SOME CONSIDERATIONS
ON THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN HINDU
AND BUDDHIST TANTRAS*
Francesco Sfewa
1. It is a well-known fact that Buddhst Tantric systems share numerous
elements with Hindu Tantric traditions. Many scholars have sought to
understand why these shared elements exist. Some have suggested that
there is a common "religious substratumV.l Others have actually given a
name to thls substratum, explaining the origin of Tantrism, at least in part,
as an irruption of the beliefs and magical practices of the folk religion of
India-including popular festivals, orgastic rites, the cult of female deities,
etc.-into the rigd ambit of Brahmanical and Buddhlst orthodoxy.2
The conception of a "religous substratum" has been recently criticized
by Alexis Sanderson in an article entitled "Vajrayiina: O r i g n and Function", whlch was published in Bangkok in 1994 in a volume of conference
proceedings, Buddhirm into the Year 2000. T h e English scholar makes two
points, the first explicitly: there is evidence only of the existence of a
'
I thank Raniero Gnoli, David Seyfort Ruegg and Harunaga Isaacson for having read an
early draft of this paper, and for their stimulating comments. Special thanks are also due
to Alexis Sanderson, who read the paper in its definitive form immediately prior to
publication and not only gave me some valuable suggestions, but also allowed me to use
some of his notes (see below, in particular notes 32, 33 and 37). Susan Ann White lundly
helped me to revise the English version.
E.g. S. Dasgupta, Obsczcre Religious Cults, 1969, pp. xxxiii-mxiv, 20; D. Seyfort Ruegg,
"SW les rapports entre le bouddhisme et le 'substrat religeux7indien et tibktain", 1964,
pp. 76-95; id., review of: David Snellgrove, Indo-Tibetan Buddbh: Indian Bz~ddhirtrand
their Tzbetan nucessors, 1989, pp. 173-74. It should be noted that the "substratum model"
proposed by Seyfort Ruegg is closely associated with the concept: of the laukika, and
vy~vahzrika,in contrast to the lokottnra, and pzramgrthikn, and that it is not an
exclusively "Tantric substratum".
E.g. B. Bhattacharyya, An 6ztrodziction to Buddhist Esoterism, 193 1 (repr. Delhl 1980), p.
1; G . Tucci, Tibetan Painted Scrolls, 1949, pp. 2 10-1 1 and 2 15- 19; R. Gnoli,
"Lntroduzione" to R. Gnoli and G. Orofino, Nm-opn. Iniziazione, 1994, p. 3 1.
Buddhst, ~ a i v aor Vaisnava Tantrism, and we can only have recourse to
the hypothesis of a "religious substratum" when n o other possible
explanation exists; the second, implicitly: that we must first do our utmost
to attempt to determine possible relations of dependence between the
various forms of Tantrism. Sanderson writes:
The problem with this concept of a 'religious substratum' or 'common cultic
stock' is that they are by their very nature entities inferred but never perceived.
a , something
Whatever we perceive is always ~ a i v aor Buddhist, or V a i ~ ~ a vor
else specific. Derivation from this hidden source cannot therefore be the
preferred explanation for similarities between these specific traditions unless
those similarities cannot be explained in any other way.'
Sanderson has studied a group of still unpublished Saivite works
belonging to the Vidyiipifha of the Bhairava section of the Saiva canon,
including the Siddhayogeharimata, the Tantrasadbhiva, the Jayadratbayrimala (also known as Tantrarqabbattliraka) and the Brabmayimala (also
lmown as Picumata). H e has provided enough examples to establish that,
with regard to the ritual framework, these texts preceded and served as a
model for the "higher" class of Buddhist Tantras, the Yoginitantras, among
which the Hevajraddkinijalasamvara, commonly known as Hevayatan~a,
and the Cakrasa~varaare notable. Numerous passages in the aforesaid
~aiviteworks recur, for instance, in the Sa~varoahyatanwa,the Hemkibbidbina, the Vajradka, the Dakamava and the Abbidb~inottara.~
h one case in
particular, we find an anomaly, the imprecise adaptation of a list that
inequivocably betrays the ~ a i v aorigin of the text. Evidently the redactor
was not paying attention when he included this.'
'
A. Sanderson, "Vajrayaa: Origin and Function", 1994, pp. 92-93.
Id., pp. 94-95.
"This anomaly is the occurrence of Grhadevam after Pretapuri and before Sauriispa in
the series of the Samvarodaya. This Grhadevam is the only place name that does not
occur in the Tantrasadbhava's list; and it is the only name that is puzzling. It is puzzling
because the meaning of the word is 'household deity', hardly a likely name for a place.
Now, in the version in the Tantrasadbhiiva we are told not only the names of the pl:thas
but also classes of deities associated with each. The class associated with SaurHspa is that
of the Grhadevaas, the household deities. Evidently, while intending to extract only the
place names from a list pairing names and deities, the redactor's mind has drifted
without h s being aware of it from the name-list to that of the deity-list and back again"
Sanderson7sessay is important regardmg both the method of researchmg
Tantris~nand the results, and marks a turning point in this field of studies.
Recently, he published another important paper in which he gives further
examples of inter-dependence between different scriptural sources and
establishes a relative chronology for some of these.6 W e hope that the path
he has taken will soon produce further interesting results.
In turn, certain aspects of Sanderson's viewpoint have been critically
analyzed by David Seyfort Ruegg. In his paper, "A Note on the Relations h p between Buddhist and 'Nndu7 Divinities in B u d h s t Literature and
Iconology: T h e Laukika/Lokottara Contrast and the Notion of an Indian
'Religious Substratum"', published in 2001, he speaks of a bowuwing model
(BM) and a submaturn model (SM), maintaining that Sanderson embraces
the former and rejects the latter.' H e observes that:
. . . the notion of a common 'religious substratum' does not automatically
exclude all possibility of borrowing between Hinduism/Brahmanism and
Buddhism in cases where this assumption is clearly appropriate. Quite to the
contrary, it can be argued that cultural borrowing would regularly take place
precisely against a background of shared categories and concepts.'
With regard to thls matter, I have developed a line of reasoning that I
expounded in a previous version of this paper presented at the 12th Conference of the International Association of Buddhst Studies in Lausanne in
August 1999. My point of departure was a question not directly examined
by Sanderson (but likely implicit in his discourse), that is, a reflection on
what made it possible for the redactors of Buddhist Tantras to include
passages fi-om advaita Saivite texts, such as the Bhairavatanuas, in their
works. This question was reflected on independently by David Seyfort
Ruegg in the above-mentioned paper, and I would refer readers to h s work
for a more detailed discussion. Seyfort Ruegg convincingly points out that
(id., p. 95). Cf. also A. Sanderson, "~aivismand the Tantric Traditions", 1988, pp. 67879; id., "Purity and Power among the Brahmans of Kashmir", 1990, p. 2 14 note 106.
A. Sanderson, "History through Textual Criticism in the Study of ~ a i v i s m the
,
Paiicariitra and the Buddhist Yoginitantras", 200 1, pp. 1-47.
D. Seyfort Ruegg, "A Note on the Relationship between Buddhist and 'Hindu'
Divinities in Buddhist Literanire and Iconology: The LnzrkikdLokottllra Contrast and
the Notion of an Lndian 'Religious Substratum"', 2001, p. 737.
p. 738.
"d.,
'
60
Francesco Sfma
a rejection of the SM would imply the existence of different self-contained
religous systems without clarifying "the conditions under wluch the hypothesized dependence of Buddhism on ~aivismarose and developed".9
Seyfort Ruegg must be given the credit for having outlined, with great
clarity, a hermeneutic model for the study of the laukika/lokottara contrast
and the notion of an Indian religous substratum, and for having stressed
the risks connected with one of the other possible approaches. However, it
seems to me that he is probably mistaken when, concerning h s difference
of opinion with Sanderson, he identifies the viewpoint of the latter with a
rigid BM. Although there is no clear evidence that Sanderson does not
actually deny the concept of substratum that Seyfort Ruegg sustains-the
conciseness of Sanderson's words may have contributed to their being
misinterpreted-there
is reason to suppose that Sanderson wanted to
discourage an acritical approach to the SM (perhaps in the sense of its
identification with the folk religion of India) and intended to stress the
need to examine the concrete examples we have at our disposal and to
determine their possible relationshps, rather than actually rejecting the
idea of a substratum in the sense in which it is spoken of in Seyfort Ruegg
works and in the following pages.
2. T h e present article, originally delivered as a speech, deliberately
retains that characteristic whle offering some general considerations on
the relationshp between Buddhst and Hindu Tantric systems, and some
reflections on the ways in whch Tantric scriptures were "edited".
I would like to start by saylng that there is a need, as Seyfort Ruegg
~nentionsat the end of h s article,1° to integrate the SM and the BM in a
single hermeneutic model; in fact a rigid BM can be criticized essentially
for not acknowledgng that a "substratum" (in the sense of a shared body of
soteriologcal beliefs) always exists even when there is undeniable evidence
of borrowings. In order to explain the transposition and adaptation of parts
of a text, not so much widun the same tradition-which is most frequentbut rather among different traditions, we must make a supposition: the
authors of these adaptations were aware that they were using works that
not only belonged to the same cultural milieu, but whch, more specifically,
shared what could be defined as a common way of interpreting reality and
of relating to it, whch is expressed in a "common soteriological strategy7'.
T h s common "substratum of beliefs and soteric practices" is the presupposition that allowed Buddhist authors to include passages or verses h-om
non-dualist m n d u Tantras in their scriptures, and that permitted Hindu
redactors to act in a similar way. Seen from such a perspective, this
"substratum", unlike the supposed substratum of the folk religion, is
neither radically inaccessible nor hidden.
O n the other hand, it is important to bear in mind that a set of
soteriological beliefs does not exist in itself, but only insofar as it is
expressed through concrete forms that usually include rituals, various
meditative techniques, ethical behaviour, oral teachings, scriptures,
institutions, artistic, literary (and sometimes even archtectonic) representations, etc. Therefore, in order to arrive at a more global and accurate
evaluation of Tantrism, i s origin and development, it is also necessary to
analyze not only written sources, but also archaeological, historical and
artistic evidence. Important contributions in thls direction have already
been published by G. Buhnemann, who has studied the incorporation of
Buddhist siidbanas, deities and mantras in late Hindu texts."
