♦ Пещерные и скальные храмы и монастыри

14. Примечания к главе 5

Дэвидсон Р. М. «Индийский эзотерический буддизм: социальная история тантрического движения»
<< К оглавлению

 

 

1. Krsnayamari-tantra, Rinpoche and Dvivedi 1992, XI.9–12, p. 73:

mahatavipradesesu aruhya mahisottamam |

sarpair abharanam krtva ayovajram tu dharayet || 9

kesam tu piNgalam karyam urdhvarupam visesatah |

sirah kapalaih samvestya smasrau piNgalam acaret || 10

hrih stryadi mantram uccarya ayovajram samudvahet |

simhanadam tatah karyam yamarivajraprayogatah || 11

kiсcitsamarthyam abhujya kridaya nagaram viset |

rtyam ca subhagam karyam sadavadipragayanam || 12

The translation supposes that the ochre (pingala) smeared in the hair and beard of our siddha friend is that of gorocana; see Harsacarita for its use by Bhairavacarya’s disciples, Kane 1918, p. 50. I have accepted the editors’ suggestion that 12d read “pragayanam” instead of “prasayanam” (Tib., glu blang bya). I thank Phyllis Granoff for suggestions on the translation of these verses.

2. Ruegg 1964, especially pp. 87–90.

3. Sanderson 1994, p. 92.

4. Saussure 1983, pp. 13–15.

5. For a cogent criticism of Saussure’s model, see Volosinov 1973, pp. 57–63.

6. White 1996, especially the summary p. 335. As is obvious in the following discussion, I cannot entirely agree with the findings of Professor White’s text.

7. For a broad overview, which is not without difficulties, see Mishra 1973.

8. Stein 1980, p. 79; Ta t’ang hsi yь chi, Beal 1869, 2:227 ff.

9. The text has been edited and commented on many times. I am using the edition prepared in Barua 1938. I know of no earlier epigraphic mention of siddhas.

10. The tenth-century c.e. Digambara work by Nemicandra, the Dravva-samgaha, v. 51, defines a siddha as a soul having the shape of a human, but with a body in which the eight forms of karma destroyed.

11. Fleet 1888, pp. 79–88.

12. Ramayana, Yuddhakanda, Vaidya 1971, Appendix I, no. 65, pp. 1082–83. For an important recent work on the early solar cult, see Chenet 1993.

13. There are similar references in the surviving works of the second-century Buddhist poet Asvaghosa, the Saundarananda, Johnston 1928, X.6, and Buddhacarita, Johnston 1936, VII.1, XIV.87.

14. Arthasastra, Kangle 1960, IV.3.40–44.

15. Arthasastra, Kangle 1960, IV.5.1–16.

16. Arthasastra, Kangle 1960, V.1.33–34, XII.2.14.

17. Virtually all of Arthasastra XII.2 is so dedicated.

18. Arthasastra, Kangle 1960, V.2.59–63, V.6.48.

19. Arthasastra, Kangle 1960, V.2.39–41.

20. Ramayana I.30.14.

21. Ramayana I.28.2cd: siddhasrama iti khyatah siddho hy atra mahatapah |

22. Milindapaсha, Trenckner 1880, IV.1.43–45, pp. 120–121.

23. Harsacarita, Kane 1918, pp. 46–54.

24. Ibid., p. 53: kuntali kiriti hari keyuri mekhali mudgari khadgi. The most normative equipment of the Vidyadhara is the sword. See Hinьber 1978.

25. Avantisundarikatha, Kale 1966, pp. 172–173; this work used to be called the Dasakumaracarita before its true identity was discovered; see Rabe 1997.

26. For example, Brhatkathaslokasamgraha, Poddar 1986, XX.97–131. 27. The protest against the excessive reductionism of legitimation theory by Pollock is well merited (1996, pp. 236–239; 1998, pp. 13, 31–34). However, we must also consider—as Pollock does himself—questions of legitimation and its social function must be assessed, even if it cannot be the sole cause for such relations.

28. Lorenzen 1972, pp. 88–90.

29. Ibid., p. 2.

30. Sanderson 1988, pp. 665–666.

31. Hinьber 1992, pp. 35–82.

32. MDs, VIII.93, XI.72–89; the translation makes this latter section XI.73–90.

33. The Rucikaratika; cited in Tucci 1930, p. 131; Lorenzen 1972, p. 49 n.

34. Sanderson 1988, p. 674; Dyczkowski 1988, p. 38.

35. Karpuramaсjari I.22–23 (Know and Lanman, pp. 24–25):

mantana tantana na kim pi jane jhanam ca no kim pi guruppasaa |

majjam piamo mihilam ramamo mokkham ca jamo kulamaggalagga || 22

avi a randa canda dikkhia dhammadara majjam mamsam pijjae khajjae a |

bhikkha bhojjam cammakhandam ca sejja kolo dhammo kassa no bhai

rammo || 23

36. Gaьdavaho 319 (Suru 1975).

37. Dehejia 1986.

38. These other potential sites include Palodhar (in the Mahesana District of

Gujarat), Kamli (close to Siddhpur in Gujarat), Bharuch (Gujarat), Ajmer, Ujjain,

and Delhi; see ibid., pp. 67–90.

39. For a summary discussion of the Hirapur site, see Donaldson 1985–87,

1:261–263.

40. Donaldson 1986.

41. For the Siyan inscription of Nayapala, see Sircar 1971; pp. 47–48, 54; for Udayaditya’s

Mominabad inscription, see Desai 1962, pp. 94–95.

42. Fleet 1888, p. 76 l. 37.

43. The best discussions to date are by Lorenzen 1972, pp. 173–192; Dyczkowski 1988, pp. 19–26; Bhandarkar 1908; and, perhaps most important, the various articles by Hara (1958, 1973, 1994).

44. Hara 1958; Gonda 1977, pp. 216–224; Lorenzen 1972, pp. 173–192. This material is treated in chapter 3 of the main text: Pasupatasutra, Sastri 1940, pp. 77 ff.

