Notes

n.1Schuster 1981, p. 39, makes a similar point, and also provides a brief synopsis of the Chinese translation of this sūtra.

n.2Skilling 2021, pp. 345–46. This episode can be found at milestone 6.­12-6.­43 of the 84000 translation of The Teaching of Vimalakīrti.

n.3For more on the Buddha’s smile, see Fiordalis 2021.

n.4See here for more information on The Great Heap of Jewels.

n.5For more information, see the entry on Taishō 310 in the Chinese Buddhist Canonical Attributions database, and the entry on K 22(31) in Lewis R. Lancaster’s Descriptive Catalogue of the Korean Buddhist Canon. See also Schuster 1981, p. 26, and Silk 2019, p. 230.

n.6Chang 1991, pp. 37–40.

n.7Herrmann-Pfandt 2008, p. 32.

n.8This manuscript is classified as Pelliot Tibétain 89 and is available here on Gallica, the digital library of the Bibliothèque National de France. Pelliot Tibétain 89 consists of two sūtras, the first of which is a version of the Maitreyaparipṛcchā (cf. Toh 86), and the second of which is a version of The Questions of Gaṅgottarā. The latter begins on folio ta-2, line 2.

n.9See Silk 2014, pp. 31–33. which contains several examples to support his argument; also see Silk 2019, p. 233.

n.10The Dunhuang manuscript says it a bit more simply: “At that time, there was a laywoman named Gaṅgottarā in the city of Śrāvastī…” (de’i tshe grong khyer mnyan yod na | dge bsnyen ma gang ga’i mchog ces bya ba zhig yod de | …).

n.11Degé: de nas dge bsnyen ma gang gA’i mchog mnyan yod nas byung nas rgyal bu rgyal byed kyi tshal mgon med zas sbyin gyi kun dga’ ra ba ga la ba der song ste… Again, the Dunhuang manuscript reads a bit more simply, “She came out from her dwelling and went to see the Blessed One” (de gnas nas phyir byung ste | bcom ldang ’das ga la ba der song ste | …). Similarly, the English translation of the Chinese in Chang 1991, 37, has, “Gaṅgottarā came from her dwelling in Śrāvastī to see the Buddha.”

n.12Degé has bcom ldan ’das kyis mkhyen bzhin du… (literally “the Blessed One, though he already knew…”). The Dunhuang manuscript also has the phrase mkhyen bzhin du, “though he already knew,” but this part of the line is absent in the Chinese version.

n.13Degé: bka’ stsal pa | gang gA’i mchog de bzhin no. By contrast, the Dunhuang manuscript reads, “The Blessed One said, ‘It is so, it is so. It is just as you have said…” (bcom ldan ’das kyis bka’ stsal pa’ | de de bzhin no | de de bzhin de | khyod kyis ci skyad smras pa bzhin no |…). Chang 1991 has “The Blessed One said, ‘Yes, indeed. What you say is true.’ ” (37).

n.14Degé: sprul pa ni; Dunhuang: sprul pa’i skyes bu gang yin ba de ni, “a being that is magically created.”

n.15The Dunhuang manuscript reads differently: “If I saw my body as different from a magical illusion or a magically created being, then I would go to a good place of rebirth or a bad place of rebirth or realize complete nirvāṇa, but since I see no difference between my body and a magical illusion or a magically created being…” (bdag gi lus sgyu ma dang | sprul pa dang tha dad par mthong na ni | dge ’gro dang | ngan ’gror mchi zhing mya ngan las ’das pa yang mngon du bgyid pa zhig na | bdag gi lus sgyu ma dang | sprul pa dang | tha myi dad par mthong bas…).

n.16This sentence is not in the Dunhuang manuscript or in the Chinese as reflected in Chang 1991.

n.17Degé: mya ngan las ’das pa’i dbyings; the Dunhuang manuscript has mya ngan las ’das pa’i ngo bo nyid, “the true nature of nirvāṇa.” On this passage, see also Silk 2014.

n.18The Dunhuang manuscript reads, “I see that my own body also has the same nature” (bdag gi lus kyang de bzhin du mthong lags so).

n.19Degé: gang gA’i mchog khyod ci yongs su mya ngan las ’das pa la yang dag par ma zhugs sam. The Dunhuang manuscript here reads: “Are you not inclined toward the state of nirvāṇa?” (ci khyod mya ngan las ’das pa’i dbyings la gzhol bar myi byed dam).

