Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

ལས་ཀྱ་རྣམ་པར་འགྱར་བ་ཞས་བྱ་བའ་ཆས་ཀྱ་གཞང notes: Notes

Transformation of Karma notes

Language
English

Notes

notes.1

1. The latter designation—which is also the actual title of some of the texts or recensions belonging to this group of texts, named after one of the protagonists of these sūtras, Śuka (Pāli: Subha), the son of Taudeya—originated with Yamada Ryūjō, who surveyed all the texts belonging to this group in 1935; see Kudo 2004, viii. For a synopsis of all the texts that constitute the Śukasūtra class, see Kudo 2004, Introduction and specifically pp. xx–xxii (Bibliography and Abbreviations); see also Kudo 2008, 366–68.

notes.2

2. Tibetan: mdo sde, sa; theg dman gyi mdo mang. For a full list of the text’s location, classification, and context in the different Kangyur editions, see Resources for Kanjur and Tenjur Studies, online database by the Tibetan Manuscripts Project Vienna (TMPV), located at the Department of South Asian, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, University of Vienna, accessed 2 December, 2017, http://www.rkts.org/cat.php?id=339&typ=1.

notes.3

3. See Bruno Galasek-Hul and Lama Kunga Thartse Rinpoche, trans., The Exposition of Karma (Karma­vibhaṅga), Toh 338 (84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2023).

notes.4

4. Although Transformation of Karma is thematically closely related to the longer (Mahā-)Karma­vibhaṅga, it is quite different in terms of style and lexicon. Since these are two essential criteria for the determination of a text’s school-affiliation, we avoid jumping to conclusions about its potential school-affiliation.

notes.5

5. Cf. Priestley 1999, ch. 5: “The Reality of the Pudgala,” specifically p. 83.

notes.6

6. See Bareau 1955, app. I, 289.

notes.7

7. For a list of the Chinese translations, see Kudo 2004, Bibliography, p. xx.

notes.8

8. See the chapter concordance in Kudo 2008, 370–72. Mr. Yi Ding, who kindly consulted us on the Chinese translations, suggests that Taishō 80 may be an even closer match than Taishō 81. Another interesting text, extant in Chinese, Tibetan, and Sogdian, the Sutra of the Causes and Effects of Actions (shan wo yin guo jing; Taishō vol. 85, no. 2881), although very different in content, shows some structural resemblance to Transformation of Karma (see MacKenzie 1970). It was, probably like the majority of Buddhist literature in Sogdian, translated from the Chinese.

notes.9

9. The Mvy lists Sanskrit vipariṇatam as translation equivalent of Tibetan rnam par ’gyur ba (cf. Sakaki 7315). Cf. also the Sanskrit equivalents for rnam par ’gyur ba provided by Negi, 3047. Negi (3047, II, 6.) cites the title of this work as the only instance of rnam par ’gyur ba to render Sanskrit vibhaṅga. Perhaps the Tibetan title could also be interpreted as meaning “The Dharma Scripture on the Ripening of Karma,” if we interpreted Tibetan rnam par ’gyur ba as non-standard rendering of Sanskrit pariṇāma or pariṇāmana (see BHSD, s.v. pariṇāma and parṇāmana). In Sanskrit, pariṇāma seems to cover two distinct lexical fields: change and transference. The concept of transference of merit (Skt. puṇyapariṇāma) played an important role in the practices of Central Asian lay Buddhists, especially in the context of pilgrimage and pilgrimage sites (among the Uyghurs in particular; see Jens Wilkens, “Buddhismus bei den Türkischen Völkern in Zentralasien,” in Hutter, Manfred, Der Buddhismus II (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016), 482.

notes.10

10. Cf., e.g., the Mvy, s.v. vibhaṅga (Sakaki 1372, 1425). Cf. also the work immediately preceding this one in the Kangyur, the Karma­vibhaṅga (Toh 338). Sanskrit vibhaṅga is also found rendered as rnam par dbye ba in Tibetan, probably hinting at a confusion or the interchangeable usage of Sanskrit vibhaṅga and Sanskrit/Pāli vibhajana, vibhāga, meaning “division,” “classification,” “distinction,” “distribution,” or “detailing.” Cf. also Edgerton, BHSD, s.v. vibhaṅga. In the old canonical texts of Buddhism in Pāli, the opposite term of vibhaṅga is uddesa: “indication in outline” (CPD, s.v. uddesa 2.). Thus vibhaṅga was understood as detailed explanation of a teaching given in outline, and later may have taken on the sense of commentary and developed into a genre designation.

notes.11

11. See Resources for Kanjur and Tenjur Studies: https://www.istb.univie.ac.at, accessed 2 December, 2017. Similarly, the only reference in Negi’s Tibetan-Sanskrit dictionary (Negi, 1259) for Tibetan chos kyi gzhung (Skt. dharmagrantha) is to the title of Toh 339.

notes.12

12. The Sanskrit word vibhaṅga can also mean “classification,” etc. Thus, the words chosen by L. Feer (Feer 1883, 252: partage) and Sylvain Lévi (Lévi 1932: classification) in the titles of their translations.

notes.13

13. See The Exposition of Karma , Toh 338.

notes.14

14. This is an eighteenth-century copy of a manuscript kept in the Shelkar monastery; it is also known as the London Kangyur or British Museum Kangyur after its current location.

notes.15

15. See Resources for Kanjur and Tenjur Studies, accessed 4 December, 2017, http://www.rkts.org/cat.php?id=339&typ=1.”

notes.16

16. See Herrmann-Pfandt 2008, 155: No. [282].

notes.17

17. See The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (website), last accessed May 21, 2020, https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=karma). Equally problematic are the definitions of the individual senses themselves, and that the Dictionary entry treats the Buddhist and the Hindu understanding of the term karma indiscriminately.

notes.18

18. Cattāri kammāni. Atth’ āvuso kammaṃ kaṇhaṃ kaṇha-vipākaṃ. Atth’ āvuso kammaṃ sukkaṃ sukkavipākaṃ. Atth’ āvuso kammaṃ kaṇha-sukkaṃ kaṇha-sukka-vipākaṃ. Atth’ āvuso kammaṃ akaṇhaṃ asukkaṃ akaṇha-asukka-vipākaṃ, kammakkhayāya saṃvattati (DN III, 230). Trans. by Walshe 1995, 492.

notes.19

19. Abhidh-k-bh(P), 234,26–235,3, ad AKK 4.59 c,d: kṛṣṇa­śuklādibhe­dena punaḥ karma caturvidham || 4.59 || asti karma kṛṣṇaṃ kṛṣṇavipākam | asti karma śuklaṃ śuklavipākam | asti karma kṛṣṇaśuklaṃ kṛṣṇa­śuklavipākam |asti karmākṛṣṇa­maśuklama­vipākam | yat tatkarma karma­kṣayāya saṃvartata iti |. Trans. by Pruden 1988–91, 635.