45. Pasupatasutra, Sastri 1940, V. 20: siddhayogi na lipyate karmana patakena va ||.

46. Bhattacharya 1955.

47. Freed and Freed 1993, pp. 15–18, 190–211.

48. On the association of mediumship and spirit possession with esoteric Buddhism, see Granoff 1979, p. 78; Strickmann 1996, pp. 50–52, 215–220; idem 2002, pp. 204–218.

49. Fleet 1888, pp. 260–262.

50. Bьhler 1892, pp. 106, 111, v. 27: vanik prasiddhas siddhatmajo manyukanamadheyah |. Bьhler, following others, assigns the date of this inscription to 804 c.e., but Vogel reassesses the date to 1204 c.e. (1905–6, p. 22). This 1204 date has been accepted by others, especially Postel et al. (1985, p. 114).

51. Ojha 1917–18.

52. Postel et al. 1985, pp. 250–251, 124, frontispiece.

53. The best study of this phenomenon of which I am aware is that in Campbell (1976, pp. 24, 29, 70), but is much more widespread than the Kangra Valley. See also Emerson 1920, pp. 118–119, for Mandi State. The term “sidh” also applies to gods, and this usage is already seen in the Candamaharosana-tantra 6.196.

54. Campbell 1976, p. 29. Cf. Emerson 1920, p. 112.

55. For Banarsi Bir Babas, see Coccari 1989.

56. See Temple 1884–90 for Punjabi versions of sidh legends; for example, Puran Bhagat’s legends are described on pp. 517–562.

57. This information is based both on Upadhyay 1986 and my own fieldwork in Mandi.

58. Yazdani 1960, 1:438–444; Mishra 1973, pp. 146–153; this popular position is still seen as recently as Sharma 1996, pp. 90–131.

59. Bhagavadgita IX.23: ye ‘py anyadevatabhakta yajante sraddhaya ‘anvitah | te‘pi mam eva kaunteya yajanty avidhipurvakam ||.

60. For example, Chattopadhyaya 1994, pp. 223–232; Singh 1993, pp. 295–303.

61. Stein 1980, pp. 80–81.

62. Mukherjee 1940, pp. 26, 53.

63. Granoff 1986–92 has discussed some of these voices.

64. Granoff 2000, pp. 404–409.

65. For example, Krsnayamari-tantra, Rinpoche and Dvivedi 1992, XIV.16–18.

66. Ibid., XVII.13: svaparadharmam na dusayet.

67. Vajrapaсjara, To. 419, fol. 54b7–55a1: bcom ldan ‘das kyis bka’ stsal pa | stong ba snying rje tha dad med | gang du sems ni rab bsgoms pa | ’di ni sangs rgyas chos dang ni | dge ‘dun gyi yang bstan pa’o | mu stegs can sun dbyung ba dang | rgol ba rnams tshar gcod pa dang | rang gi sde’i gzhung brjod pa zhes bya ba’i ting nge ‘dzin to |

68. Tillopadadohakosa, pp. 46–77: bamhavihnu mahesura deva | bohisattva ma karahu seva || deva ma pujahu titya na java | devapujahi na mokkha pava ||

69. Guhyasamaja-tantra, XIII.

67–68: sarvatirtyapravadistambhanavajro nama samadhih | krodhakaram trivajragran pitakiсjalkasannibhan | giriraja iva sarvan dhyatva murdhni prabhavayet ||

67 buddhasainyam api stambhe mriyate natra samsayah ||

68 This interpretation follows Pradipodyotana, Chakravarti 1984, p. 133.

70. Siklуs 1996, p. 35.

71. For example, Krsnayamari-tantra IV.56.

72. E.g., bLa ma rgya gar ba’i lo rgyus, SKB III.170.1.1–173.1.6.

73. De 1953.

74. The literature on Vidyadharas is not as extensive as one might want; important are Lьders 1939, Przyluski 1923, Hinьber 1978, Jain 1974, and more recently Granoff 2000, pp. 412–419. To this list may be added the specifically early esoteric affirmation of Vidyadharas as sorcerers, for that is the understanding of the Royal Dynastic Tibetan translators of the Vidyottama, who rendered the term as rig-sngags-’chang, rather than the later rig-’dzin; see Vidyottama-mahatantra, To. 746, fols. 3b3–4a1, 9a2, 11a4, etc.

75. sardulakarnavadana, p. 2; the mention of the mother as a vidyadhari does

not seem to be found in the earliest Chinese translations of the work.

76. Ratnagunasaсcaya-gatha XXVII.5.

77. LaNkavatara-sutra, 1923, p. 248; Bodhisattvabhumi, Wogihara 1930–36, p. 359.

78. This usage is sustained as late as Albiruni’s description, written approximately 1030, when he refers to vidyadharas as “demon-sorcerers”; Sachau 1910, 1:91.

79. Varnarhavarnastotra II.33 [Hartmann 1987, p. 108]: sarvaklesamayaghnaya sarvasalyapaharine | siddhavidyadharayвstu bhisacchresthaya te namah ||. I have accepted Hartmann’s reconstruction of this verse. Matrceta’s date would be from his association with Kaniska, now usually understood to be active in the first quarter of the second century c.e.

80. Wright indicates that Fo T’u-teng was influential in four areas: agriculture, warfare, medicine, and politics—all good siddha concerns (1990, p. 38); Bodhisattvabhumi, Wogihara 1930–36, p. 359.

81. I do not have in mind Samuel’s “shamanic” vs. clerical Buddhism, which primarily refers to esoteric vs. exoteric Buddhist practices (Samuel 1993, pp. 3–10). I find Samuel’s formulation unhelpful, in part because esoteric Buddhism adheres to neither the ecological nor the phenomenological aspects of normative shamanism. See Hultkrantz 1978 for a thoughtful discussion.