W e can therefore hypothesize, as an essential pre-requisite, the existence
of a common Weltanschauung, which has necessarily resulted in the
development of a massive literary output and conceptual re-elaboration, as
can be seen in other areas of Indian (and not only Indian) culture. This
literary output, of course, has involved the composition of new scriptural
sources but also the reworking and adaptation of existing materials, whch,
as in other not necessarily Tantric contexts, can be classified in various
categories. These are wide-rangng and include the simple reformulation of
an idea, the tacit inclusion of passages, the quotation or modified quotation
of existing materials.
3. Several examples are gven in two articles published in Dbib. Journal of
Rare Buddhist Texts Research Project in 1986 and 1987 by Vrajavallabha
"
'O
Id., p. 740.
Id., p. 741.
"The Goddess Mahiicinakrama-Tiirii (Ugra-Tiirii) in Buddhist and Hindu Tanmsrn",
1996, pp. 472-93; id., "Buddhist deities and mantras in the Hindu Tantras: I T h e
Tamiasirasamg-ahn and the ~inaii~n~~rzldeunpaddhati",
1999, pp. 303 -34; id., "Buddhist
deities and rnantras in the Hindu Tantras: 11The ~ r i v i d ~ i i ~ a v a t a nand
t r a the T a n m sHraV,2000, pp. 2 7-48.
62
Francesco Sfeerva
Dvivedi, who listed various quotations similar in form or content from
Buddhist, ~ a i v i t eand Siikta Tantric texts. Rather than commenting on
these quotations, he confined hmself simply to recording them. In some
cases, the quotations actually correspond: words literally match, except for
a few unimportant variants. In other cases, we meet with notable formal
differences, while the content is basically identical. Only rarely is a
reference to the original source made in the texts; in the main, the
quotations are introduced by words such as tad z~ktamor tad d u b . Sometimes we find reference to an unspecified tradition, made with such
expressions as tathi igamab. Dvivedi classified the quotations in twentyeight groups. Other groups can be added to these, each of whch can, of
course, be extended further.
A number of these classifications, formulations and common conceptions derive from ancient Indian culture and emerge in Tantric traditions
of every kind. I refer in particular to mystic physiology (ndril, cakr-a, etc.),
the micro-macrocosm relationship, the importance of mantras, yoga and
ritual, the technical terminology used in these contexts (it is sufficient to
consider the migamantvas, the Vedic jitis, such as vau!at, phat, etc., the
oblation on fire [honza], etc.), and also linguistic speculations (i.e., the
importance of the phoneme a, the association of semivowels with specific
elements, etc.). If we exclude these, though, then we realize that there are
various groups of quotations and formulations that express a common soteriology that we could qualify as "non-dualist (advaya, advaita) Tantric".
I will not examine here the familiar characteristics of Tantrism in
general and of Buddhist or Hindu Tantric systems in particular, but I
would like to explore, if in a non-systematic way, some of those elements
that best illustrate the aforementioned common "substratum of beliefs and
soteric practices", by partially using some of the quotations listed by
Dvivedi and by narrowing the field to non-dualist Tantric literature. In
doing thls, we will see how Buddhist and Kindu Tantric traditions only
appear to be distant from each other at the theoretical level when the
common practices and "substratum" are imbued with a doctrinal content.
4. In many cases there is no evidence of actual borrowing from other
texts or sources, but merely of the reformulation of ideas. Let us consider,
for instance, what is certainly one of the most essential and well-known
elements of Tantrism (dualist and non-dualist): the belief that the practice
of and access to esoteric teachmgs require, not only initiation-or a series
of initiations (abbiseka, diks4, but also a direct relationshp with a qualified
master. Knowledge is not transmitted through the written word, but
instead through direct contact with its living embodiment. Ultimately, all
traditions identify the master with the deity, or with one of his manifestations. T h e master is Siva hmself or, as we read in a verse quoted by
Ravigrijfi~na(l l th- 12th cent.), "he is the Buddha, the Dharma and the
Sangha".'* T h e Gurupaiiciiiki, one of the fundamental Indo-Tibetan
Buddhist texts on devotion to the master, states that to offend the master is
to offend all Buddhas (st. 10). We can also consider what is perhaps the
most typical characteristic of this set of beliefs, that is, conceiving of
liberation as a transformation into the deity (or the Buddha) or one of h s
manifestations, and conceiving of t h e emancipated living being
eanmukta) as that same deity. Every manifestation of his existence is a
manifestation of the deity, as we read, for instance, in the Sivaszitras
(iani~av.mirwatam I kathgjapab; 3.2 6-2 7) and in the Hevajratantm bivanto
by arigavikrepa vacasab prasar-ini ca I tivan to mantramudnib yub h-hemkapade
sthite I 1 ; 1.7.26).13A similar concept appears in the ParatrimiikZ and in the
Spandakir-iki. In this regard we can explain this belief in modem terms as a
kind of "twofold process": the de-identification from the mundane
personality @rdkkrtihavk8r-a)and the identification or 'union7 (yoga) with
the deity. This twofold process has been described as the 'recognition'
@ratyabh@ia)of one's "divine" or, in Buddhist terms, "adamantine" nature.
Our Self is the deity. T h e Adamantine Being, as stated in the CakrasaFvaratantra, "resides continuously in the supreme and delightful secret
that is the essence of everything".14 In the P~ajn"opiyaviniicayasiddhi
by
An~gavajra,we read: sa ma bhagavin vajn- tarnad dmniva devata (5.33cd,
ed. p. 84). Similar words can be found in ~ a i v i t etexts: mlinnaiva devati
proktg laliti viivavigrahd (quoted in the Mabdrthamalijar$arimala by
Mahehar2nanda, ed. p. 123).
'*
"
l4
gurur h d h o gumr dbamo gumb sanghas tathaiva m (Gzeabbara?ri, ed. p. 76). This verse
is also quoted in the Abbisamayamaijari by subhakaragupta (ed. p. 154) and in the
Ma7mtlkalikripaiijika by ViryaSrimih-a (ad TattvaflZ?zasa~z.siddhi4.6, ed. p. 5 3). It is very
similar to Lndrabhuti's j5iZnasiddhi 1.24ab (gzlnlr h ~ ! d b obbaved dhnrmnb smigbas' cripi sa
eva hl].
See also V. Dvivedi, "Bauddha-Saiva-Sh tantrom mem tulaniitmaka s-gri
(2)"' 1987, p. 96.
rnhmye pn~anzeyamye sa?vitnmnisadi sthitab (1.2cd).
64
Francesco Sfewa
The above examples show that in many cases we are not able to detect
the origin of a certain conception, either because it is a fundamental
expression of this "substratum" or because, even if we can envisage its
original source, there is no concrete evidence of intermediate passages and
we will have to content ourselves with a hypothesis. For instance, in h s
recent new edition of the translation of Abhinavagupta's Tantrdoka,
Raniero Gnoli points out that some elements of the Tanmc Saiva doctrine
seem more consonant with a Buddhist vision. H e considers the number
thirty-six, corresponding to the thirty-six principles in whch reality is
subdivided in the Buddhlst tradition. H e suspects that ~aivitesmight have
accepted its logic and been tempted to reformulate it in their doctrinal
context, even though, in this case, their discourse would become extremely
c ~ m ~ l i c a t e dT. 'o~ the twenty-five principles of Samkhya, others must be
added that sometimes may appear amficial. It is also worth noting that in
the Buddhist Tantric texts there is a precise correspondence between
deities, feelings, bodily functions, etc., which does not pervade to the same
extent in the Saiva scriptures, although it does appear in the Krama school,
which may have been influenced by Buddhst ideas. Of course, these are
simply hypotheses that must be corroborated by other examples and
considerations, but I quote them here because they seem an interesting
point of departure for further research.
5. Where different passages are concerned, sometimes the origin is
perfectly clear, but it is nevertheless interesting to study the modifications
made by the author. For example, Advayavajra (alias Maitripiida) respectfully quotes numerous stanzas from Hindu works, and it is worth mentioning that some verses, which in one instance he claims belong to the
Vedgntaviidins, actually come, with some variants, from one of the most
celebrated and important ~ a i v aTantras, the Vijiiinabbairava. Here we find
the following stanza (bold face has been used to indicate where and how he
modified the original):
anigatzyim n i d r i y i p pranage bzbyagocare I
savasthii m a m a gamyrZ par% deviprakaate I I
(VijZznabhairava 75, ed. p. 65)
If [the yogin] succeeds in reaching with his mind that state where sleep has not
yet descended but external objects have nevertheless disappeared, then the
Supreme Goddess shines.I6
tad uktanz anLigntLiyLim rridniyip pranage brihyagocnre I
yri bhaven manaso 'vastbii bhavayet trZv payatnat& I I
(Tamm-a~uivali,ed. p. 16, lines 15-6)
It has been said:
[The yogin] should carehlly meditate on that mental state that is manifested
when sleep has n o t yet descended but external objects have nevertheless
disappeared.
This reveals how in the Buddhst context the reference to the unfolding
of the supreme reality in its active, female principle has been concealed by a
more neutral reference to the commianent of the yogin.17
6. Where a concept or practice has been taken fiom one context and
adapted to another, there are also cases in whch, although &S has been
done very carefully, it is possible to determine the source. Max Nihom, for
instance, demonstrates that text number 256 of the SZdbanamiIa "reflects a
conscious and successful effort on the part of the unknown author to
amalgamate features of both the DharmadhiituviigiSvaramandala system
and Piigupatasiitra terrnin~logy".'~
Sanderson, in h s turn, shows how the
process of the evocation of Sarpvara, the reabsorption of the mwdala into
the syllable hzip and the Great Bliss that is reached at the end of
meditation, re-express in Budcllust terms the structure of a ritual that we
find in Saiva Tantras, such as the Svacchandatan~a.'~
7. Apart from possible considerations on the origin of Tantric tradtions
and on the precedence that one tradition takes over another, we can
suppose that the redactors of the Tantras had at their disposal a whole collection of rituals and, sometimes, even docmnes, classifications, etc. These
Id
"
''
lS
R. Gnoli, Abhilzavappta. Luce delle same scrimre, 1999, p. LXVI.
l9
This stanza is also quoted in the Spaadmi~nayaby Ksemaraja ad 3.1-2 (ed. p. 56). For
Further references see V. Dvivedi, "Bauddha-9aiva-5~ktatantrom mem tulan~trnaka
siimagri (2)", 1987, p. 91.
