Unraveling the Intent
Introduction

The first four chapters point out the nature of reality by distinguishing the unconditioned from the conditioned, the pure from the afflicted, the ultimate from the conventional, nondual gnosis from mind’s elaborations, inexpressible reality from conventional expressions, and the actual from the imaginary. The first chapter thus starts with the distinction between conditioned and unconditioned phenomena, which became a prevalent theme in the various Abhidharmas. Through this distinction, the point is made that the ultimate is inexpressible and nondual. The realization of this inexpressible ultimate is achieved through gnosis alone. Conceptions in terms of conditioned and unconditioned merely exist in the way of a magical illusion. Yet, in order to lead beings to awakening, buddhas have to use such labels. The second chapter elaborates on this very point. Although the ultimate is beyond speculation, the Buddha taught liberation by means of verbal expressions and conventions belonging to the domain of phenomenal appearances and notions.

As a consequence, the first two chapters delineate two domains corresponding to the two truths (satyadvaya): (1) the pure domain of the ultimate, which, being inexpressible, nondual, and beyond speculation, is the realm of nonconceptual gnosis free from conventional appearance and notions, and (2) the afflicted domain of dualistic conventional expressions and notions, which is the realm of mental elaborations. These domains are respectively labeled by the buddhas as “the unconditioned” and “the conditioned” only for the sake of instructing beings, for the Buddha explains that this distinction between unconditioned and conditioned is only made on the level of the conditioned, namely, from the perspective of dualistic conventions. Within the realm of these conventional expressions, in the context of the path, it follows that these two domains are apparently mutually exclusive, although the Buddha hints at the fact that, from the perspective of the ultimate, the conditioned is not the conditioned and the unconditioned is not the unconditioned.

Chapter 3 explains how the relation between the ultimate and conditioned phenomena seen from this higher perspective should be communicated on the level of conventions. From this standpoint, one cannot say whether the ultimate is distinct or indistinct from conditioned phenomena. The Buddha shows that positing these two domains as distinct or indistinct is wrong. Since conditioned phenomena are characterized by the fact of being produced by causes and conditions, it is inappropriate to conceive (a) the conditioned and (b) the emptiness of an inherent nature as either identical or different. On the one hand, being conditioned (i.e., dependent on something other) is identical with being empty of an intrinsic nature; on the other hand, the domain of the conditioned is defined as the realm of afflictions, while the domain of the unconditioned is understood as the pure realm. Some might therefore think that phenomena and the nature of phenomena are distinct, but the Buddha teaches in the fourth chapter that the empty nature of conditioned phenomena, the ultimate, cannot be said to be distinct from those phenomena. As such, this subtle and profound ultimate is indeed of a single character within phenomena whose defining characteristic appears to be diverse. To realize this nature of phenomena, which is unconditioned selflessness, one should only rely on nondual gnosis, not mind.

Chapter 5 is a presentation of the “secrets of mind, thought, and cognition.” Here the Buddha introduces the concept of “appropriating cognition” (ādānavijñāna), also called “subliminal cognition” (ālayavijñāna), “mind” (citta), or “mind containing all the seeds” (sarvabījaṃ cittam). This mind, in which mental events manifest, acts is like a mirror in which reflections appear. It is the basis of previous mental imprints resulting from volitions and actions that create predispositions (i.e., latent dispositions) to experience reality in conventional terms. However, once bodhisattvas cognize in an intuitive and personal way the ultimate by means of gnosis, they no longer perceive this mind.2 In the closing verses of this chapter, the Buddha explains that this mind is without a self, since it is conditioned and composed by seeds. Through these definitions, the Buddha de facto delineates two realms: the domain of dualistic mind and the domain of nondual gnosis.