n.20The Dunhuang manusript reads differently: “The true nature of that which is not born is nirvāṇa” (kye ba myed pa gang yin ba de nyid ni mya ngan las ’das pa yin no). Once again, the Dunhuang manuscript is similar to the Chinese as reflected in Chang 1991, 38.

n.21The Dunhuang manuscript reads differently here: “Furthermore, Blessed One, it would be as if one magically created being were to ask another magically created being, ‘Are you not inclined toward the state of nirvāṇa?’ In that case, what would be the answer?” (gzhan yang bcom ldan ’das ’di lta ste | dper na sprul ba’i skyes bu zhig gis sprul pa’i skyes bu la ci khyod mya ngan las ’das pa’i dbyings la gzhol bar myi byed dam zhes de skad rmas par gyur na | des ci skad lan ’debs par gyur lags |).

n.22The Dunhuang manuscript agrees here with the canonical Tibetan translation. Chang 1991 reads “A magically produced being has no mental attachments” (38), but the Chinese 此所問者無有攀緣 (“this question does not have an objective basis”) clearly matches the Tibetan, so we would disagree with Chang’s reading. For the Chinese version of this text, see Henghe shang youpoyi hui 恒河上優婆夷會 (Gaṅgottara­pari­pṛcchā), Taishō 310(31) (CBETA; SAT).

n.23The Dunhuang manuscript reads differently here: “Has this question been asked because there is some objective basis on the part of the Tathāgata?” (ci de bzhin gshegs pa la dmyigs pa mnga’ ba’i slad du bka’s rmas pa’ ’di rmas lags sam). Chang 1991 has, “Does the Tathāgata’s very question stem from some mental attachment” (38).

n.24The Dunhuang manuscript appears to read both similarly and differently from both the canonical Tibetan and the Chinese translation here: “Even though there is no objective basis to what I have said, nevertheless this question has been asked in order to bring to maturity those noble sons and noble daughters who are gathered in this assembly” (ngas smras pa la dmyigs pa yod pa ma yin mod kyi | ’on kyang ’khor ’di na yod pa’i rigs kyi bu dang | rigs kyi bu mo dag yongs su smyin par bya ba’i phyir | ’dri ba ’di dris pa yin no). Chang 1991 reads, “I raised the question because there are in this assembly good men and good women who can be brought to maturity. I am free of mental attachment” (38).

n.25Degé: gang gA’i mchog de bzhin gshegs pas ni chos nyid ces bya ba yang mngon par rdzogs par sangs ma rgyas na gang (Degé, Stok, etc.; yang Phugdrag) de las byung ba’i chos yongs su mya ngan las ’das pa la gnas pa lta ga la yod. The translation above assumes de las byung ba’i chos and yongs su mya ngan las ’das pa are not in apposition. However, it is also possible to interpret them as being in apposition, with gang thereby modifying the latter, in which case the translation could run as follows: “If the Tathāgata had not completely awakened even to what is called the true nature of things, Gaṅgottarā, how could he remain in the parinirvāṇa that is the thing (dharma) that arises from it?” Skilling 2021, pp. 348–49, translates this sentence somewhat differently: “If the Tathāgata had not fully awakened to the true nature, Gaṅgottarā, then in his final nirvāṇa there would be a remainder of the dharmas arising from it.” The passage could perhaps be rendered in other ways, too. The Dunhuang manuscript also reads quite differently here, even while some of the component terms and phrases seem to be present, such as lta yod par ga la ’gyur: “For the Tathāgata even the names of such things do not have an objective basis, much less the existence of the things and of those who are inclined toward nirvāṇa” (de bzhin gshegs pa ni chos de dag gi mying yang dmyigs par myi ’gyur na | chos rnams dang | mya ngan las ’da’s pa la gzhol ba de dag lta yod par ga la ’gyur). Chang 1991 translates the Chinese here as follows: “Because the Tathāgata knows that even the names of things are inapprehensible, let alone the things themselves or those who seek nirvāṇa” (38).