The other quotations from the fijfiinabbairava are: st. 69 in Sekani~aya(p. 29, lines 78) and st. 116 in Tattuaramivali(p. 18, lines 20-2 1).
"Siidhanam~la256 - A PiiSupata-Bauddha Tantristic S~dhana",1994, p. 227. ,
"Vajraysna: Origin and Function", 1994, pp. 96-97.
66
F~ancescoSfewa
were "ready-made" materials, so to speak, that they could incorporate
without great difficulty by making a few changes within their own system,
in perfectly "good faith" and in harmony with the exegetical and didactic
Indian tradition, for whch the concept of plagarism does not exist (I
hnk
this is the reason that the phenomenon has sometimes been defined as
"pious plagarism"). They perceived that the underlylng beliefs were the
same, even when the doctrines that justified them were far removed h-om
their own, and therefore open to criticism.
I would like to explore this last point further by briefly examining the
function of theoretic thought in the process of re-elaboration. Theoretical
thought is normally used to express the set of beliefs we are discussing here,
and at times it is also used for justifying those beliefs. T h e doctrine supplies
the underlylng structure to which every external contribution or new
manifestation w i h n the tradition adapts; it would appear that the doctrine
has the function of absorbing the new expressions of the said beliefs (on the
various levels at whch they manifest: rite, conduct, etc.) and of reconciling
them with the previous tradition. One or two examples will suffice.
8. First, I would like to consider an essential concept of this non-dualist
set of soteriologcal beliefs. Although not born with Tantrism, h s concept
was accorded particular emphasis, both in its application on an etlcal plane
and in the conception of the ultimate reality: the idea that at any moment
and in any reality it is possible to immerse oneself in the Absolute.
Buddhist and Hindu texts describe transgressive practices and permit
contact with the "impure" worlds of sexuality and, sometimes, of death, and
the use of inebriating and repellent substances-all because "pure" and
impure" are creations of the mind. Several Hindu and Buddhist texts
stress that the pain of samsira and the beatitude of nirvi?za are created by
the same mind;*' therefore, a1though ritual practices are usually not
abandoned in Tantric traditions, pureness is not primarily attained through
such practices. O n the contrary, with a pure mind, it is ~reciselythrough
"ritualized" contact with the impure that practitioners may accomplish the
alchemical transmutation resulting in the acquisition of powers and, for
those who desire it, liberation. Naturally, h s transmutation does not occur
through the mere performance of the ritual but requires an elixir (comparisons with alchemy are often found in both Buddhst and Hindu texts), that
is, awareness or knowledge that allows us to establish direct contact with
our most profound nature (mamabhiva). This contact marks the transition
to a more profound and inexpressible land of knowledge. When it comes
to defining one's own nature and the noetic, liberating experience,
traditions are known to differ. O n the one hand, they may speak of the
"deflagration" of the self and, on the other, of its "expansion". T h s nature
is not inaccessible; it lies behind adventitious maculations; it is the divine
light behind darkness, the ever-shming mind beyond suffering.
Although the concepts relating to the true nature of the self are very
different, the underlying belief is the same. That is to say, there is light
hdden even in the dark aspects of reality. On a phenomenological level,
h s belief can express itself by referring to the possibility of experiencing
that which is negative in a positive way. A passage from the S i v a d ~by
~i
Somiiinanda (9th-10th cent.) is very clear in b s regard:
If someone were to object that suffering, etc., is different horn Siva, we would
reply that "Sivahood" is also present in suffering, because Siva also manifests in
suffering and we ourselves can feel content while experiencing it.*'
Hence we have seen that a characteristic element of the non-dualist
C6
'O
Several different sources are quoted in the Spa?za!ap~ndipikaby Bhagavatotpala, ed. p. 88.
It is worth noting that the author of this text, Bhagavatotpala, is sometinles referred tobut only in secondary literature-as Utpalavaisnava and Utpaliicarya. However,
Sanderson has pointed out that the name Bhagavatotpala, which appears in the
colophon of his work, is confirmed by the existence of several similar names, for
of Vallabhadeva, where we find the names of the following
instance, in the Szibhz~itava/li
poets: Bh~gavatiimtadatta(nos. 608, 609), Bhsgavaarcitadeva (nos. 142, 143, 3Sol),
Bhiigavatajayavardhana (nos. 42 5, 678, 76 1, 766, etc.), Bhiigavataaivikrama (nos. 866,
1029), Bhagavatavinka (no. 164), Bh~gavatavinitadeva(no. 1242), BhiigavataSarikha (nos.
1876, 35 14) and BhiigavataStira (nos. 927, 2276). See A. Sanderson, "Xstory through
Textual Criticism in the Study of ~aivism,the Paficariitra and the Buddhist Yoginitantras", 2001, p. 35 note 38.
duhkhgding viSe:c.as' cet tatriipy afivatn na ca I dubkhe 'pi pravikiisena duhkhirthe
&rtisn~zgamit I I (st. 5.9); see also 7.88cd-89. In another passage of the same work we
read: mkhe duhkhe vimohe ca sthito 'ham pal-amnb Sivab "In pleasure, in suffering and
, [always] present" (7.lOSab). Both stanzas
confusion, in all three, I, the Supreme ~ i v aam
are quoted in the Pal-Ztrr'mSikritattuaviva~aby Abhinavagupta (ed. pp. 200, 203; see
also p. 33 note 92).
68
Francesco Sfen-a
Tantric set of soteriological beliefs is the conviction that access to the
absolute reality is essentially through knowledge. In a stanza quoted by
Maitrip~dawe read:
ONTHE RELATIONSHPBEWEN
22
"
jfiinim.,tora hptarya k a k r t y q a yoginab I naivrini kiGcit kartazyam a.sti cet na sa t a m i t I I
(quoted from the Yogridhy* in the Sekani~~zaya,
ed. p. 29, lmes 2-3).
ymiva vcakhgzdena m~-iymtesa~vajantavabI tenaiva v&tattv@fio vce?za sphotayed v ~ a mI I
(Iievnj7-atannu 2.2 -46); v~ipahi~-ivmnrrridisa~znaddho
bhakrayann api I v*
na mzrhyate
69
these two concepts would also be acceptable to a Buddhst. Sornsnanda
T h e pot knows through me; I know through the pot. I know through Sadaiiva
and he knows through me. Yajiiadatta knows through Siva and Siva through
Yajiiadatta. T h e pot knows through Sadsiiva and Sadsgiva through the pot.
Everything consists of everything else, because the nature of each thing is the
nature of all the other things. . . . Thus, it has been said that everything, whlch
consists of Siva, is in everything else.14
When the yogn who, satisfied by the ambrosia of knowledge, has done what he
had to do, nothing else must be done; if something should still be done, he
would not be a true knower (or, 'a knower of truth') (tanumit).22
A well-known passage of the MdZiniv~ayottaratantnz(1.2 3 cd-24ab), one
of the most celebrated Saivite tantras, explicitly states that maculation, that
is, what prevents us from obtaining liberation and constitutes the bond to
transmigration (sal(tsdra) is nothing but nescience, or ignorance (ajlirina),
which has exactly the same negative function as the av2jlj.a or avidyd
described in Buddhist and also non-Buddhist texts. T h e same concept
occurs in the Sivasiitra.
According to all non-dualist traditions, overcoming ignorance or applying true knowledge involves at least two factors: first, a knowledge of the
"toxicity" of ignorance (and of its products, starting with attachment and
aversion); and second, a knowledge of the true nature of thlngs. Traditions
hlly agree on the first point, a concept that is expressed with the metaphor
of the poison-knower in numerous texts, including the Hevajratan~a,the
Cittaviiuddhiprakampa by b a d e v a and the Mklinivijayottaraatantra. Only
the poison-knower is able to eliminate the toxic element without damaging
himself or others.23However, while in Buddhist terms knowing the true
nature of things means knowing emptiness (SZlnyat4, in ~aiviteterms it
means knowing that "everything consists of everything else (sarwam
samritmakam)" or "consists of Siva (s'iv8tmakam)", a formula that often
recurs in the Sivadmi and in the texts of the Pratyabhjiis. Doctrines differ
on this point, because the Saiva texts do not question the substantiality of
things. But what does "substantiality" really mean in this context? We
cannot but note how in the Saiva texts the interrelation of entities is emphasized and the idea of an autonomous and self-contained I-mine (ahap
mama) is no longer justifiable. Although a theistic language is adopted,
HWDUAND BUDDHISTTANTRAS
It is no mere coincidence that a stanza probably of Jaina origin, according to whch he who sees the nature of even one being in its essence sees all
beings in their essence, recurs in Buddhist, Saiva and Vai~gavaworks2' (eko
~ I eko
s bhdvah
bhdvas tattwato yena dystah same bhgviris tattvatas tena d
sarvabhirivamabhavahsame bhava ekabhkvasuabhiriv$ I I ).26
Notwithstanding the agreement on such significant points, we must not
24
26
tena tadvad yogi mahnmntib I I (Milinivijayottal-atantra 18.8 1). See also Cittavihlddhiprakarapz, stt. 17-18 and 45-46.
maditman& ghap vetti vedmy aham v i ghatitman2 I I sadaaCivimanavedmi sa v2 vetti
I Sivitmani yajiiadatto yajfindattitmani fivab I I sadrTSivimnii vetti ghahntah
sa
madamadatmarui
ca ghatitman2 I same sarvitmakd bhivih sa?vasamama?-ipatab I [. ..] tena sarvagatanz
sarvaTz iivanipanz ninipitawz I I (giuadgi 5.105cd- 107, 1l Ocd).
