1 Introduction
The aim of this article is to point out the far-reaching influence of an East Indian tantric Buddhist scholar, VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti (floruit early 11th c.). In the first part I will show that his views were considered important enough to be contested sometime before 1057â¯ce, probably still during his scholarly activity, in Kashmir. In the second part I wish to propose the hypothesis that although unnamed, he is a master alluded to with great reverence on the Sap BÄk inscription from the Khmer Empire, dated 1067â¯ce.*
âOurâ VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti should not be confused with his namesake, a Newar scholar from Pharping, whence his epithet Pham mthiá¹ ba (for what we can gather about this person, see Lo Bue 1997, 643â652). Nor should we confuse him with a rather nebulous person, whose name is re-Sanskritised as *SuvÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti, author of a number of small works extant in Tibetan translation. Lastly, there is no good reason to assume that he is the same as a commentator of Daá¹á¸inâs KÄvyÄdarÅa; this personâs name is often re-Sanskritised from the Tibetan as *VÄgÄ«Åvara, but it is more likely that his name was VÄcaspati or VÄgÄ«Åa.
The writings of VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti are fairly well known to scholars of esoteric Buddhism. A significant portion of his oeuvre survives in the original Sanskrit. While some of the attributions in the Tibetan Canon are disputed, the following major works may be assigned to him with confidence.
The Má¹tyuvañcanopadeÅa is a learned anthology of rites to cheat death once its signs have been perceived. This work, which survives in at least four manuscripts,1 has been admirably dealt with recently by Johannes Schneider (2010). His German translation supersedes Michael Walterâs earlier English translation (2000). As Schneider conjectures (2010, 23), the Tibetan translation must have been completed in 1042/3â¯ce, since this is the only time the two scholars mentioned in the translatorsâ colophon, *AdhÄ«Åa (better known as *AtÄ«Åa or *AtiÅa) DÄ«paá¹karaÅrÄ«jñÄna and Rin chen bzaá¹ po, spent time together at Tho liá¹ . This date is also Schneiderâs terminus ante quem for the text.
The Saá¹ká¹£iptÄbhiá¹£ekavidhi is a succinct initiation manual for the GuhyasamÄja system, which also contains a fascinating polemic passage (Onians 2002, 279â289). At present we may access only one manuscript; this has been edited by Munenobu Sakurai, but is in dire need of being revisited. Another witness, now probably in Lhasa, is mentioned in the catalogue KCDS, p. 139.
The TattvaratnÄvaloka (henceforth TaRaA), a short treatise in twenty-one verses, and a largely prose auto-commentary thereof, the TattvaratnÄvalokavivaraá¹a (henceforth TaRaAVi), are usually mentioned in the same breath and are indeed transmitted together in the only known manuscript. These texts have been edited by (presumably) Banarsi Lal. The Tibetan translations were undertaken by âGos Lhas btsas (although only TÅh. 1890 / Åta. 2754 is actually signed by him), whose activity falls in the middle of the 11th century (Davidson 2005, 139).
The *SaptÄá¹ ga (henceforth SaA), another treatise, this time in mixed verse and prose, is the only major work of VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti which appears to be lost in the original. One of its most important verses survives in quotation (Isaacson and Sferra 2014, 171, 271, passim). The Tibetan translation is the work of the same âGos Lhas btsas.
I shall not discuss here VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rtiâs other, minor works, or the fact that some of his major works are present more than once in various recensions of the Tibetan Canon, some of them even annotated.
We shall have the opportunity to study some of VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rtiâs ideas later on, although I cannot hopeânor do I proposeâto be exhaustive here. The two most important features to keep in mind for the time being are these: that for the author, the most important cycle of tantric Buddhist teachings is the GuhyasamÄja, and that he was a proponent of the view that full initiation consists of four consecrations, culminating in the so-called caturthÄbhiá¹£eka.
There is very little hard evidence for a prosopography of VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti. All modern authorities conjecture that he lived during the 10â11th centuries and all seem to accept the statements of Tibetan hagiographies, namely that he was active in VikramaÅÄ«la in the rather nebulous capacity of âdoor-keeper.â The primary source for this information is TÄranÄthaâs famous historiography, the Rgya gar chos âbyuá¹ , which dedicates a long passage to VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti, presenting him as a scholar, an accomplished tantric practitioner, a miracle worker, and a pious founder (Chimpa and Chattopadhyaya 1970 [2004], 296â299).
2 VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti in Kashmir
The source I shall be using for starting the discussion here is found in an unpublished and little-studied commentary of the MañjuÅrÄ«nÄmasaá¹gÄ«ti, the GÅ«á¸hapadÄ of one Advayavajra (incorrectly spelt as Advayavakra or perhaps Advayacakra in the colophon), which survives in a single manuscript. This is a voluminous text, occupying 180 densely written palm-leaf folios; according to the colophon, it measures 4,000 granthas. It has not been translated into Tibetan. This Advayavajra is very likely not the same as the famous Advayavajra or MaitreyanÄtha (some good reasons against this identification are listed in Isaacson and Sferra 2014, 74â75).
Since it was not translated into Tibetan and it survives in a single manuscript, the GÅ«á¸hapadÄ may nowadays be perceived as obscure. However, it was not an unknown work, at least not in the 12th century. RaviÅrÄ«jñÄna, one of the most famous exegetes of the MañjuÅrÄ«nÄmasaá¹gÄ«ti, mentions it as one of the main sources he relied upon. Oddly, the particular verse where he does just this is not found in the published Amá¹takaá¹ikÄ, because the Sarnath editor did not have access to or ignored the tradition that transmits it. One such witness is Royal Asiatic Society London, Ms. Hodgson 35 (the so-called Vanaratna codex; see Isaacson 2008), folio 40r1â2.2 There can be little doubt that this closing verse is authorial: the Tibetan translation, although in a garbled way, mirrors it (D 96a5â6, P 115a8â115b1), and VibhÅ«ticandraâs sub-commentary, the Amá¹takaá¹ikoddyota, has some of its words in lemmata (Ed., p. 216, ll. 13â16).3
VibhÅ«ticandraâs sub-commentary gives us the upper limit for RaviÅrÄ«jñÄna. The former first came to Tibet in 1204â¯ce (Stearns 1996). We also know that the Amá¹takaá¹ikÄ is one of RaviÅrÄ«jñÄnaâs earlier works, because he refers to it in his Guá¹abharaá¹Ä« (Sferra 2000, 100). He cannot be much earlier than the late 12th century, since one of his masters, DharmÄkaraÅÄnti, lived during the reign of GopÄla (pace Sferra 2000, 47â48), in whose court he was a royal preceptor. This GopÄla must be GopÄla IV (r. ca. 1128â1143â¯ce), because the other GopÄlas are too early for RaviÅrÄ«jñÄna to mention all three bodhisattva commentators of the KÄlacakra system (see here, note 2). Therefore the GÅ«á¸hapadÄ must have been in existence around these dates. The debate we are about to examine seems to suggest a mid-11th-century environment, but we cannot be entirely certain.
The GÅ«á¸hapadÄ has the following commentary to MañjuÅrÄ«nÄmasaá¹gÄ«ti 8.41ab on folio 128r4â128v4. The text is first given in diplomatic transcript. The line is here marked in bold; the manuscript highlights it in red. An aká¹£ara added in the upper margin in the second hand is marked thus ⨠â©. A deleted anusvÄra is marked with â¨| |â©. I have added the line numbers in square brackets. I split the passage into seven unitsâmarked (a) to (g)âfor the sake of easier reference.
