Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

སྟག་རྣའ་རྟགས་པ་བརྗད་པ notes: Notes

The Exemplary Tale of Śārdūlakarṇa notes

Language
English

Notes

notes.1

1. On the topic of caste in the Buddhist tradition, see De Jong 1988, Eltschinger 2012, and Silk 2020.

notes.2

2. For a detailed analysis of these Buddhist philosophical arguments against caste, see Eltschinger 2012.

notes.3

3. It should be noted here that there are several suttas in the Pali canon in which Ānanda emerges from the situation quite differently, perhaps because they depict events that occurred after Ānanda had become an arhat. In the Bhikkhunī Sutta (AN II 145–46), for example, at Kosambī a certain nun, under the false pretense of being ill, asks for Ānanda to visit her. When Ānanda arrives and finds the nun lying in her bed with her robes seductively arranged, he calmly teaches her on giving up craving and desire, at which point she immediately confesses her transgression, which is expressed in much the same way as Prakṛti’s confession in The Exemplary Tale of Śārdūlakarṇa.

notes.4

4. Incidentally, Śrāvastī is the setting for several accounts of caste rigidity in the suttas of the Pali canon. See, e.g., the Vasala Sutta in the Suttanipāta (Sn 21–25).

notes.5

5. For further references, see Mukhopadhyaya 1954, pp. x–xi.

notes.6

6. See DN I 87ff., DN I 235, MN II 200ff., and Sn 594.

notes.7

7. This expression could also be rendered as “commonplace designation,” in reference to such Buddhist epistemological thinkers as Dharmakīrti, who explain sāmānya[lakṣaṇa] as an unreal conceptual generality or universal that the mind superimposes on real particulars. It seems, in fact, that sāmānyasaṃjñā is an expanded Sanskritization of the Pali samaññā (“designation”), the term used in the Vāseṭṭha Sutta (Sn 108), for instance, and whose Sanskrit equivalent is actually samājñā.

notes.8

8. This attribution to Aśvaghoṣa is doubtful, however, in view of the fact that the Chinese translation ascribes the text to Dharmakīrti, the well-known Buddhist epistemologist who taught at Nālandā during the sixth or seventh century. See De Jong 1988, pp. 426–27 for a brief discussion on the uncertainty of both attributions. For a full edition and translation of the Vajrasūcī, see Mukhopadhyaya 1960.

notes.9

9. For a discussion of the historical place of the astrological ideas presented in The Exemplary Tale of Śārdūlakarṇa, see Kotyk 2018, pp. 151–54.

notes.10

10. See The Chapter on Going Forth (Toh 1, ch 1) for the full story of Śāriputra’s origins.

notes.11

11. For an overview, see Zinkgräf 1940.

notes.12

12. This attribution to An Shigao has been questioned by some scholars, who instead place the text in the third or fourth century on account of the idiom of the translation. See Karashima and Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya 2015, p. 257, n. 148.

notes.13

13. For an English translation of this version, see Mukhopadhyaya 1954, pp. 213–17.

notes.14

14. A full translation in Tibetan, made from Chinese in the eighteenth century, is included in the Narthang, Urga, and Lhasa Kangyurs, but not in the Degé. For this episode see Lhasa Kangyur, (mdo sde, wa), F.386.b ff.

notes.15

15. For an English translation, see Giebel 2015. As noted by Giebel (p. 31), the attribution of this translation to Zhi Qian has been questioned by the Japanese scholar Tomojirō Hayashiya on the basis of the translation idiom and the records of the Chinese scriptural inventories. Hayashiya instead argues that this translation was made by an as-yet-unidentified translator during the second half of the fifth century or later, after the time of Kumārajīva (344–413 ce).

notes.16

16. Cf. Kotyk 2018, p. 152.

notes.17

17. See Bronkhorst 2016 and Joseph 2018, especially the epilogue.

notes.18

18. For a useful overview of the shared and added chapters, see Mukhopadhyaya 1967, pp. 61–64. Some of the added chapters are summarized in Sharma 1992.

notes.19

19. These manuscript fragments were discovered during the nineteenth century in a place called Kugiar, now known as Kekeya, which lies on the southern rim of the Tarim Basin in present-day Xinjiang province, China. Only recently were they put together in a complete edition, for which see Miyazaka et al. 2015. Because this more Prakritic version of the text differs quite significantly from the Nepalese Sanskrit version and the Tibetan translation, we have made only very occasional reference to it.

notes.20

20. The Tengyur contains a related text titled An Explanation of the Nature of the Planets and Astrological Houses Found in [the Life Story of] Ārya Śārdūlakarṇa (Arya SardulakarNa’i nang nas ’byung ba gza’ dang rgyu skra gyi rang bzhin bshad pa), which consists of a short commentary of just over thirty pages on the astrological section of the Śārdūlakarṇāvadāna. This text is not mentioned in the Tōhoku catalog, but it is found in the Technology and Arts (bzo rig pa) section of the Degé and other Tengyurs and has been newly labeled by 84000 as Toh 4321a.

notes.21

21. NGMPP A 38-14.

notes.22

22. For ease of reference, we have provided the page numbers to Mukhopadhyaya’s Sanskrit edition within the text of the translation with the siglum [M.].

notes.23

23. See Burnouf 1844, pp. 183–87. For a recent English translation, see Burnouf 2010, pp. 222–25.

notes.24

24. See Zinkgräf 1940, pp. 126–27.

notes.25

25. Many renditions of this piece can be found on YouTube. See for example this 2018 performance at Visva-Bharati University in Shantiniketan (accessed March 2, 2024).

notes.26

26. The Sanskrit manuscript kept at the Asiatic Society of Bengal (one of the two Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts included in Mukhopadhyaya’s edition) starts with oṃ namo ratna­trayāya (“ Om. Homage to the Three Jewels!”

notes.27

27. The Tibetan translation lacks a rendering of the Sanskrit pāsyāmi (“I would like to drink”), but the Sanskrit reading here is supported by both Chinese translations.

notes.28

28. The extant Sanskrit manuscripts again contain the verb pāsyāmi (“I would like to drink”), but here both the Tibetan and the Chinese translations lack an equivalent rendering.

notes.29

29. We have followed the Tibetan reading der song ste phyin nas, on the basis of which Hiraoka (2010, p. 54) has rightly proposed emending the Sanskrit edition to tenopasaṃ­krāntaḥ | upasaṃ­kramya.

notes.30

30. While in the Degé Kangyur we find the phrase dpyod kyis (“through your thinking”), and in the Narthang Kangyur spyod kyis (“through your practice”), the Stok Kangyur lacks any such phrase, which is in agreement with the extant Sanskrit manuscripts and the Chinese translations.