This stanza is quoted in the Anr.~aka?zikoddyotanibmrdhaby Vibhuticandra (12th-13th
cent.), ed. p. 212, without mentioning the source, in the Ca~igitikoiavyikhyiby
Munidatta (ed. Bagchi, p. 158), where it is stated that it is iigama[vacana], in the
Sekoddeatippapiby Sedhupum ~ridhariinanda(l l th. cent.) (ad st. 106b, prihs ab, ed. p.
137) and also in Hindu works, such as the Pal-amirthast~mtikiby Yogargja (ad st. 26, ed.
p. 59) and the Spandap-adijiki (ad st. 39, ed. p. 12 l), where pridas ab and cd are inverted,
and the commentary by L a k s m i r ~ ~ona the P a n i ~ p S i k @Z&s
i
d,ed. p. 13, line 8).
The second part of this stanza (padas cd) is quoted in M~linivijayavrirttikaayavika 1.641 (ed. p.
59) by Abhmavagupta, who specifies that the concept expressed therein belongs to the
Venerables (ayhat), i.e. the Jainas, and is also present in the S~%ira(T?-ikasi?-a),a lost
work Yogar3ja states that this stanza is by ~ambhubhamraka.The same stanza is quoted
in the Tattvopaplavasi~haby Jayar%ibhat~a,ed. p. 79, and in the Tmkar-ahagad$iki by
G ~ a r a t n a(ad Sa&arsiznasamzucaya, Jainamatam, st. 55; ed. pp. 222 -23). For further
references see V. Dvivedi, "Bauddha-Saiva-S~ktatanuom mem tulan~tmakasknagri",
1986, p. 101.
The same stanza is also paraphrased in the Catubfataka by Aryadeva (3rd cent.) (8.16, ed.
p. 82f; cf. p. 83 note 16, where there are other references). See also Mndhjarrcakak&iki-
70
Francesco Sfva
be surprised if the idea of emptiness is criticised in f i n d u texts, and the
idea of ihara in Buddhlst texts. W e cannot go into detail here, instead we
simply note that the confrontation between traditions, or between different
systems within a tradition," pivots on the main doctrinal issues and on
what could be defined as "clichb"; for the most part, opponents resort to
standard criticism.
We h o w , for instance, that Puqdarika (l lth cent.) knew the Kula and
the Siddhbta, which he mentions in the fifth chapter of the Vimalaprabb8
(ad Lnghuk~Zacakliltantlil5.49cd),but we have to admit that when in the
second chapter he criticizes the Saiva positions, his analysis is quite generic
and could apply to both ~aivitetradition^.^^ The criticism is not directed at
specific elements of the opposing systems (whose tenets are in some cases
close to hls own), but at the more general and well-known doctrines; in the
case of Saivism he attempts, as does the entire Buddhist tradition, to deny
the logcal admissibility of a Lord (ihara), considered as an independent
creator (cf. Lagbukdacakratan~a2.1 68- 169).
In the Vzjganabhairava there is a stanza in which the absolute state, the
plane of ~ i v ais
, defined by the term izinya (st. 127). Sivop3dhyaya, a later
commentator (18th cent.), tries to show to what degree we can speak of
emptiness with reference to ~ i v a H
. e explains the difference between
emptiness according to the Buddhists (sugatasuta) and emptiness for those
who worship the Goddess (devinayopasin). In thls regard he quotes a famous
stanza from the AZokamd~by the Buddhist Kambala, which we find in
several Saiva and Vaisnava works.29This stanza states that emptiness must
not be conhsed with nihilism." Hence, there is agreement on &S point.
Immediately afterwards, Sivopiidhy~yaquotes five stanzas from the
Vimarfad$ika (pp. 110-11) in which it is declared that, according to the
Saivites, emptiness must be identified with the freedom of the Lord,
whereas emptiness for the Buddhists is only non-perception (agraba?za)."
9. Sometimes, there can be agreement also with respect to doctrines.
Authors and texts of other Tanmc and non-Tannic traditions are quoted
or incorporated in works when there is convergence on specific points. In
the VimaZaprabbz, for instance, Pundarika quotes three padas of a stanza of
. ~ 'the fifth chapter
the Krilottardgama to explain the ariga, or d e a t h - ~ i ~ nIn
'O
"
"
v?-tti ad 4.9, where stanzas from other sources are quoted (Samidhi~ijasutra,
Avagagaagk?jasadhi~tra) which repeat, with different words and slight differences,
the same concept. Cf. S. McClintock, "Knowing All through Knowing One: Mystical
Communion or Logcal Trick in the Tattvasamgrahapaiijiki7',2000. In another quotation that Bhagavatotpala attributes to the PaiicarBtra, we read: ya&tmni sarvabhzitini
pa$aty atmn-nap ca tep p@ak ca tebhyas taa% mrtyor mzlcyatejanmanaf ca (SpandupradIpikd
ad st. 2 l , ed. p. 106). See also Bhagavadgii 6.29f (v. 30f Kashrnirian version).
Cf. J.R. Newman, "Buddhist Siddhiinta in the Kiilacakra Tantra", 1992, pp. 227-34.
Cf. G. Gronbold, "Heterodoxe Lehren und Ihre Widerlegung im Kiilacakra-Tanwa",
1992, pp. 273-97.
The stanza by Kambala is quoted, for instance, in the SpandupradIpiki (ad st. 1.5, ed. p.
97), in the Spandanir?zaya (ad st. 1.12- 13, ed. p. 28) and in the Viji-i&abhairnvavi~i(ad
st. 127, ed. p. 110).
32
sivasthg kim avqiiqi mamadrSaih
irinyatocyate I ?m punar lokanidhyaiva n ~ ~ i ~ i r t h i ? n r p i t i ? z
I I (Ahkmnd-, s t 142, ed. p. 168). This stanza is quoted in the DohikoSnvyikhya (ed. p. 100)
and is paraphrased by Vajrapani in his L@uta?ztmtiki: manipato dvindriyajam kramsukham kotiraha.watamim api kalim n21-ghati param-ka7-m~khasyetiI ihik~arm~khiivastha
kipy avijlieyi bilayoginim I bodhisativaih hinyatisamidhir iiy
y i sahaj~na~zdunipi~zisivasthi
ncyate I na punar lokarudhyi ndstikyi?~hihupitiniti(ed. p. 143): "hreality, the moved
pleasure, born from the two organs, does not equal even an infinitesimal part of the
supreme unchanging pleasure (jaramribraranrkha). Here, inexperienced yogins do not
know this condition of unchanging pleasure, the nature of which is innate pleasure,
whatever this may be. The Bodhisattvas call it 'the concentration of voidness7;[voidness]
that one must not understand in a nihlistic sense according to the worldly conventional
meaning". T h e same passage by Vajrapiini has been quoted in the Sadnlignyoga by
Anuparnaraksita (ed. p. 135) and in the Sekoddeiatiki by Naropa (ed. p. 42).
See also the Tantriloknviveka by Jayaratha ad 1.33 (ed. vol. 1, pp. 66-67) and the
PI-atyabh$i-idh&ya by Ksemaraja ad slctra 8 (ed. p. 66).
The three pidus quoted by Pwdarika are: yathi vim- tathgvmti madhyami ca tatbaiva ca
I trivar~intemakhidi [...] (Vimalaprabhi ad 2.64, ed. vol. 1, p. 196). The first two padas
occur with a slight variation in st. 18.5 of the printed edition of the Sii?-dhatl-iiatikiIotta?-igama-the only published recension of the Kdonarigam-whch reads: yathi
cidyi tathi vimd madbyam- ca tathniva ca I kilacakram samakhydtam p'11t-r-asneh2dvi!e;atab
I I (ed. p. 129). But, as Alexis Sanderson has kindly informed me, "they are almost
identical to those in the text of the Sirdhatri'sati recension as it is transmitted in the
Nepalese manuscript wadition (cf. NGMPP, Mf. B1 18/7 fol. 1lr2-3). The same is seen
in the DviSatika recension (ibid. fol. 7r3-4: yathi V ~ V tathivanta
Z ~
nzadhyama ca tathg
bhavet) and, with other corruptions, in the Saptahtika recension (ibid. fol. 19c8-9:yathi
ylimi tathz cimd madbyam2 ca tathi bhavet). They do not occur in the Trayodainatika
recension."
72
Francesco Sfeerra
of the Vimalaprabha the name of Kubjika recurs (vol. 3, p. 147), while
stanza 3.104 of the ~ a i v aKuLjik&vzatatanwaappears in a slightly different
form in the Sekoddeia (st. 134) and in Vajragarbha's commentary on the
Hevajratantra, in a long quotation from the PaficaZak:ahevajra (section 9, st.
34).33Bhiigavatotpala, the author of the Spandaprad$ikri, quotes numerous
This stanza appears in the K u l s l i k h ~ y arecension of the Hid&ikiimatntant7n, critically
edited by T. Goudriaan and J.A. Schoterman, p. 175: rasaviddham yathi t i m m m na
bhziyas timmtivz vrajet l 4n'ividdhas tathzpy evam na sar?tsaram anzdkramet I 1 (3.1 04). In
the Hevajratmn~api?z&r~hatFktiwe read: rasaviddham yathi tarnram na punas tiimratim
wajet I ji~ilaviddhastathi kdyo na punab pah~timvrajet I I (Kathmandu, Kaiser Library,
MS 128, NGMPP, Mf. C14/66, fol. 5Or; my forthcoming edition, p. 96). In the printed
edition of the Sanskrit text of the Sekoddeia (st. 134) it appears as: rasaviddho yathti loho na
punar lobattip vrajet I mkhaviddham tathti cittam na prrnar dz$khat&n w 4 e t l I, which is,
in fact, a retranslation by Raniero Gnoli from the Tibetan on the basis of the parallel
stanza in the Hmajratan@api?zhrtha.t2i.
