Дэвидсон Р. М. «Индийский эзотерический буддизм: социальная история тантрического движения»
<< К оглавлению |
1. Sri-Guhyasamajatantra-nidana-gurupadesana-vyakhyana, fol. 90b6–91a1.
2. Ray 1994, pp. 407–410; on p. 410, Ray mentions that Vajrayana was a forest tradition.
3. Dimock 1966, pp. 95–96.
4. Barrow 1893, pp. 211–212.
5. Gross 1992, pp. 124–135; on p. 135, he mentions the scarcity of jungle sadhus, but attributes their rarity to a decline of habitat. I propose that they were probably always relatively few.
6. On the social composition and role of the suta, see Rocher 1986, pp. 53–59.
7. Man ngag gces pa btus pa contains forty-nine short instructions, although one is by Sa-skya Pandita, a Tibetan; the Phyag rgya chen po gces pa btus pa’i man ngag is based on Man ngag gces pa btus pa and contains thirty-two short instructions. We also find compendia demonstrating this kind of direction, especially one attributed to an Indian siddha, Pha-dam-pa sangs-rgyas Kamalasila. This is the five-volume Zhi byed snyan rgyud zab byed ma (Aziz 1979); in it the first and some of the second volumes retain instructions attributed to the Indian saint.
8. These scriptures are found in the Tibetan canon, To. 383–411, 413–415; these thirty-two tantras total about seventy-seven folia.
9. Both of the lengthy Dakarnava and the Vajradaka contain fifty chapters in 110–125 folia in their Tibetan translations.
10. Because of its anomalous position in esoteric literature, the Kalacakra and related literature are given less consideration than its importance in Tibet and its recent popularity seem to require.
11. Guhyasamaja discussion following XVII.71 (Matsunaga 1978, pp. 108–109).
12. See, for example, the Guhyasamaja XVIII.79, 125, 175, Matsunaga 1978.
13. Hevajra Tantra, Snellgrove 1959, II.ii.51. Ratnakarasanti’s Sri Hevajrapanjika muktavali, Tripathi and Negi 2001, p. 150, defines the Buddhist heretic as one who accepts the Buddha as teacher but despises the Vajrayana, which is the essence of his teaching: buddhasya tirthika buddhatirthikah | katham te buddhasya? buddhasyaiva sastur abhyupagamat | katham tirthikah? buddhasasanasare ‘pi vajrayane pradvesat ||
14. ime dharmah sutre ‘vataranti vinaye samdrsyante dharmataс ca na vilomayanti |. For references on this formula, see Davidson 1990, pp. 300–301.
15. Sarvabuddhasamayoga, To. 366, fol. 151b.3: bud med kun gyi sgyu ma’i rgya | ’di ni gnyis med theg pa’i mchog |.
16. Divyavadana, Vaidya 1959, p. 258.
17. Walleser (1922) has collected and translated the sources.
18. Harrison 1978; Gуmez 1995.
19. Mattavilasaprahasana, Lockwood and Bhat 1981, pp. 42–45.
20. Prajnaparamita-nayasatapancasatkatika, To. 2647, fols. 272b7–273b2 (with minor emendations): gsung rab ‘di’i lo rgyus bshad na | sngon sangs rgyas mi yul na lo brgyad cu bzhugs pa’i tshe na | sarba buddha sa ma yo ga dang | guhya sa manytsa la sogs pas ‘dul zhing theg pa de dag gi snod du gyur pa ‘dzam bu’i gling gi mi yul na med pas rgyal chen ris bzhi pas sum cu rtsa gsum dang | dga’ ldan la sogs pa’i gnas na lha rnams dang bskal pa bzang po’i byang chub sems dpa’ la sogs pa snod du gyur nas de’i tshe mdo sde de ni bzhugs so | slad kyis sangs rgyas mya ngan las ‘das pa’i ‘og tu za hor gyi rgyal po ‘khor dang bcas pa ngo mtshar du chos la dad pa dag cig ‘dug pa theg pa de’i ‘dul skal du gyur cing snod du gyur nas | sarba buddha sa ma yo ga la sogs pa sde chen po bco brgyad phyag na rdo rje’i byin gyi rlabs kyis za hor gyi yul du gshegs pa dang | za hor gyi rgyal po Indra bhu tis mdo sde dag bltas na brda ma phrad nas sngon gyi las kyi dbang gis na mngon par shes pa thob pas bltas na yul gyi dbus yul ma la pa na a tsarya ku ku ra nyin zhing khyi stong tsam la chos ‘chad | mtshan zhing ni khyi de dag la dam tshig longs spyod mdzad pa khyi’i slob dpon mdzad pa zhig bzhugs pa de theg pa’i snod du gyur la | bdag gi ‘dul skal du gyur pa yang ‘dra nas rgyal pos pho nya btang ste slob dpon gshegs su gsol pa dang | slob dpon de yang sngon gyi las kyi dbang gis na mngon par shes pa lnga dang ldan nas | rgyal po de bdag gi ‘dul skal du ‘bab bam mi ‘bab mdo sde de dag gi snod du bdag gyur ram ma gyur brtags na | bdag gi ‘dul skal du yang ‘bab | bdag kyang mdo sde’i snod du yang gyur | rgyal po’i the tshom yang sel bar ‘gyur mod kyi | ’on kyang mdo sde dag sngar ma bltas na brgya la rgyal po’i the tshom dag ma sel bar gyur na shin du ma legs pas pho nya la slar spring ba | mdo sde dag kho bos sngar blta ‘tshal gyis tshur bskur cig ces spring ba dang | de nas mdo sde dag pas gshegs te bltas na mgo mjug gar lta ba’i cha ma mchis na de nyid du lus brdabs te mgon med do | skyab med do zhes bos pa dang dpal rdo rje sems dpa’ mngon par gshegs te khyod ci ‘dod ces dris pa dang | bdag mdo sde zab mo ‘di bltas pa tsam gyis shes par ‘dod ces gsol ba dang | de bzhin gnang ngo zhes gsungs nas de nas sarba buddha sa ma yo ga la sogs pa’i glegs bam rnams ma phye bar de dag gi don yid la mngon sum du gsal bar gyur to | de nas slob dpon de za hor gyi yul ‘du gshegs nas rgyal po ‘khor dang bcas pa rnams la dharma de dag bshad de | rdo rje sems dpas lung bstan nas rgyal po ‘khor dang bcas pa rnams rdo rje dbyings kyi dkyil ‘khor ltar sgom du stsal te |.