82. Vajrasekhara, To. 480, fol. 149a7–b1; Pe. 113, rgyud, nya 170a3–4; quoted in the Yogaratnamala of Kanhapa, Hevajra Tantra, Snellgrove 1959, 2:104–105: drdham saram asausisyam acchedyabhedyalaksanam | adahi avinasi ca sunyata vajram ucyate ||. This verse is also quoted in Munidatta’s commentary to the Caryagitikosa, Kvarne 1977, pp. 84–85; in the Advayavajrasamgraha, 1927, p. 23.23–24; and elsewhere. Although this verse of the Vajrasekhara has been considered authoritative, it is notable that it comes in the middle of an extended treatise on definitions of esoteric terminology and even includes an entirely different definition of vajra (To. 480, fol. 149b3–4, Pe. 113, fol. 170a7) in conjunction with amoghavajra and vajrakula, much as this one occurred in conjunction with emptiness. Another, probably earlier definition of vajra in the same vein, which may have informed the Vajrasekhara, was the Vajravidarana-dharani, 1937, p. 7. This work was very popular at one time, with commentaries and ritual manuals ranging from those attributed to Buddhaguhya to one ascribed to Virupa; see To. 2678–2687.

83. Maсjusrinamasamgiti v.1b [Davidson, ed. and trans. 1981, pp. 18, 49, for related literature].

84. For the eroticization of Vajrasattva, see the longer Sarvabuddhasamayoga, To. 366, fols. 152b2, 153a4, 154b3, etc.

85. Guhyasamaja XVIII.52: moho dvesas tatha ragah sada vajre ratih sthita |upayas tena buddhanam vajrayanam iti smrtam ||.

86. Chin kang ting ching yь ch’ieh shih pa hui chih kuei, T.869.18.286c12–15; Giebel 1995, pp. 181-2; I thank Kenneth Eastman for sharing this point with me.

87. I discuss this material in Davidson 2002b.

88. For example, Paсcakrama II.65 (sakyamitra’s section); Chin kang ting ching yu ch’ieh shih pa hui chih kuei, T.869.18.286c; Prajсaparamita-nayasatapaсcasatkatika, To. 2647, fol. 273a3; Jсanamitra’s work is included in the early ninth-century dKar chag ldan dkar ma, Lalou 1953, no. 523; for a discussion of its importance, see Kanaoka 1966. I discuss the Vilasavajra references in Maсjusrinamasamgiti, Davidson 1981, pp. 7–8; see also Davidson forthcoming a. The Laghusamvara Tantra, To. 368, fols. 216a4, 232a5–6, references several other works: the Tattvasamgraha, the “Guhyatantra,” the Paramadya, and the Vajrabhairava Tantra. This latter is the most intriguing, yet is not as clear as we might like. For a recent translation of five tantras designated as “Vajrabhairava,” see Siklуs 1996.

89. For example, Sarvabuddhasamayoga, To. 366, fol. 152b6; Guhyasamaja VII.21—27, X.14, XI.3, etc., with XV.15–18, 39–48, being particularly interesting; Laghusamvara, To. 368, fols. 224a4–b5, 237a4–7, 239b1–4, etc.

90. Subahupariprccha, To. 805, fols. 138b6–139a4; cf. fols. 130b5–131a4 and Subahupariprccha-tantrapindartha, To. 2671, fols. 52b6–53a2.

91. Subahupariprccha-tantra-pindartha, To. 2671, fols. 52b7–53a2.

92. Dhyanottarapatalakrama, To. 808, fol. 225a6, has a section on controlling various beings, including women, but there appears nothing sexual in the context, and Buddhaguhya treats it as an unremarkable verse; Dhyanottara-patala-tika, To. 2670, fol. 34b2.

93. Guhyasiddhi, 1987, pp. 50–59; VIII.33 is particularly interesting in this regard.

94. Vajrayanamulapattitika-margapradipa, To. 2488, fol. 222a4; this material is translated and discussed in chapter 7.

95. Jсanasiddhi XVII.9cd: dharmarajyabhisekagram abhisekam niruttaram. Similarly, the Vajramalabhidhana-mahayoga-tantra, To. 445, fol. 212b2–4.

96. See Sekatanvayasamgraha, in Advayavajrasamgraha, 1927, pp. 36–39; To.2243, fols. 122b4–124b7. Theoretical and synthetic texts dealing with consecration surviving in Tibetan are found in several places in the sDe-dge canon, To. 2243–2244, 2252–2253, 2470, 2472–2477. An exception is Guhyasiddhi Ch. III.

97. Abhisekanirukti, To. 2476, vol. zi, fols. 159b4–168b7; esp. fol. 167a1; cf. Guhyasiddhi III.

98. Bodhipathapradipa, Eimer 1978; see also Davidson, trans. 1995.

99. Subahupariprccha, To. 805, fol. 137b2–4; T.895b7–17. In the explanation, I follow the only extensive commentary, the ‘Phags pa dpung bzangs kyis zhus ba’I rgyud kyi tshig gi don bshad pa’i brjed byang, To. 2672. We know almost nothing about this valuable commentary, either its author or its translator, if it was translated. Bu-ston’s bsTan-’gyur catalogue, the bsTan ‘gyur gyi dkar chag yid bzhin nor bu dbang gi rgyal po’i phreng ba, p. 520.7, includes the commentary but provides no more information than the title.

100. Buddhaguhya certainly recognizes other siddhis, especially the sword accomplishment; see Dhyanottara-patala-tika, To. 2670, fol. 30b5, 37b7; in the former place he references the Sarvatathagatatattvasamgraha and the Vajrasekhara as

the sources. See also Vairocanabhisambodhitantrapindartha, To. 2662, fol. 64a7.

101. Sadhanamala, 1925, 2:350; see Lessing and Wayman 1968, pp. 220–221 n; Pradipodyotana, Chakravarti 1984, p. 194; sometimes, as in the latter case, we see “pill manufacture” gulika in the place of passing through the earth as a form of siddhi.

102. See the different list produced in Siklуs 1996, p. 28n7.

103. Krsnayamari-tantra IV.45, IX.4 (seeds); Samputa, To. 381, fols. 121b5, 128a6; Samvarodaya-tantra X.36, XXVII.10–14; Mahakala-tantra, in Stablein 1976, pp.

169, 267, 275–277; Vajramahabhairava-tantra, in Siklуs 1996, p. 83; Guhyasamaja XV.81.

