Notes

n.1Denkarma, folio 295.b.6. See also Herrmann-Pfandt 2008, 20–21, no. 31.

n.2Buswell and Lopez 2013, 133.

n.3Longchen Rabjam, 438.

n.4Pawo Tsuglag Trengwa, 176

n.5Dakpo Tashi Namgyal, 97.

n.6This latter stage in our work made it clear that the Tibetan text is indeed a translation that follows the Chinese very closely. Thus, comparison with the Chinese text made it possible to identify several scribal errors and translation inaccuracies in the Tibetan translation, which we then revised in the translation according to the Chinese.

n.7Tib. yangs read as dbyangs according to the Yongle and Narthang variants of the Kangyur. Comparative Edition, page 191, note 6.

n.8Ch. 世尊人中勝 supports the variant reading of bcom ldan mi yi mchog lags pas.

n.9Here and throughout, the Tib. uses the tern yon tan, generally translated as “qualities” (i.e., Skt. guṇa) to translate Ch. 功德, rendering Skt. puṇya, which is commonly translated as “merit.” The six occurrences of Tib. bsod nams in this text correspond with Ch. 福, which has been explicitly translated here as “merit.” See Stein, 54–56.

n.10This verse is missing in the Tibetan.

n.11In the Tibetan, this line is presented in two lines. We have joined them here to keep the four-line structure of the verses.

n.12Ch. 勇猛善安住 supports the variant Tib. reading of dpa’ zhing bde bar gnas par byed over dar zhing . . . .

n.13Ch. 愛見 suggests that Tib. srid lta may be a misspelling of sred lta.

n.14Ch. 勝堅固 suggests that Tib. rab brtags may be a misspelling of rab brtan.

n.15Following the Ch. variant 無所見, “nothing to be seen,” which makes more sense in context.

n.16Ch. 不與一切法 suggests that Tib. chos thams cad bdag dang ni is a misspelling for chos thams cad dag dang ni.

n.17Ch. 不計諸劫量 supports the reading of bskal pa’i tshad ni mi ’dzin pas over the variant skal ba’i tshad ni mi ’dzin pas. This reading also agrees with the relevant prose passage that is summarized here.

n.18Ch. 無有相待 supports the variant Tib. reading of ltos pa med pa over bltas pa med pa.

n.19Ch. 不可壞 supports the variant reading of theg pa ’di ni mi ’jig over mi ’jigs.

n.20Ch. 乃乘於此乘 supports the variant reading of des ’dod theg pa ’di bzhon ’gyur (“such a one will be permitted to mount this vehicle”) over des gdod theg pa ’di bzhon ’gyur.

n.21This verse is missing in the Tibetan and has been translated from the Chinese.

n.22Ch. 殊勝之誓願 supports the variant reading of khyad par smon lam over khyab pa’i smon lam.

n.23This line does not appear in the Tibetan but has been translated from the Chinese.

n.24Ch. 若有有身見 suggests that ’jig rten lta here is an error for jig tshogs lta, as in the corresponding prose passage above.

n.25Ch. 安樂而出離 suggests that Tib. gyes shes [var. gyis shig] in nges par ’byung bar gyis shes smros may be an error for dgyes shog.

n.26Tib. su read as ni according to the Yongle, Narthang, and Lhasa (Zhol) editions of the Kangyur. Comparative Edition, page 231, note 17.

n.27Tib. phyir mi ldog par mi ’gyur bas read as phyir ldog par ni mi ’gyur bas according to the Lhasa (Zhol) edition of the Kangyur. Comparative Edition, page 237, notes 17, 18.

n.28Tib. mngon par zhon pa read as mngon par zhen pa according to the Yongle, Lithang, Peking, Narthang, Cone, and Lhasa (Zhol) editions of the Kangyur. Comparative Edition, page 241, note 9.

n.29This verse only has three lines in the Tibetan. The final line has been added based on the Chinese.

n.30Tib. ston read as sten according to the Lithang and Cone editions of the Kangyur. Comparative Edition, page 247, note 10.

n.31Ch. 彼念處 suggests that Tib. dran nas de dag may be a misspelling of dran gnas de dag.

n.32This verse is absent in the Tibetan and has been translated from the Chinese.

n.33Ch. 不可壞 suggests that Tib. ’dzin par mi ’gyur may be a misspelling of ’jig par mi ’gyur.

n.34This clause is missing in the Tibetan and has been translated from the Chinese.

n.35Ch. 若厭 supports the variant reading of skyo ba instead of skye ba.

n.36This verse only has three lines in the Tibetan. The fourth line has been translated from the Chinese.

n.37Ch. 求 supports the variant reading of btsal over bsal.

n.38Ch. 怖畏時 supports the variant reading of ’jigs pa’i ’dus over ’jig pa’i ’dus.

n.39The Chinese gives Skt. utpala, padma, kumuda, and puṇḍarīka.

n.40Tib. gyis read as gyi following the Yongle, Kangxi (Peking), Narthang, and Lhasa (Zhol) editions of the Kangyur. Comparative Edition, page 281, note 6.

n.41“Great elephant” (Tib. klu chen; Skt. mahānaga) is a common epithet of the hearers. It is the name of one of the mythical elephants that support the earth. It can also be translated as “Great Serpent.” In either case, the name refers to strength and power.

n.42This verse is missing in the Tibetan and has been translated from the Chinese.

n.43Tib. chos sems read as chog sems following the Narthang and Lhasa (Zhol) editions of the Kangyur. Comparative Edition, page 297, note 9.

n.44Ch. 一小劫 supports the variant reading Tib. bskal pa chung ngu’i bar over bskal pa chung ngu lnga’i bar.

n.45Ch. 不動 suggests that Tib. mig yor is a misspelling for mi g.yo.

n.46Ch. 無親近 suggests that Tib. bstan par bya ba ci yang med should be read as bsten par bya ba . . . .

n.47This verse is missing in the Tibetan and has been translated from the Chinese.

n.48Here we follow the Chinese, which reads 以無邊印印一切法，一切分別而不可得，離分別故. This is easier to understand than the somewhat perplexing Tibetan translation of this line, which reads ’di ltar phyag rgya dpag tu med pas chos thams cad phyag rgyas btab pas rnam par rtog pa thams cad mi dmigs. If rendered literally, the Tibetan would translate as “By the sealing of all phenomena with the boundless seal, they do not apprehend all conceptualization.” The basic sense, made clearer in the Chinese, is that when phenomena are understood to lack any concrete boundaries, there is no basis for differentiating them.

n.49In these two lines, the Tibetan translation renders the same Chinese term 欲 “desire” as the more positive-sounding ’dun pa in the first case and as the more negative ’dod pa in the second case, which does not make much sense as a reading of the Chinese. We have chosen to follow the Chinese and translate these two consistently. Additionally, we translate the "seal of compounding that results from desire" from the Chinese 欲相應和合之印. The Tibetan reads ’dun pa dang / mtshungs par ldan pa’i phyag rgya, which would translate as “the seal that is congruent with desire.” This does not account for the Chinese 和合, which we here render as “compounding.”

n.50The translator is only identified in the Narthang and Lhasa (Zhol) editions of the Kangyur, and only the Narthang edition specifies that it was translated from the Chinese. Pedurma page 356, notes 13–14.