(a) tasyÄ ekaká¹£aá¹amahÄprajñaḥ sarvadharmÄvabodhadhá¹g iti | araá¹aÅrÄ« nÄmataḥ | tatra ekaÅ cÄsau ká¹£aá¹aÅ ca eka[5]ká¹£aá¹aḥ | mahÄÅ cÄsau prÄjñaÅ ca mahÄprÄjñaḥ sarvadharmavivekÄtmakas tataÅ cÄyam arthaḥ | (b) ekaká¹£aá¹aÅ caturÄnandaikamÅ«rttitvÄt | sahajasaá¹bodhiká¹£aá¹aḥ | sa ca [6] turyÄtÄ«talaká¹£aá¹aá¹ | (c) tathÄ coktaá¹ | ÅrÄ«maá¹ kÄsmÄ«rÄ«yai sÅ«ká¹£mÄvarttabhaá¹á¹apÄdaiḥ | kasmÄ«reá¹£u kathÄ nÄsti caturthasyaiti niská¹paḥ | asti deá¹£Äntare tÄvac caturthaá¹ samyaksevida [7] iti | (d) kutaḥ yad vÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rttinoccyate | dambhaulibÄ«jaÅrutaddhautasuddhaḥ pÄthojabhÅ«tÄá¹kurabhÅ«taḥ puá¹£á¹i || turÄ«yam asya paripÄkam eti | sphuá¹aá¹ caturthaá¹ binduso [128v] pi gÅ«á¸ham iti | (e) ÄtmÄ«yÄbodhÄhaá¹kÄratvÄt nÄstipaká¹£yÄ bhilaá¹£atam icchanti | evamÄdiká¹taâ¨|á¹|â©sya ÅrÄ«maratnavajrÄá¹ghrim Äha | bhrÄntyÄ yatra pravaramatayaḥ kÄ«rttisÄntyÄdayo [2] pi | idaá¹ caturthÄlokakÄrakÄ pÅ«rvadeÅapaá¹á¸itaiḥ | vÄá¹yamÄtraá¹ na vijñÄtÄ tadgranthatodgataá¹ | (f) asmadÄ«yagurupÄdamatam Äha | turyÄtÄ«tam avÄcyaá¹ tu ká¹£aá¹am ekam arÅ« [3]pakaá¹ | sahajasaá¹bodhinÄ me jñÄtÄjñeyau tu nirvitÄr iti | (g) evaá¹ ekaká¹£aá¹aiva ká¹£aá¹ena sampadyate mahÄprajñatayÄ yathoktasarvadharmÄvabodhanatayÄ ekaká¹£a[4]á¹amahÄprÄjñaḥ sarvadharmÄvabodhas tad dhÄrayatÄ«ti ekaká¹£aá¹amahÄprÄâ¨jñaâ©á¸¥ sarvadharmÄvabodhadhá¹k |
The beginning (tasyÄ eka° up to °vivekÄtmakas) and end (evaá¹ eka° up to °Ävabodhadhá¹k) of the textâi.e. (a) and (g)âare of no concern to us here. These sentences should nevertheless act as cautionary devices that the passage is quite corrupt. Most of the content here is in any case an almost word-for-word copy of VilÄsavajraâs NÄmamantrÄrthÄvalokinÄ«.4
Unit (b) explains the compound ekaká¹£aá¹a (âa singular momentâ) in terms of post-Hevajra yoginÄ«tantra doctrine. According to this teaching, during initiation one experiences in sexual union the four âblissesâ (Änanda), which are linked to four âmomentsâ (ká¹£aá¹a). This experience is then cultivated in meditation leading to enlightenment, a state sometimes referred to as âthe innateâ (sahaja). The passage should therefore be interpreted something like this: â[It is a] singular moment, because it embodies in a unitary manner the four blisses. [And this is nothing else but] the moment of innate complete awakening, which, in turn, is beyond the fourth [state of consciousnessâthe four being wake, sleep, deep sleep, and the fourth].â
Unit (c) seems to take a turn. Apparently, we have a continuation of the previous topic, but in fact here we turn to the problem of initiation. The passage is doubtless a quotation, introduced by tathÄ coktam. The author of the quoted passage is referred toâonce we emend the text slightly, ÅrÄ«matkÄÅmÄ«rÄ«yaiḥ for ÅrÄ«maá¹ kÄsmÄ«rÄ«yai5 and understand that the plural shows respectâas âthe glorious Kashmirian, the venerable SÅ«ká¹£mÄvartabhaá¹á¹a.â The anuá¹£á¹ubh verse following may be restored thus:
kaÅmÄ«reá¹£u kathÄ nÄsti caturthasyeti â niská¹paḥâ |asti deÅÄntare tÄvac caturthaá¹ samyak[ ]sevitam ||
The only real intervention here is sevitam for sevida[ḥ], which is nonsense, whereas sevitam is both grammatical and yields good meaning. The emendation kaÅmÄ«reá¹£u for kasmÄ«reá¹£u is rather banal, but I remain undecided whether this should be emended further to kÄÅmÄ«reá¹£u (âamong Kashmirisâ rather than âin Kashmirâ); the plural is otherwise often used with both toponyms and inhabitants of a region. As we shall see, there must be an iti hiding in caturthasyaiti. Spelling ai for e is not uncommon in East Indian manuscripts, although of course it is incorrect. We can safely dismiss the idea that the reading is correct and what we have here is the present third person singular of the root i, âto goâ; in that case we would expect an accusative, probably of an abstract noun, but nothing of the sort can be conjectured. The corrupt niská¹paḥ (or perhaps niá¹£ká¹paḥ) unfortunately masks a crucial word. We shall return to it forthwith.
The name of the author and the first third of the verse can be traced in Tibetan. The work in question is the *CaturthasadbhÄvopadeÅa, attributed in the colophon (D 159b3â4) to âthe great Kashmiri master ⦠*Ratnavajraâ (kha cheâi slob dpon chen po ⦠dpal rin chen rdo rje). We see the same name in unit (e). SÅ«ká¹£mÄvarttabhaá¹á¹a and Ratnavajra are one and the same, as the last verse of the work reveals (D 159b3):
| dpal kha cheâi slob dpon rin chen rdo rje daá¹ || mtshan gźan phra bar rtogs paâi dpal źes byaâi |
It is immediately apparent that there is something wrong with the Tibetan translation: the number of syllables per quarter is out of balanceâthe initial dpal could be superfluousâand the daá¹ seems just a little bit off, unless we think it is justified inasmuch as it links a name and an alternative name. However, the underlying meaning is clear enough: the author identifies himself as a Kashmiri master called Ratnavajra, also known as *SÅ«ká¹£mÄvartaÅrÄ«, as Ävarttaâwith a slight stretchâcan be reconstructed from rtogs pa, whereas ÅrÄ« is perhaps a metrical equivalent of bhaá¹á¹a or an unusual rendering into Tibetan.
Whatever doubts we may have about having correctly traced the author, they are dispelled once we look at the first line of the treatise (DÂ 156b2â3):
| kha che ba la bźi paâi gtam | | sá¹ ar yaá¹ yod par ma thos (em., thas) la || da ltar yod pa mthoá¹ na yaá¹ | | bźi pa rñed pa ma yin no |
Translated somewhat loosely, this means:
Previously, in Kashmir (or: among Kashmiris) not a [single] word was heard of [this] âFourthâ [Initiation]; although nowadays we see it practiced, [I will show that in fact] the âFourthâ cannot be found [to have authoritative sanction].
It is now clear that this is what we have echoed in our Sanskrit verse: kaÅmÄ«reá¹£u kathÄ nÄsti caturthasyeti. The Tibetan ba (or pa?) seems to suggest that we should understand âamong Kashmiris.â
But now we have a stylistic problem. Apparently, the introduction to the quotation applies only up to iti. The corrupt â niská¹paḥâ must be some sort of dismissive statement, since the second line seems to contradict Ratnavajra: true, Kashmir has not heard of the Fourth Initiation (caturtham), but this does not mean anything, since it does exist (asti) and is correctly practiced (samyak sevitam) in another land or other lands (deÅÄntare). One tentative solution for niská¹paḥ may thus be niá¹£ká¹tam (âdisregardedâ, âdismissedâ), but I must confess that I still regard this as nothing more than a diagnostic conjecture.