21. dKar chag ldan dkar ma, Lalou 1953, no. 522.
22. Prajnaparamita-nayasatapancasatkatika, To. 2647, fol. 274a1.
23. Various forms of this story are encountered widely in siddha literature. A partial list: Sri-Tattvapradipa-mahayogini-tantraraja, fol. 142b1–6; Jnanavarman’s Sri-Jnanatilakapanjika-guhyatattva, fols. 210b5, 268b1–270b1; Sri-ahajapradipa-panjika, fols. 197b3–200b4. Cf. Vajragarbhatantrarajasutra, T. 1198.20.542c-548b; trans. in Bagchi 1944. Tibetan versions are found by bSod-nams rtse-mo in the Rgyud sde spyi’I rnam par gzhag pa, p. 271.2–2.3; cf. A-mes-zhabs, Gsang ‘dus byung tshul, pp. 13.4–15.4. In the eleventh century, Zahor is located by Rong-zom chos-kyi bzang-po to the southeast (!) of Bodhgaya; see Rog Bande, Grub mtha’ so so’i bzґ ed tshul gzґuN gsal bar ston pa chos ‘byuN grub mtha’ chen po bstan pa’i sgron me, pp. 43.3–47.4.
24. Pod ser LL XI.479.
25. I thank Ken Eastman for attracting my attention to this text and pointing out the issue of Kukura’s beastiality.
26. bLa ma rgya gar ba’i lo rgyus, SKB III.170.2.3–4.1.
27. Sahajasiddhi-paddhati, To. 2211, fols. 6a6–7b2; some of this latter material is in Davidson 2002b.
28. On this school, see Holub 1984.
29. Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya (1928) discusses much of the specifically Mahayanist context; cf. also Ruegg 1989.
30. rGyud sde spyi’i rnam par gzhag pa, SKB II.271.2–2.3.
31. For an introduction to these problems, see Broido 1982, 1983, 1984; and Steinkellner 1978.
32. As is so often the case with Indic works, the text is ambiguous as to the speaker’s identity from this point on; Padmavajra’s commentary makes it clear that Vajrapani is continuing to ask his extended question until the miracle mantra below; Buddhakapalatantrapanjika Tattvacandrika, To. 1653, fol. 153b7.
33. The phrase rgyud thams cad kyi bdag po’i dbang phyug la appears in the text to apply to Vajrapani, but (possibly based on gender endings) some commentators make these epithets appositive to Lha-mo in the text; see To. Sri-Buddhakapalatantrapanjika Jnanavati, 1652.108b2–3; Sri-Buddhakapalamahatantrarajatika Abhayapaddhatih, To.1654.169.b4–5.
34. The mantras given in the sDe-dge and Peking canons are both corrupt, and I have tried to provide a close approximation of the text. Normatively, one would have recourse to a sadhana in which the mantra would appear, but the Buddhakapalasadhana found in Sadhanamala, Bhattacharya 1925, 2:500–503, reproduces another mantra entirely: om maha vajro herukavajro dharatu dharatu mahajñanasphetane ´sighram sadhaya stambhaya kilaya humphat svaha|.
