Toh 75 — The Questions of Gaṅgottarā
Gaṅgottaraparipṛcchā
The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra
The Questions of Gaṅgottarā
F.222.a Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas!
Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was dwelling in Śrāvastī, in Prince Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park. At that time a laywoman named Gaṅgottarā was living in the great city of Śrāvastī.[1]
One day, the laywoman Gaṅgottarā left Śrāvastī and went to Prince Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park.[2] When she arrived, she bowed down before the Blessed One with her head at his feet, and then she sat to one side.
Once she had sat down, the Blessed One asked the laywoman Gaṅgottarā a question, even though he already knew the answer:[3] “From where have you just come, Gaṅgottarā?”
“Blessed One,” Gaṅgottarā replied, “if someone were to ask a magically created being, ‘From where have you just come?’ what would be the answer?” F.222.b
“Gaṅgottarā,” responded the Blessed One, “a magically created being neither stands nor sits. It does not lie down. It does not come or go. It does not die. It is not born. So, how could one declare that it has come from some place?”
“Blessed One, are all things like magical creations?” asked Gaṅgottarā.
“It is so, Gaṅgottarā.”[4]
“Blessed One,” she responded, “if all things are like magical creations, why do you ask, ‘Laywoman Gaṅgottarā, from where have you just come?’ ”
“Gaṅgottarā,” the Blessed One answered, “since magically created beings[5] do not go to the lower realms, and they do not go to the higher realms, and they do not go to parinirvāṇa, do you, too, Gaṅgottarā, not go to the lower realms, or go to the higher realms, or go to parinirvāṇa?”
“Blessed One,” Gaṅgottarā replied, “if I truly saw the laywoman Gaṅgottarā as being different in nature from a magical creation, then it would not be appropriate for me to compare myself to a magically created being by saying, ‘The laywoman Gaṅgottarā does not go to the lower realms, does not go to the higher realms, and does not go to parinirvāṇa.’ Nevertheless, Blessed One, I do not see myself as being different in nature from a magical creation.[6] Since I do not see myself in that way, Blessed One, how can I declare in this way that the laywoman Gaṅgottarā goes to the lower realms, goes to the higher realms, or goes to parinirvāṇa?
“Even with this being the case, Blessed One, it is in accordance with the presence of mental straying, mental conceit, mental agitation, and vain imagining that one thinks the thoughts, ‘I go to the lower realms,’ ‘I go to the higher realms,’ and F.223.a ‘I go to parinirvāṇa.’[7] Blessed One, the state of nirvāṇa[8] is such that it never goes to the lower realms, it never goes to the higher realms, and it never goes to parinirvāṇa. The laywoman Gaṅgottarā has a similar state, Blessed One.”[9]
“Gaṅgottarā,” the Blessed One responded, “have you not set out for parinirvāṇa?”[10]
“Blessed One,” Gaṅgottarā replied, “if someone were to ask what is not born, ‘Have you not set out for parinirvāṇa?’ what would be the answer?”
“Gaṅgottarā,” the Blessed One said, “since the phrase ‘what is not born’ is a designation for nirvāṇa, what would be the answer?”[11]
“Blessed One,” Gaṅgottarā replied, “are all things the same as nirvāṇa?”
“It is so, Gaṅgottarā,” he said. “All things are the same as nirvāṇa.”
“If all things are the same as nirvāṇa, then why, Blessed One, do you ask, ‘Gaṅgottarā, have you not set out for parinirvāṇa?’ Blessed One, if someone were to ask a magically created being, ‘Have you not set out for parinirvāṇa?’ what would be the answer?”[12]
“Gaṅgottarā,” the Blessed One responded, “this question does not have an objective basis.”[13]
“Do the words that the Blessed One has spoken have some connection to an objective basis?”[14] asked Gaṅgottarā.
