The Jewel’s Radiance: A Translation of “*Ratnabhāsvara,” an Extensive Commentary on the Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī Nicholas Schmidt Dr. James Gentry, Thesis Advisor Kathmandu University Centre for Buddhist Studies at Rangjung Yeshe Institute Master of Arts - Translation, Textual Interpretation, and Philology September 2018 Abstract This thesis presents an introduction to, and translation of, “The Jewel’s Radiance, A Commentary on Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī” (Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi ’grel pa rin po che gsal ba, Tōh. 2680), attributed to Buddhagupta (Sangs rgyas gsang ba, ca. eighth century CE). This commentary, which relates to practices of forms of the bodhisattva Vajrapāṇi, is curious in terms of its provenance, and presents a range of peculiar themes and interpretive stances. In the introduction I discuss five themes found in the commentary, primarily drawing from Tibetan historical and liturgical literature. In an investigation of this system’s mythical origins I show how an idiosyncratic King Ajātaśatru narrative was circulated, wherein the King commits dual parricide with spell magic, while the narrative setting of the fundamental dhāraṇī-sūtra remains mysterious. For the first time, I give substantial attention to Buddhagupta’s teacher, Kumārasena (Gzhon nu sde, ca. early to mid-eighth century CE), and to disambiguating diverse references to his translator, Dbas Mañjuśrīvarman (’Jam dpal go cha, ca. late eighth century to early ninth century CE). A survey of Tibetan historical literature shows the narrative arc of Buddhagupta’s royal invitation to Tibet as growing in importance after the first half of the thirteenth century. I elucidate the prescribed ritual praxis of Buddhagupta’s Vajravidāraṇa system, involving a complex visualization program. Finally, I attempt to triangulate the Vajravidāraṇa practice system within the Indian esoteric art-historical record, using the wrathful figures of the system’s maṇḍalas to apply the discipline of art history to the study of dhāraṇī literature. In the annotated translation, I highlight points where the commentary demonstrates intertextual similarities with commentarial work more soundly attributed to Buddhagupta. 2 Table of Contents Part I: Introduction 1. Abstract........................................................................................................................................2 2. Table of Contents.........................................................................................................................3 3. Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................4 4. Sigla, Abbreviations, and Conventions........................................................................................5 5. Introduction to the Translation.....................................................................................................8 Overview, Scope, and Terminology....................................................................................8 Witnesses of *Ratnabhāsvara and Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī....................................19 Literature Review...............................................................................................................21 Five Aspects of *Ratnabhāsvara......................................................................................28 Excellent Time: Ajātaśatru’s Ailments..................................................................29 Excellent Place: The Vajra Setting........................................................................36 Excellent Teachers: Buddhagupta’s Lineage of Vajravidāraṇa.............................41 Excellent Teaching: Buddhagupta’s Practice of Vajravidāraṇa............................55 Excellent Retinues: The Maṇḍalas of Vajravidāraṇa............................................60 6. Conclusions................................................................................................................................72 Part II: Translation 1. Remarks on Translation Methodology.......................................................................................77 2. Translation of *Ratnabhāsvara..................................................................................................80 Appendix A: Diplomatic Edition of Vajravidāranā-nāma-dhāraṇī, NGMCP E 927/7..............129 Appendix B: Diplomatic Edition and Translation of ’Phags pa rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs (Tōh. 750)................................................................................................131 Appendix C: Diplomatic Edition and Translation of “The Solitary Hero Sādhana,” for the Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī (Tōh 2926)............................................................142 Appendix D: Remarks on the Identity and Translation of Sangs rgyas gsang ba........................149 Appendix E: Bibliography...........................................................................................................158 3 Acknowledgements I must convey my gratitude for the role my advisor, Dr. James Gentry, has played in shaping this work, constantly hacking through my delusion and offering clarifying instruction. Whatever follows is probably due to his insight, patience, and kindness, but please don’t blame him for my ignorant oversights or any outstanding errors. Professor Jacob Dalton graciously served as my external reader, offering close consideration and valued feedback on this thesis. I have been blessed with the most loving and supportive family one could wish for. Their unflagging support has buoyed me through this absurd process of repeatedly flinging myself across the Pacific Ocean, ruining my eyes in books, dpe cha, and glowing screens. To Śrī Bauddhanātha Mahācaitya and charnel ground, I will forever bow in gratitude. For being constant wellsprings of inspiration and support, a million “bka’ drin che’s” to the community of faculty and students of Kathmandu University’s Centre for Buddhist Studies at Rangjung Yeshe Institute, and to the saṅgha of Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling in Boudhanath, Nepal, between 2012 and 2018. I owe much to Ryan Damron for guiding my explorations through the vexing worlds of Tibskrit and tantra; to Stefan Mang for his camaraderie and instigation the last four years; and to Kathrin Holz for her advice, moral support, and for offering input on this thesis at a crucial stage. Finally, I would like to thank the Department of Archaeology’s staff at the National Archives, Kathmandu between 2015 and 2018 for assisting my research there. I am indebted to the scholastic work of the authors cited below, but particularly to Professor Michael Radich and Sophie Florence, Professor Joel Gruber, Adam Krug—and especially Jake Nagasawa, whose exemplary M.A. thesis catalyzed the final stages of mine—for sharing their work and ideas with me during the course of my research. This research was magnanimously supported by Khyentse Foundation’s Translation Studies Scholarship from 2016-2018. The effort of researching and writing this work is an offering to my teachers, living emanations of Vimalamitra, Sarasvatī, and Mañjuśrī. May they, and all bearers of Buddhist traditions, continue to benefit beings, for as long as it takes. 4 Sigla, Abbreviations, and Conventions1 ((kiṃcit)) reading is uncertain (ms. damaged, smudged, torn, blurry, etc.) C Co ne Bka’ ’gyur and Bstan ’gyur corr. correction conj. em. conjectural emendation D Sde dge edition of Bka’ ’gyur and Bstan ’gyur DK Ldan/Lhan kar ma Catalogue and catalogue entry numbers f., ff. folio, folio sides G Dga’ ldan or “Golden Manuscript (Gser bris ma)” Bstan ’gyur H Lhasa (Lha sa) Bka’ ’gyur Ill. Illegible print/writing kiṃ+ entire lost akṣara +iṃcit partial loss of an akṣara KS Kumārasena. ’Phags pa rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs kyi sgrub thabs cho ga zhib mo dang bcas pa (*Āryavajravidāraṇā-nāmadhāraṇīsakalpasādhana, Tōh. 2925). L Shel mkhar bris ma (London) / Shey Palace Bka’ ’gyur Ms., mss. Manuscript, manuscripts N Snar thang editions of Bka’ ’gyur and Bstan ’gyur NAK National Archives, Kathmandu NGMCP Nepal German Manuscript Cataloging Project NS Vimalamitra. Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs zhes bya ba’i rnam par bshad pa (Āryavajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇīṭīkā, Tōh. 2681). P Dpe bsdur ma edition of the Bka’ ’gyur and Bstan ’gyur PT ’Phang thang ma Catalog number Q 1724 Qianlong Peking edition of Bka’ ’gyur and Bstan ’gyur 1 After Paul Harrison and Helmut Eimer (1995), Kanjur and Tanjur Sigla: A Proposal for Standardization,” in Transmission of the Tibetan Canon: Papers Presented at a Panel of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995, edited by Helmut Eimer (Graz: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften), Vol. 3., xi-xiv; and Péter-Dániel Szántó (2012), “Selected Chapters from the Catuṣpīṭhatantra” (PhD diss., Oxford University). 5 RB Sangs rgyas gsang ba. Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi ’grel pa rin po che gsal ba, (*Āryavajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇīṭīkā-ratnabhāsvaranāma, Tōh. 2680). S Stog Palace ms. Bka’ ’gyur Tōh. Tōhoku Catalogue numbers of the Dde dge Bka’ ’gyur and Bstan ’gyur U Urga Bka’ ’gyur VA Padmakāra. Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi rnam par bshad pa rdo rje sgron ma (Tōh. 2679) VB Vimalamitra. Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs don rnam par bshad pa rgya cher ’grel pa (Tōh. 2682). VV [’Phags pa] Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs (Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī, Tōh. 750). xyl. xylograph or block printed text. *kiṃcit Sanskrit reading is either attested elsewhere, back-translated or reconstructed from Tibetan. °kiṃcit abridgement [°precedent, antecedent°]. √ kiṃcit Sanskrit verbal root (dhātu). Conventions All translations are mine, unless attributed otherwise. Proper nouns have been left untranslated and are presented without italics. Tibetan proper nouns and titles are rendered in a modified Wylie transliteration style where the first letter of a name or title is capitalized, and Indic terms transliterated into Tibetan are rendered in International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST) diacritical marks. Sde dge and Peking paginations are retained throughout the translations of the *Ratnabhāsvara commentary, Vajravidāraṇī-nāma-dhāraṇī, and the *Ekavīra-sādhana, in a 6 notation style that indicates the edition (D/Q), folio number and side—either front (recto) or back (verso) —and line number (e.g., {Q 444r.3}). The plus sign (+) serves two functions here. In the Sanskrit edition of Vajravidāraṇīnāma-dhāraṇī (Appendix A), the plus sign indicates the loss—partial or complete—of an akṣara (phonemic syllable). In the critical apparatus of my Tibetan translations and editions (Appendices B and C), it indicates the presence or addition of a passage that is absent in other witnesses. 7 Introduction to the Translation This thesis presents an annotated, text-critical translation of The Jewel’s Radiance (’Phags pa rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs kyi rgya cher ’grel pa rin po che gsal ba zhes bya ba, henceforth *Ratnabhāsvara).2 An extensive commentary on the [Ārya-] Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī3 (henceforth VV), *Ratnabhāsvara is attributed to the nebulous eighth century tantric exegete Sangs rgyas gsang ba (whose Indic name, often back-translated as Buddhaguhya, is here rendered Buddhagupta4). The received colophon states that the commentary was translated into Tibetan by Buddhagupta himself and Dbas Mañjuśrīvarman (’Jam dpal go cha, ca. late eighth century-early ninth century CE). The primary dhāraṇī text which is here commented upon has been proclaimed to be the fundamental Kriyā-tantra text of Vajrapāṇi,5 and all of the dozens of canonical commentarial works on the dhāraṇī text are predicated on visualized retinues (Skt., maṇḍalas) populated by 2 Sangs rgyas gsang ba, Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi ’grel pa rin po che gsal ba (*Āryavajravidāraṇanāma-dhāraṇīṭīkā-ratnabhāsvara-nāma), Tōh. 2860, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 70 (rgyud, thu), folios 176r.6-186v.1. 3 Rdo rje rnam ’joms kyi gzungs, Tōh. 750, Sde dge Bka’ ’gyur, vol. 95 (rgyud, dza), folios 265v.3-266v.7. 4 Determining the original Indic name behind the Tibetan Sangs rgyas gsang ba is a fraught journey towards unsettled territory, and could be the subject of an independent study. While Buddhaguhya and Buddhagupta are both back-translations attested in Tibetan literature, I have chosen (with appropriate reservation) Buddhagupta, based on the preponderance of early attestations of this form—in transliteration—in Tibetan textual catalogues and historical accounts. For an extended discussion of this issue, approached through etymology and an ad hoc literature survey, see Appendix D, below. Buddhagupta was adopted by Kapstein (2000), and by A lags gzan dkar Thub bstan nyi ma (b. 1943) in his introduction to Ani Jinpa Palmo’s translation of the ’Dra ’bag chen mo (2004). Hodge (2003:545n15) promotes this form in his concluding remarks on the subject. Buddhaguhya was adopted by Hopkins (1981, et al.) Karmay (1980 and 1988), Wayman (1983), Snellgrove (1987), Germano (2002), Davidson (2002), Hodge (2003), Dalton (2005), Tribe (1994), Weinberger (2003), Halkias (2004), Martin (2014), Nagasawa (2017), and others. For previous discussions on the identity of Sangs rgyas gsang ba and the translations of his name, see also Karmay (1988:61-3); Kapstein (2000:232n73); Davidson (2002:153-159 and 376nn132-137); Hodge (2003:23 and 541-2nn13-15); Weinberger (2003:82-85), Halkias (2004:70), and Nagasawa (2017). 5 Alex Wayman, (1983) “Three Tanjur Commentators—Buddhaguhya, Ratnakarasanti, and Smrtijnanakirti,” The Tibet Journal 8, no. 3: 31. 8 wrathful Buddhist deities (Skt., krodha-vighnāntakas). Of these secondary works on Vajravidāraṇa practice, *Ratnabhāsvara is the putatively earliest detailed commentary. Definite biographical information for both Buddhagupta and Dbas Mañjuśrīvarman is scarce enough to raise questions regarding the provenance of this text. The aims of this thesis, then, are to investigate the early key figures of Buddhagupta’s Vajravidāraṇa practice lineage, and to explore peculiar themes introduced in his commentarial work. The scope of this thesis is a consideration of Buddhagupta’s work, in comparison to the earliest body of commentarial literature on this dhāraṇī (Tib., gzungs) attributed to Indic Buddhist adepts and proselytizers active around the Tibetan Plateau during the Early Diffusion (snga dar) of Buddhism there, between the regnal periods of Emperor Khri Lde gtsug btsan (alias Mes ag tshom, 704-ca. 754 CE6) and Emperor Khri gtsug lde brtsan (alias Ral pa can, r. 815-8417) of the Yar klungs Dynasty.8 According to the Old School (Tib., Rnying ma) of Tibetan Buddhism, Buddhagupta was an elder contemporary and teacher of two of the most celebrated proselytizers of the imperial period (btsan po’i skabs): Padmasambhava (Padma ’byung gnas, ca. eighth-ninth century CE)9 and Vimalamitra (ca. eighth-ninth century).10 Buddhagupta’s name is associated with one of the 6 Date according to Brandon Dotson (2007), ““Emperor” Mu rug btsan and the ’Phang thang ma Catalogue,” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies 3: 11. 7 Date according to Dotson, ““Emperor” Mu rug btsan and the ’Phang thang ma Catalogue,” 6. 8 See Erik Haarh (1969), The Yarluṅ Dynasty (Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad’s Forlag), 55-58 for disambiguation and a semblance of clarity regarding the bewildering appellations of the Yar klungs Dynasty rulers. 9 Nyang nyi ma ’od zer (2010 (1988)), Chos ’byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, Gang can rig mdzod, Vol. 5 (Lhasa: Bod ljons mi dmangs dpe skrun khang), 362; Nyoshul Khenpo Jamyang Dorjé (2005), A Marvelous Garland of Rare Gems: Biographies of Masters of Awareness in the Dzogchen Lineage, trans. Richard Barron (Chökyi Nyima) (Junction City: Padma Publishing), 43; and Dudjom Rinpoche (1991), The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism: Its Fundamentals and History. trans. Gyurme Dorje and Matthew Kapstein (Boston: Wisdom Publications), vol. 2 p. 47. 10 See, for instance, Stephen Hodge (2003), The Mahā-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra: With Buddhaguhya’s Commentary (London: Routledge), 22; Anthony H. Tribe (1994), “The Names of Wisdom. A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation of Chapters 1-5 of Vilāsavajra’s Commentary on the Nāmasaṃgīti, with Introduction and Textual Notes” (Ph.D. diss., Oxford University), 4; ’Gos Lotsāwa Gzhon nu dpal 1976 (1996), The Blue Annals, 9 two main traditions of Vajravidāraṇa practice, and five related commentarial works and practice manuals retained in Bstan ’gyur canons are ascribed to him.11 As the most comprehensive such work *Ratnabhāsvara presents a natural point of departure for study of the Vajravidāraṇa corpus at the crucial time of this practice system’s first recorded reception in Tibet. There it would be employed by all Buddhist schools as medical technology that purifies karmic affliction through ritual ablution, as an instrument of spell-magic combat, and the cornerstone to increasingly subtle meditative visualizations. The dhāraṇī was co-opted in the Hidden Treasure (Tib., gter ma) literary traditions of the Rnying ma school with its inclusion in the “Ten Royal Sūtras” (rgyal po mdo bcu), a collection of texts and practices prescribed for the longevity of Emperor Khri Srong lde btsan (r. ca. 756-797 and ca. 798-ca. 80012), as enumerated in the Padma Bka’ thang.13 The work of these earliest commentators on Vajravidāraṇa survives only in Tibetan translation, while the Nepalese Sanskrit textual tradition has left us manuscript witnesses of the fundamental text (variously Skt., sūtra, mūla, and dhāraṇī, et al.) in untold dozens. The Sanskrit Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī was translated into Chinese as well as Tibetan, but, as I lack facility in Chinese, this work is limited to the Indo-Tibetan context. Several witnesses of the text are found among the Dunhuang manuscripts, and the dhāraṇī has been used in rituals and devotional practice among the Newar Buddhists of Nepal down to the present time. trans. George N. Roerich (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers), 170 and 191; and Nyang nyi ma ’od zer, Chos ’byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, 362. 11 These include, *Ratnabhāsvara (Tōh. 2680), an extensive commentary on the dhāraṇī; Tōh. 2926, a practice manual for Vajravidāraṇa; Tōh. 2927, a ritual manual for offering foodstuffs in the same context (Skt., bali, Tib., gtor ma); Tōh. 2928, an associated manual for reversing curses and unfavorable astrological circumstances; and Tōh. 2929, an ablution ritual which employs the dhāraṇī. 12 Dates according to Dotson, ““Emperor” Mu rug btsan and the ’Phang thang ma Catalogue,” 15. 13 “Bsdu sgrigs gsal bshad” in Thar lam gsal sgron, ed. (2014), Rgyal po mdo bcu’i rtsa ’grel phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 1 (Chengdu: Si khron dus deb tshogs pa dang si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang), 2-3. 10 The earliest received reference to Buddhagupta’s work on Vajravidāraṇa is in an editor’s interlinear notes to the catalogue (Tib., dkar chag) of Bcom ldan Rigs pa’i ral gri (1227-1305 CE), a master of the Bka’ gdams pa school at Snar thang monastery. This catalogue lists “Rdo rje rnam ’joms” in the “Dhāraṇī (Gzungs)” section,14 and the commentarial work of Buddhagupta and his teacher, Kumārasena (Gzhon nu sde, ca. early-mid eighth century CE), is listed subsequently under the “Rtog ge” section.15 However, the attribution is added in a smaller font after the main entry so it cannot be considered a definitive attestation. The biography of Rigs pa’i ral gri, written by Bsam gtan bzang po (ca. fourteenth century CE), imparts that the cataloger received the Vajravidāraṇa commentaries and ablution rituals of Buddhagupta, Kumārasena, and “all of the commentaries and sādhanas of Smṛti[jñānakīrti]’s tradition.”16 The commentary also appears with attribution in the later Snar thang Bstan ’gyur catalogues (Tib., dkar chag) of Bu ston Rin chen grub (1290-1364 CE) and Dbus pa Blo gsal Sangs rgyas ’bum (ca. thirteenth c. CE).17 The earliest attestation of Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī is found in the Ldan kar ma catalogue of 812 CE.18 Although the fundamental text is not listed in the subsequent, ninth14 Bcom ldan rigs pa’i ral gri (2006), “Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od,” in Gsung ’bum: Bcom ldan rig pa’i ral gri, vol. 1 (Lhasa: Khams sprul bsod nams don grub), 19v.4. 15 Bcom ldan rigs pa’i ral gri, Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od, 38v.3. The section heading “Rtog ge” seems to be in error, as this usually translates the Sanskrit, “tārka,” indicating logic or intellectual pursuit. The Tibetan term “rtog pa” can translate the textual genre “kalpa,” which is concerned with ritual activity. The complete entry for Vajravidāraṇa here is as follows: “Vajravidāraṇa: Two ablution rituals and [one] commentary, by Buddhagupta and the Brahmin siddha Kumārasena, translated by Mañjuśrīvarman.” (“rnam ’joms khrus chog sna gnyis dang bshad pa/ sangs rgyas gsang ba dang / bram ze’i grub thob kumārasenas mdzad/ mañjuśrīvarmas bsgyur/”) 16 Bsam gtan bzang po (2006), “Bcom ldan rigs pa’i ral gri’i rnam thar dad pa’i ljon shing” in Gsung ’bum: Bcom ldan rig pa’i ral gri, vol. 1 (Lhasa: Khams sprul bsod nams don grub), 2r.6-2v.2: “[...L]ater, after remaining a long while, [he received] Vidāraṇa, Master Buddhagupta’s commentary and sādhana; the ablution manual composed by Vidyādhara Kumārasena; and all of the commentaries and sādhanas of Smṛti[jñānakīrti]’s tradition.” (“phyis kyang ring du bsten nas rnam ’joms slob dpon sangs rgyas gsang ba’i ’grel pa/ sgrub thabs/ rig sngags ’chang gi slob dpon gzhon nu sde yis byas pa’i khrus chog smri ti’i lugs kyi ’grel pa dang sgrub thabs cha tshang ba/”) 17 See respectively, Bu ston Rin chen grub (1965-1971), “Bstan ’gyur gyi dkar chag yid bzhin nor bu dbang gi rgyal po’i phreng ba” in Bu ston rin chen grub kyi gsung ’bum, vol. 26 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture), 61a.3; and Sangs rgyas ’bum, Bstan ’gyur dkar chag, 27b.3. 18 Date according to Adelheid Herrmann-Pfandt (2002), “The Lhan kar ma as a Source for the History of Tantric Buddhism,” in The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International 11 century ’Phang thang ma catalogue (hereafter, PT), an unattributed Vajravidāraṇa ablution ritual manual is present therein.19 This thesis is presented in two sections. In Part I, I first discuss the state of the textual traditions of Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī and *Ratnabhāsvara that are extant today. Then I provide brief surveys of previous academic work on the Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī, and the textual genres of dhāraṇī and śāstra. Next, I offer discussions of some of the commentary’s most striking features, conforming with a classical Buddhist commentarial framework of the Five Excellences (Tib., phun sum tshogs pa lnga) of a commentary employed by Buddhagupta in *Ratnabhāsvara. In this context they are presented as Excellent Time, the Excellent Place, the Excellent Teachers, the Excellent Teaching, and the Excellent Retinues. In my discussion of the Excellent Time, I discuss the Vajravidāraṇa tradition’s unique perspective on the life and karmic quagmires of King Ajātaśatru of Magadha (ca. fifth-fourth centuries BCE), which supplies the mytho-historical need for the utterance of the dhāraṇī.20 In the section regarding the Excellent Place I offer a comparison of divergent interpretations of the dhāraṇī-sūtra’s tenebrous narrative setting (Skt., nidāna). In this context, the Excellent Teachers are the progenitors of Buddhagupta’s Vajravidāraṇa tradition: Kumārasena, the Ācārya Buddhagupta himself, and the Lotsāwa Dbas Mañjuśrīvarman (ca. late eighth century CE). The Excellent Teaching consists of the prescribed ritual practices of Vajravidāraṇa, as detailed in the Association for Tibetan Studies, Leiden 2000, ed. Helmut Eimer and David Germano (Leiden: Brill), 129. For the DK catalogue entry, see Shyuki Yoshimura, ed. (1950) The Denkar-ma: An Oldest Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons. Vol. 18 (Kyoto: Ryukoku University), 153. 19 That is, Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i khrus kyi cho ga gnyis dang bshad pa (PT 940). Cf. [Anonymous] (2003), “Dkar chag ’phang thang ma,” in Dkar chag ’Phang thang ma/ Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang), 63; and Georgios Halkias (2004), “Tibetan Buddhism Registered: A Catalogue from the Imperial Court of ’Phang thang” in The Eastern Buddhist 36, nos. 1-2: 95. 20 Cf. Ronald M. Davidson (2014a), “Studies in Dhāraṇī Literature II: Pragmatics of Dhāraṇīs.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 77, no. 1:13 on precipitating assertive statements. 12 commentarial literature attributed to Kumārasena and Buddhagupta. The Excellent Retinues refer to the beings present during the narrative in which the Vajravidāraṇa dhāraṇī was first pronounced, and the maṇḍalas associated with the practice. Here I compare the iconography of the maṇḍalas as presented by the above commentators, as well as those presented by Padmasambhava21 and Vimalamitra.22 Part II consists of a concise discussion of the translation methodology I have developed in translating *Ratnabhāsvara, followed by the unabridged, text-critical translation of the same. This translation of the commentary contains a full translation of the fundamental Vajravidāraṇanāma-dhāraṇī, supplied and embedded within. The appendices contain documents intended to support an exploratory journey into the Vajravidāraṇa system. I have included a diplomatic edition of the earliest dated Sanskrit manuscript of Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī held at the National Archives, Kathmandu (Appendix A), a comparative edition of canonical Tibetan translations of Vajravidāraṇa-nāmadhāraṇī along with an English translation of the same according to Buddhagupta’s commentary (Appendix B), and a translation of a Vajravidāraṇa practice (Skt., sādhana, Tib., sgrubs thabs), attributed to Buddhagupta, which is referenced in *Ratnabhāsvara (Appendix C). The appended material concludes with reflections on the unsettled questions surrounding the identities and names of Sangs rgyas gsang ba, Buddhagupta, and Buddhaguhya (Appendix D), and a bibliography of works cited (Appendix E). 