35. Sri-Buddhakapala-yogini-tantra-raja, To. 424, fols. 143a3–144a3: Peking 63, fols. 126b7–128a2:
de nas bcom ldan ‘das kyis rdo rje’i tshig gis rdo rje chen po’i gnas su rgyud thams cad dang sngags yang dag par bshad nas | de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi bdag pos rdo rje dang pad ma’i yang dag par sbyar bas btsun mo’i bha gar yongs su mya ngan las ‘das so | de yongs su mya ngan las ‘das pa mthong nas | byang chub sems dpa’ thams cad dang | rnal ‘byor ma thams cad rmad du gyur te gcig la gcig lta zhing e ma’o bcom ldang ‘das de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi bdag po dkyil ‘khor chen po rgyan dang ldan pa’i dbus su ji ltar yongs su mya ngan las ‘das |
de nas rnal ‘byor ma sna tshogs sde ma la byang chub sems dpa’ sems dpa’ chen po phyag na rdo rjes ‘di skad ces gsol to | lha mo sems can bsod nams dman pa rnams nus pa la zhon par ‘gyur ba’i thabs cung zad mchis sam |
gsungs pa | rnal ‘byor gyi rgyud la bye ba phrag drug nyid do | rnal ‘byor ma’I rgyud la ni bye ba phrag bcu drug nyid do | mdo sde so so la ni bye ba phrag brgyad bcu’o | de bzhin du pha rol tu phyin pa’i theg pa la ni bye ba la bsgres ba’I ‘bum phrag lnga’o | ’di dag thams cad ni thub pa’i dbang pos gsungs so | sngags dang bral na ni rgyud kyi nus pa mi snang ste | rgyud la lar ni ci nas sngags bye ba bzlas par gsungs so | bsod nams ‘bring po rnams kyis ni sngags ‘bum bzlas pas byur bar ‘grub par gsungs so | bsod nams che bas khris bzlas pas shin tu myur bar ‘grub bo | de ltar rdo rje can chen po rgyud kyi bdag po’i gtso bos gsungs so | bsod nams chung ba’i sems can rnams kyis ni bye ba bzlas par gsungs so | sems can ‘bad rtsol chung ba rnams kyis ni ‘bum bzlas bar bdag smra’o | sems can sgom pa la zhen pa rnams kyis ni khri kho na bzlas par bya’o | sems can ‘dod chags la zhugs pa rnams kyi bzlas pa ji ltar lags | blun po dang lkugs pa’i rigs can rnams kyi sngags kyi grangs ji ltar lags | shin tu dmigs pa’i sngags kyi bzlas pa ji ltar lags | ’di ltar phan tshun smra bas bzlas na dngos grub gzhan du yang ‘gyur ro | gal te dman pa’i sems kyis nyon mongs bzhin pas bzlas pa de’i tshe bskal pa skar ma lta bur bye bar yang de la dngos grub med do |
de ltar thos nas rnal ‘byor ma sna tshogs sde ma bcom ldan ‘das kyi zhal la lta bar byed cing zur mig dang bcas pa’i chags pas bltas te | shin tu khros bas ‘jigs par byed cing snying rje’i thugs ‘khrugs pas bdud kyi dpung rab tu bcom mo | de ltar zhugs pa’i lha mo chen mo rgyud thams cad kyi bdag po’i dbyang phyug la de na des gzigs pa tsam gyis bcom ldan ‘das kyi dbu las sngags byung ngo | om buddhe siddhe susiddhe amrita arje buddha kapala sphotanipataya trasaya hum ho phat.|
de ltar sngags kyi mchog gsan bas sa rim pa bdun gyi ‘og tu chud pa’i klu rnams bcom par byas shing phye mar byas nas slar ‘ongs te sna tshogs sde ma’i zhal tu zhugs te | pad ma’i nang nas byung nas slar thod par zhugs so | sngags ‘di’i mthus klu rnams zhig ste | skrag cing rdul ‘byung bar ‘gyur ro | nor rgyas la sogs pa’i rdzul ‘phrul chen po’i klu thams cad lhags te | stobs kyi rgyu dang | dud skyong dang | ’jog po dang | mtha’ yas dang | pad ma dang | pad ma chen po la sogs pa klu chen po rnams dang | gzhan gang yang rung ba dug las byung ba thams cad kyang lhags so |
rnal ‘byor ma sna tshogs sde ma la kha phyogs te klu thams cad kyis zhus pa | lha mo bka’ ci stsol gi zhig bgyi zhes smra’o | gsungs pa gang yang sangs rgyas nyams su myong ba de ltar gyis shig | de ltar thos pa tsam gyis dkyil ‘khor chen po brgyan dang ldan pa’i dbus su bcom ldan ‘das kyi thod pa kha phye ste legs bam byung ngo | nam mkha’ la sgra byung ngo |
lha mo lha tshogs sde ma zung | sems can kun la phan ‘dogs pa |
rgyud ‘di rgyal po chen po ste | rnal ‘byor ma yi gong na med |
sangs rgyas thod pa zhes bya ba | sems can kun la phan byed pa’o |
de ltar thos nas sna tshogs sde mas glegs bam yang dag par bzhung te | phyag na rdo rje la nye bar gtad do |.
36. Sri-Buddhakapalatantrapanjika Jnanavati, To 1652; see bibliography for a complete citation.
37. Buddhakapalatantrapanjika Tattvacandrika, To. 1653; see bibliography for a complete citation. The title is incorrectly reconstructed by the editors of the Tohoku catalogue as Buddhakapalatantratattvacandrikapanjika: Sangs rgyas thod pa’I rgyud kyi dka’ ‘grel de kho na nyid kyi zla ba. This commentary covers only the first two chapters of the tantra. Despite the colophon claiming that the commentary is complete, it is possible that Padmavajra completed the commentary and his exegesis was lost, or was interrupted in the process, or that the tantra only had two chapters at the time of his writing.
38. Sri-Buddhakapalamahatantrarajatika Abhayapaddhatih, To. 1654; see the bibliography for a complete citation. At least two manuscripts of this work are preserved in South Asia—one in the National Archives of Nepal and one in the Asiatic Society of Calcutta.