notes.20

20. Trans. by Pruden 1988–91, 635.

notes.21

21. See The Exposition of Karma , Toh 338.

notes.22

22. See Kudo 2004, ix, xx–xxi.

notes.23

23. See Simon 1970. This version may be identical with the title no. 280: las rnam par ’byed pa chung ngu in the Denkarma (Tib. lhan kar ma) catalog (Herrmann-Pfandt 2008, 154). It is represented by the Tibetan translation H343 in the Lhasa Kangyur (despite the misleading entries in the dkar chag), S287 in the Stok Palace manuscript Kangyur, B346 in the Berlin manuscript Kangyur, and N784 in the Narthang Kangyur’s supplementary (kha skong) volume, as well as by a Dunhuang version (PT944). 84000 hopes to add an English translation to this collection in future.

notes.24

24. Simon 1970, 161. These characteristics seem to be shared by all the witnesses of the of the Karma­vibhaṅga mentioned above in .

notes.25

25. Maggi 1995, 20.

notes.26

26. Lévi 1932, 235, n. 1: “Cf. Kandjour, Mdo XXVI, 468a, texte très voisin, mais différent.”

notes.27

27. Kanakura, Yenshô, Munetada Suzuki, and Hakuju Ui. 1934. A Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons (Bkaḥ-ḥgyur and Bstan-ḥygur) (= Chibetto daizōkyō sōmokuroku). Sendai: Tôhoku Imperial Univ., p. 63, no. 339: que 闕, translator unknown.

notes.28

28. For translations and short comments on these terms, see glossary entries: “ignorant of the Dharma,” “ghost,” “monks and nuns.”

notes.29

29. Equivalent to Skt. “tathāgata.”

notes.30

30. See McKeown 2010, 1–96 (for a discussion of yang dag par gshegs pa, see pp. 10, 19, 23, 24, 29).

notes.31

31. Mr. Yi Ding states the following in two emails to the translator: “Based on my impression, I don’t think that anyone in Japan has raised the question whether D 339 [the las kyi rnam par ’gyur ba zhes bya ba’i chos kyi gzhung] is a translation from China, which might indicate that there are no obvious giveaways. Also, Ch-1, Ch-2 and Ch-3 are too different from D 339; Ch-4 and Ch-6 were translated into Chinese at a very late stage when there was virtually no known cultural exchange between Tibet and China,” (May 29, 2017), and “[…] among the Chinese translations, Taishō no. 80 is the closest to D 339 but not close enough for a direct relationship. And I totally agree that D 339’s language is pre-reform and very idiosyncratic,” (June 1, 2017). For a complete list of the Chinese translations, see Kudo 2004, Bibliography, p. xx. We are very grateful to Mr. Yi Ding (Stanford University) for providing us with his comments and information about the Chinese translations as well as the Japanese scholarly literature on the group of (Mahā-)Karma­vibhaṅga texts, in particular the works written in Japanese by Noriyuki Kudo (see bibliography).

notes.32

32. Cf. Apple & Apple 2017, 83: “Cristina Scherrer-Schaub (2002) has proposed that Tibetan translation practices began as early as 763 C.E. with the arrival to Tibet of the Indian scholar Śāntarakṣita.”

notes.33

33. See Herrmann-Pfandt 2008, 155. The catalog lists a text with an almost identical title (las kyi rnam par ’gyur ba bstan gyi gzhung) and the same length (270 ślokas and 1 bam po correspond almost exactly to the 23 folios of Toh 339 in the Degé edition.

notes.34

34. The reader should keep in mind that these dates should not be accepted without skepticism, for much of the early history of Tibet and the history of the transmission of Buddhism to Tibet remains obscure, due to a lack of reliable historical sources. Also, we should not forget that this does not tell us anything about the history of the transmission of the Karma­vibhaṅga­nāma­dharma­grantha before its translation into Tibetan, let alone the history and geographical origin of its composition.

notes.35

35. See Feer 1883, pp. 250–79.

notes.36

36. Sylvain Lévi mentioned in the introduction to his edition and translation of the MahāKarma­vibhaṅga that Feer’s translation contained some “grave errors” (Lévi 1932, 4).

notes.37

37. According to D, S ’di skad bdag gis thos pa dus gcig na|. V.l. Y, K, L ’di skad bdag gis thos pa’i dus gcig na|.

notes.38

38. According to Feer, part one starts at this point.

notes.39

39. This form of the name according to D shu ko; vv.ll., S sho ko; L sho go.

notes.40

40. Part of ancient Indian etiquette when interacting with prominent and respected religious leaders was to never position oneself directly in front of the person, but to stand or sit slightly to one side. Also, when leaving, one would first circumambulate the teacher clockwise, i.e., with one’s right shoulder toward the teacher, before leaving from the side.

notes.41

41. A, D gau ta ma khyod la bdag cung shas shig [C cung shes shig] ’dri na; S, Z go’u ta ma khyod la | bdag cung shas shig ’dri na |. The spelling of the quantifier cung shas here is unusual, and we have not seen it elsewhere so far (usual spelling is cung zad or chung zad). However, all Kangyur editions that we have consulted use this spelling. Moreover, the entire sentence strikes us as rather unusual in this context of a sūtra introduction.

notes.42

42. Tibetan kye here probably translates the Middle Indic/Buddhist Sanskrit expression bho (contracted form of the vocative of Sanskrit bhagavant; cf. PED, s.v. bho: “sir, friend, you, my dear [… ].”

notes.43

43. Tibetan ngan pa in this context means “ignorant” or being without knowledge or understanding of the Dharma and—more specifically in this context of the teachings on karmic cause and effect and Buddhist ethics—knowing which actions to choose and which to avoid, including respect for and belief in those who possess such knowledge and understanding. L. Feer (1883, 254), in accord with the context, translates this as C’est par les actes qu’on est dans le mal de (l’ignorance). See below for the detailed account of this category.

notes.44

44. The Tibetan is unclear (D 299.a,6: kye gau ta ma las kyi rnam par smin pa gang gi phyir na sems can sna mang por ’gyur); more literally perhaps “Sir Gautama, [how] do beings become varied due to karmic ripening?” The Tibetan syntax bears some resemblance to a corresponding sentence in the Sanskrit Mh-karmav (Lévi 1932, 29): kasya nu bho gautama karmaṇo vipākenedaṃ satvānāṃ nānātvaṃ prajñāyate (“How, sir Gautama, can one understand the apparent diversity of human beings in terms of (or by way of) karmic results of actions?”), which has guided our translation here.