Chapter 6 is a teaching on the three defining characteristics (lakṣaṇa) of phenomena: the imaginary defining characteristic (pari­kalpita­lakṣaṇa), the other-dependent defining characteristic (para­tantra­lakṣaṇa), and the actual defining characteristic (pari­niṣpanna­lakṣaṇa): (1) The imaginary defining characteristic is the superimposition onto phenomena of an essence or a defining characteristic existing from its own side, by means of designations or conventional expressions. This imaginary characteristic is utterly false in the way of a visual aberration, since phenomena are ultimately devoid of any defining characteristic that makes them what they are. (2) The other-dependent defining characteristic corresponds to the dependent arising of phenomena. It refers to phenomenal appearances upon which an imaginary defining characteristic is superimposed. This point is grasped once the imaginary defining characteristic of phenomena is understood to be a wrong conception. It is worth noting that the other-dependent defining characteristic delineates the domain of conditioned cognitions, namely, the mind as presented in chapter 5 (this point is made clear in 7.­10 with regard to karma and rebirth), and as such, represents the domain of affliction (see 6.­11).3 (3) The actual defining characteristic is the permanent and immutable reality of phenomena. It is the ultimate unerring object that is manifest once the selflessness of phenomena, the nonexistence of any fictive defining characteristic in phenomena arising dependently, has been realized. Only the actual defining characteristic constitutes the domain of purification, since the other-dependent defines the domain of affliction, namely, the realm of the conditioned. In the closing verses of this chapter, the Buddha gives a quintessential presentation of the path: one should first recognize that phenomena are devoid of imaginary defining characteristics by seeing them as mere designations superimposed on conditioned cognitions. At that time, one will abandon phenomena characterized by affliction, namely, conditioned phenomena in the form of conditioned cognitions, and turn toward phenomena characterized by purification that are in harmony with ultimate reality.

Chapter 7 begins with Para­mārtha­samud­gata’s question: why did the Buddha first teach the defining characteristic of phenomena, their arising, their cessation, and so forth through the notions of the five aggregates, the twelve sense domains, and so on, when he later explained that all phenomena are without an essence? The Buddha answers by teaching the three kinds of essencelessness, namely, essencelessness regarding defining characteristics, essencelessness regarding arising, and essencelessness regarding the ultimate: (1) Essencelessness regarding defining characteristics refers to the imaginary defining characteristic of phenomena. It is the essencelessness of what is utterly nonexistent (i.e., the defining characteristic), which is like a sky flower. (2) Essencelessness regarding arising refers to the other-dependent defining characteristic of phenomena arising from causes other than themselves. It is presented as the magic illusion of dependent arising, in the context of this teaching the magic illusion of mind. (3) Essencelessness regarding the ultimate has two aspects. The first is the essencelessness of all conditioned phenomena with regard to the ultimate. As a corollary of dependent arising, those phenomena are in fact not born as anything, being dependent on causes and conditions for their arising and therefore impermanent. The second aspect of essencelessness with regard to the ultimate refers to the only unconditioned object of purification, the actual defining characteristic of phenomena, the ultimate selflessness of phenomena, which is like space, itself also unconditioned. This permanent and immutable nature of phenomena is the primordial state of peace of that which, being without a defining characteristic, is unborn and unceasing, by nature in the state of nirvāṇa.

In 7.­10, the Buddha describes the entire process leading to confusion: beings reify the other-dependent and the actual defining characteristics in terms of the imaginary defining characteristic. Failing to understand that conventional expressions do not refer to actual things, they superimpose an essence on conditioned cognitions and imagine reality to be just as it is described by their linguistic conventions. Figments of imagination become causes and conditions for their mental activities, which will lead them to the afflictions of action and rebirth. The process described here is akin to a world of virtual reality where even the projector, the conditioned mind, is imaginary. As one takes the projected phenomena as real and reifies them, one acts, suffers, dies, and is endlessly “respawned” within this virtual reality. Although this pseudo-reality projected by mind is nonexistent, it will condition one’s mind and one’s future existence as one will act in accordance with one’s state of mind within this virtual reality. In 7.­10, the other-dependent is therefore equated with the appropriating mind, the basis of the imaginary defining characteristic of phenomena, the object of dreamlike conceptualizations (see also 7.­25).