104. Harner 1973, pp. 125–147.

105. Sanderson 1994, pp. 94–95; Sanderson (2001) does not bring the issue of the Kapalikas into the discussion, but simply refers to the proposed sources as Vidyapitha and Kaula (including Krama). Sanderson is certainly to be congratulated for the discovery of the intertextuality between specific works, but we may wonder whether there is a curious theology of scripture that informs his proposals. He does not seem to question the category construction of “Vidyapitha tantras,” although the emergence of texts would seem necessarily to predate the category, and Sanderson appears to presume that the category formed as a whole. While it is seldom that a received body of texts reflects no influence at all, this seems to be Sanderson’s ultimate position on the Vidyapitha saiva scriptures. There is even a prima facie argument against the proposed direction of the borrowing, since Sanderson (2001, pp. 44–47) takes as prototypical that a ungrammatical verse of the Laghusamvara can only be from the Picumata, which provides a good Sanskrit reading. Yet this method apparently contradicts the well-known textual procedure of assuming the difficult reading to be the preferred one, summed up by Johann Albrecht Bengel in his famous 1734 dictum, “to the easier reading, the harder is to be preferred” (proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua). As Baird (1992, p. 73) notes, “Behind this principle is the assumption that scribes tend to change (or corrupt) a text in order to make it more readable.” As will be clear in chapter 6, the nature of Buddhist tantric Sanskrit must be assessed in the environment of regional Sanskrits, and its later “improvement” was a consistent theme in the Buddhist (and we might suppose saiva) context. This direction accords well with the understanding of Goudriaan and Gupta (1981, p. 29), who point out that the later saiva and sakta tantras demonstrate better Sanskrit. Even then, decisions about textual borrowing are best made case by case, rather than corpus by corpus, and I believe that a reciprocal appropriation model (allowing for oral recitation, partial memorization, ritual imitation, individual conversion, etc.) will prove the most fruitful. It is instructive that, while Bьhnemann accepts aspects of Sanderson’s model, she also finds Buddhist influences within saiva scriptures (1999, 2000). I thank Fred Smith for drawing my attention to Sanderson’s 2001 article and providing me with a copy.

106. The sources of this version of the myth are discussed in Davidson 1991 and

Stein 1995.

107. Kubjikamatatantra, “Introduction,” in Goudriaan and Schoterman 1988, pp. 111–112; White 1996, pp. 110–113; Lorenzen 1972, pp. 51–52; the art historical circumstances are explored in Shaw 1997, although his command of the textual material is weak.

108. Malatimadhava I.15–16, V.1–6, V.21-VI.2, VIII.8, IX.1–7, 41–54, X.16–25.

109. This date is found in the relatively early (800 c.e.) catalogue of Yuan-chao, the Chen yьan hsin ting shih chiao mu lu, T.2157.55.974c3; Strickmann has emphasized certain aspects of the text that appear more peripheral than central (1996, pp. 221–231); cf. Lalou 1955.

110. The section actually begins in chapter 6 and continues through chapter 7; Subahupariprccha, To. 805, fols. 129a4–131b2; Subhakarasimha’s translation obscures the significance, T.895.18.726c29–728a14.

111. Granoff speculates that the mention of Nilapatas (evidently the same as nilambara) by Jayantabhatta’s Nyayamaсjari may identify Jainas (1986–92, p. 297 n), but Ruegg argues for their Buddhist character (1981, pp. 223–224), which the Subahupariprccha appears to support. Albiruni, writing about 1030 c.e., notes that Brahmans were forbidden to wear or touch the color blue, and this may be related to the “blue-clad” behavior; Sachau 1910, 2:132. See also Murthy 1987.

112. Chapter 5 of Subahupariprccha is particularly important in this regard: To.805, fol. 125a4–127b3; T.895.18.725a20–726a18; the term “siddhi” is translated sometimes as ch’eng-chiu and other times as hsi-ti.

113. Subahupariprccha, To. 805, fol. 123a3: T. 895.18.723a28; compare Guhyasamaja XIV.60, which details a similar list of materials to be used in the manufacture of ritual daggers (kila).

114. Chin kang ting ching yь ch’ieh shih pa hui chih kuei; T. 869.18.286c9–16.

115. Prajсaparamita-nayasatapaсcasatkatika, To. 2647, fol. 273a3; as pointed out by Kanaoka 1966, p. 467, Jсanamitra’s work is included in the early ninth-century dKar chag ldan dkar ma, Lalou 1953, no. 523.

116. Kaneko 1982, no. 207; mTshams-brag manuscript, vol. tsha, fols. 1b1–26a7.

117. A comparison of the texts shows many sections, included within differing chapters, that indicate a common basis for the Tibetan translations of those verses or sections; cf., especially, the mandala arrangement and justification found in the second chapter of the shorter recension, fols. 7b4–12a7, against virtually the same material found in chapter 5 of To. 366, fols. 155b3–159a4. The chapter order and naming, though, is completely different, and we might suspect an earlier version that had no chapter divisions in the manner of the received versions. The prima facie supposition that the shorter text is earlier may be called into question by the presence of rather advanced terminology in the text, e.g., the four kinds of bliss, fol. 3a6. The shorter text, while one-third to one-half the size of the longer version, has eleven chapters (kalpa), whereas To. 366 has ten. Sarvabuddhasamayo-ga-dakinimaya-sambara-tantrarthodaratika, To. 1659, fols. 245a5–248b3, attributed to Indranala, discusses the question of its preaching and provides contents for both

this and its Uttarottaratantra. Similarly, the *Suratavajra commentary, Sarvabuddhasamayoga-dakinimaya-sambara-vrtti-samayogalamkara, To. 1660, fol. 389 b, discusses the recensions available to him.

118. See Kaneko 1982, nos. 206 (= To. 366) and 207; both versions are included in mTshams-brag, vol. tsha; To. 366 is found in mTshams-brag manuscript, tsha, fols. 58b3–126b3.

119. mTshams-brag, vol. tsha, fols. 26a6–7, represents the shorter text to be the translation of Pandita [?Buddha-] Guhya and ‘Brog-mi dPal gyi ye-shes; fol. 126b1 represents the longer text to be the translation of Vajrahasa and rMa Rin-chenmchog. The Sarvabuddhasamayoga is not mentioned in the dKar chag ldan mkhar ma (Lalou 1953), yet it is quoted in the bSam gtan mig sgron of gNubs-chen, pp. 204.6–205.2 and appears in the list of Devaputra as Kayatantrasarvabuddhasamayoga; see Hackin 1924, p. 6; it is mentioned in Paсcakrama II.65. It seems to be referenced by Buddhaguhya as well; see chapter 4, n. 137, above.

120. Sanderson 1988. Goudriaan and Gupta (1981, p. 45) believe the Jayarathayamala to be later than Sanderson’s chronology allows. Sanderson’s informative and detailed discussion (2001, pp. 2–18) concludes: “It is quite possible

that by the seventh century most of the literature available to saiva scholars in the tenth was already in existence. But it is not until the beginning of the ninth that we have firm evidence of specific texts.” We may want to resist, though, the movement from possibility to probability without further evidence.

121. Majumdar 1953, no. 152, pp. 362–382; Coedиs and Dupont 1943–46; Chakravarti 1978 is a two-volume work dedicated to the inscription.

122. For example, Dyczkowski 1988, p. 36; Sanderson 2001, p. 8n; Goudriaan and Gupta 1981, 21.

123. Majumdar 1953, no. 54, pp. 57–60; Chakravarti 1978, 1:127.

124. Majumdar 1953, p. 60, v. 32.

125. Chakravarti 1978, 1:147 n81.

126. Abhinavagupta’s sources have been detailed by Rastogi 1987, appendices 1, 4, 5, and 9. Sanderson 2001 provides excellent data.

127. For a discussion of this passage, see Sanderson 2001, pp. 10–13, which corrects my earlier Maсjusrinamasamgiti, Davidson 1981, p. 8n21.

128. Kalikapurana 59.71,77; 60.1, 10, and so on throughout chapters 60, 61, 63, 64, etc.

129. Gross 1992, pp. 127–131.

130. See Huber 1990 for some problems of geography. Mayer (1998, p. 280) has questioned my assertion that we have little validation that these twenty-four sites were specifically saiva (1991), but has presented no evidence beyond mythology for such an affirmation.

131. Lorenzen 1972, pp. 21–22; idem 1989; Brhatkathaslokasamgraha, 21.144, 22.228; Kalika-purana, chapter 35.

132. Brhatkathaslokasamgraha, 21.144; Lorenzen 1972, pp. 50–52.

133. Sircar 1948, passim; Kubjikamatatantra, “Introduction,” in Goudriaan and Schoterman 1988, pp. 123–126; Satsahasra Samhita, Schoterman 1982, pp. 148–50, to name but a few.

134. Kuwayama 1991, pp. 269–275.

135. Hevajra Tantra, I.vii.12.

136. Kalika-purana, 38.99–161; 64.36.

137. Ta t’ang hsi yь chi, T.2087.51.932a14–23 [Beal 1869, 2:233]; Beal observes, “I am disposed, therefore, to think that he did not go farther south than Kanchi. In this case the subsequent account he gives us of Malakыta, Mount Malaya, and Potaraka (Potalaka), is derived from hearsay” (2:231n). A more reliable description is the pilgrimage guide found in Po ta lar ‘gro ba’i lam yig, To. 3756, which mentions its placement in the Malaya Mts., fol. 101a2; this is in accord with v. 7c of the Potalakastaka: malayagiricandanadhuparatim. Cf. Tucci 1949, 2.552–553.

138. Kavyamimamsa, Parashar 2000, pp. 261–262.

139. Chattopadhyaya 1994, p. 61. For Abu’s sites, Mehta 1970. According to Suryavanshi 1962, p. 12, the area around Mt. Arbuda was called Abhiradesa at one time.

140. Natyasastra, XVII.63

141. Mirashi 1955, 1:233.

142. Krtyakalpataru, Tirthavivecanakandam, p. 254.

143. Rocher 1986, pp. 229, 234.

144. McKay 1998, pp. 170–171.

145. Sircar 1948, p. 32.

146. Pithadinirnaya, To. 1606, especially ff. 131a forward.

147. Pithadinirnaya, To. 1606, fol. 132a7-b1: de ci ltar mi ‘gal zhe na | gnas dang nye ba’i zhing dag tsha grang dang dngos po dang dngos med bzhin du phan tshun ‘gal ba ni ma yin te | gcig la yang ming sna tshogs ji ltar mi ‘gal zhes so | ’dir na ga ra dang | pa ta li pu ta dang | ma la wa sogs gsum ni nye ba’i zhing du gsungs so |. Nagara was considered by Sircar (1971, p. 206) the ancient capital of the region; evidently it was given the name Pataliputa at this time as well.

148. Mahamayurividyarajсi, Shu¯yo 1972, pp. 10–58; these materials were first explored by Levi 1915.

149. Maсjusrimulakalpa, chapter 30 of the received text, Sastri 1920, pp.

325–326; To. 543, fols. 230b7–233a2; T.1191.20.898a18-c24. It is interesting that the Chinese translation does not identify either Cina or Mahacina with China, but renders them phonetically instead.

150. Pasupatasutra, chapter 5, is a lengthy description of siva’s names; see the introduction to the Kaundinya-bhasya, in Pasupatasutra, Sastri 1940, pp. 109–110, for the context.

151. Kalika-purana, 35.10–11; 46.4–10,

152. Kalika-purana, 50.59–147.

153. Shafer 1954, pp. 124–125.

154. This is the opinion of Guha (1991, pp. 2–28); cf. p. 21, where he uses this ethnonym to designation several different tribes, including the Boro, Kachari, Mech, Rabha, Dimasa, Hojai, Hajong, Lalung, Tipra Goro, and probably Chutiyas and Morans.

155. Subahupariprccha, To. 805, fol. 118b6; T.895.18.720a9. 156. Kalika-purana, 63.135–137b: (with minor emendations) smasanam herukakhyam ca raktavarnam bhayaNkaram | asicarmadharam raudram bhuсjanam manujamisam || tisrbhir mundamalabhir galadraktabhi rajitam | agninirdagdhavigaladdantapretoparisthitam || pujayec cintanenaiva sastravahanabhusanam |. The text also uses the designation Heruka for a liNgam nearby; Kalika-purana, 67.69, 79.172. 157. Sarvabuddhasamayoga, To. 366. fols. 167a5–168a3, 167a6, 171a6–172b2, 181a6–

181b3, 187a1, 188b7–189a1; similarly the shorter Sarvabuddhasamayoga, fols. 6a3–6b3.