39. Sri-Buddhakapalatantrapanjika Jnanavati, To. 1652, fol. 104b4–5: gal te yang bcom ldan ‘das nyid ston pa po la sogs pa’i gzugs su bzhugs mod kyi | ’on kyang bdag nyid bcom ldan ‘das ma’i gzugs su logs su bstan to |. Cf. Hevajra Tantra II.ii.39; Davidson 1991, p. 213. Ratnakarasanti’s Sri Hevajrapanjika muktavali, Tripathi and Negi 2001, p. 146, explains this through a hermemeutic of the various bodies of the Buddha. For the verification of Citrasena’s identity, see Nispannayogavali, Bhattacharya 1949, p. 23.
40. Sri-Buddhakapalatantrapanjika Jnanavati, To. 1652, fol. 106a4–5: byang chub sems dpa’ thams cad de mig la sogs pa’i dbang po drug go |.
41. Sri-Buddhakapalatantrapanjika Jnanavati, To. 1652, fol. 106a3–4: mya ngan las ‘das pa ni rnam par rtog pa las nges par byung ba ste | de ni chos kyi sku’i rang bzhin zhes bya ba’i tha tshig go || de yong su mya ngan las ‘da’ ba mthong nas zhes bya ba ni | chos kyi sku de gzigs nas zhes bya ba’i don to |.
42. Buddhakapalatantrapanjika Tattvacandrika, To. 1653, fol. 152a4–5: de lta bur bcom ldan ‘das bde ba chen po’i ngo bor snyoms par zhugs par yongs su snang ba na byang chub sems dpa’ la sogs pa rnams ngo mtsar rmad du gyur pa yin par blta’o | da mya ngan las ‘das pa mthog ste zhes bya ba la sogs pa ni byang chub sems dpa’ la sogs pa rnams dam pa skyes par gyur na ni de kho na nyid kyi mchog rab tu gsal bar rab tu ‘byed par mdzad pas so |.
43. Sri-Buddhakapalamahatantrarajatika Abhayapaddhatih, To. 1654, fol. 168b4: der bcom ldan ‘das phyag rgya chen po rdo rje’i gnas kyi shes rab kyis srid pa la mi gnas shing snying rjes zhi ba la mi gnas pa’o zhes pa mi gnas pa’i mya ngan las ‘das pas yongs su mya ngan las ‘das te | de’i bdag nyid du gyur nas ro gcig pa’i rang bzhin gyis tha dad mtha’ dag gis ma reg pa las ‘khor ba’i bar du dpag tu med pa’I de bzhin gzhegs pa dang | byang chub sems dpa’ dang | rnal ‘byor ma dang | ’dod chag dang bral ba dang | phyag rgya dang | dkyil ‘khor dang | sngags bye ba phrag brgyad cu po rnams dang lhan cig rnam par rtog pa med par gyur kyang sngon gyi ‘phan pa’i dbang las sems can thams cad la ci bya ba’i tshul gyis bzhugs so zhes bya ba’i don to |.
44. E.g., Grub thob brgyad cu rtsa bzhi’i gsol ‘debs, fol. 110b1–2.
45. bLa ma rgya gar ba’i lo rgyus, SKB III.170.2.2–5; Guenther 1963, pp. 24–28; Tatz 1987, 1988.
46. Luhipa is described as a scribe (yi ge pa ? = kayastha) in the bDe mchog lu hi pa’i lugs kyi bla ma brgyud pa’i lo rgyus, SKB III.294.1.1; the early lineage hagiography of Dombiheruka is (according to the tradition) part of the bLa ma rgya gar ba’I lo rgyus, SKB III.171.1.6–172.2.2, where the boatman (ko-mkhan) was understood to be this siddha; the longer hagiography is preserved in Ngor-chen’s rGyud kyi rgyal po dpal kye rdo rje’i byung tshul dang brgyud pa’i bla ma dam pa rnams kyi rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar rgya mtsho, SKB IX.281.4.6–282.2.4.
47. Guhyasamaja Mahaguhyatantraraja, Matsunaga 1978, p. 6 (emphasis added): atha bhagavantah sarvatathagatah punah samajam agamya bhagavantam bodhicittavajram sarvatathagatapujaspharanasamayatattvaratnameghaih sampujya pranipatyaivam ahuh |
bhasasva bhagavan tattvam vajrasarasamuccayam |
sarvatathagatam guhyam samajam guhyasambhavam || iti
atha bhagavan bodhicittavajras tathagatas tan sarvatathagatan evam aha | sadhu sadhu bhagavantah sarvatathagatah | kin tu sarvatathagatanam api samsayakaro ‘yam kuto ‘nyesam bodhisattvanam iti |.
atha bhagavantah sarvatathagta ascaryaprapta adbhutapraptah | sarvatathagatasams ayacchettaram bhagavantam sarvatathagatasvaminam papracchuh | yad bhagavan evam gunavisiste ‘pi sarvatathagataparsadi sarvatathagatakayavakcittaguhyam nirdestum notsahate |.
48. Karandavyuha-sutra, Mette 1997, p. 82.8–9; cf. idem, Vaidya 1961, p. 292.17–18.
49. Steinkellner has already discussed some of the principal issues invoked by Candrakirti in his commentary; see Steinkellner 1978.