notes.31

31. The Tibetan lacks a rendering of the Sanskrit vocative putri (“my child”).

notes.32

32. We have followed the Tibetan dge sbyong gau ta ma ni ’dod chags dang bral ba thams cad zil gyis gnon zhes thos so, except that we have understood the underlying verb śrūyate (“I have heard”) as only applying to the statement that the ascetic Gautama is free from desire. The reading of the extant Sanskrit manuscripts vītarāgasya punaḥ sarva­mantrān abhi­bhavanti is faulty, and in his edition Mukhopadhyaya (1954, p. 2) has tried to emend this by adding mantrāḥ after vītarāgasya. However, we do not find any mention of mantras here in either the Tibetan or the Chinese translations. Hiraoka (2010, p. 54) has pointed out that Cowell’s (1886) emendation to vītarāgas sa does not work given the plural ending of the verb, and he has therefore opted for Mukhopadhyaya’s reading. It seems to us, however, that the plural verb is more likely to be a later, erroneous scribal emendation. The Tibetan rendering suggests vītarāgaś ca punaḥ sarvam abhibhavati as the underlying Sanskrit reading, or perhaps sarvasattvān instead of sarvam, as this is what seems to underlie 一切眾生 in Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation.

notes.33

33. The Tibetan has rendered the Sanskrit madhye gṛhāṅganasya (“in the middle of the courtyard”) as khang pa’i dbus (“in the middle of the house”).

notes.34

34. The Tibetan transliteration of this spell is clearly faulty, so we have tried to reconstruct the underlying Sanskrit form of the spell on the basis of the readings found in the extant Sanskrit manuscripts (in which the spell contains several added words). It can be translated as follows: “O stainless one, immaculate one, saffron one, good-minded one! O lightning, by which you are bound! According to wish, the god rains, strikes lightning, and thunders forth so as to make the great king’s perplexity increase toward gods, humans, and gandharvas. O gods of celestial bodies with flaming tails, O gods of celestial bodies that are tailless, I offer oblations so that Ānanda comes and proceeds! Svāhā!” Hiraoka (2010, p. 54) has followed Mukhopadhyaya’s emendation of the extant Sanskrit buddho to baddhā, but to us baddho seems in better agreement with the Tibetan ban dho and the transliteration 非頭 in Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation.

notes.35

35. The Tibetan lacks a rendering of the Sanskrit sayyām (“bed”) and has translated prajñapaya (“prepare”) as shes par gyis shig (“you should know”).

notes.36

36. All the extant Sanskrit manuscripts read anīti (“freedom from calamity”), which is also the underlying reading of the Tibetan transliteration. In his Sanskrit edition, Mukhopadhyaya (1954, p. 3) has emended this to sunītiḥ (“good conduct”), apparently on the basis of Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation. Zhi Qian’s translation, however, reads the same as the Sanskrit and the Tibetan. We see no reason for Mukhopadhyaya’s emendation when anīti, to be understood as an-īti (“non-calamity”), makes good sense.

notes.37

37. This entire “utterance of truth” (Skt. satyavākya) has been transliterated in the Tibetan translation, but the rendering found in the different Kangyurs shows several mistakes and elisions. We have therefore followed the extant Sanskrit manuscripts, which appear to have correctly preserved this verse and whose readings everywhere seem to underlie the Tibetan transliteration (including taṃ at the beginning of the third line, which Mukhopadhyaya has emended to tad in his edition). The full utterance can be translated as follows: “May there be stability, freedom from ruin, freedom from calamity, and well-being for all living beings! “A clear lake without blemish, calm and without peril all around, Where calamities, perils, and disturbances become pacified— To that, indeed, gods and fully accomplished yogins pay homage. By this utterance of truth may the monk Ānanda be well!”

notes.38

38. The Tibetan ’jig rten na sngags mthu dang ldan pa’i sngags gang yin pa indicates that the Sanskrit mantrāḥ (“mantras”) was rendered twice. We have followed the reading of the extant Sanskrit manuscripts mantrāḥ sarvalokasya prabhavanti.

notes.39

39. The Tibetan adds bcom ldan ’das la tshe dang ldan pa kun dga’ bo la bka’ stsal ba (“The venerable Ānanda then asked the Blessed One about the incident”), but this does not have an equivalent either in the extant Sanskrit manuscripts or in the Chinese translations.

notes.40

40. The Tibetan lacks a rendering of “Śākyamuni.”

notes.41

41. We have reconstructed the mantra according to the form that underlies the Tibetan transliteration, which, despite several omissions and misplacements of syllables, largely agrees with the transliteration found in Zhi Qian’s Chinese translation. Several of the readings in the Tibetan transliteration are also confirmed by what seems to be the oldest Nepalese Sanskrit manuscript of the text (NGMPP A 38-14). The mantra can be translated as follows: “ Aṇḍare, paṇḍare! O bracelet, O one on the forearm, O one whose neck has a string, O lady of kin, contain the poison! Cili mili! When inclined to grant according to what is bestowed, O lord of globes, make the boil dissolve!” It may be noted that the mantra is longer than the initial six syllables of aṇḍare paṇḍare, a combination of words that often figures at the beginning of such protective mantras. After paṇḍare, which is somehow lacking in the Tibetan transliteration, the extant Sanskrit manuscripts add karaṇde or kāraṇde, probably due to the influence of equivalents in similar protective mantras in the Mahā­māyūrīvidyārājñī (see The Queen of Incantations: The Great Peahen , 2023) and the Mahā­sāhasra­pramardanī (see Destroyer of the Great Trichiliocosm , 2016). See also Strauch 2014, pp. 75–81. In addition, these later Nepalese manuscripts include an entire string of words between cili mili and sātinimne, which has been adopted by Mukhopadhyaya in his edition (1954, p. 5).

notes.42

42. The extant Sanskrit manuscripts add pari­bhāṣaṇārho romaha­rṣaṇena romaha­rṣaṇārhaḥ punar eva mucyate (“If one is to be reprimanded, one will be released with having one’s hair standing on end; if one is to have one’s hair standing on end, one will again be released from that”). Both the Tibetan and the Chinese translations, however, lack an equivalent for this.

notes.43

43. The Tibetan lacks a rendering of the Sanskrit sāsurāyām (“with their asuras”), which has an equivalent rendering in both Chinese translations.

notes.44

44. The extant Sanskrit manuscripts read śiraḥsnātā (“washed her head”), but the Chinese translations agree with the Tibetan.

notes.45

45. The extant Sanskrit manuscripts add āyuṣmantam ānandam āmantrayamāṇā (“trying to speak to the venerable Ānanda”), which has no equivalent either in the Tibetan or Chinese translations.