21 Padmakāra, Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi rnam par bshad pa rdo rje sgron ma (*Vajravidāraṇā-nāmadhāraṇīvyākhyāna-vajrāloka-nāma, Tōh. 2679); and Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i them yig gsang ba zhes bya ba (Tōh. 3049). 22 Vimalamitra, Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs zhes bya ba’i rnam par bshad pa (Vajravidāraṇā-nāmadhāraṇīṭīkā, Tōh. 2681); and Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs don rnam par bshad pa rgya cher ’grel pa (Āryavajravidhāraṇā-nāma-dhāraṇīvyākhyānabṛhaṭṭīkā, Tōh. 2682). 13 Terminology Employed At the outset of the following discussion, it may be beneficial to define some key Sanskrit literary terms I employ throughout this thesis. I have adopted structural terminology from recent articles on dhāraṇī literature by Dalton and Davidson.23 The study of this literary genre is one of the oldest within the field of Buddhist Studies, but this work primarily operates within the paradigms and hypotheses these two have set forth over the last decade. The terminology assembled from their work establishes a basis for identifying common structural forms found in dharani-sūtras, a term I use here for a text which appears to function primarily as a vehicle for one or more dhāraṇī spells or mantras. As the term sūtra implies, many of these texts share elements common to the dialogical genre of Buddhist teaching (Skt., sūtra, Tib., mdo). A typical dhāraṇī-sūtra contains, as Dalton says, one or more dhāraṇī-mantras (the mantras or mantra syllables found inside a text).24 Davidson, in applying the linguistic discipline of Pragmatics to analyses of dhāraṇī literature, sees four fundamental constituents of dhāraṇīmantra: grammatically intelligible natural language sentences; discourse markers such as “oṁ” and “svāhā;” non-lexical verbal elements (such as “ṭi ṭi ṭi ṭi,” as found in VV); and acts of truth, or statements about the veracity of the subject matter.25 In addition to dhāraṇī-mantras, we commonly find a narrative framework comprising a narrative introduction (Skt., nidāna), and statement of the benefits of the dhāraṇī. In later 23 Cf. Dalton 2016; Davidson 2009, 2014a, and 2014b. Ronald M. Davidson (2009), “Studies in Dhāraṇī Literature I: Revisiting the Meaning of the Term Dhāraṇī,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 37, no. 2: 106 employs the term “mantradhāraṇī,” citing a compound analysis indicating an appositional relationship between the terms: “mantra eva dhāraṇī.” While this makes good sense, I have chosen to employ dhāraṇī-mantra towards an internal unity of terminology, and intending the compound to be interpreted as, “dhāraṇyāḥ mantr[apad]āni” or “the mantra[word]s of the dhāraṇī,” to distinguish the Indic passages that were rarely translated into Tibetan. 25 Davidson, “Studies in Dhāraṇī Literature II: Pragmatics of Dhāraṇīs,” 36. 24 14 dhāraṇī texts, a ritual manual (Skt., dhāraṇī-vidhi) sometimes accompanied these two narrative elements.26 Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī contains all of these structural elements, and this is the form of the dharani-sūtra as found in both complete Dunhuang witnesses (our earliest extant witnesses of VV), and in all commentaries allegedly composed in the imperial period. With no data hinting otherwise, we might suggest that VV is “later” than dhāraṇī-sūtras which were composed and circulated without ritual instructions, a trend which, according to Dalton, became common after the sixth century CE.27 By genre, the *Ratnabhāsvara is identified as a dhāraṇī-śāstra (specifically a ṭīkā), a commentary that clarifies opaque dimensions of a dhāraṇī-sūtra. However, since VV is called a Kriyā-tantra in addition to a sūtra and a dhāraṇī in all commentarial works I have consulted, *Ratnabhāsvara might more accurately be considered a śāstra on Kriyā-tantra, as it and every other surviving commentary identifies the dhāraṇī exclusively so. The Textual Dimensions of *Ratnabhāsvara and Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī *Ratnabhāsvara begins with an exegesis of the traditional Buddhist narrative introduction (Skt., nidāna), beginning with the phrase, “Thus have I heard[.] at one time[.] the Bhagavān...” The middle section of the commentary explains the correlation of mantra syllables with the iconographic and performative features of related deities, while the final section is a 26 Jacob P. Dalton (2016), “How Dhāraṇīs WERE Proto-Tantric: Liturgies, Ritual Manuals, and the Origins of the Tantras” in Tantric Traditions in Transmission and Translation, ed. David B. Gray and Ryan Richard Overbey (New York: Oxford University Press), 208. 27 Dalton, “How Dhāraṇīs WERE Proto-Tantric: Liturgies, Ritual Manuals, and the Origins of the Tantras,” 214. 15 versified assortment of benefit assertive statements extolling the features of the dhāraṇī, and a ritual manual. It seems that Buddhagupta was concerned with following the norms for commentarial composition as exemplified in Vasubandhu’s (ca. fourth-fifth centuries CE) exemplary commentary, Vyākhyāyukti. More so than any of his alleged contemporaries, Buddhagupta presents and follows a clear organizational outline, and conforms to common interpretational enumerations throughout, such as the five excellences, and twofold benefit—that is, that the subject matter benefits oneself and others (Tib., bdag don and gzhan don). Most distinctively of all early VV exegetes, Buddhagupta follows an additional set of five aspects through which a sūtra should be discussed, similar to the “five aspects” of an exemplary śāstra as prescribed by Vasubandhu. Vasubandhu gives these as the work’s purpose (Skt., prayojanam, Tib., dgos pa), summary meaning (piṇḍārtham, bsdus pa’i don), meaning of phrases (padārthaḥ, tshig gi don), connections (anusaṃdhika), and objections and responses (udyaparihāraś ca vācyaḥ, brgal ba dang lan gnyis).28 However, when it comes to actually applying these five aspects in organizing his commentary, Buddhagupta followed a different order: subject (Tib., brjod par bya ba), medium (brjod par byed pa), purpose (dgos pa), essential purpose (dgos pa’i yang dgos pa), and connection (mtshams sbyor).29 The dissonance between the stated conformity and the employed explanatory framework is curious, but two potential explanations might be inferred. First, if the attribution is accurate, Buddhagupta sought to situate his commentary in the established norms of classical Indian Buddhist śāstra, as per his monastic culture. But for some reason, Buddhagupta didn’t follow 28 This discussion is drawn from Richard F. Nance (2012), Speaking for Buddhas: Scriptural Commentary in Indian Buddhism (New York: Columbia University Press), 105-120, 132-152, and 250n8. 29 Sangs rgyas gsang ba, Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi ’grel pa rin po che gsal ba, Tōh. 2860, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 70 (rgyud, thu), 177a. 16 through. This classical structure is not found in the commentaries attributed to Vimalamitra, putatively a scholar of comparable pedigree. Second, as a gesture towards promoting the perception that this commentary was written by a formidable scholar, a ghost-writer or pseudepigrapher invoked Vasubandhu’s stylistic elements, but in practice their conformity to this framework wavered. The relationships between other commentaries attributed to Buddhagupta and classical norms of śāstra such as those found in the Vyākhyāyukti might be a bountiful boulevard of future research.30 In *Ratnabhāsvara we read that Buddhagupta wrote this commentary at the request of Mañjuśrīvarman, who was allegedly part of a royal delegation to invite the former to Tibet. Declining to come himself, Buddhagupta taught the members of the delegation, possibly composed texts for them such as *Ratnabhāsvara, and sent them back with a missive laden with advice and directives for the emperor and subjects of Tibet. If the narrative promoted within the *Ratnabhāsvara is accurate, then it would be a typical example of what Davidson has called a “gray text.”31 In this case, we would have a text composed in an Indic language by a person of Indic origin, intended to be translated almost simultaneously into the Tibetan language for the benefit of Tibetan people.32 30 Cf. Hodge, The Mahā-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra: With Buddhaguhya’s Commentary, 44. In Buddhagupta’s MVAT and MVAP commentaries, he mentions only three of the five: connection (saṃbandha), subject matter (abhidheya), purpose (prayojana). The relevant Vyākhyāyukti-influenced section of MVAT commentary is found on pp. 44-46, and 450-1 for the Piṇḍārtha. However, In Buddhagupta’s ’Phags pa dpung bzangs kyis zhus pa’i rgyud kyi bsdus pa’i don (Āryasubāhuparipṛcchanāma-tantrapiṇḍārtha) (Tōh 2671, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 71 (rgyud, thu) 38a-38b, the five elements are listed and followed. 31 See Ronald M. Davidson (2002), “Gsar Ma Apocrypha: The Creation of Orthodoxy, Gray Texts, and the New Revelation.” The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism, ed. Helmut Eimer and David Germano (Leiden: Brill), 211218; and Ronald M. Davidson (2005), Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture (New York: Columbia University Press), 148-150. 32 As such it is curious that the *Ratnabhāsvara, which clearly states that it did not originate in India was not mentioned in Pho brang zhi ba ’od’s open circular of 1092 CE, denouncing such innovative compositions. Cf. Samten Gyaltsen Karmay (1980), “An Open Letter by Pho-Brang Zhi-Ba-’od to the Buddhists in Tibet,” The Tibet Journal Vol. 5, no. 3:3–28. 17 Witnesses of *Ratnabhāsvara and Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī While the *Ratnabhāsvara is only extant in Tibetan, there are witnesses of the commentary’s fundamental text, Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī, in Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese. In its most expansive form, VV includes a nidāna introduction, dhāraṇī-mantras, and concluding verses that extol the benefits of the practice and an associated ablution ritual (Skt., vidhi). Some Sanskrit manuscripts retain a final statement about how the retinue was overjoyed at the recitation of the dhāraṇī (but this passage is not found in Tibetan textual recensions). The verses of benefit assertives and ritual instruction are seen in the earliest-attributed Tibetan commentaries, and among all Dunhuang manuscripts. Therefore, there is no textual record of the dhāraṇī-sūtra circulating without these verses in the Tibetan tradition. Circulation of the dhāraṇī without any concluding verses does occur in Nepalese witnesses, where the dhāraṇī is included in anthologized compendia such as Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha and Saptavāra collections. Tibetan Witnesses of *Ratnabhāsvara The *Ratnabhāsvara can be found in all six versions of the Bstan ’gyur: Co ne, Sde dge, Snar thang, Peking, Dga’ ldan/Gser bris, and Dpe bsdur ma (which for this text is a comparative edition of the Sde ge version against the Co ne, Snar thang, and Peking versions). Judging from the variances noted in the apparatus of my comparative translation, it seems that the Co ne and Sde dge versions of *Ratnabhāsvara are very close, while the Snar thang and Peking versions often retain similar readings, when allowing for common transmissional errors. This supports 18 Stanley’s thesis of two distinct Bstan ’gyur groups: (1) the Peking, Dga’ ldan, and Snar thang group, and (2) the Sde dge and Co ne group.33 For the purpose of the translation, I read the Sde dge and Peking editions simultaneously, in order to consult both groups. I referred to the Snar thang and Co ne Bstan ’gyur versions at problematic sections, and the Dpe bsdur ma where the Sde dge xylograph was unclear. Sanskrit Witnesses of Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī At the National Archives, Kathmandu, the oldest dated manuscript is dated to the Nepalese Nepāla Saṃvat year 803 (ca. 1683 CE).34 It is written on paper, apparently using the Pracalit Nevārī lipi script,35 and illuminated. It lacks the concluding verses of benefit assertives and ritual instructions. A slightly earlier, substantially clearer Sanskrit VV manuscript within a Saptavāra collection is written in a Newar script is held and digitized by Cambridge Digital Library, but I did not consult the manuscript for this thesis.36 Another Sanskrit witness neither located nor consulted has been catalogued by Chandra.37 The Sanskrit version of Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī has been edited twice: by Iwamoto (1937), and in Dhīḥ (2005). Iwamoto consulted two Dhārani sammulung (*Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha or 33 D. Phillip Stanley, “The Tibetan Buddhist Canon,” Accessed 9/19/2018, http://www.thlib.org/encyclopedias/literary/canons/index.php#!essay=/stanley/tibcanons/s/b2/ 34 Vajravidāraṇanāmadhāraṇīhṛdaya(...)mūlamantra, NGMCP E 927/7. 35 This based on consultation with Siegfried Lienhard Wolfgang Voigt, Dieter George, and Hartmut-Ortwin Feistel (1988), Nepalese Manuscripts, Vol. 1 (Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden), xviii-xxv. 36 Saptavāra, Mañjuśrīnāmasaṅgīti, Daśabalastavastotra (MS Add. 1343), dated to N.S. 797 (ca. 1663 CE). Accessed 9/19/2018. http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-01343/1 37 I.e., Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī, Peking Imperial Palace, STP 13.4354. 19 equivalent) manuscripts then held at the University Library of Kyoto. Iwamoto’s edition lacks the concluding verses. The Dhīḥ edition includes all concluding verses, and as well as a final verse about the joyful reception of the dhāraṇī-sūtra by the attendant audience.38 The Dhīḥ edition privileges a Sanskrit witness of VV located within an undated Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha held at the National Archives, Kathmandu.39 Having consulted this same witness, I hypothesize that it was chosen because of the clarity of the manuscript, and because it is written in Devanāgarī script, rather than any perceivable antiquity or idiosyncrasy.40 As the appropriate philological endeavor of assessing, collating, and comparing many dozens of manuscripts is beyond the scope of this thesis I consulted only the Iwamoto and Dhīḥ editions, as well as two mss. (NGMCP nos. E 927/7 and E 1414/841) to assist in reading the Tibetan materials. The transmissional relationship between these four witnesses has been left unexamined. Tibetan Witnesses of Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī Tibetan [’Phags pa] Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs witnesses are also varied and abundant. They can be found across Bka’ ’gyur editions, various witnesses revealed in treasure text (Tib., gter ma) collections, at least two versions of Rnying ma Bka’ ma collections, and 38 This final statement about the text’s joyful reception is not unknown in Nepalese mss. Another variant is found in a VV witness included in Ādityādigrahamātṛkā (NGMCP B 107/18, 3v.5). Due to a lack of this passage or equivalences in all of the Tibetan witnesses, its inclusion would seem to be a later Indic or Nepalese innovation. 39 Cf. Dhāraṇyādisaṃgraha (NGMCP A 861/13, 143b.10-144b.6). 40 The overwhelming majority of the 150+ Sanskrit VV mss. held at the NAK are written in some type of Newar script. Four are written in Devanāgarī. 41 Āryavajravidāraṇa-hṛdaya-nāma-dhāraṇī (NGMCP E 1414/8) is a Nepali paper ms., in Devanāgarī script, unilluminated, and contains the concluding verses. It is grouped with other dhāraṇī found in the Saptavāra group. 20 seven manuscript witnesses from Dunhuang.42 Further, passages of the dhāraṇī-sūtra appear as lemmata in commentarial works. The VV is referenced in the Ldan kar ma catalogue of 812 CE, where it is quantified as 35 verses (Skt., śloka) in length.43 Chinese Translation of Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī I cannot read Chinese. However, I have consulted the Chinese translation of VV (Taisho 21.1417) with the assistance of the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism, to look for two specific features: the grammatical number of the locative phrase in the narrative setting, and the presence or absence of the concluding verses.44 The Chinese translation imparts to us a singular “Vajra” location, and all of the concluding verses. Literature Review Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī If the sheer quantity of secondary literature retained in the Tibetan Bstan ’gyur canons can demonstrate a text’s importance, the Vajravidāraṇa system must be counted among the most 42 IOL Tib J 410-416, and PT 433. These include three mss. spanning the entire range of the text, or from “rgya gar skad du...” to “...rdzogs sho.” All contain the concluding verses. The perceived accounting discrepancy between Dunhuang catalogue numbers and witnesses stems from the fact that IOL Tib J 411 and 414 are, by all appearances, parts of the same incomplete witness, as noted by the cataloger of IOL Tib J 411. 43 Yoshimura, The Denkar-ma: An Oldest Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons, 153. If one DK śloka is, as Nance (2012:5) says, sixteen syllables (akṣara) of verse or prose, then the DK version of VV had 560 syllables (in 35 ślokas), and the catalogued witness(es) might have lacked the concluding verses. If akṣaras of the mantras are not counted at all, then it might be plausible that the concluding verses were present. If, on the other hand, we follow Nyang ral’s (2010:364) accounting of Zhu chen standards, one line (Tib., tshig rkang) is seven syllables—reflecting the length of a standard Tibetan line—four lines make a stanza (sho lo ka), and three hundred stanzas make a volume or scroll (bam po), then a thirty-five stanza work would be even shorter than the shortest extant versions of the text. 44 The SAT Daizōkyō Text Database, accessed 9/19/2018. http://21dzk.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/SAT2012/T1417.html. 21 popular in the Tibetan and Newar cultural realms.45 Over 120 pertinent commentarial works are retained in the Sde dge Bstan ’gyur, and this figure doesn’t include the works subsequently authored by Tibetans of the four major schools of Tibetan Buddhism.46 Despite this, academics have not previously given direct and sustained attention to Vajravidāraṇa traditions. While VV has not been the exclusive subject of any study, the text or its practice system have been mentioned in a number of scholarly works in passing. Bühnemann has given the most thorough treatment of Vajravidāraṇā practice in her exposition of the practice of the Newari Saptavāra group of seven dhāraṇī goddesses.47 This group was likely formed after the thirteenth century in central Nepal, and entailed the transformation of the masculine deity Vajrvidāraṇa into the goddess Vajravidāraṇā.48 However, in this process the Sanskrit textual tradition was largely unaffected, save the adoption of feminine forms in the text’s title and homage statements. Bühnemann’s work is more directly related to the late Newari liturgical employment of this dhāraṇī, which presents alluring avenues of further research, but is, sadly, a topic that is beyond the scope of this thesis. 45 In the Sde dge version of the Bstan ’gyur, there are well over 100 works on VV attributed to purported snga dar and phyi dar figures alike. The dhāraṇī and selected secondary literature appear in the Rin chen gter mdzod chen mo compiled by ’Jam mgon kong sprul blo gros mtha’ yas (1813-1899), ’Dod jo’i ’bum bzang, compiled by Smin gling gter chen ’Gyur med rdo rje (1646-1714), and Rnying ma bka’ ma collections. Related commentaries have been composed by figures of all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism (e.g., Grags pa rgyal mtshan, Sa skya paṇ chen, ’Drug Padma dkar po, and ’Jam mgon Mi pham rgya mtso, to name a few). 46 This oversimplified statement assumes that all of the Vajravidāraṇa-related works in the Sde dge Bstan ‘gyur were authored by non-Tibetans, which is not likely accurate. For our present purposes, the point remains: Vajravidāraṇa was immensely important in India and Tibet. For a selection of the most important commentaries on VV, see Thar lam gsal sgron, ed. (2014), Rgyal po mdo bcu’i rtsa ’grel phyogs bsgrigs, (Chengdu: Si khron dus deb tshogs pa dang si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang), vol. 1. 47 Cf. Gudrun Bühnemann (2014), “A Dhāraṇī for Each Day of the Week: The Saptavāra Tradition of the Newar Buddhists,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 77, no. 1: 120. The Saptavāra usually includes Vasudhārā, Vajravidāraṇā, Gaṇapatihṛdayā, Uṣṇīṣavijayā, Parṇaśavarī/Prajñāpāramitā, Mārīcī, and Grahamātṛkā, although the order presented in mss. reviewed at the NAK indicate that the order is not universally fixed. 48 Cf. Gergely Hidas (2012a), Mahāpratisarā-Mahāvidyārājñi - the Great Amulet, Great Queen of Spells: Introduction, Critical Editions and Annotated Translation, Śata-piṭaka series: Indo-Asian literatures vol. v. 636 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture and Aditya Prakashan), 21, on the change of gender in the Mahāpratisara-mahāvidyārājñī I am indebted to Kathrin Holz for bringing this passage to my attention. 22 In Rājendralāla Mitra’s The Sanskrit Buddhist Literature of Nepal, an 1882 catalogue of Nepalese manuscripts acquired by Brian Houghton Hodgson, a VV ms. is catalogued and described.49 In his 1981 translation of Tsong kha pa’s (1357-1419) Sngags rim chen mo, Hopkins raises the possibility of the existence of an “Extensive Vidāraṇā Tantra (Rdo rje rnam par ’joms kyi rgyud rgyas pa, *Vajravidāraṇāvaipulya),” which he says is “available only in citation in Buddhagupta’s commentary, which is extant only in Tibetan.”50 There, Hopkins translates a lemma which is cited in *Ratnabhāsvara.51 Hopkins repeats this sentiment in a 2009 work as well.52 Davidson, in Indian Esoteric Buddhism, stated that a Vajravidāraṇa-related text was in a “tantric canon of use” in the eighth century in India, though the precise text to which he refers is not specified.53 The importance of these references, and their implications, are substantial, for it makes a considerable difference if there ever was a *Vajravidāraṇāvaipulya or *Vajravidāraṇatantra that is distinct from the diminutive Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī. There is one text that might comment on lemmata from an extended recension of the text: the extensive commentary (doubtfully) attributed to Vimalamitra.54 Besides that, in dozens of 49 Rājendralāla Mitra (1882 (1971)), The Sanskrit Buddhist Literature of Nepal (London: Asiatic Society of Bengal), 269. 50 Jeffrey Hopkins and T. Gyatso (1981), The Yoga of Tibet (London: George Allen & Unwin), 109. 51 My reading of the section in question, used by Hopkins as evidence of an extensive tantra, is as follows: “Likewise, in a tantra it says... (de yang rgyud las).” (Sangs rgyas gsang ba, *Ratnabhāsvara, D-179v). The Tibetan phrase “de yang” is used continually in *Ratnabhāsvara as a segue between two successive quotations, and on several other occasions our author appeals to unspecific, unidentified tantras (Tib., rgyud). I think it is more likely a lemma from the shadowy Kriyā-tantra compendium *Vidyādhara-piṭaka, quoted extensively by Buddhagupta and Padmasambhava in his Vajravidāraṇa commentary, but currently unidentified. 52 Jeffrey Hopkins (2009), Tantric Techniques (New York: Shambhala), 305, 312-3, and 353. 53 Ronald M. Davidson (2002 [2004]), Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers), 152-3 and 376n125. 54 Vimalamitra, ’Phags pa rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs rnam par bshad pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa (Tōh. 2682a). 23 witnesses consulted in three languages, I have encountered no explicit reference to a specific extensive Vajravidāraṇa tantra. Dhāraṇī Literature Western scholarship on different iterations of dhāraṇī literature, from mnemonic schemata, to magical formulae, to a distinct textual genre has been well covered in myriad journal articles, monographs and anthologies.55 Davidson56 and Overbey57 have given excellent historiographical accounts of academic treatments of dhāraṇī as a technical term of fluid definition and as a genre of Mahāyāna literature. In recent years Davidson58 and Dalton59 have offered hypotheses on the role of dhāraṇī literature. Particularly, Dalton, in his 2016 chapter, focuses on ritual manuals based on dhāraṇīs in the formation of early tantra. However, no one seems to have yet written specifically on how commentarial literature was used to categorize, or popularize dhāraṇī texts in the sixth through ninth centuries CE, the formative period when tantric Buddhism was developing and spreading. Gyatso’s 1992 study of the 3rd Rdo grub chen, Bstan pa’i nyi ma’s (1865-1926) commentary on dhāraṇī as memory presents an important exception to the absence of consideration of commentaries on dhāraṇī literature.60 This study centers a commentary about 55 For a history of dhāraṇīs and their evolution as a textual genre, see Braarvig 1985, Davidson 2009, and Overbey 2010; for the use of dhāraṇīs, see Bentor 1995, 1996, 2003; Davidson 2009, 2012, and 2014; Hidas 2007, 2010, 2012, 2016, and McBride 2005 and 2011; on dhāraṇī use and popularity in the Sinitic cultural sphere, much work has been done by Copp, but here I have only consulted two works (Copp 2003 and 2010). 56 Cf. Davidson, “Studies in Dhāraṇī Literature I: Revisiting the Meaning of the Term Dhāraṇī.” 57 Cf. Ryan Richard Overbey (2010), “Memory, Rhetoric, and Education in the Great Lamp of the Dharma Dhāraṇī Scripture” (PhD diss., Harvard University). 58 Cf. Davidson 2009, 2012, 2014a, 2014b, 2016, and 2017. 59 Cf. Dalton, “How Dhāraṇīs WERE Proto-Tantric: Liturgies, Ritual Manuals, and the Origins of the Tantras.” 60 Janet Gyatso (1992) “Letter Magic: A Peircean Perspective on the Semiotics of Rdo Grub-chen's Dhāraṇī Memory” in In the Mirror of Memory: Reflections on Mindfulness and Remembrance in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, ed. Janet Gyatso (Albany: State University of New York Press),173-214. 