Several verses on the transmutation of copper into gold can be traced in Saiva tantric
literature. I would like to thank Alexis Sanderson for providing the references quoted
below with some personal comments: "1) (Nihaiakirikiyip) Dibsottara 5.90-92ab: 90
idam tat pal-amam biinam] + + + + + + + + i aitaviddhavt ynth2 timm? + + + + + + + + >
I 1 91 nrvayzena sabaikatvam gacchate n&-asa~ziayabI jidnaviddhas tatha h i pa.hdr yzti
param padmn I 1 92 fivena ca sahaikatvam gacchate [nitra sa~day&] I I (MSS: IFI T. 17,
pp. 855-856 [A]; IF1 T. 150, p. 60 (B]). Variant readings: 90c nrva-m A, mudbuva~ena
B; 91aFzinaviddhas conj.:j2inasiddhas A,Finafaktis B. I have conjectured that a further
two ptidas are lacking in the common source of MSS A and B because I see no other way
to accommodate the evidently missing part of the comparison. Most of the substance of
the omitted text is obvious from the context and the paraphrase of the whole passage
that has been given in Tantriloka 5.15 1 (with attribution in 5.148b): mayambhisitmantinena tzditmyam yity ananyadh* I I fivena hematrim yadvat t2mram rzitena
vedhitam I I. 90c is a conjectural reconstlucaon. 2) Matasira, NAK 3-3 79 (NGMPP,Mf.
B28/16), fol. 3 8r4-5: raaqn s p . m i yithd tZmram na bhziyo tinrrat@zw e t I I iiryo likab
pam (38r5) tattve na bhziyah paiuttim vrajet I I vimuktab sarvapripebhyab
sarvadvandvaviva~jitab I I dharmidbarmak:ayiitr mantri diksito bhavate fivab I 1. 3)
Tanh-asadbhka, NAK 5-1 985 (NGMPP, Mf. A1 88/22), fol. 33v6 (9.145cd-146ab): yatha
~m7n<v>
rasaspn?n ndvanzatwm zrpigatam I I
y u w pare tatme na bhGyab parirtivz
vrajet l . 4 ) Tantrasadbhiva, cod. cit. fol. 128r4 (26.5): tzmravad dhentam ripannam
puna~-bhivona yiti hi I I si2hakicirya deuefnpurrakk samayajn'nkib I 1 . 5) Tantrz'loka 14.1012a b: 14.10 ye y a z w k e iisanamdrge k?tadiKrih samgncchanto mohavafid vipratipattim I
nzinam tesim nisti bhavadbhinzdniyogab sa~zkocahk i ~ zgiTyaka?-ais t&wa~asn?zriml 1 14.1 1
jn'Ztaj7;ieyri dhri~adnsthiapi santo ye tvanmamargZt
kiipathagis te 'pr na samyak I p~liyasteriim
33
ONTHE RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN HINDU
AND BUDDHISTTANI'RAS
passages f?om Vaisnava, Saiva and Buddhst works. Many more examples
could, of course, be @ven.14
W e could also mention cases of doctrinal contributions in the ambit of
Hindu systems belongng to different traditions; for instance, the doctrine
of the six "paths" (adbvan), which was probably first formulated in ~ a i v a
circles and was later adopted and modified by Piificariitrins, as we can see in
the Satvatasavhita (chap. 19). Then there is the attribution of the term
dblira~d(lit. "support") to the semivowels (ya, ra, la, va)-related to the
"cuirasses" (kafkzdka), which, as far as we know, appears for the first time in
a ~ a i v awork, the Pardtrimiikd (st. 7), and whch is to be found in later
Vaisnava texts, such as the AhirbudhnyasaphitZ (16.83-87) and the Laksmitantra (19.12-19ab).~'
In Buddhst terms, we could say that sometimes the differences between
the various traditions are more evident in the savvpi rather than the vivpi
(or paramriltha) perspective. Pundarika twice quotes a verse from the
Buddhst Yoginfsa~aratantmto confirm that all the philosophcal doctrines
are equivalent from the relative point of view (sapvpisatya) and that the
Buddhist doctrines are superior only with respect to emptiness, and thus
from the point of view of the absolute truth (vivytiratya). In the Vimalaprabba he writes:
T h e theories of all dartanas, examined From the point of view of the relative
m t h of the world, are the same for realizing mundane perfections. In other
'4
j5
laingikahrddhyddiramuttho mithyibodhah sa'pavasid~ajakalpab I 1 14.12 y a m i d viddha~z
nitakamzrkbym nu tzntram tad yad bhzgah N Z prak.rtim
~
no samupeydt I ."
More generally, it is evident that Buddhist doctrines constituted an important standard
of comparison for many exponents of Hindu Tanuism, at least in exegetical Tantric
Literature; one only has to think how heavily authors such as Utpaladeva (10th cent.) and
Abhinavagupta (10th-l lth cent.) depended on Buddhist logicians just to develop their
techmcal terminology. See R. Torella, "The Pratyabhijfie and the Logical-Epistemological School of Buddhism", 1992, pp. 327-45. Riimakqtha 11(second half of 10th cent.),
in his commentary on the MataGgapirameivar-atan~a,quotes and attributes authoriq to
numerous stanzas of the Prtcmri?zavrirttika by Dhannakirti (8th cent.).
Cf. R. Torella, "The Knlinrkas in the Saiva and Vaisgava Tantric Tradition: A Few
Considerations Between Theology and Grammar", 1998, pp. 55-86. More generally, on
the relationship between the Saiva texts and the Paficariitrika scriptures, see A.
Sanderson, "H~storythrough Textual Criticism in the Study of ~aivism,the Paficariiua
and the Buddhist Yoginitanuas", 2001, pp. 35-41.
74
Fmcesco Sferva
words: "The human mind becomes identical to the reality with which it is
united, just as a wishfulfilling jewel". T h e idea of a being and the ideas of
elements, senses, etc., are equal; the mundane [ideas] of an agent, instrument of
action, etc., are similar. [From this point of view] there is no difference between
the Buddhists and the heretics. T h e only difference concerns the reality of
emptiness, and this is the absence of a self, etc.36
10. I would like to conclude by briefly elaborating on the theme of deidentification that I touched on before. De-identification is crucial not only
because of its obvious importance in relation to overcoming suffering
(dubkha), which is the goal of all spiritual teachngs, but also because it
represents a viewpoint that can shed light on other aspects of the nondualist Tanmc set of beliefs; I am referring specifically to the integration of
llyper-ritualism and anti-ritualism, whch is contemplated by both Buddhst
and N n d u Tantric traditions.
One of the ways in which the ancient sapiential language speaks of deidentification (a modern term) is as "being in the present". Maitripiida
mentions thls and Abhinavagupta refers to it extensively. The concept is
also known in other Indian and Western religious traditions. In both the
P a r ~ t r i ~ z i i k d t a t t v a v i v a(ed.
~ a p. 198) and in the MiiZi~zivijayav&-ttika
(1.156), Abhnavagupta quotes the following stanza:
Once the yogn has arrested the wheel of the rays and drunk his unsurpassed
ambrosia, being free from the two times [i.e., the future and the past] and
happy, he reposes in the present.37
j6
iba lokasa?pvrtyli vicri?yamli?zab samadmianasi~hlintahsamli7zo iaukikasiddhaye; tadyatbi yaza yena hi bblivma munab samyqjate n-qlim I tma tanmuyatlimyzti vi.ha~%pomunir yatbi
I I [= YogjniiamcZratant~a 11.2; also quoted in VP ad 5.47, ed. vol. 3, p. 341 iti bbivasamkalpob samu-nab; tatha db2tvindnylidivicZro )i tulyah I yivabinikap ka~p-karanridkap
ca tnlyam I batuYbatirthikayor viiqro nisti; finyatlitattuam prati vi/e;ab, sa ca nairlitnyeyidi
I (ad 2.16 1, ed. vol. l , p. 2 56, lines 2 -8). Harunaga Isaacson has lundly pointed out to me
that the above-mentioned stanza of the Yoginmcli7-atann-o also occurs in other Buddhist
Tantras, such as the Dikinivajrpaijara (1.29) and the Savvarodaya (31.3 l), and that
similar stanzas appear in ~ a i v atexts; see, for instance, Ngr~yagakagtha'scommentary on
the Myrzdratantm (ki7jripd~3.41 -42) and the Nea-atana-a 1 3.16.
nimdbya rahnicakram m a p pimimmrtamanzmamm I kiZobbny~pa?lccbi~z7ze
vartnmmane
mkbi
bbavet I I. As Raniero Gnoli points out, Abhinavagupta states in the Parlim'm\likgtattuaviva?u?zathat it belongs to the Vidyatannn, whereas in the MiZi~zivijayavirttika,he
attributes it to the DZma?-atantm (ed. p. 24). Concerning the word "Vadyatantra",
More often, ancient texts simply speak of releasing conceptual
constructions (vikalpa) or, more precisely, of not identifylng oneself with
one's representations of the past and the future, and being in the present
moment; numerous passages of the Pdi canon also deal with &us concept.
The Bhnddekarattasuttain pamcular, while prescribing the right way to be
in the present, i.e., not identifylng with material form, feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness, suggests, contrary to other Buddhist
texts, that the real problem is not primady the vikalpas (conceptual constructions). Thls would seem to be in line with the importance attributed to
vikalpas, when correctly used, in the (ancient and modern) Buddhist
Theraviida tradition and in Buddhist Tantric systems; it is enough to
mention all the practices of visualization that are part of the generationprocess (utpattikrama) and are actually based on vikalpas. It is also evident
in the Hindu Tantric traditions, where, in the Mdinivijayottaratantra in
particular and in those texts based on it, a fundamental role is attributed to
tarka, correct reasoning. By using statements such as "I am not insentient",
"I am not bound by my actions", "I am not endowed with maculation", and
"I am not impelled [to act by others]" it is possible to uproot false
convictions (niicaya) based on the opposite kind of vikalpas (cf. Tantroccaya,
chap. 4). Therefore, we may declare that the real problem is, in fact, the
attachment to vikalpas, namely the identification with vikalpas (which
represent the raw material used to construct the idea of a self-contained Imine), and the tendency to create dichotomies (vikalpa primarily means
"option") between what is pure or impure, and thus pleasant or unpleasant,
etc., in lieu of surrendering oneself completely to the present moment.
Buddhst and Hindu non-dualist Tantric texts unanimously proclaim
that for the true yogin, it does not make sense to speak of what can or
Sanderson, again, has supplied me with some interesting information, taking it as
meaning 'V Tantra" in the sense of Viimatantra, i.e. a Tantra of the V%masrotas:"The
compound viditantmm occurs in this sense in Ksemar2ja7scommentary on Sivastotnivali
2.1 9: daksinicaro bhairavatan tram aviparitinz~&inam ca.. . vZmZciram viditan tram
vipanntabamam... T h s interpretadon is supported by the fact that the title DZmara given
to the source of t h ~ scitation in Milinivijnyottam 1.155 is that of one of a number of
works grouped as the 8 ~ i k h a t a n t r a sin the Srikanthiyasamhiti1s list of 64
Bhairavatantras. Nearly all those 64 are Tantras of the Daksinasrotas. The exception is
these 8 ~ikh;dtantras,which include a number of tides known to be of Tantras of the
Varnasrotas canon, namely ECyR[iikhi], Sammoha and Siraicbeda ."
76
Francesco S ' n a
cannot be eaten, drunk, and so
The present moment already contains
everythng. As Abhlnavagupta states in a verse of the Anuttarigiki, there is
nothing to abandon, nothing to obtain. It is interesting that this same
stanza is quoted by the Buddhist Munidana in the CalyrigitikoSavy8kby~
without a precise reference to the source.39The same concept is expressed
in similar words in other Buddhist texts, such as the Hevajratantra, and in
Hindu works, such as the Sivadrsti (3.68cd). In the Gzc~abha7-aniby
RaviSrijfiHna we find the following stanza of the Paramirthasevg by
Pundarika:
reach liberation without initiation, rituals, yoga, etc.4' Some texts go as far
as saylng that the true homa ritual is the offering of oneself to the deity, the
m e ritual bath is the immersion in Consciousness, and so on." In the first
stanza of the Anuttaragiki we read:
In the mind, there is nothing that you should add, nothing that you should
remove, there is neither increase nor decrease. T h e three worlds are only a
reflection of our mind in the mind, similar to the sun in water.40
Notwithstanding the anti-ritualist and anti-gradualist ideologies, ritual
has not lost its importance: anti-ritualism and hyper-ritualism, antigradualism and gradualism are integrated in non-dualist Tantrism; in fact,
&S integration is one of its most interesting and characteristic elements. In
~ a i v atexts, for instance, the salvific means are divided into three groups:
rinava, iakta and ig~bhava,according to the prevalence of liturgical action
and yoga, or knowledge. However, it is worth noting that in the Paraa section of the fifth chapter of the Vimalaprabhli,
m~k~arajfianasiddhi,
P ~ d a r i k aactually criticises t h s ~ a i v aconception of salvific means? He
bases his criticism on some verses taken from the mzihtan~a,that is, the
Adibuddha. However, these verses show a partial and biased understanding
of the Saiva doctrine (which could be compared with the Buddhist kramas);
the Saivites, in their turn, make an analogous simplification when, as we
have seen, they try to explain and distance themselves from Buddhist
doctrines such as emptiness.
If what we need is already present in the here and now, then we can also
'9
"
bhaksyibhaksyavicira~znr peyipeyam tathaiva ca I gamyigamyam tathi nza?zm-vikalpam
naiva kirayet 1 I (HPuojatantra 1.6.2 1); bhakgibhahyavinimzrktab peyipeyaviva?jitab I
gamyiganlymiinimmzrkto bhaved yogi samihitah I I @-&siddhi 1.18); bhak&t]a? v2 yadi
vibhakslyjam samathaiva na kalpayet I kiivika'ryam tathi gamyam agamyam caiva yogavit I
na pu?zyam za ca v i pipam margav mo&v na kalpayet I sahajinandnikamzirtljtu t*hed
yogiram-hitab I I (Ca?z&mhiro$anaatonwa 7.8cd- l Oab, ed. p. 32, h e s 18-2 1); k i ~ ; i i i a i r
ya mq-ti hddhib s i 'hddhih iambhudariane I na hcir by aiurs tasmin nimikalpab mkhi
bbavet I I (Vijiinabhairava, st. 123). For further references see V. Dvivedi, "Bauddhaiaiva-i&ta tantrom Inem tulan8tmaka swagri (Z)", 1987, pp. 94-95.
samiv-o 'sti na tattvatas tanzrbhhta-mbandhasya vitaiva ka' bandho yaya najim taya vitathi
muktaya muktiknyi I mithyimohak?-de?a m~ubhz~agacch~ipG~abhramo
m- kiicit tyaja md
g-hi?zavilasa manho yathivacthitab I I (Anuttarqiki, s t 2, quoted as igam[vaca?za] and
with a few differences in CagrZgitikofazyikbya', ed. Bagchi, p. 74, ed. Kvxme, p. 166).
citte na kaicid bhavatipanQo na ksepa?zjo na ca hznivrddhi I citte macittapratibhi%amrZt?-am
widhitukam toyagato yathirkab I I (Gunabha-i, ed. p. 85; in the Tibetan translation of
the Paramirtbasmi, Peking ed. vol. 47, p. 7, fol. 13b1.3). The concept that our mind does
not need anythmg, and so on, is well known in several Buddh~stworks. Cf., for example,
Abhisamayila~kira5.2 1, Ratnagotravibhiga 1.54, the last verse of the Pratitymamutpdahrdayakinki (ed. p. 124) and the Pa~z~kyar4iinmiddhi
(Vimaluprabhi, ed. vol. 3, p. 9 1,
lines 2 1-4). Harunaga Isaacson has pointed out to me that the stanza of the
Ranzagohavibhiga is quoted by Jayaratha ad TantriIoka 4.9 (see also ad 4.260cd-261ab)
and by Mandana Mi5ra in h s Brahmasiddhi (Brahmahda, p. 8). See also Yogavisr$ba,
Utpattipraka7-ana,rarga 89, stanzas 39cd-41ab, and (Alberto Pelissero personal
communication) Gau&pdakiriki 2.32.
Here there is no need for transference of realization, creative meditation, clever
speech, philosophical research, contemplation, concentration or repetitions of
mantras. 'Tell me, what is the ultimate reality, the reality that is absolutely
certain?' Listen! Do not leave anything nor take anything! Enjoy everything
that is pleasant, in whatever condition you find yourself!43
"
*
43
This concept is to be found in Buddhst works: ama?z&lapravz$riS ca d?watyi bhavanti hi
I (Samvaratmrtra, quoted in the?iinasiddhi, ed. p. 144); in ~aiviteworks: ad~ama?2dalo
'py evam yab kdcid vetti tattvatab I sa stddhibhig bhaven nitymn sa yogisa ca d i k b I I
(Paritrimfiki, 18cd-19ab); evam yo vetti tattvena t a p nirvinagimini I dik@ bhavaty
asamdigdhi til~yihutivarjiiI I (ibid. st. 25); and in Vaisnava writings: cf. Samvitpakiia
by Viimanadatta, stt. 6.3-4. See also Parim~&ikitammivarana (ed. pp. 24-25), Tanhiloka 3.289-290ab, Sivad.mi 7.5-6 and Cittavihddhiprakaraqa 79-8 1.
Cf. Tannwcaya chapter 8 (ed. p. 176). See also Sivadrgi 7.84 ff.
ramkrimo 'ha na bhivani 7za ca kathrijruktir na carci na ca dhyham v i na ca dhZra?zina ca
japibhyisap-ayiso na ca l tat kim n i m nmGcita?.n vada param s a w ca tac chniyatw na
tyiginapari@-ahibhajamkhav ramam yathivasthitab I I ; Cf. also Parami~~hasira,
st. 60.
Ed. vol. 3, pp. 89-92.
Frnncesco Sfeva
Abbreviations
IF1
NAK
NGMPP
Institut franqais d'hdologie
Nepal Archives of Kathmandu
Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project
Sources
Abhinavagupta, Anuttari~iki,ed. in K.Ch. Pandey, Abhinavag-upta. An Historical
and Philosophical Stzuiy, Varanasi, 1963*,pp. 404-5 (Chowkhamba Sansluit
Studies, 1).
Abhinavagupta, Mili?ziuijayavi~ika,ed. by M.K. Shastri, Srinagar, 1921 (Kashmir
Series of Texts and Studies, 3 1).
Abhinavagu p ta, ParamZrthasira : The Paramirtbasril-a by Abhinavagupta with the
commentary of Yogarqa, ed. by J.Ch. Chatterji, Srinagar, 1916 (Kashmir
Series of Texts and Studies, 7).
Abhinavagupta, Parit~imiikitattvauiuara?za: Il comment0 di Abhinavagupta alla
Parihw'iki, traduzione e testo, a cura di R. Gnoli, Istituto Italiano per il
Medio ed Estremo Oriente, Rome, 1985 (Serie Orientale Roma, LVIII).
Abhinavagupta, Tantrihka, ed. with Jayaratha's Tantrahkauiveka by M.R. Shastri
& M.K. Shastri, 12 vols., Srinagar, 1918-1938 (Kashmir Series of Texts
and Studies, 23, 28, 29, 30, 35, 36,41,47, 52, 57, 58, 59).
Abhinavagupta, Tantroccaya, ed. by R. Gnoli and R. Torella, "The Tantroccaya of
Abhinavagupta", in Indo Sino Tibetica. Studi in onore di Lzrciano Petech, ed.
by P. Daffini, Rome, 1990, pp. 153-89 ("Studi Orientali" pubblicati dal
Dipammento di Studi Orientali, 9).
Advayavajra (Maiuip2da), Aduayavajl-asapgraha, ed. by H.P. Shastri, Baroda, 1927
(Gaekwad's Oriental Series, 40).
Ahirbudbnyasa~hiti,ed. by M.D. Ramanujacharya under the supervision of F.
Otto Schrader, revised by V. Krishnamacharya, 2 vols., Adyar, 1966 (The
Adyar Library Series, 4).
h i in Guhydi-&siddhi-Sarigraha , pp. 63-8 7.
Anarigavajra, P r ~ f i o p i y m i n ~ c q ~ d,ded.
Anu pamar aksita, The Sadaligayoga by Anupamaraksita with Rauihijfiina 'S Gunabhara~i~rrm:&rigayogatippani, text and annotated transl., ed. by F. Sferra,
Istituto Italiano per 1'Africa e 190riente,Rome, 2000 (Serie Orientale
Roma, LXXXV).
kyadeva, Catubiataka : Aryadeva i Catubiataka. On the Bodhisattza i Czdtivation of
Mnit and Kizowledge, ed. by K. Lang, Copenhagen, 1986 (Indiske Studier, 7).
kyadeva, CittaviSzddhipmkarana , ed. by P.B. Patel, Sanuniketan, 1949 (VisvaBharati Studies, 8).
A ~ ~ a m a i i j u ~ n i z h z a x a mwith
~ i t i Am.rtaka?zikd-tippaniby Bhiksu RaviSrijiiirina and
Am.rtakanikoddyota-nibandha of Vibhiiticandra, ed. by B. Lal, Central
Institut of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, 1994 (Bibliotheca IndoTibetica, 30).
Mvaghosa, GrwzqaZciSiki, Sanskrit text partially retransl. from Tibetan; ed. by J.
Pandeya in "Durlabha grantha paricaya", Dhib. Jozwnal of Rare Buddhist
Texts Research Project, l 3, pp. 16-20. Tibetan transl. : The Tibetan Tripitaka.
Peking Edition, text No. 4544, vol. 8 1, Tokyo-Kyoto, 1957, pp. 205-6.
Bhsgavatotpala, Spandapradqiki, ed. by G. Kavirsja Varanasi, 1992, pp. 83-1 28
(Tantramiigahah, vol. 1).
Bhdekarattarz~tta= Majhima N q a 13l , ed. by R. Chalmers, London, 1899, pp.
187-89 (Pali Text Society, Text Series 62, vol. 3). Repr. 1987.
C a h a ~ u a r a t a n t r a chapter
,
1, ed. and transl. in C. Cicuzza and F. Sferra, "Brief
Notes on the Beginning of Kslacaha Literature", Dbih. Jozwnal of Rare
Buddhist Texts Research Project, 23, pp. 113-26, 5 3 (pp. 118-2 1).
Candumah&ro;apztama : The Candamahiro:a?za Tantra. Chapters I-VIII, A Critical
Edition and English Translation by Chr.S. George, New Haven, 1974
(American Oriental Series, 56).
DohikoSayikhya: Dohiko:a (Apabhrada Texts of the Sahajayina School). P a n I (Texts
and Commentarier), ed. by P.C. Bagchi, Calcutta, 1938 (Calcutta Sanshit
Series, 2 Sc).
Gkhyridi-Agasiddhi-Sangraha,Sanskrit and Tibetan text, ed. by S. Rinpoche and
V.V. Dwivedi, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath,
Varanasi, 1987 (Rare Buddhist Text Series, 1).
Hari bhadra, S~rimasamurcaya:SaddarSanasamzucaya W ith Gu?zaratna's Commentary Tarkarahasyadqiki, ed. L. Suali, The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 19051914 (Bibliotheca Indica Series).
Hevajratantra: The Hevajra Tantra. A Critical Study, Part I, Introduction and
Translation; Part 11, Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts, ed. by D.L. Snellgrove,
London, 1959 (London Oriental Series, 6).
Indrabhuti, j'iZrzasiddhi, ed. in Guhyidi-Awddhi-Sarigraha , pp. 89- 157.
Jayaratha, Tantrilakauiueka, see Tantrilaka.
JayarsSibha~a,Tattvopaplavasimha, ed. with an introduction and indexes by S.
Sanghavi and R.C. Parikh, Varanasi, 1987 (Bauddha Bharati Series, 20).
Kambala, Alakamik, ed. by Chr. Lindtner in Miscellanea Buddhica, Copenhagen,
1985 (Indiske Studier, 5).
Ksemariija, Pratyabhijfiihydaya : Pratyabhijiiihydayam. The Secret of Self-recognition,
Sanskrit Text with English Translation, Notes and Introduction by J.
Sing, Delhi, 1991'. Or. edn. 1963.
80
Francesco S ' w a
Ksemariija, Spanduniqaya: Spa~zduni~aya
with Englih Translation, ed. by M. Kaul,
Srinagar, 1925 (Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, 42).
Kubjikimtatanna : The Kuljikimtatanwa. Kulilikimmiya Vmion, Critical edidon
by T . Goudriaan and J.A. Schoterman, Leiden, 1988 (Orientalia RhenoTraiectina, 30).
Laghukrilaakratatanna , reprinted in Vimalapabhi.tiki from A Critical i3iition of Sri
&-1acakratantra-&3a (Collated with the Tibetan version), ed. by B. Banerjee,
The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1985 (Bibliotheca Indica, 3 11).
Laksm-riima, Paritdikiviv?ti, ed. by J.Z. Shastri, Bombay, 1947 (Kashmir Series
of Texts and Studies, 69).
Lak.mitanwa: Lakmitantra. A Piiicarritra Agama, ed. with Sanskrit Gloss and
Introduction by V. Krishnamacharya, Adyar, 1959 (The Adyar Library
Series, 87).
MaheSvar~nanda,Mahirthamaiijar@arimala : Maheivariinanda, The Maharthamanjari with the Commentary Parimala of Mahesvarananda, ed. by
Mahimahopidhyiya T. Gwapati Sh a ? , Trivandrum, 1919 (Trivandrum
Sanskrit Series, 66).
Milinivijayottaratantra, ed. by M.K. Shastri, Bombay, 1922 (Kashmir Series of
Texts and Studies, 37).
Matangapiramehraratantra : Mataitgapiramehiaratantra (Vidyipida), avec le
cornmentaire de Ramakantha, edition critique par N.R. Bhatt, IFI,
Pondichery, 1977.
Munidatta, Cayigitikoiavyikhyi: 1) Ca?yrgiti-ko~aof Buddhist Siddha, edited and
annotated by P.Ch. Bagchi in collaboration with S. Bhiksu Siistri, VisvaBharati, Santiniketan, 1956; 2) An Anthology of Buddbirt Tanhic Songs. A
Stzldy ofthe Cayigiti, ed. by P. Kvzme, Oslo, 1986*.Or. edn. 1977.
NHgiirjuna, Mzilamadhyamkakiriki : Mzilamadhyamakakiriki (MidhyamikasGtras)
avec la Prasannapadi Commentaire de Candrakirri, publiee par L. de la
Vallee Poussin, Imprimerie de 17AcademieImperiale des Sciences, St.Petersbourg, 1913 (Bibliotheca Buddhica, 4).
Niijiirjuna, Pnrtityasamutpdizh~dayakririkri,ed. by L. de la Vallee Poussin, Thiorie
des douze causes, Londres, 1913.
NBropii, Sekoddeiatiki: Sekoddeiatiki of Nadapida (N6ropi), The Sanskrit Text
edited for the first time with an introduction in English by M. Carelli,
Baroda, 1941 (Gaekwad's Oriental Series, 90).
Padmavajra, Guhyasiddi, ed. in Guhyidi-Agasiddhi-Sangraha, pp. 1-62.
ParrihMiki, see Abhinavagupta, ParitrrtrrmCikitattvavivara~
.
Pundarika, dPal don dam pa'i bmyen pa (ParaMrthasarri), bsTan 'gyur, Peking ed.,
vol. 47, # 2065, fols. 1-25a.
Pundarika, Vimalapabhi, see Vimzapabhitika.
Raviirijfiaa, Gh?zabharani,see Anupamaraksita.
Siidhuputra Sridhariinanda, Sekoddeiatippani, ed. by R. Gnoli: "La SekoddeSahppag di Sadhupuaa Sridharananda. Il testo sanscrito", Rivina degli Stzrdi
Orientali 70, (1997), pp. 115-46.
Sirdhahiiatikilottarigama : Sirdbaniintikiilottarigam. Avec le commmtaire de Bhana
Rimakantha, edition critique par N.R. Bhatt, IFI, Pondichery, 1979.
Sitvatasamhiti: Sitvatasamhitd. With Commentary by Alaiinga Bhatta, ed. by
Vrajavallabha Dwivedi, Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi,
1982. (Library Rare Texts Publication Series, 6).
Sekani~ya,ed. in Advayavajra, Admyavajrasa?pgraha , pp. 2 8-3 1.
Sekoddeia, ed. by R. Gnoli: "SekoddeSah. Edition of the Sanskrit Text", Dhib.
3ournal of Rare Buddhirt Textr Research Projct 2 8, pp. 143-66.
Sivanirra, ed. by J.Ch. Chatterji in Ksemarsja, Sivaszitravimarfini, Srinagar, 1911
(Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, l).
sivop~dhyaya,1/5@6nabhairavaviv~i,
see v2jiiinabhairava.
Somiinanda, Sivad-ysti,ed. with the Vmi by Utpaladeva by M.K. Shasti, Srinagar,
1934 ( K a s h r Series of Texts and Studies. 54).
~ubhakaragu~ta,
"Abhisamayarnaiijari", ed. in Dhih. Journal of Rare Buddhist Terts
Research Prgect 13, pp. 123- 154.
Svacchanhtan~a,with commentary by Ksemariija, ed. by M.K. Shastri, 7 vols.,
Bombay, 192 1-1935 (Kashrmr Series of Texts and Studies, 31, 38,#, 48,
51, 53, 56).
Tattvaratmtnaval<
ed. in Advayavajra, Advayavajraamgraha , pp. 14-22.