50. Pradipodyotana, Chakravarti 1984, p. 22.4–13 (emphasis added): bodhicittavajradharah (text: yo ‘dhicittavajradharah) sarvatathagatan evam vakti | sadhu sadhv ity abhyupagame | abhimatarthadyotakatvat prasnasya | kin tu sabdo vitarke | sarvatathagatanam api sandehakaro ‘yam iti | ghatamanayogino ‘tra tathagatah bodhisattvas ca drastavyah | na hi klesavasanaprahinanam buddhabodhisattvanam samsayo ‘sti | tathagata atra ratnapudgalah paripakvakusalamulah srutiparangata buddhatvabhilasino niyatagotrah | guruvaktrena vina tesam apy avisayah samajarthah uhapagatvat | kuto ‘nyesam bodhisattvanam iti? candanadinam pudgalanam paripakvakusalamulanam hinadhimuktinam pratipadite ‘pi durgrahyatvad anutsaham avedayati |.
51. Guhyasamaja,Matsunaga 1978, XV.39; the conclusion of chapter XV, p. 85, the prose section following XVII.36.
52. Jnanasiddhi and Prajсopayaviniscayasiddhi in Bhattacharya 1929.
53. Guhyasiddhi, Rinpoche and Dwivedi 1987, p. 5 (emphasis added):
lokacarair vimuktam paramasivapadam vyapinam nihsvabhavam |
nityotpannam ya[tindrair] munivaravrsabhair vanditam dhyanahinam |
buddhanam apy agamyam paramusitamalam tattva[ta]s tam pranamya |
srimatkayam jinanam kim api padavaram suddham apy atmavrttya ||
54. For a discussion of this introductory material and its importance to Guhyasamaja exegesis, see Wayman 1977.
55. Guhyasiddhi, Rinpoche and Dwivedi 1987, pp. 12–13 (emphasis added):
athatah sampravaksyami sadhanam guhyasambhavam |
kiсcit samajamargena nanyatantrakramena tu || 1||
bahyatantrakriyamargam sarvam tyaktva ‘tiduratah |
samnyayakramayogena yathabhutam nigadyate || 2||
acarya bahavah prahus tantre samgitikarakam |
lokesam nayakam viram srisamaje mahadyutim || 3||
vayam tu kevalam brumo gurupadaprasadatah |
abhavah srisamajasya anyasamgitikarakah || 4||
srasta tantrasya hrdvajro vakta sa eva desakah |
abhavas tavat anyasya varjitva mahasukham || 5||
evam sruteti yad vakyam vijaharapade sthitam |
tat svayam sarvabuddhesu kathitam cittavajrina || 6||
yathavad bhasitam divyam vijaharapadam subham |
srimahasukhanathena tatha kiсcid bravimy aham || 7||
ekasmin parame dese yatha nirdistavan prabhuh |
buddhanam tantrasadbhavam svyam eva mahasukham || 8||
tam srutva tantrasadbhavam sarve caiva jinatmajah |
kampitas trasam apannas tam ucuh paramesvaram || 9||
kim iyam dharmata vira durbhasya bhasita prabho |
atyantam trasajanani buddhanam api sarvatha || 10||
atyantaguptam udghatya vajrayanam anuttaram |
sarvadharmasamaikatvam yat tvaya bhasitam prabho || 11||
evam prajalpamanas te sarvabuddhamahaujasah |
prakampya murccham agamya bodhicitte mano dadhuh || 12||
aho guptatiguptasya vajrayanasya desana |
nihsvabhavasya suddhasya vidyate yasya nopama || 13||
tan drstva vajrasattvas tu sarvabuddhan vimurcchitan |
divyam samadhim asthaya mahasukhasukhatmakam || 14||
niyujya ca tato buddhan vajrapadmaprayogatah |
paramanandarupena provaca madhuram giram || 15||
56. Broido 1982, pp. 8 ff.
57. Broido 1982, 1983, 1984; Steinkellner 1978; Wayman 1968; Ruegg 1989; Caryagitikosa, Kvaerne 1977.
58. Caryagitikosa, Kvaerne 1977, pp. 81–83:
eka se sundini dui ghare sandhaa | cia na bakalaa baruni bandhaa ||
sahaje thira kari baruni bandha | je ajaramara hoi dirha kandha ||
dasami duarata cihna dekhia | aila garahaka apane bahia ||
caьsathi ghariye deta pasara | paithela garahaka nahi nisara ||
eka gharuli sarui nala | bhananti Birua thira kari cala ||
Kvaerne reads ciana na bakulaa in 1c, but I follow the manuscript and read cia as the noun. The kind of liquor mentioned, baruni, is not made with yeast. Baruni is a local rot-gut made from sugar, fruit juices, and some vegetable matter, such as bark or grass. The point, then, is that she brews without expected ingredients, such as cia, not that there is necessarily a paradox built into the song. Kvaerne has interpreted ghare in 1c as a dual, whereas it is a locative and understood as such in the Tibetan translation and in the verse ascribed to Kanha quoted in Munidatta, Caryagitikosa, Kvaerne 1977, p. 84.
59. Ibid., pp. 84–86.
60. The basic sources for Virupa’s hagiography are the bLa ma rgya gar ba’i lo rgyus (drinking episode, SKB III.171.2.4–3.1), Bhir ba pa’i lo rgyus (a lacuna at the beginning of the episode, pp. 368–9), the Lam ‘bras snyan brgyud (pp. 419–420), Abhayadattasri, *Caturasitisiddhapravrtti (Pe. 5091, fol. 4b2–4b4).