notes.46

46. The Tibetan adds de nas gdol ba’i bu mo gzugs bzang mo tshe dang ldan pa kun dga’ bo’i phyi bzhin du rjes su ’brang ngo (“And the outcaste girl Prakṛti kept following the venerable Ānanda closely from behind”), but neither the extant Sanskrit nor the Chinese translations contain this sentence.

notes.47

47. The Tibetan lacks a rendering of the Sanskrit tiṣṭhantam anutiṣṭhati (“stopping wherever I stop”), but both Chinese translations contain this phrase.

notes.48

48. In the extant Sanskrit manuscripts this dialogue begins differently: “Then the Blessed One asked the outcaste girl Prakṛti, ‘Prakṛti, what is it that you want from the monk Ānanda?’ ‘Venerable Sir, I want Ānanda as my husband,’ Prakṛti replied.” Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation reads like the extant Sanskrit, but Zhi Qian’s Chinese translation agrees with the Tibetan, which is what we have adopted here.

notes.49

49. The Tibetan seems to have translated the Sanskrit tena hi sam­mukhaṃ mamānu­jñāpaya tvam (“Then you must have them give their permission in my presence”) as bdag gis slar yang go bar bgyi’o (“Then I in turn give my consent”). The Chinese translations are in agreement with the Sanskrit.

notes.50

50. The extant Sanskrit manuscripts add prakṛtim apahāya (“leaving behind Prakṛti”), but both the Tibetan and the Chinese translations lack this phrase.

notes.51

51. In this sentence most extant Sanskrit manuscripts contain a lengthy addition that is not found in the Tibetan and the Chinese translations, nor in the oldest Nepalese manuscript (NGMPP A 38-14): atha bhagavān yat tasyāḥ prakṛter mātaṅga­dārikāyāḥ pūrvasañ­citāpāya­durgati­gamanībhūtaṃ tat sarvaṃ pāpaṃ sarva­durgati­pariśodhanyā dhāraṇyā niravaśeṣeṇa pari­śodhya mātaṅgajāter vimocayitvā śuddha­prakṛtim (instead of just prakṛtim) (“Then, after completely purifying, without remainder, by means of the sarva­durgati­pariśodhanī dhāraṇī, all the sin that the outcaste girl Prakṛti had accumulated in the past that leads to a lower and unfortunate rebirth, and after liberating her from her outcaste birth, the Blessed One [said] to the purified Prakṛti…”).

notes.52

52. The Tibetan has taken the Sanskrit bhagavatā with evam ukte: “When this was said by the Blessed One.” However, the syntax of the Sanskrit does not allow for this interpretation.

notes.53

53. The Tibetan has rendered the Sanskrit kāmaiś cādīnavam (“about the dangers associated with sense pleasures”) as ’dod pa’i ro myang bar bya ba ma yin zhing smad pa’i gtam (“a talk about not indulging in sense pleasures and deprecating them”).

notes.54

54. The Tibetan lacks a rendering of the Sanskrit dharmyayā kathayā (“with a dharmic talk”).

notes.55

55. The Tibetan bcom ldan ’das kyi bka’ gang yin pa shes nas indicates that the translators read bhagavato deśitam ājñātum (“to understand what the Blessed One has taught”), where the extant Sanskrit manuscripts read bhavyā dharma­deśitam ājñātum. We have followed the Sanskrit, since the phrase recurs in the following sentence.

notes.56

56. The Tibetan has rendered the Sanskrit sāmutkarṣikī (“most elevated”) as rab tu ldan pa, and it has erroneously translated the Sanskrit pratibalām (“able”), which is here synonymous with bhavyā (“ready”), as bsgoms pa’i stobs (“power of meditation”).

notes.57

57. The Tibetan lacks a rendering of the Sanskrit caturāryasatya- (“the four truths of the noble ones”).

notes.58

58. The Tibetan has translated the Sanskrit rajanopagatam (“fit for dyeing”) as dri ma med pa (“stainless”), which suggests that the translators read rajanāpagatam.

notes.59

59. The Tibetan lacks a rendering of the Sanskrit akopyadharmā (“had become unshakable in the Dharma”).

notes.60

60. The Tibetan lacks a rendering of the Sanskrit arthalābha­saṃvṛttā (“had turned toward the attainment of the goal”).

notes.61

61. The Tibetan has rendered the Sanskrit vaiśāradya­prāpta (“had attained complete confidence”) as dri ma med pa thob pas (“had attained the immaculate”).

notes.62

62. The Tibetan lacks a rendering of the Sanskrit ājāneyamānā dharmeṣu (“becoming thoroughbred in the teachings”).

notes.63

63. The Tibetan omits this sentence.

notes.64

64. It seems that the Tibetan has taken the Sanskrit ātyatyāṃ saṃvarāya sthitvā (“as you stand firmly in refraining from transgression”) with the previous sentence.

notes.65

65. The Tibetan adds zhing tshul bzhin ma yin pa byas pa (“and acted improperly”), but this is probably due to having read svāmivāde na sam­udācarīti instead of svāmivādena sam­udācarīti. Since the Buddha is simply restating what Prakṛti had said before, we have followed the way it is worded in the preceding passage.

notes.66

66. The Tibetan adds chos ’dul ba rtogs nas (“having understood the Dharma and Vinaya”) and several more explanatory phrases that seem to have been added during the translation process.

notes.67

67. The Tibetan has rendered the Sanskrit prati­kāṅkṣitavyā (“you should expect”) as bsgrub par bya (“you should achieve”).

notes.68

68. The extant Sanskrit reading prahitāni viviktāni viharati sma has to be emended to prahitātmanī viviktā viharati sma in the light of other such descriptions beginning with vyapakṛṣṭa (see BHSD s.v.). The Tibetan reads rab tu nyams pa med pas bdag nyid gnas te (“she dwelled by herself without any failings”), which suggests that the translators read aprahatātmanī. The Tibetan then repeats the entire description of retreating into seclusion at the beginning of the next sentence, but the Sanskrit yadarthaṃ…tad construction excludes such an interpretation.

notes.69

69. In this set proclamation of an arhat, the Tibetan translation lacks a rendering of the Sanskrit kṣīnā me jātir (“Birth has come to an end for me”) and prajānāmi (“I know”).

notes.70

70. The Tibetan has misrendered the Sanskrit mahāśālakuleṣu as shing sA la chen po lta bu rnams (“who are like great śāla trees”) and pravekṣyati (“could enter”) as blta bar bya (“can be seen”). The same misrenderings occur in the following passage.