notes.45

45. This translates a unique version of the otherwise familiar stock phrase found at the opening of many sūtras (khyod nyon la dge bar shin tu yid la zung shig). L. Feer translates the Tibetan dge bar (shin tu yid la zung shig) literally as “virtuously” (cf. Feer 1883, 253). However, it is probably just equivalent to the Sanskrit sādhu- or Chinese shan zai 善(哉) here of the commonly found stock phrase. Cf. Mvy. (Sakaki 6315) for the standard rendering of the common Sanskrit version of this phrase: dena hi śṛṇu sādhu ca suṣṭhu ca manasikuru (Tib. de’i phyir legs par rab tu nyon la yid la zungs shig).

notes.46

46. Tibetan de’i phyir (Skt. tena hi?), “now then,” which Feer (1883, 253) has translated as “I will speak on this subject” (Je vais parler sur ce sujet).

notes.47

47. D tshe rabs kyi las las gyur te; S, L have a sentence terminating particle instead: las gyur to.

notes.48

48. The diction of this paragraph is challenging, and our translation is uncertain. Due to the similarity of this passage with another variant of this group of terms in Karma­vibhaṅga (Toh 338, ) and in order to make the text more intelligible, we tentatively assume that tshe rabs kyi las las gyur te was supposedly intended to render Skt. karmasvaka, sbyin pa’i rnams kyang las Skt. karmadāyāda, skye ba’i rnams kyang las Skt. karmayoni, so sor rgyu ba yang las Skt. karmabandhu, and sems can rnams ni las kyis rnam par bsgyur Skt. karmapratisaraṇa. This rendition here seems to be closer to the parallel version in the Pāli canon (MN III, 203,4–6): Kammassakā, māṇava, sattā kammadāyādā kammayonī kammabandhū kammapaṭisaraṇā. Kammaṃ satte vibhajati yad idaṃ hīnappaṇītatāyāti. Translation Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi 2009, 1053, paragraph 4: “Student, beings are owners of their actions, heirs of their actions; they originate from their actions, are bound to their actions, have their actions as their refuge. It is action that distinguishes beings as inferior and superior.” Cf. the standard renditions in Mvy of these otherwise well-known terms: Tib. las bdag gyir byed pa renders Skt. karmasvakaḥ (Sakaki 2313); las kyi skye gnas pa renders karmayoniḥ (Sakaki 2315); las kyi bgo skal la spyod pa renders karmadāyādaḥ (Sakaki 2314); las brten par bya ba renders karmapratisaraṇam/karmapratiśaraṇam (Sakaki 2316). Feer (1883, 253) translates: “Manava, les êtres provenant des actes de leurs existences (antérieures), le don et tout ce qui s’y rattache étant un acte, la naissance et tout ce qui s’y rattache étant un acte, la cause individuelle de chaque être étant un acte, Manava, les êtres se transforment par l’effet des actes.”

notes.49

49. We have retained the agricultural metaphor here. An alternative translation of Tibetan las rnam par smin pa’i ’bras bu may be: “the result of one’s acts” or “karmic punishment and reward” (cf. The Hundred Deeds (Toh 340). A slightly different translation is offered by L. Feer (1883, 253): “It follows that, according to the good, the evil or the in-between (good and bad), the varieties of beings are associated with many different kinds of acts, with many different kinds of sufferings, with many different kinds of views; I will say, for example: the [respective] fruit results from [either] a black act or a white act. Thus, Manava, by the effect of black acts, a being is born (goes) in a bad direction, such as Narakas, Animals, Yaxas (sic), roamers (?), Asuras, etc. Those who have done white acts are reborn among gods or humans.” (Il s’ensuit que, selon le bien, le mal ou l’entre-deux (du bien et du mal), beaucoup d’espéces d’ètres sont liés à beaucoup d’espéces d’actes, à beaucoup d’espéces de douleurs, à beaucoup d’espéces de vues; je veux dire, par exemple: le fruit résultant d’un acte noir et d’un acte blanc. Ainsi, Manava, par l’effet des actes noirs, un être naît (pour aller) dans la mauvaise direction, telle que le Naraka, les animaux, les Yaxas, les rôdeurs, les Asuras, etc. Ceux qui ont fait des actes blancs renaissent parmi les dieux et les hommes.) It is noteworthy that this particular Tibetan translation deviates strongly from parallel passages in related texts in Sanskrit and Pāli, respectively: karma māṇava satvān vibhajati. yad idaṃ hīnotkṛṣṭamadhyamatāyām. tadyathā … . (Mh-karmav paragraph 30); Kammaṃ satte vibhajati yadidaṃ hīnappaṇītatāyāti (MN III, 203). Both of these may be translated as “Living beings are differentiated by their actions, namely, [with regard to their] inferiority or superiority.” (Sanskrit adds “mediocrity.”) The diction in the Shelkar (London) Kangyur (L 353b,2–3) version of the related Karma­vibhaṅga (Toh 338) is clearer: sems can rnams kyi las sna tshogs dang| nyon mongs pa sna tshogs dang| lta ba sna tshogs dang| spyod pa sna tshogs rig nas| las nag po dang| dkar po rnams kyi ’bras bu rnam par smin pa brjod par bya ste|, “having discerned the manifold actions, defilements, views, and modes of conduct of sentient beings, I will describe the resultant ripening (or the ripening of the result, Skt. phala-vipāka) of black and white acts.”

notes.50

50. Tibetan ngan song, Sanskrit apāya, is synonymous with Sanskrit durgati, more commonly translated as the “lower realm(s).”

notes.51

51. Tibetan ring du ’khyams pa. Feer (1883, 254) seems to have missed the mark: C’est par les actes qu’on nait parmi les rôdeurs, “It is through acts that one will be born as a prowler” (Germ. Herumtreiber). See the glossary for the term “ghost.”

notes.52

52. Here, the asuras, or demigods, are counted among the unfortunate rebirth destinies, or lower realms, which are more commonly known as Tibetan ngan ’gro gsum, the “three lower realms” (hells, animal realms, and ghosts).

notes.53

53. This is a free translation of the Tibetan, which reads literally: “through/due to the “ripening” of an action/actions” (las kyi rnam par smin pas), and which we have otherwise translated as “karmic ripening” throughout (See the glossary, s.v. las kyi rnam par smin pa, for a more detailed explanation). We have also abbreviated the Tibetan in our English translation. The sentences after the first one start with las kyis which we interpret to be short for las kyi rnam par smin pas.

notes.54

54. Tibetan ma rabs kyi rigs su ’gyur ba. According to Lama Kunga Rinpoche, “In colloquial Tibetan, ma rabs refers to a person who is very vulgar, rude, mostly low-class, and uneducated, with very bad manners; and whose mere presence causes nothing but trouble for everyone around, by being loud and disrespectful.”

notes.55

55. D ngan par; L, S ngan por.

notes.56

56. We understand “the Dharma” to be implied here, as becomes clear in . Tibetan shes rab, Sanskrit prajñā, is a notoriously difficult term to translate. Common translations include “wisdom,” “gnosis,” “insight,” “cognition,” “discriminating awareness,” etc. In this particular text, context most often suggests a sense of the word that expresses an analytical quality (or aspect) of one’s mental faculty that is based on prior knowledge or learning of a moral code. Feer (1883, 254) translates Tibetan shes rabs chen po as “extensive knowledge” (une connaissance grande et etendue). See the glossary entry on shes rab for an explanation.