24 dhāraṇī, but in this context, it is in regards to the term dhāraṇī functioning as a memory storage unit, rather than a magic apotropaic spell, or “proto-tantric” esoteric ritual system. Śāstra The śāstra as a genre has been ubiquitous in the South Asian context since the time of the Vedas, centuries ago. As Sastri pointed out, śāstra and Veda were treated as synonymous from the earliest period of Indic literary culture.61 Pollock noted that at its height, the entirety of Indic secular literary discourse came to be subsumed by a dichotomy of kāvya, or literature, and śāstra, discursive sciences.62 His 1985 article on śāstra provides indigenous perspectives on the meaning of the term śāstra, as attested since the Ṛgveda, as rules, a book of rules, or “a system of ideas” until the medieval era.63 Commentaries were used in the creation of knowledge, both practical and divine, functioned to enforce stasis in the literary context, but propelled innovation in mundane sciences. All of these are governed by the idea of “transcendent śāstra” that is revealed to humans, to greater and lesser degrees.64 Most previous scholarship on Buddhist śāstra concern one of two types of commentaries: those interpreting sūtras, and those interpreting tantras. Commentarial literature based on dhāraṇī is rare, and academic study of dhāraṇī-śāstra rarer still.65 As regards scholarship on 61 V. A. R. Sastri (1952), “Śāstra - An Independent Pramāṇa,” Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 12:437. 62 Sheldon Pollock (2006), The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India (Ranikhet: Permanent Black), 3. 63 Sheldon Pollock (1985), “The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory in Indian Intellectual History.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 105: 501. 64 Pollock, “The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory in Indian Intellectual History,” 516. 65 An important exception to note is the case of the [Nir/A]vikalpapraveśa-dhāraṇī (Tōh. 142), and its commentary, the Dharmadharmatāvibhāga attributed to Maitreyanātha. See Klaus-Dieter Mathes (1996), Unterscheidung der Gegebenheiten von ihrem wahren Wesen (Dharmadharmatā-vibhāga): Eine Lehrschrift der Yogācāra-Schule in tibetischer Überlieferung (Indica at Tibetica: Swisttal-Odendorf). 25 commentarial literature pertaining to the level of sūtra or secular topics, Ganeri, in an article focused on grammatical and philosophical śāstra wrote that commentaries serve to establish superiority of one school of hermeneutic interpretation over another. 66 Nance’s 2012 monograph is a study of protocols and conventions of commentarial composition, as typified by Vasubandhu’s Vyākhyāyukti, a śāstra intended to guide and demonstrate the ideal composition of śāstra. Nance traces the effects of those protocols on Indian Buddhist composers of treatises working in the large monasteries of India across the later half of the first millennium.67 Nance’s book studies the nexus of classical Indian śāstra norms and Buddhist śāstra forms. The author of *Ratnabhāsvara seems to follow from these norms, albeit somewhat uncomfortably. Early focus on Buddhist śāstra concerned the genre’s importance in the Tibetan context. Wilson offered an overview of the classifications of śāstra in the Tibetan tradition, showing that many Tibetan śāstras are secondary commentaries, or commentaries on earlier commentaries.68 Schoening’s article in the same volume concluded that, unlike Indic grammatical sūtra texts, Buddhist sūtras were circulated before the commentaries that served to interpret and situate them.69 66 Jonardon Ganeri. (2010), “Sanskrit Philosophical Commentary,” Journal of The Indian Council of Philosophical Research 27: 187–207. 67 Nance (2012), Speaking for Buddhas: Scriptural Commentary in Indian Buddhism. 68 Joe Bransford Wilson (1996), “Tibetan Commentaries on Indian Śāstras,” in Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre, ed. José Ignacio Cabezón and Roger R. Jackson (Ithaca: Snow Lion) 125-137. 69 Jeffrey D. Schoening (1996), “Sūtra Commentaries in Tibetan Translation,” in Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre, ed. José Ignacio Cabezón and Roger R. Jackson (Ithaca: Snow Lion), 111-124. 26 Hodge’s 2003 translation of two commentaries on the Mahāvairocanābhisaṃbodhitantra attributed to Buddhagupta provide important studies of Buddhist tantric śāstra,70 as does Cantwell and Mayer’s 2012 article on the purportedly Indic Noble Noose of Methods Tantra.71 Wedemeyer72 and Campbell’s73 work on commentarial work of the Ārya tradition of the Guhyasamāja Tantra are instructive studies of tantric śāstra. In introducing the Caryāmelāpakapradīpa commentary (mid-to-late ninth century74), Wedemeyer discusses issues of pseudepigrapha among the biographic mysteries of Āryadeva. In his introduction, Wedemeyer says that this Āryadeva uses his commentarial position in the predictable way of glossing obscure phrases, unpacking terse verse in prose form, and introducing scriptural citations to validate his stance. In short, it’s an axiomatic Buddhist śāstra, but set in a tantric context. It might be evident that previous academic study on the topics of dhāraṇī, Buddhist śāstra, and the Vajravidāraṇa systems have been fruitful, but sustained exploratory study of this dhāraṇī-based corpus has not been undertaken. While the scope of this work is limited, it is hoped that some lacunae can be filled, and at the very least, that future related study will be catalyzed. Having considered relevant previous academic study in this way, we can turn to the five-limbed discussion of thematic elements found in *Ratnabhāsvara. 70 Hodge, The Mahā-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra: With Buddhaguhya’s Commentary. Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer (2009), “A Noble Noose of Methods, the Lotus Garland Synopsis: Methodological Issues in the Study of a Mahāyoga Text from Dunhuang,” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5: 1–51. 72 Christian K. Wedemeyer (2007), Āryadeva’s Lamp that Integrates the Practices (Caryāmelāpakapradīpa) The Gradual Path of Vajrayana Buddhism According to the Esoteric Community Noble Tradition (New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies). 73 John R. B. Campbell (2009), “Vajra Hermeneutics: A Study of Vajrayāna Scholasticism in the Pradīpoddyotana” (PhD diss., Columbia University). 74 Date according to Wedemeyer, Āryadeva’s Lamp that Integrates the Practices (Caryāmelāpakapradīpa) The Gradual Path of Vajrayana Buddhism According to the Esoteric Community Noble Tradition,13. 71 27 Five Aspects of Vajravidāraṇa In this exploration of five themes unique to *Ratnabhāsvara, I have consulted with the canonical Vajravidāraṇa commentarial works attributed to Kumārasena, Śāntarakṣita, Padmasambhava, and Vimalamitra, and others, in order to compare the two distinct Vajravidāraṇa traditions of Buddhagupta and Vimalamitra. Mostly, Kumārasena, Śāntarakṣita, and Padmasambhava offer supportive voices for the tradition of Buddhagupta, with similarities in their approach and iconography. The two commentaries attributed to Vimalamitra75 provide counterpoints from the perspective of the second tradition, which bears his name (Tib., Bi ma la’i lugs). In reading the work of these Indic figures active in the eighth century, I have tried to get a sense of how Vajravidāraṇa practice was promoted during that period. That is, while the provenance of all early Vajravidāraṇa literature is suspect, taken together they might sketch how Vajravidāraṇa practice looked upon its importation into Tibet. I now turn to the first of these themes, the mytho-historical time at which the Vajravidāraṇa dhāraṇī appeared in the human world. 75 Vimalamitra, Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs zhes bya ba’i rnam par bshad pa (*°ṭīkā, Tōh. 2681), and Rdo rje rnam par ‘joms pa’i gzungs rnam par bshad pa’i rgya cher ‘grel pa (*°vyākhyānabṛhaṭṭīkā, Tōh. 2682). Joel Gruber, in “The Sudden and Gradual Sūtric (and Tantric?) Approaches in the Rim gyis ’jug pa and the Cig car ’jug pa,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 39: 422, doubts the attribution of commentarial works attributed to Vimalmitra that are not centered on Prajñāpāramitā. The two commentaries attributed to Vimalamitra have striking dissimilarities in terms of their doxography, iconographical features, and relation of Ajātaśatru narratives. As such I do not think they were composed by the same person. Further, the Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs rnam par bshad pa (*°vyākhyāna) (Tōh. 2683)] attributed to Kṣemāṅkura (Bde ba’i myu gu) shares striking similarities to the °Rnam par bshad pa attributed to Vimalamitra, even sharing passages verbatim. The directionality of influence between these two °Rnam par bshad pas remains to be determined. Tōh 2683 is the only work attributed to Kṣemāṅkura in any Bstan ’gyur. 28 Excellent Time: Ajātaśatru’s Ailments In many dhāraṇī-sūtras, the precipitating cause for the utterance of the dhāraṇī—its reason for appearing in the human realm—is usually given in the narrative introduction (Skt., nidāna), in what Davidson has identified as a “precipitating assertive” statement, adopting the terminology of Pragmatic linguistics.76 The fundamental Vajravidāraṇa text is an exception to this norm, in that the nidāna tells of where the narrative takes place, the manner in which the dhāraṇī was given, and the special qualities of the dhāraṇī-mantra[s]. But a direct cause for the revelation is missing. *Ratnabhāsvara elucidates that this cause lies in the biographical complex of the historical king of Magadha, Ajātaśatru (var. Kūṇika; Pāli, Ajātasattu; Tib. Ma skyes dgra, and variously Log pa’i snying po, Stobs can snying po, or Stobs ldan snying po77), active during the time of Siddhārtha Gautama, around the sixth through fifth centuries BCE. The episode from Ajātaśatru’s life that justified the emergence of the dhāraṇī is repeatedly referenced in Vajravidāraṇa commentarial literature. In *Ratnabhāsvara, the story is told in the most detailed account found in the Vajravidāraṇa corpus. It is alluded to in both Vajravidāraṇa commentaries attributed to Vimalamitra, recapitulated in ’Brug Padma dkar po’s (1527-1592) sixteenth century commentary,78 in Chos kyi grags pa’s (1595-1659) seventeenth century commentary,79 and in ’Ju Mi pham rgya mtsho’s (1846-1912) nineteenth century 76 Davidson, “Studies in Dhāraṇī Literature II: Pragmatics of Dhāraṇīs,” 13-17. Vimalamitra, Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs rnam par bshad pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa, P-587. 78 Padma dkar po (1973-1974), Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi ’grel pa sngags don rnam par bshad pa, in Gsung ’bum: Padma dkar po, Vol. 11 (Darjeeling: Kargyud Sungrab Nyamso Khang), 437. 79 Chos kyi grags pa (1999), Rdo rje rnam ’joms dang sme ba brtsegs pa’i lo rgyus bsdus pa bzhugs so, in Gsung ’bum: Chos kyi grags pa, Vol. 5 (Kulhan: Drikung Kagyu Institute), 261-267. 77 29 annotative commentary (Tib., mchan ’grel).80 It is also echoed or referenced in other, derivative Tibetan commentarial works.81 However, the infamous story of how King Ajātaśatru killed his father, King Śreṇika Bimbisāra (Tib., Gzugs can snying po), as recounted in the Vajravidāraṇa corpus simultaneously draws on, and deviates from, previously studied Ajātaśatru narrative traditions. In this section, I will alight upon some salient points about the Ajātaśatru narrative complex (the title given by Radich to the range of variations on Ajātaśatru biographies)82 as they have been treated in secondary scholarship. I will then provide a summary and analysis of the Ajātaśatru story found in the Vajravidāraṇa corpus, drawing primarily from the scattered references found in *Ratnabhāsvara.83 In doing so, I aim to highlight that the narrative found in the Vajravidāraṇa tradition is yet another version of this story of ignominious patricide - a version that brings one of the oldest Buddhist stories of betrayal and redemption into the Tibetan context. Before the time of the historical Buddha, Siddhārtha Gautama, the Indian subcontinent came to be divided into sixteen different polities (Skt., Mahājānapadas).84 Of these, Magadha was the most martially dominant. During Siddhārtha Gautama’s lifetime, Ajātaśatru, the son of 80 Mi pham rgya mtsho (2014), “Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi mchan ’grel,” in Rgyal po mdo bcu’i rtsa ’grel phyogs bsgrigs, ed. Thar lam gsal sgron, vol. 1 (Chengdu: Si khron dus deb tshogs pa dang si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang), 443-458. 81 This is not found in *Vajrāloka, attributed to Padmasambhava, or Śāntarakṣita’s commentary. 82 Cf. Michael Radich (2011), How Ajātaśatru Was Reformed: The Domestication of “Ajase” and Stories in Buddhist History (Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies). I am much obliged to Professor Radich and Sophie Florence for providing me access to this work. 83 Although Jains and Buddhists claim that Bimbisāra and Ajātaśatru were benefactors of their respective traditions, I will limit my discussion of the Ajātaśatru story to the Buddhist context. See Phyllis Granoff (2012), “After Sinning: Some Thoughts on Remorse, Responsibility, and the Remedies for Sin in Indian Religious Traditions,” in Sins and Sinners Perspectives from Asian Religions, ed. Phyllis Granoff and Koichi Shinohara (Brill: Leiden), 175215; and Juan Wu (2014), “Violence, Virtue and Spiritual Liberation: A Preliminary Survey of Buddhist and Jaina Stories of Future Rebirths of Śreṇika Bimbisāra and Kūṇika Ajātaśatru,” Religions of South Asia 8.2: 149-179 for more on the Jain narrative traditions. 84 The full list of sixteen is found in the Anguttara-Nikāya, as given in E. J. Rapson, ed. (1922), The Cambridge History of India, Volume I: Ancient India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 172 and 172n3. 30 King Śreṇika Bimbisāra of Magadha, usurped the throne of his father.85 Details about the events leading up to Ajāraśatru’s succession, how the transfer of power transpired, and the ramifications of his patricide have all evolved over time in accordance with shifting Buddhist views of the nature of karma and soteriology.86 In his study of the evolution of Ajātaśatru narratives, from their roots in Pāli canonical sources87 to modern Japanese iterations, Radich presents an exhaustive list of variations on the major elements of the narrative.88 As Radich notes, the Ajātaśatru narratives vary and agree in such ways that distinct transmission lineages cannot be traced.89 However, Radich identifies two trends of emphasis regarding the Ajātaśatru succession story that came to be subsumed into one comprehensive narrative recension. The first, from the Pāli Cullavagga, focuses on how Devadatta, that antagonistic cousin of Siddhārtha Gautama, persuaded Ajātaśatru to commit his patricide.90 This version centers on the corrupting influence of the Buddha’s cousin, Devadatta. In that version, King Ajātaśatru is merely a tool of Devadatta’s larger campaign against the Buddha.91 The second trend is recorded in the Pāli Sāmaññaphala-sutta, where Ajātaśatru is moved to confess his crime before the Buddha. The Buddha then counteracts Ajātaśatru’s crime in some way, through mere 85 Rapson, The Cambridge History of India, 184, citing “Ceylon chronologists,” said that Bimbisāra was killed. The chronologists placed this event at eight years before the Buddha entered mahāparinirvāṇa, and Rapson considered this to be historical fact. Radich, How Ajātaśatru Was Reformed, 6, agrees, based on the ubiquity of this aspect of the story through “almost all sources.” 86 Radich, How Ajātaśatru Was Reformed, focuses on the general variations in historical trends of Ajātaśatru narratives, while Jayarava Attwood (2014), “Escaping the Inescapable: Changes in Buddhist Karma,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics, Vol. 21: 503-535, emphasizes the ethical shifts reflected by the changing narratives. 87 Radich (Ibid., 138) says that these earliest Pāli sources are Cullavagga (Theravadin Vinaya Pitaka 2.187), the Sāmaññaphala sutta (Dīgha Nikāya 1.47), and Pāli Mahāparinibbāna-sutta (Dīgha Nikāya 16). 88 Ibid., 8-18. 89 Ibid., 18. 90 See also Granoff, “After Sinning,”175-215, where she notes that this is also true in the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya. 91 Radich, How Ajātaśatru Was Reformed, 19. 31 acknowledgement or full absolution for his trespass.92 The former tradition focuses on the causes of Ajātaśatru’s parricide; the latter focuses on the subsequent ramifications of the act(s). As the narrative is passed down through this second tradition of emphasis, the salvific power of the Buddha plays an ever-greater role, and Ajātaśatru’s karmic retribution is alleviated. In the Śrāmaṇyaphala-sūtra, the Buddha can’t prevent Ajātaśatru’s karmic retribution of suffering in the hell realms. However, with the appearance of the later Sanskrit version of the same Śrāmaṇyaphala-sūtra, and in particular a later Chinese translation of the text, the karmic weight of Ajātaśatru’s patricide is lessened after his repentance.93 Later still, these two emphatic tendencies were united in such texts as the Sanskrit Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, the Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya, and others that retain details of portentous omens surrounding Ajātaśatru’s birth and early life, and also show the salvation of Ajātaśatru. The Sanskrit Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra took the narrative complex further than previous versions, introducing a narrative arc wherein King Bimbisāra was first imprisoned before being murdered. Radich proposed that this was possibly employed as an explanatory device to fill narrative lacunae surrounding the death of Bimbisāra.94 The same sūtra also introduces the element of physical illness as a motivating factor for Ajātaśatru’s repentance.95 As Granoff argues, because in this sūtra set at the time of Buddha’s passing into mahāparinirvāṇa, the Buddha postpones his passing in order to teach Ajātaśatru, the exalted person of King Ajātaśatru becomes the “everyman,” a paradigmatic scapegoat who 92 Like Granoff, for the purposes of this discussion I have avoided the narrative as found in Ajātaśatrukauṛtyavinodanā, one of the earliest texts where Ajātaśatru is remorseful and brings this guilt to the Buddha, who cannot save him. In this text, Ajātaśatru does go to hell, where he feels no pain, and later awakens to Buddhahood. Granoff, “After Sinning,” 204. 93 Attwood, Escaping the Inescapable: Changes in Buddhist Karma, 517-18. The later Chinese translation in question is identified by Attwood as “Śrāmaṇyaphala Sūtra-Chinese.” (Taisho 2.125.) 94 Radich, How Ajātaśatru Was Reformed, 22-24. 95 Ibid., 35-36; 59-61. 32 exemplifies every sinner.96 Such a universalizing trend would play well into the common ritual language of dhāraṇīs qua magic spells, where accessible elemental rituals were believed to effect changes in health and suffering. The preceding journey through previous studies of Ajātaśatru narratives has landed briefly on a few points germane to Vajravidāraṇa’s particular Ajātaśatru story. I will now turn to the story itself, as drawn from references in *Ratnabhāsvara, and the commentaries of ’Ju mi pham rgya mtsho and Chos kyi grags pa. The author of *Ratnabhāsvara states that within the framework of the five interrelated elements of their śāstra, one of the primary purposes of the recitation of VV was to train (Tib., ’dul) King Log pa’i snying po, as Ajātaśatru is identified here, by healing the maladies experienced as a result of karmic comeuppance. Mi pham rgya mtsho says that Log pa’i snying po is a synonym of Ma skyes dgra, the usual (and literal) Tibetan translation of Ajātaśatru.97 In the commentaries attributed to Vimalamitra, and subsequent derivative commentaries, he is variously called Stobs can snying po, Log pa’i stobs can, and Stobs ldan snying po.98 The references to the Ajātaśatru story sprinkled throughout *Ratnabhāsvara can be summarized as follows. Long ago, in Jambudvīpa, Lokpé Nyingpo imprisoned his father, and killed both of his parents merely by uttering the wrathful command, “Slay! (māraya).”99 Then 96 Granoff, “After Sinning,” 209-210. Mi pham rgya mtsho (2014), “Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi mchan ’grel” in Rgyal po mdo bcu’i rtsa ’grel phyogs bsgrigs, ed. Thar lam gsal sgron. Vol. 1. (Chengdu: Si khron dus deb tshogs pa dang si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang). 98 For instance, Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa, P 534, has “rgyal po log pa’i stobs can gyis bram ze la gseg shang brgyab pa’i rnam smin la bya ste...” See also Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa, P 587. Further, consult Radich, How Ajātaśatru Was Reformed, 147-159 (“Appendix 3: The Many Names of Ajātaśatru,”) for other names of Ajātaśatru, none of which contain elements that would be readily rendered into Tibetan as “Stobs ldan” or “log pa’i.” 99 This could be construed as a “slaying mantra (Tib., bsad pa’i sngags).” 97 33 the King and his retinue engaged in sundry evil activities, and the regional non-human beings caused illness and various maladies to arise for them. By saying the Vajravidāraṇa dhāraṇī, Ajātaśatru and his retinue were saved from their afflictions. This miracle was observed by the Four Great Kings,100 who were so astounded by this healing that they took refuge in the Buddha, whereupon Vajrapāṇī revealed the Vajravidāraṇa dhāraṇī.101 Through the practice of this dhāraṇī, the King and his retinue attained the “vajra-like samādhi (*vajropama-samādhi),” and the dharmakāya and saṃbhogakāya levels of experience - no small feat for such brazen sinners. Later in *Ratnabhāsvara, Ajātaśatru was said to mount a beam of light102 and was liberated. By way of a reason for his evil actions, *Ratnabhāsvara merely says that the King had “doubts.”103 This is a mild statement when contrasted with other versions of the narrative that portray Ajātaśatru as being a coerced accessory in Devadatta’s nefarious designs. As Radich notes, the detail that Ajātaśatru killed both parents is attested in only one other work, composed in Chinese.104 Likewise, Rapson cites a jātaka tale, or story about the Buddha’s previous lives and exploits, that says Bimbisāra’s wife Kosala Devī died of grief after the death of her husband.105 Killing one or both parents is one of the five sins whose karmic ripening is effected immediately upon death, (Skt., ānantarya-karmāṇi, Tib., las mtshams med lnga), the worst type of nonvirtuous action according to mainstream Buddhist ethics.106 The Tibetan 100 Within Buddhist cosmology, these Four Great Kings (Skt., caturmahārāja) are a group of four mundane gods who each govern over a direction and a class of non-human beings. By name, they are Vaiśravaṇa/Kubera (north), Virūḍhaka (south), Dhṛtarāṣṭra (east), and Virūpākṣa (west). 101 Sangs rgyas gsang ba. Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi rgya cher ’grel pa rin po che gsal ba, Otani 3504, Peking Bstan ’gyur vol. 78 (rgyud ’grel, chu), folios 184r-5v. The temporal circularity of Buddhagupta’s accounting of events is not lost on me. 102 Ibid., 178r. 103 Ibid., 189v. 104 Radich, How Ajātaśatru Was Reformed, 16. 105 Rapson, The Cambridge History of India, 184. 106 Wu, “Violence, Virtue and Spiritual Liberation,” 154. 34 tradition of Ajātaśatru portrayed in the Vajravidāraṇa corpus incorporates elements of both of the narrative traditions noted above by Radich. Echoes of the former, pre-parricide focus are retained, except that nonhuman forces, rather than Devadatta, lead Ajātaśatru to his patricide. Similar nonhuman forces can be tamed by the practitioner of Vajravidāraṇa. The later tradition that focuses on Ajātaśatru’s redemption reverberates as the expedient means of the dhāraṇī itself, and the associated elemental ritual that is presented in a form employable by lay practitioners of varying economic circumstances and vocations (as evinced by the options of materials used in the associated ritual and the vestments prescribed, as below). Across the two different Vajravidāraṇa commentarial lineages, the specific relationship between Ajātaśatru and the dhāraṇī is emphasized to greater and lesser degrees. Unfortunately, at this point none of the authorial attributions can be verified, and we can not assign dates to these commentaries. This means it is presently impossible to trace the evolution of different interpretations of the correlation between the dhāraṇī and Ajātaśatru narrative traditions, or to trace the trend towards universal salvific potency after Granoff’s aforementioned opinion. We can say that the correlation between Ajātaśatru and Vajravidāraṇa is common to both of the early lineages of Vimalamitra and Buddhagupta, but that it is given more weight in Buddhagupta’s commentary than in those attributed to Padmasambhava, Śāntarakṣita, or Vimalamitra. This Ajātaśatru association might have benefitted the Vajravidāraṇa system in at least two important ways. First, it could have served to legitimize the dhāraṇī by associating it with a well-known episode in the life of the historical Buddha. Second, the fact that this dhāraṇī worked for Ajātaśatru—a person guilty of the most grievous crime known to humanity—attests to its salvific efficacy. The reasoning goes that if it can exculpate the sins of an avaricious patricide, it can surely cleanse the potential practitioner’s less severe misdeeds with ease. 35 Moreover, the dhāraṇī ritual can be a cause of enlightenment, not just the alleviation of samsaric suffering, and in this way works on the worldly and the transcendent levels. There is an interesting echo of the connection between Ajātaśatru and Vajravidāraṇa practice found in Tibet. There, the Padma Bka’ thang, a biography of Padmasambhava and a seminal text of the Hidden Treasure (Tib., gter ma) literary genre, mentions that the dhāraṇīsūtra was advanced as a member of a group of ten texts (rgyal po mdo bcu) employed to prolong the life of the Tibetan Emperor Khri Srong lde btsan, who ruled around the time of Padmasambhava and Vimalamitra’s engagement with Tibetans.107 Parallels might well be drawn between the use of the dhāraṇī to cure and absolve King Ajātaśatru, and its prescription to Emperor Khri Srong lde btsan for its properties of purification and life-extension. As a parting tangent, these ten texts, further mirroring devotional or recitation practices associated with Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha texts in Indic and Nepalese traditions up to the present day, required the Emperor to merely recite the ten texts to increase his longevity. These two similarities could be stimulating areas of future research. This concludes the discussion of the Excellent Time, when King Ajātaśatru was healed and absolved through the recitation of Vajravidāraṇa. Excellent Place: The Vajra Setting The second topic is the ambiguous location where the dhāraṇī-sūtra takes place. To establish a basis of discussion, the narrative introduction of VV reads: 107 “Bsdu sgrigs gsal bshad” in Thar lam gsal sgron, ed. (2014), Rgyal po mdo bcu’i rtsa ’grel phyogs bsgrigs, vol. 1 (Chengdu: Si khron dus deb tshogs pa dang si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang), 2-3. 