Next, the Buddha explains how various beings relate to this process and how he has helped them with teachings corresponding to their circumstances and capacities. For example, some can understand on a dualistic level that defining characteristics (i.e., the virtual reality of phenomena) lack an essence, and thus slowly develop repulsion toward conditioned phenomena, even if they are not able to realize the ultimate nature of phenomena, their nondual primordial selflessness which is the domain of gnosis. In accordance with this model of reality, the Buddha declares that there is only the path and journey toward liberation and thus a Single Vehicle for both hearers and bodhisattvas because there is only a single purification.

In 7.­30, Para­mārtha­samud­gata defines the three turnings of the wheel of Dharma. Because this doctrine is included in this specific chapter, it seems logical to interpret the three turnings of the wheel of Dharma in relation to the three kinds of essencelessness: (1) The first turning used the notion that phenomena have a defining characteristic to teach the essencelessness of these defining characteristics in a series of teachings such as the five aggregates, the twelve sense domains, and so on (see also 4.1–6). In our metaphor on virtual reality, one could see these teachings as being expounded on the basis of the very imaginary phenomena conceptualized as truly existing. When children experience a nightmare, their parents show that the monster does not exist by implicitly, i.e. provisionally, accepting its existence, saying, “Look! It is not there.” (2) The second turning of the wheel teaches the first aspect of essencelessness with regard to the ultimate, stating that phenomena are unborn. From this perspective, the primordial selflessness of phenomena is still taught in relation to dualistic phenomena. As a consequence, Para­mārtha­samud­gata considers this cycle of teachings as provisional. (3) The third turning of the wheel aims at teaching the second aspect of essencelessness with regard to the ultimate in a way that is not limited to the domain of dualistic phenomena. To pursue our metaphor, this third cycle of teachings gives a complete overview of the three defining characteristics of phenomena: the completely imaginary experience of a virtual reality, the magic illusion of the projecting mind, and the primordial domain of gnosis. Para­mārtha­samud­gata declares the third turning to be of definitive meaning.

It is worth noting that the doctrine of the three defining characteristics can be seen as delineating three great categories of soteriological approaches found in Indo-Tibetan Buddhist traditions: (1) the deconstruction of putative notions of an individual self through mereological and relational strategies; (2) the deconstruction of notions of a self regarding conditioned phenomena through the impossibility of their ultimate arising, since these conditioned phenomena merely exist in dependence; and (3) the pointing out of the nondual ultimate nature of phenomena, which altogether bypasses imaginary mental constructions.

In the eighth chapter, the famous Maitreya chapter on meditation, the Buddha first gives a series of definitions followed by the description of a process, a pattern frequently used in this sūtra. First, the objects of the practices of mental stillness (śamatha) and insight (vipaśyanā) are defined as, respectively, an image without and with conceptualization, while their objects, when both practices are combined, are the point where things end (vastvanta) and the accomplishment of the goal (kṛtyānuṣṭhāna, i.e., the attainment of the path). Mental stillness consists in directing one’s attention (manasikāra) inward toward the mind that is directing attention (see 8.­3). It follows a state of inner absorption produced by concentrating on a referential object. The practice of insight consists in analyzing, discerning, and differentiating the various cognitive aspects of the image (pratibimba) that is the object of concentration. These two practices are neither different nor identical. They are not different in that they take mind as a referential object, but they are not identical because insight takes a conceptual image as its referential object. The Buddha thus explains in an often-cited passage that this image taken as an object of concentration is not different from mind insofar as cognition is constituted by the mere representation (vijñaptimātra) that is the object of this cognition. The mind and the image, which is its object manifesting as a mental event, appear as different, although they are not. All mental images, whether in the context of practice or not, are mere representations. Once one has realized this, directing one’s attention toward true reality is the one-pointedness of mind in which mental stillness and insight are unified. A superior way to practice this path is therefore to focus on that which is universal in all the various specific teachings imparted by the Buddha. This approach, which is based on a practice devoid of mental engagement (vitarka) and investigation (vicāra), directly focuses on the element that converges toward true reality. The ensuing shift in one’s basis of existence (āśraya­parivṛtti) mentioned in this sūtra does not here refer to a transformation of the subliminal cognition (ālayavijñāna). According to 10.­2, this shift, once all corruption has been eliminated, consists in nothing other than the bodhisattva’s attainment of the truth body (dharmakāya).