notes.57

57. Tibetan gzugs yod pa’i lha is an uncommon term for Sanskrit rūpāvacaradeva (Tib. gzugs yod pa na spyod pa’i lha).

notes.58

58. Tibetan las bzhin du mi ’gyur bar skye ba yang yod (possible Skt. astyapi karmamukhā aniyatopapattiḥ). However, later in the text (at ), the Tibetan reads: las kyis bzhin mi ’gyur bar skye ba yang zhe na|. See also . The karmic category spoken of here is that of Sanskrit (a)niyata, i.e., determined, fixed, definite, or inevitable, which means that the karmic result cannot be altered or averted, i.e., it is certain to be experienced in this life, in a future life or, in the case of the evil actions that bring immediate karmic retribution, immediately after death. Furthermore, its experience corresponds to the moral quality of the action. Cf. Abhidh-k-bh(P), ad AKK IV.54. Tr. by Leo M. Pruden (Pruden 1988–91, 629): “Action accomplished through intense defilement or through intense faith, with regard to the field of qualities, continually, and the murdering of a father and a mother, are determinate.”

notes.59

59. Feer (1883, 254) translates: “It is through actions that rebirth occurs without change; it is through actions that rebirth occurs with change.” (XXIII. C’est par les actes que la naissance se produit sans changement; XXIV. C’est par les actes que la naissance se produit avec changement.)

notes.60

60. According to D, L, S ma bsams par byas pas; vv.ll. Y, K ma bsams par byas pa ma|; U ma bsams par bya bas. Feer (1883, 254) translates: “When one has carried out actions without thinking about them (or having intended them; Tib. bsams pa), there will nonetheless be rebirth.” (Quand on a fait des actes sans les méditer, la naissance se produit tout de même). However, Tibetan skye bar ’gyur ba here as in the following three categories may be a dittography. The paragraphs corresponding to this category later in the text (cf. – below) make no mention of any specific kind of rebirth as the karmic result of (unintended) actions, but rather generally qualify or define actions with regard to the absence or presence of intention.

notes.61

61. Tibetan ’dus pa (literally “collect,” “accumulate”; “assemble”) in gang zag las ’di lta bu ’dus pas na has a technical sense when applied to karmically relevant actions (see also BHSD, s.v. upacita and Lévi 1932, 9, 47–48, n. 8). The differentiation between the technical expressions “action that is carried out” (Skt. karma kṛtaṃ) and “action that is accumulated” (Skt. karmopacita) is explained in detail in Vasubandhu’s Abhidharma­kośabhāṣya, verse IV,120 (see Abhidh-k-bh at AKK IV,120 Abhidh-k-bh(P) 271,20-272,3 = Pruden 1988–91, 701–702): “Action ‘done’ (Skt. kṛta) is distinguished from ‘accumulated’ (Skt. upacita) action. What are the characteristics and conditions of accumulated action? 120. Action is termed ‘accumulated’ by reason of its intentional character, by its completion, by the absence of regret and opposition, by its accompaniments, and by its retribution.” Although the phrase “to accumulate an action” is not natural English, we have kept this rather clumsy literal translation to indicate the specialized meaning of ’dus pa (Skt. upacita) here and throughout this translation. Sylvain Lévi opted for a more elegant solution in his French translation of the closely related Karma­vibhaṅga (Toh 338, ) by employing a translation equivalent that expresses the sense of ’dus pa in accordance with Vasubandhu’s definition: “Quel est l’acte qui, étant fait, n’est pas aggravé?” (Lévi 1932, 121).

notes.62

62. The syntax of the Tibetan in this sentence (and below) is obscure. The meaning of the karmic categories can be more clearly understood from the parallel passages in the Karma­vibhaṅga (Toh 338, –).

notes.63

63. In light of the explanations of the items listed in the full paragraphs later in the text, we have translated them in a way that tries to bring out the fact that both the former and the latter states (of happiness and unhappiness) are seen as being related by a combination of certain actions.

notes.64

64. According to D (phyi nas bde bar) gyur pa’i las; v.l. H (phyi nas bde bar) ’gyur ba’i las. Here, the sentence structure differs from the preceding, parallel sentence, which reads phyi nas mi bde ba’i las. We have attempted to make this difference recognizable in our English translation.

notes.65

65. It is not clear why the Tibetan reads sems can gang zag thams cad here.

notes.66

66. While the sentence structure is generally the same as in the preceding sentences, here the word las (“action”) is missing, so that the subject of the sentence becomes gang zag (“person”). Although it may be the case that las should be supplied in this and the following sentences, we have translated according to the syntax as it is. Feer (1883, 255) translates: “For such an individual the [life]time is exhausted (but) the actions are not.” (Pour tel individu, le temps est épuisé, l’acte ne l’est pas). An individual’s actions not being exhausted means that this person still must experience the karmic consequences in the future.

notes.67

67. Tibetan lus bde la.

notes.68

68. According to D, L gang zag lus mi bde la sems bde bar ’gyur ba’i las kyang yod|. The editor, in consultation with the translator, settled for this perhaps less accurate but less wordy translation. The Kangyur editions of K, Y, J, N, C read: “well in body as well as in mind.” (Vv.ll. K, Y gang zag lus kyang bde ba sems kyang bde bar ’gyur ba’i las ba yang yod|; J, N, C gang zag lus kyang bde la sems kyang bde bar ’gyur ba’i las kyang [J, C ba yang] yod|; H gang zag lus mi bde la sems kyang mi bde bar ’gyur ba’i las ba’ang yod|).

notes.69

69. According to D, S, Z; L reads gang zag lus kyang bde la sems kyang ’gyur ba yang yod| (which could be a scribal omission). K, Y, J, N, C read: “unwell in body as well as in mind.”

notes.70

70. According to D, L, S, Z; K, Y, J, N, C omit this sentence.

notes.71

71. According to S, Z gzugs legs pa dang; v.l. D, L gzugs ngan pa [L: ngan ba] dang|. Feer (1883, 255) translates: “The individual who has accumulated such actions and who was born in the region of bad beings(?), will be physically beautiful, agreeable, with a charming complexion, good-looking, with a body that is pleasing to the sight, by virtue of his karma.” (L’individu qui a accumulé tels et tels actes et qui est né sur le terrain des êtres-pervers sera physiquement beau, agréable, d’un teint charmant, de bonne mine, avant un corps agréable á la vue en vertu de son karma).