Vajragarbha, Hevajratantrapindir-thiki : The Satsihamikikhyi Hevajratantrapindirtbatik6 by Vajragarbha, Critical Edition and Translation by F.
Sferra, forthcoming (Serie Orientale Roma).
Vajrap2ni, Laghutantratiki : The Laghutantratikz by Vajapdni, A Critical Edition of
the Sanskrit Text, ed. by C. Cicuzza, Istituto Italiano per I'Africa e
I'Oriente, Rome, 2001 (Serie Orientale Rorna, LXYXVI).
V~manadatta,Samvitprakda: The Samvitprakifa by Vimnadatta, critical edidon
and translation by R. Torella, forthcoming.
Vasugupta, Spanhkirikd: Spanhkiirikis with the Viwi of Rimakantha, ed. by J.Ch.
Chatterji with the cpoperation of the Pandits of the Research Department
of Kashmir State, Srinagar, 1969* (Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies,
6). Or. edn. 1913.
Vibhiiticandra,Am.rtakanikoddyotanibandha , see Ayamafiju~i-iiuimsamgtti.
VzFinabhairava . With Commentay partly by &enzuriija and partly by SivopidLyiya,
ed. with notes by M.R. Shastri, Bombay, 1918 (Kashmir Series of Texts
and Studies, 8).
Vimalaprabhdtiki of Kalkin Sripu?rdarika on Sr~la~hukilacakratantrarija
by
&-inzaZjrjuhafas, vol. I, Critically Edited & Annotated with Notes by J.
Upadhyaya, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Samath, 1986
82
Francesco S f w a
(Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica Series, 11); vols. 11-III, Critically Edited &
Annotated with Notes by V.V. Dwivedi and S.S. Bahulkar, Central
Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, 1994 (Rare Buddhst Text
Series, 12-13).
ViryaSrimitra, Mamkalikripaqikii: Tattvajiiuinasamiddhi of grinyasamidbipiida with
Mamakalikipaiijikri of Vi?yaSrmmio-a, ed. by J. Shastri Pandey, Central
Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, 2000 (Rare Buddhist Text
Series, 23).
Yogariija, Paramidasiratiki,
see Abhinavagupta, Paramirthasrira .
Yopniiawatantra, NAK, MS 4-20, NGMPP, Mf. 48/5.
Books and articles
Bhattacharyya, Benoytosh
1931
An Introduction to Buddhist fioterism, Baroda, 1931. Repr. Delhi,
1980.
Biihnemann, Gudrun
1996
"The Goddess Mahicinakrama-=ii (Ugra-Tari) in Buddhist and
Hindu Tantrism". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and Afiican
Stlldies , 59 (1996), pp. 472-93.
1999
"Buddhist deities and mantras in the Hindu Tantras: I The Tattvasirasamg-raha and the iiinaiivaPrudevapaddhatin. Indo-Iranian
Journal, 42 (1999), pp. 303-34.
2 000
"Buddhist deities and mantras in the Hindu Tantras: I1 The
Sri~id~iir~avatantra
and the Tantrasiira". Indo-Iranian 30urna1, 43
(2000), pp. 27-48.
Dasgupta, Shashibhusan
19693
Obscul-eReligiozls Cults, Calcutta, 1969. Or. edn. 1946.
Dvivedi, Vrajavallabha
1986
"Bauddha-Saiva-Siikta tantrom mem tulanitmaka sHmagri". Dbih.
3oumal of Rare Buddhist Texts Research Project, 1 (1986), pp. 99- l OS.
1987
"Bauddha-4aiva-Siikta tantrom mem tulanitmaka s2magri (2)".
Dhib. Journal of Rare Buddhist Texts Research Prqect, 3 (1987), pp.
88-96.
Gnoli, Raniero
1994
"Introduzione" to R. Gnoli and G. Orofino, Niropi. Iniziazione,
Mlano, 1994, pp. 13-103 (Adelphi, Biblioteca Orientale, l).
19992
Abhinavagupta. Luce delle sacre switture, Milano, 1999 (Adelphi,
Biblioteca Orientale, 4). Or. edn. Torino, 1972.
Gronbold, Giinter
1992
"Heterodoxe Lehren und Ihre Widerlegung im Glacakra-Tantra".
Indo-Iranian Journal, 3 7 (1992), pp. 273-97.
McClintock, Sara
"Knowing All through Knowing One: Mystical Communion or
2000
Logical Trick in the Tattvasamgrahapaiijiki ". Journal of the
InternationalAssociation of Buddhist Studies, 2 3 (2OOO), pp. 2 25-44.
Newrnan, John Ronald
"Buddhist Siddhiinta in the Kilacakra Tantra". Wiener Zeitschrzft
1992
fir die Kunde Sudasiens, 3 6 (1992), pp. 227-34.
Nihom, Max
"Sadhanamiili 256 - A PiiSupata-Bauddha Tantristic Sidhana".
1994
Wiener Zeitschrz$fir die Kunde Siidasim, 38 (1994), pp. 2 13-29.
Sanderson, Alexis,
"Saivism and the Tantric Traditions", in The World's Religions: The
1988
Religions ofAsia, ed. by F. Hardy, London, 1988, pp. 660-704.
"Purity and Power among the Brahmans of Kashmir", in The
1990
Category of the Person, ed. by M. Carrithers et al., Cambridge, 1990,
pp. 190-216.
"Vajrayiina: Origin and Function", in Buddhimr into the Year ZOO0
1994
(Confmce Proceeding$, Dharnmakaya Foundation, Bangkok, 1994,
pp. 87-102.
"History through Textual Criticism in the Study of ~aivism,the
2001
PaiicarHtra and the Buddhist Yoginitantras", in Les sources et le
temps. Sources and Time. A Colloquium. Pondichkry 11-13 January
1997, ed by F. Grimal, Institut franqais de Pondichkry, Ecole
franqaise d'Extr2me-Orient, Pondichkry, 200 l , pp. 1-47.
Seyfort Ruegg, David
"Sur les rapports entre le bouddhisme et le 'substrat religieux'
1964
indien et tibittain".~ournalAsiatique,252 (1964), pp. 77-95.
Review of David Snellgrove, Indo- Tibetan Buddbimt: Indian Bud1989
dhists and their Tibetan successors. Journal of the Rqal Asiatic Society
(1989), pp. 172-78.
Ordre spirituel et ordre tmporel danr la p d e bouddbique de 171ndeet
1995
du Tibet, Paris, 1995.
"A Note on the Relationship between Buddhist and 'Hindu' Di200 1
vinities in Buddh~stLiterature and Iconology: The hkika/-Lokotia
Contrast and the Notion of an Indian 'Religious Substratum"', in Le
pamk e i mami. Studi in m m di Raniwo Gnoli nel ruo 70" compleanno,
ed by R. Torella, Istituto Italiano per 1'Afi-ica e 170riente,Rome,
200 1, pp. 7 35-42 (Serie Orientale Roma, XCII, 1-2).
Torella, Raffaele
"The Pratyabhijiiii and the Logical-Epistemological School of
1992
Buddhism", in Ritual and Speculation in Early Tantrim. Studies in
Honour of AndrP Padow, ed by T . Goudriaan, Albany, New York,
1992, pp. 327-45.
Francesco Sfen-a
"The k5cukas in the Saiva and Vaiynava Tantric Tradition: A Few
Considerations Between Theology and Grammar", in Studies in
Hinduism II. Mixcellanea to the Phenomenon of Tantras, ed. by G.
Oberhammer, Wien, 1998, pp. 55-86.
Tucci, Giuseppe
Tibetan Painted Scrolls, 2 vols. and a portfolio, Rome, 1949.
1949
CANONICAL
QUOTATIONS W THE KHOTANESE
BOOK OF VWIALAKTRTI*
The Late Khotanese text currently known under the conventional title
of Book of Virmlakirti (= Vlm) is a compendium of Mahiiyiinist doctrines. It
is possibly an o r i p a l Khotanese composition, though it relies heavily on
Indian sources. The extant portion of the text is contained in two miscellaneous manuscripts from Dunhuang: lines 224-386 of manuscript Ch
00266 of the British Library (= Vim C) and h e s 1-60 of manuscript P 2026
of the Bibliotheque nationale de France (= Vzm P). Vlm C was first edited
by Harold Walter Bailey in 195 1 in his Khotanese Buddhist Tern (ILBT 104113), whereas h P was edited but not identified by him in 1956 in the
third volume of his Khotanese Texts (KT 3.48-50). The overlap between
lines 1-22 of Vim P and the last lines of Vim C (lines 368-386) was
recognised by Ronald Eric Ernmerick (Srudies 2.118 S.V.-mya-). While this
article was in the press, a new edition and a provisional translation of Vzm
C and the overlapping lines of J4m P have been provided by Prods 0.
Skjzrv0 (SDTV 6.489-499).
T h e text is metrical, as is revealed by the almost complete verse
numbering that is found in Em P. In Vim C, verse numbering is absent,
and even punctuation marks dividing verses or padas are quite rare.
Though some two hundred manuscript h e s are extant, the beginrung and
the end of the text, which might have contained the title, were not copied.
The text was assigned the title of Book of KmaZakirti by Bailey on account
of the fact that the name of Vimalakirti occurs five times in it (Vim C 3 163 17, 328, 337-338, 342 and 344; KBT 109-111). In the present article three
passages preserved only in Vim C are offered in a revised, metrically
* I am grateful to my late teacher and friend Ronald E. Emmerick, to Francesco Sferra
and to Fabrizio Torricelli for useful comments on a preliminary draft of this article, and
to Hisao Inagah for presenting me with a copy of his recent book (Amidz Dh&a?ziSzitra
and j%i~zaga7-bha'sCommentary, 1999) that I needed for this article.
Universiti degli Studi di Napoli "L'Orientale"
Centro di Studi sul Buddhism0
Buddhist Asia 1
Papers from the First Conference
of Buddhist Studies Held in Naples
Edited by
Giovanni Verardi and Silvio Vita
(
Italian School of East Asian Studies. Kvoto 2003