61. Mattavalasaprahasana, Lockwood and Bhat 1981, pp. 30–31: kapali — priye | pasya pasya | esa surapano yajсavatavibhutim anukaroti | atra hi dhvajastambho yupah | sura somah | saunda rtvijah | casakas camasah | sulyamamsaprabhrtaya upadamsa havirvisesah | mattavacanani yajumsi | gitani samani | udaNkah sruvah | tarso ‘gnih | surapanadhipatir yajamanah |.
62. Dakinijalasamvararahasya, Rinpoche and Dwivedi 1990, p. 1: mahamudranuragena yad aksaram sukham caturtham tat punas tathabhisekah samvarasiddhaye sandhyabhasaya cokto bhagavata |.
63. The equivalents are taken from Wayman 1968.
64. Hevajra Tantra, Snellgrove 1959, 2:121.
65. Samdhi-bhasa-tika, To. 1206, bstan-’gyur, rgyud, ja fols. 297a5–301b4.
66. See Wayman 1968, p. 796.
67. Paia-Sadda-Mahannavo, Seth 1963, p. 333. We may observe the derivation chadman > *chaduman > chauma > choma ; we also may go chadman > *chandima > *chandima > chandia. Seth glosses this latter word with the Sanskrit equivalents of channa = hidden, and gupta = covered, secret. Chapter 9 of the Samvarodaya-tantra also discusses choma; see Samvarodaya-tantra, Tsuda 1974, pp. 102–106.
68. Arthasastra-XII.5.38.
69. Brhatkathaslokasamgraha XXI.27: tridandipandarangadipasandais chadmakankataih | varanasi mahacaurais tirthadhvaNksair adhisthita ||. Those who have spent time in modern Banares might find themselves wondering whether the city has changed very much.
70. Sarvabuddhasamayoga, To. 366, fols. 184b2–187b1; the entire *chomamudra section goes from 183a4–187b1.
71. Samputa, To. 381, fols. 118a5–119b3; the exact meaning of this and many other coded language materials await the critical editing of the available Sanskrit documents.
72. Catuhpitha-mahayogini-tantraraja, To. 428, fols. 204a5–205a1.
73. Buddhakapala, To. 424, fols. 156a6–156b2; Peking 63, 141a6–141b2 (emphasis added): sangs rgyas thod pa’i rnal ‘byor pa | med par phan tshun smra mi bya | ’on kyang bshad chen de nyid ‘di | gcig la gcig gis smra bar bya | rgyud rnams thams cad tu sbas pa | rgyud ‘di ru ni gsal bar byed | . . . de ltar dgongs pas bshad pa ni | bder gshegs rnams kyis mi mkhyen no | spyan ma la sogs rnal ‘byor ma | rnams kyi khong du mi chud cing | byang chub sems dpa’ yul min zhing | bla ma gu pa’i rnal ‘byor pas | . . .
74. Jnanatilaka, To. 422, fols. 117b3–118a3.
75. Mahamudra-tilaka, To. 420, fol. 76a3: audi ya na gnas la sogs par ni | rnal ‘byor ma ni ‘dus pa’o | de yi gnas su skad smra ba | gsang ba’i sgra ni yod pa’o |.
76. Sri-Buddhakapalatantrapanjika Jnanavati, To. 1652, fol. 132a4: de ltar dgongs pas bshad ces bya ba sogs pa ni go sla’o |.
77. Sri-Samputatantrarajatikamnyayamaсjari, To. 1198, fol. 229b3–4.
78. Ibid., fols. 229a6–238b4.
79. *Sarvatantranidanamahaguhyasrisamputatantrarajatika, To. 1199, fol. 75b2–7.
80. Jnanatilakapanjika-guhyatattva, To. 1203, fol. 247b1.
81. Guhyarthaprakasamahadbhuta, To. 1200, fol. 138b2–6; I have interpreted the name given as Pa la sa badzra in the retouched xylograph (138b4) as the wellknown master Vilasavajra.
82. Beyond the citations noted in the text, see Pithadinirnaya, To. 1606, fol. 131b3.
83. Wayman 1968.
84. Burrow and Emaneau 1984, nos. 4358, 4541; I am quite aware that Dravidian specialists could provide better etymologies than these.
85. Ibid., no. 1075.
86. Ibid., no. 1719.
87. Vidyottama, To. 746, fol. 13a7–13b3; mentioned by Lalou 1956, pp. 292–293.
88. Maсjusrimulakalpa, Sastri 1920, p. 326: daksinapatham asritya sidhyante papakarminam.
89. Wayman 1968.
90. Sadhanamala, 1925, 1:501.
91. While it appears preserved only in the two Tibetan recensions, neither Sarvabuddhasamayoga version seems to include directly Apabhramsa material, although the longer version identifies the use of vajragiti in offerings (To. 366, fol. 169b6), and our received examples of vajragiti are in some form of Apabhramsa; see Chaudhuri 1935 on the Dakarnava. Ruegg overlooks the employment of Apabhramsa in the tantras as Buddhavacana and treats it solely as a sastric phenomenon (1989, pp. 321–322).