“Gaṅgottarā,” the Blessed One answered, “even though this question does not have an objective basis, nevertheless, asking it will be of great benefit to the noble sons and noble daughters who are gathered here in this assembly.[15] Why is this? When the Tathāgata had not awakened directly and completely even to what is called the true nature of things, Gaṅgottarā, how much less would there be a thing arising from it that remains in parinirvāṇa?”[16]F.223.b
“If the Tathāgata had not awakened directly and completely even to what is called the true nature of things, and even less would there be a thing arising from it,” she replied, “how did the Blessed One properly plant roots of virtue in order to achieve awakening?”[17]
“Gaṅgottarā,” the Blessed One responded, “a root of virtue is not something that has an objective basis. During the time when the Bodhisattva was planting the roots of virtue, he never let go of inconceivability. During the time when he was not planting them, he also did not let go of inconceivability.”[18]
“With respect to the inconceivable, Blessed One, why is the inconceivable called the inconceivable?”[19] asked Gaṅgottarā.
“Gaṅgottarā,” the Blessed One answered, “this teaching is not to be attained by the mind; it cannot be attained by the mind.[20] Why is this? According to this teaching, when not even the mind itself has an objective basis, how much less so would the things that arise from the mind?[21] The mind’s lack of an objective basis, Gaṅgottarā, is what is called the continuous stream of the inconceivable.[22] That which is the continuous stream of the inconceivable is not attained. It is not fully realized. It is not known. It is not something to be experienced directly. It is not something to be attained. It is not afflicted. It is not purified. Why is this? It is because, Gaṅgottarā, the Tathāgata knows with certainty that all things are like space. All things, Gaṅgottarā, are unobstructed, just like space.”[23]
“Blessed One,” Gaṅgottarā asked, “if all things are unobstructed, just like space, then why does the Blessed One use verbal expressions like ‘form,’ ‘feeling,’ ‘conception,’ ‘formation,’ and ‘consciousness,’ as well as verbal expressions like ‘the aggregates,’ ‘the elements,’ and ‘the sense spheres’; ‘dependent arising’; ‘the intoxicated’ and ‘what is free of intoxication’; ‘the afflicted’ and ‘the purified’; and ‘saṃsāra’ and ‘nirvāṇa’?”[24]F.224.a
“Gaṅgottarā,” the Blessed One replied, “just as one uses the expression ‘self’ even though the self has no objective basis at all, in precisely the same way, Gaṅgottarā, I use the expression ‘form,’ even though form has no objective basis at all. In the same way, too, I use the expressions ‘feeling,’ ‘conception,’ ‘formation,’ and ‘consciousness,’ even though consciousness has no objective basis at all. I also use the expressions ‘the aggregates,’ ‘the elements,’ and ‘the sense spheres’; ‘dependent arising’; ‘the intoxicated’ and ‘what is free of intoxication’; ‘the afflicted’ and ‘the purified’; and ‘saṃsāra’ and ‘nirvāṇa,’ even though nirvāṇa has no objective basis at all.[25]
“Gaṅgottarā, just as a mirage does not produce water and has no objective basis at all, in precisely the same way, Gaṅgottarā, I use the expression ‘form,’ even though form has no objective basis at all. In the same way, too, I use the expressions ‘feeling,’ ‘conception,’ ‘formation,’ and ‘consciousness,’ even though consciousness has no objective basis at all. I also use the expressions ‘the aggregates,’ ‘the elements,’ ‘the sense spheres’; ‘dependent arising’; ‘the intoxicated’ and ‘what is free of intoxication’; ‘the afflicted’ and ‘the purified’; and ‘saṃsāra’ and ‘nirvāṇa,’ even though ultimately not one of these things exists or has any objective basis.[26]
“One who practices the holy life without holding on to the Dharma as the final word, Gaṅgottarā, dwells in the practice of the holy life according to the well-stated Dharma and Discipline.[27]F.224.b There are some who have self-conceit, Gaṅgottarā, who practice the holy life while thinking that their abiding by it has an objective basis, and I say that their practice of the holy life is not completely purified.[28] When they hear a profound teaching such as this one on cutting off the continuous stream, those who do not practice the holy life with complete purity become terrified, and they do not become free from birth, old age, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, suffering, distress, and conflict; they receive their share of suffering, I say.