notes.72

72. Meaning in a lower realm of saṃsāric rebirth (Tib. sems can ngan pa’i sar yang skyes te|).

notes.73

73. According to D phyi rol gyi yul sa’i don ngan du ’gyur ba, which agrees with the reading and the content of the corresponding paragraph (see below). V.l. S, Z, L phyi rol gyi yul sa’i don du ’gyur ba yang yod do||, “there is (or will be) benefit for the external environment(?),” must be an error. Feer (1883, 255) translates: “Manava, it is like this: through following the path of the ten negative actions, one will arrive at a bad destination, the adverse region[s] [of rebirth?]. (Manava, cela est ainsi: c’est parce qu’on a suivi le chemin des dix actions vicieuses, c’est à cause de cela que l’on arrive au but mauvais de la région adverse).

notes.74

74. According to D, L, S, Z tshe thung. V.l. C ’thung (possibly w.r. for thung).

notes.75

75. In classical Tibetan, the verb is generally impersonal, and the expression zhe na is often found in philosophical discourses or in treatises in which a (hypothetical) opponent’s position is presented before being refuted. Thus, common translations are “if someone asks (or says),” or “if it is asked (or said).” We have chosen a translation that is reflective of the sūtra’s narrative frame and its dialogic structure. In the following paragraphs, we have therefore treated Tibetan zhe na simply as signifying a question.

notes.76

76. “Factors” is our translation of Tibetan chos (bcus na/ni) in this context (literally: “when (or because) ten factors are present”). D, L chos bcus na; S, Z chos bcus ni (later chos bcus na throughout). Feer (1883, 256) translates Tibetan chos bcus as “ten conditions” (Ici, tu me demandes par l’effet de quel genre d’actes le temps de la vie est court. Je te dirai que dix conditions font que la vie est courte. — Quelles sont ces dix? Si tu les demandes (les voici), “Here, you ask me, through the effect of which kind of act one’s lifespan is short. I will tell you that there are ten conditions that make one’s life short. What are the ten? If you wish to hear them, they are as follows.”) In an earlier draft of this translation, we chose to translate chos with “factors,” which, while not wrong, seemed too vague. Feer’s choice of “conditions,” on the other hand, does not seem to capture the idea that the respective actions enumerated in the text are major factors able to produce a karmic result, and not just conditions that need to be present for a result manifest. Chos in this text appears to be a different way of saying “(karmically relevant) action.”

notes.77

77. According to D (de la ji ltar las kyis tshe thung bar ’gyur zhe na| chos bcus na tshe thung bar ’gyur zhe na| bcu gang zhe na|), “if you ask,” (zhe na) is at the end of each subset, thus apparently interpreting the whole to be Śuka’s question. We think, however, that the sentence beginning with chos bcus constitutes the Buddha’s answer to the initial question, and not a new question or part of the first one. This interpretation may be corroborated by the vv.ll. K, Y, N, U, L, S, Z chos bcus na [L | shad after na] [S, Z ni] tshe thung bar ’gyur te [H ste].

notes.78

78. According to D gcod pa; L, S, Z bcad pa (perfective of verb gcod, “having taken life; killed; murdered”); v.l. K, Y bcod (seems to be a relatively common variant of gcod).

notes.79

79. According to D, L, S, Z srog gcod du bcug pa|. V.l. N srog gcod du bcod pa|.

notes.80

80. According to D, L, S, Z smon pa; vv.ll. J smin pa; N sman pa.

notes.81

81. The Tibetan here uses mi mdza’ ba, which is synonymous with dgra bo “enemy, foe” used in the preceding item.

notes.82

82. The Tibetan is not entirely clear, but cf. (Toh 338, ), for a similar content and context, where the meaning of ’thab mo is unmistakably that of battle. A, D read thab mo [C, H, S, Z: ’thab mo] la lta zhing dad pa dang bcu ste|. The preferable reading, however, seems to be that of C, H, S, Z: ’thab mo “quarrel, fight; battle.” Z, moreover, has just ’thab mo la lta zhing dad pa dang|. Feer’s (incorrect) translation (1883, 256) may result from reading thab (mo) without considering the vv.ll.: “Having one’s desires and one’s view focused on the hearth (where the meat is cooking?) …” (porter ses désirs et ses regards sur le foyer (où cuit la viande?) …).

notes.83

83. D, S, Z: sems can rnams la skyabs byas. V.l. L, Y, J, K, N, C: sems can rnams skyabs byas (without la).

notes.84

84. Tibetan thal mo (la sogs pas), literally “the palm of one’s hand.”

notes.85

85. This translates the obscure Tibetan mya ngan bsring ba rnams (D). See the Glossary of Terms, s.v. “monks and nuns” for a discussion of this term and a possible literal meaning. Vv.ll. L mya ngan sring ba rnams; S, Z mya ngan srid pa rnams.

notes.86

86. Tibetan zas mi zhu ba za ba. However, cf. a very similar passage in the Sanskrit text of the Mh-karmav, paragraph 4, (Lévi 1932, 37): “giving [someone] indigestible foods ([…-]pradānaṃ tathāparijīrṇabhojanaṃ).”

notes.87

87. According to D, L ’tshog [S, Z tshog] tu mi gzhug pa; N mchog tu mi gzhug pa.

notes.88

88. The Tibetan means literally “not aspiring (or desiring) to beat” (’tshog pa la mi smon pa).

notes.89

89. Tibetan rim gro byed pa, in contexts like this, can have two main senses: (1) honoring, worshiping (also in form of rites and rituals), reverence; and (2) service, to serve, attend to (or upon), to aid, to see after. We have adopted the latter sense, considering the context of illness. Exact translation into English is complicated by the fact that the Tibetan seems to carry both senses at the same time: tending to or caring for someone with respect or reverence because he or she is in an elevated position, which demands one’s respect and reverence (parents, clerics).

notes.90

90. The Tibetan is unclear (zas zhu nas za ba) and could perhaps also be interpreted as “[only] eating food that one has begged for (or received).” But based on a corresponding and very similar passage in the Sanskrit text of the Mh-karmav, paragraph 4 (Lévi 1932, 37), we are somewhat confident that Tibetan zas zhu ba must mean “digestible foods,” and the passage here originally (i.e., in the source text for the Tibetan translation) perhaps meant “providing them with digestible food.” Cf. also the preceding above.

notes.91

91. Feer (1883, 257) politely rendered Tibetan mi sdug pa into French idiomatically: “a moderately pleasant [i.e., unpleasant] situation” (Comment, diras-tu, arrive-t-on par l’effet des actes à une situation peu agréable.). Lévi (1932, 37, n. 2) has identified the corresponding paragraph of the Karmavibhaṅga (Toh 338, ) with relief 21 of the hidden base of the Borobudur (cf. ibid. for references), carrying the inscription “virūpa” (possibly meaning “deformed” or “ugly”). All consulted editions of Transformation of Karma (A, D, L, S, Z) read mi sdug pa. The Karmavibhaṅga (Toh 338, F.278.b) reads kha dog mi sdug pa, “complexion, color; appearance” (corresponding to Skt. durvarṇa; Lévi 1932, 37); L mdog mi sdug pa.