It is conceivable that we are wrong to emend ÅrÄ«maá¹ kÄsmÄ«rÄ«yai to ÅrÄ«matkÄÅmÄ«rÄ«yaiḥ and that we must boldly conjecture bá¹hatkÄÅmÄ«rÄ«ye. As we have seen in the verse given here in note 3, RaviÅrÄ«jñÄna knew of such a work, since he lists it as one of his sources of inspiration. Moreover, this is not the only time he refers to it: in the body of Amá¹takaá¹ikÄ we find at least one reference (Ed., p. 25, l. 18), which is mirrored in the Amá¹takaá¹ikoddyota (Ed., p. 197, last line). If I interpret VibhÅ«ticandraâs commentary correctly, in the text given here in note 4, he attributes this work to the famous NÄropÄda. If VibhÅ«ticandra is correct, we cannot take Ratnavajra/SÅ«ká¹£mÄvarttabhaá¹á¹a to be the author of the Bá¹hatkÄÅmÄ«rapañjikÄ, since there is nothing to suggest that he might be the same as NÄropÄda. (Of course, VibhÅ«ticandra could be wrong, but then the number of variables becomes too great to contemplate meaningfully.) If we follow this idea, the introduction would give the source for the entire verseâi.e. the Great Kashmiri Commentaryâ, in which Ratnavajraâs idea is embedded as a prima facie view. However, the stylistic problem remains: it would be very unnatural to give a title and then a name, which is not that of the author but that of an interlocutor in it. Perhaps it is not impossible that Ratnavajraâs other name was once a gloss meant to elucidate the ownership of the point to be refuted, and that this gloss made it into the main text at some point during transmission.
Unit (d) is somewhat easier to tackle. The quotation reinforces the existence of the Fourth Initiation by quoting VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti. The verse is very corrupt in the form given here, but fortunately we have access to the source, which is the TaRaA, verse 17. The TaRaAVi does not offer any explanation for the verse; indeed, it shrouds it in secrecy, stating that the meaning should be obtained from the oral teachings of a qualified guru (Ed., p. 100, l. 20: dambholÄ«tyÄdi| etat sadgurÅ«padeÅato jñeyam|). VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti seems to have changed his mind about this when he wrote his other major work, the SaA. There, he offers a very long explanation (D 199b7â201a3, P 235b4â237a2), alluding to the fact that misunderstandings of his position prompted him to do so. This verse is also quoted by RaviÅrÄ«jñÄna in the Amá¹takaá¹ikÄ (Ed., p. 76, ll. 22â23).
Thus, with the help of the TaRaA manuscript (Ms.), the edition (Ed.), the Tibetan translation (D and P agree in all the readings), the lemmata in the SaA (SaA), and RaviÅrÄ«jñÄnaâs testimony as edited (AKa) with the readings of the unused Vanaratna codex (V, folio 29r10), we may restore unit (d) thus:
kutaḥ | yad VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rtinocyateâdambholibÄ«jasrutidhautaÅuddha-pÄthojabhÅ«tÄá¹ kurabhÅ«tapuá¹£á¹i |turÄ«yaÅasyaá¹ paripÄkam etisphuá¹aá¹ caturthaá¹ viduá¹£o âpi gÅ«á¸ham || iti||6
The verse does not immediately lend itself to understanding, but in the present context, as a cited authority, it must have been understood along these lines:
Cleansed by the oozing of the seed (i.e. semen) from the thunderbolt (i.e. the officiantâs penis) growing as a sprout born from a purified lotus (i.e. the consecrated vulva of the consort), the crop that is the fourth [state of consciousness] comes to full bloom; [although] the Fourth [Initiation] is manifest, it is hidden even from the wise.
The coded language expresses what happens in the three higher initiations (guhyÄbhiá¹£eka, prajñÄjñÄnÄbhiá¹£eka, caturthÄbhiá¹£eka), the first two of which are of a sexual nature. The SaA makes it clear that the first stage, where the seed from the thunderbolt oozes and cleanses, alludes to the guhyÄbhiá¹£eka, where in practice the officiating master copulates with a consort and the ejaculates are placed in the mouth of the blindfolded initiand. Via this rite, the mind of the initiand, which is similar to a field, is purified. The second stage, where a sprout is said to be born and made to grow in a pure lotus, alludes to the prajñÄjñÄnÄbhiá¹£eka, where it is the initiand who copulates with the/another consort. The sprout represents his fledgling wisdom. The logic of the allegory demands that it is in the caturthÄbhiá¹£eka where this sprout comes to full bloom, that is to say, reaches the highest state, here called âthe Fourth.â This is somewhat confusing, since just above the author of the GÅ«á¸hapadÄ seems to advocate a state âbeyond the fourthâ as the highest. Also note that sphuá¹am could be construed in a different way, either as an adjective to paripÄkam or an adverb to eti.
Unit (e) is certainly the most challenging part of the passage. The first sentence seems to condemn those who do not recognise (nÄstipaḳsyÄ[ḥ]) the existence of the Fourth Initiation on account of their stupidity and selfishness. What exactly the aim of their desire (doctrinal or otherwise) is, I cannot tell. We do not fare any better with the next statement. The compound evamÄdiká¹tasya escapes me completely. The next statement again seems to introduce a quotation, but the accusative case is puzzling. It is perhaps better to emend to a nominative while also fixing the first honorific. Thus we get: ÅrÄ«madratnavajrÄá¹ghrir Äha. The other honorific, aá¹ghri (lit. foot), is somewhat unusual. It doubtless stands for the more common °pÄda and it may do so for metrical reasons: if we observe the metrical pattern of RatnavajrÄá¹ghrir Äha, the words would fit the last seven syllables of a MandÄkrÄntÄ line. However, in this case we must give up on ÅrÄ«mad°, since here we would require laghu-guru (short-long) and not guru-guru. This idea must be considered, for what follows is indeed a perfect MandÄkrÄntÄ line (with some minor corrections applied): bhrÄntÄ yatra pravaramatayaḥ kÄ«rtiÅÄntyÄdayo âpi, i.e. âin which respect even those of the choicest intellect, such as KÄ«rti and ÅÄnti, are deluded.â We may safely assume that yatra refers to the matter at hand, i.e. the veracity of the Fourth Initiation, and we can reasonably suppose that these are Ratnavajraâs words, paying respect to his opponents, but claiming that they are wrong. KÄ«rti no doubt refers to VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti, whereas ÅÄnti is most likely shorthand for another great intellect of early 11th-century Eastern India, RatnÄkaraÅÄnti. While VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rtiâs position on the Fourth Initiation is known, we know very little as to what RatnÄkaraÅÄnti thought of the matter.7
Although we seem to understand this particular passage, there is a slight problem: it is not from the *CaturthasadbhÄvopadeÅa and it is not from any other work attributed to Ratnavajra in the Tibetan Canon. The next sentence, a corrupt anuá¹£á¹ubh, on the other hand can be traced in the *CaturthasadbhÄvopadeÅa (D 157a7â157b1). I repeat the lines here along with the Tibetan translation, because they are quite crucial:
idaá¹ caturthÄlokakÄrakÄ pÅ«rvadeÅapaá¹á¸itaiḥ |vÄá¹yamÄtraá¹ na vijñÄtÄ tadgranthatodgataá¹ || bźi pa sgron (em., sgrol) ma mdzad pa yi || Åar phyogs kyi ni mkhas pa yis || gtam tsam yaá¹ ni mi Åes so || de yi chos la bdag gis rtogs |
The pronoun idaá¹ is puzzling and I am tempted to disregard it completely, all the more so since the Tibetan does not mirror it. Alternatively, one could emend it to ittham and consider it as an introductory statement. Emending the Tibetan sgrol to sgron is warranted by the Sanskrit °Äloka°, and this makes good sense, because this is an attested title to which we will return shortly. If this is a title, it would make sense to emend °kÄrakÄ to °kÄrakaiḥ following the Tibetan mdzad pa yi understood in the sense of âauthorâ to qualify the compound in the next pÄda, or to °kÄraka° joining the line into one compound. Unfortunately, this creates a serious metrical problem. I do not have a solution at present, except suggesting that we do indeed need a word meaning âauthorâ for the broken part.