The Buddha then explains how one attends to phenomenal appearances in an increasingly nonconceptual way. He also gives an elucidation of the analytical knowledge of designations (dharma­prati­saṃvid) and their objects (artha­prati­saṃvid) attained through the practice of mental stillness and insight. In this context, a few key definitions are given; for example, the true reality of representations is that all conditioned phenomena are mere representations (see 8.20.2.iii). When presented in four aspects, the analytical knowledge of designations and their objects encapsulate the entire path through the four stages of mental appropriation, experience, affliction, and purification. When asked about the nature of gnosis, the Buddha answers that it “consists in the mental stillness and insight that take a universal teaching as a referential object” while “perception consists in the mental stillness and insight that take a specific teaching as a referential object” (see 8.­25). Practically, bodhisattvas direct their attention to true reality, discarding the phenomenal appearances of designations and objects of designation. Without taking any essential characteristic as a referential object, they do not pay attention to phenomenal appearances. Their attention is focused on that which is of a single character within all phenomena. The Buddha then gives a list of all the phenomenal appearances eliminated by emptiness, from the emptiness of all phenomena up to the emptiness of emptiness. By letting go of their object of concentration, the phenomenal appearance corresponding to a mental image, bodhisattvas free themselves from the bonds of conditioned phenomenal appearances (nimitta). Connecting these instructions on meditative practice with his teaching on the three defining characteristics, the Buddha explains that he taught the defining characteristic of emptiness in the Great Vehicle as the nonexistence and nonperception of an imaginary defining characteristic with regard to both affliction and purification in the other-dependent and actual defining characteristics of phenomena.

Practical instructions are also given to overcome obstacles and distractions to the practice of mental stillness and insight. On the ultimate stage of the path, these practices eliminate extremely subtle obstructions resulting in the complete purification of the truth body. The gnosis and vision utterly free from attachment and hindrance are attained. Finally, the Buddha explains how bodhisattvas obtain their great powers by being skillful in the following six points: (1) the arising of the mind, (2) the underlying condition of the mind, (3) the emergence from the mind, (4) the increase of the mind, (5) the decrease of the mind, and (6) skillful means. In this section of the Maitreya chapter, an overview of the vijñaptimātra doctrine is given through the notion of cognition, which includes the appropriating cognition as well as the arising cognitions taking various phenomenal appearances as their object. In this context, it is explained that the supramundane mind of the buddhas does not have any phenomenal appearance as its object.

In chapter 9, the Buddha is questioned on the stages (bhūmi) of a bodhisattva and a buddha, the names of these stages, and their adverse factors and specific arising, as well as on the ten perfections (pāramitā). A final instruction is imparted regarding the Single Vehicle. As mentioned in previous chapters, the Buddha explains that he taught the essence of phenomena in the vehicle of hearers in terms of the aggregates, the sense domains, and so on, and that he presented these phenomena in the light of a single principle in the Great Vehicle, the domain of truth (dharmadhātu). Those who conceptualize these teachings by taking them literally do not understand his underlying intention, which is that both vehicles are in fact teachings based on a single principle.

In the tenth chapter, Mañjuśrī questions the Buddha on the defining characteristic of the truth body of the tathāgatas. The Buddha explains the truth body in the sense of a result attained through the practice of the stages and perfections. This attainment consists in a shift in one’s basis of existence. From the perspective of beings belonging to the domain of mental elaborations and conditioned phenomena, the truth body is therefore inconceivable, being utterly beyond mental elaborations,. Here again the Buddha delineates two distinct realms.