notes.92

92. According to S, Z khro ba| gnod bcas pa| (two items are needed here in order to parse ten items in this paragraph). D khro ba gnod bcabs pa|; vv.ll. L khro ba gnong(?) (read gnod) bcas pa|. The reading and the interpretation of this passage, however, is not clear. Is D khro ba gnod bcabs pa meant to constitute one term, two terms, or three terms (“anger, harming, disparaging”)? Feer (1883, 257) interpreted this phrase as containing two expressions: “enmity and concealed [bcabs pa, perfective of the Tibetan verb ’chab pa (Skt. mrakṣa, “resentment”)] hostility” (l’animosité; l’hostilité secréte). The related Karmavibhaṅga (Toh 338) in its corresponding even contains four terms: anger (khro ba), enmity (’khon du ’dzin pa), resentment (’chab pa), and spite (’tshig pa), as does the Mh-karmav (Lévi 1932, 37: krodhaḥ, upanāhaḥ, mrakṣaḥ, pradāśaḥ [read paridāghaḥ?], cf. Kudo 2009, 52; the last term, however, is doubtful, since the following Mh-karmav, paragraph 6, which contains the antipodes of the first three terms mentioned in Mh-karmav, paragraph 5, does not contain the opposite of pradāśaḥ). The Khotanese Karma­vibhaṅga (Maggi 1995, 67) gives a curious interpretation of the apparent juxtaposition of terms signifying anger and jealousy or jealous disparagement (Tib. khro ba gnod bcabs pa?): “[The] first act is (if) he should see the advantage of a man being angry and violent, harsh (and such) that envy of the other (man) arises in him because of it.” (Note that the different terms here seem to constitute one “act” and not individual acts as in Transformation of Karma).

notes.93

93. D ’khon du ’dzin pa; Y, K, L, S, Z khon du ’dzin pa|.

notes.94

94. The Tibetan is not entirely clear here. D and L (gtum pa pha ma rnams la ngan du smra ba|) do not seem to separate gtum pa from the following act (reviling ones’ parents), while S, Z do (shad | between gtum pa and the following sentence). Alternatively, one could perhaps interpret the passage to mean “being haughty (gtum pa is Old Tibetan for gzu lum(s) che ba), one is not welcoming (Tib. ngan du smra; Skt. durāgata) toward one’s parents, toward monks and nuns.” Parsing the Tibetan in this way, however, would leave one with fewer than ten acts in this category.

notes.95

95. According to D, which reads mya ngan bsrings pa in both instances: mya ngan bsrings pa rnams la ngan du smra ba|; L, S, Z mya ngan bsrings [L: srings] pa rnams la ngan du smra ba| mya ngan srid pa’i spyad pa kun la ngan du byed pa|.

notes.96

96. D mya ngan bsrings pa’i spyad pa kun la ngan du byed pa|; L, S, Z mya ngan srid pa’i spyad pa kun la ngan du byed pa|. A corresponding passage in the Karmavibhaṅga (Toh 338) of the London manuscript Kangyur (mdo sde, ci, 357a,6,7) reads ’phags pa’i yongs su spyad pa ma rung bar byed pa dang|, “destroying the dwelling (or property, shrine) of a noble one.” Our translation follows the parallel passage of the London manuscript which seems clearer. However, the exact meaning of (yongs su?) spyad pa (Skt. paribhoga) here remains ambiguous, and the collocation with the predicate ngan du byed seems to carry moral overtones (Skt. duṣ + √kṛ? Or cf. the Tibetan expression spyod ngan byed, “to misbehave”).

notes.97

97. According to the Mvy Tibetan mchod rten should be used to translate both Sanskrit stūpa and caitya (see Sakaki 6999, 7000). The Sanskrit word caitya can refer to a stūpa, but also to a shrine, sacred place or any sacred object. We have therefore rendered mchod rten with the broader term caitya in this translation to retain and express this ambiguity, except where it is clear that specifically a stūpa is referred to.

notes.98

98. Feer, in his French translation of Transformation of Karma, uses the Sanskrit reconstruction samyaggata to render Tibetan yang dag par gshegs pa, whereas the standardized rendering of Sanskrit tathāgata is de bzhin gshegs pa (Sakaki 3). Feer (1883, 257, n. 2) comments: “ ‘He who has come, once and for all,’ one of the epithets of the Buddha. I use the Sanskrit word which corresponds to the Tibetan term of our text. It seems to me preferable to a translation that could otherwise only be bizarre.” (“ ‘Celui qui est venu réellement, venu une fois pour toutes,’ une des épithétes du Buddha. J’emploie le mot sanskrit auquel correspond le terme tibétain de notre texte. Il me paraît préférable à une traduction qui ne pourrait être que bizarre.”). However, as far as we know, samyaggata is not usually used as an epithet of the Buddha in Indic Buddhist texts (in the Sanskrit and Pāli texts we have searched, samygaggata is exclusively an adjective). The Sanskrit adjective samyaggata (Pāli sammaggata) generally means “behaving properly,” or “(being) of correct or perfect conduct.” In our interest to preserve the text’s idiosyncratic character, we would have liked to adopt Feer’s very original choice of samyaggata for our translation. However, we chose Tathāgata instead, which is what one would expect in the Sanskrit original.

notes.99

99. Feer (1883, 257) translates: “To refuse to keep a caitya of the Samyaggata (i.e., Tathāgata) clean.” (le refus de la propreté au caitya du Samyaggata). In a parallel paragraph to this one, (Toh 338, ) has two different sentences: “soiling stūpas and monasteries and the site of a stūpa,” and “extinguishing offering lamps at stūpas and images.” Literally, Tibetan ’od gcod pa can also mean “eliminate the luster (or brightness).” We have decided to follow the reading of the Karmavibhaṅga (Toh 338, F.278.b: mar me gsad pa).

notes.100

100. According to S, Z rngan chan byed pa (archaic for brnyas thabs “to despise; treat contemptuously”; cf. BGT, s.v.). Vv.ll. D, L dngan can byed pa (Old Tibetan orthography for ngan (see Rnam rgyal tshe ring 2001, s.v. dngan can); J, N, C, H mngon can. The passage seems corrupt: Karmavibhaṅga (Toh 338, , (F.278.b)) reads A, D phyas ’dogs pa [vv.ll. J phyas ’drogs; K phyes ’dogs], which is obscure. The Karmavibhaṅga (Toh 338) of the London manuscript Kangyur has dbang za ba, which has the sense of feeling entitled to despise, belittle, or humiliate, and to manipulate or exploit others (cf. BGT, s.v.). The Mh-karmav is clear: Sanskrit avahasanam (Lévi 1932, 38) means “ridiculing someone.”