It is apparent that in the second verse quarter we are one syllable short. The most straightforward solution is probably to read °deÅÄ«ya° for °deÅa°. Assuming that the cruces hide a word meaning âauthor,â as I suggest, we would thus get a line in harmony with the Tibetan expressing a logical subject: caturthÄlokaâ kÄrakÄâ pÅ«rvadeÅÄ«yapaá¹á¸itaiḥ, i.e. âthe learned one from the Eastern lands, the author of the CaturthÄloka.â The plural is, again, for showingâhere, mockârespect. This pundit is none other than VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti, since CaturthÄloka is an alternative title for his TaRaA. In fact, this alternative title seems to be the one preferred by the author himself, because this is the way he refers to his previous work in the SaA. He does so thrice (D 190b3, 199a2, 199b7 & P 225a7, 234b4, 235b4â5), calling the treatise Bźi pa snaá¹ ba, and citing lemmata from TaRaA, verses 8, 11, and 17 respectively.8
As for the next pÄda, this is probably where we should find the logical predicate, but for this we must emend vijñÄtÄ to vijñÄtam. For the first word, the Tibetan seems to suggest vÄkya° (gtam). No doubt, vÄá¹ya° (âfried barley,â âfigâ (?)) seems to be the more difficult reading, but I am not familiar with this idiomatic expression, if indeed it is one. Let us accept the emendations and read vÄkyamÄtraá¹ na vijñÄtaá¹ together with the first line, i.e. ânot a single word was understood by the learned one from the Eastern lands, the author of the CaturthÄloka [understand: VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti].â
What exactly VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti did not understand or how exactly it became clear to the Kashmirian author that the Easterner is a fool is a mystery, since the last pÄda seems, at least to me, beyond redemption and the Tibetan is not very clear either. One may conjecture with great hesitation after having harmonised the two something like tadgranthato mayodgatam, in the sense â[this] I have understood from his work.â But this would create a metrical issue, since a ra-gaá¹a is not permitted for syllables 2â4. A more serious intervention would yield tadgranthÄt/tadgranthe tan mayodgatam. Another problem is that udgatam is not entirely elegant and does not make very good sense. However, we are probably not too far from a genuine solution. What Ratnavajra seems to be saying then is that he had read VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rtiâs work, the CaturthÄloka, and realised that the Eastern scholar is an ignoramus.
The meaning of unit (f) is somewhat clearer, but it is impossible to say who the speaker is. Somebodyâdeutero-Advayavajra? Ratnavajra?âstates the viewpoint of his guru: the introductory clause asmadÄ«yagurupÄdamatam Äha does not need any correction. The first line of the verse seems to be fine as is, although the meaning is somewhat obscure: turyÄtÄ«tam avÄcyaá¹ tu ká¹£aá¹am ekam arÅ«pakam, i.e. âas for that ineffable [state of consciousness called] âbeyond the fourth,â it is a singular, formless moment.â The second line is problematic. PÄda c is unmetrical: both the second and the third syllables are short, while the fifth, sixth, and seventh syllables form a ra-gaá¹a, thus a ra-vipulÄ, but there is no caesura after the fourth. PÄda d with the closing particle should probably read jñÄtÄjñeyau tu nirvá¹tÄv iti or jñÄtá¹jñeyau, etc., or jñÄnajñeyau, etc. The first of the possible solutions, that is to say, leaving the compound as transmitted, contains an irregular dvandva, perhaps inspired by the well-known mÄtÄpitá¹-. In spite of these serious irregularities, I have no reason to think that the first half of the line is corrupt, especially since we already had the collocation sahajasaá¹bodhiká¹£aá¹aḥ in unit (b). The line therefore probably meant, âdue to complete awakening of the innate, for me [the duality] of knower [or: knowledge] and objects of knowledge has been extinguished.â Let us attribute the irregularities to the ecstatic power that must have overcome the nebulous guru at the moment of enlightenment.
We will now return to Ratnavajra and his scathing attack on VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti. Much light would be thrown on this matter if the Sanskrit original of the *CaturthasadbhÄvopadeÅa were to become available, or better said, accessible.
The work is reported to exist in the now famousâand notoriously inaccessibleâLhasa birch-bark manuscript. The existence of this unique codex, once penned in Kashmir and until very recently kept on display at the Tibet Museum, was first reported by Kazuhiro Kawasaki (2004). The Japanese scholar was allowed to consult the table of contents and the colophon on the last folio of this remarkable document. We know from his report that the manuscript is a composite codex containing twenty-seven works. The sixth item listed in the table of contents (Kawasaki 2004, 51/904) is none other than CaturthasadbhÄvopadeÅaḥ ÅrÄ«ratnavajraká¹taḥ.
A decade later, Kazuo KanÅ (2014) provided a new reading of the colophon and converted the date precisely. According to his calculation, the [Kali] year 29 corresponds to 1057â¯ce, since the ruling king, Anantadeva, is also mentioned, and his reign falls between 1028 and 1063â¯ce (KanÅ 2014, 62â63). This date is extremely important, because it gives us a rather early upper limit for the creation of the CaturthasadbhÄvopadeÅa and thus Ratnavajraâs mature activity, besides confirming his reading of VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rtiâs work.
Ratnavajra was an authority not to be taken lightly. His influence and fame can be gathered from other sources as well. For example, *PrajñÄÅrÄ«gupta, in his commentary on the MahÄmudrÄtilaka, now extant only in Tibetan (TÅh. 1201), eulogises him thus (D 154b3â4): âthe great scholar, who has obtained initiation and the oral teachings, the king over overlords of kings, the best of gurus, the teacher from Kashmir, the glorious Ratnavajra.â *PrajñÄÅrÄ«gupta also claims that Ratnavajra stood at the end of an uninterrupted lineage of masters stemming from the famous IndrabhÅ«ti. He also quotes from at least one of his lost works, probably simply called *Utpannakrama (D 155b3â4). In another work, the *RatnamañjarÄ« (TÅh. 1217), a commentary on the *TattvapradÄ«pa, he again eulogises Ratnavajra as his master (D 325a2).
We find several more references to Ratnavajra in the work of *Sambhogavajra, probably *PrajñÄÅrÄ«guptaâs disciple or junior contemporary. In his *RahasyanalinÄ« (TÅh. 1418), he claims the same spiritual descent, while adding the equally prestigious name of *AvadhÅ«tÄ«pÄda along the way. He is only slightly less loquacious when it comes to praising the famous master (D 250b2â3): âhe who has crossed to the other shore of all Vedas, who has obtained the accomplishment of the mantra, the Kashmiri master, the glorious Ratnavajra.â *Sambhogavajra quotes the same passage (partially) from the lost *Utpannakrama (D 240b1) and a verse from another work entitled *AdhyÄtmapadma (D 244b6). He too emphasises that Ratnavajra was a Kashmiri (D 246b5).
Ratnavajraâs name was probably exploited to make other works more prestigious. One such pseudepigraphical case in my view is an initiation manual of the SarvabuddhasamÄyogaá¸ÄkinÄ«jÄlaÅaá¹vara system, the *SarvasattvasukhodayÄ (TÅh. 1679). Contrary to the opinion voiced in the *CaturthasadbhÄvopadeÅa, this text does teach the Fourth Initiation (D 294a1â4). A less likely scenario is that Ratnavajra eventually changed his mind and accepted what was, to him, initially a controversial abhiá¹£eka.
Ratnavajra, too, seems to have been particularly proud of his Kashmiri heritage. In his *Aká¹£obhyavajrasÄdhana (TÅh. 1884) he proudly claims to have sat at the feet of Northern gurus (D 162b5), perhaps in yet another attempt to dissociate himself from innovations in the East.9 This workâwhich, in spite of the title, is a manual in the tradition of JñÄnapÄdaâis most likely genuinely his, since the qualifications of the practitioner mention having received all initiations but the Fourth (D 144b1â2).
Returning to his CaturthasadbhÄvopadeÅa, here too Ratnavajra voices what is perhaps a challenge to all non-Kashmiris. The third verse of the text says (DÂ 156b3â4):
| yul phyogs gźan na la la dag | gal te skal ldan gyur pa dṠos || yod pas gter ni mi nub ces | | bdag blo Ṡes par dbugs dbyuṠṠo |
The verse is not entirely clear, but it probably means something along the following lines:
Should there be any fortunate ones (i.e. worthy Buddhists) in other countries, let them [come forward and] put my mind at ease so that [this] treasure would not fall into oblivion.
The âtreasureâ (gter, which more correctly would be rin chen) he refers to is in my view the Fourth Initiation, cf. an oft-quoted and later scripturalised pÄda from the PrajñopÄyaviniÅcayasiddhi (3.38d): vÄcaiva dadyÄd abhiá¹£ekaratnam. Perhaps less likely is the possibility that he uses *ratna as a shorthand for TaRaA, in which case we have here yet another reference to VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rtiâs work. In my reading, Ratnavajra was being ironic. He would not have found any comfort in his being convinced of the genuineness of the Fourth Initiation. It follows that the âtreasureâ he seems to be worried about should be read kÄkvÄ, in a mocking tone.