The tathāgatas, who appear as emanation bodies (nirmāṇakāya), are said to be like a manifestation, an apparition. Through their skillful means and sovereign power (adhiṣṭhāna), they liberate beings by imparting three kinds of teaching: the sūtras, the Vinaya, and the mātṛkās (generally taken as more or less equivalent to the Abhidharma and related literature): (1) The sūtras teach what was heard, how to take refuge, the training, and the awakening. (2) The Vinaya teaches the precepts and prātimokṣa vows to hearers and bodhisattvas. (3) The mātṛkās are systematic teachings on important doctrinal points, such as the defining characteristic of the conventional and the ultimate, the defining characteristic of referential objects consisting of the awakening factors and their features, and so forth. In the section of the mātṛkā pertaining to the ascertainment of the qualities of cognitive objects, the Buddha goes into a lengthy discussion on logical analysis according to the four principles of reason (yukti): (1) the principle of reason based on dependence (apekṣāyukti), (2) the principle of reason based on cause and effect (kārya­kāraṇayukti), (3) the principle of reason based on logical proof (upa­pattisādhana­yukti), and (4) the principle of reason based on the nature of phenomena itself (dharmatāyukti). The explanation given by the Buddha on the third yukti of this list (cf. 10.7.4.vii.c) is very extensive and resembles a short treatise on epistemology in which the notion of means of knowledge or valid cognition (pramāṇa) is meticulously investigated. In this section, the Buddha explains the characteristics of valid and invalid reasonings. He concludes by stating that three types of valid cognition should be accepted: direct cognition (pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), and authoritative scriptures (āptāgama).

The Buddha next elucidates “the meaning of the dhāraṇī through which bodhisattvas comply with the underlying intention of the profound Dharma expounded by the tathāgatas, the complete meaning of the sūtras, the Vinaya, and the mātṛkās.” This quintessential teaching encapsulating the meaning of the entire Dharma states that beings are in truth beyond activity and beyond being afflicted or purified. It is only because of their reification of illusory phenomena in terms of identity and essence that they conceive their reality in the way they do, which leads them to suffering. Abandoning this “body afflicted by corruption” (dauṣṭhulyakāya),4 they obtain the truth body that is inconceivable and unconditioned (i.e., the dharmakāya). In this context, the Buddha concludes by explaining that the tathāgatas are not characterized by mind, thought, and cognition. Their mind arises without effort in the way of an emanation (nirmāṇa). In their case, one cannot say whether their mind exists or not, their domain consisting of pure realms. It follows that the tathāgatas are characterized by nonduality: “They are neither completely and perfectly awakened nor not completely and perfectly awakened; they neither turn the wheel of Dharma nor do not turn the wheel of Dharma; they neither attain the great parinirvāṇa nor do not attain the great parinirvāṇa. This is because the truth body is utterly pure and the emanation body constantly manifests.” Once the truth body has been purified through the practice focusing on the domain of truth (dharmadhātu), “the great light of gnosis manifests in beings, and innumerable emanated reflections arise.” One should keep in mind, though, the teachings imparted in Chapter 3 on the conventional and ultimate truths. From the perspective of the ultimate, nothing has ever been purified by anybody, as the concluding verses of the formula in Chapter 10 make clear:

I first collated all the available Tibetan editions of Saṃdhi­nirmocana: Bd, C, D, Dunhuang (Hakayama 1984–87), Do, F, H, L, N, S, Kǫ, U, VD, X, and Z, as well as the various extant Sanskrit fragments found in Buescher (2007), Levi (1925), Matsuda (1995, 2013), Nagao (1964), and Tucci (1971). For the Chinese, we used Xuanzang’s translation.10 I then produced a critical edition of the text prologue (nidāna) to get a sense of the textual variations across major available editions of the Tshalpa (tshal pa), Thempangma (them spangs ma), mixed Kangyurs, and independent Kangyur groups. In addition, Dr. Kojirō Katō (Tokyo University), who is editing the Saṃdhi­nirmocana­sūtra, kindly sent me his critical edition of the seventh chapter.11 His work has proved invaluable to confirming the findings of my own work on the prologue. The editions belonging to the Thempangma differ significantly from those included in the Tshalpa line of transmission. As an independent Kangyur close to the Thempangma line, the Phukdrak (phug brag) edition offers very interesting readings on the level of syntax and lexicography compared to the editions of the Tshalpa group. It also diverges from the Thempangma witnesses in many locations. In the absence of colophons mentioning the translators’ and editors’ names across the available editions, it remains difficult to understand the history of these witnesses from the perspective of the underlying translation and editing process. As a consequence of its palatable variant readings compared to the Tshalpa and Thempangma editions, I used the Phukdrak witness quite extensively while translating the Degé edition, as well as the Stok edition and the Degé version of the Viniścaya­saṃ­grahaṇī, to examine more thoroughly difficult passages. The available Sanskrit fragments were on occasion also useful to determine the Sanskrit equivalent of a Tibetan technical term. They, however, did not reveal major variations from the Tibetan texts. I referred to the Dunhuang recension sporadically, as Schmithausen warned us not to follow it blindly.12 I also referred to Xuanzang’s translation regarding a few difficult passages of the text. This translation is similar to those of the Tshalpa group and might have been carried out on the basis of a Sanskrit manuscript similar to the one (or those) used for the translation upon which the Tibetan Tshalpa editions are based.

The Saṃdhi­nirmocana­sūtra is a major text of Indian Buddhism that has early on attracted the attention of Buddhist Studies scholars. It has been translated into French, English, and German (partially). Lamotte (1935) provided a critical edition of Saṃdhi­nirmocana and a translation from Tibetan (N) and Chinese (Taishō 676) into French. He also attempted to reconstruct or identify technical terms in Sanskrit, which have for the most part been confirmed by subsequent finds of Sanskrit fragments.13 Lamotte’s work is a major resource for the study of Saṃdhi­nirmocana. It has been until now the standard edition and translation of this text on account of its accuracy and methodological academic approach. As a side note, I followed Lamotte’s segmentation of the text into paragraphs. His French translation is generally reliable, although some technical passages can be significantly improved, particularly in the case of chapter 8 on meditation and chapter 10 on the result of the path. Frauwallner (1969) gives a partial translation of Saṃdhi­nirmocana (i.e., chapters 6 and 7) from Tibetan into German. As one would expect, Frauwallner’s academic translation of these two chapters aims at accuracy over readability. Kawasaki 1976 is also a partial translation of chapter 8 into English (§6.1–9). This translation does not improve Lamotte’s. Powers’ (1995) translation from Tibetan (D) into English, in spite of its merit, could be widely improved upon in terms of methodology, accuracy, and readability.14 Brunnhölzl 2018 offers a partial translation of chapter 7, as well as a few key passages from chapter 5.

Translations by Cleary (1999) and Keenan (2000) are from the Chinese (Taishō 676) into English. I used Keenan’s work to get a sense of the Chinese text while translating the Degé edition but only referred to Cleary occasionally. Keenan’s work seems to me more accurate than Cleary’s, although the latter was useful for unraveling difficult passages, since his style is more free and primarily intends to communicate the meaning of the text. Cornu (2005) has provided a translation of the text from Tibetan (D) into French that mainly follows Powers 1995, a somewhat regrettable fact since Lamotte’s (1935) is more accurate. Schmithausen’s (2014) work contains numerous difficult passages of Saṃdhi­nirmocana translated from various Tibetan and Chinese editions into English. It is an invaluable resource for the study of Saṃdhi­nirmocana. In addition, it offers useful Sanskrit reconstructions of important technical terms. Together with Lamotte’s translation, it has been a constant companion while translating the text.

