Notes

n.1The Tibetan for “a courtesan’s daughter” (smad ’tshong ma’i bu mo) could also be interpreted as “a girl who was a courtesan.” Her name in Sanskrit is reconstructed from the Tibetan (gser mchog ’od dpal) and not attested in any manuscript. For detailed notes on both points see Braarvig 2010, notes 1 and 2 in the translation text.

n.2We prefer to follow the mainstream Buddhist Sanskrit usage of manuscripts and inscriptions by spelling bodhisatva with a single rather than a double t, the latter being a convention of modern editors. See Bhattacharya (2010). Note that this is also the spelling used in Gāndhārī, as well as in Khotanese, in Tibetan lexicography, and in old Thai documents.

n.3See n.­10 and n.­11.

n.4Many of the citations come from Mañjuśrī’s questioning of the girl, 1.­90 to 1.­120.

n.5Here the Chinese (Taishō 817) adds the following: “All of the bodhisatvas were great beings, having acquired the powers of memory and immeasurable eloquence. Whatever discursive knowledge they might establish was the noble knowledge of the three gates of liberation. Their knowledge was unobstructed in the three worlds. Their concentration was undisturbed, and they had perfected the ten powers and fearlessness.”

n.6See n.­1.

n.7This paragraph is probably a later addition, since it is not found in either of the Chinese versions. In the Chinese versions, the section of the text above, 1.­11 to here, is placed between 1.­19 and 1.­18, which seems to follow more clearly the logic of the narrative.

n.8This topic, found in many Mahāyāna sūtras, is the specific theme of the Dharma­dhātu­prakṛtyasambheda­nirdeśa (“The Teaching on the Indivisible Nature of the Realm of Phenomena,” Toh 52), see Dharmachakra Translation Committee (2018), especially 1.8.

n.9This question and the girl’s answer are frequently cited in the commentarial literature to support the emptiness of the sensory elements as well as of the aggregates.

n.10This sentence is very widely quoted in the commentarial literature, both Indian and Tibetan. The Sanskrit can be found in the Śikṣāsammucaya (Toh 3940), ch. 7 (Bendall 149.5), as well as in the Bodhicaryāvatārapañjikā (Toh 3872), ch. 6 (Bcp 91): pratighaḥ pratigha iti kalpaśatopacitaṃ kuśalamūlaṃ pratihanti tenocyate pratigha iti. The etymological relationships are lost in translation: “anger / hostility (pratigha) is called ‘anger / hostility’ because it destroys (pratihanti) the roots of virtue collected for a hundred eons, and on that account it is called ‘anger / hostility.’ ” As well as being an important doctrinal point, this sentence also constitutes a canonical gloss for the term pratigha, which has the more general meaning of “hostility” or “aversion” compared to the standard Tibetan translation (specified in Mahāvyutpatti S.1945), khong khro ba, “anger.”

n.11The Sanskrit of this question and response are found cited in Kamalaśīla’s Bhāvanākrama III Bhk 235 (Toh 3917): mañjuśrīr uvāca kathaṃ dārike bodhisatvo vijitasaṃgrāmo bhavati | āha yo mañjuśrīr vicīya sarvadharmān nopalabhate.

n.12This stanza is widely quoted in the Tibetan commentarial literature.