notes.101

101. This is a free translation of Tibetan ci la yang mi gtsang bar byed pa|, literally “making everything dirty.”

notes.102

102. The sentence “Through [the presence of] these ten factors one will…,” is omitted here (chos ’di bcus … -r’gyur ro).

notes.103

103. Feer (1883, 258) translates Tibetan bzang po as “prosperity” (situation prospère). But context and a parallel passage in the Karma­vibhaṅga (Toh 338, (F.278.b): mdzes pa as the antonym of kha dog mi sdug pa) suggest “beautiful” as the more appropriate translation.

notes.104

104. D mya ngan las [T, K omit las] bsrings pa rnams; L, S, Z mya ngan bsrings par rnams.

notes.105

105. See above, , D, L dngan; vv.ll. J, N, H mngan; C ngan.

notes.106

106. The Tibetan (D ci la yang gtsang bar byed pa ste|) says literally “making everything clean”; vv.ll. Y, K gcad par byed pa; J, N, C gcod par byed pa.

notes.107

107. Note that this paragraph includes only eight items. Some of the following paragraphs also include less than ten items. We will not note this in every case, but only when it is connected to linguistic problems, or when there is a conflict between different readings of the various Kangyur editions.

notes.108

108. Tibetan dbang chung ngu, from Buddhist Sanskrit alpeśākhya (Pāli appesakkha); cf. CPD, s.v. appesakkha; BHSD, s.v. alpeśākhya. The word originally meant “unrespected, insignificant; of little esteem” (It has been accepted that the Middle Indic form of the term is derived from an original Sanskrit form alpa-/mahā-yaśas-ka). The respective Sanskrit form of the word (alpa-/mahāśakya vs. alpe-/maheśākhya) can be an indicator of a text’s school affiliation (see O. von Hinüber, “Die Bestimmung der Schulzugehörigkeit buddhistischer Texte nach sprachlichen Kritertien,” 1985, in Bechert 1985). The form alpa-/mahāśakya is surmised by F. Edgerton to have originated as a folk-etymological alteration of alpe-/maheśākhya (see BHSD, s.v. mahāśakya). It is predominantly found in the texts affiliated with the Sarvāstivādins. The traditional derivation or analysis of the term is alpa-īśa-ākhya (with maheśākhya being an analogical formation), perhaps meaning literally “named after an insignificant chief or master, or low origin” (see Apte, s.v.). This meaning is reflected in the standardized Tibetan translation as given in the Mvy. (Sakaki 6412): dbang chung bar grags pa. The Tibetan form present here, however, dbang chung ngu appears to be closer to Sanskrit alpaśakya, or perhaps even Chinese shao shi 少勢.

notes.109

109. It is not clear whether Tibetan thob pa should be rendered into English in the sense of “achievement” (HTOED semantic field 01.15.16.02 n.: success), “acquisition” (HTOED semantic field 02.06.08 n.: acquisition), or rather “profit, gain” (HTOED semantic field 01.15.14 n.: advantage). Given the apparent context of social prestige in this paragraph, we have leaned toward the first in our translation.

notes.110

110. “Criticism” is our rendition of Tibetan sgra bstod pa med pa, sgra bstod being a variant of sgras (b)stod.

notes.111

111. For Tibetan sri zhu mi byed pa, cf. Dan Martin’s entry in the Rangjung Yeshe Dictionary, sri zhu: “ ‘reverence’ (for elders, parents, etc.). Coblin in JAOS 111, p. 317. As translation of a Sinitic concept, see Stein, Tibetica Antiqua I 163, 195. khrus dang sku mnye dang dril phyis byed pa. bka’ drin bsam nas bkur sti byed pa. Btsan-lha.” However, sri zhu is an ancient Tibetan term that may or may not exactly correspond content-wise to Chinese xiao 孝, “filial piety.”

notes.112

112. According to D mya ngan bsrings pa; vv.ll. L srings pa; J, N, C bsings pa.

notes.113

113. It is also possible to translate this sentence as “causing the roots of unwholesome states to arise in those who have little power.” However, it may be more likely that the meaning of the passage has been that which is preserved in the Karmavibhaṅga (Toh 338) of the London manuscript Kangyur (mdo sde, ci, 357b,6): dge ba’i rtsa ba chung ngu yang dag par phar ’dzin du ’jugs pa dang| dge ba’i rtsa ba chen po’i rgyun gcod pa dang, “Causing someone to overly(?) esteem small (or weak) roots of wholesome states, while cutting off a stream of strong roots of wholesome states.” Cf. also the extant Central Asian Sanskrit fragment from Eastern Turkestan (the Śukasūtra; cf. Lévi 1932, 235f.): [mahā-]śakyāt kuśalamūlād vicchandanam alpaśakyānāṁ pudgalānāṁ paribhavaḥ, “cutting [oneself or another?] off from powerful roots of wholesome states; contempt for persons with little power.”

notes.114

114. The “roots of unwholesome states” are the three mental poisons: greed, hate, and delusion.

notes.115

115. Tibetan yang dag par gshegs pa’i mchod rten dang gnas byed pa|. Tibetan gnas here likely means “a holy place” or “object of veneration” (Sanskrit caitya ; cf. BHSD, s.v. caitya ). The Śukasūtra fragment (Lévi 1932, 235f.) reads tathāgata­bimbakaraṇam “making an image (or statue) of the Tathāgata.” The las rnam par ’byed of the London manuscript Kangyur (mdo sde, ci, 358a,3) reads de bzhin gshegs pa’i mchod rten gyi khang pa byed pa dang|, which could mean (depending on what one assumes to have been the cultural milieu of the text) “erecting a raised platform on which a stūpa can be built,” or, literally, “building a caitya-hall (a house or a cave?) for a stūpa.”

notes.116

116. Translating D, L, S, Z dbang chung ngu; v.l. Y, K des chung ngu. The Karmavibhaṅga (Toh 338) of the London manuscript Kangyur (mdo sde, ci, 358a,3-4) reads dge ba’i rtsa ba chung ngu rgyun mi gcod pa dang| dge ba’i rtsa ba chen po yang dag par ’dzin du ’jug pa’o|. The Śukasūtra-fragment (Lévi 1932, 235) reads alpaśakyāt kuśalamūlāt vicchandanam, “separating [oneself or another?] from weak roots of wholesome states,” and mahāśakye kuśalamūle samādāpanam, “encouraging/motivating [oneself or another?] [to make an effort] with regard to the strong roots virtue,” respectively.

notes.117

117. Tibetan pha ma la pha mar mi ’dzin pa| seems pleonastic. Tibetan mar/phar mi ’dzin pa translates the (Buddhist?) Sanskrit idiomatic expression amātajñaḥ/amātajñatā and apitṛjña/apitṛjñatā respectively (or as one compound, amātāpitṛjñatā; see Mh-karmav, paragraph 9; cf. Negi 3497, II).