notes.71

71. The extant Sanskrit manuscripts here add “kṣatriyas,” but this is lacking both in the Tibetan and in Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation. In an additional note in his subsequent study (1967, p. 77), Mukhopadhyaya states that it should be omitted in his edition.

notes.72

72. The Tibetan has rendered the Sanskrit svakasvakāni mātāpaiṭrkāṇi nāma­gotrāṇi (“their maternal and paternal names and lines of descent”) more elaborately as rang rang gi pha mo’i rgyus dang / ming dang / rigs dang / rus rnams (“their paternal and maternal backgrounds, names, lines of descent, and bloodlines”).

notes.73

73. The extant Sanskrit manuscripts here add “kṣatriyas,” but this is lacking both in the Tibetan and in Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation. In an additional note in his subsequent study, Mukhopadhyaya (1967, p. 77) states that it should be omitted in his edition.

notes.74

74. Instead of the sal tree, which is rendered as sA la in the Tibetan, the extant Sanskrit lists several other trees in a long compound: ati­muktakakadalīpāṭa­lakāmalakīvana­gahana­pradeśe (“an area thick with forests of atimuktaka trees, plantain trees, trumpet-flower trees, and gooseberry trees”). Zhi Qian’s Chinese translation only makes mention of the atimuktaka tree, whereas Dharmarakṣa’s translation does not mention any specific kind of tree.

notes.75

75. The Tibetan has rendered the Sanskrit anuśrutam (“as traditionally passed down”) as rten pa med par (“without reliance”), which suggests that the translators read aniśritam.

notes.76

76. The Tibetan has here rendered the Sanskrit paramayā śubha­varṇa­puṣkalatayā as kha dog mdzes shing mchog tu kha dog rgyas pa (“resplendent complexion and supreme excellence of complexion”), thus translating varṇa (“complexion”) twice. Further below, however, while rendering the same expression when the brahmin maiden Prakṛti is described, the first kha dog is rightly omitted.

notes.77

77. The Tibetan has rendered the Sanskrit sasaptotsadaṃ as khyab par sa, which seems to mean “having abundant land.” The Sanskrit expression, however, appears to be the result of an erroneous Sanskritization of the Prakritic sattussada, which actually means “abounding in beings.” See BHSD s.v. utsada (3).

notes.78

78. The Tibetan lacks a rendering of the Sanskrit tṛṇa (“grass”) in this set description of an agriculturally prosperous place, and it has rendered the Sanskrit brahmadeyaṃ dattam (“given as a brahmic gift”) as bram ze de la byin nas (“given to that brahmin”). For a brief discussion of such endowments to brahmins, see Mukhopadhyaya 1967, p. 73.

notes.79

79. The Tibetan has omitted several components in this description of the brahmin’s learnedness.

notes.80

80. The Tibetan lacks the preceding part of Triśaṅku’s reflection, having apparently conflated it with the preceding description of the brahmin and his daughter.

notes.81

81. The Tibetan has rendered the Sanskrit kāryaṃ as bya ba cung zhig (“a small matter”), thus adding cung (“small”).

notes.82

82. In this context we consider the English “dear” the most suitable rendering for bringing out the nuances of the Sanskrit vocative bhoḥ, which is a polite form of address among cultured persons, especially brahmins, but which takes on a pejorative note when it is used toward someone deemed inferior and lacking education. Thus, being an outcaste, King Triśaṅku is here reproached by the brahmin Puṣkarasārin for using a form of address that only those properly educated are entitled to use. In the Tibetan translation the Sanskrit bhoḥ has been rendered with the particle kye, often translated as “O” or “Hey!” though in Tibetan this form of address tends to be used toward someone higher than oneself.

notes.83

83. The Tibetan has rendered the Sanskrit kulaśulkam, which literally means “family fee,” as rin (“price”).

notes.84

84. For the following stanzas we have followed the extant Sanskrit. In the Tibetan translation these verses have been rendered into prose, but they show several omissions and misinterpretations.

notes.85

85. The Tibetan lacks a rendering of these last two lines. To place a mustard seed on the tip of a hair is here used as a metaphor for trying to do the impossible.

notes.86

86. The Tibetan lacks a rendering of this line. This metaphor returns a few stanzas further on, again preceded by the admonition of soliciting the unsolicitable. It also occurs there in Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation, while here in this verse another simile is given: “Do not solicit the unsolicitable, like sowing seeds in water!”

notes.87

87. The Tibetan has translated the Sanskrit jugupsitaḥ sarvaloke kṛpaṇaḥ puruṣādhamaḥ as ro dang rigs dman pa gnyis ni ’jig rten thams cad la mi gtsang ba yin gyis (“Both a corpse and a low-caste person are impure to the entire world”). To translate kṛpaṇa (“miserable one”) as “corpse” is a stretch, but perhaps this rendering was influenced by the argument in Triśaṅku’s response that a brahmin’s corpse is as repulsive as anyone else’s. Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation agrees with the more straightforward interpretation we have followed here.

notes.88

88. The Tibetan lacks a rendering of this line.

notes.89

89. The Tibetan byad dang ro langs kyi las (“actions for spirits and zombies”) seems to indicate that the underlying Sanskrit was karmāṇi praitāni, as suggested by Mukhopadhyaya (1954, p. 19, n. 2).

notes.90

90. The Degé and the Stok reading is rig byed bzhi las, but the Yongle and Kangxi reading rigs byed bzhi las is in agreement with the Sanskrit caturvidhāḥ. The Tibetan translation here lacks an equivalent for the Sanskrit brāhmaṇeṣu (“for brahmins”), so perhaps the variant reading rig byed (“[knowing] the Vedas”) is the result of an attempt to remedy this. The Sanskrit pātaka (“downfall”) has the connotation of “falling from one’s caste,” which in this case would mean losing the brahmin status. For more on these downfalls, one may consult the Manusmṛti (X 235; XI 54), as stated in an additional note to this edition by Mukhopadhyaya (1954, p. 223).

notes.91

91. The Tibetan has translated the Sanskrit brahmaghnatā (literally “brahmic killing”) as sdom pa’i tshogs ni ’jig pa ste (“breaking one’s set of vows”), apparently having understood the Sanskrit as referring to the vow of chastity (brahmacarya) in view of the preceding downfall.

notes.92

92. In an additional note to his edition, Mukhopadhyaya (1954, p. 223) has pointed out that this observance is referred in the Manusmṛti (XI 72, 105, 122).

notes.93

93. The Tibetan has translated the Sanskrit aurasā as lus kyi stod (“upper part of the body”), apparently from uras (“bosom”), but here the adjectival aurasa means “own son,” with the connotation of “legitimate son,” as described in brahmanical law books such as the Manusmṛti (IX 166).