36 Thus have I heard at one time: the Blessed One was abiding in Vajra.108 In rendering the locative phrase with a singular noun (“Vajra”), this translation follows the standard Tibetan and Chinese translations over the Sanskrit version that is almost uniform in presenting the plural form (“vajreṣu,” read as “in Vajras”) throughout Nepalese Sanskrit manuscripts of VV.109 Although the extant Tibetan commentarial literature on Vajravidāraṇa interprets this locative phrase (Skt., vajreṣu, Tib., rdo rje la) in various ways, they unanimously interpret the locative phrase in the singular. Why the Sanskrit is plural, and what is meant by that, remain open questions. By the time the VV commentary attributed to Buddhagupta was composed, the debate about VV’s narrative setting had already begun: *Ratnabhāsvara was not the first volley of exegetical discourse, although no word-for-word commentary attributed to an earlier figure is retained in any Bstan ’gyur. Within the context of the five excellences of the śāstra, the “vajra” location, with the number of “vajras” not specified, is the “Excellent Place (gnas phun sum tshogs pa).” For our commentator this is equivalent with “non-dual wisdom (de yang don ni gnyis su med pa’i ye shes yin la).” Alternatively, “vajra” can refer to the “precious vajra abode 108 This translation employs a so-called “five-word nidāna,” where the temporal clause, “at one time,” refers to the hearing of the teaching on the part of the sūtra’s compiler, rather than referring to the occasion that the Blessed One (Buddha Śākyamuni) delivered the teaching. In translating it so, I followed the explicit exegesis supplied in *Ratnabhāsvara. Please, don’t shoot the messenger. 109 The Tibetan translations, with one exception demonstrate this reading. One VV ms. from Dunhuang reads, “rdo rje’i gnas na bzhugs so/” [Pelliot Tibétain 433, 1r.2] The Chinese reads: “一時婆伽梵在金剛場” (T 21.1417 0933a23, http://21dzk.l.utokyo.ac.jp/SAT2012/T1417.html) which contains no numerical qualifier of the “adamantine place,” so should be read in the singular. 37 (rdo rje rin po che’i gnas),”110 that is, the area in the north-east of Vajra Mount Meru (rdo rje lhun po ri rab kyi zom).111 According to Buddhagupta, “vajra” does not refer to the Vajra Seat at Bodh Gaya, where the historical Buddha attained enlightenment. Citing a source from an unidentified Inconceivable Sūtra, 112 Buddhagupta makes the point that the Buddha couldn’t have delivered the Vajravidāraṇa dhāraṇī at the Vajra Seat, because the Buddha didn’t teach or subjugate any beings there besides the legions of Māra(s), which is an unescapable story arc of the Buddha’s attainment of nirvāṇa. He only taught the Dharma after relocating from the Bodhi Tree to Sārnāth. Buddhagupta says that people who interpret, “in Vajra,” as equivalent to, “at the Vajra Seat (Skt., Vajrāsane, Tib., rdo rje gdan la),” contradict the aforementioned sūtra and lack understanding of the topic under discussion. The authors of the commentaries attributed to Padmasambhava and Vimalamitra seem to be guilty of such misunderstanding. Padmasambhava states that the phrase refers to the middle of a palace at the Vajra Seat, replete with the Bodhi Tree. Here the Buddha sat in the cross-legged vajra posture, and tamed the Māras.113 The same source later says that the Great Wrathful King Vajravidāraṇa - the main figure of the maṇḍala - “covers the Vajra Seat with his left foot.”114 That, or the term refers to the “Great Love Samādhi (*mahāmaitrīsamādhi),” through which Māra was overcome. 110 This phrase is echoed in one ms. of the fundamental dhāraṇī-sūtra from Dunhuang, Pelliot Tibétain 433. Sangs rgyas gsang ba, ’Phags pa rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs kyi rgya cher ’grel pa rin po che gsal ba, Tōh. 2860, Dpe bsdur ma Bstan ’gyur vol. 36 (rgyud, thu), pages 493-4. 112 Bsam gyis mi khyab pa’i mdo. 113 Padma ’byung gnas, Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs kyi rnam par bshad pa rdo rje sgron ma (*Vajravidāraṇā-nāma-dhāraṇīvyākhyāna-vajrāloka-nāma), Tōh, 2679, Dpe bsdur ma Bstan ’gyur vol. 36 (rgyud, thu), pages 452.2-7: “rdo rje la bzhugs te zhes bya ba ni byang chub kyi shing dang ldan pa’i rdo rje’i gdan la sgo bzhi la sogs pas brgyan pa’i gzhal yas khang phun sum tshogs pa’i dbus na rdo rje’i skyil mo krung bdud ’dul ba’i phyag rgyas bzhugs so/ yang na byams pa chen po’i ting nge ’dzin la snyoms par zhugs pa la bya ste/ byams pa chen pos bdud kyi stobs dag bcom/ zhes bstan pas so/” 114 Padma ’byung gnas, Rnam par bshad pa rdo rje sgron ma, 454.1: “zhabs g.yon pa rdo rje’i gdan la brkyang pa.” 111 38 Both NS and VB, the short and long commentaries attributed to Vimalamitra, likewise suggest that this dhāraṇī-sūtra was given at the Vajra Seat where the four Māras were defeated.115 Alternatively, these commentaries say these events happened as the Blessed One was resting in the “Vajra[-like samādhi (*vajropama-samādhi)].”116 In this way, all of these authors provide at least two levels of interpretation. That is, they say that the sūtra was delivered in one common cosmological or historical place, or within an experiential or meditative state. Parallels might be drawn here between “outer” and “inner” interpretations, or those pertaining to the relative and ultimate dimensions of truth, though no early commentator expresses them as such merely as alternate explanations. Furthermore, no commentary attributed to the imperial period authors addresses the curious number (that is, plural) of vajras implied by the Sanskrit, vajreṣu. Explanations for this ambiguous introductory phrase found in secondary sources likewise span different conceptions. Mitra, in his catalogue of Sanskrit texts collected by Hodgson, states plainly that the action happens, “when [the Lord] was dwelling in a thunderbolt.”117 This would be an uncritical translation of the locative singular form (vajre). Unfortunately, Mitra offered no further opinion, despite the fact that he quoted the manuscript in question as reading the plural form (vajreṣu) immediately thereafter. Hidas has written, in an encyclopedia article on the dhāraṇī-sūtra genre, that VV “is taught by Vajrapāṇi in the presence of the Buddha among the people called vajras.”118 115 Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa, 544. Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa, 521. 117 Mitra, The Sanskrit Buddhist Literature of Nepal, 269. 118 Gergely Hidas (2015), “Dhāraṇī Sūtras,” in Brill Encyclopedia of Buddhism, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill), 133. This is the most intriguing explanation for the plural form, “vajreṣu,” especially in light of the connection between Vajravidāraṇa and Ajātaśatru. Ajātaśatru was antagonistic against the neighboring Vajji/Vṛji people to the north of the Gaṅgā River. It was these Vajjians who were told of seven ways to be invincible against outside conquest, and who used these to thwart Ajātaśatru’s designs on their confederacy until he destroyed their ancestors’ shrines (Skt., caitya). 116 39 Elsewhere in the same article, Hidas offers an illuminating overview of the varieties of different narrative settings found within dhāraṇīs. Here he mentions that later versions of the Mahāpratisarā-mahāvidyārājñī are relocated to “Mount Vajrameru” (from the Gṛdhakūṭa at Rājagṛha),119 and that the Grahamātṛkā-dhāraṇī is located in Aḍakavatī,120 equated by Edgerton with the Sanskrit name of Vajrapāṇi’s abode, “Alakāvatī.”121 Enticingly, Monier-Williams glosses this as a “fabulous palace on Meru.”122 Although not mentioned in Hidas’ survey of the dhāraṇī-sūtras extant in Sanskrit, the *Ārya-mahāvajra-meruśikhara-kūṭāgāra-dhāraṇī is set in an erected palace on the tip of great “Vajrameru,” the ground of the great vajra samādhi adorned with a wish-fulfilling tree.123 Hidas notes that other dhāraṇīs were located close to the VV, in terms of geography or theme. However, in my readings I have not found other references to any narrative setting as unspecific as that found in VV. Across all Sanskrit VV manuscripts consulted, I have found but one variation on that locative phrase. Even in that variant, as retained in the apparatus of the Dhīḥ edition of VV, the nidāna is identical to that found in the *Ārya-mahāvajra-meruśikharakūṭāgāra-dhāraṇī, which frequently follows VV in Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha collections, raising the possibility of conflation on the part of the scribe copying that particular Dhāraṇyādisaṃgraha manuscript.124 119 Hidas, “Dhāraṇī Sūtras,” 132. Ibid.,133. 121 Franklin Edgerton (1953), Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary (2 vols.), Vol. 2 (New Haven: Yale University Press), 271. 122 Monier Monier-Williams (1872 [2012]), A Sanskrit-English dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-european Languages (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers), 11/3. 123 ’Phags pa rdo rje’i ri rab chen po’i rtse mo’i khang pa brtegs pa’i gzungs, Tōh. 751, vol. 95 (dza), folios 267a1295a7: “rdo rje’i lhun po chen po’i rtse mo’i khang pa brtsegs pa rdo rje chen po’i ting nge ’dzin gyi sa’i gnas rdo rje chen po’i dpag bsam gyi shing ljon pas legs par rgyan pa” 124 Cf. Dhāraṇyādisaṃgraha, NGMCP 861/13, cited in Dhih 40 (2005) 120 40 Despite being the subject of a great deal of discussion, the narrative setting of the Vajravidāraṇa dhāraṇī remains vague and open to interpretation, defying any definitive conclusion. This concludes the final discussion, that of the Excellent Place: the narrative and cosmological settings of Vajravidāraṇa. Excellent Teachers: Buddhagupta’s Lineage of Vajravidāraṇa Previous studies on Buddhagupta’s life and work have neglected important biographic information that might be gleaned from considering his relationship to Kumārasena, identified as the teacher from whom Buddhagupta received Vajravidāraṇa teachings.125 In this section I hope to bring to light biographical information about the three most important figures in Buddhagupta’s Vajravidāraṇa transmission lineage. To do so, I focus first briefly on Buddhagupta’s teacher Kumārasena, and then in a more comprehensive way on Mañjuśrīvarman, Buddhagupta’s purported translator. One work in the Bstan ’gyur is attributed to Kumārasena, a practice manual (Skt., sādhana) that includes specific instructions for various ritual activities.126 Besides that, we know little of him. The name Kumārasena appears on seals from Nālandā,127 and we read in Padma ’phrin las’ (1641-1717) biography (Tib., rnam thar) of Buddhagupta that the later studied the outer tantras in Eastern India, although Kumārasena is not mentioned as one of Buddhagupta’s 125 In the sādhana attributed to him, Kumārasena doesn’t name the teacher from whom he received his Vajravidāraṇa lineage, but he does state that Buddhagupta’s request instigated its composition. 126 Kumārasena, ’Phags pa rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs kyi sgrub thabs cho ga zhib mo dang bcas pa (*Āryavajravidāraṇā-nāma-dhāraṇīsakalpasādhana, Tōh. 2925, Sde dge Bstan 'gyur, rgyud, nu) 325a2329a6. The earliest reference to this work (as a khrus chog, or a ritual manual for ablution) might be found in the biography of Bcom ldan rigs pa’i ral gri, Bcom ldan rigs pa’i ral gri’i rnam thar dad pa’i ljon shing, 2r.6-2v.2. 127 Cf. Dan Martin, “Tibskrit Philology,” last modified April 21, 2014. http://tibetologic.blogspot.in/2014/04/released-tibskrit-2014.html. 41 teachers.128 *Ratnabhāsvara is alone among the other works attributed to Buddhagupta concerning the outer tantras in providing lineage information.129 The importance of Kumārasena’s sādhana has been overlooked in the past. Internal evidence within the sādhana shows that Kumārasena is a Brahmin.130 The colophon states that Kumārasena was a “great master” and a “holder of vidyā-mantra.”131 Zhu chen Tshul khrims rin chen (1697-1774), the main editor of Sde dge Bstan ’gyur, traces the early lineage of “Buddhagupta’s Lineage of Blue Vajravidāraṇa (“rnam ’joms mthing ga sangs rgyas gsang ba’i lugs”)” from Śākyamuni (as, “Ston pa Sangs rgyas”) to Vajrapāṇi, to *Jayasena (Rgyal ba’i sde) and *Kumārasena (Gzhon nu’i sde) before Buddhagupta (Sangs rgyas gsang ba), who passed it to the elder and younger Kusalis (“Kusali che chung,” likely Rin chen bzang po and Rin chen sde). The lineage then passed to Atiśa Dīpaṃkara (Jo bo a ti sha, 982-ca. 1055).132 What is notable about this lineage is who is not present. Elsewhere, Buddhagupta has 128 Padma ’phrin las (1972), Bka’ ma mdo dbang gi bla ma brgyud pa’i rnam thar. Vol. 37. Leh: Smanrtsis Shesrig Spenmdzod), 47b.5-6: “rgya gar shar phyogs su gshegs te mngon par byang chub pa la sogs pa phyi rgyud sde gsum dang...” This narrative is presented in the context of the “Seven Descents” of the Rnying ma Tradition. Cf. Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism, 155-157; David Germano (2002), “The Seven Descents and the Early History of Rnying Ma Transmissions” in The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, ed. Helmut Eimer and David Germano (Brill: Leiden), 225–263; and Jake Ernest Nagasawa (2017), “Buddhaguhya and his Epistle to the Ruler, his Subjects, and the Clergy of Tibet (Rje ’bangs dang bod btsun rnam la spring yig): A Biography of the Saint, a Tibetan Critical Edition of the Epistle, and its English Translation” (M.A. thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara), where Nagasawa translates the relevant passage from Padma ’phrin las’ text, as well as the corresponding passage from the earlier, pseudepigraphic Klong chen chos ’byung of the fourteenth century CE. In repeating the conclusions of Germano and others, he concludes that Padma ’phrin las’ history is derived from that attributed to Klong chen pa. 129 That is, five works on the Vajravidāraṇa system (Tōh. 2680, 2926-9); two on Sarvadurgatipariśodhanatantra (Tōh. 2624 and 2636); two on Mahāvairocanābhisambodhitantra (Tōh. 2662 and 2663a/b), at least one on the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha (Tōh. 2501); one on Dhyānottara (Tōh. 2670); one on the Subāhuparipṛcchatantra (Tōh. 2671), a Vajrapāṇi sādhana (Tōh. 2865); and others (Tōh. 2456, 3705, and 3751/4526). 130 Kumārasena, Sgrub thabs cho ga zhib mo dang bcas pa, 325r: “bdag nyid bram ze gnzhon nu ste[=sde].” 131 Ibid., 329r: The colophon includes, “bram ze rigs sngags ’chang ba mkhas pa chen po kumārasena / rgya gar gyi mkhan po buddha gupta,” and “Bod kyi lo tsā ba Dpa’ Mañjuśīvarmas,” with the editors listed as “Jñon teng ha du and Da ’og bsod nams mos pa shes rab.” 132 Tshul khrims rin chen (2005), “Zhu chen tshul khrims rin chen gyi gsan yig gdengs can rol pa’i chu gter/ smad cha.” In Gsung ’bum, ed. Guru Lama, vol. 2 (Kathmandu, Nepal: Sachen International), 7-583. Precise pagination unknown, accessed via eText divorced from individual folio scans. 42 been identified as a student of Buddhajñānapāda,133 Dge bsnyen legs pa,134 and Vilāsavajra,135 but none of these teachers were said explicitly to have taught Buddhagupta Vajravidāraṇa. Mañjuśrīvarman, the translator who supposedly worked closely with Buddhagupta at Kailāsa is also absent. On ’Jam dpal go cha Historical references to Mañjuśrīvarman mark trails of biographical clues just as serpentine as those that lead from Buddhagupta, yet they have received even less academic attention. There appear to be between two and five Tibetan translators bearing the name Mañjuśrīvarman (’Jam dpal go cha) in traditional accounts.136 These references to Mañjuśrīvarman span the first five centuries of the Tibetan efforts towards Buddhist literacy and alignment with Indian Buddhist culture. The earliest reference is to an associate of Thon mi Saṃbhoṭa in the seventh century, and the last to an eleventh-century teacher of Rong zom chos kyi bzang po in the transitional period between the Early Translation period (Tib., snga ’gyur) and the Later Translation period (phyi ’gyur).137 To isolate the possible Mañjuśrīvarmans I turn to biographical information within important Tibetan historical works and extant canonical colophonic data. As mentioned above 133 Cf. ’Gos Lotsāwa Gzhon nu dpal 1976 (1996), The Blue Annals, trans. George N. Roerich (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers), 372; Rinpoche, The Nyingma School, Vol. II p. 464-6; and Nagasawa, “Buddhaguhya and his Epistle.” In critical treatments of Buddhagupta’s biography, Hodge (2003: 22 and 2012: 68-9) expressed doubt about the relationship between Buddhagupta and Buddhajñānapāda based on the idea that Buddhagupta was the older of the pair. I thank Professor Jacob Dalton for bringing these citations to my attention. 134 Padma ’phrin las, Rnam thar. 135 See Germano, “Seven Descents,” 229; Hodge, The Mahā-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra, 22; and Rinpoche, The Nyingma School, Vol. II p. 464-6. 136 The Sanskrit varman (variously varma or varmā in masculine nominative singular), with valences of “armor,” or “protection” is mentioned as a common ending of names of members of the Kṣatriya-varṇa by Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, 893. 137 Rinpoche, The Nyingma School, Vol. II p. 708. 43 there are several figures who are often confused, but first a stray data point should be addressed. The (chronologically) earliest source of confusion comes from the Chos ’byung of Bu ston rin chen grub. In it, Bu ston notes that a Nepalese master (Bal po’i slob dpon) Śīlamañju was active during the reign of Emperor Khri lde srong bstan, at the same time as Hwa shang mahā de ba tshe and Lotsāwa Thon mi saṃbhoṭa.138 All of these associations cannot be correct. If Khri lde srong bstan refers to the emperor who ruled from ca. 798-ca. 800, and ca. 802-815,139 then it is possible for this Śīlamañju to be the Vajrakīlaya adept and contemporary of Padmasambhava and Vimalamitra.140 In that case, it is quite difficult to accept Thon mi Saṃbhoṭa’s place in this cohort, for he is traditionally held to have developed the Tibetan writing system under Emperor Srong btsan sgam po (d. ca. 649).141 Bu ston later relates that one Dba’ Mañjuśrī is a contemporary of Thon mi Saṃbhoṭa, and mentions Bran ka mu ti ka, the eighth-century translator, only confusing matters more.142 I refer to the Mañju who may have been a contemporary of Thon mi as, “Proto-Mañju,” indicating his status as the earliest possible Mañjuśrīvarman. I have found no translations attributed to ProtoMañju, so we can disregard him in this context. The second Mañjuśrīvarman might be called “Dbas143 Mañjuśrī.” According to some traditional accounts, including the Sba bzhed as related by Kapstein, at some point in the eighth 138 Bu ston rin chen grub, Bde bar gshegs pa’i bstan ba’i gsal byed chos kyi ’byung gnas gsung rab rin po che’i mdzod ces bya ba, 183. 139 Dates according to Dotson, ““Emperor” Mu rug btsan and the ’Phang thang ma Catalogue,” 15. 140 Cf. Martin Boord (2002), A Bolt of Lightning from the Blue: The Vast Commentary on Vajrakīla That Clearly Defines the Essential Points (Berlin: Ed. Khordong), xiii. 141 Date according to Dotson, ““Emperor” Mu rug btsan and the ’Phang thang ma Catalogue,” 1. 142 Bu ston, Chos 'byung, 208. 143 Throughout the primary and secondary literature reviewed for this paper Dbas, a clan name, is interchanged with Dpa’, Sbas, Rba, and Dba’. There is a possibility the spelling variations once referred to distinct clans. In his discussion of Tibetan clans, Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism, 67 and 81, table 2, notes that this clan (which he transliterates as “Wa/Wé,” or “Ba”) was involved in the political administration of Uru, or eastern Central Tibet north of the Yarlung Tsangpo River, and had estates a Zha-gé-désum, according to the Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston. 44 century Emperor Khri lde gtsugs bstan (r. ca. 705-755) sent a delegation to Mount Kailāsa to catalyze the process of importing the Buddhist tradition into Tibet.144 I feel the historiography of this event is a key to understanding many aspects of the Tibetan Early Diffusion mythology, including biographies and mythos of at least Buddhagupta and Mañjuśrīvarman, and perhaps also Tibetan sectarian and clan politics of the early New Translation or Later Diffusion period (Tib., gsar ’gyur or phyi dar). A comprehensive in-depth study of the evolution of the myth remains a desideratum, but here I briefly consider the appearances and absences of the Kailāsa narrative complex, as it concerns Mañjuśrīvarman, in a chronological order.145 The first possible textual reference to a [Śrī]Mañju with some kind of relationship with a Buddhagupta (’Bu ta kub ta) comes from Dunhuang, which probably dates it to the late tenth century. Van Schaik cites an addendum to a manuscript of the Lung chung (IOL Tib J 1774) reading: “slob pon ni ’bu ta kub ta dang/ shī rī man ’ju dang/ hung ka ra.”146 Van Schaik surmises this “Mañju” refers to Mañjuśrīmitra, which is a natural assumption as it might be an 144 Matthew T. Kapstein (2000), Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation and Memory (New York: Oxford University Press), 26. 145 Cf. Nagasawa 2017, for a thematic study of the Kailāsa narrative that focuses on Buddhagupta, from which I have drawn here. 146 Sam Van Schaik (2004) “The Early Days of the Great Perfection,” in Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 27, no. 1: 187n58. According to the International Dunhuang Project website, accessed 9/19/2018, (http://idp.bl.uk), the full text of IOL Tib J 1774 reads: “Rf.2v.1: /dang por zhugs pa’i sgo brtan pa dang/ Rf.3r.1: sems ci ltar gzhag pai tshul [’am?] ... 1.2 ye shes kyi ngang du gyur pa dang/ byung tshor [ngo shes/] 1.3 sems kyi [’ches] ba’i thabs la mkhas/ des par 1.4 lung bstan pa’o/ 1.5 @// gsang ba sde gsum dang/ /’gu ya lang ka las btus 1.6 mtshan gtor chung du gsolo/ 1.7 @/:/ gog [la Rf.3v.1 1.1: gleng gzhi [sa?] la/ slob pon gang gis mdzad pa l.2: rgyud gang las btus pa dang/ /don ced chI phyIr mdzad pa l.3: mgo chug du don dus ston pa dang/ tshIg gI le’u ‘tshams sbyar l.4: ba dang/ ’o/ slob pon nI ’bu ta kub ta dang/ shI rI man ’ju dang/ l.5: hung ka ra dang/ /theg pa thams cad kyI yo rtse/ chos l.6: thams cad kyI snyIng po/ de bzhIn gshegs pa thams chad l.7: kyI thugs kyI gsang ba/ [rgums?] kyI bcud/ /gsang sngags l.8: rdo rje theg pa bshad do ’tshol kyI lugs kyIs rtsIs mgo/” 45 Atiyoga text belonging to the Mind Class (Tib., sems sde) of Rdzogs pa chen po practice, an area of Manjuśrīmitra’s expertise. The probability is slim, but if this is a reference to Sangs rgyas gsang ba and Mañjuśrī[varman], this would be the earliest evidence for an association between the Kailāsa recluse and the travelling Tibetan courtier-cum-lotsāwa. To return to more certain footing, the Kailāsa story is not present in the earliest versions of the Dba’ bshed, which Sørenson states could date to the eleventh century, in its seminal form.147 There, one Dba’ Mkhan po Mañju is mentioned as a teacher of the Emperor Khri Lde srong bstan. Wangdu and Diemberger differentiate between this person and Dba’ Dpal dbyangs, one of the first seven monastics of Tibet (Tib., sad mi bdun),148 but the closeness of the names Dba’ dpal byangs and Dba’ ’Jam dpal go cha could have been a source of confusion. The Sba bzhed echoes the earliest Dba’ bzhed in noting that one “Dba’ bran mkhan po Mañju” was a teacher of the next Emperor, Khri srong lde bstan (r. ca. 756-797 and ca. 798-ca. 800149). If this Mañju was the same person mentioned in the Dba’ bzhed, this would be sensible if he was a minister and trusted envoy of the previous Emperor. He could have been with Buddhagupta when the master was at Kailāsa between the reigns of both Emperors, as Nagasawa advances.150 Sba bzhed relates that Mañjuśrīvarman also translated an unidentified Compendium Tantra (Rgyud kun las btus pa, *Tantrasamuccaya-tantra) at this time.151 147 Per Søorenson, in Pasang Wangdu and Hildegard Diemberger (2000), Dba' bzhed: The Royal Narrative Concerning the Bringing of the Buddha’s Doctrine to Tibet (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften), xiv. See also Sam Van Schaikand Kazushi Iwao (2008), “Fragments of the “Testament of Ba” from Dunhuang,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 128, no. 3: 477-487, for a study of fragments of the same text found in Dunhuang. 148 Wangdu and Diemberger, Dba’ bzhed, 92n355. 149 Dates according to Dotson, ““Emperor” Mu rug btsan and the ’Phang thang ma Catalogue,” 15. 150 Cf. Nagasawa 2017. 151 Sba gsal snang (1982), Sba bzhed ces bya la las Sba gsal snang gi bzhed pa bzhugs so, ed. Mgon po rgyal mtshan (Chengdu: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang), 60-61. This could be the Ye shes rdo rje kun las btus pa zhes bya ba’i rgyud (Tōh. 447), an explanatory tantra related to the Guhyasamāja Tantra attributed to Jñānākara, translated by Khu ston dngos grub, and revised by the author and Tshul khrims rgyal ba. It could also refer to DK 319, ’Phags pa rgyud kun las btus pa (*Ārya-sarvatantra-samuccaya), which as Herrmann-Pfandt notes (2002:135), is not in the Bka’ ’gyur. I 46 The next chronologically-successive extant Tibetan history, Chos ’byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud by Nyang ral Nyi ma ’od zer (1124-1192152) doesn’t have the Kailāsa narrative. Around the time of the Great Revision (Tib., zhu chen), Khri Srong lde btsan, Śāntarakṣita, Padmasambhava, and Vimalamitra are listed as active in Tibet.153 Elsewhere, Sbas Mañjuśrī, Tran pa mu ri ti, Sbas ye shes dbang po are listed as present at the same place and time.154 The narrative does appear in the extensive Lde’u history of 1249 CE.155 The delegation is here listed as Dbas the len, Bran ka mu ru ti, and ’Jam dpal mañjuśri go cha, and their invitee is Sangs rgyas gsang ba.156 In the shorter Lde’u chronicle, Khri sde srong btsan invites “Paṇḍita bu dha gu bta” to Tibet.157 Ne’u Paṇḍita’s 1283 CE158 history mentions a Rba Dpal dbyangs as one of the first seven monastics of Tibet and lacks an account of the invitation.159 Gtsug lag ’phreng ba, in his history, Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston (1564 CE160) quoting from the common Rba bzhed tradition, said that at the time of Emperor Mes srong btsan, the paṇḍitas Sangs rgyas gsang ba and Sangs rgyas zhi ba were invited from Mount Ti se [Kailāsa] by Bran have seen no other mention made of a Mañju related with this text, though it must be allowed that it is within the realm of possibility for there to be some paracanonical or lost translation of the text by some Mañjuśrīvarman. 152 Date according to Wangdu and Diemberger, Dba’ bzhed, 108. 