n.26The first part of this sentence, in which Gaṅgottarā simply restates the preceding sentence (see n.­25), is not found in the Dunhuang manuscript or in the Chinese as reflected in Chang 1991. In the Dunhuang manuscript, Gaṅgottarā says only, “If that is so, why then does one produce an accumulation of the roots of virtue for the sake of awakening?” (gal te de ltar na | ci ltar byang chub kyi ched du dge ba’i rta ba’i stsogs par bgyid lags).

n.27The Dunhuang manuscript says, “Bodhisattvas do not have any objective basis and neither do the roots of virtue, because they have no thought at the time even that something is accumulated and similarly also at the time that something is not accumulated” (byang cub sems dpa’ rnams dang | dge ba’i rtsa ba de dag kyang dmyigs su myed de | bstsags pa nyid kyi tshe sems myed pa’i phyir | bstsags pa ma yin ba’i tshe yang de bzhin no).

n.28The Dunhuang manuscript says, “What meaning is indicated by saying that there is no thought?” (sems ma mchis pa zhes bka’ stsal pa des don gang zhig ston par mdzad lags).

n.29The Dunhuang manuscript says here, “This teaching can neither be understood by thinking, nor can it be attained by thinking” (chos ’di ni bsam ba dag gis shes par ’gyur ba yang ma yin la | bsam ba dag gis ’thob par ’gyur ba yang ma yin no).

n.30Though it is rendered a bit differently from the canonical Tibetan translation, the Dunhuang manuscript has a similar sense here: ’di la sems kyang dmyigs par myi ’gyur na | sems las byung ba’i chos lta smos kyang ci dgos te.

n.31The Dunhuang manuscript says here, “In this way, the mind’s very lack of an objective basis is what is taught as the state of the inconceivable” (’di ltar sems dmyigs su myed pa gang yin pa de nyid la bsams gyis myi khyab pa’i gnas shes bstan ste).

n.32The last few sentences of the canonical Tibetan translation are conveyed in the Dunhuang manuscript with much the same meaning: “The state of the inconceivable is neither attained nor fully realized; it is neither afflicted nor purified. Why is this? It is because, as the Tathāgata always teaches, all things, being the same as space, are unobstructed” (bsam kyis myi khyab pa’i gnas de dag la ni thob pa yang myed | mgnon par rtogs pa yang myed de | kun nas nyon mongs pa yang ma yin | rnam par byang ba yang ma yin no | de ci’i phyir zhes na | de bzhin gshegs pas rtag du chos thams cad ni nam mkha’ dang mtshungs te | togs pa myed pa’i phyir ro zhes gsungs pas so).

n.33The above paragraph is rendered in very much the same way in the Dunhuang manuscript, though it specifies “the twelvefold chain of dependent arising” (rten cing ’brel bar ’byung ba bcu gnyis), rather than simply “dependent arising,” and it does not include the phrase “the aggregates.”

n.34After the sentence, “…I use the expression ‘form,’ but form has no objective basis at all,” the Dunhuang manuscript says simply, “and the same is true with [the other expressions] up to nirvāṇa” (mya ngan las ’da’s pa zhes bya ba’i bar du yang de bzhin no).

n.35In the Dunhuang manuscript, this whole paragraph is rendered more simply: “Furthermore, just as water has no basis in a mirage (smyug [sic] rgyu la chu myi dmyigs pa), in the same way I use the expressions from ‘forms’ up to ‘nirvāṇā,’ even though it is the same [with them].”

n.36The Dunhuang manuscript reads differently here: “Gaṅgottarā, those who are established in the practice of the holy life in accordance with my teachings, and regard all things in the right way as having no objective basis, are the first ones who should be called those who are established in the practice of the holy life in the right way” (gang ga’i mchog gang gis nga’i bstan pa las tshangs par spyod pa mngon bar bsgrub pa de dag thams cad dmyigs su myed par yang dag par rjes su mthong na | gdod yang dag par tshangs par spyod pa mngon bar bsgrub pa zhes bya’o).

n.37The Dunhuang manuscript reads a bit differently here: “It should not be said that those with self-conceit, who declare that an objective basis exists, dwell in the practice of the holy life in the right way” (mngon ba’i nga rgyal can dmyigs pa yod par ston pas na | yang dag par tshangs par spyod pa la gnas pa zhes myi bya ste). This may help to make more sense of the terse phrase in the canonical translation, gnas dmigs nas, rendered in the main translation as “while thinking that their abiding by it has an objective basis.”

n.38The Dunhuang manuscript continues, “When they hear such a profound teaching as this one, those with self-conceit feel extremely frightened and become filled with a great doubt (the tsom [sic] chen po). As a result, I declare, they do not become free from birth, old age, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, suffering, and distress.”

n.39The Dunhuang manuscript reads, “After my parinirvāṇa…” (nga yongs su mya ngan las ’da’s pa’i ’ong du).

n.40The Dunhuang manuscript says, “this kind of profound teaching on cutting off the continuous stream of saṃsāra” (’khor ba rgyun gcod pa).

n.41The Dunhuang manuscript says, “some fools, due to the force of abiding by their wicked beliefs, will hate these individuals who teach the Dharma, and they will thereby conceive the intent to do them harm. As a result of these causes and conditions, they will fall into the hells” (blun po kha cig lda ba ngan pa la gnas pa’i dbang gyis chos ’chad pa’i gang zag dag la zhe sdang gis gnod sems skyed pas na | rgu dang rkyen des sems can dmyal ba rnams su ltung bar ’gyur ro).

n.42The Dunhuang manuscript says, “When the Blessed One speaks of the teaching on cutting off the continuous stream of saṃsāra, what does it mean to say ‘cutting off the continuous stream of saṃsāra’?” (bcom ldan ’das kyis ci skad du ’khor ba rgyun god pa’i chos shes gang gsungs pa de don gang gi slad du ’khor ba rgyun gcod pa zhes bgyi lags).

n.43The Dunhuang manuscipt says, “In this regard, that which should be spoken of as cutting off the continuous stream of saṃsāra is as follows: since that which is the ultimate endpoint and something (chos) of the state of the inconceivable cannot be destroyed or disintegrated, for this reason, I have declared it to be the teaching (chos) of cutting off the continuous stream of saṃsāra” (de la ’khor ba rgyun gcod pa zhes bya ba ni ’di lta ste | yang dag pa’i mtha’ dang | bsam gyis myi khyap pa’i dbyings kyi chos gang yin ba de ni dbyug cing gzhig du myed pas | de’i phyir ’khor ba’i rgyun gcod pa’i chos shes bstan to). In both the Dunhuang manuscript and the canonical Tibetan, the Buddha’s explanation here would seem to rely on the dual sense of the meaning of the word dharma (chos) as both a phenomenon and the teaching.

n.44The Dunhuang manuscript reads similarly, except that fewer colors of light are mentioned and the names of them are slightly different: blue, golden yellow (gser po), red, rose madder, and water crystalline (chu shal). Also, significantly, the rays of light are said to disappear “on the top of the Tathāgata’s head” (de bzhin gshegs pa’i dbu’i gtsug du).

n.45The Dunhuang manuscript says, “Then, when he had seen such a thing (dngos po de lta bu dag mthong nas), venerable Ānanda had the thought, ‘the tathāgata, the worthy one, the fully awakened buddha does not display a smile without cause or condition,’ and so he placed his robe over one shoulder, knelt down on his right knee, joined his palms together in a gesture of respect toward the Blessed One, and said this: ‘What is the cause, what is the condition, that the Blessed One has displayed a smile?’”

n.46Degé: ngas mngon par shes te; the Dunhuang manuscript says, “I remember directly…” (ngas mngon bar dran te).

n.47The Dunhuang manuscript says, “In a time in the past (sngon ’dass [sic] pa’i dus), in this place a thousand tathāgatas taught a teaching of this kind. At the head of each of the assemblies [to which it was taught] there was a laywoman named Gaṅgottarā. After hearing this teaching, all those laywomen and those in the assemblies went forth and achieved parinirvāṇa‍—that is, the nirvāṇa without any remainder (lhag ma myed pa’i mya ngan las ’da’s pa).”

n.48In the Dunhuang manuscript, the Buddha calls it “Stainless Purity” (dri ma myed pa’i rnam par dag pa).

n.49An almost identical paragraph appears in the Dunhuang manuscript.

n.50This sentence does not appear in the Dunhuang manuscript.

n.51The Dunhuang manuscript also has a colophon that says it is part of the one hundred thousand chapters of The Noble Great Heap of Jewels, and gives its title as “The Meeting with the Laywoman Gaṅgottarā” (dge bsnyen ma gang ga’i mchog gi ’dus pa).