notes.94

94. The Tibetan has translated this sentence as “O inferior fellow, do you not see that you belong to this fourth caste?” The extant Sanskrit preserves the correct reading, because outcastes are considered to fall outside the varṇa system, below the category of śūdras. The two Chinese translations read in agreement with the Sanskrit.

notes.95

95. The Tibetan has translated this as “It is by you that this entire world is created, proclaiming that it is held that ‘We are his foremost sons’ ” (’dir khyed kyis ’jig rten thams cad sgrub par byed pa de las bdag cag skyes pa yin pas thu bo bdag cag yin).

notes.96

96. We have followed the Tibetan reading lag pa dang bcas pa (“having hands”), which is also the reading in Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation. The extant Sanskrit reads sanakhāḥ (“having nails”).

notes.97

97. The following three verses have close parallels in the Pali Vāseṭṭha Sutta (Sn 608–11), as pointed out by Mukhopadhyaya in the additional notes in his subsequent study (1967, p. 77).

notes.98

98. For this verse we have followed the reading of the extant Sanskrit manuscripts, even though the word jātiḥ in the second line seems grammatically problematic: yathā hi jātiṣv anyāsu liṅgaṃ jātiḥ pṛthak pṛthak | sāmānyaṃ kāraṇaṃ tatra kiṃ vā jātiṣu manyase. Mukhopadhyaya (1954, p. 24) has tried to fix this in his edition by emending jātiḥ to yoniḥ, and he appears to have done so on the basis of the Tibetan rendering of this verse: de ltar rang gi bsod nams rigs / skyes pa bud med mtshan mas phye / rkang pa lag pa ’thun pa na / de la rigs su gang gis ’dod (“When thus by one’s merit, clan, and male or female characteristics there is distinction, but the feet and hands are common, then why do you think in terms of castes?” It is clear, however, that this Tibetan rendering is marred by at least two misreadings of the Sanskrit, with jātiṣv anyāsu apparently having been read as jātiḥ puṇyāsu and kāraṇaṃ as kara (“hand”), so we cannot be certain that the second line of the verse in fact had the Sanskrit equivalent yoniḥ for bu med mtshan. Unfortunately, neither Chinese translation can provide further clues here, since they both lack this set of verses. The wording of this particular verse seems to have been strained from the outset, since it is an adaptation of a verse that occurs prior to the preceding parallel verses in the Vāseṭṭha Sutta (Sn 607), in which jātīsu in the first line refers to the different nonhuman animal species: yathā etāsu jātīsu liṅgaṃ jātimayaṃ puthu / evaṃ n’atthi manussesu liṅgaṃ jātimayaṃ puthu (“While among these kinds of birth, the particular distinctive marks are there at birth, there are no such particular distinctive marks there at birth among human beings”).

notes.99

99. We have followed the reading of the extant Sanskrit manuscripts: dharmādhipatyāḥ pravarā manuṣyāḥ. In the Tibetan this entire line is rendered as mi rnam la mchog tu gyur pa’i chos kyi bye brag ni med do (“Among human beings there is no distinction in the Dharma being sovereign”). In Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation, however, there is no presence of negation; perhaps the Tibetan translators read dharmādhi­patyāpravarā manuṣyāḥ. On the basis of the Tibetan, Mukhopadhyaya (1954, p. 25) has emended the Sanskrit to dharmādhi­patyaprabhavā manuṣyāḥ (“Humans are distinguished by the sovereignty of the Dharma”), but in our opinion pravarā seems more appropriate here in view of the brahmin’s previous assertion that he is in the “preeminent caste” (pravare varṇe).

notes.100

100. The Tibetan reads bram ze rnams dang gcig yin te (“brahmins are one”), thus seemingly in agreement with the reading of the extant Sanskrit manuscripts brāhmaṇa ekajātya. However, Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation reads, “When you say that Brahmā is of one body, then all his creatures are of one kind. When you speak of one substance, then we, too, are the same. Why is that? You said that Brahmā created the world and all its beings.” And Zhi Qian’s Chinese translation also reads “Brahmā” instead of “brahmins” at the beginning of this passage, which makes better sense. This seems to indicate that the original Sanskrit reading here is not brāhmaṇa but brahmā, which is the emended reading given by Mukhopadhyaya in his edition (1954 p. 25, n. 10).

notes.101

101. The extant Sanskrit lacks “eyes.”

notes.102

102. The extant Sanskrit lacks “dogs.”

notes.103

103. The Tibetan has translated this as “Therefore they are the same as brahmins” (de lta bas na ’di dag bram ze rnams dang ’dra zhing gcig pa yin no).

notes.104

104. The Tibetan has “those bearing fruit” (’bras bu dang ldan pa).

notes.105

105. The Tibetan here reads me tog dang (“and in flowers”), but this phrase is then repeated later in the enumeration where the Sanskrit reads puṣpataś ca. In the following passages the Tibetan has me tog tsam dang where the extant Sanskrit manuscripts read phalgutaś ca (“and in sapwood”), which is an expression commonly used in the description of trees. We have adopted it here accordingly.

notes.106

106. The Tibetan translation adds “One discerns a marked difference between flowers that do not bear fruit” (’bras bu med pa’i me tog rnams sna tshogs par rig par bya’o).

notes.107

107. The Tibetan lacks mention of the syandana tree.

notes.108

108. The Tibetan has translated this twice as a ma la and as skyu ru ra.

notes.109

109. The Tibetan has transliterated this as arushaka.

notes.110

110. The extant Sanskrit lacks mention of the white water-lily (kumuda).

notes.111

111. Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation lacks the following section, up until the comparison of the man with four sons ().

notes.112

112. In the Tibetan these lines are wrongly translated as “the mountains are his stomach, the earth his thighs and feet.” At the very end of the text these verses figure again (), and there the Tibetan rendering is correct.

notes.113

113. In an additional note to his edition, Mukhopadhyaya (1954, pp. 225–26) provides several references to related passages in brahmanical literature: the Ṛgveda (X 90, the Puruṣasūkta), the Vājasaneyi­saṃhitā (XXXI), the Atharvaveda (X 7.32–34, XIX 6), the Muṇḍakopaniṣad (II 1.4), and the Bhagavadgītā (XI 19).

notes.114

114. We have followed the reading of the Sanskrit manuscripts, parīkṣasva tvaṃ brāhmaṇa svalakṣaṇataḥ, which in the Tibetan is rendered as tshangs pa rang gi mtshan nyid ni de lta yin par rigs sam/ kyod rang gis dpyod cig, the Tibetan translators apparently having read brāhmaṇa as brahmaṇa and having translated parīkṣasva twice.