Although Ratnavajra seems to refer to the CaturthÄloka/TaRaA exclusively, it is very likely that his reading of VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti was much broader. After all, verse 17 from that work does not reveal much about his position concerning the Fourth Initiation. I think that there is a possibility that this is what he refers to in the verse (D 157b1) immediately following the one we had attested in the GÅ«á¸hapadÄ:
| âon kyaá¹ gti mug bsal ba daá¹ | | som ñi rab tu źi ba daá¹ || phyin ci log ni bsal baâi phyir | | mkhas pas bstan bcos rgyas par mdzad |
Now, in order to dispel confusion, to put doubts at ease, and to clear up distortions, [this] learned man expanded his treatise.
In what follows, Ratnavajra echoes in his pÅ«rvapaká¹£as many points brought up by the TaRaAVi. If this conjecture holds, it would seem that some time elapsed between VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rtiâs writing his verses and the auto-commentary. It is also not impossible that the SaA was written partly as an answer to Ratnavajraâs criticism. However, for all this to be determined one would need access to the Sanskrit original of the CaturthasadbhÄvopadeÅa. Until that time, we must leave the matter to rest.
In spite of the numerous corruptions we have encountered in the GÅ«á¸hapadÄ passage, let us recapitulate what may be gathered with certainty. At some point before 1057â¯ce, an influential Kashmiri master called Ratnavajra or SÅ«ká¹£mÄvarttabhaá¹á¹a published a scornful refutation of the idea that there is a Fourth Initiation (caturthÄbhiá¹£eka). This position he seems to have attributed first and foremost to âEasternâ scholars, singling out VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti and his TattvaratnÄvaloka or CaturthÄloka. In spite of the vitriolic dismissal, it is evident that VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti was too important to be ignored. The debate between the two remained well known, as some of its salvos were preserved perhaps already in the now lost Bá¹hatkÄÅmÄ«rapañjikÄ, and certainly in the GÅ«á¸hapadÄ. The latter was still an influential work before the end of the 12th century, since the famous RaviÅrÄ«jñÄna used it as a source.
One could extrapolate a more general point from this debate, namely that scholarly communication between East India (at this point in time under PÄla sovereignty) and Kashmir was vigorous. Kashmiris seem to have been a little more orthodox in their views, but innovationsâfor which the hotbed was undoubtedly PÄla East Indiaâdid filter in. This exchange between the two regions was certainly not a unique event. The famous satirist Ká¹£emendra describes Bengali students flocking to Kashmir around the same time (DeÅopadeÅa, chapter 6 in 45 verses). He is even more scornful of Easterners, describing them as illiterate, dim-witted, pretentious, sanctimonious, vulgar, and ugly. I find it very likely that the poetâs bigoted diatribe met with many a sympathetic ear in his local audience.
3 VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti among the Khmer
The document known as the Sab BÄk inscription (K. 1158), consisting of fifteen (idiosyncratic) Sanskrit verses and a few lines in Old Khmer, was discovered at an unconfirmed location in what is now Nakhon Ratchasima province, Thailand. It is one of the most important sources testifying to the presence of the GuhyasamÄja system in Southeast Asia. The text of the inscription was first edited by Prapanvidya (1990). Since then it has been noted and discussed in a fairly large number of publications, the latest of which, at least to my knowledge, is by Conti (2014). This article also features a new translation by Tadeusz Skorupski.
The inscription, dated Åaka year 988, 7th of the waxing fortnight of Tapasya (Friday, 23rd of February 1067â¯ce), records the words of one Vraḥ Dhanus, given the title ÄcÄrya in the Khmer portion, a devotee of the GuhyasamÄja. The text first eulogises three teachers of Vraḥ Dhanus, all indicated by toponymic surnames: the venerables of Cuá¹ Vis, Campaka, and Dharaá¹Ä«ndrapura. It then describes the erection of an unspecified number of icons beginning with an image of the Buddha. The Khmer portion refers to previous installations as well.
The document is fascinating and important, but still requires substantial work. I cannot touch on these topics here; instead, I wish to concentrate on a particular aspect, the identity of a master referred to in verses 3 and 4. The most reliable edition of the text is that of Estève (2009, 557â558), which I have checked against an estampage of the original (ÃFEO n. 1497); here I quote only the relevant couplet:
ÅrÄ«samÄje parÄ yasya bhak(t)iḥ ÅraddhÄ ca nirmmalÄtasya dÄsasya dÄso haá¹ bhaveyaá¹ sarvajanmasu || [3]ity ÄjÃ±Ä paramaguroḥ ÅrutvÄ stutyÄ namaská¹tÄanukathyÄ mayÄ bhaktyÄ ÅrÄ«samÄjan name sadÄ || [4]
These are the translations that have been published thus far. Prapanvidya (1990, 12) interpreted the text as follows:
In all my births, may I become the slave of that slave, who has great devotion to and impeccable faith in the ÅrÄ«samÄja. âHaving saluted with praise, I must hear and repeat the teacherâs command devotedly:â thus is the command of the supreme teacher. I constantly pay my obeisance to ÅrÄ«samÄja.
Estèveâs French translation is perhaps a bit more accurate (2009, 561):
«Ce ÅrÄ« SamÄja pour lequel jââ¯ai une dévotion suprême et une foi pure, que jââ¯en sois le serviteur du serviteur dans toutes mes existencesâ¯Â». Après avoir entendu lââ¯ÄjÃ±Ä du paramaguru, je dois lui rendre hommage avec des louanges puis, avec dévotion, le répéter. Je rends hommage perpétuellement à ÅrÄ« SamÄja.
Finally, Skorupskiâs translation published in Conti (2014, 393) is quite similar to that of Prapanvidya:
In all my existences, may I become a servant of the servant who has supreme devotion and stainless faith in the glorious SamÄja. Having thus heard the command of the supreme guru, I respect it with praises, (and) having repeated it with devotion, I always pay homage to the glorious SamÄja.
The first hemistich of the quoted portion is in my view an echo of VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rtiâs words. The penultimate closing verse of his TaRaAVi is this:
ÅrÄ«samÄje parÄ yasya bhaktir niá¹£á¹hÄ ca nirmalÄ |tasya vÄgÄ«Åvarasyeyaá¹ ká¹tir vimatinÄÅinÄ« ||10
This is the work to dispel all opposed opinions of VÄgÄ«Åvara[kÄ«rti], whose dedication to the glorious [Guhya]samÄja is supreme and whose devotion is without blemish.
Moreover, this is the closing verse of his SaA (DÂ 202b7â203a1, PÂ 238b5â6):
| dpal ldan gsaá¹ ba âdus pa las | | dri med dad mchog mthar phyin pas || á¹ ag gi dbaá¹ phyug de yis âdi | | byas pas blo á¹ an (D, ldan P) âjig gyur cig
I find it almost certain that this is a clumsy Tibetan rendering of the same verse. The small emendation las to la would fix the first pÄda, whereas the second would better read *dad mchog mthar phyin dri ma med, were it not the case that mthar phyin pa (*niá¹£á¹hÄgata?) is a very bad choice for niá¹£á¹hÄ. The third and fourth pÄda may be seen as a very loose rendering: âmay this work written by VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti destroy wicked views!â However, here too the choice of words is inapposite, as we would expect lta and not blo for mati.
I am unaware of any other texts that would use the same phrasing; it can be said therefore that this is a âsignature verseâ of VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti.
The only difference between the hemistich of the Khmer inscription and the verse transmitted in India, Nepal, and Tibet is a mere synonym, ÅraddhÄ for niá¹£á¹hÄ. Perhaps the Khmer author thought that the latter is a lesser-known word for âdevotionâ and decided to replace it with a metrically and gender-wise unproblematic, more current noun. Otherwise the echo is unmistakable.
In light of this discovery, the second line of the Khmer inscription would mean that someone is wishing to become a devotee (dÄsa) of that devoted one (tasya dÄsasya) in all subsequent rebirthsâi.e., these are the words of a student of VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti.