notes.118

118. Tibetan [phar] mi shes pa = phar mi ’dzin pa, cf. Negi 3497, II.

notes.119

119. According to D, S, Z dge sbyong (Skt. śramaṇa “renunciate, ascetic”); v.l. L, Y, K: dge slong (Skt. bhikṣu “mendicant”). This phrase may translate Sanskrit aśrāmaṇyatā (see Lévi 1932, 235).

notes.120

120. D, L, S, Z rigs kyis btsun pa, which should nevertheless be corrected to rigs kyi btsun pa (see also below ).

notes.121

121. D, S, Z bsti stang; vv.ll. L, Y, K, N, C sti stang; J sti stong.

notes.122

122. This passage seems corrupt. D nams [K, N, C, H rnams] kyang mgron [Y, J, K, N ’gron] mi gnyer ba|; L nams kyang mgon mi gnyer ba|, “not offering protection”?; S, Z nams kyang mgron du mi gnyer ba.

notes.123

123. According to D, L, S, Z. N adds nga ba dang, H adds pha ma dang before mkhan po dang|.

notes.124

124. Here and throughout, we have opted for a literal translation of Tibetan thar par zhugs pa rnams (Skt. pravrajitāḥ; see Negi, 2004, II). See also “those who have entered the path of liberation” in the glossary.

notes.125

125. (Realm of the asuras) The vv.ll. might support emendation to rigs kyi btsun pa: N, H: kyi instead of D kyis. Sanskrit or Pāli abhijāta (“noble birth”) is well attested (cf. pw and CPD, s.v.).

notes.126

126. We are not entirely sure what spag here means; cf. however BGT, s.v. spags (perfective of spog): 2) (rnying) sta gon byas pa “to make preparations.”

notes.127

127. It is unclear to what exactly the Tibetan term thar par spyod pa refers; perhaps “lay Buddhist practitioners?”

notes.128

128. A similar sentence in the Śukasūtra-fragment (Lévi 1932, 235) reads kule jyeṣṭhānupālakatvam āsanāt paryutthānam āsanenābhinimantraṇam (mātāpitroḥ śuśrūṣā) “respecting/preserving [the right or custom?] of seniority in the family, getting up from one’s seat [and] offering the seat [to the elder?]; (obeying/revering one’s parents).”

notes.129

129. According to D, L gzhan; S, Z gzhun, “those who have been tamed?”

notes.130

130. Y, N, J, K, C omit Tibetan ma byin par len pa “stealing.”

notes.131

131. Tibetan gtsug lag khang can also mean “house/building where the Buddhist scriptures (Tib. gtsug lag = sde snod; Skt. tripiṭaka) are kept.”

notes.132

132. Tibetan mchod cing spyod pa kun gcod pa|. The suffix cing (zhing, shing) here seems to indicate coordination of what appear to be the verbs mchod and spyod, the former in the sense of “to venerate,” with the specialized sense “to make offerings,” and “to honor” (cf. BGT, s.v. mchod pa), here rendered as nouns.

notes.133

133. The Tibetan uses the same word here (thob pa) as in and above, where we translated it as “achievement.” We think, however, that the context in this paragraph demands the sense of (material) obtaining (HTOED semantic field 02.06.08 n.: acquisition).

notes.134

134. Literally “Rejoicing when [something] was not obtained (or acquired) by others.”

notes.135

135. According to D mu ge byung [U ’byung] du smon pa; L, S, Z mu ge byung na smon pa; v.l. J, C smod “to loathe, deprecate,” does not fit this context. The D reading may be confirmed by the reading in the Śukasūtra-fragment (Lévi 1932, 235): durbhikṣāyācanā ca|.

notes.136

136. J adds la don: ’tsho ba la sbyin pa, instead of D ’tsho ba sbyin pa|.

notes.137

137. Feer (1883, 260) translates Tibetan mkhan po as savant, “scholar.”

notes.138

138. The structure of this sentence seems to be parallel to D 302a,1: mkhan po dang bla ma thar par zhugs pa rnams la gzhan la yang, where thar par zhugs pa rnams is replaced (abbreviated?) by ltag ma (or lhag ma). D, Y, H mkhan po dang bla ma ltag ma [A, p. 875, line 5: lhag ma!] dang gzhan rnams la, which may mean “the head teacher and all others (i.e., all those who are thar par zhugs pa following in the order of their rank / seniority).” S mkhan po dang| bla ma dang| ltag ma dang gzhan rnams la. The v.l. of L, Z mkhan po dang| bla ma dang| lhag ma dang| gzhan rnams la (if one understands lhag ma to mean “rest.” But lhag ma can have a meaning similar to ltag ma), although “the monastic preceptor, the teacher, the rest, and all others,” seems to make less sense. For D bla ma [bla] ltag/lhag ma, cf. also Negi, 3910: bla lhag pa (Skt. adhikaḥ; upacayaḥ; ādhikyaṃ).

notes.139

139. The meaning of Tibetan rim par spyod pa is not entirely clear (“service,” “veneration,” “attendant/servant?”), but given the context, it seems to express the same as mchod cing spyod pa “offerings and service” in the previous paragraph. The parallels of the word formation to Tibetan rim gro, “veneration,” can hardly be accidental. Feer (1883, 260) translates: “[providing them with the possibility of] the regular exercise of their practices” (L’exercice régulier de leurs pratiques).

notes.140

140. Tibetan mal stan; Sanskrit śayanāsana; Chinese 臥具.

notes.141

141. D gsos sman; L, S, Z gso sman; and J gsol sman are not different in meaning.

notes.142

142. Tibetan g.yog here probably means “servants,” but could also just mean “service.”

notes.143

143. Feer (1883, 260) (mis)understood Tibetan gzhan gyis don thob par nan tan du bsgrubs pa to mean “To regard one’s own success as others’ success” (regarder comme ses propres succès les succès d’autrui.) Or should we translate “assisting (= translating nan tan tu bsgrubs pa as nan tan sgrub pa = Skt. adhiṣṭhāna) others in obtaining wealth?” Our translation may be confirmed by the reading in the Śukasūtra-fragment (Lévi 1932, 236): parasya lābhodyogaḥ.

notes.144

144. Reading D lo legs par smon pa| (Y, K lo legs pa smon pa|) may again be confirmed by the Śukasūtra-fragment (Lévi 1932, 237): subhikṣāyācanā ca (vv.ll. L, S, Z lo legs par ston pa|).

notes.145

145. Tibetan ngan pa. We have added “of the Dharma” here. According to our interpretation, it becomes clear in this paragraph that ngan pa refers to people with poor or no understanding or knowledge of the Dharma, and that it must mean the opposite of knowing, following, and applying the Dharma (cf. Negi, 935, II, s.v. ngan pa, for ngan pa in the sense of Sanskrit ajñaḥ, “not knowing, devoid of knowledge; stupid, foolish,” etc.).

First 145 of 313 passages. Read on