158. Rgveda 1.51.6, 1.59.6, 6.47.21; studied by Parpola 1988, pp. 215, 261-2.

159. Rgveda 6.31.4, 7.99.5.

160. Rgveda 4.30.14, 6.26.5.

161. Arthasastra XIV.3.19.

162. Sarvabuddhasamayoga, To. 366, fol. 151b6–7.

163. Studied by Goudriaan 1973, and in his introduction to the edition and translation of the Vinasikhatantra, pp. 18–23; Tumburu also occurs in the Maсjusrimulakalpa, references in Goudriaan 1973, p. 85.

164. Vinasikhatantra vv. 323–363; the relationship of this section to Agni Purana 348 or other sources has yet to be explored. For the Buddhist ekaksara ideology and practices, see Przyluski 1923, p. 305, who specifies T. 956, 1181–82; this idea became reaffirmed in Maсjusrimulakalpa, chapters 9, 14, 25–27 (Sastri 1920, pp. 81–84, 129–144, 284–310) and was extended in the 709 c.e. translation of Bodhiruci, I tsu fo ting lun wang ching T. 951. The notion of a unique syllable was further the topic of T. 950, 953–958, all of which concern the practice and all were translated from the early to mid-eighth century.

165. Rudrayamala, chapters 37–40, pp. 372–394; Goudriaan and Gupta 1981, p. 87; this material from different sources has been studied in Bharati 1965, pp. 66–79, 238–244.

166. The first thirty chapters of the Kalika-purana are almost exclusively Vaisnava, with a heavy emphasis on the Varaha incarnation; the Vaisnavitantra is referenced in Kalika-purana 59.37, 59.68, 60.5, 61.36, and chapters 63, 64 passim, etc.

167. Sadhanamala, “Introduction,” in Bhattacharya 1925, 2:cxi–ii; Bhattacharya 1930; the Rudrayamala section is chapter 17 of the received text Rudrayamala,

Yogatantra Department 1980, pp. 169–183. For a somewhat different approach to this issue, see Bьhnemann 1999, pp. 303 ff., and 2000.

168. GoraksasiddhantasaNgraha, Pandeya 1973, p. 16: kapaliko margah kim artham prakatikrtah ? ity apeksyayaha visnos caturvimsatisaNkhyaka avatara jatas te ca karyante madonmatta jatah | katham ? yatha ‘nte tiryagyonayo jantavah kridah kurvanti tatha varaho nrsimhas cetyadayo bhudaranavanyabhayadanadikarane pravrttah | puragramaditadanam kesaсcit samudrapato ‘pi | tatrapi krsnena vyabhicaribhavo visesena dhrtah | parasuramenaikaksatriyadosenanekesam ksatriyanam nasah krta ityadi viruddhacaropari nathena kopam krtva caturvimsatyavataropari caturvimsati kapalikarupani dhrtani | dhrtva ca caturvimsatyavataraih saha samaram krtam | tatra sarvesam avataranam kapalani chinnani krtani | svakarais tani dhrtani | tena kapalika jatah |.

169. Satsahasra Samhita, Schoterman 1982, pp. 37–38.

170. Dyczkowski 1988, p. 102.

171. Mulasarvastivada Vinaya, Gnoli 1977, 1:153, 217–229; 2:295–297.

172. To. 2393: Tithika tsandalika = *Tirthikacandalika, fols. 22b7–23a3: rgya gar skad du | ti thi ka tsandali ka na ma | bod skad du | mu stegs kyi gtum mo zhes bya ba | byang chub sems dpa’ thal skud can la phyag ‘tshal lo | bud med gnas ni dbu rgyan ma | rigs ni gtum mo’i rigs gyur pa | srid pa gsum yang sreg par byed | me lce nam mkhar khyab par byed | a tsin dpal ni gar byed ‘gyur | nam mkhar rnge’u chung sa la rnge’u chung brdung | rdo rje me yis rgya mtsho skems | nyi zla gnyis kyang skyabs su gzhug | gar byed dpal gyi a tsin thod pa can | nam mkhar rnge’u chung sa la rnge’u chung brdung | lha dang lha min mi rnams dang | dbang phyug u ma la sogs pa | thams cad ye shes me yis bsregs | gar byed dpal gyi a tsin thod pa can | nam mkhar rnge’u chung sa la rnge’u chung brdung | rnal ‘byor ma ni khrid byas nas | mgon po’i gnas su ‘jug par byed | ’di lta’i dkyil ‘khor glu ru blangs | gar byed dpal ni a tsin thod pa can | nam mkhar rnge’u chung sa la rnge’u chung brdung | mu stegs kyi gtum mo zhes bya ba slob dpon a tsintas mdzad pa rdzogs so ||. The translation presumes that the “little drum” (rnge’u chung) is a damaruka, the drum used by saivas and tantric Buddhists, as well as by wandering storytellers and monkey trainers.

173. See note 43 above for references.

174. Pasupatasutra, Sastri 1940, p. 83; Ingalls 1962, p. 289.

175. Ibid.: atra purusakhyah pretah | na mrtakhyah | kasmat | acaranopadesat | vad iti kiсcidupama | unmattasadrsadaridrapurusenвtimaladigdhaNgena rudhasmas-runakharomadharina sarvasaMskaravarjitena bhavitavyam | ato varnasramavyucchedo vairagyotsahas ca jayate | prayojananispattis ca bhavati avamanadi |. I have followed Ingalls’ suggestion (1962, p. 289n19) in reading this passage, which he partially translated.

176. Bhandarkar 1908; LiNgapurana XXIV.124–133, quoted in ibid., p. 154.

177. Svacchandatantra XIII.36–38; Samnyasa-Upanisad, Schrader 1912, p. 154: avyaktaliNgo ‘vyaktacaro balonmattapisacavad.

