4.10. Примечания к главе 4

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



1. Namasamgitimandalavidhyakasavimala, To. 2543, fol. 13b1–2: sangs rgyas rdo rje ‘dzin bcas pas | kun gyis deng khyod dbang bskur bas | khams gsum gyi ni rgyal po che | rgyal ba’i bdag po ston pa yin | deng ni bdud las rnam rgyal te | grong khyer mchog tu rab tu zhugs | khyed rnams kyis ni sangs rgyas nyid | deng nyid the tshom med par ‘thob |

2. I employ the terms esoteric Buddhism (Chinese: mi chiao), Mantrayana (chen yen) and Vajrayana interchangeably. Although referring to the system as the resultant vehicle (phalayana) is acceptable as well, this need not be used here. There is no valid reason for employing any of the modern neologisms—sahajayana, kalacakrayana, tantrayana, and so on—that litter the literature about the esoteric dispensation; they remain unattested in any of our Buddhist sources and appear the result of misunderstandings by modern scholars.

3. This position is especially noticeable in the two primary statements in English, that of Snellgrove (1987) and the introduction to Matsunaga’s edition of the Guhyasamaja Tantra (1978, pp. vii–xxxi).

4. The standard description of Chinese esoterism in English is Chou Yi-Liang 1945. See, as well, Weinstein 1987, pp. 77–89; Orlando 1980; Strickmann 1996. We have to concur with Orzech (1989, 1998) and Strickmann (1983, 1990, 1996), however, that the serious study of Chinese tantrism is in its infancy, and the widespread impression that Chou Yi-Liang has presented all the material is misleading.Both Strickmann’s (1996, pp. 41–45) and Orzech’s (1998, pp. xiv, 68) recent studies of the intersection of Chinese esoterism and politics appears in support of the model of imperial patronage.

5. For a review of this material, see Kapstein 2000, pp. 25–65.

6. See, especially, the “long roll” of esoteric images painted between 1173 and

1176 (Chapin 1972). Backus (1981, pp. 162 ff.) considers the period in decline, retaining the ideology of the Later Ta-li kingdom.

7. See, for example, Woodward 1981. Strachan interprets Pagan solely in light of Theravada tradition, even while acknowledging that the primary artistic and architectural tradition was Pala and was close in form and aesthetics to Nalanda (1989, pp. 17, 25, 64, etc.; e.g., p. 38, where esoteric figures are illustrated). For another opinion on this period of Burmese history, see Strong 1992, pp. 174–179.

8. This is contra Samuel, who articulates the theory that centralized states prefer non-“shamanic” forms of Buddhism (1993, pp. 390–391). His theory does not accord with our data in India or many other areas; for the earliest mantrin’s influence in Chinese state politics, see the biography of Fo T’u-teng in Wright (1990, pp. 34–68).

9. Strickmann has imputed Chinese class associations into Indian society and has misunderstood the metaphorical nature of the ritual enterprise, assuming that those conducting these rituals would represent the aristocratic class (1996, pp. 37–40).

10. See Lamotte 1944–80, 4:1854–1869; Braarvig 1985; Wayman 1975–76; Schopen 1985. We sometimes even find spells in the Vinaya, such as an early version of the Mahamayurividyarajсi in the Bhaisajyavastu of the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya; Dutt 1941–50, vol. 3, part 2, pp. 286–288.

11. Braarvig 1997.

12. Strickmann justifies the term, but with some uneasiness, for he recognizes that “proto-tantric” texts continue to be composed long after the advent of the tantras (1996, p. 130; 2002, pp. 103–109). Methodologically, then, the term “prototantric” is a questionable description, and it is not clear that the authors of these works understood other texts as superior. I have chosen only to typify “mature esoterism” as the fundamental change in system and not to speak of the texts that represent a different ideology except as they do not embody the basic metaphor explained later in this chapter.

13. Strickmann affirms Atikuta’s Dharanisamgraha as not a literal translation, based on Chinese models intruding into the text (1996, pp. 53, 153; 2002, p. 264). As such, we need to take Dharanisamgraha as an important mark in ritualism around 653/54, rather than a translation of a much earlier work. On the mandalas in the Dharanisamgraha, see Yoritomi 1990, pp. 81–84.

14. Lin 1935, p. 84n; Chen yen tsung chiao shih i, T.2396.75.431a8–12.

15. See Jong’s (1984) summary of Matsunaga’s standard work, p. 100; Matsunaga 1978, p. xvii; Chou 1945, p. 265.

16. Ta t’ang hsi yь chi T.2087.51.882b13–14; Beal does not represent this section entirely accurately (1869, p. 120). I-ching’s involvement with esoteric Buddhism is chronicled in his hagiography, Sung kao seng chuan, T.2061.50.710.b8–711.b4.

17. Bodhiruci died in 727. Elements of his hagiography are found in the Sung kao seng chuan, T.2061.50.720b4-c12; Hsь ku chin i ching t’u chi, T.2152.55.371a28 (identified as Dharmaruci); and Ta chou k’an ting chung ching mu lu, T.2153.55.379c29, 380a8, 395a3; 2154.569b13, 570b15. Strickmann 1996, pp. 252–259, and 2002, pp. 254–255; Linrothe 1999, pp. 88–89, 132; and Yoritomi 1990, pp. 46–47, 89–94, discuss some of Bodhiruci’s oeuvre.