notes.115

115. For this sentence we have followed the Tibetan translation, which has also served as the basis for the emended Sanskrit reading in the edition of Mukhopadhyaya (1954, p. 28). The entire sentence is missing in the extant Sanskrit manuscripts, which instead begin with the argument on rebirth: “Gods go to brahminhood, kṣatriyas are yakṣas, vaiśyas are nāgas, and śūdras are asuras; if being born were in reality like this, if caste were like this, then how would there be any distinction whereby brahmins are brahmins, kṣatriyas are kṣatriyas, vaiśyas are vaiśyas, and śūdras are śūdras?” In Zhi Qian’s Chinese translation, the verses on Brahmā are followed by, “You brahmin, this teaching is a lie. The world is brought about by the karma of sentient beings. How could Brahmā create this thing?” This appears to provide a suitable link to the verses that follow.

notes.116

116. The extant Sanskrit manuscripts read svakṛtena karmaṇā (“by the deeds done by himself”), but a more suitable reading, sukṛtena karmaṇā, is suggested by the Tibetan dge ba’i las byas pas (“by having done good deeds”), which we have followed here.

notes.117

117. We have followed the extant Sanskrit tadvad tapaś cārṣam iha praśastam. The Tibetan has translated this as “and hence can also become sages who practice austerities for pacification.” It seems the Tibetan translators read praśāntim for praśastam and took the adjectival ārṣam as the subject, plural in number.

notes.118

118. Zhi Qian’s Chinese translation lacks a rendering of the following verses.

notes.119

119. The Tibetan has dbang po gnyis (“two sense faculties”), whereas the extant Sanskrit reads catuḥśravaṇa (“four ears”), which we have followed here. The Tibetan has also omitted “many legs” in the next line.

notes.120

120. In the Tibetan these two lines are rendered as “By ‘father,’ ‘mother,’ ‘brother,’ and ‘relative’ one indicates family,” and the extant Sanskrit manuscripts similarly read mātā pitā bhrātā bandhuḥ for the first line. We follow Mukhopadhyaya’s emendation to mātā bhastrā pituḥ putro yena jātaḥ sa eva saḥ, which seems to be supported by Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation. In a footnote in his edition, Mukhopadhyaya (1954, p. 30, n. 13) mentions that this first half of the verse is found in the Harivaṃśa (XXXII 1724) and the Viṣṇupurāṇa (IV 19.2), and in an additional note in his subsequent study (1967, p. 77), he provides further references to the Matsyapurāṇa (XLIX 12) and the Śakuntalā story in the Mahābhārata (I 74,109).

notes.121

121. The Tibetan has misread the vocative brāhmaṇa as the subject of the sentence: “Thus, in transmigration, there is no being brahmin.”

notes.122

122. The Tibetan appears to have conflated these different questions starting with that on the inner self by rendering them as nang gi zla ba’i dkyil ’khor khyod kyis bklags sam (“Have you studied the internal disk of the moon?”).

notes.123

123. The extant Sanskrit lacks an equivalent for the Tibetan byA ka ra Na rnams (“grammars”).

notes.124

124. The extant Sanskrit here adds nyāya (“logic”), but this does not have an equivalent in either the Tibetan translation or Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation.

notes.125

125. We have here followed the Tibetan, which, like Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation, lacks any reference to the evening time. The Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts read te tatra sāyam āsanahetoḥ prāntavāṭikāṃ prātar aśanahetoś ca grāmaṃ piṇḍāya praviśanti sma (“There, they would come to the bordering houses in the evening for a place to stay, and in the morning they would enter the village on alms round for food”). Another Sanskrit version, preserved in an old fragment from Central Asia (Karashima 2009, pp. 338–39), reads te sāyaṃ ca sāyamāśarthaṃ prātaṃ ca prātarāśarthaṃ grāma piṇḍāyām avatarati (“They descended to the village on alms round in the evening for the sake of the evening meal and in the morning for the sake of the morning meal”).

notes.126

126. The Tibetan lacks mention of them being brahmins here, but Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation reads like the extant Sanskrit versions, which we have followed.

notes.127

127. The Tibetan here adds “This is the cause, this is condition, whereby the vaiśya caste appeared in the world.” This sentence, however, is present in neither the Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts and the Central Asian Sanskrit fragment (Karashima 2009, p. 339) nor Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation.

notes.128

128. The Tibetan here adds “This is the cause, this is condition, whereby the śūdra caste appeared in the world.” This sentence, however, is present in neither the Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts and the Central Asian Sanskrit fragment (Karashima 2009, p. 339) nor in Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation.

notes.129

129. This passage presents a folk etymology for one of the Sanskrit terms for an outcaste, mātaṅga, which here appears to be etymologized as mA taM gAs (“Do not go there / to him”), or possibly as mā taṅga (“Do not stumble”) (cf. BHSD s.v. taṅgati). As stated by Mukhopadhyaya (1954, p. 33, n. 9), the Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts are quite defective here, which led him to reconstruct the Sanskrit according to the Tibetan text. We should note, however, that the Tibetan translation lacks mention of the “wheel hub” (akṣo) of the wagon, while we find this word both in the Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts and in Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation. It also occurs in the Central Asian Sanskrit fragment (Karashima 2009, p. 339), which reads, abhū (sic) pūrvvaṃ brāhmaṇānyatarāyā vaddhyo (’)nyatarasmiṃ mataṅgaraṇyeyam (sic) vahyamānāyāṃ akṣo bhagno mahāṅga bhagnā mātāṅ[g]a (sic) bhagnā mātaṅga iti sā saṃjñā loke udupādi. Unfortunately, this Sanskrit version shows several defective readings. Karashima (2009, p. 339, n. 13) notes that vaddhyo (“criminal”) is probably a scribal error for vaddhvāṃ, which would be the locative singular of vadhū (“young wife”). In his subsequent study, Mukhopadhyaya (1967, p. 8) has translated this passage as follows: “A man (Śūdra?) abducted another’s (Brāhmaṇa’s?) wife and went to the forest. There his chariot was broken. He could not go back to society. The following injunction was given: mā tvaṃ gamaḥ, ‘Don’t you go (back to society).’ And he was called Mātaṅgama or Mātaṅga (as untouchable).” For further considerations on this passage, see ibid., pp. 65–66.