In the first pÄda of verse 4, these words seem to be described as âthe command (ÄjñÄ) of the paramaguru.â The syntax here is quite incorrect, since ÄjÃ±Ä should also be construed with ÅrutvÄ, and we would therefore require an accusative; however, namaská¹tÄ and anukathyÄ forces the author to leave it in the nominative. This is not the only bizarre usage of Sanskrit in the text. To note only the most glaring examples, in verse 6 we have a double sandhi, saiva for sa eva, in verse 15 the enclitic cet stands at the beginning of the line, and so on. Another oddity is that such pious exclamations are not called ÄjñÄ, but praá¹idhÄna or praá¹idhi, even in the tantric context (e.g. Hevajratantra 2.8.6â7 and prose before).
It should also be noted that the first quarter of verse 4 is a na-vipulÄ, with the minor blemish that the fourth syllable is not long. This perhaps suggests that the composer found it important to include the term paramaguru. This does not only mean âsupreme teacher,â but has a more technical sense, namely oneâs spiritual grandfather, i.e. oneâs guruâs guru. I could not find Buddhist texts that clearly have this usage (a possible exception is the Balinese Buddhaveda, p. 75); however, it is prevalent in Åaiva literature. In Abhinavaguptaâs TantrasÄra (Ed., p. 156) we find the sequence guru, paramaguru, and parameá¹£á¹hin, followed by the collective pÅ«rvÄcÄryÄḥ. In the glosses to the ĪÅÄnaÅivagurudevapaddhati (Ed., vol. 3, ad 13.58ab) we find this list stretched for five generations: guru, paramaguru, parameá¹£á¹higuru, pÅ«jyaguru, and mahÄpÅ«jyaguru. We sometimes (e.g. PuraÅcaryÄrá¹ava, Ed., vol. 1, 3.578cd-579ab) find parÄparaguru between parama and parameá¹£á¹hin.
Keeping in mind the hypothesis that paramaguru has a technical meaning here and does not simply mean âsupreme teacher,â two further likely hypotheses emerge. The command, which Vraḥ Dhanus relates, is spoken by one of his teachers, namely his guruâs guru, in which case VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti was the guru of this person, that is to say, Vraḥ Dhanusâ parameá¹£á¹higuru or parÄparaguru. However, given the loose phrasing seen elsewhere in the document, it might just be the case that Vraḥ Dhanus is referring only to the first half of the verse, in which case he is acknowledging VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti as his paramaguru. The latter is grammatically speaking less likely, but more likely if we think about the number of spiritual generations elapsed between VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti, active in the earlier half of the 11th century, and Vraḥ Dhanus, whose commissioned inscription is dated 1067â¯ce. Whichever scenario we accept as the most plausible, what seems to be certain is that by this date VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rtiâs person and GuhyasamÄja-related teachings were known in the Khmer lands.
If VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti was known in the Khmer lands, then so was JñÄnapÄdaâs school of thought. Although more attention should be dedicated to this matter, I feel confident in saying that VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti was a follower of the JñÄnapÄda exegesis. The strongest evidence for this claim is his brief overview of JñÄnapÄdaâs Samantabhadra or Caturaá¹ gasÄdhana as well as at least one unattributed quotation from the same work in his SaA (D 202a2â¯ff., P 238a1â¯ff.).
4 Epilogue
During the editorial process, I came across two further possible testimonies for VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rtiâs influence. I am grateful to the editors for allowing me the opportunity to include them here.
The first comes from what is now Burma/Myanmar, an inscription dated 1442â¯ce celebrating the construction of a monastery and related donations by a district governor called Thirizeyathu (Taw Sein Ko 1899, 37â47). The document records a large number of books as part of the governorâs generous gift, including the famous couple MahÄkÄlacakka and MahÄkÄlacakka á¹Ä«kÄ, long accepted as evidence for the presence of the KÄlacakra system in Burma. The work listed immediately before this (p. 47) is called the Má¹tyuvañcana. While this could refer to any death-cheating ritual manual, the most celebrated such work was that of VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti. There is therefore a strong possibility that he was still read in Burma as late as the first half of the 15th century. Naturally, I do not claim this as conclusive evidence.
Another possible allusion to VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rti, or at the very least the debate he was famous for, comes from certain recensions of Sarahaâs DohÄkoÅa. In a verse criticising fellow Buddhists, the famous siddha (or the author posing as the siddha) says that â[without having realised reality,] some are immersed in explaining the Fourth.â
I read the verse in the following three sources: a) Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen manuscript Xc 14/16, folio 2r: ko vi vakkhÄá¹a caüá¹á¹hihi laggo; b) Tokyo University Library manuscript 517, folio 17v: ke vi vakkhÄá¹a caüá¹á¹hahiá¹ laggaü; and c) NAK 1â1607 = NGMPP A 49/18, recto of 83rd leaf: koï vakkhaá¹a caüá¹há¹hihi laggo. The verse with this line was not available for ÅÄstrÄ« (1916, 85), Shahidullah (1928, 129âalthough the Tibetan given here does mirror our reading very closely: kha cig bźi baâi don âchad pa la źugs) or SÄá¹ká¹tyÄyan (1957, 4); Bagchi (1938, 16) reconstructs the verse, and his reading is followed by Jackson (2004, 58), who also suggests that one possibility for interpretation is the âFourth Initiationâ; see also Schaeffer 2005, 136.
The single-folio NAK fragment is a part of the SahajÄmnÄyapañjikÄ commentary, a very precious (and unfortunately very corrupt) witness, as here Bagchiâs manuscript has a lacuna. The relevant passage in Tibetan can be found in D 184r7â185v2. Interestingly, here the target is identified as a monk, but caüá¹há¹hihi is glossed either as a cardinal number, in which case the four schools are meant (VaibhÄá¹£ika, SautrÄntika, YogÄcÄra, Madhyamaka), or as an ordinal number, in which case the meaning is innate bliss (sahaja). This commentator would therefore not think that the object of the (fruitless) explanation is the Fourth Initiation.
It is of course possible, and perhaps even likely, that Saraha here refers to the fourth and ultimate state of consciousness or the fourth and highest bliss (Änanda), but it is not out of the question that what he has in mind is the (or a) debate regarding the Fourth Initiation. However, again, this is hardly conclusive evidence.
Abbreviations
| Aka |
Amá¹takaá¹ikÄ. |
| D |
Tibetan text in the Canonâs Derge (Sde dge) print. Numbers according to TÅh. |
| Ed. |
edition |
| KCDS |
ä¸å½èå¦ç 究ä¸å¿æ¶èç梵æè´å¶ç» ï¼ç¼©å¾®è¶å·ï¼ç®å½ [Zhongguo zangxue yanjiu zhongxin shouzangde fanwen beiye jing (Suowei jiaojuan) mulu] Kruá¹ goâi bod kyi Åes rig źib âjug lte gnas su ñar baâi ta laâi lo maâi bstan bcos (sbyin Åog âdril maâi par) kyi dkar chag mdor gsal, n.a. |
| Ms. |
manuscript |
| NAK |
National Archives, Kathmandu |
| NGMPP |
Nepal German Manuscript Preservation Project |
| Åta. |
Daisetz T. Suzuki (ed.), The Tibetan Tripitaka, Peking Editionâkept at the Library of the Otani University, KyotoâReprinted under the Supervision of the Otani University, Kyoto. Catalogue & Index, Tokyo, 1962. |
| P |
Tibetan text in the Canonâs Peking (Pe ciá¹ ) print. Numbers according to Åta. |
| TaRaA |
TattvaratnÄvaloka. |
| TaRaAVi |
TattvaratnÄvalokavivaraá¹a. |
| TÅh. |
Hakuju Ui, Munetada Suzuki, Yenshô Kanakura, Tôkan Tada (eds.), A Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons (Bkaḥ-ḥgyur and Bstan-ḥgyur), Tôhoku Imperial University, Sendai, 1934. |
| SaA |
SaptÄá¹ ga. |
I have already discussed these two subjects in two separate lectures. The first subject was tackled at the First Manuscripta Buddhica Workshop in Procida, Italy in May 2011, where I received some extremely valuable feedback, especially from Professor Harunaga Isaacson, with whom I also had the opportunity to briefly study the passage in question in Kathmandu some months earlier. The second problem I have merely alluded to in a lecture at Kyoto University in February 2015; Professor Arlo Griffiths commented on an early draft of my notes and kindly encouraged me to publish my findings (e-mail, December 4, 2014). A later draft was read by Dr. Johannes Schneider, whose suggestions greatly improved some of my statements and saved me from a couple of blunders. To all involved, I offer my sincerest thanks. All remaining errors are mine.