178. Olivelle 1992, pp. 105–112.

179. Samnyasa-Upanisad, Schrader 1912, pp. 99–102. Note that the description there and in the Naradaparivrajakopanisad is exactly the same, with the exception that the Asramopanisad leaves “like a demon” (pisacavat) out of the description.

180. Bharati 1970, p. 153.

181. Freed and Freed 1993; it is impossible to praise this study too highly; see also Stanley 1988.

182. Schopen 1992, pp. 8–11.

183. Although Teiser mentions the “interplay between ‘Indian’ and ‘Chinese’ aspects in the religion of medieval China” (1988, pp. 15–25), his otherwise excellent treatment takes as a given that it is principally a Chinese phenomenon, discussed under Chinese rubrics, and located primarily in Chinese spatial and temporal domains.

By the same token, Maudgalyayana is only identified by his Indian name a few times; for most of the text, he is “Mu-lien,” the Chinese rendering of his very Indian monastic identity. This is a curious reading of a quintessentially Indian concern, which has not received in secondary literature the place it commands in Indian sources.

184. For example, Vajrapanyabhiseka-tantra, To. 496, fols. 100a4–102a2; Subahupariprccha, To. 805, fols. 130a3–132b3.

185. Subhasita-Samgraha, 1904, p. 37 (italics added):

unmattarupam asthaya maunibhutva samahitah |

svadhidaivatayogena paryateta pisacavat ||

bhaiksaparyatanarthaya na patram samgrahed vrati |

bhuktojjhitam tu samgrhya rathyakarparamallakam ||

tatraiva paryateta bhiksam yatamanas tu bhaksayet |

bhaksayitva tu tat tasmims trptas tatraiva tat tyajet ||

kaupinam tu tato dharyam sphutitam jarjarikrtam |

digambaro ‘thava bhutva paryateta yathecchaya ||

Bendall reads “yatamanam” in the third verse above. The section appears extracted from Guhyasiddhi VI.13, 33–35, VII.6.

186. Amoghapasahrdayadharani, Meisezahl 1962, p. 322: mahapasupativesadhara (describing Avalokitesvara); cf. Regamey 1971.

187. rGyud kyi mngon par rtogs pa rin po che’i ljon shing, SKB III.48.4.2–49.49.2.3.

188. Pasupatasutra I.8: hasitagitanrttadumdumkaranamaskarajapyopaharenopatisthet |; similar statements in Madhava; cf. Hara 1958, pp. 26–27, and his references to the Ganakarika and commentary.

189. Kaundinya’s commentary to Pasupatasutra I.8, p. 13.14–17.

190. Lorenzen 1972, p. 127.

191. Sarvabuddhasamayoga, To. 366, fol. 163b2: khams gsum pa yi rgyal srid che | bdag rtul phod pas mnan nas ni | ’gro ba thams cad rab ‘joms par | rta yi gar gyis ston par byed |.

192. Sarvabuddhasamayoga, To. 366, fols. 170b7–171a1: phyag rgya shes pa ‘di dag gi| sangs rgyas sprul pa’i glu mchog ni | ’grub par ‘gyur ba byed pa’i mchog | las rnams thams cad rab sgrub pa | slong bar byed pa brtan sgrub pa | de bzhin sna tshogs rgyas pa dag | drug pa’i dbyangs kyi glu blangs nas | de ba ta yi glu blang ngo |.

193. Indraji 1881, p. 344; translation his.

194. A recent example is Sharma 1996, p. 105.

195. See the excellent study of this process in Orissa in the work of Eschmann et al. 1978.

196. The antiquity of this practice is evident from its statement as required in Kalika-purana 38.99–161; 64.36.

197. It is dismaying to see that the aggressive activity of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad is characterized as “service” by an anthropologist, who further identifies tribal peoples in Cachar as “tantric” (Danda 1994); this article is a particularly good example of the myopia of Hindu nationalism.

198. Mahabharata 12.59.103; cf. Shafer 1954, p. 18. Sharma’s recent discussion (2001, pp. 235–265) is also not well informed on tribal ethnography or languages. See Nath 2001 for a more thoughtful presentation.

199. Arthasastra 8.4.41–43.

200. Dasabhumika, pp. 28.8, 29.5.

201. Kiratarjuniye, Bahadur 1972.

202. Gaьdavaho 336.

203. Elwin also argues for a change in attitude toward tribals in early medieval Sanskrit literature (1955, pp. 17–19).

204. Fleet 1888, p. 293.

205. For example, Guhyasamaja-tantra XII.2, 65; Pradipodyotana, Chakravarti 1984, p. 107; cf. the Krsnayamari quotation at the head of the chapter.

206. For example, Yogaratnamala, in Hevajra Tantra, Snellgrove 1959, 2:121; Mahamudra-tilaka, To. 420, fol. 76a3; Samputa-tilaka, To. 382, fol. 159a4. Cf. sri Hevajrapaсjika Muktavali, Tripathi and Negi 2001, p. 168.

207. Shafer tries to derive the term “mleccha” from a Tibeto-Burman word (1954, p. 23), but I find his linguistic analysis unsuccessful; his literary references, though, indicate that the author of one section of the Mahabharata he references applied it to the inhabitants of the Punjab and Bengal (ibid., p. 22). Mahabharata 12.59.103 identifies mlecchas as living in the Vindhya mountains, which during this period meant much of the area of Maharastra and Madhya Pradesh. Compare the use of “mlecchatavi” as a single referent in Arthasastra 7.10.16. See also Shafer’s discussion of other origin myths for mlecchas in the Mahabharata; Shafer 1954, pp. 18–24.

208. I have dealt with the question of sahaja in some detail in Davidson 2002b.

209. This Munda language–speaking tribe has currently several hundred thousand members and has been described by both Elwin (1955) and Vitebsky (1992).