“Whether now or after I have passed away,[30] Gaṅgottarā, there will be those who teach this kind of profound teaching on cutting off the continuous stream,[31] and ignorant people will come to conceive the idea that they have the intent to kill them. Due to their misunderstanding, these ignorant people thus come to generate a homicidal hatred and go to the lower realms.”[32]
“ ‘Cutting off the continuous stream, cutting off the continuous stream,’ ” Gaṅgottarā replied. “Blessed One, what is it that you call cutting off the continuous stream?”[33]
“Gaṅgottarā,” the Blessed One answered, “this teaching does not cut off the continuous stream; it is not the disintegration of it; it is not the destruction of it. For this reason, it should be called cutting off the continuous stream. It should also be called the ultimate endpoint. It should be called the continuous stream of the inconceivable.”[34]
Then, at that moment, the Blessed One displayed a smile. Various multicolored rays of light issued from the Blessed One’s mouth in such a way that blue, yellow, red, white, rose madder, crystalline, and silvery rays of light spread throughout endless, limitless world systems, reaching as far as the Brahmā realm, and then they returned and disappeared into the Blessed One’s mouth.[35]
At that point, the venerable Ānanda draped his upper robe over one shoulder, knelt on his right knee, and then, joining his palms together in a gesture of respect toward the Blessed One, he paid homage to the Blessed One F.225.a and said this: “Blessed One, the tathāgatas do not display their smile without a reason. What is the cause? What is the condition? Why have you displayed your smile?”[36]
“Ānanda,” the Blessed One replied, “I have direct knowledge of the fact[37] that, in this very place, one thousand tathāgatas have taught this formulation of the Dharma, always starting with a single laywoman whose name was always Gaṅgottarā. All those laywomen went forth and achieved parinirvāṇa—that is, the state of parinirvāṇa without any remaining aggregates.”[38]
The venerable Ānanda then asked the Blessed One, “What is the name of this formulation of the Dharma, Blessed One? How should it be remembered?”
“Ānanda,” the Blessed One replied, “you may call this formulation of the Dharma Stainless. Remember it as the one you may call Stainless.”[39]
When this Dharma discourse was taught, the minds of seven hundred monks and four hundred nuns were freed from the intoxicants and did not grasp any more. Then the gods of the desire realm and the gods of the form realm magically created divine flowers and sandalwood powder and strewed them over the Blessed One while saying, “It is marvelous that such a laywoman lives in the city of Śrāvastī! Not only does she converse with the Tathāgata but also her body does not become weary from it. In the very same way, this laywoman Gaṅgottarā has served victors of the past, generated roots of virtue, practiced virtue for a long time, practiced the holy life for a long time, and venerated many buddhas!”[40]
“So it is, divine ones,” the Blessed One said. “For a long time, she has served victors of the past, generated roots of virtue, F.225.b and practiced the holy life.”[41]
After the Blessed One had spoken these words, the laywoman Gaṅgottarā was delighted, and so was the world with its gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas, and they rejoiced at what the Blessed One had said.
Thus concludes “The Chapter of the Questions of Gaṅgottarā,” the thirty-first of the one hundred thousand chapters of the formulation of the Dharma known as “The Noble Great Heap of Jewels.”[42]Colophon
Translated, edited, corrected according to revised terminology, and finalized by the Indian preceptors Jinamitra and Dānaśīla, along with the chief editor and translator Bandé Yeshé Dé and others.
Notes
The Dunhuang manuscript says it a bit more simply: “At that time, there was a laywoman named Gaṅgottarā in the city of Śrāvastī…” (de’i tshe grong khyer mnyan yod na | dge bsnyen ma gang ga’i mchog ces bya ba zhig yod de | …).
backDegé: de nas dge bsnyen ma gang gA’i mchog mnyan yod nas byung nas rgyal bu rgyal byed kyi tshal mgon med zas sbyin gyi kun dga’ ra ba ga la ba der song ste… Again, the Dunhuang manuscript reads a bit more simply, “She came out from her dwelling and went to see the Blessed One” (de gnas nas phyir byung ste | bcom ldang ’das ga la ba der song ste | …). Similarly, the English translation of the Chinese in Chang 1991, 37, has, “Gaṅgottarā came from her dwelling in Śrāvastī to see the Buddha.”
backDegé has bcom ldan ’das kyis mkhyen bzhin du… (literally “the Blessed One, though he already knew…”). The Dunhuang manuscript also has the phrase mkhyen bzhin du, “though he already knew,” but this part of the line is absent in the Chinese version.
backDegé: bka’ stsal pa | gang gA’i mchog de bzhin no. By contrast, the Dunhuang manuscript reads, “The Blessed One said, ‘It is so, it is so. It is just as you have said…” (bcom ldan ’das kyis bka’ stsal pa’ | de de bzhin no | de de bzhin de | khyod kyis ci skyad smras pa bzhin no |…). Chang 1991 has “The Blessed One said, ‘Yes, indeed. What you say is true.’ ” (37).
backDegé: sprul pa ni; Dunhuang: sprul pa’i skyes bu gang yin ba de ni, “a being that is magically created.”
backThe Dunhuang manuscript reads differently: “If I saw my body as different from a magical illusion or a magically created being, then I would go to a good place of rebirth or a bad place of rebirth or realize complete nirvāṇa, but since I see no difference between my body and a magical illusion or a magically created being…” (bdag gi lus sgyu ma dang | sprul pa dang tha dad par mthong na ni | dge ’gro dang | ngan ’gror mchi zhing mya ngan las ’das pa yang mngon du bgyid pa zhig na | bdag gi lus sgyu ma dang | sprul pa dang | tha myi dad par mthong bas…).
backThis sentence is not in the Dunhuang manuscript or in the Chinese as reflected in Chang 1991.
backDegé: mya ngan las ’das pa’i dbyings; the Dunhuang manuscript has mya ngan las ’das pa’i ngo bo nyid, “the true nature of nirvāṇa.” On this passage, see also Silk 2014.
backThe Dunhuang manuscript reads, “I see that my own body also has the same nature” (bdag gi lus kyang de bzhin du mthong lags so).
backDegé: gang gA’i mchog khyod ci yongs su mya ngan las ’das pa la yang dag par ma zhugs sam. The Dunhuang manuscript here reads: “Are you not inclined toward the state of nirvāṇa?” (ci khyod mya ngan las ’das pa’i dbyings la gzhol bar myi byed dam).
backThe Dunhuang manusript reads differently: “The true nature of that which is not born is nirvāṇa” (kye ba myed pa gang yin ba de nyid ni mya ngan las ’das pa yin no). Once again, the Dunhuang manuscript is similar to the Chinese as reflected in Chang 1991, 38.
backThe Dunhuang manuscript reads differently here: “Furthermore, Blessed One, it would be as if one magically created being were to ask another magically created being, ‘Are you not inclined toward the state of nirvāṇa?’ In that case, what would be the answer?” (gzhan yang bcom ldan ’das ’di lta ste | dper na sprul ba’i skyes bu zhig gis sprul pa’i skyes bu la ci khyod mya ngan las ’das pa’i dbyings la gzhol bar myi byed dam zhes de skad rmas par gyur na | des ci skad lan ’debs par gyur lags |).
backThe Dunhuang manuscript agrees here with the canonical Tibetan translation. Chang 1991 reads “A magically produced being has no mental attachments” (38), but the Chinese 此所問者無有攀緣 (“this question does not have an objective basis”) clearly matches the Tibetan, so we would disagree with Chang’s reading. For the Chinese version of this text, see Henghe shang youpoyi hui恒河上優婆夷會 (Gaṅgottaraparipṛcchā), Taishō 310(31) (CBETA; SAT).
backThe Dunhuang manuscript reads differently here: “Has this question been asked because there is some objective basis on the part of the Tathāgata?” (ci de bzhin gshegs pa la dmyigs pa mnga’ ba’i slad du bka’s rmas pa’ ’di rmas lags sam). Chang 1991 has, “Does the Tathāgata’s very question stem from some mental attachment” (38).
backThe Dunhuang manuscript appears to read both similarly and differently from both the canonical Tibetan and the Chinese translation here: “Even though there is no objective basis to what I have said, nevertheless this question has been asked in order to bring to maturity those noble sons and noble daughters who are gathered in this assembly” (ngas smras pa la dmyigs pa yod pa ma yin mod kyi | ’on kyang ’khor ’di na yod pa’i rigs kyi bu dang | rigs kyi bu mo dag yongs su smyin par bya ba’i phyir | ’dri ba ’di dris pa yin no). Chang 1991 reads, “I raised the question because there are in this assembly good men and good women who can be brought to maturity. I am free of mental attachment” (38).
backDegé: gang gA’i mchog de bzhin gshegs pas ni chos nyid ces bya ba yang mngon par rdzogs par sangs ma rgyas na gang (Degé, Stok, etc.; yang Phugdrag) de las byung ba’i chos yongs su mya ngan las ’das pa la gnas pa lta ga la yod. The translation above assumes de las byung ba’i chos and yongs su mya ngan las ’das pa are not in apposition. However, it is also possible to interpret them as being in apposition, with gang thereby modifying the latter, in which case the translation could run as follows: “If the Tathāgata had not completely awakened even to what is called the true nature of things, Gaṅgottarā, how could he remain in the parinirvāṇa that is the thing (dharma) that arises from it?” Skilling 2021, pp. 348–49, translates this sentence somewhat differently: “If the Tathāgata had not fully awakened to the true nature, Gaṅgottarā, then in his final nirvāṇa there would be a remainder of the dharmas arising from it.” The passage could perhaps be rendered in other ways, too. The Dunhuang manuscript also reads quite differently here, even while some of the component terms and phrases seem to be present, such as lta yod par ga la ’gyur: “For the Tathāgata even the names of such things do not have an objective basis, much less the existence of the things and of those who are inclined toward nirvāṇa” (de bzhin gshegs pa ni chos de dag gi mying yang dmyigs par myi ’gyur na | chos rnams dang | mya ngan las ’da’s pa la gzhol ba de dag lta yod par ga la ’gyur). Chang 1991 translates the Chinese here as follows: “Because the Tathāgata knows that even the names of things are inapprehensible, let alone the things themselves or those who seek nirvāṇa” (38).
backThe first part of this sentence, in which Gaṅgottarā simply restates the preceding sentence (see #UT22084-043-012-108), is not found in the Dunhuang manuscript or in the Chinese as reflected in Chang 1991. In the Dunhuang manuscript, Gaṅgottarā says only, “If that is so, why then does one produce an accumulation of the roots of virtue for the sake of awakening?” (gal te de ltar na | ci ltar byang chub kyi ched du dge ba’i rta ba’i stsogs par bgyid lags).
backThe Dunhuang manuscript says, “Bodhisattvas do not have any objective basis and neither do the roots of virtue, because they have no thought at the time even that something is accumulated and similarly also at the time that something is not accumulated” (byang cub sems dpa’ rnams dang | dge ba’i rtsa ba de dag kyang dmyigs su myed de | bstsags pa nyid kyi tshe sems myed pa’i phyir | bstsags pa ma yin ba’i tshe yang de bzhin no).
backThe Dunhuang manuscript says, “What meaning is indicated by saying that there is no thought?” (sems ma mchis pa zhes bka’ stsal pa des don gang zhig ston par mdzad lags).
backThe Dunhuang manuscript says here, “This teaching can neither be understood by thinking, nor can it be attained by thinking” (chos ’di ni bsam ba dag gis shes par ’gyur ba yang ma yin la | bsam ba dag gis ’thob par ’gyur ba yang ma yin no).
backThough it is rendered a bit differently from the canonical Tibetan translation, the Dunhuang manuscript has a similar sense here: ’di la sems kyang dmyigs par myi ’gyur na | sems las byung ba’i chos lta smos kyang ci dgos te.
backThe Dunhuang manuscript says here, “In this way, the mind’s very lack of an objective basis is what is taught as the state of the inconceivable” (’di ltar sems dmyigs su myed pa gang yin pa de nyid la bsams gyis myi khyab pa’i gnas shes bstan ste).
backThe last few sentences of the canonical Tibetan translation are conveyed in the Dunhuang manuscript with much the same meaning: “The state of the inconceivable is neither attained nor fully realized; it is neither afflicted nor purified. Why is this? It is because, as the Tathāgata always teaches, all things, being the same as space, are unobstructed” (bsam kyis myi khyab pa’i gnas de dag la ni thob pa yang myed | mgnon par rtogs pa yang myed de | kun nas nyon mongs pa yang ma yin | rnam par byang ba yang ma yin no | de ci’i phyir zhes na | de bzhin gshegs pas rtag du chos thams cad ni nam mkha’ dang mtshungs te | togs pa myed pa’i phyir ro zhes gsungs pas so).
backThe above paragraph is rendered in very much the same way in the Dunhuang manuscript, though it specifies “the twelvefold chain of dependent arising” (rten cing ’brel bar ’byung ba bcu gnyis), rather than simply “dependent arising,” and it does not include the phrase “the aggregates.”
backAfter the sentence, “…I use the expression ‘form,’ but form has no objective basis at all,” the Dunhuang manuscript says simply, “and the same is true with [the other expressions] up to nirvāṇa” (mya ngan las ’da’s pa zhes bya ba’i bar du yang de bzhin no).
backIn the Dunhuang manuscript, this whole paragraph is rendered more simply: “Furthermore, just as water has no basis in a mirage (smyug [sic] rgyu la chu myi dmyigs pa), in the same way I use the expressions from ‘forms’ up to ‘nirvāṇā,’ even though it is the same [with them].”
backThe Dunhuang manuscript reads differently here: “Gaṅgottarā, those who are established in the practice of the holy life in accordance with my teachings, and regard all things in the right way as having no objective basis, are the first ones who should be called those who are established in the practice of the holy life in the right way” (gang ga’i mchog gang gis nga’i bstan pa las tshangs par spyod pa mngon bar bsgrub pa de dag thams cad dmyigs su myed par yang dag par rjes su mthong na | gdod yang dag par tshangs par spyod pa mngon bar bsgrub pa zhes bya’o).
backThe Dunhuang manuscript reads a bit differently here: “It should not be said that those with self-conceit, who declare that an objective basis exists, dwell in the practice of the holy life in the right way” (mngon ba’i nga rgyal can dmyigs pa yod par ston pas na | yang dag par tshangs par spyod pa la gnas pa zhes myi bya ste). This may help to make more sense of the terse phrase in the canonical translation, gnas dmigs nas, rendered in the main translation as “while thinking that their abiding by it has an objective basis.”
backThe Dunhuang manuscript continues, “When they hear such a profound teaching as this one, those with self-conceit feel extremely frightened and become filled with a great doubt (the tsom [sic] chen po). As a result, I declare, they do not become free from birth, old age, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, suffering, and distress.”
backThe Dunhuang manuscript reads, “After my parinirvāṇa…” (nga yongs su mya ngan las ’da’s pa’i ’ong du).
backThe Dunhuang manuscript says, “this kind of profound teaching on cutting off the continuous stream of saṃsāra” (’khor ba rgyun gcod pa).
backThe Dunhuang manuscript says, “some fools, due to the force of abiding by their wicked beliefs, will hate these individuals who teach the Dharma, and they will thereby conceive the intent to do them harm. As a result of these causes and conditions, they will fall into the hells” (blun po kha cig lda ba ngan pa la gnas pa’i dbang gyis chos ’chad pa’i gang zag dag la zhe sdang gis gnod sems skyed pas na | rgu dang rkyen des sems can dmyal ba rnams su ltung bar ’gyur ro).
backThe Dunhuang manuscript says, “When the Blessed One speaks of the teaching on cutting off the continuous stream of saṃsāra, what does it mean to say ‘cutting off the continuous stream of saṃsāra’?” (bcom ldan ’das kyis ci skad du ’khor ba rgyun god pa’i chos shes gang gsungs pa de don gang gi slad du ’khor ba rgyun gcod pa zhes bgyi lags).
backThe Dunhuang manuscipt says, “In this regard, that which should be spoken of as cutting off the continuous stream of saṃsāra is as follows: since that which is the ultimate endpoint and something (chos) of the state of the inconceivable cannot be destroyed or disintegrated, for this reason, I have declared it to be the teaching (chos) of cutting off the continuous stream of saṃsāra” (de la ’khor ba rgyun gcod pa zhes bya ba ni ’di lta ste | yang dag pa’i mtha’ dang | bsam gyis myi khyap pa’i dbyings kyi chos gang yin ba de ni dbyug cing gzhig du myed pas | de’i phyir ’khor ba’i rgyun gcod pa’i chos shes bstan to). In both the Dunhuang manuscript and the canonical Tibetan, the Buddha’s explanation here would seem to rely on the dual sense of the meaning of the word dharma (chos) as both a phenomenon and the teaching.
backThe Dunhuang manuscript reads similarly, except that fewer colors of light are mentioned and the names of them are slightly different: blue, golden yellow (gser po), red, rose madder, and water crystalline (chu shal). Also, significantly, the rays of light are said to disappear “on the top of the Tathāgata’s head” (de bzhin gshegs pa’i dbu’i gtsug du).
backThe Dunhuang manuscript says, “Then, when he had seen such a thing (dngos po de lta bu dag mthong nas), venerable Ānanda had the thought, ‘the tathāgata, the worthy one, the fully awakened buddha does not display a smile without cause or condition,’ and so he placed his robe over one shoulder, knelt down on his right knee, joined his palms together in a gesture of respect toward the Blessed One, and said this: ‘What is the cause, what is the condition, that the Blessed One has displayed a smile?’”
backDegé: ngas mngon par shes te; the Dunhuang manuscript says, “I remember directly…” (ngas mngon bar dran te).
backThe Dunhuang manuscript says, “In a time in the past (sngon ’dass [sic] pa’i dus), in this place a thousand tathāgatas taught a teaching of this kind. At the head of each of the assemblies [to which it was taught] there was a laywoman named Gaṅgottarā. After hearing this teaching, all those laywomen and those in the assemblies went forth and achieved parinirvāṇa—that is, the nirvāṇa without any remainder (lhag ma myed pa’i mya ngan las ’da’s pa).”
backIn the Dunhuang manuscript, the Buddha calls it “Stainless Purity” (dri ma myed pa’i rnam par dag pa).
backAn almost identical paragraph appears in the Dunhuang manuscript.
backThis sentence does not appear in the Dunhuang manuscript.
backThe Dunhuang manuscript also has a colophon that says it is part of the one hundred thousand chapters of The Noble Great Heap of Jewels, and gives its title as “The Meeting with the Laywoman Gaṅgottarā” (dge bsnyen ma gang ga’i mchog gi ’dus pa).
back