A fragment missed by Schneider can be found in NAK 1â1697/vi. bauddhatantra 60 = NGMPP B 31/19. Nearly twenty-six verses survive on this single leaf (1.63câ1.89b), which may in fact be the earliest attestation of the original (Schneiderâs earliest manuscript is from 1290â¯ce).
I give here a diplomatic transcript of the ÅÄrdÅ«lavikrÄ«á¸ita stanza in question: ÅrÄ«vajrÄá¹ kitapÄá¹igarbhabhagavallokeÅaá¹Ä«kÄrthayÄ (°ÄnvayÄ?) ÅlÄghyÄ gÅ«á¸hapadÄÅritÄdbhutabá¹hatkÄÅmÄ«rapañjÄ«sakhÄ (?) | nÄnÄtantrarahasyavibhramavatÄ« nÄnopadeÅÄÅritÄ prÄ«tÄ á¹ippaá¹ikÄ raviÅriya iyaá¹ prÄ«á¹Ätu cetaḥ satÄá¹ || The first pÄda alludes to three exegetes of the KÄlacakra tradition, known as the bodhisattva commentators: VajrapÄá¹i, Vajragarbha, and Puá¹á¸arÄ«ka (here BhagavallokeÅa for metrical reasons).
The Sarnath edition lets us down once again here. For the pratÄ«kas of pÄda b we have this printed: ⦠dapadam ÄÅritÄ | ÅrÄ«nÄropÄdapañjikÄsandhÄ«(m adhÄ«tya) | The only manuscript of the Amá¹takaá¹ikoddyota I can consult for the time being is Tokyo University Library no. 18 (old no. 348), last folio, l. 1 and this fairly clearly reads ÅlÄghyÄ gÅ«á¸hapadÄm ÄÅritÄ | ÅrÄ«nÄropÄdapañjikÄsaá¹ gÄ« (?) |
For the sake of comparison, I give here VilÄsavajraâs text from Ms. Cambridge University Library Add. 1708, folio 81v5â7: ekaká¹£aá¹amahÄprÄjñaḥ sarvadharmÄvabodhadhá¹g iti | ekaÅ cÄsau ká¹£aá¹aÅ ca ekaká¹£aá¹aḥ | mahÄá¹Å cÄsau prÄjñaÅ ca mahÄprÄjñaḥ (em., °prÄjña Ms. post corr., °prÄjñaÅ ca Ms. ante corr.) sarvadharmavivekÄtmakaḥ (Ms. post corr., °ÄtmÄkaḥ Ms. ante corr.) | tataÅ cÄyam arthaḥ sampadyate | ekenaiva ká¹£aá¹ena mahÄprÄjñatayÄ yathoktasarvadharmÄvabodhanatayÄ | ekaká¹£aá¹amahÄprÄjñasarvadharmÄvabodhas (em., °Ävabodha|s Ms.) tad dhÄrayatÄ«ti ekaká¹£aá¹amahÄprÄjñasarvadharmÄvabodhadhá¹k ||
The first error á¹ for t in ligature with k is a simple orthographic error. The second is a banal feature of East Indian scribal habits: sibilants are freely interchangeable. The third is a customary loss of visarga before sibilants, which may reflect pronunciation.
Variants are provided only for the verse, naturally: dambholi°] Ms. Ed. AKa V, rdo rjeâi D, rdo rje SA ⢠°sruti°] corr., °Åruti° Ms. Ed. V, °Åruta° AKa, âbab pa D SA ⢠°dhauta°] Ms. Ed. AKa, °dhota° V, dri med dgaâ (!?) D, dag pa SA ⢠°Åuddha°] Ms. Ed. V, °Åuddhaá¹ AKa, dag paâi D, dag pa SA ⢠°pÄthoja°] Ed. V, °pÄthauja° Ms., °pÄthojña° AKa, chu skyes D SA ⢠°bhÅ«ta°] Ms. Ed. AKa V, âbyung D, âbyung ba SA ⢠turÄ«yaÅasyaá¹] AKa V, tutÄ«yaÅasyaá¹ Ms., tá¹tÄ«yaÅasyaá¹ Ed., bźi paâi âbru D, bźi paâi âbras bu SA ⢠paripÄkam eti] Ed. AKa V, paripÄkam eta Ms., yoá¹ s gsal smin âgyur baâi D, yoá¹ s gsal smin par âgyur ba yi SA ⢠viduá¹£o] Ms. Ed. AKa V, mkhas pa rnams la D, no lemma in SA
The most likely place for addressing this would have been his Hevajra initiation manual (to which he refers as the HevajrÄbhyudayamaá¹á¸alopÄyikÄ; see MuktÄvalÄ«, Ed., p. 215, ll. 15â16), but this text is most unfortunately lost.
For the sake of clarity, here are the passages: 1) de dag la yaá¹ Bźi pa snaá¹ ba ñid las | ñid mtshuá¹ s lha mos âkhyud daṠźes bya ba la sogs (D, la sogs pa P) tshigs su bcad pa bdun [â¦] citing svÄbhÄá¹ gaÅleá¹£i; 2) ji ltar Bźi pa snaá¹ ba las sku ni nam mkhaâ daá¹ mtshuá¹ s źes bya bas [â¦] citing gaganasamaÅarÄ«raá¹; 3) da ni Bźi pa snaá¹ ba las smos paâi rdo rje źes bya baâi tshigs su bcad pas [â¦] citing the beginning of the verse discussed above, dambholi°.
This is stated in the first quarter of the penultimate concluding verse: | de ltar byaá¹ phyogs lam paâi mkhas paâi źabs bsten nas | [â¦] Byaá¹ phyogs lam pa mirrors Sanskrit *uttarapatha/uttarÄpatha.
There are two silent emendations by Sarnath editors; the Ms. reads bhaktiniá¹£á¹hÄ and vimatinÄsanÄ«.
References
Primary Sources
Amá¹takaá¹ikÄ
(AKa). Banarsi Lal, ed. ÄryamañjuÅrÄ«nÄmasaá¹gÄ«ti with Amá¹takaá¹ikÄ-á¹ippaá¹Ä« by Bhiká¹£u RaviÅrÄ«jñÄna and Amá¹takaá¹ikodyota-nibandha of VibhÅ«ticandra. Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica XXX. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1994.
(V) Royal Asiatic Society, London, Ms. Hodgson no. 35. Palm leaf, 62 folios (of which this work once occupied 1 to 40r), East Indian script (Maithilī/Bengali), undated (ca. mid-15th century).
(D) TÅh. 1395, translated by *Maá¹iÅrÄ«jñÄna, Ãi maâi dbaá¹ poâi âod zer, Chag Chos rje dpal.
(P) Åta. 2111, ditto.
Amá¹takaá¹ikoddyota
(Ed.) see Amá¹takaá¹ikÄ.
(Ms.) Tokyo University Library, no. 18 (old no. 348). Palm leaf, 90 folios (once complete in 91 folios), Old Newar script, dated NepÄlasamvat 420 = 1300â¯ce. (same as Ed.âs Ms. Ka)
ĪÅÄnaÅivagurudevapaddhati
T. Gaá¹apati ÅÄstrÄ«, ed. ĪÅÄnaÅivagurudevapaddhati, vol. 3. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series 77. Trivandrum, 1922.
GÅ«á¸hapadÄ
(Ms.) Royal Asiatic Society, London, Ms. Hodgson no. 34. Palm leaf, 180 folios, hook-topped Old Newar script, undated (ca. 12â13th century?).
CaturthasadbhÄvopadeÅa
(Ms.) not accessible.
(D) TÅh. 2475, translated by *VidyÄbhadra and Tshul khrims bkra Åis.
(P) Ã.
TattvaratnÄvaloka
(TaRaA) [a.k.a. CaturthÄloka]. (Ms.) see TattvaratnÄvalokavivaraá¹a.
(Ed.) see TattvaratnÄvalokavivaraá¹a.
(D) TÅh. 1889, no translator given.
(P) Åta. 2753, no translator given.
TattvaratnÄvalokavivaraá¹a
(TaRaAVi). (Ms.) NAKÂ 5â252 = NGMPP AÂ 915/4.