210. Caryagitikosa, verse 28 [Kvжrne 1977, pp. 181–188; Sen 1977, p. 138]:

uca uca pabata tahс basaп sabari bali |

moraNgi piccha parahina sabari gibata guсjari mali ||

umata sabaro pagala sabaro ma kara guli guhada |

tohauri nia gharini name sahaja sundari ||

nana tarubara maьlila re gaanata lageli dali |

ekeli sabari e bana hindaп karna kundala bajra dhari ||

tia dhau khata parila sabaro mahasukhe seji chaili |

sabaro bhujaNga nairamani dari pemha rati pohaili ||

hia tabola mahasuhe kapura khai |

suna nairamani kanthe laпa mahasuhe rati pohai ||

gurubaka puсcaa bindha nia mane bane |

eke sara sandhane bindhaha bindhaha parama nibane ||

umata sabaro garua rose |

giribara sihara sandhi paпsante sabaro loriba kaпse ||

211. Kanhapadasya dohakosa, no. 25 [Bagchi 1935, p. 133; Shahidullah 1928, pp. 79–80]; baragiri sihara uttuNga muni savare jahim kia basa | naь lamghia paсcananehi karibara duria asa ||. This verse is also quoted by Munidatta, Caryagitikos a, Kvжrne 1977, p. 98. My interpretation of the difficult last part is drawn from the commentary of Amitabha, sri-Krsnavajrapadadohakosatika, To. 2302, fols. 240b5–241a1.

212. Kanhapadasya dohakosa, Bagchi 1935, commentary to no. 25, p. 133.

213. Tucci 1930, pp. 153–154; Lйvi 1930; this material has been studied (from a somewhat different perspective) by Tatz (1987, 1988). A sabari ascetic woman is represented in the Ramayana; cf. Lutgendorf 2001.

214. mKhas grub khyung po rnal ‘byor gyi rnam thar, 1996, pp. 20–21.

215. Cittaguhyagambhirarthagiti, fol. 83a1. The chronology is defined by Phadampa’s primary translator, Zha-ma lo-tsa-ba Chos kyi rgyal-po (1069–1144).

216. That is, Khyung-po rnal-’byor; for the hagiography of this savaripa, see Stearns 1996, pp. 139–141.

217. Sunyatadrsti, To. 2426, fols. 40a3—40b1: rgya gar skad du | shu nya ta dri shti na ma | bod skad du | stong pa nyid kyi lta ba zhes bya ba | spyan ras gzigs dbang phyug la phyag ‘tshal lo | sems kyi rtog rtse chos nyid ni | sa bon nam mkha’i dbyings su smos | bdag med gzhon nus mgul nas ‘khyud | gnyid sad byed pa nyid du gnas | spongs shig dor shig bdag smongs so | kye ho bcings ba ma lus pa | sha ba ri bde chen por rol | stong pa’i btsun mo ‘khyud byas te | kye ho lus ngag sems smin te | thams cad dus su brtags pa yis | sha ba ri ni myos par ‘gyur | dga’ ba’i rnam pa thams cad du | sha ba ri ni gnyid log nas | gnyid ni nam mkha’i dbyings su log | kye ho bdag gi de nyid ni | sa bon nam mkhar mnyam par smos | ’bras bu nam mkhar skar chen shar | spongs shig dor shig bdag smongs so | srid pa’i bcings ba’i glang chen bsad | dbang po lnga yi gtor ma byas | bdag gi sdug bsngal thams cad spangs | spongs shig dor shig bdag rmongs so | nyin mtshan rtag tu gnyid med par | rang gi sems la bya ra byas | de nas skye pa bud med ni | gcig tu dben par song ste gnas | gtso bo ‘jig rten mgon pa smra | spongs shig dor shig bdag smongs so | stong pa’i btsun mo ‘khyud byas te | sha ba ri bde chen por gnas | stong pa nyid kyi lta ba zhes bya ba slob dpon sha ba ris mdzad pa rdzogs so ||

218. Russell 1916, 4:503–504; see also Elwin (1955, pp. 14–33) for a discussion of

the relation of the current Saora to the sabara of literature.

219. Krsnayamari-tantra XV.1–19, Rinpoche and Dvivedi 1992, pp. 114–117. See also Sadhanamala, 1925, 1: 177, 217, 245–9, 252–3, 250, 308–310. To. 571 (= To. 990, T. 1264), 736 (= To. 995, T. 1384), 3206, 3245, 3360, 3365, 3508, 3509, 3511–13, 3538, 3539, 3540. There are undoubtedly more rituals that might be located in the various

tantras, but this list provides a rough idea of the extent of the literature.

220. Kumaracandra’s commentary adds that the snake is in her (upper) right hand, with a sword and knife in the other two; in the left three hands are a wheel, a lotus and a skullcap.

221. In Krsnayamari XV.4b, sphota is translated by the Tibetan translators as a chain, lcags sgrogs, roughly equivalent to the name of the deity carrying it, srkhala.

222. Krsnayamari XV.1–6:

athatah sampravaksyami aryajaNgulisadhanam |

yena bhavitamatrena jalasyopari caNkramet ||

trimukham sadbhujam pitam phuhkarabijasambhavam |

sarpahastam maharupam mayuravahanapriyam ||

purvato mayurim likhed daksine bhrkutim tatha |

pascime parnasabarim uttare vajrasrNkhalam ||

paksam kamandalum sakham sphotam capi vibhavayet |

pitam raktam tatha syamam nilam varnaprabhedatah ||

eta vibhavayet prajсo mantram caiva japet tatah | om phuh jah ||

mudgaradin nyased dvare puspadin konake nyaset |

aryajaNguliyogena jalam akramyate sada ||

For the Chinese use of JaNguli spells, see Strickmann 2002, pp. 151–156; I thank James Robson for drawing my attention to this passage.

223. Shafer 1954, p. 139.

224. Eschmann et al. 1978, pp. 99–117.

225. Elwin 1955, p. 298.

226. Eschmann et al. 1978, pp. 79–94.

227. Gaudavaho vv. 319–338.

228. Hevajra Tantra I.i.31: candali jvalita nabhau | dahati paсcatathagatan || dahati ca locanadih | dagdhe ‘ham sravate sasi ||. See Ratnakarasanti’s sri Hevajrapaсjika Muktavali, Tripathi and Negi 2001, pp. 27–28, for an exegesis to this verse. 

К оглавлению>>

script type="text/javascript"> var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));