92. Bhayani’s essay on the Apabramsa in the Appendix, Krsnayamari-tantra, Rinpoche and Dwivedi 1992, pp. 145–152.
93. Ruegg 1989, p. 321.
94. Ibid., p. 322.
95. This argument of Pundarika’s has also been accepted by Goudriaan (1996, pp. 269–272).
96. Newman 1988, p. 132.
97. D’souza 1992, p. 17.
98. Natyasastra, Kavi 1926–34, 2:365–378; this material has been edited and translated in Nitti-Dolci 1972, pp. 61–92.
99. Natyasastra, XVII.1–65; investigated in Nitti-Dolci 1972, pp. 61–92.
100. Schomer 1987; all the articles included in this excellent volume are deserving of attention.
101. Kielhorn 1888–1892a, pp. 164–166.
102. Compare the introduction to the Kubjikamatatantra, Goudriaan and Schoterman 1988, pp. 45–92; Goudriaan and Gupta 1981, pp. 27–31; these latter authorities are critical of the idea that the form of Sanskrit was used for didactical reasons.
103. Goudriaan doubts that we can speak of Tantric Sanskrit in the manner that we can of Epic Sanskrit or Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (1996, p. 266). Yet Deshpande has articulated many of the same conventions observable in this regional Sanskrit in his study of modern “priestly Sanskrit” (1996), which I would argue is a similar phenomenon.
104. Especially noticable is the employment of sahaja and citta, this latter instead of the Prakrit ciд; Kanhapadasya dohakosa, nos. 3, 10, 12, 16, 18, 19, 26, 30; Tillopadadohakosa, nos. 1–3, 5, 8, 10–12, 22, 30; Sarahapadasya dohakosa, nos. 20, 25, 29, 36–7, 42, 44–6, 57, 63, 72, 77, 83, 85–7, 99, 100, 104–8; Krsnayamari-tantra, Rinpoche and Dwivedi 1992, pp. 148–149; verses from the Dakarnava, in Chaudhuri 1935, pp. 1, 16, 32, 99, 123, 137–138, 141, 143. We also see the variation between “sijja” (ibid., p. 5) and “siddha,” in Kanhapadasya dohakosa, no. 19, and Sarahapadasya dohakosa, no. 80.
105. The lengthy statement in the Vajrapadasarasamgrahapanjika occurs in To.1186, fols. 58b6–62a5. It is useful to note that Pundarika also puts forward a similar argument; Vimalaprabha, Upadhyaya 1986, 1:31–32.
106. In fact these were alluded to twice by Pundarika (arthasaranatam asritya), but Newman has overlooked the reference (1988, p. 125); for the position these play in canonical criticism, see Davidson 1990.
107. This is decidedly a different process from the system of transculturation and vernacularization explored by Pollock 1996 and 1998, for Pollock is discussing a “cosmopolis,” in which high-status forms were paramount. Still, we might wonder whether Pollock’s overlooking the regional forms observed in the smaller areas, like those in Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, and elsewhere, have not contributed to a somewhat reified picture.
108. Colophon to To. 1186, Chinnamundasadhana, To. 1555, fol. 208a3: birba pa yis ‘di byes te | sgra yig legs par ma rdzogs kyang | mkha’ ‘gro ma rnams bzod par rigs |. The circumstance of this colophon becomes clear when we compare it to the surviving Sanskrit texts, edited and discussed in Nihom 1992; Nihom draws parallels between this text and Sadhanamala, nos. 232, 234 and 238, and Bhattacharya 1925, 2:452–533, 455, 458.
109. See Dikshit 1955 and 1956 for his only reporting of the excavation; the excavator discussed some of the bronzes found there in Dikshit 1955–57.
110. Bajpai and Pandey 1978.
111. Ibid., plate XVIIa, incorrectly identified as a Hevajra, even if the eighthcentury date is seemingly appropriate.
112. Jain 1969, p. 61, line 11.
113. Vairocanavajra is the translator of Kanhapadasya dohakosa, To. 2301, bsTan’gyur, rgyud, zhi, and identified fol. 230a6. Schaeffer 2000 treats this figure, but his geography is not a clear as it could be.
114. Rwa lo tsa ba’i rnam thar, pp. 293–295; this young girl was the daughter of one Kong-po A-rgyal.
115. Mahamayuri-vidyarajсi-dharani, Shu¯yo 1972, passim.
116. Morrell 1983, pp. 80–81.
117. Lutgendorf 1991, p. 209; for a consideration of the relationship between oral and literate forms, see Olson and Torrance 1991.
118. On this point, see Blackburn et al. 1989 and Richman 1991.
119. Gitomer 1991, p. 100.
120. Gerow 1977, pp. 226–227, 245–250.
121. Natyasastra, Kavi 1926–34, 1:11.
122. The best technical study of the comic sentiment to date seems to be Sharma 1941. Although Siegel recognizes both “improprieties and incongruities,”he glosses over the difference between Bharata and Abhinavagupta (1987, pp. 12–34).
123. Compare Aristotle’s Poetics (trans. Janko, 1987, pp. 49–55, 170–174), with Natyasastra VI.56 prose, Kavi 1926–34, 1:313–314,
124. Fundamental Vidusaka discussions are found in Shulman 1985; Kuiper 1979; and Bhatt 1959.
125. Bhasanatakacakram, Vetal et al. 1963, vol. 1, section 3, p. 28: kissa aham avedi’o | sunahi dava | athi rama’anam nama nattasattham | tassim panca sulo’a asampunne samvacchare ma’e pathida |
126. Jefferds 1981, p. 73.
127. The use of a fork for blood sacrifice of al least goats at the Ugra-tara-pitha in Bengal is attested in Morinis 1984, pp. 184–185. I have seen the form employed elsewhere, as at Kamakhya, Guwahati, Assam. Despite affirmations by some phenomenologists, it is not clear whether this forked stick is developed from the yupa, the Vedic sacrificial post, or whether it constitutes a separately developed sacrificial system. bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba has the antagonists being female, yoginis rather than yogins (p. 112.5).
128. Ibid., p. 113.2, reads bying (to sink) for bcings (to bind), meaning that Virupa causes the head to sink to the heart and replaces it with a caitya, hardly understandable given that he grabs the ear between these two activities. It further identifies the name of this state as rNa-`chus lha-mo (the Devi with the Twisted Ear).
129. bLa ma rgya gar ba’i lo rgyus, SKB, III.172.1.2–2.1: de nas shar phyogs su sa ha dza de wi zhes bya ba rang byung gi tri shu la dang | lha mo tsanti ka’i rang byung gi rdo sku yod pa la phyi rol pa’i rnal ‘byor pa rnams kyis mi der khrid pas rang byung gi tri shu la lkog ma la zug nas ‘chi | de’i sha las tshogs kyi ‘khor lo byed pa yod pa de’i sar slob dpon dpon g.yog gsum gyis byon pa dang | rnal ‘byor pa rnams za bar ‘dod nas tshogs khang gi nang du bos pas slob dpon gyis g.yog po la dbugs phyir rgyur ma gzhugs par nang du sdoms la sdod cig gsungs nas | slob dpon nyid nang du byon pa dang | rnal ‘byor pa de rnams na re | khyod kyi grogs po gnyis po gar song zer | phyi rol na ‘dug gsungs pas | tshur khug zer | de khyed rang khug gsungs pas | khong gis bos nas kyang skad med ‘dzug gu sug byas pa’i shul na tshur dbugs ngan su su | dri chen ‘bur ‘bur byung bas ‘dis rul nas ‘dug zer log pa dang | tri shu la de ‘dar yeng yeng ‘dug pa dang | slob dpon gyis thal mo gcig brdabs pas de phye mar sil gyis song ngo | de nas lha mo tsanti ka’i sku de par par ‘dug pa la sphyi bor thal mo cig brgyab ste mgo bo snying ga’i bar du bcings | rna ba nas bzung nas spyi bor mchod rten zhig bzhag ste rnal ‘byor pa rnams brgyal bar gyur to | de nas brgyal bsangs pa dang | rnal ‘byor pa rnams na re | khyed nang pa sangs rgyas pa snying rje che ba yin na ‘di lta bu byed pa zer ba la | sems can bsad pa’i sha dang khrag dron mos mchod pa ma byed byas pas | de rnams kyis slob dpon gyi zhabs la phyag ‘tshal zhing skyabs su song nas sangs rgyas pa’i rnal ‘byor par song ngo |.
130. This revelation is the ostensible text of the Lam ‘bras bu dang bcas pa’i gdams ngag dang man ngag tu bcas pa; for an edition and translation of this work, see Davidson (forthcoming b).
131. The Catuhpitha-mahayogini-tantraraja, for example, indicates (fol. 223a6)
that the yogins’ body becomes like crystal as a result of his practice.
132. Natyasastra VI:43-45ab, Kavi 1926–34, 1:296:
tesam utpattihetavas catvaro rasah | tadyatha srngaro raudro viro bibhatsa iti | atra (43)
srngarad dhi bhaved dhasyo raudrac ca karuno rasah |
virac caivвdbhutotpattir bibhatsac ca bhayanakah || (44)
srngaranukrtir ya tu sa hasyas tu prakirtitah | (45 ab)n
133. Natyasastra, Kavi 1926–34, 1:297: evam tadabhasataya prakarah srngarena sucitah | tena karunadyabhasesv api hasyatvam sarvesu mantavyam | p. 314: etena sarve rasa hasye ‘ntarbhuta iti darsita.
134. Ibid.: anaucityapravrttikrtam eva hi hasyavibhavatvam | taccanaucityam sarvarasanam vibhavanubhavadau sambhavyate | tena vyabhicarinam apy esaiva varta |.
135. Morrell 1983, pp. 15–16.
136. Schopenhauer 1958, 1:59.
137. On Yaksa lore generally, see Sutherland 1991.
138. The earliest images of Virupa are from the early thirteenth century. An early Sa-skya-pa painting is illustrated in Kossak and Singer (1998, pp. 136–138), although there are problems with their analysis. The other example is an image in the upper left-hand position on the Dhoti of the colossal Maсjusri statue to the right of the gsum-brtsegs lha-khang in Alchi; this Virupa is almost visible in Goepper (1996, p. 103), but not really identifiable as Virupa; its identification was done by the author at the site in late July 2000, but no photograph was possible at that time. Interestingly, this Alchi Virupa is not obese, unlike every other known exemplar and apparently represents a Kashmiri variation, possibly because the Bengali conventions were unknown to the artist, who simply rendered Virupa like most of the other siddhas with only his attributes differentiating him.
139. Strong 1992, pp. 273–290.
140. Bakhtin 1968, pp. 344–347.
141. Ibid., p. 10.
142. Ibid., p. 317.
143. Buitenen 1958.
144. Subhasita-samgraha, in Le Musйon 23 (1904): 5n2.
145. Milindapaсha, IV.1.43–45, Trenckner 1880, pp. 120–121.
<< К оглавлению |