153 Nyang nyi ma ’od zer, Chos ’byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud, 362. 154 Ibid., 363. In my reading of this passage [362-5] it seems that these were the paṇḍitas present during the Great Revision—that the presence of their constellation in Tibet precipitated the Great Revision—but here there is no mention of Sangs rgyas gsang ba. 155 Date according to Wangdu and Diemberger, Dba’ bzhed, 108. 156 Dge bshes lde’u and Lde’u Jo sras (1987), Mkhas pa lde’us mdzad pa’i rgya bod kyi chos ’byung rgyas pa, Gang can rig mdzod, Vol. 3 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi rigs dpe skrun khang,) 304. 157 Lde’u jo sras (1987), Chos ’byung chen mo bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan (Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi rigs dpe skrun khang), 133. 158 Date according to Wangdu and Diemberger, Dba’ bzhed, 108. 159 Cf. Ne’u Paṇḍita Grags pa smon lam blo gros (1990), “Sngon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba zhes bya ba bzhugs” in Bod kyi lo rgyus deb ther khag lnga, Gang can rig mdzod vol. 4 (Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang), 21. 160 Date according to Wangdu and Diemberger, Dba’ bzhed, 107. 47 ka mu le ka ṣa and Gnyags Jñānakumāra.161 In Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, Gtsug lag ’phreng ba quotes Bu ston’s Chos ’byung in relating that Vimalamitra, Sangs rgyas gsang ba, Śāntigarbha, Viśuddhasiṁha, the first seven monks, and many others “lotsāwa-ed (lo tsā byas)” and translated many dharma texts. No Mañjuśrī is named.162 Bran ka mu le ka ṣa and a Mañjuśrī—whether with the Dbas prefix and/or a “°varma” suffix—collaborated in the translation of two tantric works preserved in the Sde dge edition of the Bstan ’gyur attributed to Buddhagupta.163 Bu ston includes a Dba’ Mañju as one of the three teachers (along with Rtsa ngas de lpen tra, and Bran ka mu ti ka) of the first twelve Tibetan monastics after the establishment of Bsam yas monastery in the final decades of the eighth century.164 The Sba bzhed zhabs btags ma, thought to be compiled in the fourteenth century, has the Kailāsa episode, although with no mention of a Mañju.165 There we find Buddhagupta and Buddhaśānti at Kailāsa, and the delegation sent by Emperor Khri srong lde bstan consisting Gnyags Jñānakumāra and Bran ka mu la ko sha. The fourteenth-century Klong chen chos ’byung attributed to Klong chen rab ’byams pa (1308-1363), following Bu ston, has the story.166 It is again referenced in Tāranātha’s (15751634) Chos ’byung.167 161 Gtsug lag ’phreng ba (2006), Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang), 156. Gtsug lag ’phreng ba, Mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, 191-2. See also Kapstein, Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism, 26; Martin (2014), and Sba gsal snang (1982). Bran ka is the name of the clan to which this figure belongs, and his personal name is variously Bran ka mu ti ta, Bran ka muti, Bran ka mukti ta, Bran ka mu ru ti, Bran ka mu le ko, Bran ka mu le koṣa, or as Kapstein phoneticizes the name, Trenka Muleko. Gangs ljongs skad gnyis smra ba blo gsal dga’ skyed (1983:16) mentions Bran ka mūlakośa and Bran ka mutika separately. 163 They are Ngan song thams cad yongs su sbyong ba’i dkyil ’khor gyi cho ga’i rim pa zhes bya ba (Tōh. 2636), and Dkyil ’khor gyi chos mdor bsdus pa (Tōh. 3705). 164 Bu ston, Chos ’byung, 186. 165 Bde skyid, ed. (2016 (2009)), Rba bzhed phyogs bsgrigs (Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang), 1-2. 166 Cf. Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism, 155-7. See also Nagasawa (2017), who provides a translation and transcription of the relevant section, and discusses how this is a probable case of pseudepigrapha. 167 Cf. Nagasawa 2017. 162 48 Thus, according to multiple sources, going back to Dba’ bzhed, Mañjuśrī was active and important to the Yar klungs dynasty in the late eighth to early ninth centuries on the Tibetan plateau. His associates were purportedly the Emperor Khri lde gtsugs bstan, Bran ka, and Buddhagupta. Among his students were the Emperor Khri srong lde bstan and the first monks of Bsam yas monastery. The Kailāsa narrative complex itself, and Dba’ Mañjuśrī’s involvement in it, were not always standard features of histories before the fourteenth century - as least not as we receive them. There could be any number of reasons for this, from innocuous but portentous lapses in historical accounting, to the wholesale introduction of the narrative, or elements thereof, centuries after the purported events. The late introduction of the narrative into the Tibetan historical tradition in the early thirteenth century is curious, especially since it might have involved a substantial elevation of status for Dba’ Mañju°. Van Schaik and Iwao have raised the possibility that another member of the Dba’ clan, Dba’ Sang shi, was placed in the Dba’ bzhed narrative tradition, “in order to raise their profile.”168 They even go so far as to hypothesize that the earliest Dba’ bzhed-s didn’t mention Dba’ clan members at all, pointing to the absence of Dba’ clan members in the Dunhuang Dba’ bzhed manuscript fragments they studied, which pre-date the middle of the eleventh century.169 In that case, Mañjuśrīvarman might have been dragged into the history books along with other members of his clan in the middle of the eleventh, or early twelfth centuries. 168 169 Van Schaik and Iwao, “Fragments of “The Testament of Ba” from Dunhuang,” 8. Ibid., 8. 49 We might call the next possible Mañjuśrīvarma, the “Lotsāwa.” This figure is most notably referenced as a scholar in the preface of the ninth-century Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa.170 The Sba bzhed acknowledges this,171 and elsewhere includes the prefix Dba’ with this Mañjuśrīvarman’s name.172 We can be sure at that point the author of the Sba bzhed is speaking of our Lotsāwa, because he also includes Jāyarakṣita, Ratnendra, and Ratnendraśīla - all of them translators mentioned by name in the Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa. This text was commissioned by Emperor Khri lde srong bstan (alias Sad na legs, r. 804-815173), a son of Khri srong lde bstan, in the early ninth century as part of the Great Revision (Tib., zhu chen). The Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa did not list who translated which works, so we are left without any positive attestations of Lotsāwa’s translations. Ne’u paṇḍita’s history lists Mañjuśrīvarman (as Mañjuśrivarma) in a correlate group of translators, who translated texts of both Śrāvakayāna and Mahāyāna during the reign of Khri lde srong btsan.174 Mañjuśrīvarman is also referenced in ’Gos Lotsāwa Gzhon nu dpal’s Blue Annals, completed in 1478 CE.175 There, reference is made to a scholar (Skt., paṇḍita) who is a preceptor (Skt., upādhyāya176) named Mañjuśrīvarman. This Mañjuśrīvarman appears in a list of teachers of Rong zom chos kyi bzang po (ca. eleventh century).177 This is in the range of two hundred 170 Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa, Tōh. 4347, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 204 (sna tshogs, co), fol. 131b.3. Sba gsal snang (1982), Sba bzhed ces bya la las Sba gsal snang gi bzhed pa bzhugs so, ed. Mgon po rgyal mtshan (Chengdu: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang), 191. 172 Sba gsal snang, Sba bzhed, 208. 173 Herrmann-Pfand, “The Lhan kar ma as a Source for the History of Tantric Buddhism,” 135. 174 Ne’u Paṇḍita, “Sngon gyi gtam,” 23. Also listed here are Ārya Jinamitra, Surendrabodhi, Śīlendrabodhi, Danaśīla, Bodhimitra, (Bod kyi mkhan po) Ratnarakṣita, Dharmataśīla, Jñānasena, Jayaratkṣita, Ratnendraśīla, Ka ba Dpal brtsegs, and Klu’i rgyal mtshan. 175 ’Gos Lotsāwa Gzhon nu dpal (1976 (1996)), The Blue Annals, trans. George N. Roerich (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers), 1092. 176 Or, according to Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, 213/3: “teacher;” perhaps a “preceptor,” inferring the capability to bestow monastic vows, and hence, a monastic. 177 ’Gos Lotsāwa Gzhon nu dpal, The Blue Annals, 163. 171 50 years after the Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa reference. As we will see below, this Mañjuśrīvarman should be taken seriously, as there are a number of works preserved in Bka’ ’gyurs which were co-translated by Mañjuśrīvarman and other eleventh-century translators. Two contemporary biographical accounts of Mañjuśrīvarman assist us but slightly. Gangs can mkhas grub rim byon ming mdzod, an anthology of short biographies of scholars active in Tibet by Ko zhul grags pa ’byung gnas and Rgyal ba blo bzang, includes a befuddling entry on ’Jam dpal go cha that places him in the thirteenth century178 The biographical narrative arc given is vague enough to apply to many Tibetan-born lotsāwas. Except for the date, which is so aberrant it should be discounted, one must wonder why someone who “attained the highest degree of mastery of Sanskrit,” only translated two works.179 The second related contemporary account is likewise vexing. A recent anthology of translator biographies, Gangs ljongs skad gnyis smra ba blo gsal dga’ skyed, whose title infers it is a compendium of data from translation colophons of the Bka’ ’gyur and Bstan ’gyur, has three pertinent entries. The contents of the work appear to be arranged chronologically, from earliest (Thon mi Saṃbhoṭa, during the reign of Emperor Srong btsan sgam po) to latest (Mi pham rgya mtsho, 1846-1912). Here, one Dbas Mañjuśrī is listed third, following Thon mi and Ngan lam rgyal ba mchog dbyangs (ca. eighth century), but before Bai ro tsa na (ca. eighth-ninth century). An entry for one 178 Ko zhul grags pa ’byung gnas and Rgyal ba blo bzang (1982), Gangs can mkhas grub rim byon ming mdzod (Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang), 628. To wit, “He was a Lotsā ba born in the latter part of the 13th century CE. In his youth, he entered the gate of the dharma. He took the novice and monastic vows in order, and excellently studied the dharma texts beginning with the Vinaya, and so forth. Then, he attained the highest degree of mastery of Sanskrit, and translated roughly two (gnyis tsam) treatises into Tibetan.” 179 The two translated works are given as the Tantrārthāvatāra (Tōh. 2501), a commentarial work on the Ārya[Sarvatathāgata]tattvasaṃgraha-mahāyānābhisamaya-nāma-tantra and the Śrī-Vajrapāṇi-sādhana (Tōh. 2865) attributed to Buddhagupta. This sādhana was perhaps the same Vajrapāṇi sādhana that was mentioned by Pho brang zhi ba ’od as being a false attribution. See Karmay, “An Open Letter.” 51 “Lotsāwa Mañjuśrīvarma” occurs just after that of Ska ba dpal brtsegs (ca. eighth century) and eight entries before Lo chen Rin chen bzang po (958-1055 CE). A final entry, for ’Jam dpal go cha, occurs significantly after even the entry of Bu ston, and the attributed translations are the same as listed in the aforementioned work. Effectively, this anthology offers only redundant or confusing information, wherein it seems ’Jam dpal go cha (Mañjuśrīvarman) is there confused with “’Jam dpal ye shes (*Mañjuśrījñāna), a translator of “the east Indian Mahāpaṇḍita Śrīvaṇaratna” (1384-1468 CE180).181 I have located seventeen works whose translation is attributed, at least in part, to a Mañju[śrī(varma(n))] or ’Jam dpal go cha.182 These seventeen works include three works which I believe are misattributed in the darkness of confusion between ’Jam dpal ye shes and ’Jam dpal go cha.183 Of the fourteen remaining works, six pertain to a dhāraṇī (four related to Vajravidāraṇa, two related to Amoghapāśa). Four works are related to Yoga-tantra, with all attributed to Buddhagupta. Three works are on Cittamātra philosophy, and one is a translation of the Jātakamālā. Some variations on the transliteration of Mañjuśrīvarman and ’Jam dpal go cha are used interchangeably. However, and crucially, among the colophonic and secondary literature, 180 Date according to Lobsang Shastri (2002), “Activities of Indian Paṇḍitas in Tibet from the 14th to the 17th century,” in Tibet: Past and Present, ed. by Henk Blezer (Boston: Brill), 131. 181 Gangs ljongs skad gnyis smra ba blo gsal dga’ skyed (Mtsho sngon: Kun lho bod rigs rang skyong khul rtsom sgyur cu’u, 1983), 4. One translation is attributed here to Dbas Mañjuśrī, is Sgrol ma Ugratāra’i sgrub thabs (Tōh. 1726), composed by Vaṇaratna. Śrī Vaṇaratna and ’Jam dpal ye shes are listed as the translators in the relevant entry of “The Buddhist Canons Research Database.” The Buddhist Canons Research Database,” Paul Hackett, accessed October 20, 2017, http://databases.aibs.columbia.edu. 182 “The Buddhist Canons Research Database,” Paul Hackett, accessed October 20, 2017, http://databases.aibs.columbia.edu. This figure comes from a search of the canons indexed on “The Buddhist Canons Research Database,” the two recent Tibetan publications mentioned above, Bu ston’s Chos ’byung, and Martin’s “Tibskrit Philology.” 183 Cf. Q 2595, Q 2596, and 2598. Q 2597 is also attributed to Vaṇaratna and translated by the author and ’Jam dpal ye shes. 52 the clan designation occurs only in works on tantra and dhāraṇī. Not every tantric work includes the Dbas prefix, but none of the works on Cittamātra or Jātaka tales indicate clan affiliation. Another clear pattern emerges while considering the listed co-translators and editors. When co-translators are listed with Dbas [Mañjuśrīvarman], they are without exception Early Translation figures: the aforementioned Bran ka, Ska ba dpal brtsegs, and Buddhagupta. When co-translators and editors are listed with Mañjuśrīvarman-sans-prefix, we find both Early and Later Translation figures. Namely, Sarvajñādeva,184 Vidyākarasiṃha,185 Viśuddhasiṃha,186 and Klu’i dbang po187 were active in the Early Transmission period before the tenth century, while Blo ldan shes rab (1059-1109) and Chos kyi shes rab188 worked in the Later Translation period. Of the fourteen translations attributed to a Mañjuśrīvarman, two Amoghapāśa works can be triangulated to the Later Translation period based on co-translators and their affiliations.189 All other works are associated with Early Translation figures from the eighth through ninth centuries. In conclusion, it seems there were two Mañjuśrīvarmans: Lotsāwa Dbas Mañjuśrīvarman (ca. mid-eighth to early-ninth centuries CE) and Upādhyāya Mañjuśrīvarman (ca. eleventh century CE). All other confusions of titles, spellings, institutional roles, biographic data, and associations come from the conflation of these two and human or transmissional errors. Pending 184 One work (Tōh. 3871) translated with Ska ba dpal brtsegs would place Sarvajñādeva working in the eighth-ninth centuries CE. 185 Translations attributed to Vidyākarasiṃha include three titles translated with Mañjuśrīvarman and one (Tōh. 764) with Klu’i dbang po. 186 Listed in Bu ston, Chos ’byung, 187 and 206, as Bi shuddha si ha / Rnam dag seng ge, contemporary with Buddhagupta and Vimalamitra, so ca. late eighth century. 187 If Klu’i dbang po is ’Khon klu’i dbang po bsrung ba, the third son of ’Khon dpal po che, minister to Emperor Khri srong lde btsan, then he was one of the “Seven Tested Men”. Cf. ’Gos Lotsāwa Gzhon nu dpal, The Blue Annals, 210. 188 Translations attributed to Chos kyi shes rab include works by Atīśa Dīpaṃkara (Tōh. nos. 1496, 3686, 3689) and Ratnākaraśānti (Tōh. nos. 1919, 1935a, 3712), thus placing him in the Gsar ’gyur period. 189 Amoghapāśapāramitāṣaṭparipūraka-nāma-dhāraṇī (Tōh. 687 and 903), and Amoghapāśakalparājavidhi (Tōh. 689). The interceding text within the Sde dge Bstan ’gyur is the Daśabhūmidhāraṇī (Sa bcu pa’i gzungs, Tōh. 688). No translation colophon is received. 53 further evidence, Proto-Mañju remains a phantom. Dbas Mañjuśrīvarma was active in the eighth and ninth centuries, though more specific dating depends on his relationship with Buddhagupta. Lotsāwa Mañjuśrīvarman of the ninth-century Great Revision has no translations specifically attributed to him. However, if early in his career he worked with Buddhagupta during the twilight years of the master’s natural life, it can be assumed that Dbas and Lotsāwa are the same individual, or were conflated later.190 This would also fit with the description of Dbas Mañjuśrīvarman being a teacher of the later Emperor Khri gtsugs lde bstan. It is not impossible that there were earlier and later Mañjuśrīvarmans working around the eighth and ninth centuries, and the Dbas prefix, or the use of Sanskrit transliteration or his Tibetan name was used to differentiate between two of them. Following from the analysis above, a provisional division would have Dbas Mañjuśrīvarman interested in dhāraṇī and tantric texts, and the non-Dbas Mañjuśrīvarman concerned with Mahāyāna philosophy and jātaka tales. However, I think that as time passed, that distinguishing appellation was lost. Closer comparative work is needed to test that possibility. Upādhyāya Mañjuśrīvarman, the eleventh century teacher of Rong zom pa, is referenced once in The Blue Annals, and there are two translations attributed to him. Both translations are related to Amoghapāśa, a form of Avalokiteśvara popular in Nepal,191 and according to the same source, his co-translator Blo ldan shes rab studied and worked with one Sumatikīrti in Tibet.192 190 Some possible evidence for this scenario is that in many of the works attributed to Buddhagupta, he is listed specifically as a co-translator with Mañjuśrīvarman. Some evidence against their direct teacher-student relationship may be found in the colophon of the Dharmamaṇḍalasūtra (Dkyil ’khor gyi cho ga mdor bsdus pa, Tōh. 3705) which says Buddhagupta “sent” (brdzangs pa) the text to Tibet by with Bran ka and Dbas. Then it was translated in Tibet by Ska ba dpal brtsegs and others. Also, the identification of the holders of Buddhagupta’s Vajravidāraṇa lineage as Kusali che chung (Rin chen bzang po and Rin chen sde), as seen in Chos kyi grags pa’s lineage history inspires wonder regarding Mañjuśrīvarman’s importance to Buddhagupta. 191 See also Todd Thornton Lewis, Subarna Man Tuladhar, and Labh Ratna Tuladhar (2000), Popular Buddhist Texts from Nepal: Narratives and Rituals of Newar Buddhism (New York: State University of New York Press). 192 ’Gos Lotsāwa Gzhon nu dpal, The Blue Annals, 325. 54 Sumatikīrti translated many Cakrasaṃvara texts with Mar pa do pa Chos kyi dbang phyug, a student of Mar pa lho brag pa, in Nepal.193 The Blue Annals also relates that Blo ldan shes rab himself went to Nepal and studied with the Nepalese Ha mu dkar po.194 Perhaps Upādhyāya Mañjuśrīvarman was Nepalese195 or active in Nepal. To carry the speculation even further, perhaps the Upādhyāya’s association with Nepal is a source of Bu ston’s confusion of the Nepalese Śīlamañju with Mañjuśrīvarman. At least we can say he associated with people from, and active in, Nepal, and seems to have been influenced by Nepalese practice trends of the eleventh century - although the same can be said for many of the important lotsāwas of the period. This rough sketch of two possible Mañjuśrīvarmans is at best a heuristic to be tested against more detailed future analyses. This concludes the discussion of the Perfect Teachers, the lineage of Vajravidāraṇa. Excellent Teaching: Buddhagupta’s Practice of Vajravidāraṇa While Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī is a dhāraṇī-sūtra, it was classified almost universally by early Tibetan commentators as Kriyā-tantra. The distinctions between dhāraṇī and Kriyā-tantra, and between “exoteric” and “esoteric” remain yet fuzzy, and it is not my aim to attempt to demarcate them here. However, the distinction between a tantra and, say, a concise sūtra serving as a vehicle for dhāraṇī(s) related to popular Mahāyāna texts, is a significant one. Here, this allows us to initially locate the Vajravidāraṇa system within the temporal evolution of 193 ’Gos Lotsāwa Gzhon nu dpal, The Blue Annals, 384. Ibid., 396. On Ha mu dkar po, see ibid., 395. 195 In the broader, contemporary sense of the term denoted someone born or dwelling in the boundaries of Nepalese political influence. In all likelihood he was Newari, as the Newari cultural sphere was synonymous with Bal yul (Nepal) at that time. 194 55 dhāraṇī practice. *Ratnabhāsvara is not a text on how to use a dhāraṇī as a mnemonic device to remember an important enumeration, or decode some other set of information. It is a text that provides historical and textual background information for, and instructions on, using dhāraṇī formulae ritually, or, in defined ritual practices intended to effect perceptible change in the form of healing illness or producing meditative states. Skilling has noted ten Śrāvakayāna rakṣā texts that are classified as Kriyā-tantra in the Tibetan tradition, showing how generous Tibetan doxographers were in classifying texts as Kriyā-tantra—and this even despite the fact that they don’t reflect Vajrayana, or even Mahāyāna, influences.196 In this context, there arises the question of what Buddhagupta and Kumārasena, and the others intend when they classify VV as Kriyā-tantra. Here, I wish to present a description of Vajravidāraṇa practice as prescribed in this subset of the Vajravidāraṇa corpus. *Ratnabhāsvara and the meditative sādhana texts of Kumārasena and Buddhagupta (see Appendix C for the latter) include instructions for self-visualization, in addition to elemental rituals that employ water and fire to purify past misdeeds (Skt., pāpa-kṣayam, Tib., sdig pa sbyang ba). There is no contradiction between these types of “inner” and “outer” activities, as Buddhagupta himself stated in his commentary on the Mahāvairocanābhisambodhi-tantra, as translated by Hodge: [A]lthough the [Yoga-tantra text, Sarvatathāgatat]attvasaṃgraha and so on are mainly about inner yoga, outer practice also is not lacking. Likewise, although the Kriyā Tantras are mainly concerned with outer practice, they also do not lack inner practice.197 196 Peter Skilling (1992), “Rakṣā Literature of the Śrāvakayāna,” Journal of the Pali Text Society 16, 161-2. Buddhagupta, quoted in Hodge, The Mahā-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra, 43. This passage has also been translated and addressed by Jacob Dalton (2005), “A Crisis of Doxography: How Tibetans Organized Tantra during the 8th–12th Centuries,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 28, no. 1: 121-124. 197 56 This quote, which might serve as an epigraph for Vajravidāraṇa praxis, appears in a commentary on an axiomatic text of the Caryā-tantra category, one doxographical level above the Kriyā-tantra designation so commonly placed on VV.198 Most of the outer or grammatical meanings, and referents of the words of the fundamental dhāraṇī-sūtra remain opaque. The reason for this is explained by Buddhagupta in *Ratnabhāsvara just before beginning the passage of his commentary concerning the dhāraṇīmantras: As for the seed syllables (’bru), because of the diminishment of their meaning (don), they are not to be explained. Understanding [them] through their natural sound, remember [their] meaning.199 This passage is intriguing because it harkens to the mnemonic function of dhāraṇī, in a liminal inner-outer practice setting. Following from this, Buddhagupta associates different passages of the dhāraṇī-sūtra with different deities, and their respective activities of exhortation, praise, subjugation, and so on. However, the words are rarely explicitly explained or translated. The Bstan ’gyur retains volumes of exegesis and debate over the inner, hidden, meaning of the dhāraṇī-sūtra, which Davidson calls the “encoded” meaning and Dalton calls the text’s “interpolated” meaning.200 The point being that a hidden dimension of the text’s meaning is exposed to the student through learned interpretation. However, a few exegetes did delve into the etymological meaning of the sounds, or their grammatical relationship.201 198 Any hint of classifying VV as anything besides Kriyā-tantra in the putatively first wave of paṇḍitas is a Yogatantra (rnal ’byor ba’i rgyud) classification given in Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa, 541, where Vimalamitra says the tantra is Ubhayā-tantra (“gnyis ka’i rgyud.”) Later in the text, he says, “de’i ’og tu rgyud thams cad kyi rtsa ba’i don ston te ni/ ’di ni rnal ’jor gyi rgyud dang bya ba’i rgyud gnyis don ’dir ’dus pas rtsa ba’o/” Cf. Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa, 576 199 Sangs rgyas gsang ba, *Ratnabhāsvara, 182r: (“’bru ni don nyams pa’i phyir bshad par mi bya ste rang nyid kyi sgras shes par byas la don yid la dran par bya’o/”) 200 Dalton, “How Dhāraṇīs WERE Proto-Tantric,” 206. 201 As a case in point, the dhāraṇī-mantras refer to four entities with an element of “kilikīla” in their name. In the Sanskrit, all are declined in the masculine dative singular, befitting the salutatory phrases where they are found 57 The sequence of events in which the VV dhāraṇī was first recited appears to be a narrative intended to be re-enacted each time the dhāraṇī ritual is practiced. In the visualization, Buddha Śākyamuni proceeds over the assembly, and Vajrapāṇi is present, just as in the first recitation of the dhāraṇī. According to *Ratnabhāsvara, the “vajra essence (Tib., rdo rje snying po, Skt. vajrasāra)” first emanated, then Vajrapāṇi pronounced the three mantras. Through these dhāraṇī-mantras, Vajravidāraṇa and the first four deities issued forth, and were compelled to remain in front of him. It was at this stage of the narrative that the wrathful activity of the mantra was enacted, namely, the taming of the bhūta spirits afflicting King Ajātaśatru with unfavorable health conditions.202 When this is to be re-enacted by human practitioners as a sādhana practice, Kumārasena says that an “activity initiation (Tib., bya ba’i dbang),” the attendant ritual covenant (dam tshig), and personal instruction (man ngag) are first needed,203 stipulations not present in the fundamental text. After some preliminary activities, such as purifying the practice materials, clearing obstacles, visualizing a protection circle, et cetera, the practitioner visualizes in front of themselves the two Buddhas (i.e. Śākyamuni and Vajrapāṇi) and six wrathful deities: Vajrapāṇi or Ācala, Vajravidāraṇa, and the closest four members of the maṇḍala. The practitioner visualizes themselves as Vajrapāṇi, and the six-deity maṇḍala is visualized within a vase. This main part of the practice session is framed within the concept of the “Six [Aspects of the] (°kilikilāya svāhā). No imperial period commentator addresses these four kīla entities in a word-reference (i.e., tshig- or dka’ ’grel) capacity, even though Vajrakīla is a primary member of the maṇḍala. Padmasambhava’s *Vajrāloka treats these kīla references most thoroughly, and there Mahābala (Stobs po che) is the main enactor of kīla-related activity, not Vajrakīla. 