Introduction

i.1The Questions of Gaṅgottarā is a short but sophisticated dialogue that opens with a laywoman named Gaṅgottarā leaving her home in the city of Śrāvastī and going to visit the Buddha Śākyamuni, who is dwelling nearby in Prince Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park. When she arrives, the Buddha asks her, “from where have you come?” and this question sparks a dialogue between them on the true nature of things. They discuss the fact that all things, including Gaṅgottarā herself, are like magical creations, and thus, from the perspective of ultimate truth, no one comes or goes or pursues nirvāṇa. They also discuss the implications of this idea for the ontological status of concepts found in basic Buddhist teaching, such as the five aggregates, dependent arising, rebirth in hells and heavens, even nirvāṇa itself. They then discuss some of the related implications for ethical themes, such as good and bad deeds, virtue, purity and impurity, and the correct practice of the path.

i.2The sūtra is thus noteworthy not only for its teachings, but also for the fact that it features a woman as one of its main characters, and a laywoman at that‍—a laywoman who has the intellectual aptitude and fortitude to engage in a challenging philosophical discussion with the Buddha. Peter Skilling, who has also published a translation of this sūtra into English, compares it with the scene in The Teaching of Vimalakīrti wherein the goddess who lives in Vimalakīrti’s house engages Śāriputra in a sophisticated dialogue that is in some ways comparable to the one in this sūtra. At one point in that sūtra, however, the goddess magically transforms Śāriputra into a goddess to demonstrate her point that all things are like magical illusions. There is no such marvelous demonstration in this sūtra, unless we count the episode at the end wherein the gods produce divine flowers and sandalwood powders with which to worship the Buddha. However, that action does not seem intended to emphasize the idea that all things are like magical illusions. Additionally, the dialogue in the present sūtra is between the Buddha and a human woman, and the gender roles are the reverse of those found in The Teaching of Vimalakīrti, with the Buddha Śākyamuni in the teacher role and the laywoman Gaṅgottarā as the student.

i.3After Gaṅgottarā’s discussion with the Buddha has concluded, he smiles. When Ānanda asks him why, the Buddha states that a thousand tathāgatas of the past have already given this same teaching at this same location in the past to a thousand different laywomen, all named Gaṅgottarā, and that all of these women practiced the path and achieved parinirvāṇa. Skilling points out the remarkable nature of this statement, which has the effect of emphasizing not only that many laywomen have received profound teachings from the Buddha but also that they have achieved nirvāṇa, the goal of the path.

i.4Although the nirvāṇa that these women achieve is not the “unsurpassable and perfect awakening” of a buddha, but rather the “remainderless nirvāṇa” of a “worthy one” (arhat), there is no explicit claim made in the sūtra that this is somehow a lesser accomplishment. That it will be Gaṅgottarā’s future achievement is also suggested by the description of the light rays that issue from the Buddha’s smile, which the canonical version depicts as returning to disappear into the Buddha’s mouth. In other common descriptions of the Buddha’s smile, this indicates that the Buddha is giving a prediction of someone’s future awakening as a disciple (śrāvaka). In this way, the sūtra also combines two of the circumstances in which the Buddha smiles: he describes something that has happened in the same location in the past, and he gives a prediction of someone’s future awakening.

i.5The strength and achievements of the laywoman Gaṅgottarā are also explicitly emphasized in the sūtra in another way. After the Buddha has smiled and given a brief explanation of how the sūtra should be remembered in the future, the narrator mentions a number of monks and nuns as being present in the audience, along with various gods and divine beings. These gods express wonder at the laywoman Gaṅgottarā of the present narrative and they praise her for her ability to converse with the Buddha without becoming weary. They explain this by saying that she has practiced virtue and the holy life for a long time and served many buddhas in the past, and that this is why she has now received this teaching. The sūtra concludes with the Buddha confirming what the gods have said and everyone rejoicing at the Buddha’s words.

i.6There are no known extant Sanskrit witnesses to this sūtra, but translations of it, ostensibly made from Sanskrit manuscripts, are preserved in the Tibetan Kangyur and the Chinese Tripiṭaka. In both the Tibetan and Chinese canons, the sūtra is classified as part of the collection of sūtras known as The Great Heap of Jewels (Mahāratnakūṭa). The Chinese translation has been attributed to Bodhiruci, who was active in the early eighth century and who may have been responsible for compiling the Ratnakūṭa collection as we know it today. A translation of the Chinese is also available in English. The colophon to the canonical Tibetan translation states that the sūtra was translated by Dānaśīla and Jinamitra, along with Yeshé Dé, all of whom flourished in the late eighth or early ninth century. Its relatively early date of translation into Tibetan is also supported by its inclusion in the Denkarma (lhan kar ma), the catalog of Tibetan translations compiled in the ninth century. It is not mentioned in the Phangthangma (’phang thang ma).

i.7No citations or references to this sūtra have as yet been discovered in other canonical works of Buddhist literature, as Skilling has noted. Another complete Tibetan translation of this sūtra can be found among the Dunhuang manuscripts. A comparison reveals that the Tibetan translation in this Dunhuang manuscript would seem to be quite closely related to the Chinese translation by Bodhiruci. In fact, Jonathan Silk has even argued that it was made directly from the Chinese translation. The precise relationship between all three translations requires more detailed analysis, but for the purposes of further comparison and the reader’s edification, we have included translations and transcriptions of many passages from the Dunhuang manuscript in the notes to our present translation from the Kangyur.

i.8For the main text of the canonical Tibetan, we have based our translation on the edition in the Degé Kangyur in consultation with the Pedurma Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma) and the edition in the Stok Palace Kangyur (stog pho brang).