(Ed.) Dhīḥ 21, 129â149, reprint (used here) Bauddhalaghugranthasamgraha (A Collection of Minor Buddhist Texts). Rare Buddhist Texts Series 14. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1997: 81â103.
(D) TÅh. 1890, translated by âGos Lhas btsas.
(P1) Åta. 2754, ditto.
(P2) Åta. 4793, no translator given.
TantrasÄra
Mukund RÄm ShÄstrÄ«, ed. The TantrasÄra of Abhinava Gupta. Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies no. XVII. Bombay: Nirnaya-Sagar Press, 1918.
DeÅopadeÅa
E.V.V. RÄghavÄchÄrya and D.G. Padhye, eds. Minor Works of Ká¹£emendra. Hyderabad: Osmania University, 1961: 273â306.
DohÄkoÅa
See ÅÄstrÄ« 1916, Shahidullah 1928, Bagchi 1938, SÄá¹ká¹tyÄyan 1957, and Jackson 2004.
PuraÅcaryÄrá¹ava
Muralidhara JhÄ, ed. PuraÅcaryÄrá¹avaḥ, vol. 1. Benares: Prabhakari & Co., 1901.
PrajñopÄyaviniÅcayasiddhi
Samdhong Rinpoche and Vrajvallabh Dwivedi., eds. GuhyÄdi-aá¹£á¹asiddhi-saá¹ graha. Rare Buddhist Text Series 1. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1987: 63â87.
Buddhaveda
Sylvain Lévi, ed. Sanskrit Texts from Bali. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1933: 72â84.
MuktÄvalÄ«
See Hevajratantra.
Saá¹ká¹£iptÄbhiá¹£ekavidhi
(Ed.) see Sakurai 1996, 412â421.
(Ms.) NAKÂ 3â387 = NGMPP AÂ 1156/24 and retake BÂ 24/15.
(D) TÅh. 1887, translated by SumatÄ«kÄ«rti, Klog skya Gźon nu âbar, Mar pa Chos kyi dbaá¹ phyug.
(P) Åta. 2751, ditto.
SaptÄá¹ ga
(SaA). (D) TÅh. 1888, translated by âGos Lhas btsas.
(P) Åta. 2752, ditto
SahajÄmnÄyapañjikÄ
(Ed.) see Bagchi 1938.
(D) TÅh. 2256, translated by Vairocanavajra of Kosala.
(P) Åta. 3101, ditto.
Hevajratantra
Ram Shankar Tripathi and Thakur Sain Negi, eds. Hevajratantram with MuktÄvalÄ« PañjikÄ of MahÄpaá¹á¸itÄcÄrya RatnÄkaraÅÄnti. Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica Series XLVIII. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 2001.
Secondary Literature
Bagchi, Prabodh Chandra. 1938. DohÄkoá¹£a (Apabhraá¹Åa Texts of the SahajayÄna School). Part I. (Texts and Commentaries). Calcutta: Metropolitan Printing and Publishing House.
Chimpa, Lama and Alaka Chattopadhyaya. [1970] 2004. TÄranÄthaâs History of Buddhism in India. Reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Conti, Pia. 2014. âTantric Buddhism at Prasat Hin Phimai: A New Reading of Its Iconographic Message.â In Before Siam. Essays in Art and Archaeology, edited by Nicolas Revire and Stephen A. Murphy, 374â394. Bangkok: River Books and The Siam Society.
Davidson, Ronald. 2005. Tibetan Renaissance. Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture. New York: Columbia University Press.
Estève, Julia. 2009. Ãtude critique des phénomèmes de syncrétisme religieux dans le Cambodge angkorien. Ph.D. thesis, Ãcole Pratique des Hautes Ãtudes.
Isaacson, Harunaga. 2008. âHimalayan Encounter: The Teaching Lineage of the MarmopadeÅa (Studies in the Vanaratna Codex 1).â Manuscript Cultures 1: 2â6.
Isaacson, Harunaga and Francesco Sferra. 2014. The SekanirdeÅa of MaitreyanÄtha (Advayavajra) with the SekanirdeÅapañjikÄ of RÄmapÄla. Critical Edition of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts with English Translation and Reproductions of the MSS. Manuscripta Buddhica 2. Napoli: Asien-Afrika-Institut, Universität Hamburg and Università degli studi di Napoli âLââ¯Orientale.â
Jackson, Roger. 2004. Tantric Treasures. Three Collections of Mystical Verse from Buddhist India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KanÅ, Kazuo. 2014. âãæ®è³¢æå°±æ³ãã®æ°åºæ¢µæè³æã«ã¤ã㦠[Fugen jÅjuhÅ no shinshutsu bonbun shiryÅ ni tsuite = âNewly Available Sanskrit Materials of JñÄnapÄdaâs SamantabhadrasÄdhanaâ].â å¯æå¦ç 究 [MikkyÅgaku kenkyu] 46: 61â73.
Kawasaki, Kazuhiro. 2004. âOn a Birch-bark Sanskrit Manuscript Preserved in the Tibet Museum.â Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 52 (2): 50â52/905â903.
Lo Bue, Erberto. 1997. âThe role of Newar scholars in transmitting the Indian Buddhist heritage to Tibet (c. 750âc. 1200).â In Les habitants du toit du monde. Ãtudes recueillies en hommage à Alexander W. Macdonald, edited by Samten Karmay and Philippe Sagant, 629â658. Nanterre: Société dââ¯ethnologie.
Onians, Isabelle. 2002. Tantric Buddhist Apologetics or Antinomianism as a Norm, D.Phil. thesis. Oxford: University of Oxford.
Prapanvidya, Chirapat. 1990. âThe Sab BÄk Inscription. Evidence of an Early Vajrayana Buddhist Presence in Thailand.â Journal of Siam Society 78 (2): 11â14.
Sakurai, Munenobu. 1996. ã¤ã³ãå¯æå礼ç 究âå¾æã¤ã³ãå¯æã®çé 次第â [Indo mikkyÅ girei kenkyu: kÅki Indo mikkyÅ no kanchÅ shidai = A Study of Indian Esoteric Ritual. Consecration in late Indian Tantric Buddhism]. Kyoto: Hozokan.
SÄá¹ká¹tyÄyan, RÄhul. 1957. DohÄ-koÅ [HindÄ«-chÄyÄnuvÄd-sahit]. Paá¹nÄ: BihÄr-RÄá¹£á¹rabhÄá¹£Ä-Pariá¹£ad.
ÅÄstrÄ«, HaraprasÄd. 1917. HÄjÄr Bacharer PurÄá¹a Baá¹ galÄ BhÄá¹£Äy BauddhagÄn o DohÄ (CaryÄcaryaviniÅcay, Sarojavajrer DohÄkoá¹£, KÄá¹hapÄder DohÄkoá¹£ o á¸ÄkÄrá¹av). Calcutta: Vaá¹ gÄ«ya SÄhitya Pariá¹£ad.
Schaeffer, Kurtis. 2005. Dreaming the Great Brahmin: Tibetan Traditions of the Buddhist Poet-Saint Saraha. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schneider, Johannes. 2010. VÄgÄ«ÅvarakÄ«rtis Má¹tyuvañcanopadeÅa, eine buddhistische Lehrschrift zur Abwehr des Todes. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
Sferra, Francesco. 2000. The á¹¢aá¸aá¹ gayoga by Anupamaraká¹£ita with RaviÅrÄ«jñÄnaâs Guá¹abharaá¹Ä«nÄmaá¹£aá¸aá¹ gayogaá¹ippaá¹Ä«. Text and Annotated Translation. Serie Orientale Roma LXXXV. Rome: Istituto Italiano per lâAfrica e lâOriente.
Shahidullah, Muhammad. 1928. Les chants mystiques de KÄá¹ha et de Saraha. Les DohÄ-koá¹£a (en apabhraá¹Åa, avec les versions tibétaines) et les CaryÄ (en vieux-bengali) avec introduction, vocabulaires et notes. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.
Stearns, Cyrus. 1996. âThe Life and Tibetan Legacy of the Indian MahÄpaá¹á¸ita VibhÅ«ticandra.â Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 19 (1): 127â171.
Taw Sein Ko. 1899. Inscriptions of Pagan, Pinya and Ava. Translation, with Notes. Rangoon: Government Printing.
Walter, Michael. 2000. âCheating Death.â In Tantra in Practice, edited by David Gordon White, 605â623. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press.