704 Groundless Paths just as it is, which is a particular feature o f w isdom ” However, neither o f these passages is found in the commentaries on the AA by the tw o BuddhaSrijhanas 149 D3796, fol 38b.5-7 150 D3940, fol 7a.5 -6 151 1.15-16 152 D3872, fols 51bf 153 D3915, fol 25a.2-4 154 IV.7 155 Literally, line IV.8d has “suprem e” (Skt paramata, Tib dam pa), which is taken to mean “ultimate” (Skt paramartha, Tib don dam) by the Bhasya and all subsequent commentaries 156 IV.8-9 157 PGSD (pp -7 ) explains that the generation o f bodhicitta on the level o f seem ing reality is the one o f mahayana learners that focuses on perfect enlightenm ent for the welfare o f others and lacks the w isdom o f the meditative equipoise o f directly realizing the nature o f phenomena It exists on the paths o f accumulation and preparation and during the subsequent attainment o f mahayana noble ones It is divided into the bodhicitta o f aspiration, which is not associated with the bodhisattva vow , and the bodhicitta o f application, w h ich is associated with the aid that is the bodhisattva training The first cannot go beyond the path o f accumulation because, from the path o f preparation onward, there is no generation o f bodhicitta that is not associated with the bodhisattva vow The latter does not exist during the meditative equipoise o f mahayana noble ones because it is definite as a generation o f bodhicitta on the level o f seem ing reality Therefore, in this context, the bodhicitta o f aspiration is necessarily not associated with the bodhisattva v ow , w hile the bodhicitta o f application is necessarily associated w ith it The ultimate bodhicitta has the nature o f the nonconceptual meditative equipoise o f directly real izing the nature o f phenom ena, which exists from the first bhumi onward PVSD (fol 10b.3 -4 ) defines ultimate bodhicitta as the state o f m ind that arises as the nature o f the ultimate, is made special through the above three features in Mahay dnasutrdlamkara IV.8 (with the last one being glossed as the direct realization o f phenom enal identitylessness), and is attained by virtue o f having b ecom e familiar w ith the yogas o f calm abiding and superior insight 158 MPZL (p 22) points out that there are tw o ways o f determ ining the boundary lines o f generating bodhicitta—the way that is based on the twenty-tw o examples in AA 1.19-20 (see PBG below) and the above way o f the Mahay dnasutrdlamkara Against the Mahdydnasutrdlamkarabhasya on IV.2 (which is followed by PSD above) and the boundary lines in the commentaries on the AA (which take the last three am ong the twenty-two types o f bodhicitta as referring to the buddhabhumi), MPZL says that the Mahaydnasutrdlamkams intention is to take all twenty-two types o f bodhicitta in the AA as existing on the paths o f learn ing and thus referring to the causal forms o f generating bodhicitta 159 This refers to the last one am ong the tw enty-tw o examples for generating bodhicitta in AA 1.18-19 160 IV.20ab 161 D3805, fol 10b.6-7 162 1.9 163 Lines cd correspond to verse 106ab o f said text and lines ab are som ew hat similar to 106cd, which say, “Except for bodhicitta, the buddhas have not seen any other m eans.” N otes 705 164 This is also echoed in verse 107 o f the Bodhicittavivarana 165 X IV 17 166 XIV.3 167 PVSD (fol 13b.4-6) says that the instructions are tw ofold—the ordinary instructions that teach merely a part o f the maháyána path and the special instructions, which consist o f all the w ords o f the Buddha and the treatises on them that com prehensively and unm istakenly teach the maháyána path and its fruition LNG (fol 9a.3-6) agrees and adds that “instructions” are given in order that previously existent qualities not deteriorate, while “d irections” are given in order to attain previously unattained qualities This follows the Vrttis (p 31) distinction o f the tw o Sanskrit terms avavâda and anusàsana, respectively MPZL (p 24) acknowledges the Vrttis distinction, but follows the assertion that “instructions” refers to the m eans that m ake one attain the qualities o f the path that one had not attained before, w hile “directions” are the m eans that m ake what one has attained special 168 This position, adding that practice in accordance w ith the instructions is the primary m eaning o f “instruction,” is found as a quote in Dharmamitra’s Prasphutapadâ (D3796, fol 43a.2) 169 D3795, fol 256b.6 170 D3796, fol 42b.2 LSSP (fol 113b.4) takes this to mean that bodhisattvas in their last life are able to attain enlightenm ent independently o f others and thus not rely on instructions 171 PGSD (pp -8 ) explains the instructions on practices own nature as “the genuine dharma o f the maháyána scriptures that teaches the m anner o f m aking the practice o f the maháyána a living experience by way o f not going beyond the two realities (the object) and m eans and prajňá being in union (the subject).” MCG (fol 17a.4-5) says that said instructions consist o f the instructions on practicing the path by way o f the tw o realities being unified in that, conventionally, everything to train in (such as the generation o f bodhicitta) is unceasing as illusionlike appearance and thus exists seem ingly, while it is not observable ultim ately, due to which there is no fear o f em ptiness As for the two realities, their basis o f division is the sheer lack o f nature or the sheer reverse o f what is unreal W ithin seeming reality, the correct seem ing consists o f what appears to the unim paired six sense faculties and the false seem ing, o f the dis torted appearances due to impaired sense faculties (such as falling strands o f hair due to blurred vision) The nominal ultimate refers to m erely having negated arising and so on ultimately, but not being free from the reference point o f the lack o f arising The non n om in al ultim ate refers to being free from all reference points o f arising and the lack o f arising The definition o f seem ing reality is “the phen om en a that are not beyon d m ind and cannot withstand analysis through cor rect reasoning.” The definition o f ultim ate reality is “the nonreferential nature o f phenom ena beyond m ind in which all reference points are at utter peace.” All apprehenders and appre hended phen om en a that appear as the duality o f subject and object represent seem in g reality Ultimate reality is the nonreferential suchness that is experienced by the wisdom o f the noble ones in the manner o f dualistic appearances having vanished Therefore, these two realities that are taught through terms by those who explain and are taken as objects by audiences through listening and reflecting may well be presented as two distinct realities in dependence on the mental states that are their cognizing subjects H owever, in terms o f the fully qualified ultimate m editative equipoise o f the noble ones, both these realities are seeming Thus, they should be differentiated in this way If the tw o realities were different ultimately, the ultimate would not be the true nature o f appearances, the superim positions o f clinging to appearances being really existent would not be severed through realizing the ultimate, the true reality o f not finding the seem ing through reasoning would not be the ultimate, and both afflicted and purified p h e n o m ena could coexist in the m ind stream o f a single person If the tw o realities were the same on 706 Groundless Paths the level o f the seeming, ultimate reality would be seen through merely seeing the seeming; just as afflicted phenom ena increase through focusing on the seem ing, the same w ou ld happen for the ultimate; there would be no ultimate to be searched for outside of the seeming; and, just as seeming reality entails all kinds o f reference points, the same would be true for the ultimate Therefore, ultimately, the two realities are not asserted as having any referential characteristics o f being the same or different However, conventionally, in terms o f the nominal ultimate, the two realities are the same in nature, but different isolates In terms o f the nonnom inal ultimate, they are different merely in the sense o f negating being the same Ultimately since the two reali ties cannot be differentiated by anything whatsoever, in terms o f the way things are they are not different However, in d ependence on the cognizing mind, they are different in the same w ay as unconditioned space can mentally be divided into east and west Thus, from the perspective o f w hat is to be determined, the realities are taught as two From the perspective o f w hat is to be adopted and to be rejected, they are taught as the four realities (which are treated in the second one am ong the ten kinds o f instruction) PVSD (fol 14a.3-5) presents the instructions on the nature o f practice as “You should train in the entire conduct o f bodhisattvas as what is to be practiced, and the way o f practicing is in the manner o f the two realities not being contradic tory in terms of, ultimately, being free from clinging to real existence due to being free from the three spheres and, conventionally, observing [everything] as illusionlike.” MPZL (p 22) has “the instructions on practicing the path o f the union o f m eans and prajñá in the manner o f not going beyond appearance and em ptiness—the aspects o f the two realities as what are to be known.” According to SZB (p 306), the nature o f clear realization by way o f realizing the two realities as not being contradictory is the realization o f the two realities that has the cognitive aspect o f the union o f means and prajñá 172 CZ, pp 57-58 N ote that many o f the sütra passages quoted in PSD are abbreviated and/ or paraphrased (for example, “prajñápáramitá” is usually replaced by “m other”), so I occasion ally tacitly added a few w ords as found in the full quotes, w ithou t listing the variant readings/ om issions in PSD As for the contexts and the com plete wordings o f these quotes in PSD, see the respective places in CZ (which inserts the headings and subheadings o f the AA and its co m mentaries into the text o f the sütras) as well as Sparham 2006 and 2008a N ote that in Conze’s translation, pages -4 (corresponding to chapters I-IV o f the AA) usually follow the sütra in twenty-five thousand lines (pp 3-430 mostly rendering the revised edition o f this sütra), except for som e passages from the sütras in one hundred thousand and eighteen thousand lines Pages 431-64 (chapters V -V III o f the AA) follow the Gilgit m anuscript o f the sütra in eighteen thousand lines For further details, see CZ, p ix 173 D4038, f o l.6 b l- 174 This is a quote (Samyutta Nikáya IV 127) in the passage o f the Bhásya on VI.2 that explains this (D4090, vol khu, fols 2b.6-3a.2), which reads, “What is the m eaning o f ‘the four realities o f the noble ones’ that are found in the sütras? Since they are real for noble persons, they are explained as ‘the realities o f the noble ones’ in the sütras ‘D oes this m ean that they are delusive for others?’ N ot being mistaken, they are real for everyone, but the noble ones see them exactly as they are, [that is, in their sixteen aspects], while others not Therefore, these [reali ties] are called ‘the realities o f the noble ones.’ But they are not those o f nonnoble ones because they see in mistaken ways.” PGSD (p 90) also presents the above qu ote and gives a similar explanation N ote that the same is expressed in m any other Indian and Tibetan texts too, such as the Srávakabhümi (D4036, fol 94b.3-5; partly quoted in LSSP, fols 11 b -l 18a.2) For more sources and the related discussion about using the terms “reality” and the “four realities o f the noble ones” instead o f the pervasive and unquestioned, but nonsensical, translations “truth” and “the four noble truths,” see Brunnholzl 2010, note 175 D4049, fol 91a.3 N o tes 707 176 Ibid., fol 1a.3-4 177 Ibid., fol 90b.4 178 Ibid., fol 90b.6 179 Ibid., fol b 1-2 180 D4053, fol 55a.2 181 The three characteristics o f the path in the Uttaratantra 182 Ratnagotravibhàgavyâkhyà on 1.21 (J 20; P5526, fol 86b 1-2) 183 D 4038, fol 68b.2 -3 184 IV.52 PVSD (fol a -1 b l) explains that the instructions on the four realities refer to them as the objects to be engaged or disengaged, respectively, by bodhicitta They are to be adopted or rejected in the m anner o f being free from fourfold clinging—clinging to suffering as what is to be known; to its origin, as what is to be relinquished; to cessation, as what is to be attained; and to the path, as what is to be relied upon 185 IV.32 186 T h ese are also know n as “the four pairs o f persons”—stream-enterers, once-returners, nonreturners, and arhats, each divided into approachers to, and abiders in, these states 187 The term “sam gha” literally m eans “ham m ered together.” 188 4090, fol 184a.6-7 189 1.5 190 1.10-11 191 Ratnagotravibhàgavyâkhyà o n 1.12 (J 11-13; P5526, fols 81a.5-83a.2) 192 1.14 193 1.19 194 I.21ab 195 I.21cd 196 1.22 P V SD (fol 14b -3 ) says that the follow ing on the instructions on the three jewels as the foundation o f practice O ne needs to go for refuge to the three jewels because the arising o f the phenom ena o f the path that have not yet arisen and the nondeterioration and increase o f those that have arisen depends on going for refuge The m anner o f goin g for refuge to the three jewels (each possessing eight qualities) in the mahàyàna is to train in an illusionlike manner without clinging to the real existence o f the Buddha as the teacher; the dharma, as the path; and the samgha, as o n e s com panions 197 VII.2cd 198 PVSD (fol 14b.3-4) adds that this vigor is w ithout clinging to the happiness o f body, speech, and mind 199 This is an ancient Indian measure, about eight miles (according to other calculations, about four or sixteen miles) 200 PVSD (fol 15a.2) adds that the dharma vision also k n ow s the words and m eanings tw elve branches o f a buddha’s speech in an unobstructed manner 201 P 47 o f the 708 Groundless Paths 202 D3808, fol 82a.2-4 203 In the Tibetan tradition, “large com m entary” refers to the Áloká , but neither o f the fol lowing tw o passages are found in it 204 D3817, fol 251a.3-4 205 PVSD (fol 15a.3) adds that o n e should train in these six páramitás through, on the level o f seeming reality, regarding them as illusionlike and, ultimately, realizing suchness free from reference points 206 Both editions o f PSD have “fruition” here, but “purpose” accords with both the above outline and LSSP 207 D4049, fol 114b.5-7 208 T h e text (ibid., fol 95a.3) only says that the highest forms o f the four dhyánas and the formless absorptions are their pure forms 209 VII.43c 210 VII.2ab 211 VII.45ab 212 D4049, fols 113a.5ff 213 I could not locate this passage i n either o f the two Brhattikás 214 VII.44a and Bhásya (D4090, vol khu, fols 61b.3ff.) 215 D3793, fol 85a.2 216 D3801, fol 90b.2-3 217 P 49 PVSD (fol 15b.2) says that the instruction o n the six supernatural knowledges is to train in them in the manners of, conventionally, generating them in o n e’s m ind stream and, ultimately, all reference points being at utter peace 218 PVSD (fol 15b.2-6) explains that the instruction on the path o f seeing is to g ive rise to its sixteen m om ents (the remedies for the im puted factors to be relinquished, which are relin quished just through seeing) in the same way as illusionists not cling to the illusions that they themselves created The instruction on the path o f familiarization is to cultivate it in the manner o f k n ow in g that, on the maháyána path o f familiarization (the rem edy f or the innate factors to be relinquished, which are relinquished through familiarization), the factors to be relinquished and their remedies not exist as two PGSD (p 82) presents the progression o f practicing all ten instructions as follows The persons who have generated bodhicitta listen to the maháyána instructions from a tathágata and then practice them through special m eans—they focus on the focal objects that are the four realities, rely on the three jewels as the foundation o f the path, overcom e the three lazinesses (clinging to bad actions, discouragement, and faintheartedness) through the three kinds o f vigor, manifest the visions and supernatural knowledges (the special temporary fruitions), and finally manifest the knowledge o f all aspects (the ultimate fruition), which is free from all obscurations o f the paths o f seeing and familiarization 219 D4049, fol 11 Oa.7-110b 220 This is o n ly stated in the Abhidharmakošabhásya (D4090, vol khu, fol 20a.6) 221 D4049, fol 107b.5-6 ... (fol 14b -3 ) says that the follow ing on the instructions on the three jewels as the foundation o f practice O ne needs to go for refuge to the three jewels because the arising o f the phenom... m eans—they focus on the focal objects that are the four realities, rely on the three jewels as the foundation o f the path, overcom e the three lazinesses (clinging to bad actions, discouragement,... is the m eaning o f ? ?the four realities o f the noble ones’ that are found in the sütras? Since they are real for noble persons, they are explained as ? ?the realities o f the noble ones’ in the