18. See the material in chapter 5. This is indicated by several quotations to a version of the Cakrasamvara-tantra in the works of Vilasavajra, particularly his commentaries on the Guhyagarbha and the Maсjusrinamasamgiti; see Davidson for references (1981, pp. 8–9). We also note that at least one version of the earliest yogini tantra, the Sarvabuddhasamayoga (To. 366) was translated in the Tibetan Royal Dynastic period; its translation is discussed in chapter 5. It is referenced as one of the eighteen tantras of the early Mahayoga canon; cf. Amoghavajra’s Chin kang ting ching yь ch’ieh shih pa hui chih kuei, T.869.18.286c9–16 trans. Giebel 1995, pp. 177–182, and Jсanamitra’s Prajсaparamita-nayasatapaсcasatkatika, To. 2647, fol. 273a3. I am indebted to Kenneth Eastman for drawing my attention to these works and to Steven Weinberger for reference to Giebel’s 1995 translation. Kanaoka (1966, p. 476) has pointed out that Jсanamitra’s text appears to be the one listed in the dKar chag ldan dkar ma; Lalou 1953, p. 331, no. 523.

19. Examples of this perspective are provided by Tsuda 1978 and 1990. 20. The defense of this position is found in Lessing and Wayman 1968, pp. 164–165. 21. See Davidson 1991, for something of the discussion of Ngor-chen’s refutations; they are embodied in his two works examining the ritual systems of texts classified as kriya and carya-tantras: the Bya rgyud spyi’i rnam par bshad pa legs par bshad pa’i rgya mtsho, and the sPyod pa’i rgyud spyi’i rnam par gzhags pa legs par bshad pa’i sgron me.

22. An introduction to polythetic category construction is provided in Lakoff 1987.

23. Murphey for a discussion of the more important research on categories (1994, pp. 10–19); Keil for problems with prototype theory (1989, pp. 26–33).

24. Wittgenstein 1958, § 67.

25. Keil 1989, pp. 83–84, 267–283; Murphey 1994, pp. 14–16.

26. The jump from individual maturation to social maturation of conceptual fields is made by Keil in the articulation of analogies between a child’s maturation and the novice/expert distinction (1989, pp. 254–265).

27. Rabe for a consideration of the importance of this work in the socio-politcal life of the early medieval period (1997, p. 218).

28. Kavyamimamsa, Parashar 2000, pp. 164–179.

29. Snellgrove 1959 articulated some of these considerations with respect to abhiseka, but did not pursue the metaphor much beyond this point, and was forced to infer “non-Buddhist” influences rather than determine their nature from evidence. I thank Charles Orzech for drawing my attention to this article.

30. The best collection I have seen of Buddhist texts to date is Sakurai 1996, pp. 407–584.

31. Law 1919 and Inden 1978 are the primary studies, based on entirely different materials.

32. Law 1919, pp. 87–90.

33. Krtyakalpataru, vol. 11: Rajadharma-kanda, Aiyangar 1943, pp. 9–17. The first scriptural source given by Laksmidhara is not called the *Adipurana, but the Brahmapurana. It is well known, though, that the received Brahmapurana has no connection with the text Laksmidhara quotes as such, but is the old *Adipurana. It is extremely common for multiple Indic texts to circulate under a single title or for a single text to be known under multiple titles. The surviving fragments of the old *Adipurana have been edited (with the sections included in the Krtyakalpataru ) by Y. Ikari and T. Hayashi, in Ikari 1994, pp. 83–136.

34. Inden 1978, pp. 41–58.

35. Ibid., pp. 49–55. Cf. the ritual in Heesterman 1957, esp. pp. 63–90, where the “unction festival” is clearly not given much weight in the ceremonial agenda and was principally for the coronation of kings achieving independence for the first time.

36. Schlingloff 1964, textband, p. 41, and references, pp. 194–195; Ruegg 1967;

Yamabe 1999, pp. 60–72.

37. Ch’an mi yao fa ching, T. 613.15.256c1–15.

38. Kuan fo san mei hai ching, T.643.15.664c9–11; I am grateful to Yamabe Nobuyoshi for providing these references to the Kuan fo san mei hai ching. See Yamabe 1999, pp. 302–312.

39. Dharanisamgraha, T.901.18.799c25–800a2, 802a17-b3, 857b6-c1, 871a1-c6, 875c13–876a5, 889a23–892b20

40. Dasabhumika, Kondo 1936, pp. 178–189; LaNkavatara, Bunyiu Nanjio 1923, pp. 1.11, 45.13, 70.3, 100.9, 101.11, 102.13, 103.6, 123.6, 190.17, 322.4, 359.16; these references are from Suzuki 1934, p. 25b; cf. also the articulation of the Dasabhumika model by Candrakirti, Madhyamakavatara, La Vallйe Poussin 1907–12, pp. 349– 50. For the importance of this myth in the Mahayana legitimization of scripture, see Davidson 1990.

41. Strickmann 1990; idem 1996, pp. 78–87, 98–100, 113–123, 330–332; idem 2002, pp. 113–119, 132–140; the consecration ritual is found T.1331.21.479b5–24.

42. I tsu fo ting lun wang ching T.951.19.251b12–252c10. The date is from the Kai yuan shih chiao mu lu T.2154.55.569c5, although this text is notoriously unreliable. T.951 and its closely related T.952 are extremely important to demonstrate the transition between the seventh-century material and the rapidly evolving eighthcentury synthesis. They, along with the Subahupariprccha, the Susiddhikara and the Mahavairocanabhisambodhi-vikurvana, really demonstrate that transition rather well. Yoritomi (1990, pp. 116–119) discusses the relationship between many of these texts and Atikuta’s *Dharanisamgraha. On the question of a “single syllable” (ekaksara) in the approximately contemporary Maсjusrimulakalpa, see Przyluski 1923.

43. I tsu fo ting lun wang ching, T. 951.19.250b20–23.

44. Susiddhikaramahatantrasadhanopayikapatala, To. 807, fols. 201b3–203b6; T.893.18.

45. Haribhadra’s Abhisamayalamkaraloka, p. 270.13; dKar chag ldan dkar ma, Lalou 1953, p. 326, no. 318; Buddhaguhya’s Vairocanabhisambodhitantrapindartha, To. 2662, fol. 3b4.

46. Vajrapany-abhiseka-mahatantra, To. 496: de nas rdo rje ldan pa khyod | rdo rje’i chos ni rab brjod pa | sangs rgyas kun gyis khyod lag tu | ting ‘dzin ‘byung ba’I rdo rje byin | deng nas ‘jig rten thams cad kyi | lag na rdo rje rdzul ‘phrul che |sdang ba rnams ni tshar bcad dang | bstan pa la ni gnod byed pa | de dag gdul bar bya ba’i phyir | ’dren pa rnams kyis rdo rje byin | ci ltar ‘khor los sgyur ba’i rgyal |bdag por bya phyir dbang bskur ba | de bzhin chos rgyal dbang bskur phyir | rdo rje blo ldan dbang bskur brjod |.

47. Mahavairocanabhisambodhitantra, To. 494, fols. 239b2–241a6; cf. Buddhaguhya’s rNam par snang mdzad mngon par byang chub pa’i rgyud chen po’i ‘grel bshad, To. 2663, vol. nyu, fol. 350b.

48. In his Namasamgitimandalavidhyakasavimala, To. 2543, fols. 11b1–13b2.

49. Inden 1978, p. 38.

50. Subahupariprccha, To. 805, fols. 122b7–125a5.

51. See Flood 1989, esp. p. 24.

52. Schwab has illustrated that the famous Herakles/Vajrapani of niche V 2 at Tepe Shutur is an excellent example of the Herakles Epitrapezios type, which was believed to be associated with the sculptor Lysippos (1998).

53. Kuan ting ching, T.1331.21.515a23-b13. More than twenty years ago, in a graduate seminar at Berkeley Michel Strickmann attracted my attention to this bizarre work, which was the topic of his celebrated article on the Consecration Scripture (1990).

54. For one description of the Hevajra system, see Davidson 1992.

55. On esoteric Buddhist texts and spirit possession, see Granoff 1979, pp. 78–79; Strickmann 1996, pp. 213–226.

56. MDs, VII.5: yasmad esam surendranam matrabho nirmito nrpah | tasmad abhibhavaty esa sarvabhutani tejasa ||.

57. See Kulke 1978; 1993, pp. 327–381; the quotation is from p. 365.

58. Pollock 1996, pp. 236–239; 1998, pp. 13, 31–34.

59. Kielhorn 1900–1901a, v. 11; I thank Phyllis Granoff for pointing out to me the subsets of vibhuti.

60. Nitisara, I.4a: sadhubhutaladevatvam.

61. Krtyakalpataru, vol. 11: Rajadharma-kanda, Aiyangar 1943, p. 4: asucir vacanad yasya sucir bhavati purusah | sucis caivasucih sadyah katham raja na daivatam ||. I thank Phyllis Granoff for correcting my translation of this passage.

62. Maсjusrimulakalpa, Sastri 1920, p. 135: pasyed yo hi sa dharmatma mucyate sarvakilbisat | paсcanantaryakari ‘pi duhsilo mandamedhasah ||. I have read with the Tibetan, fol. 175b6: gang gis bdag nyid chen po mthong.

63. Krtyakalpataru, vol. 11: Rajadharmakanda, Aiyangar 1943, pp. 12–13.

64. The normative esoteric definition for mandala is milana, a gathering, cognate

with Hindi mela/melan; Guhyasamaja XVIII.24, Hevajra Tantra II.iii.27, which Snellgrove emended to malana against all the manuscripts for ideological

reasons (1959, 1:97n1); Hevajra Tantra II.iii.26 calls a mandala the “city composed of Buddhas,” sarvabuddhatmakampuram. Strickmann (1996, p. 145), citing Brunner (1986), proposes that the Buddhist mandala form derives exclusively from saivite tantric useage, which is unlikely in the face of its political components.

65. Susiddhikara, To. 807, fols. 209b2–214a3.

66. Karunapundarika, Yamada 1968, 1:67–70; cf. Gуmez 1996, pp. 37, 320.

67. Schopen 1977.

68. Mulasarvastivada Vinaya, SaNghabhedavastu, Gnoli 1977, 1:15: ksetranam adhipatih ksatac ca trayata iti ksatriyah ksatriyah samjсodapadi |; Dighanikaya, Rhys Davids and Carpenter 1890–1911, 3:93: khettanam adhipati ti kho vasettha khattiyo khattiyo tv eva dutiyam akkharam upanibbattam | (in the middle of defining Mahasammata, khattiya, and raja). This is the Buddhist version of the Manu story, used for various reasons; cf. Mahabharata, santiparvan, Sukthankar et al. 1949–50, 12.67.17–38.

69. Edgerton 1953, 2:198b, 201a.

70. See Scharfe: “The relative constancy of Indian social structures and mores over long periods of time makes the particular century in which a certain chapter has been composed often seem irrelevant. But since extensive interpolations in the text cannot be proved, the existing signs of a more recent date that are found in dozens of places must indicate the date of the compilation as a whole. I propose the first or perhaps the second century a.d.” (1993, p. 293). This agrees with the employment of siddha explored in chapter 5.

71. This material is taken from Arthasastra 6.2.2–26 in Kangle 1960; cf. Scharfe 1993, pp. 104–124. Curiously, neither Scharfe nor the other authorities he quotes have directly represented the schematic of the text as it is written. They have taken mandala exclusively in the sense of physical circle as opposed to “spheres of influence”; the Arthasastra was not drawing exact circles.

72. Chattopadhyaya 1994, pp. 10–37.

73. Kielhorn 1900–1901a, v. 23.

74. Kulke and Rothermund make this observation (1998, p. 126), although it is not entirely clear from their inscriptions; see Singh for a discussion of this point (1993, pp. 66–67).

75. Sharma 1965, p. 1. Wink took strong exception to Sharma’s work (1990, pp. 219–223). On the nature of feudalism in general, see Strayer 1965, pp. 11–14; Reynolds 1994, pp. 1–74. Sharma has restated his position recently (2001, pp. 16–118).

76. This is a summary of Fox’s ideas based on Stein 1991.

77. Arthasastra, VII.1.32.

78. Nitisara I.18, IV.1, X.28.

79. Chattopadhyaya 1994, pp. 34–37, 186–202.

80. Ibid., pp. 80–3, 217–221; Sharma 1965, pp. 20–30; Gopal 1965, pp. 263–281; Devahuti 1983, pp. 184–187; Sharma 1996, pp. 62–70; and see Singh, for the most thorough list of political designations found in a specific locale, in this case Orissa (1993, pp. 321–325). The extent of the list underlines how little we know of the particular powers attached to individual titles under specific administrations.

81. As with the coronation ceremony, Snellgrove recognizes the structural similarity between the mandala and political systems but does not pursue the metaphor: “There is an exact analogy with the gradations of chief ministers, lesser minsters serving staff and messengers, with which a great king seated in state might be supposed to be surrounded.” Because it is “profane,” though, Snellgrove dismisses the analogy (1987, 1:199).

82. Sarvatathagatatattvasamgraha, Chandra 1987, pp. 5–18.

83. Sarvadurgatiparisodhana-tantra, Skorupski 1983, sec. 35a, pp. 32, 174.

84. Fleet 1888, p. 168.

85. Bhavnagar Archaeological Dept., pp. 41 (plate II, line 11), 44.

86. Kane 1918, pp. 33–34.

87. Mayamata, Dagens 1985, pp. 119–148, 176–203.

88. Meister 1979.

89. Manava Dharma sastra VII.119; cf. Doniger and Smith 1991, p. 140 n.

90. Irawati 1953, pp. 50–54.

91. Reported by I-ching in his Nan hai chi kuei nei fa chuan, T.2125.216c15; Takakusu 1896, p. 82; noticed in Schopen 1987, p. 199. Unfortunately, this notice relies on the transcription of kula as chь lo, which is not exceptional but the exact identity of the Sanskrit term is difficult to affirm in the absence of Indic attestation.

92. Maсjusrimulakalpa, Sastri 1920, p. 327: tathastakulika mantra astabhyo diksu nisrita | uttarayam disi sidhyante mantra vai jinasambhava || purvadese tatha siddhih mantra vai padmasambhava | daksinapatham nisritya sidhyante kulisalayah ||pascimena gaсjah prokto vidise manikulas tatha | pascime cottare samdhau siddhis tesu prakalpita || pascime daksine capi samdhau yaksakulas tatha | daksine purvadigbhage sravakanam mahaujasam || kulakhyam tesu drstam vai tatra sthanesu sidhyanti | purvottare disabhage pratyekanam jinasambhavam || kulakhyam bahumatam loke siddhis tesu tatra vai | adhas caiva disabhage sidhyante sarvalaukika || patalapravesika mantra vai sidhyante ‘stakulesu ca | lokottara tatha mantra usnisadyah prakirtitah || siddhim ayanti te urdhvam cakravartijinodita |. The translation of the obscure Sanskrit takes into account the Tibetan version, To. 543, fols.

323a2–7, and the Chinese of T.1191.20.898b26-c6. There is a textual problem with the line pascimena gaсjah prokto, and I have emended the printed gaja to gaсja based on the Tibetan mdzod (fol. 232a4). The Chinese renders (898b29) it phonetically, saying that the na-ja family is uncertain as to its direction, suggesting that the translators had a poorer text than we.

93. Maсjusrimulakalpa, Sastri 1920, p. 326; this is analogous to the depictions of the sinister south in such texts as the Karandavyuha; see Lienhard 1985 and 1993.

94. On the discussion if worldly (laukika) beings constituted a kula or not, see Ruegg 1964, pp. 79–80.

95. Nitisara XVII.6–7; Arthasastra:II.4.23.

96. Strickmann (1983) indicates that the earliest description of these activities in  chinese literature is found in the I tsu fo ting lun wang ching, said to be translated by Bodhiruci in 709 c.e.; T.951.19.261c. Included is a fifth activity, that of seduction.

97. Homa is another ritual just beginning to receive the attention it is due; see Skorupski 1983 and Strickmann 1983, both in the landmark Agni by F. Staal. Skorupski’s excellent study has a somewhat misleading title (“Tibetan Homa Rites”) for they represent Indian rituals, some in the Tibetan language.

98. E.g., this description is found in the Pradipodyotana, p. 194.24.

99. Skorupski 1994.

100. Bentor 2000.

101. The best description of Vajrapani’s position in normative Buddhism remains Lamotte 1966. Snellgrove 1987, 1:134–141, has contributed much. 102. Lamotte 1966, pp. 114–115, 152–153.

103. Sircar 1966, pp. 336–337; the term most consistently employed for Vajrapani is guhyakadhipati.

104. Krtyakalpataru, Rajadharmakanda, pp. 101–110; the Yajсavalkya quotation is p. 103.

105. Manasollasa, I.52–59.

106. Nitisara XII.3, XVI.57; Strickmann 1996, pp. 10, 40, etc., calls attention to the use of the loanword in Chinese as Mandarin from mantrin, but does not place its employment in India as a political office.

107. Ray 1994, pp. 407–410.

108. Ta t’ang hsi yь chi, T.2087.51.923a8; Beal 1869, 2:165; Demiйville 1932, pp.


109. We see this evidence in the birchbark manuscript of the Karandavyuha, Mette 1997, p. 97, and we notice the maintenance of this language even in the Newari manuscript transcribed by Mette, p. 143. Meisezahl was also of this opinion in his work on the Amoghapasahrdayadharani; see Meisezahl 1962, p. 270. On the topic of birch bark as a manuscript material, see Salomon 1999, pp. 15–22, 57–71, 81–109; Witzel 1994, pp. 6–14. The location of Uddiyana/Odiyana has been finally affirmed by inscriptions; see Kuwayama 1991.

110. Abhidharmakosabhasya VII.47, pp. 424–5.

111. I have in my possession such a manuscript in Tibetan given to me by a Tibetan lama. It is a collection of mantras, much written over and corrected. It is entitled the Las sgrub rgyun gcod kyi sngags brgya pa, or The Hundred Mantras That Continually Remove Karmic Obscurations, and is attributed one Mi-pham ‘Jam-dpal dgyes-pa’i rdo-rje, one of the pen names of the famous nineteenth–twentieth-century rNying-ma-pa teacher, ‘Jam-mgon Mi-pham rgya-mtsho (1846–1912).

112. *Dharanisamgra, T.901.18.785b3.

113. siksasamuccaya, p. 79.

114. Matsunaga, in his introduction to the Guhyasamaja, p. IX, identifies the Dharmaguptaka collection as a Vidyadhara-pitaka, and the issue of vidyadhara is taken up in succeeding chapters. For other issues associated with the Vidyottama and related texts, see Stein 1978, pp. 434–439.

115. An esoteric canon said to be the entire Vajrasekhara scripture is the subject of Amoghavajra’s Chin kang ting ching yь ch’ieh shih pa hui chih kuei, T.869, translated Giebel 1995; Yoritomi 1990, pp. 172–179.

116. Cf. Rocher 1986, pp. 30-34. Eastman’s 1981 presented but unfortunately unpublished paper is the best investigation of the Buddhist problem to date. Another Indian source affirming a canon of eighteen tantras is Jсanamitra’s Prajсaparamita-nayasatapaсcasatkatika, To. 2647, fol. 273a3, and a section of this is translated in chapter 6; this later source is discussed by Kanaoka 1966.

117. On scriptural formulation, see Davidson 1990 and Collins 1990.

118. The conversion of Vajrapani is found throughout North Indian Buddhist literature; Lamotte 1966 for a survey.

119. Sarvatathagatatattvasamgraha, Chandra 1987, pp. 5–6: samantabhadratvat vajrasattvasamadheh sudrdhatvac caikaghanah samantabhadramahabodhisattvakayah sambhuya bhagavato vairocanasya hrdaye sthitvidam udanam udanayamasa | aho samantabhadro ‘ham drdhasattvah svayambhuvam | yad drdhatvad akayo ‘pi sattvakayatvam agatah || atha samantabhadramahabodhisattvakayo bhagavato hrdayad avatirya sarvatathagatanam puratas candramandalasrityo bhutvajсam margayamasa || atha bhagavan sarvatathagatajсanasamayavajramnamasamadhimsamapadyasarvatathagatas ilasamadhiprajсavimuktivimuktijсanadarsanadharmacakrapravartana-sattvarthamahopayabalaviryamahajсanasamayam asesanavasesasattvadhatuparitranasarvadhipatya-sarvasukhasaumanasyвnubhavanartham yavat sarvatathagatasamatajсanabhijсanuttara-mahayanabhisamayottamasiddhyavaptiphalahetos tatsarvatathagatasiddhivajram tasmaisamantabhadraya mahabodhisattvaya sarvatathagatacakravartitve sarvabuddhakayaratnamukutapattabhisekenвbhisicya panibhyam anupradat | tatah sarvatathagatair vajrapanir vajrapanir iti vajranamabhisekenвbhisiktah || atha vajrapanir bodhisattvo mahasattvo vamavajragarvollalanataya tadvajram svahrdy utkarsanayogena dharayann idam udanam udanayamasa || idam tatsarvabuddhanam siddhivajram anuttaram | aham mama kare dattam vajram vajre pratisthitam || iti || I have largely followed sakyamitra’s Kosalalamkara, To. 2503, vol. yi, fols. 30a5–33b6. A profitable comparison can be made against the same episode in a slightly different narrative form found in the Vajrapanyabhiseka-mahatantra, To. 496, fols. 25a3–26a3.

120. Sarvatathagatatattvasamgraha, Chandra 1987, pp. 56–60; Vajrasekhara, To. 480, fols. 236a7–262a7; Trailokyavijaya, To. 482, fols. 10a5–13a7; Candraguhyatilaka, To. 477, fols. 281a6–287a7; Iyanaga 1985; Snellgrove 1987, 1:134–141; Davidson 1991, 1995b; Stein 1995; Mayer 1998.

121. On this phenomenon, see Mair 1988.

122. E.g., Trailokyavijaya, To. 482, fols. 10a5–13a7.

123. Sadhanamala has a sadhana of Trailokyavijaya in this position (1925, 2:511).

124. Tantrarthavatara, To. 2501, fols. 76b6, 78b5, 79a7.

125. This might be the material we could establish as central for the evolving institutional esoterism if we look at the gsang sngags kyi rgyud and gzungs sections of the dKar chag ldan dkar ma (Lalou 1953, pp. 326–328), at the translations into Chinese by the T’ang translators (Chou 1945, passim), and the scriptures specified by Buddhaguhya in his introduction to the Mahavairocabhisambodhi, his Vairocanabhisambodhitantrapindartha,

To. 2662, fol. 3a4–3b6.

126. For example, the doctrinal statements of many of these early tantras emphasizes the issue of the nature of the mind, such as the Subahupariprccha, To. 805, fols. 121b1–122b7, the Mahavairocanabhisambodhitantra, To. 494, fols. 153b1–160a2; Sarvatathagatatattvasamgraha, Chandra 1987, p. 4; Sarvadurgatiparisodhanatantra, Skorupski 1983, sections 2b–4b, 17b, etc. Namai 1997 covers some of this material, which calls into question the estimation that esoteric Buddhism made no contribution to Buddhist doctrine.

127. Mitra 1981, 1:108–138; Linrothe 1999, pp. 252–257. I believe Linrothe’s phase stratigraphy suffers from an insufficient consideration of relatively datable esoteric literature.

128. Chag lo tsa ba’i rnam thar, Roerich 1959, p. 42; see also Rwa lo tsa ba’i rnam thar, p. 71.

129. Bhotasvamidasalekha, Dietz 1984, p. 361.

130. sBa bzhed, mGon-po rgyal mtshan 1980, p. 1; sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma, Stein 1961, p. 1; this is missing in the dBa’ bzhed, Wangdu and Diemberger 2000, pp. 23–25.

131. This text has been edited and translated into German in Dietz 1984, pp. 360–365. Her notes are very useful, although I have differed from her translation on small points. I am well aware that the text as it stands cannot be entirely a Royal Dynastic Tibetan production, and sections have been added; see Karmay 1980, p. 9. I do believe, however, that the above material is authentic.

132. The dKar chag ldan dkar ma, Lalou 1953, nos. 322, 324, 328, are commentaries on the Mahavairocanabhisambodhi, the Sarvadurgatiparisodhana, and the Dhyanottara, respectively, but are attributed to Buddhagupta. Yet these are undoubtedly the works of Buddhaguhya (as is probably no. 326, an unidentified commentary on the Subahupariprccha). While it is possible that he was also known by the name Buddhagupta, I find it equally likely that his name was translated back into Sanskrit by the librarian. Hodge 1994, p. 69, calls attention to Guhyagarbha commentaries in the Peking that are attributed to Buddhaguhya. There is much about the Peking bsTan ‘gyur, that is problematic, however, and these works may require reattribution. Please also see Germano 2002.

133. kLong chen chos ‘byung, pp. 272–275: babs gsum pa ni | slob dpon sangs rgyas gsang ba gangs ti si la byon pa’i tshe chos gsungs pa rnams yin te | sku che ba’i lo rgyus ni | rgya gar nub phyogs pa’i rgyal rigs chen po zhig yin cing | lan gcig gi tshe rgyal po chen po zhig la sras zhig ‘khrungs pa las | rgyal po’i thugs dgongs la nga’i bu ‘di la ‘jig rten gyi khams na gang zag mi’i slob dpon du bya ba’i ‘os med pas mkhyen rab kyi mnga’ bdag ‘phags pa ‘jam dpal bsgrub tu bcug la de la slob dpon zhu dgos snyam nas | sku rten lugs sku khru gang | gsung rten me tog padma | thugs rten ‘o ma spar bu gang gtad de | rgyal pos ‘jam dpal gyi sgom lung phog nas bsgrub tu bcug pas rgyal po bsod nams che ba dang | rgyal rigs yin pas zhag drug nas ‘grub ste | lugs sku zhal ‘dzum pa dang bzhad pa la sogs pa byung | padma’ang sor mar skyes pa ‘dra ba byung | ’o ma yang lud la khad pa byung ste rgyal bu’i bsam pa la ‘jam dpal ‘grub nas ‘dug bas siddhi gang la blangs na drag snyam pa’i the tshom skyes pa las | lha nyid bdud ‘char ka nag po zhes bya ste | bya nag po chen po zhig tu sprul nas gshogs pa chur bcug pa sa la bsgres te | slob dpon gyi ‘gram pa la brgyab pas dar cig brgyal bar gyur te | [brgyal ba] sangs pa dang bltas pas | lugs sku’ang nag log [ger] song | padma yang rnying par [273] song | ’o ma yang bskams la khad par song | [rgyal bu’i bsam pa la] da res siddhi gang la blangs kyang chog pa’i dus su siddhi ma blangs pas lan | de cis nyes snyam na the tshom zos pas lan | de cis lan na thos pa chung bas lan snyam nas | ha cang thos pa chung na yang bdud kyi las su rig par bya ste | nga’am nga lta bu’o gsungs nas | yab rgyal po la zhus nas | rgya gar shar phyogs su pandi ta lnga brgya’i drung du thos pa mdzad du byon pas | khong rigs bzang ba dang | ’jam dpal grub pa’I stobs kyis pandi ta lnga brgya’i mkhyen pa thams cad thogs pa med par thugs su chud cing mkhas pa chen por gyur te khong rigs bzang ba dang mkhas pa’i stobs kyis longs spyod ‘du ‘dzi mang po ‘dus pas g.yengs pa shin tu che ste | skyo ba skyes nas ha cang thos pa che na bdud kyi las su rigs par bya ste | nga’am nga lta bu’o gsungs nas | gangs ti se bya rog gi gdong pa can gser brag bya skyibs bya bar sgom sgrub la byon pa dang de’i dus su bod yul na chos skyong ba’i rgyal po mnga’ bdag khri srong lde btsan bzhugs pa dang dus mtshungs nas | gang ti si na rgya gar gyi pandi ta mkhas pa zhig byon nas ‘dug zer ba thos nas | lo tsa ba dba’ manydzu shri warma dang | mchims shakya pra bha dang | bran ka ra mu khendra | rtsangs the leg dra dang bzhi la gser phye bre gsum bskur nas gdan ‘dren du btang bas | nga sgrub pa’i dam bca’ zhig byas nas yod pas bod du mi ‘gro gsungs nas | ’byon du ma bzhed | mi ‘byon na chos zhu ‘tshal zhus pas | chos bshad pa’i dus la bab bam mi bab yi dam gyi lha la dri yis [274] gsungs nas | zhag gsum yi dam lha la gsol ba btab nas dris pas | dus la bab par yi dam lhas lung bstan nas | chos gsung bar gnang ste | gsang sngags kyi chos zab mo bshad pa la sngon la dbang bskur dgos gsungs nas | slob dpon gyis mtsho ma pham g.yu’i mandal bkod pa ‘dra ba la | thig sna bskur ba tsam gyis zhi ba rdo rje dbyings kyi dkyil ‘khor lha tshogs bzhi bcu rtsa gnyis mdun gyi nam mkha’ la bkra sa le ‘dug pa bang chen pa rnams kyis zhal mthong ba byung | der slob dpon gyis dbang lha la zhu ba’am nga la zhu gsungs pas | khong rnams kyi sems par | lha de nas mi snang bar ‘gro bas | sngon la lha la zhu byas pas | slob dpon gyis se gol gtogs pa zhig byas te | lha tshogs rnams thugs kar bsdus nas | khyed bod srin po gdong dmar ba ‘di dam tshig shin tu chung bar ‘dug ste | chos ‘chad pa’i ‘brel ba tsam ‘dug pas | bshad par bya | gsungs nas mngon par byang chub pa’i rgyud dang | ngan song sbyong rgyud sgrub thabs dang bcas pa | man ngag a ba ta ra la sogs la yo ga’i chos rnams dang | gzhan yang gsang sngags nang gi sgyu ‘phrul gsang ba’i snying po ‘grel pa dang bcas pa | man ngag lam rim | slob dpon nyid kyis mdzad pa’i man ngag rdo rje lam rim | khro bo’i lam rim dang | zhi ba drwa chen drwa chung dang | ’bring po la sogs man ngag phra mo mang po dang | bsam gtan phyi ma’i rgya cher ‘grel pa dang bcas pa | gsang sngags phyi nang gi chos mang du bsgyur nas byung ba yin no | bang chen pa rnams kyis rgyal po la gsungs pa | rgyal pos lo tsa ba [275] rma gnyags gnyis la bshad | de nas mar sgyu ‘phrul gyi brgyud pa spyi mdo dang mthun par gsungs so || Cf. Germano 2002.

134. Ta ra na tha’i rgya gar chos ‘byung, Schiefner 1868, pp. 170–171.

135. Vajravidaranadharanyekavirasadhana, To. 2926, fol. 330a2, ri gangs can here = himavat. McKay discusses Grunendahl’s suggestion that, at the time the Mahabharata was composed, Kailasa was a mountain located in the Badrinath region of the Garwhal (1998, pp. 169–70). While this is appealing, we appear to lack archaeological evidence for this assignment.

136. Meister and Dhaky describe surviving sites that Buddhaguhya could have visited (1988–91, vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 92–118).

137. Unfortunately, we have no complete survey of his references. I have noted the following esoteric titles in Buddhaguhya’s works, a list instructive but by no means exhaustive. In his Vairocanabhisambodhitantrapindartha, To. 2662: Sarvatathagatatattvasamgraha (ref. fols. 3b3, 13a3–6, 16b2, 34b5–6), ahavairocanabhisambodhitantra

(ref. fols. 10a1, 23a5, 36a1, 36a7), *Trisamayaraja (ref. fol. 3b4), Vajrapany-abhiseka-mahatantra (ref. fol. 3b4), Paramadya (ref. fol. 3b3), *Samayoga (fol. 20b7), *Guhyamandalopadesa (fol. 23a2), *Vajrasamayasamodaya (fol. 26b4), Trailokyavijaya (fol. 26b7–27a1), *Acalamantra (fol. 27a1), Subahupariprccha (fol. 28a7). In the Dhyanottara-patala-tika, To. 2670: *Vajrosnisatantra (fols. 3a4, 15a4–7), Susiddhikara (fol. 9a4), Subahupariprccha (fol. 9a4–7), Mahavairocanabhisambodhitantra (fols. 9a5–b3, 15b1), Vajrapany-abhiseka-mahatantra (fol. 9a5–b4), Vidyadharapitaka (fol. 9a6), Sarvatathagatatattvasamgraha (fol. 30b4), Vajrasekhara (fol. 30b4–5). In his Subahupariprccha-tantra-pindartha, To. 2671: “Laukika and Lokottara tantras” (fol. 45a7), Vidyadharapitaka (fol. 49a4). This latter text (To. 2671) appears an early composition, as reflected in the paucity of references.

138. His discussions of gnosis and emptiness probably lead the way; e.g., Dhyanottara-patala-tika, To. 2670, fols. 3a5–4a2,

139. The experience of ‘Brog-mi will be covered in my forthcoming work on the Tibetan Renaissance (forthcoming b); see, for example, Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan’s bLa ma brgyud pa bod kyi lo rgyus, the earliest source on ‘Brog-mi’s life. Ba-ri’s hagiography has been recovered: bLa ma ba ri lo tsa ba rin chen grags kyi rnam thar, and covers the late eleventh century. Just as interesting is the thirteenth-century Rwa lo tsa ba’i rnam thar, and the Indian portion of the hagiography covers several centers, pp. 67–80. 140. Nan hai chi kuei nei fa chuan, T.2125.54.209b20-c11; Takakusu 1896, pp. 38–39.

141. Bhadracaryapranidhanarajatika, To. 4013, fol. 234a3: shakya’i bshes gnyen blo ldan gyis | shakya’i gdung rgyud ‘phel ba’i phyir | kun tu bzang po spyod pa yi | rgya cher ‘grel pa rab bzang byas |. This text is listed in the dKar chag ldan dkar ma, Lalou 1953, no. 559.

142. Cohen 2000.

143. Kosalalamkara, To. 2503, fols. 1b5–2a4: grong khyer bzang por sangs rgyas sde zhes grags thob gang | bla ma’i mchog de dang por rab dad mnyes byas te | gnang ba mnos shing cho gas dam tshig thob nas ni | de la shin tu mang thos mang du rnam par dpyad | kong ka nir ni dra mi da dang dbang phyug dpal ‘dus dang | chos sde chos kyi ‘byung gnas dga’ bas bsnyen bkur byas | sa hyer chos kyi rdo rje mchog tu mtshan gsol dang | gtsug tor rdo rje’ang mang du legs par bsnyen bkur byas | yon tan ‘byung gnas byang phyogs u rgyan yul grod de | rgyud don de nyid ‘dzin rgyal indra bhuti bsnyen | tag kyer grong khyer ka sha la yi slob dpon ni | blo brtan blo gros ‘byung gnas tshul mkhas gus pas bsten | bla ma’i zhal nas yang dag man ngag gang las ni | cung zad bdag gis ci rtogs dag pa’i lung gi tshul | ’jig rten rnal ‘byor cho gas slob dpon bzhin rim gyis | ’di ni yun ring gnas phyir bdag gis

rnam par bsams |

144. Kao seng fa hsien chuan, T.2085.51.862b2–11; Legge 1886, pp. 78–9.

145. Pye is both interesting and illuminating on skillful means, although he does not adhere to the idea that the Mahayana introduced any significant change in content and refers to this idea as a “crude interpretation” (1978, p. 33), an assessment with which I cannot agree.

146. Vairocanabhisambodhitantrapindartha, To. 2662, fol. 2b1–2: gzhan gyi don phun sum tshogs pa ni sku la sogs pa mi zad pa rnam par sprul pa de nyid kyi byin gyi rlabs kyi phyag rgya dang | gsang sngags dang | dkyil ‘khor la sogs par brtags pa’i sgo thabs dang bcas par brjod pa yin no |.

147. Ibid., fols. 20b6, 35a5–6, 46b3, 58b3, 59a4, 61a6, 61b4, 63a1, 64b1; Dhyanottara-patala-tika, fols. 4b6–7, 10a5.

148. On the simile, and other figures of speech as well, see Gonda 1949.

149. Ratnagotravibhaga, Johnston 1950, I.95–133; Vajracchedika Prajсaparamita, Conze 1957, p. 62, although there are many other Mahayanist texts that expand on these images.

150. Trimsikavijсaptibhasya, Lйvi 1925, pp. 15–20.

151. See, for example, Bhavya’s defense of mantras, explored in Braarvig 1997.

152. Vairocanabhisambodhitantrapindartha, To. 2662, fol. 63b2: de la gsangs sngags mnyes par byed pa’i las dge ba kha cig gi ‘bras bu ni srid pa gzhan du mngon par ‘grub pa nyid do | kha cig ni bsam pa dang sbyor ba’i dbang gis tshe ‘di nyid la rnam par smin par ‘gyur te |.

153. We also frequently find the use of _ parinam- in various forms; see Sadhanamala, 1925, passim (1:8, 9, etc.)

154. For the Yogacara literature, see Davidson 1985; for one classic statement in esoteric literature, see Khasama-tantra-tika, 1983, p. 231.

155. Pithadinirnaya, To. 1606, fols. 134b7–135a2: pum yi ge la sogs pa’i yi ge yongs su gyur pa las ‘khor lo’i rtsibs rnams kyi stongs pa’i nang du gnas la sogs pa’i gnas rnams spyi bo la sogs pa rnams su blta bar bya’o | gnas la sogs pa de rnams su de de’i gnas su son pa’i rtsa rnams de dang de’i lha’i gzugs kyis yongs su gyur pa rnam par gzhag ste bsgom par bya’o | dper na phyi rol du gnas la sogs pa dang nye bar gnas pa’i chu klung gi chu yis gso bar byed pa de bzhin du | lus la yang rtsa rnams kyis sen mo la sogs pa gso bar byed do zhes pa mtshungs pa nyid do |.

156. Maсjusrimulakalpa, Sastri 1920, pp. 51–52: vaktavyas ca iyam bho mahabodhisattvasya maсjusriyah kumarabhutasya samayarahsyam matikramisyatha iti | ma bahu apunyam prasavisyatha iti | sarvamantras ca na pratikseptavyah | sarvabuddhabodhisattvas ca na visamvadaniyah | gurur aradhaniyas ceti | anyatha samayatikramah syat | mantras ca siddhim na gaccheyuh | bahu punyam syad iti |

157. Bagchi 1945, esp. pp. 145–146, which specifies the transgressions that become impediments to consecration.

158. This burning has been cited in Tibetan political literature; see the sBa bzhed zhabs btags ma, Stein 1961, pp. 52–53; sBa bzhed, mGon-po rgyal-mtshan 1980, p. 62; dBa’ bzhed, Wangdu and Diemberger 2000, p. 90.

159. Sastri 1942, pp. 103–105.

160. Mahakalatantra, To. 440, fols. 78a2–79a2.

161. See Fussman 1994 for an affirmation that Buddhist doctrine did not substantially change its formulation with the development in Gandhara. I thank Gregory Schopen for providing me with a copy of this article.

162. Nihom 1994, pp. 151–173; Klimburg-Salter 1997, pp. 207–216; Vitali 1990, pp. 40–51.

Web Analytics