notes.130

130. We have followed the reading of the extant Sanskrit manuscripts, but in his subsequent study, Mukhopadhyaya (1967, p. 14) has proposed to emend Araṇemi to Āruṇi, which is the name of Śvetaketu’s father Uddālaka as mentioned, for instance, in the Kauṣītakī Upaniṣad (I 1). The Tibetan only has “Gautama” in this first instance, but in the next sentence it seems araṇemi is rendered as mnyes byed (“paying respect”), whereas in the related passage at the end of the text (), the name is literally translated as rtsib kyi mu khyud (“rim of spokes”).

notes.131

131. We have followed Mukhopadhyaya’s emendation paṅkti, even though the reading of the extant Sanskrit manuscripts pakṣi appears to underlie the Tibetan phyogs. It is not clear which of the two would be more suitable here, given that there are no corresponding statements in brahmanical literature. For an extensive comparison of brahmanical sources, see Mukhopadhyaya 1967, pp. 9–18, 21–26.

notes.132

132. We have followed Mukhopadhyaya’s corrections of this passage as given in his subsequent study (1967, pp. 14–15).

notes.133

133. That is, it may be inferred that the many distinctions within the brahmin caste came into being at a later point, as is the case with the caste distinctions among the population at large. What might also be suggested here is that the brahmin should infer from this detailed description that King Triśaṅku is fully knowledgeable in all aspects of the brahmanical tradition.

notes.134

134. Here and in the following sentence we have followed the reading of the extant Sanskrit manuscripts, daśadhā bhinnā, which is supported by Zhi Qian’s translation and is the reading adopted by Mukhopadhyaya in an additional note (1967, p. 77). In both instances the Tibetan reads, “divided into twenty-two.”

notes.135

135. That is, despite the many divisions within the brahmin caste, they still consider themselves as belonging to one group and suitable for intermarriage.

notes.136

136. The Tibetan translation runs differently here, and it seems the translators read praśānta instead of praśaṃsā and citta instead of vitta: “For one who guards his ethical conduct and strives after intelligence, there is threefold happiness: a calm mind, steadfastness, and attaining the blissful states in the world beyond.” We have followed the Sanskrit reading, which is supported by the rendering in Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation.

notes.137

137. We have followed the extant Sanskrit reading darśanaṃ sarva­vedānāṃ, even though the phrase seems somewhat unusual. The Tibetan properly has lta ba for darśanaṃ but lacks a rendering for sarvavedānāṃ, as is also the case in the Chinese translations. Mukhopadhyaya (1954, p. 39, n. 3) suggests the possibility of emending the Sanskrit to damanaṃ sarva­devānāṃ, presumably with sarvadevānāṃ then being taken with svarga­vratapadāni, but this would likewise be quite unusual.

notes.138

138. The following passage has not been properly preserved in any of the extant versions. It should present the names of eight wives of the Vedic seer Kaśyapa, all of whom are all sisters, being the daughters of the creator god Prajāpati Dakṣa, and all of whom are the mothers of the different classes of beings, who, in turn, are therefore all relatives. The Tibetan translation only contains the renderings of six of these sisters. The extant Sanskrit manuscripts omit the second name and read pṛthivī bhūtānāṃ mātā sarva­bījānāṃ marutāṃ at the end of the list, despite the fact that Pṛthivī and Marutā (or Marutvatī) are not wives of Kaśyapa according to brahmanical sources. In his subsequent study (1967, p. 19), Mukhopadhyaya has provided useful background information on this passage and pointed out that the original names are better preserved in Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation (though several of its renderings are quite garbled). On the basis of Dharmarakṣa’s renderings, Mukhopadhyaya has offered the following Sanskrit reconstruction (for which we have corrected the typos): aditir devānāṃ, danur dānavānām, ariṣṭā gandharvāṇāṃ, iḷā rakṣasāṃ, surabhiḥ saurabheyānāṃ, vinatā suparṇānāṃ, kadrur nāgānāṃ, surasā sarpāṇāṃ, mahāmahaṃ kāśyapaṃ manasā vidanti (or vindanti) ṛṣayaḥ. We have decided to adopt this reconstruction, since it is clear that by the time of the Tibetan translation this passage had become textually corrupt.

notes.139

139. The Tibetan omits these two sublineages.

notes.140

140. The Tibetan lacks a rendering of the Sanskrit paurāṇaiḥ (“of yore”), and the translators seem to have misread the Sanskrit ekonapañcāśat (“forty-nine”) as “fifty-one.”

notes.141

141. We have followed the reading of the Sanskrit manuscripts na caiṣām ūhāpohaḥ prajñāyate, since this expression also occurs in the previous passage on the divisions in the transmission of the Vedas () (Mukhopadhyaya 1954, p. 37).

notes.142

142. We have followed the Sanskrit prajāpater hi caikatve. The Tibetan reads skye dgu ’di gcig yin te (“These beings are the same”), having omitted -pater.

notes.143

143. We have followed the Tibetan dbang po sna tshogs de dag gis/ bya ba tha dad mthong bar bstan, with which Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation is more or less in agreement. The extant Sanskrit manuscripts read sa cendriyāṇāṃ nānātvaṃ kriyāvādena dṛśyate, which has been emended by Mukhopadhyaya (1954, p. 41) to na cendriyāṇāṃ nānātvaṃ kriyābhedaś ca dṛśyate (“There is no difference in faculties, and it is just a division of labor that is seen”).

notes.144

144. We have followed the Sanskrit for this verse. The Tibetan reads khyod ltar ’di dag rigs mchog ste// bram ze rgyal rigs de bzhin du// rje’u rigs dmangs rigs de dag la// tha snyad ’jug pa yod ma yin (“According to you, these are of the highest caste, but the conventional ideas regarding the brahmin and kṣatriya castes, the vaiśya caste, and the śūdra caste do not apply.” The translators seem to have read samjñā na pravartate where the extant Sanskrit has samaṃ jñānaṃ pravartate. A similar misreading is found in the Chinese translation by Dharmarakṣa, who seems to have read saṃjñānaṃ pravartate, without a negation. The extant Sanskrit reading seems to be the correct one, both metrically and in view of what follows.

notes.145

145. The extant Sanskrit manuscripts read kapiñjalyā janitaḥ, but metrically this falls one syllable short. In his edition, Mukhopadhyaya (1954, p. 42) has emended this to kapiñjalādyā janito on the basis of the Tibetan ser skya la sogs skyes nas ni, but the Tibetan rendering is problematic in having taken kapiñjala as synonymous with kapila. The correct name here is Kapiñjalāda, who is mentioned in a verse of Aśvaghoṣa’s Buddhacarita (4.77, Toh 4156) as the son of sage Vasiṣṭha born from an outcaste woman named Akṣamālā. In an additional note to this edition, Mukhopadhyaya (1954, p. 228) refers to a line in the Mahābhārata in the Tanjore recension (XIII 21) that mentions the brahmic sage Kapiñjalāda as having been born from a caṇḍāla (“outcaste”) woman (kapiñjalāda brahmarṣiś caṇḍālyām udapadyata).