202 Sangs rgyas gsang ba, *Ratnabhāsvara, 179v. 203 Kumārasena, Sgrub thabs cho ga zhib mo dang bcas pa, 325b. “bya ba’i dbang dang dam tshig man ngag rab shes des/ lus dang ngag sems gtsang zhing yid dge bas/ rdo rje sbyor ba kun dang ldan pas bsgrub.” 58 Awakened Deity” (byang chub pa’i lha drug).”204 This does not correlate with the maṇḍala configuration of six deities, as the maṇḍala deities are only one of these six aspects. This six-part framework is a structural elaboration that compartmentalizes sādhana practice into discrete units that can be addressed, interpreted, and redefined individually. Kumārasena’s sādhana relates each of these six aspects to a particular stage of practice: (1) emptiness (Tib., stong pa’i lha), or the initial general meditation state entailing the recitation of the mantra while maintaining the pride of the deity,205 which Kumārasena equates with selfbenefit; (2) letters (yi ge’i lha), corresponding to other-benefit;206 (3) sound (sgra’i lha);207 (4) form (gzugs pa’i lha), that is, the wrathful form of blue-black (sngo nag) Vajrapāṇi; (5) mudrā (phyag rgya’i lha), or specific aspects of the visualization;208 and (6) sign or thought (mtshan ma, rnam rtog lha), the subsequent practice of constantly maintaining this visualization. Although Buddhagupta offers no detailed description, these six aspects are referred to in *Ratnabhāsvara, where they appear in two textual citations from other texts.209 After this main practice of visualization and mantra repetition, the practitioner can then perform an array of activities (Tib., las) and subsidiary rituals (cho ga). Many such related ritual 204 Sangs rgyas gsang ba, *Ratnabhāsvara, 179v; and Kumārasena, Sgrub thabs cho ga zhib mo dang bcas pa, 326r; see also Padma dkar po (1973-1974), “Rdo rje rnam par 'joms pa'i lha khrid rgyud gsum gyi snying po,” in Gsung 'bum: Padma dkar po, Vol. 11 (Darjeeling: Kargyud sungrab nyamso khang), 547. Kumārasena (Ibid., 326r) describes the first deity (lha): “de nas mdun gyi nam mkha’ la/ sangs rgyas gnyis dang ’jig byed drug/ de la yid kyi las kun bya/ rang bzhin rnam dang sngags kyis ni/ nyams dang stong pa’i ye shes bya/” [ ...] “bdag nyid ’jigs pa’i nga rgyal gyis/ śākya seng ge ’khor bcas la/ gsol gdab rdo rje’i bsam gtan gnyis/ ’dres byas ’dres pa stong pa na/ rdo rje’i rnam par bsam sngags brjod/ bdag don rdo rje stong pa’i lha/” 205 Kumārasena, Sgrub thabs cho ga zhib mo dang bcas pa, 326r: “bdag nyid ’jigs pa’i nga rgyal gyis/” 206 Ibid., 326r: “thog med las ni gsal ba ste/ de la yig gnyis sngo spras pa nus ldan yi ge’i lha yin no/” 207 Ibid., 326r: “de la rdo rje sngags kyi sgra/ stong pa mtshon byed[=dpe] khams rnams su/ dam pa gnyis byas de la bstim/ de ni sgra’i lha zhes bya ste” 208 Ibid., 326r: de nas de ni gsal brtan phyir/ ri bo ’bigs pa’i phyag rgya dang / rdo rje yan lag ’bar ba yi/ sngags kyis spyi bo sogs bzhags pas/ gtsug tor la sogs grub cing bsrung/ de yang phyag rgya’i lha ru bstan/ 209 Cf. Sangs rgyas gsang ba, *Ratnabhāsvara, 179v. Whether or not this framework is unique to Vajravidāraṇa practice is an open question. The two related quotations cited by Buddhagupta (he does not reference the six in the main body of his commentary) are unsourced, and cursory searches of Tibetan canonical eText databases have only turned up passages to the Six Aspects related to Vajravidāraṇa. If this schema is unique to Vajravidāraṇa, it would support Hopkins’ promotion of an extensive Vajravidāraṇa tantra. 59 manuals of the VV corpus are found in the Bstan ’gyurs, ranging from ablutions, offerings of food (gtor ma), fire offering rituals (sbyin sreg), cremation rites, and so on. The concluding ritual manual found in the fundamental text and clarified by *Ratnabhāsvara, is a water ablution practice, and is the ritual activity most commonly associated with this dhāraṇī. From Vajravidāraṇa commentarial literature we receive injunctions to continuously sustain the meditational visualizations during rituals intended to heal illness and purify residual effects of past actions, in accordance with the schema of the Six [Aspects of the Awakened] Deity. It is in this way that Vajravidāraṇa can be called a “system” of practice, in that the practitioner could conceivably integrate the dhāraṇī into every aspect of their religious life, from daily meditation to important life-cycle rituals. This concludes the discussion of the Excellent Teaching, the practice of Vajravidāraṇa as prescribed by Kumārasena and Buddhagupta. Excellent Retinues: The Maṇḍalas of Vajravidāraṇa Having considered the general forms of Vajravidāraṇa practice, we can continue to the meditational employment of the dhāraṇī. The bibliographic genres into which the fundamental dhāraṇī was classified are legion.210 This genre multiplicity exposes the shortcomings of the bibliographic doxography systems applied to this text in its Tibetan commentaries, beginning with that attributed to Kumārasena. The Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī and its commentarial tradition present iconographic information that make it a prime candidate for analysis via another approach: Linrothe’s three- 210 For instance, see the “Sanskrit Sources” section of this Bibliography to see a tip of the cornucopia of appellations applied to this dhāraṇī. Among the many texts that are also variously called a sūtra, tantra, et al., is the Mahāvairocanābhisambodhisūtra, the subject of two commentaries attributed to Sangs rgyas gsang ba, which, as Hodge notes is referred to as “°tantra” by “Buddhaguhya.” (Hodge 2003:538 n.1) Hodge places this genre change after 714 CE. See also Hodge (2003:4). 60 phase doxography of Indian Esoteric Buddhism. This model privileges the artistic record over bibliographic categorizations, following the Indian art historical record of the evolution of the wrathful obstacle-remover (Skt., krodha-vighnāntaka) archetype, from the sixth through twelfth centuries CE.211 Linrothe defines krodha-vighnāntaka as “named deities of wrathful appearance who overcome obstacles to enlightenment and may or may not act as apotropaic guardians.”212 This is precisely the form and scope of activity that is explicitly denoted in the fundamental text of VV, constituting the ostensive or superficial stratum of meaning, and in *Ratnabhāsvara. In Linrothe’s model, Phase One spans the transitional period between apotropaic spell magic of dhāraṇīs and the systematic, esoteric presentations of tantra, such as those found in texts like Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa and Mahāvairocanābhisambodhi.213 Phase One iconographic representations are characterized by the “Three Family” system (Skt., trikula, Tib. rigs gsum).214 In terms of representations of groups of krodha-vighnāntakas, Linrothe states, “The fundamental structure of Phase One Esoteric Buddhism was a triadic nuclear arrangement. Phase Two introduced the pentadic maṇḍala structure.”215 211 Cf. Robert N. Linrothe (1999), Ruthless Compassion: Wrathful Deities in Early Indo-Tibetan Esoteric Buddhist Art (Boston: Shambhala). Linrothe’s approach and methodology are not without their problems. As Davidson, (Indian Esoteric Buddhism, 376n127) noted, Linrothe did not adequately consider the textual record, which is “relatively datable,” and thus an important source of information. Further, Linrothe’s presentation and interpretation of Sanskrit terminology and spelling are suspect, and he suffers further from relying on generalizations and outmoded historical metanarratives as found in Snellgrove’s Indo-Tibetan Buddhism (1987), a work that appears to be a significant source of background information for Linrothe’s work.. The relative antiquity of these works has not been disregarded. 212 Linrothe, Ruthless Compassion, 19. 213 Ibid., 12-13. This is particularly problematic in light of the developmental model presented in Dalton 2016. 214 As Christian K. Wedemeyer (2001) notes in “Tropes, Typologies, and Turnarounds: A Brief Genealogy of the Historiography of Tantric Buddhism” in History of Religions (40): 224-259, the idea that the trikula system (that is, of Tathāgata-kula, Padma-kula, and Vajrakula) necessarily predates pañcakula systems (comprising the nowfamiliar Tathāgata, Vajra, Ratna, Padma, Karma families) is a problematic assumption famously propagated in Snellgrove’s “monumental” Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. This claim, Wedemeyer argues, is not altogether incorrect or unfounded, but that, “scholarship has not yet reached the point where such claims can be adequately justified.” (Wedemeyer 2001:254.) So I proceed using Linrothe’s schema, which conforms to a view of chronological succession from trikula to pañcakula, with caution. 215 Linrothe, Ruthless Compassion, 1999:226. 61 Linrothe says Phase Two—“pure,”216 or “Mature Esoteric Buddhism”—began in the seventh century and was dominant in the art historical record from the eighth to tenth centuries, when krodha-vighnāntakas developed into independent figures with their own particular and stable iconographic attributes.217 Dalton’s recent work has lent support to this in saying that in the early seventh century, deities began to develop into maṇḍalas from ritual manuals, compendia, or syncretic tantric texts.218 Phase Two, characterized by the development of the five-family iconography, is where dhāraṇī and maṇḍala elements come to figure prominently, and esoteric significance is layered onto the exoteric imagery and functionality of the practices, correlating to Yoga-tantra.219 In this context only Phases One and Two concern us. I will end the present discussion here and introduce the members of Vajravidāraṇa’s maṇḍalas. There are two distinct systems of Vajravidāraṇa practice that trace their lineage through, respectively, Buddhagupta and Vimalamitra. No earlier commentator references the commentarial position of any other commentator or tradition by name. However, it is possible to distinguish between these practice lineages by comparing their iconographic features as presented in the secondary literature. Vimalamitra’s tradition is based on a maṇḍala with thirteen or fifteen deities, with a white form of Vajravidāraṇa as the principal figure. A green-blue form of Vajravidāraṇa with a maṇḍala of five named deities is presented in Padmasambhava’s *Vajrāloka, and a fifteen-deity maṇḍala with a blue Vajravidāraṇa as the principal figure is associated with Buddhagupta’s lineage. Śāntarakṣita’s commentary follows the iconographical tradition of either 216 Linrothe, Ruthless Compassion, 136. Ibid., 144-6. 218 Dalton, “How Dhāraṇīs WERE Proto-Tantric,” 224 n. 46. 219 Cf. Linrothe, Ruthless Compassion, 13-4 and 145. Namely, these are the aforementioned Mahāvairocanābhisambodhi, Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha, Sarvadurgatipariśodhana (all of which were the subject of commentarial literature attributed to Buddhagupta), and the first seventeen chapters of the Guhyasamāja. 217 62 Padmasambhava or Buddhagupta, but this commentary is not as explicit in terms of iconographic description. In this discussion of the different maṇḍalas of Vajravidāraṇa, I will first detail those of Buddhagupta’s tradition before turning to those of Vimalamitra’s lineage. The Maṇḍalas of Kumārasena, Buddhagupta, and Padmasambhava Many of the Phase Two krodha-vighnāntakas are manifestations of Vajrapāṇi, and it is here that Linrothe’s work dovetails with my own observations about Vajravidāraṇa practice. The maṇḍalas of the putatively earliest traditions of Vajravidāraṇa are stuffed with wrathful masculine deities who have been associated or identified with Vajrapāṇi throughout the development of esoteric Buddhism. In a mythological reading of the text, all of them are of Vajrapāṇi’s essence in this context, as they are emanations issuing from his mystic heart. Among these forms of Vajrapāṇi, Linrothe studied at length the iconographic development of Ācala and Mahābala, and Trailokyavijaya.220 In Kumārasena’s sādhana, which might have served as the foundation for Buddhagupta’s exegetical elaboration, the self-visualized Vajrapāṇi is blue-black (sngo nag), making a terrorizing (Tib., sdigs mdzub) gesture.221 Apart from remarks on his general appearance there is 220 The presence of Trailokyavijaya in Vajravidāraṇa maṇḍala is a particularly intriguing detail. At certain points in the Mahāvairocanābhisambodhi-tantra, Trailokyavijaya is identified with Vajrahūṁkāra (a fourth among the ten wrathful ones associated with VV). Trailokyavijaya also plays pivotal roles in foundational Yoga-tantra texts, such as Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha and Sarvadurgatipariśodhana, yet Linrothe (1999:151) says neither Trailokyavijaya nor Ācala were represented as Phase One deities, and Kapstein (2000:61) says: “Both [Trailokyavijaya and Ācala] are exclusively associated with Buddhist tantric materials...” The earliest (late eighth-early ninth CE) east Indian representation of Trailokyavijaya is a stone sculpture from Nālandā, (See Linrothe 1999:193, plate 156; discussed on 194-6). Trailokyavijaya and Ācala are associated with water sanctification and ritual ablution in the Mahāvairocanābhisambodhi-tantra [Linrothe 1999:154], and also Buddhagupta’s Mahāvairocanābhisambodhi-tantra-piṇḍārtha in Hodge 2003:498-9. 221 Kumārasena, Sgrub thabs cho ga zhib mo dang bcas pa, 326r: “rdo rje nyi ma la gnas pa’i/ phyag na rdo rje gsang ba’i bdag/ stobs chen khro bo \’jigs cha byad/ sngo nag rdo rje sdigs mdzub can/ ral pa la sogs kun ldan pas/ ’byung po bsdigs pa gzugs brnyan tshul/” 63 no mention of his implements. In front of him is Māmakī, blue, joyous, and holding a blue lotus (Skt., utpala) flower.222 Kumārasena details a five-deity maṇḍala where the four deities of the maṇḍala do not assume positions in the cardinal directions, as is common among five-family maṇḍalas: Southeast - *Vajrakīla223 is dark-red (sngo dmar), with a fearsome demeanor, a vajra-kīla in his right hand, threatening everyone with his left. Southwest - *Vajradaṇḍa224 is blue-black, holding a club. Northwest - *Vajramudgara225 is gray226 and fearsome, with a vajra hammer. Northeast - *Vajracaṇḍa227, is black (mig sman) and holds a one-pointed vajra.228 Buddhagupta’s presentation of Vajravidāraṇa has a fifteen-deity maṇḍala, if counting only the male aspects.229 The first group of four wrathful ones surrounding Vajravidāraṇa are *Vajrakīla (Rdo rje phur pa), *Vajradaṇḍa (Rdo rje be con), *Vajramahābala (Rdo rje thob po), and *Vajracaṇḍa (Rdo rje gtum po). It may be noted that Kumārasena’s maṇḍala has the same deities, but they are presented in a different order. Padmasambhava’s presentation shares the maṇḍala up to this point with Buddhagupta, except that *Vajramudgara replaces *Vajramahābala, and the order is altered. In *Ratnabhāsvara, the remaining ten wrathful ones are: Hūṁkāra, Vijaya, Nīladaṇḍa, Yamāntaka, Ācala, Hayagrīva, Aparājita, Amṛtakuṇḍalī, Trailokyavijaya, and Mahābala.230 As 222 Kumārasena, Sgrub thabs cho ga zhib mo dang bcas pa, 326v: “de yi mdun du Māmakī/ sngo zhing dga’ ldan utpala sngo/ dam tshig rgyas ’debs bsnams pa’o” 223 Rdo rje kīla 224 Rdo rje be con 225 Rdo rje tho ba 226 I read sdo skye [= sngo skya] 227 Rdo rje gtum po 228 Kumārasena, Sgrub thabs cho ga zhib mo dang bcas pa, 326v. 229 Buddhagupta reproduces oral instructions which imply there are female consorts of at least some of the figures of the maṇḍala, but the instructions are opaque (see Section 3.1.4, on page 109 below). 230 Sangs rgyas gsang ba, *Ratnabhāsvara, 182v: Hūṁkāra (Hūṁ dzad), Vijaya (Rnam par rgyal ba), Nīladaṇḍa (Dbyug sngon can), Yamāntaka (Shin rje mtha’ byed), Ācala (Mi g.yo ba), Hayagrīva (Rta mchog), Aparājita (Gzhan gyis mi thub pa), Amṛtakuṇḍalī (’Dud rtsi ’khyil pa), Trailokyavijaya (Khams gsum las rnam par rgyal ba), and Mahābala (Stobs po che). 64 mentioned above, several of these ten are specific to Linrothe’s Phase Two krodha-vighnāntaka representations. In Padmasambhava’s commentary, which presents the only iconographic description of Vajravidāraṇa, he is green, with one face and three eyes. He is scowling, with orange hair, is seated in vajra posture, brandishing a vajra at his heart with his right hand, and making an offering gesture with his left. Sitting in the cross-legged vajra pose, his mood is alluring (Tib., sgeg pa), wearing ornaments and silken clothes. Essentially, Vajravidāraṇa’s form is very peaceful - except for the surrounding mass of flames and the four fearsome angry brutes all around.231 Padmasambhava does not hint towards the presence of the remaining ten wrathful ones (and neither does Śāntarakṣita). Padmasambhava provides a great deal of iconographic detail about these main five maṇḍala figures.232 Although Buddhagupta and Padmasambhava detail a five-deity maṇḍala, both commentaries seem to conform with the triadic model, and all five maṇḍala deities are of the Vajra family in both commentaries. A reference to Vajraśṛṅkhalā’s mantra (lu gu rgyud ma’i sngags) might be correlated with the vexing passage that instructs the practitioner on how to make alterations to the mantras 231 In explaining the iconography of Vajravidāraṇa as given by Padma ’byung gnas, *Vajrāloka, P 453-4, says, “phyag na rdo rje bdag nyid kyis lus khro bo’i rgyal po chen po rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa sku mdog ljang sngon zhal ’byes pa/ smin ma khro gnyer can/ ral pa dmar ser/ zhal gcig pa/ spyan gsum pa/ phyag gnyis pa/ g.yas pa rdo rje thugs kar gsor ba/ phyag g.yon pa bkur brten pa/ zhabs g.yon pa rdo rje’i gdan la brkyang pa/ rab tu brjid pa’i ’gying bag dang ldan pa/ dar dang lwa ba’i stod g.yogs dang smad g.yogs mnabs pa/ sbrul gyis brgyan pa/ me’i tshogs chen po ’bar ba lta bu’i nang na gnas pa/ ma rungs pa thams cad ’dul ba’i skur dkyil ’khor gyi dbus su sprul par gyur te/” 232 The four main deities according to Padma ’byung gnas, *Vajrāloka, 455, are: [1] Vajracaṇḍa - maroon (smug nag), holding one-pointed vajra in right and making a threatening gesture (sdigs mdzub bsgreng ba) with his left. He is seated in the northeast (Skt., aiśānī, Tib., dbang ldan gyi phyogs) after emanating from the heart of Vajrapāṇi. [2] Vajrakīlikīlaya is dark green, furiously frowning, holding one-pointed vajra in right hand, located in south-east (āgneyī, me’i mtshams). [3] Vajradaṇḍa is dark blue, holding the staff of Yāma in his right hand, seated in the southwest corner (nairṛtī, bden bral gyi mtshams). [4] Vajramudgara is black, holding a vajra-hammer, sits in the north-west (vāyudiś, rlung lha’i mtshams). Note that the directions retained in Vajrāloka demonstrate the classical Indian convention of associating the directions with deities, a feature that is not echoed in any other imperial-period commentary. 65 in order to apply them to the female consort(s), and it is an oblique possibility that this implies Buddhagupta takes Vajraśṛṅkhalā to be Vajravidāraṇa’s consort or corresponding feminine aspect.233 This idea is supported by the fact that the only other female entity referenced in the text, Māmakī, is mentioned only in the opening verses of Buddhagupta as a member of the Vajra family, and she is not mentioned again. Buddhagupta does correlate figures of the maṇḍala with specific activities, but refrains from assigning them a location within the maṇḍala, or detailed iconographic representation.234 Vimalamitra’s Vajravidāraṇa Maṇdala The maṇḍala as detailed by Buddhagupta differs from those in the Rnam par bshad pa (hereafter NS) and the longer Rnam par bshad pa rgya cher ’grel pa (hereafter VB) attributed to Vimalamitra.235 The maṇḍala group listed in the shorter NS has Vajrapāṇi (Lag na rdo rje), Hūṁkara, Yamāntaka (Gshin rje gshed), Trailokyavijaya (Khams gsum rnam par rgyal ba), Hayagrīva (Rta mgrin), Amṛtakuṇdalī (Bdud rtsi ’khyil pa), Mahābala (Stobs po che), Aparājita 233 A mother or feminine consort (yum) is also referenced in the Vajravidāraṇa sādhana attributed to Buddhagupta, cf. Appendix C, below. 234 Sangs rgyas gsang ba, *Ratnabhāsvara, 185v. At a point, Buddhagupta does mention in the section on “Concentration of Recitation,” far removed from any list of the maṇḍala deities, that the deities have, “jewel garlands, and moons, vajras, and mantras abiding within their hearts.” The deities also are described as emanating and absorbing light rays. However, the passages in question cannot be construed as instructive on their own. 235 Between the shorter and longer commentaries attributed to Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa and Rnam par bshad pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa (henceforth VB), the maṇḍala is different, and they seem to reference different versions of the root text, with no explanation provided for either. The positions explicitly assigned to the maṇḍala deities in VB might be seen as more accurately prescriptive, implying a greater focus on meditative visualization, over mere exhortation and praise. This same commentary calls VV Ubhayā-tantra, or both Kriyā-tantra and Yogatantra [VB, 576], and references five families. [VB 545] The texts seem to have different concerns, were reading different witnesses, had different conceptions of the history of Ajātaśatru (as Stobs ldan snying po), and the extensive commentary extols the qualities (yon tan), rather than the usual benefits (phan) cited in all other early commentaries of the dhāraṇī. Furthermore, VB uniquely emphasizes pedagogy, especially during the section about “listening to the teachings” [VB, 582], and stresses the correct order of training in the VV system. For these reasons, I think it is plausible that VB is either a later composition than *Ratnabhāsvara, *Vajrāloka, or the shorter Rnam par bshad pa, or that it was composed for a different community, and I find it doubtful that the two commentaries attributed to Vimalamitra were written by the same author. 66 (Gzhan gyis mi thub pa), Ācala (Mi g.yo mgon po), Nīladaṇḍa (Dbyug pa sngon po), and Padma ’khyil pa.236 Elsewhere Amoghapāśa and Ṭakkirāja are added for a total of thirteen deities.237 The longer Vimalamitra commentary is less specific regarding the individual family associations of the maṇḍala deities, but both indicate a knowledge of the five-family system, and some maṇḍala figures are associated with non-Vajra families in other tantric systems.238 The clearest list of the extensive commentary also has thirteen members,239 placing the first nine in specific locations of the maṇḍala arrangement, and following with the gatekeepers of four cardinal directions, who correspond to the four Immeasurable qualities: 1 East - Hung kara (*Hūṁkāra, here equivalent to Gshin rje bshed240) 2 South - Kham gsum rnam par rgyal ba (*Trailokyavijaya) 3 West - Rta mchog (*Hayagrīva) 4 North - Bdud rtsi ’khyil pa (*Amṛtakuṇḍalī) 5 Southeast - Yamāntaka 6 Northeast - Ṭakkirāja 7 Southwest - Stobs po che (*Mahābala) 8 Northwest - Amoghapāśa 9 Middle - Phyag na rdo rje (*Vajrapāṇi) 10 [East241] Rdo rje rta gdong lcag kyu ma 11 [South] Rdo rje phag gdong zhags pa ma 12 [West] Rdo rje lcags sgrogs nyi zla’i spyan 13 [North] Rdo rje thal byed dril ’khrol ma242 236 Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa, 531.7-532.1. Ibid., 522. 238 This includes Hayagrīva, Rta mgrin, and Padma bsnams pa, all of whom might otherwise be expected to refer to the same deity, and Amoghapāśa, often identified with Avalokiteśvara. All are normally associated with the Padma family. 239 Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa, 571. It is here explicitly stated that the maṇḍala has 13 members. Because in various places there are synonymous epithets and names implied, otherwise distinct entities, such as Hūṁkāra and Gzhin rje bshed, are identified with each other (p. 572), it may be otherwise difficult to ascertain who is in the maṇḍala and which other figures are in the retinue. For instance, at one point (p. 573) Humkara and Stobs po che are explained to share the same hṛdaya-mantra (snying po), and new deities such Blue Hayagriva and Nīladaṇḍa are introduced [p. 563-7] in the context of a description of the activities of the maṇḍala without explaining their relationship to other maṇḍala deities. 240 Gzhin rje bshed is usually presented as “Yamāntaka,” as it is a literal translation of the same. 241 The directions of the gatekeepers are not explicitly mentioned, but here I have applied the usual geographic order. 242 Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa, 546-557. 237 67 Analysis Though we lack early images of Vajravidāraṇa, 243 I feel there is value in considering the mysterious reaches of early Buddhist Tantra through the lens of visual culture. That is, I think visual reading of dhāraṇī and Kriyā-tantra literature could glean new insights that can complement those gained in thematic and philological textual study. I agree on principle when Linrothe says, “visible remains have as much informative potential as texts have,” when considering the place(s) of dhāraṇī-sūtras in the ritual history of Indic Buddhism.244 In *Ratnabhāsvara, the relationship between the [celestial] Bodhisattva Vajrapāṇi and Vajravidāraṇa is not explicitly expressed as one of subordination, as with other Phase One Bodhisattva-krodha-vighnāntaka pairs such as Avalokiteśvara-Hayagrīva and MañjuśrīYamāntaka. The two principals are associated and at times equated on a deeper level, however, and at times Vajravidāraṇa is portrayed as an emanation of Vajrapāṇi, who in turn emanates increasingly expansive emanated essences (as the four and ten wrathful ones). While not explicitly stated by Buddhagupta, there is room for Vajravidāraṇa to be interpreted as the 243 One possible exception to this paucity of representations of Vajravidāraṇa may be found in the Rubin Museum of Art. A set of 22 paper illustrations carbon dated to 1174-1293 CE in their collection contains a small paper painting that might be Vajravidāraṇa in a form close to the one presented by Padmasambhava. (Cf. “Unidentified,” Rubin Museum of Art, acc.# P1998.23.15, Himalayan Art Resources item #748. https://www.himalayanart.org/items/747, Accessed 9/18/2018. In this unidentified miniature (15.88x20.32cm), a green figure sits in the cross-legged lotus posture on a lotus and two discs, likely a sun and moon, with a crown, hair ornament, short and long golden necklaces, two bands above each elbow, a bracelet on each wrist, earrings, wearing a blue blouse and a pink robe over the legs. The painting is apparently faded, so it’s difficult to comment with certainty on the original coloration. In the left hand the deity holds a bell at the hip, and the right hand holds crossed vajras, or one implement representing two crossed vajras (viśvavajra) at the heart. Their expression is peaceful, beatific. Nothing about the posture or accesorization indicate a wrathful demeanor. He appears similar to the most common representations of Vajrasattva, apart from the green body color, double vajra instead of a single vajra, and less ornate ornamentation. The largest differences between the Rubin miniature and Padmasambhava’s description are the dark hair color, a lack of a third eye and flaming aureole, and the presence of a bell in the left hand resting at the hip. The bell is common to later Tibetan images of Vajravidāraṇa pertaining to all lineages. If this is Vajravidāraṇa as the principal figure of the maṇḍala of five deities (i.e., in accordance with the commentary of Padmasambhava), then the relation between principal and retinue figures would be one of visual contrast: the principal being a peaceful form, with the retinue deities appearing as strident wrathful figures. 244 Linrothe, Ruthless Compassion, 95. Emphasis mine. 68 personification of the Vajravidāraṇa dhāraṇī, in the abstract or archetypical sense of the term. By this dhāraṇī, the maṇḍala is exhorted to become manifest and enact their respective activities. This reading could account for the shifting enumerations of the VV maṇḍalas, that is, how Vajravidāraṇa and Vajrapāṇi are considered either not part of the maṇḍala or as the one or two central figures of the same. Linrothe showed that Trailokyavijaya and Ācala, common to the larger maṇḍala configurations of Vimalamitra and Buddhagupta, began to appear only in Phase Two. Therefore, either all considered commentaries were composed during or after Linrothe’s Phase Two, or the VV commentaries present literary depictions of Trailokyavijaya and Ācala in a transitional Phase One-early Phase Two context. Following Linrothe’s iconographic model, *Ratnabhāsvara and *Vajrāloka would readily appear to fall in the transitional period between late Phase One and early Phase Two, with Vimalamitra’s commentaries further along in the development of Phase Two. The fact that these correspond to the range between Kriyā-tantra and Yoga-tantra was anticipated in Vimalamitra’s extensive commentary, as noted above, where he categorizes the practice as the intermediary Ubhayā-tantra (Tib., gnyis ka’i rgyud). Admittedly, Linrothe’s model is strongest when considered in relation to the evolution of specific figures, such as Hayagrīva or Trailokyavijaya, for which there are an array of representations over a long period of time. Here again is a shortcoming with regard to the lack of early Vajravidāraṇa imagery. Further research in this system could possibly trace the evolution of iconographic representation in the dozens of other VV commentarial texts in the Bstan ’gyur and beyond, but this is beyond the limited scope of this thesis. 69 Other Beings Having discussed the main maṇḍala at length, I feel it is beneficial to discuss the cast of peripheral characters and forces referenced in the VV as the final theme of this system. By doing so, it is evident which types of beings and forces this dhāraṇī practice was intended to relate to, and further to situate it in the perceived world of the Indian subcontinent. Beyond the human and bodhisattva retinue, and the maṇḍalas comprising the five, six, thirteen, and fifteen wrathful ones as seen above, in *Ratnabhāsvara and the Vajravidāraṇa corpus we find many nonhuman beings that were present at the time of the Vajravidāraṇa dhāraṇī revelation, or that might have been encountered by a Vajravidāraṇa practitioner. Buddhagupta says that in addition to the fundamental text’s interlocutors Buddha Śākyamuni and Vajrapāṇi, there were “countless famous bodhisattvas bearing the name ‘Vajra,’” countless Śrāvakas such as Śāriputra (Śā ri’i bu); Arhants such as Kāśyapa (’Od srung[s]);” and “innumerable gods and so forth, who all heard the teaching together.” In this way he contextualizes the narrative of the sūtra just as one would expect to find in a Mahāyāna sūtra setting.245 Throughout VV, Vajrapāṇi’s identity as a yakṣa is repeatedly referenced, if only perfunctorily. He is called by his common epithets, “Lord of the Yakṣas (yakṣendr[aḥ]),” and the “Great Yakṣa General (mahāyaḳsasenāpat[iḥ])” in the nidāna and in the homage statements preceding the dhāraṇī-mantras. Apart from Vajrapāṇi, however, there is no mention of other yakṣas in VV or Buddhagupta’s commentary. 245 However, we do see a counterpoint to this interpretation in Padmasambhava, *Vajrāloka, 452: ’di la ’khor gzhan ni med do snyam na bden te/ bcom ldan ’das kyi nye gnas su gyur pa ’phags pa kun dga’ bo la sogs pa med pa kho na yin te de’i dus na ma byung ba’i phyir ro/ ’on kyang bskal pa bzang po’i byang chub sems dpa’ la sogs pa rnams ni don gyis yod par shes par bya ste/ de lta ma yin na bdag cag gi lung dang ’gal bar ’gyur ba’i phyir ro/ yang na dkyil ’khor gyi yan lag tu gyur pa’i rigs pa’i khro bo rnams kyis yin par shes par bya’o.” 70 As stated early in *Ratnabhāsvara, the purpose of the dhāraṇī was to cure and convert King Ajātaśatru and “pernicious demons (Tib., gdon ma rungs pa).”246 In the opening lines of the dhāraṇī-sūtra itself, some of the dhāraṇī’s stated qualities pertain to counteracting and controlling bhūta spirits (’byung po). These are nonhuman entities that have been historically likened by DeCaroli to ghosts, or spirits, that were confined to features of the landscape, in his work on the relationship between Buddhism and nonhuman entities in the Indic context.247 As VV states, the dhāraṇī summons and suppresses these bhūta spirits.248 As will be recalled from the Ajātaśatru narrative found in *Ratnabhāsvara, as discussed above, these bhūta spirits and other nonhuman beings (mi min) were agitated by the nonvirtuous deeds committed by King Ajātaśatru and his subjects. This dhāraṇī is also explained to counteract other harmful spirits (gnod pa), which is glossed by Buddhagupta as demons and [eighteen] other types of beings that cause harm such as gods (lha), and so on.249 From specific references in the dhāraṇī-sūtra’s concluding verses, we learn that this spell also works against graha spirits, malevolent planetary forces (Skt., graha, Tib., gdugs gza’, ’dzin pa) and inauspicious constellations (Skt., nakṣatra, Tib., rgyu skar). Finally, a single reference to counteracting “nāga demons (Tib., klu’i gdon)” that cause disease in RB is one of the few mentions of nāgas, subterranean or water-dwelling serpentine spirits, in VV or any of the purportedly-early commentaries.250 246 Sangs rgyas gsang ba, *Ratnabhāsvara, 177r. Robert DeCaroli (2004), Haunting the Buddha: Indian Popular Religions and the Formation of Buddhism (New York: Oxford University Press), 12, 15, and 18. 248 Rdo rje rnam ’joms kyi gzungs, Tōh. 750, Sde dge Bka’ ’gyur, vol. 95 (rgyud, dza), folio 266r. 249 Sangs rgyas gsang ba, *Ratnabhāsvara, 180v. The number eighteen is bracketed because some *Ratnabhāsvara witness retain the numeral, while others don’t. 250 Ibid.,185a. In Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa, 557, the activity of taming nāgas is entrusted to the western gatekeeper. 247 71 With these references we can see that the Vajravidāraṇa dhāraṇī was intended to be employed in mundane tasks relating to the management of errant nonhuman forces. DeCaroli has shown that in the Indic context, forces and beings such as ghosts and elemental spirits were considered facets of the mundane world with its six realms. Indian Buddhists traditionally positioned themselves as mediators between ordinary people and these mundane nonhuman forces, and VV and *Ratnabhāsvara promote the technology of the Vajravidāraṇa dhāraṇī as an efficacious method for a range of activities spanning healing, cleansing, protection, and even magical combat. In *Vajrāloka, and the two commentaries attributed to Vimalamitra, the focus of interpretation broadens to include transcendent aims, such as profound meditative states and complete liberation from samsara. This concludes the discussion of the Excellent Retinues: the deities, gods, humans, and non-humans accompanying Vajravidāraṇa. Conclusions To recapitulate, *Ratnabhāsvara presents an abundant banquet of amuse-bouche's to those interested in the personage of Buddhagupta, those interested in late-period dhāraṇī and Kriyā-tantra praxis and explanatory strategies, and to practitioners of Vajravidāraṇa itself. As it shares intertextual connections and elements common to other commentarial works of Buddhagupta, several clues point to *Ratnabhāsvara being accurately attributed to Buddhagupta, or a close student of his, rather than being an instance of later pseudepigrapha. As I note at relevant points in the translation of *Ratnabhāsvara below, the commentary has three areas of intertextual evidence that lend support to the attribution of this text to Buddhagupta. First, some gesture towards the framework of Five Aspects promoted by Vasubandhu, as discussed in the beginning of this introduction, points to an institutional background, or at the 72 least, concern for classical norms of commentarial composition that is unique among commentaries attributed to Snga dar figures active in Tibet during the eighth-ninth centuries. Second, in defining the term “bodhisattva,” Buddhagupta here cites a verse of the Mahāvairocanābhisaṃbodhi Tantra (28.3).251 While this text was popular at the time in question, the term, “bodhisattva,” is one of the most ubiquitous in the Mahāyāna Buddhist context. It is this ubiquity that begs the question of why a full-fledged tantra is used to define it. This same verse was used or specifically commented upon in both short and long commentaries on the same tantra attributed to Buddhagupta. Here we have three instances of Buddhaguptaattributed commentaries employing the same lemma for a very pedestrian purpose. Finally, in *Ratnabhāsvara we see a quote from the Subāhuparipṛccha-tantra that also appears in the commentary on the same tantra attributed to Buddhagupta.252 Additionally, *Ratnabhāsvara seems to be the only commentary on the outer tantric classes attributed to Buddhagupta that names a teacher and a student of his. While I cannot definitively conclude that this is a genuine work of Buddhagupta based on these alone, I feel they make the beginnings of a fascinating case for such a conclusion. As for the dhāraṇī-sūtra itself, based on the Vajravidāraṇa material consulted in the course of this research, it is apparent that we only have certain text-historical evidence and references to the short dhāraṇī, which has been interchangeably referred to as a fundamental (Skt., mūla) dhāraṇī (Tib., gzungs) sūtra (Tib., mdo), tantra (Tib. rgyud), or essence mantra (Skt., hṛdaya) since the time of the appearance of the *Ratnabhāsvara.253 251 Sangs rgyas gsang ba, *Ratnabhāsvara, D 179r. Cf. Hodge, The Mahā-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra, 378 and 459. 252 Subāhuparipṛccha-tantra (’Phags pa dpung bzang gis zhus pa zhes bya ba’i rgyud, Tōh. 805), rgyud, tsha,140v.2. Cf. Sangs rgyas gsang ba, ’Phags pa dpung bzangs kyis zhus pa’i rgyud kyi bsdus pa’i don, 38v.2. 253 See “Sanskrit Sources” section of the Bibliography, below, for a few ready examples of these flexible designations. 73 The Vajravidāraṇa commentaries attributed to Buddhagupta, Padmasambhava, Vimalamitra, Śāntarakṣita, and Kumārasena, as well as the later commentaries by Padma dkar po and by ’Ju Mi pham rgya mtsho all comment upon the Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī, which is similar in parameter and content to the texts available to us today in Sanskrit and Tibetan. All of their commentarial work is received without explicit reference to, or any remark about the loss of another related text. As with tantra in general, the tradition allows latitude for some mythic “urtantra” pertaining to Vajravidāraṇa, which has been lost and is now represented by a measly shard of the original. This would appear to be the opinion of Hopkins and Hidas.254 In the section regarding the ostensive historical time of the Vajravidāraṇa dhāraṇī revelation, we have seen how both main practice traditions related to this dhāraṇī refer to a version of the Ajātaśatru narrative complex that involves dual parricide by magical spell. This might have eluded academic attention due to the alternate epithets for King Ajātaśatru. The commentarial works surveyed above further serve as instances of how the ancient Indic myth of Ajātaśatru’s karmic conundrum was brought to the Tibetan context. Comparing different exegetical views on the place, or state of the Vajra(s), the narrative setting of the Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī, has shown that reading multiple levels of experience into the dhāraṇī's story has been a universal exegetical tactic, from the earliest commentaries until the modern era. Different interpretations could be seen to differentiate between relative and ultimate truth, or between exoteric and esoteric levels of interpretation. Further exploration of the connections between the historical King Ajātaśatru, Siddhārtha Gautama, the Vṛji/Licchavi confederacy, and sevenfold themes of indestructibility (Pāli, aparihānīyadhammā, Skt., 254 Hidas, “Dhāraṇī Sūtras,” 131. 74 aparihāṇīta-dharma) and the seven characteristics of a vajra (Tib., rdo rje’i [tshig/chos] bdun), as enumerated by Buddhagupta, presents a compelling direction of future research. While considering biographical data about Vidyādhara Kumārasena, Ācārya Buddhagupta, and Dbas Mañjuśrīvarman presented in Tibetan commentarial and historical literature, it is clear that Kumārasena and Mañjuśrīvarman form an important arc of Buddhagupta’s Vajravidāraṇa lineage - although Kumārasena’s role is more clearly defined than that of Mañjuśrīvarman. The opening verses of *Ratnabhāsvara itself tell that Mañjuśrīvarman requested the commentary, which was received by Buddhagupta from Kumārasena, which was then translated into Tibetan by Buddhagupta and Mañjuśrīvarman. Following from this, *Ratnabhāsvara is a typical “gray text,” composed by an Indic master on the Tibetan Plateau, explicitly for Tibetan consumption. As such it might have never been circulated in India. There is strong evidence that Vidyādhara Kumārasena was a teacher of Buddhagupta in the putatively earliest commentarial works, and in lineage accounts of later Gsar ma scholars. If taken at face value, there are references to a Mañjuśrī[varman] somehow present at many of the most important moments of textual translation and lineage transmission in the history of the importation of Buddhism into Tibet. Many of these references and attributions are chimeric and mercurial, but upon investigation they concentrate around two figures active in Tibet between the mid-eighth and mid-ninth centuries, which may be references to one scholar. The popularity of the Buddhagupta-at-Kailāsa story might have arisen at the beginning of thirteenth century, but the insertion of Dbas Mañjuśrīvarman into the narrative could have been a separate or later occurrence, coinciding with the elevation of the Dba’/Sba/Dbas clan or clans. The inter-regnal timing of Buddhagupta’s translation and teaching activities at Kailāsa as suggested by Nagasawa would resolve one aspect of Mañjuśrīvarman’s ambiguity. 75 In terms of the form of Vajravidāraṇa practice evinced by commentarial works attributed to the imperial period, we receive no commentary that classifies the dhāraṇī as anything other than Kriyā-tantra, and at least Buddhagupta circumvents the “coding” process that Davidson mentions when it comes to commenting on the verbal substance of the dhāraṇī-mantras.255 *Ratnabhāsvara, the ostensibly earliest commentarial work on Vajravidāraṇa, involves transformative self- and front-visualizations, in addition to rituals intended to effect apotropaic change. As such, if the provenance of the work under current consideration is to be believed, we have an important early document of dhāraṇī ritual practice sharing space with outer-tantric visionary meditation practice. This thesis has been concerned mainly with Buddhagupta’s practice lineage, but in comparing the particular details of the Vajravidāraṇa with Linrothe’s three-phase model of the krodha-vighnāntaka figure’s evolution, Buddhahupta’s practice lineage would fall between Phases One and Two. In the literature of this system, the maṇḍala is filled with emanations and associates of Vajrapāṇi, where all are members of the Vajra family, and there is no mention of five-family themes. The wrathful figures are presented as aligned yet independent, and are described as being simple in form and accoutrement. As the scope of this thesis has been (regrettably) limited to the Indic tradition as purportedly received by Tibetans in the imperial period, I was not able to consider the developments of the tradition on the Tibetan plateau or Newar Buddhist worlds in the twelve subsequent centuries. With this presentation and translation, the Vajravidāraṇa corpus has only begun to receive a fraction of the attention it merits. 255 Cf. Davidson, “Studies in Dhāraṇī Literature I: Revisiting the Meaning of the Term Dhāraṇī.” 76 Part II: Translation Remarks on Translation Methodology I have approached *Ratnabhāsvara as an historical document rather than a living one. That is, while the commentary is seminal and influential, I am not aware that it is used currently to guide any practitioner’s practice. Translation style is a continuum of loyalty between source text and audience, and here I have tipped the scale towards favoring the source text where I saw the opportunity. Because I was not bound by a received exegetical tradition, and because my purpose is to present Buddhagupta’s commentary as clearly and as possible in order to facilitate subsequent academic reference, in my translation style I have favored clarity and functionality over my personal Anglo-American aesthetic sensibilities. Concerning some technical aspects of my critical translation process, I have rendered metrical verses (both intertextual lemmata and verses composed by Buddhagupta) as unstructured verse for clarity of visual presentation. I have not fastidiously included in my apparatus variations in line breaks (Skt., daṇḍa, Tib., shad), variations between Genitive (Tib., ’brel sgra) or Agentive (Tib., byed sgra) case particles (e.g., “gyi” or “gyis”), divergent spelling of speech indicators (e.g., Tib., zhes bya ba versus ces bya ba), or variations in the spelling of numerals. Sanskrit terms marked by [*] indicate attested concordance from the Mahāvyutpatti, Sādhanamālā, Niṣpannayogāvalī, or entries of Negi’s Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary - in short, Sanskrit attestations in sources outside of the VV corpus. Sanskrit terms without [*] are attested in Sanskrit witnesses of VV unless otherwise noted. I have disregarded the citations from the 77 Dhīḥ edition which are reconstructions from Tibetan. A careful, comprehensive Sanskrit edition of the dhāraṇī-sūtra remains a desideratum. *Ratnabhāsvara is traditionally held to be composed in an Indic language by a learned tantric paṇḍita, and then translated into Tibetan by the same person, Buddhagupta, and Mañjuśrīvarman, a lotsāwa of the Great Revision period. It was later corrected by two mysterious figures, ’Jon te ta’u la and ([Da] ’og) Bsod nams mos pa. If this is all true, we are presented with three possible levels of redaction, notwithstanding any transmissional errors accrued over the intervening centuries. While reading and translating *Ratnabhāsvara, I have attempted to foster sensitivity to such complicated and opaque transmissional processes. There is one passage of *Ratnabhāsvara that remains unintelligible to me, regarding the modification of Sanskrit mantra syllables in accordance with Buddhagupta’s teacher’s pith instructions. These instructions are imparted without an accompanying syllable-for-syllable correspondence. After consulting with colleagues, friends, and Tibetan informants whose comprehension of Tibetan far outshine mine, I am ashamed to admit that I still have no idea what is specifically happening in this section. One Tibetan informant concluded that it was impossible to understand this passage without the oral instructions of the lineage. Not wishing to abridge the translation, I have rendered the passage as best as I could and given the Wylie transliteration of the relevant Tibetan passage in the apparatus. Finally, I have inserted the relevant sections of my translation of the dhāraṇī-sūtra within the commentary, whereas the commentary only indicates the parameters of the passage being interpreted. After compiling a diplomatic edition based on the version found in the Sde dge Bka’ ’gyur, I translated the dhāraṇī-sūtra while conferring with Sanskrit editions and Buddhagupta’s commentary (Appendix B). 78 The inserted Sanskrit dhāraṇī-mantras are based on a diplomatic reading of the parameters of the mantras found in the Sde dge edition of VV, along with the Sanskrit spelling found in NGMCP: E 927/7 (E), the Dhīḥ edition (D), and Iwamoto’s edition (I). These passages of the translated fundamental dhāraṇī are inset and in boldface type. Verbatim references to the fundamental text that occur in the main body of the commentary are likewise rendered in boldface, and appear without quotation marks when they are used as part of the natural language of the commentary. 79 Translation {D 176r.6}{Q 181v.2}256“The Jewel’s Radiance,” An Extensive Commentary on Ārya-Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī In Sanskrit: Ārya-vajra-vidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī-ṭīkā-ratna-bhāsvara257-nāma.258 In Tibetan: “The Jewel’s Radiance,” An Extensive Commentary on the Ārya-Vajravidāraṇanāma-dhāraṇī. Homage to Vajravidāraṇa! Homage to Noble Mañjuśrī-Vāgīśvara! To the Supreme Lord of Secrets, the ultimate realm itself, the peerless dharmakāya; To the vajrakāya - the source of Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and the rest; To the lord of myriad benefits, endowments, and the {D 176v} wisdom of the three kāyas; 256 For lists of witnesses employed in the translation of *Ratnabhāsvara, and the embedded translation and transcription of Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī, see the Bibliography, Appendix E. 257 Apart from being a commentary, the text gives no clue to the sense of the title, *ratna-bhāsvara, or rin po che gsal ba. The title, moreover, only occurs before the homage, and in the colophon. The translation of this compound is somewhat thorny if one assumes the title was composed in Sanskrit and translated to Tibetan. The obvious reading of the Sanskrit is that it is a tatpuruṣa-samāsa nominal compound, and as such the posterior element (bhāsvara, gsal ba) would be taken to be the substantive modified by any anterior elements (ratna, or rin po che, translated as “jewel”). The reading would then be, “clarity/resplendence [of] [one, two, or many] jewel[s] (Tib., “*rin po che’i gsal ba.”) Instead, we must read the “jewel” as modifying the “resplendence” or “state of clarity,” with the relationship between the two likely either instrumental, ablative, or genitive (“clarity [through/because/of] the jewel,” for the Tibetan, “*sal ba[s/las/yi] rin po che,) or even as a dvandva-samāsa compound denoting similarity, for “jewel-like resplendence.” The compound makes more sense in Tibetan convention where the posterior elements of nominal phrases more often modify anterior elements, when the internal relationships are not announced by particles. This Tibetan order would suggest a reading like, “clarified/resplendent jewel.” It could be the case that, being putatively composed in Sanskrit, but never circulated in that language, Buddhagupta didn’t give it a title, but his translators did, and then back-translated it into an artificial Indic term: the curious “*ratnabhāsvara.” 258 Ārya-vajra-vidāraṇa-nāma dhāraṇī-ṭīkā ratnabhasvara-nāma] D; °radna-svāra-nāma] Q; °ratnasvāra] N. 80 To Mañjuśrī-Vāgīśvara, I bow my head! In order to conquer all with the vajra, And subdue all especially pernicious forces I praise Vidāraṇa, who abides in the vajrakāya, And Master Kumārasena!259 Vajravidāraṇa accomplishes the aims Of the speech of all Buddhas. With the blessings of exalted masters Because Mañjuśrīvarman so requested, I will explain [it].260 The Dharma taught by the sublime Buddha Is of four ‘baskets’: Sūtra, Abhidharma, Vinaya, And that of the Vidyādharas.261 Within the fourth, Kriyā-tantra,262 259 Gzhon nu sde. Note that his clan name, Dbas, is not mentioned. 261 Rig pa ’dzin pa’i sde. 262 In the eleventh century, Smṛtijñānakīrti (2014:202) presented the four classes of tantra in his commentary on VV: “Thus, regarding tantra, through differences of students and differences of subject matter there are four classes. What are these four? Kriyā (bya ba), Cārya (spyod pa), Yoga (rnal ’byor), and Yoganiruttara (rnal ’jor bla na med pa). Others teach an Ubhaya (gnyis ka’i rgyud) [integrating] the view of higher tantra and the conduct of lower tantra, and assert five. This is untenable. Therefore, some tantras speak of the entire meaning of most tantras, and because they are present there, they are elevated above [the schema of] five classes of tantra. But abandoning this mistake is difficult. For this reason, there are only four classes of tantra. Here, because this is the context of teaching on Kriyā-tantra...” (“de lta bu’i rgyud de la yang gdul bya’i khyad par dang brjod bya don gyi khyad par gyis rnam pa bzhi’o/ de yang gang zhe na/ bya ba dang spyod pa dang / rnal ’byor dang / rnal ’jor bla na med pa’i rgyud do/ gzhan dag rgyud gong ma’i lta ba ston cing ’og ma’i spyod pa ston pa gnyis ka’i rgyud dang lnga’o zhes ’dod pa ni/ mi ’thad de/ de lta na rgyud la la nas rgyud phal cher gyi don tshang bar gsungs pa yang yod pas rgyud sde lnga las kyang 260 81 There are two [aspects]: general and distinct,263 Which are explained as ritual (rtog pa) 264 and activity. Of the three families,265 within that of Vajra, There are Akṣobhya, Vajrapāṇi, Amṛta[kuṇḍali], Māmakī and Śṛṅkhalā.266 “Vajra” shows their meaning. The Vajravidāraṇa dhāraṇī teaching Was proclaimed to train Lokpé Nyingpo,267 And to create benefit in the future. {Q 182r} This is the great fundamental tantra lhag par ’gyur te/ nyes pa ’di yang spang bar dka’o/ de’i phyir rgyud de ni bzhi kho na’o/ ’dir ni bya ba’i rgyud ston pa’i skabs yin pas...”) 263 Cf. Dalton, “How Dhāraṇīs WERE Proto-Tantric: Liturgies, Ritual Manuals, and the Origins of the Tantras,” 216 and 224nn44-45. Dalton quotes Buddhagupta’s presentation of these two types of tantra in Dhyānottarapaṭala, where among the “general” tantras that are compilations of ritual manuals we find Susiddhikāra, Subāhuparipṛcchā, and Kalpa-laghu. The “distinct” tantras include the Vidyādhara-piṭaka, Bodhimaṇḍa, Trisamayarāja, and Trikāyauṣṇīṣa. 264 rtog pa dang ni las su bshad] Q; rtog pa bdag ni las su bshad] D Cf. Ye shes rdo rje, ’Phags pa rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs zhes bya ba’i rim par phye ba’i rgya cher ’grel ba gsal ba’i sgron ma zhes bya ba, Tōh. 2687, rgyud, thu, 244b.2-3, where the eleventh-century paṇḍita situates VV as a Specific Kriyā-tantra of the Vajra family, a ritual (rtog pa, *kalpa) bearing the title dhāraṇī in no unspecific terms: “In Kriyā-tantra, there are General tantras and Distinct tantras. From among these, there are [tantras of the] Tathā[gata] family of form, tantras of the Padma family of speech, and tantras of the Vajra family of mind. This is a tantra of the Vajra family of mind. Furthermore, from among General and Distinct tantras, this is a Distinct tantra. This is a wrathful Vajra family tantra. Being a wrathful tantra of the Vajra family, this is a kalpa (rtog pa), hence it is known by the name dhāraṇī.” (“bya ba’i rgyud la spyi dang bye brag gi rgyud las bye brag gi rgyud do/ de la sku tathā’i rigs kyi rgyud dang/ gsung padma’i rigs kyi rgyud dang / thugs rdo rje’i rigs kyi rgyud las/ ’di thugs rdo rje rigs kyi rgyud do/ de yang spyi dang bye brag las / ’di bye brag gi rgyud do/ de la ’di ni rdo rje khro bo rigs kyi rgyud do/ rdo rje rigs kyi khro bo’i rgyud ’dis ni rtogs pa yin pa la/ gzungs kyi ming gis btags so/”) 265 rigs gsum: That is, the Tathāgata family (Skt., Tathāgata-kula, Tib., de bzhin gshegs pa’i rigs), Vajra family (Vajra-kula, rdo rje’i rigs), and Padma family (Padma-kula, padma’i rigs). 266 Māmakī dang Lu gu rgyud; =*[Vajra]Śṛṅkhalā. Cf. Sādhanamālā 413.9-10 and Tōḥ. 758, Rdo rje lu gu rgyud ma’i rgyud kyi rtog pa ([Ārya-]vajraśṛṅkhalasya-tantra-kalpa), translated by Mar pa chos kyi dbang phyug grags pa. 267 Log pa’i snying po. 82 [Delivered on] the peak of the supreme vajra Mount Meru268 Of one hundred and eight tantras in all. Being revealed first among them, The root is renowned in their explanation.269 Because all of the meanings of the great tantra Are summarily taught yet profound, In a sūtra the Sugata said, ‘Its meaning, briefly stated, Are the previous awakened emanations And pith instructions for disciples’ manifest realization.’270 First, four sections are asserted: Cause, condition, and result, And following those, their summary.271 In the first [section] there are five;272 within the second [section] There are two, wherein there are said to be two [sections] each. In the third [section] there are three [mantras]; In the first, 268 Rdo rje lhun po’i ri rab zom rtsa ba bshad par rab tu grags] N Q; rtsa ba’i bshad par rab tu grags] C D 270 mngon rtogs. Cf. Kumārasena, Sgrub thabs cho ga zhib mo dang bcas pa, 325r. (“Lhun po ri rab zom rgyud du/ de bzhin gshegs pas ’di skad gsungs/ sngon gyi ’phrul pa la brten nas/ ma ’ongs man ngag rnam gnyis te/ bdag don rdo je’i bsnyen pa dang / gzhan don rdo rje’i las sbyor bcas.”) 271 bsdu ba, *saṃgraha. Cf. Nance, Speaking for Buddhas, 146, in his transation of Vasubandhu’s Vyākhyāyukti. 272 This could refer to the five aspects of a classically informed śāstra (subject, purpose, etc.), or the five perfections (phun tshog lnga). Both enumerations are present in this section. 269 83 one should know both pairs. The fourth subsumes two [sections]; and therein the first [section] has two [sections]. One should know there are four [sections] within the second [section]. The two [sections] of the first [section] conform to pith instructions, And for those of supreme, middling, and lesser faculties There are three levels of explanation. There are taught to be two types of purpose. The Five [Aspects] - purpose, meaning and the words, objections and responses, and their connection273 Should be understood here.274 § 1 Cause of the Teaching Now, because deity and mantra are inseparable, it says in the Vidyādhara-piṭaka,275 Thus, the Vidyādhara-piṭaka has been rendered evident. 273 Cf. Nance, Speaking for Buddhas, 132. This might be paraphrase from Vasubandhu’s Vyākhyāyukti, Book I. mtshams sbyor ba / *anusaṃdhi. See also ibid., 105-120. Note that this order differs from that of Vasbandhu’s Vyākhyāyukti, “A treatise on how to explain and comment upon sūtras. He sets out five components to be included in a sūtra commentary: the purpose (prayojana, dgos pa), concise meaning (piṇḍārtha, bsdus pa’i don), meaning of the words (padārtha, tshig gi don), connections (anusaṃdhi, mtshams sbyar ba), and objections and answers (codyaparihāradvaya, brgal ba/dang lan gnyis).” In addition, Schoening (1996:118-119) says, “The “purpose” points to the goal or result of the treatise, the “concise meaning” to the meaning and subject of the treatise, the “meaning of the words” explains the concise meaning and so forth, the “connections” explains the order of the words, and the “objections and answers” uphold the treatise’s logical and internal consistency.” 274 Cf. Nance, Speaking for Buddhas, 132-134. 275 On the Vidyādhara-piṭaka, See Skilling 1992:114-115; Davidson 2014b; and Dalton 2005:122 and 122n19. 84 {D 177r} And, The mantra itself is the deity, and the [deity] is the mantra. Likewise, as it is also renowned as a sūtra, The meaning is taught concisely, therefore it is called a sūtra. And, Listen as I explain the the secret mantra in the manner of the sūtras.276 The topic to be explained has five aspects: the subject (brjod par bya ba) is the meaning of emptiness, along with the methods of Vajravidāraṇa. The medium used to express this (brjod par byed pa) is this assembly of scriptural citations. Its purpose is to train King Lokpé Nyingpo and pernicious demonic spirits (gdon ma rungs pa), and {Q 182v} to establish beings of the future in the awakened state (byang chub). The essential purpose (dgos pa’i yang dgos pa) includes all of the above, and to obtain the two kinds of siddhi (dngos grub) as well. The connection between the subject and medium which expresses it is like that of a method and that which arises from that method.277 As it is said, The method, and the result of the method is like this. 1.1 Meaning of the Tantra 1.1.2 Meaning of the Title 276 Subāhuparipṛccha-tantra (’Phags pa dpung bzang gis zhus pa zhes bya ba’i rgyud, Tōh. 805, rgyud, tsha,140v.2). It is also quoted in Buddhagupta’s short commentary on the same tantra (Sangs rgyas gsang ba, ’Phags pa dpung bzangs kyis zhus pa’i rgyud kyi bsdus pa’i don, 38v.2. 277 These - subject, purpose, essential purpose, and relationship - are collectively known as the “Four interrelated elements” which comprise the second function of a śāstra’s homage section (mchod par brjod pa). [Personal communication, Khenpo Gyaltsen, Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling, 8/30/2017.] 85 Now, in order to explain the meaning of this tantra, for the sake of those with insight who understand through the teaching of the title alone,278 one should be forthright from the beginning.279 [The text] is called, “Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī / Incantation [of] Vajravidāraṇa.” Here vajra means indivisible and indestructible, so we have vajra, the wisdom of emptiness. This is the designation given to this deity (lha) and dhāraṇī (gzungs). Furthermore, by using the term vajra, it is said, Emptiness with all supreme aspects Is expressed as ‘vajra.’ And, Deity and mantra are subsumed within ‘vajra.’280 By these quotes, personal benefit is accomplished, as I will show below. “Complete (rnam par / *vi)” means all entities without exception. Moreover, nondual wisdom conquers, annihilates, and ruins (med cing brlag pa) bhūta spirits (’byung po), and so forth, as well as thoughts - which are synonyms for mantra and vajra. And, Because it conquers [...], it is called ‘vajra.’281 By those quotes, the benefit of others is accomplished. This I will also explain further. Thus, the name “Vajravidāraṇa”282 has been expressed in terms of its meaning and constituents. 278 = udghaṭitajña, per Hodge, The Mahā-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra, 43. mjug] P Q; em. ’jug 280 A similar quotation, or paraphrase, is found in Padma ’byung gnas, *Vajrāloka, 483.9. 281 rdo rjer] N Q; ye shes] C D. Again, this is echoed indirectly in Vimalagupta, Śrīguhyasamājālaṃkāra-nāma, 5v.2: “shes rab nyon mongs de ’joms phyir de phyir shes rab bcom par bshad” 282 rdo rje rnam par ’dzin pa; conj. em., “rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa.” However, this could be a telling error in the Sanskrit-Tibetan translation process, with a misreading of the verbal root (that is, mistaking √dṝ for √dhṛ), or a 279 86 As for the accomplishment of both types of benefit, because it is what holds (zungs), preserves (’dzin) from degeneration, and is mnemonic (mi brjed pa), all aims are achieved. Also, regarding these two, it is said, The meaning is that through the subject matter, one is protected from bhūta spirits and cyclic existence. {D 177v} The very words cause them to arise. And it is said, Because it protects from degeneration, it is a dhāraṇī. 283 These, then, subsume the meaning and the words. {Q 183r} So, with these, the name is given. Because these explain all of the text’s aims with nothing left out, there is no contradiction with the scriptures. As it was said, if those in the future persistently practice Vajravidāraṇa, “personal benefit and the benefit of others will be perfected.”284 1.1.3 Meaning of the Vajra Sūtra Thus have I heard at one time: The Blessed One was abiding in vajra. Now, after expressing the title, in order to show the meaning of the vajra sūtra, it reads, “Thus...” and so forth. After the introduction, there is the cause of the arising of the vajra sūtra, and later will come the [explanation of the] fruition. Furthermore, as for the complete five Tibetan transmissional error. That is, the Sanskrit Vidāraṇa, “splitting into two,” might possibly have been confused with *vi-dharaṇa/*vi-dhāraṇa, “[complete] holding,” which is the same verbal root that gives us dhāraṇī (Tib., gzungs) If the author was glossing vi + √dṝ, from which we get vidāraṇa, with its valences of splitting, and tearing asunder, it is not evident in the Tibetan. See Hodge (2003:48 and 543n5) for other glosses of √dhṛ (hold, maintain, be solid.). 283 nyams pa las ni skyobs gzungs] D; nyams pa las mi skyob pa’i gzungs] Q 284 Cf. Kumārasena, Sgrub thabs cho ga zhib mo dang bcas pa, 329r.3-4. “nan tan gyis ni bsgrub byas pas/ bdag dang gzhan don nges par ’grub/” 87 excellences, it is taught that “thus have I heard” is the speech of the reciter.285 Because this speech was first heard and then recited later, there is no contradiction. If one were to ask what was heard, the phrase, “thus have I heard,” implies that all of this text’s meanings and words without exception were comprehended, closely and directly, without interference, and is free of addition or omission. To the question, “Who heard it?” it is said, “I heard.” The reciter, Vajrapāṇi himself did so, as in, “I, Vajrapāṇi, holder of all secrets, heard the words and meaning from the Blessed One with my own ears - there is no lineage.” Now, to indicate the excellent time, if one were to ask when it was heard, it was heard at one time: all together, without going beyond that occasion. Therefore, it is said to be rare. Otherwise, the time was instantaneous, as taught in the Great Prajñā[pāramitā].286 If one were to ask from whom was it heard, it is as it was said: “I heard from the Blessed One.” Therefore, it is taught that it was heard from {Q 183v} the excellent teacher, the Blessed One, Śākyamuni, the conqueror of the four Māras endowed with the immeasurable qualities of the Sugatas, and so on - the supreme teacher endowed with six qualities. 285 sdud pa po, *saṃgītikāra. Shes rab che ba. The Great Prajña-pāramitā-sūtra is referenced by Buddhagupta in MVAP (Hodge 2003:469) In his commentary on the MVA, Hodge (2003:47 and 542n2) says Buddhagupta there reads a three-word nidāna, with the object of “at one time” being the instance of the MVA exposition during the life of the Buddha. This is against the five-word nidāna in *Ratnabhāsvara, where the “one time” refers to the time of hearing what is being repeated (i.e., the current dhāraṇī-sūtra) rather than a point in the Buddha’s life, when the dhāraṇī was first uttered. In Hodge’s (2003:47) translation, Buddhagupta says: “As for the teacher of this Tantra, it was expounded by the Bhagavat Vairocana as the saṃbhoga-kāya which is a transformation of the abhisaṃbodhi-kāya since that [aspect] perpetually dwells in the core of Enlightenment (bodhimaṇḍa), and because he was definitely present there at that very time and place, the words ‘at one time’ are not even mentioned. Furthermore, the saṃbhoga-kāya of the Bhagavat does not reside in a fixed time and place in other sūtras and tantras (...) In this way, such sūtras have the words ‘at one time’ because the time and place are not fixed.” It would seem that here, Buddhagupta is using the completely opposite argument, that the “at one time” of VV implies that the time was confined to a specific instance. 286 88 If one were to counter with, “Well then, this was not spoken by the Blessed One, it was said by Vajravidāraṇa. {D 178r} Therefore, how is it accurate to say that it was heard from the Blessed One?” This was said by the Blessed One himself. The wrathful second figure is his essence, and because he possesses his power and strength there is no contradiction. This is similar to other sūtras. If one were to ask where it was heard, it was heard from the abode within the vajra, the excellent place. That means nondual wisdom.287 Or rather, it was heard in the area (rnam pa) to the north-east of precious Vajra Mount Meru; the area, and so forth, of the so-called “summit of Vajra Mount Meru” which fills the vajra. It is not the Vajra Seat (Skt. Vajrāsana, Tib., Rdo rje gdan), for at the Vajra Seat, mantra was not taught. As it says in the Inconceivable Sūtra, Śāriputra! All Tathāgatas first directly, fully awaken on the Vajra Seat, yet they do not teach the Dharma there. Why not? Besides the subjugation of the Māras, other beings were not subdued there. That is because present sentient beings don’t comprehend the meaning of “vajra essence.”288 Therefore, [to hold such a view] would contradict what it says in that quotation. It is taught that [his] abiding there is to stay and be supported [there]. Through the three actions, he sat in the cross-legged vajra posture, on a vajra and lion throne. The fourth point, refers to the third. If one were to ask who the retinue was - who heard it with him - it frankly (drangs nas289) says Vajrapāṇi in the beginning. {Q 184r} Moreover, although it is unsaid, at that time, like a king, Vajrapāṇi, who was foremost among the retinue of countless famous bodhisattvas bearing 287 Cf. Padma dkar po, Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i lha khrid rgyud gsum gyi snying po, 553: “As for ‘abiding in vajra’, this dispels the extreme of permanence, taught as the realm of phenomena, or emptiness.” “rdo rje la zhugs pa zhes bya ba ni rtag pa’i mtha’ bsal te chos kyi dbyings stongs pa nyid bstan pa’o/” 288 “Bsam gyis mi khyab pa’i mdo.” Citation not found. After a search of the AIBS Buddhist Canons Research Database for canonical titles containing “bsam gyis mi khyab,” the only work containing that phrase with Śāriputra as an interlocutor is ’Phags pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i gsang ba bsam gyis mi khyab pa bstan pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo (Tōh. 47). No mention of rdo rje gdan is found via searching the ACIP input version. 289 Cf. Martin 2014: “drang,” a “translation of Confucian term for “honesty.” 89 the name “Vajra;” countless Śrāvakas such as Śariputra;290 and Arhats such as Kāśyapa.291 Moreover, there were innumerable gods and so forth, who all heard the teaching together, as in the Discourse on the Summit of Vajra Mount Meru.292 Owing to these features, this vajra sūtra is taught to be especially exalted over other tantras and sūtras. The section beginning with thus is explained in this way. As it is said, Future people {D 178v} who wish to engage the practice of vidyā-mantra should obtain empowerment and samaya, and while staying in an excellent place along with an excellent retinue endowed with qualities, at an excellent time, with the requisite ritual articles make a maṇḍala, place a physical pitcher, and then practice. And, Practice with the mantra at the right time while staying in an excellent place, With the maṇḍala and supports. § 2 The Discussion of the Condition of the Teaching Then, after the explanation of the cause of the arising of the vajra-sūtra, now for the teaching on the discussion of its circumstances. The text says, Through the power of the Buddha, Vajrapāṇi consecrated all form as vajra, and entered the Vajra-like Samādhi. This phrase is the cause of the topic of the samādhi of the main figure of the maṇḍala. Moreover, at that time the Bhagavān taught the dharma to the retinue, beginning with [the topic of] virtue. 290 Śā ri’i bu ’Od srungs 292 “Ri rab kyi zom gyi mdo.” Possibly ’Phags pa rdo rje’i ri rab chen po’i rtse mo’i khang pa brtsegs pa’i gzungs (Tōh. 751, *Ārya-mahāvajra-meruśikhara-kūṭāgāra-dhāraṇī), the dhāraṇī text that immediately follows VV in the Sde dge Bka’ ’gyur. 291 90 Once on Jambudvīpa, King Bhimbisāra293 had a son known as Ajātaśatru.294 Just after being born, Lokpé Nyingpo295 placed iron chains on his legs, and by saying “Slay! (māraya)” he killed his father and mother. Because his retinue engaged in the ten non-virtuous actions, {Q 184v} all of the non-human beings were disturbed, and illness and various maladies arose. Then, all sentient beings recited [this] and sought refuge296 from their suffering. After the Four Kings saw that, they took refuge in the Bhagavān and without speaking, exhorted Vajrapāṇi; then he flourished [his] vajra, made an oath and revealed297 the Vajravidāraṇa [dhāraṇī]. It is taught that by reciting the mantra, bhūta spirits and Lokpé Nyingpo were trained (btul). It is explained that by abiding in it, Buddhahood is obtained. Further, it is not brāhmaṇa.298 From it,299 Buddhahood is awakened from the slumber of the afflictions, wisdom blooms like a lotus, and abandonment and wisdom are perfected. This is what was revealed to Śākyamuni, and through it he is exhorted. The term power (mthu, Skt., anubhāvena) means ability (nus pa, śaktiḥ), and through its force (stobs, *bala), one is capable. If one asks how, it is related to the phrase, “Vajrapāṇi [...] entered.” He holds the ultimate nondual wisdom, and {D 179r} the “aspect (rnam pa)” is the consecration by all Buddhas, and the wrathful teacher of the three secrets, Vajradhara (rdo rje thogs pa), the main figure of the maṇḍala, he wrathful terrifying powerful yakṣa, is renowned as the holder of all Buddhas’ teachings. 293 Gzugs can snying po Ma skyes dgra 295 Log pa’i snying po 296 skyob] N; skyabs] D Q 297 ston] Q; ’khor grangs med pa bcas] D 298 de yang bram ze ni ma yin no/] D Q. I take this to mean that the practice is accessible, that is, it is not the sole province of members of the Brahmin group (brāhmaṇa-varṇa). 299 de las] Q 294 91 If one asks how this is, it is said, “after consecrating all bodies as vajra.” As for that, the body is the head and so forth. The term all refers to speech and mind. Vajra refers to all of those, emptiness, and [the quality of being] unimpeded. Through this, the transformation into wrathful [aspects] is shown. This is equivalent to the saying, Future yogins should make circles of protection.300 {Q 185r} If one were to ask where, this was “in the Vajra[-like] Samādhi.” That is, settling one-pointedly into nondual wisdom and an unobstructed state is to say meditative equipoise. Essentially, this is one-pointed concern with the recitation of the heart-emanation Vajravidāraṇa, [who emanated] from the state of emptiness. This is the exalted teaching, because the heartemanation is the actual teaching. This “Then,” is related to the section which continues until “pronounced:” Then, through the power of the Buddha, the blessings of all Buddhas, and the blessings of all bodhisattvas, Vajrapāṇi emanated the great wrathful ones and pronounced the vajra-essence Regarding, “then,” it is after [what occurred] previously. Vajrapāṇi explained it. The power of the Buddha Śākyamuni, and all of the others is ability (nus pa). The blessings come naturally. Moreover, awakened mind301 abides in the nondual ultimate fruition302 as [both] aspiration and application. As it is said, The awakened state has the characteristics of space, Where all conceptuality has been abandoned. That which is a being 300 rnal ’byor bas srung ba’i ’khor lo bya’o] D; rnal ’byor ba’i khor lo bya] Q byang chub sems te] Q; byang chub sems dpa’ ste] D 302 don dam pa’i ’bras bu] D; don dam dam pa’i ’bras bu] Q 301 92 Is explained to be a bodhisattva.303 And it is also said, The awakened state is the ultimate, While a being is the relative. That is the connotation of the term, “great being.”304 All means, all without exception *Vajrāvalokiteśvara305 and the others. Moreover, because they bestowed their blessings, this samādhi is taught to be especially exalted {D 179v} over others. The wrathful one inseparable with the heart of Vajrapāṇi, along with the nine others of pernicious demeanors emanated, hence, it says, “vajra wrathful ones.” As for, “emanated (las byung ba, saṃbhūtam),” this means emanations, and there are four. If one were to ask what emanated, it was the vajra essence. The wrathful Vajravidāraṇa holding306 a vajra becomes the source of all of the deities and mantras. Then, “pronounced (rab tu smras pa, abhāṣate sma)” means that soon thereafter {Q 185v} the three mantras were recited. “Well,” it may be asked, “if Vajrapāṇi and Vajravidāraṇa recited this, how could it be the speech of the Blessed One?” 303 Cf. Hodge, The Mahā-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra, 378 and 459). This quote is from, “The Tathāgata” Chapter of Mahāvairocanābhisambodhisūtra (MVA): ‘Enlightenment is space[-like] in nature, devoid of all judgemental concepts: whoever desires to realize that is called a Bodhisattva’ [28.3] This is an interesting use of MVA, considering Kapstein’s (2000:60-65) discussion about the importance of Vairocana for the Yar klungs Dynasty. In particular, it seems striking to use such a general quote glossing such a pedestrian term as “bodhisattva.” The choice of MVA could have been a deliberate or natural choice, as the author may have been appealing to a well-known passage, or picked one up from his memory. It is coincidentally the same quote used in both long and short MVA commentaries attributed to Buddhagupta, and so, this might be interpreted as a solid instance of intertextuality between *Ratnabhāsvara and Buddhagupta’s MVA commentaries. 304 sems dpa’ chen po. This variant is not attested in Tibetan witnesses consulted, or Dhīḥ Sanskrit edition. 305 Rdo rje spyan ras gzigs 306 bsnams] D; bstams] Q 93 This is the speech307 of the Blessed One because it has the blessings of the Blessed One, and because it is not other than that. For example, it is just like in other sūtras. They—Vajrapāṇi, Vajravidāraṇa along with the retinue—subsequently emanated, and when ordered to remain in308 front through the mantras of Vajravidāraṇa, they were said to tame the bhūta spirits. Vajrapāṇi did not say this, because that would contradict the tantras. By this, [the introduction, beginning with] “Thus” has been explained. This is what is meant by, After the yogin has bathed, and so forth, and slayed the wrathful immortal ones and harmful spirits, after sitting on a seat, making the protection [circle]309, and gathered the accumulations, request blessing from the one who dwells on vajra seat, the Buddhas and bodhisattvas approach, and through the six aspects of the awakened deity beginning with emptiness, arise as Vajrapāṇi, and visualize [the] six deities along with the retinue in the pitcher (bum pa) before you. Invite [the wisdom aspect] and make offerings and so forth, in accordance with the methods of accomplishment that rely on the tantra. Likewise, in a tantra it says, First, the yogin bathes, then sitting on a vajra seat, With offerings and supplications, one meditates on the six [aspects of the awakened] deity: Emptiness, letters, sound, form, Mudrā, and sign are the six.310 Perfecting the visualization in the vase, and so forth,311 Adopt the jewel-like conduct, recite mantras, And abandon312 the seven, such as meat. 307 bka’ nyid] D; bka’ yin] Q mdun na] D; -na] Q 309 srung ba byas] D; sprul pa byas] Q 310 As translated by Hopkins and Gyatso, The Yoga of Tibet, 109: “Having first bathed, a yogi Sits on the vajra cushion And having offered and made petitions Cultivates the six deities. Emptiness, sound, letter, form, Seal, and sign are the six.” 311 bum par bskyed] D; khum par bskyed] Q 312 spong] D; spad] Q 308 94 2.1 Beginning the Main Teaching Then after the teaching on the discussion of the cause of the teaching, is the discussion of the main teaching. {D 180r}{Q 186r} The text continues, “Indivisible...(mi chod pa, acchedyam):”313 ...that is unassailable,314 indivisible, indestructible, true, durable, stable, unopposed by all, and undefeated by all; that makes all beings flee, that expels all beings, that severs all vidyā-mantras, paralyzes all vidyā-mantras, destroys all actions, puts to flight (vidrāvaṇa) all actions, and expels all graha spirits; that liberates one from all graha spirits, summons all bhūta spirits, and suppresses (tshar gcod pa) all bhūta spirits; {D 266r} that enacts the activities of all vidyā-mantras, accomplishes what has not been accomplished, and preserves what has been accomplished from waste; that fulfils all desires and protects all beings; that pacifies, enriches, and paralyzes all beings; and that stupefies all beings. Through the power of the Buddha, Vajrapāṇi pronounced this very powerful secret mantra: These [verses] express the qualities of315 the mantra of Vajravidāraṇa in words. Next, of the two [sections] therein, the perfection of personal benefit is taught through the seven vajra expressions. 2.1.2 Perfection of Personal Benefit Now, emptiness, mantra, samādhi are vajra. Externally, it is like a precious vajra that has seven attributes (chos), [such as that] the elements can not divide (mi chod, acchedyam) it into parts, and that it is substantial (snying ldan). It can’t be obliterated (mi shigs pa)316 into dust by water, and it is unchanging (mi phyed pa, abhedyam). It is true (bden pa, satyam) in that, in abiding, 313 Apparently the version(s) of the dhāraṇī available to Buddhagupta did not contain the phrase, “mi thub pa” “mi thub pa” is missing in all Sanskrit witnesses consulted, and all consulted witnesses of *Ratnabhāsvara. 315 pa’i] D; pas] