyag.