^{page 267 note 1} From Professor de la Vallée Poussin's Catalogue (in MS.).

^{page 268 note 1} The corresponding paragraphs bear the same numbers in all the versions infra.

^{page 272 note 1} Mr. L. C. Hopkins, who with great kindness has read the proof of the Chinese texts, remarks that the first of the three characters in Paramārtha's title, though often meaning “explain”, has primarily the physical sense of “undo”, “untie”, “dissect”; while the second, according to Kang-hsi's Dictionary, is interchanged with “a fist”. He therefore considers that the sense is “undo the fist”, and is parallel to the common expression in the spoken language , “undo the hand,” which might correspond to I-tsing's phrase.

^{page 275 note 1} Locative also in Chinese.

^{page 275 note 2} The Tibetan seems to use tha ñad for vyavahāra and kun dzob for saṃvṛti.

^{page 275 note 3} The Sems (citta) of B is a correction, not supported by the Chinese.

^{page 276 note 1} Paramārtha everywhere gives “wisteria”, “creeper” (which is also a meaning of the Tibetan thag. pa) in place of “rope”.

^{page 277 note 1} The Tibetan skal or bskal is of uncertain meaning: the Chinese has “far”.

^{page 277 note 2} This clause comes earlier in the Chinese.

^{page 277 note 3} This word is omitted by I-tsing.

^{page 277 note 4} In I-tsing's version this half-verse joins on to the previous half

^{page 277 note 5} Locative in Chinese and Tibetan.

^{page 277 note 6} Apparently I-tsing read in error tadupalabdhau.

^{page 277 note 7} These words do not appear in the Chinese.

^{page 277 note 8} Clause omitted by Paramārtha.

^{page 277 note 9} Omitted in Chinese, which inserts “rope” and “parts”.

^{page 277 note 10} Omitted in Chinese, which inserts “all”.

^{page 278 note 1} Or “relative”. “Dependent” in Chinese: no doubt btags represents āśrita, which is a technical term in the Vaiśeṣika philosophy for all nonatomic dravyas: see Praśastapāda-bhāṣya, pp. 16 and 18Google Scholar, Bhāṣāpariccheda, v. 23Google Scholar, and compare Burnouf, , Buddhisme, p. 449Google Scholar.

It is tempting to read in the Sanskrit sarvālambana° (“all objects of thought”) in place of sarvāṇyāśrita°. But both the Tibetan (B) and the Chinese of Paramārtha seem to have the same word here as in the following line.

^{page 279 note 1} Omitted in I-tsing.

^{page 279 note 2} Paramārtha has apparently kapālādīn and I-tsing tantvādīn in place of digbhāgādīn.

^{page 279 note 3} I-tsing places anyataḥ, apparently, before vyavahāra.

^{page 280 note 1} “Being invisible” might give better sense, if the Tibetan word (rtoga) admitted this meaning.

^{page 281 note 1} §§ 34–5 omitted by Paramārtha, who also had a different text in § 32. The Sanskrit text here was perhaps expanded after his date by a gloss: cf. the English translation, which reads awkwardly.

^{page 281 note 2} “Six” parts by Paramārtha.

^{page 281 note 3} Altered in Paramārtha's version.

^{page 281 note 4} “Those who desire most excellent teaching,” I-tsing: °mokṣa, Paramārtha.

^{page 281 note 5} The Chinese here insert verse IV, but give its substance again apparently in § 50.

^{page 281 note 6} The Chinese here have nirmita-puruṣa or māyā-puruṣa, in which respect they are followed by B. But māyā is supported by use (see Śaṃkara, , Brahma-sūtra, ii, 2. 28)Google Scholar, and below, § 57, it is given by the Chinese also.

^{page 282 note 1} The argument here requires a little elucidation. We may compare Śāṃkara, on Brahma-Sūtra, ii, 2. 28Google Scholar, and Sāṃkhya-pravacana-bhāṣya, i, 43Google Scholar. The point is that apperception includes the consciousness of the thing as distinct from the perception of it. If the thing-content is false, the vijñāna itself is then also false, since it does not exist without a content.

^{page 283 note 1} The Chinese gives “the percipient (grāhaka) also is unreal”.

^{page 283 note 2} Sentence omitted in the Chinese.

^{page 283 note 3} The Chinese seems here rather doubtful.

^{page 283 note 4} The Chinese has “how can that illusoriness be established?” (Paramārtha), and “how let that illusoriness exist?” (I-tsing).

^{page 285 note 1} The Chinese has for tyajyante the future passive of ucchid.

^{page 286 note 1} The attitude here adopted in regard to conventional life and philosophical truth is identical with that of Descartes in his Meditations.

^{page 287 note 1} Paramārtha has “actually existent kleśas disappear and those not yet originated do not arise”. Had he before him kleśajātam “mass of kleśas”, which he then misinterpreted? I-tsing certainly read jālāni with the Tibetans.

^{page 288 note 1} B .

^{page 288 note 2} B | A |.

^{page 288 note 3} A B .

^{page 288 note 4} A B .

^{page 288 note 5} B .

^{page 288 note 6} B .

^{page 288 note 7} B .

^{page 288 note 8} A B .

^{page 288 note 9} B .

^{page 288 note 10} A .

^{page 288 note 11} A .

^{page 288 note 12} β A .

^{page 288 note 13} β A ; β .

^{page 288 note 14} A ; B .

^{page 289 note 1} B .

^{page 289 note 2} A .

^{page 289 note 3} β inserts after , a mistaken correction.

^{page 289 note 4} A .

^{page 289 note 5} B omits .

^{page 289 note 6} B omits ; α β omit ; A omits . I-teing omits the clause.

^{page 289 note 7} B .

^{page 289 note 8} B .

^{page 289 note 9} β repeats (one erased ?); α omits .

^{page 289 note 10} β here inserts .

^{page 289 note 11} A B .

^{page 289 note 12} A omits .

^{page 289 note 13} α for .

^{page 289 note 14} B .

^{page 289 note 15} A omits .

^{page 289 note 16} A ; β (sic, with ).

^{page 290 note 1} Here ends the text of β.

^{page 290 note 2} A .

^{page 290 note 3} Here begins the text of γ.

^{page 290 note 4} A ∥ | B ∥ |

^{page 290 note 5} A .

^{page 290 note 6} γ ; A .

^{page 290 note 7} B .

^{page 290 note 8} B .

^{page 290 note 9} B omits … , having immediately after and continuing …

^{page 290 note 10} A B omit .

^{page 291 note 1} α γ insert and continue , with which the Chinese also agree and which is perhaps preferable.

^{page 291 note 2} B omits .

^{page 291 note 3} A .

^{page 291 note 4} γ A insert .

^{page 291 note 5} B .

^{page 291 note 6} A .

^{page 291 note 7} B (probably influenced by I-tsing) omits … here, and inserts it, but reading … , after just below.

^{page 291 note 8} A .

^{page 291 note 9} A .

^{page 291 note 10} A omits .

^{page 291 note 11} A reads .

^{page 291 note 12} A B ; α for . The Chinese has “reason what?”, “that difference what?”

^{page 292 note 1} B .

^{page 292 note 2} A ; γ B . I-tsing has “east, west, north, etc.”

^{page 292 note 3} B omits .

^{page 292 note 4} A ; γ the same, but omitting I-tsing “east, west, north, etc.”

^{page 292 note 5} A omits .

^{page 292 note 6} B .

^{page 292 note 7} A inserts .

^{page 292 note 8} α γ A .

^{page 293 note 1} A ; B .

^{page 293 note 2} B .

^{page 293 note 3} A .

^{page 293 note 4} A .

^{page 293 note 5} A omits .

^{page 293 note 6} α ; B , as also the Chinese.

^{page 293 note 7} B .

^{page 293 note 8} A .

^{page 293 note 9} B .

^{page 293 note 10} A B omit .

^{page 293 note 11} A .

^{page 293 note 12} B .

^{page 293 note 13} A omits …; so the Chinese. B and γ omit and read .

^{page 293 note 14} A .

^{page 293 note 15} A .

^{page 293 note 16} A .

^{page 294 note 1} A .

^{page 294 note 2} A omits .

^{page 294 note 3} B inserts .

^{page 294 note 4} A reads ; B (Chinese nirmita-puruṣa) .

^{page 294 note 5} A .

^{page 294 note 6} A ; B .

^{page 294 note 7} B .

^{page 294 note 8} A B .

^{page 294 note 9} B inserts .

^{page 294 note 10} A .

^{page 294 note 11} B ; A .

^{page 294 note 12} A .

^{page 294 note 13} B omits .

^{page 294 note 14} A .

^{page 294 note 15} A ; B omits .

^{page 294 note 16} B inserts .

^{page 295 note 1} A inserts .

^{page 295 note 2} γ B .

^{page 295 note 3} B inserts .

^{page 295 note 4} A .

^{page 295 note 5} B , omitting .

^{page 295 note 6} A B .

^{page 295 note 7} γ A B .

^{page 295 note 8} B .

^{page 295 note 9} α omits ; so perhaps I-tsing.

^{page 295 note 10} A .

^{page 295 note 11} A omits .

^{page 295 note 12} γ A ; B .

^{page 295 note 13} B omits .

^{page 295 note 14} A B .

^{page 295 note 15} B inserts .

^{page 295 note 16} B .

^{page 296 note 1} A omits .

^{page 296 note 2} α .

^{page 296 note 3} B .

^{page 296 note 4} B

^{page 296 note 5} B ; not so I-tsing. Paramārtha had -jātam for jālāni?

^{page 296 note 6} α γ B and Chinese omit this verse and its commentary.

^{page 296 note 7} γ has ∥

A has … …

B has … … .

^{page 297 note 1} Here seems to mean “make to know”.

^{page 298 note 1} This phrase = karmaphalāni. The whole clause is an insertion by I-tsing.

^{page 298 note 2} = “another verse”, i.e. perhaps “the last verse”.

^{page 298 note 3} [Omitted by P.]

^{page 299 note 1} Var. lect. .

^{page 300 note 1} These two signs usually = Buddha.

^{page 300 note 2} clearly corresponds to and and translates the same word, nāma, nāmadheya, etc.

^{page 300 note 3} [Here begins a long insertion by P., apparently made up of repetitions, with variations, from other parts of the text.]

^{page 301 note 1} [Here we seem to have the equivalent of verse iv in its proper place, the verse having been already inserted by I-tsing above.]

^{page 301 note 2} is usually = ālambana.

^{page 301 note 3} [Insertion by P.]

^{page 301 note 4} = nagara [insertion by I-tsing].

^{page 302 note 1} These two lines mean “the objects being illusory, the recognizer is also unreal”.

^{page 302 note 2} [Insertion by P.]

^{page 302 note 3} We have here two transliterations of Gandharva.

^{page 302 note 4} … is a technical term of the Vijñānavāda, denoting the projection-perception of objects, as an activity of thought. =māyā.

^{page 303 note 1} apparently = dravya.

^{page 303 note 2} [Insertion by P.]

^{page 303 note 3} We have here in P. bhrānta without citta. In I-tsing's version apparently means mind and its activity: it has a bad sense in both Buddhist and Classical Chinese; its modern sense is “feeling”.

^{page 304 note 1} [The omission by P. of clauses 34–6 is perhaps due to homœoteleuton sidhyate—śakyate. They are, however, perhaps reflected by the first nine characters in clause 38. See also p. 281, n. 1.]

^{page 304 note 2} This is the equivalent of kasya, hetoḥ.

^{page 304 note 3} = viśeṣa; = -tva; , as before, = ablative.

^{page 305 note 1} This character must be inserted.

^{page 305 note 2} [Insertion by I-tsing.]

^{page 305 note 3} = “stage”, “place”.

^{page 305 note 4} Literally “next to vacuum”, i.e. the limit of smallness (antya), a characteristic of Paramārtha's translation.

^{page 305 note 5} usually = bhūta, mahābhūta, and not used in the sense of para-māṇu, “atom.”

^{page 305 note 6} = na śakyate + infinitive.

^{page 306 note 1} [Omitted by I-tsing.]

^{page 306 note 2} [Insertion by Paramārtha.]

^{page 306 note 3} [Insertion by.I-tsing.]

^{page 306 note 4} usually = dharma, but here = vastu, (Paramārtha).

^{page 306 note 5} Var. lect. .

^{page 306 note 6} Another reading for (kapāla) is (ghaṭa).

^{page 306 note 7} Var. lect. .

^{page 306 note 8} = viṣaya; = gocara.

^{page 306 note 9} Var. lect. .

^{page 306 note 10} [Omission by Paramārtha.]

^{page 307 note 1} [Omitted by P.]

^{page 307 note 2} … = locative case.

^{page 307 note 3} [ … insertion in I-tsing.] is “provisional”, “without foundation”, “without corresponding real objects”.

^{page 307 note 4} Var. lect. .

^{page 307 note 5} means “all the functions of citta” or “citta and all its functions”.

^{page 307 note 6} seem to have the same meaning. The latter is sometimes equivalent to prajñapti.

^{page 307 note 7} and are translations of paratantra or pāratantrya. [But see p. 278, n. 1.]

^{page 307 note 8} sometimes = yāvat.

^{page 307 note 9} The two signs in both translations = saṃvṛti.

^{page 308 note 1} … omitted by I-tsing.

^{page 308 note 2} … “to be deluded by imagination’.

^{page 308 note 3} [This second half of the verse is reproduced here at the same point as in the Tibetan.]

^{page 308 note 4} … = locative case.

^{page 308 note 5} … = na upalabhyate.

^{page 308 note 6} [I-tsing has apparently read tad-upalabdhau, omitting the negative.]

^{page 308 note 7} = bhrānta(mithyā)-jñāna.

^{page 309 note 1} … = dative case.

^{page 309 note 2} … = “desiring make understand correctly”.

^{page 309 note 3} correlates with below.

^{page 309 note 4} , “see” is required by the sense “merely seeing the similarity of the rope to a snake”.

^{page 309 note 5} Literally “produce a decided (niścita) understanding”.

^{page 310 note 1} Paratnārtha: Nanjio's Catalogue gives “fist” instead of , which is literally “rolling up”, “wrapping”, and is not used in the sense of the former. is preferable to , because the latter seems not to be an usual phrase, and I-tsing uses means “disclose”, “explain”, “understand”. [See, however, Mr. Hopkins' note on p. 272.]

I-tsing: usually means “within a fist”, “in a fist”, rather than “in the palm of the hand”, although itself does not mean “fist”; in such a phrase presupposes a clenched hand. Accordingly is here similar to .

^{page 310 note 2} and seem to be different translations of one word.

^{page 310 note 3} Since has a rather bad sense, seems to be the same as .

^{page 310 note 4} and are alternative translations, both still in use.

^{page 310 note 5} does not necessarily of itself mean paramārtha; but not seldom it has that meaning. The usual rendering of paramārtha (or paramārtha-satya) is or ( is satya).

^{page 310 note 6} … = instrumental or ablative case.

^{page 310 note 7} … “one who”.

^{page 310 note 8} = “agate”.