The Saṃdhi­nirmocana­sūtra is part of a larger network of texts, both in the Kangyur and the Tengyur:

1. The nidāna of Saṃdhi­nirmocana almost exactly matches those of the Buddha­bhūmi­sūtra (D275) and the Tathāgata­guṇa­jñānā­cintyaviṣayāva­tāra­nirdeśa­sūtra (D185). The Buddha­bhūmi­sūtra is a very short text that was also translated into Chinese by Xuanzang in 646 (see Keenan 1980, p. 336ff.). Textual parallelisms of this kind are useful to double checking some passages or gathering more background information about the source text.

2. As mentioned above, Saṃdhi­nirmocana is also found in extenso in the Viniścaya­saṃ­grahaṇī of the Yogācāra­bhūmi and is therefore part of a tradition of texts sharing common ideas.15 This point should be kept in mind while translating, particularly when one has to evaluate the potential impact of terminological choices from the perspective of a more philosophical approach to the text, which, in the case of Saṃdhi­nirmocana, should be a major concern. For example, one should pay attention to the fact that interpreting “representation-only” (vijñaptimātra) as a strong form of idealism essentializing mind could be misleading from the perspective of a cultural translation of the worldview propounded in Saṃdhi­nirmocana since mind, just as much as the external object, is explicitly declared to be empty of any own-being, essence, or intrinsic nature (see chapter 8 on the three kinds of niḥsva­bhāvatā) in this text.16

3. Another important point is the presence of the aforementioned five commentaries on Saṃdhi­nirmocana found in the Tengyur (D).17 I occasionally referred to these works while finalizing the final draft of the translation. However, I first focused on the available editions of Saṃdhi­nirmocana itself as I did not want to be influenced by the interpretations of later authors. Instead, I attempted to go through all possible logically meaningful readings according to the Tibetan and Sanskrit sources without any preconceptions resulting from my reading of later commentarial traditions.

4. In the same vein, one should note that Saṃdhi­nirmocana has played a major role in Tibetan hermeneutical debates. For centuries, it has been considered a central scripture referred to extensively in the writings of Tibet’s great luminaries, such as Jé Tsongkhapa (rje tsong kha pa, 1357–1419) or Jamgön Mipham Gyatso (’jam mgon mi pham rgya mtsho, 1846–1912). While it would certainly be fascinating to study the impact of Saṃdhi­nirmocana in the context of Tibetan Madhyamaka,18 I chose not to take into account Indian or Tibetan commentaries or exegeses of the sūtra in order to focus on the source text itself.

I proceeded to search all articles and monographs referring to Saṃdhi­nirmocana I could find at the very beginning of this translation project. In this quest for relevant academic research, I benefited from the excellent bibliography found in Delhey 2013 regarding research done on the Viniścaya­saṃ­grahaṇī of the Yogācāra­bhūmi, which I expanded with a list of complementary reference works (see the bibliography). Among the existing academic literature on Saṃdhi­nirmocana, Schmithausen 2014 stands out and, unsurprisingly, proved to be a major resource for this translation project.

1. The translation of the title of the text became the object of several discussions among scholars regarding the meaning of the Sanskrit words saṃdhi and nirmocana as a consequence of Lamotte’s first complete translation of the text.19 Among the various available options, I opted for simplicity and translated the Sanskrit Saṃdhi­nirmocana­sūtra with “The Sūtra Unraveling the Intent,” which I believe renders accurately the meaning and structure of the text. Various interlocutors indeed ask the Buddha repeatedly to explain difficult points in order to clarify the purpose of his seemingly contradictory or complex doctrines on the nature of reality.

2. Regarding the content of the sūtra itself, I proceeded to organize secondary sources by chapter and referenced this research in the notes accompanying my translation.20 The last chapter of Saṃdhi­nirmocana includes a very technical passage on valid cognition (pramāṇa) whose definitions predate Dignāga’s system of logic. Translating Trisong Detsen’s *Samyagvāk­pramāṇoddhṛta­sūtra, which is a commentary on the teaching on the four principles of reason (rigs pa bzhi), would help us better understand pre-Dignāgean Buddhist logic.21