notes.146

146. The extant Sanskrit reads “the Sāvitrī” instead of “this mantra,” but the latter rendering is found in both the Tibetan and Zhi Qian’s Chinese translation. At the beginning of this sentence, the Sanskrit adds ṛddhiparihīnaḥ (“completely deprived of his miraculous power”), but this is absent in the Tibetan and the Chinese translations.

notes.147

147. This is the most important mantra in the brahmanical tradition, the so-called Gāyatrī mantra, which is found in the Ṛgveda (3.62). It is directed toward Savitṛ, the personification of the sun’s power, and it can be translated as follows: “ Om. Earth, atmosphere, sky. Let us meditate on what is most exquisite of the vivifier, the brilliance of the god, which may direct our minds.” For a full study on this mantra, see Haas 2023.

notes.148

148. The extant Sanskrit manuscripts are clearly corrupt here, and the Tibetan translation is also not without problems. The phrase bram ze sngags ’dis seems to be a rendering of the following sentence, iyaṃ brāhmaṇānāṃ sāvitrī (“This is the Sāvitrī of brahmins”), which is otherwise left unrendered in the Tibetan translation. This sentence occurs both in Zhi Qian’s Chinese translation and in Dharmarakṣa’s translation (where this entire passage is found toward the end of the text at 419a13). It seems to us that the second occurrence of bram ze in the Tibetan renders a misinterpreted vocative brāhmaṇa. Mukhopadhyaya’s Sanskrit reconstruction (1954, p. 45) is therefore unreliable here.

notes.149

149. This mantra can be translated as follows: “Sharing in the god’s most excellent food, we will bestow it.” We have followed the reading of the extant Sanskrit manuscripts here, since Mukhopadhyaya’s reconstruction (1954, p. 45) is problematic in its reliance on the Tibetan. In the Tibetan we find the transliteration vaM nya ka a ta sA ka nya ar ta tha phra khri na, apparently starting with vayaṃ and then followed by a rendering of the second line of the Sāvitrī of vaiśyas that follows. It seems this mistake was made because the actual line of the mantra was incorporated into the preceding description by rendering it as dka’ thub byas pas lhas zas mchog byin nas gnas shing sngags ’di blzas so (“being given the most excellent food by a god due to his ardent practice, he uttered this mantra”). The extant Sanskrit manuscripts add another line, sarva­kāma­guṇopetaṃ sukha­bhojanaṃ kṣatriyasya pradāsyāmaḥ (“We will bestow the delightful food of a kṣatriya, which is endowed with all pleasurable qualities”), but this is absent in Zhi Qian’s Chinese translation as well as in the Tibetan. In Zhi Qian’s Chinese translation, which lacks any reference to Prajāpati (“lord of creatures”), this entire passage on the Sāvitrī of kṣatriyas that follows is fully transliterated, and on its basis it seems Mukhopadhyaya’s reconstruction hy ātmārāmas taporataḥ should be replaced with simply prītaḥ. In the additional notes in his subsequent study (1967, p. 78), Mukhopadhyaya cites a verse from the Ṛgveda (V 82.1), from which the mantra here seems to be derived: oṃ tat savitur vṛṇīmahe vayaṃ devasya bhojanam | śreṣṭhaṃ sarvadhātamaṃ turam bhagasya dhīmah i.

notes.150

150. Tibetan has here translated sāvitrī as dag byed kyi snags (“purificatory mantra”), whereas in the earlier passage on the syllables and parts it was transliterated as sa bya ti and sa byin tra ().

notes.151

151. This mantra can be translated as follows: “ Om. The vaiśya maiden is brightly bedecked indeed. That maiden is then clever in wealth.” The Tibetan transliteration reads oM tsin tra ma hid dhe be sha ka paM sha sha taM sha tra daM sha dam.

notes.152

152. This mantra can be translated as follows: “ Om. Lack of ardor, great ardor. May I live for a hundred years. May I see a hundred autumns.” The Tibetan transliteration reads oM a ta pa pra ta pa dze me dha ha ma. The transliteration in Zhi Qian’s Chinese translation is in agreement with the extant Sanskrit, except that it ends with an inexplicable āmra instead of śaradāṃ śatam. In the additional notes to his edition, Mukhopadhyaya (1954, p. 228) cites a closely related line from the Ṛgveda (VII 66.16) and the Vājasaneyi­saṃhitā (XXXVI 24): paśyema śaradaḥ śataṃ jīvema śaradaḥ śatam.

notes.153

153. In his edition, Mukhopadhyaya (1954, p. 46) here adds bhūr bhuvaḥ svaḥ, but this is absent in the Tibetan translation, in Zhi Qian’s Chinese translation, and in the Nepalese manuscript (NGMPP A 38-14).

notes.154

154. This mantra can be translated as follows: “ Om. Sense pleasures are supreme to beings in the world. When they are not abandoned, they are obstacles to beings. Therefore you should all abandon sense pleasures. You will then surely attain the incomparable world of Brahmā.” In an additional note to his edition, Mukhopadhyaya (1954, p. 228) points out that the extant Sanskrit reading teṣām prahāṇāya abhūtāntarāyaḥ makes little sense and is moreover metrically defective. In the Tibetan, however, we find the second line transliterated as de sha ma a pra ha na ca bhu bA (= dA in the Urga Kangyur) na ta ra ya, on the basis of which the problematic reading of the extant Sanskrit manuscripts can be emended to teṣām aprahāṇe bhūtāntarāyāḥ, leaving out the ca in the Tibetan transliteration for the sake of meter.

notes.155

155. The Tibetan here reads rgyu skar gyi dbang rnams (“the influences of lunar asterisms”), which indicates that the translators read nakṣatravaśaṃ instead of nakṣatra­vaṃśam. The latter is undoubtedly the correct reading here. For an extensive discussion of nakṣatras in brahmanical sources, see Mukhopadhyaya 1967, pp. 28–48, 51–55.

notes.156

156. We have followed Mukhopadhyaya’s emendation pañcadaśa (“fifteen”), which is the number found in Dharmarakṣa’s Chinese translation and which seems to be the correct one, given that this is a small asterism of only one star. The extant Sanskrit manuscripts read pañcatvāriṃśan (“forty-five”), while the Tibetan translation has sum cu rtsa lnga (“thirty-five”). Zhi Qian’s Chinese translation does not properly list the number of muhūrtas in this description of the lunar asterisms.

First 156 of 489 passages. Read on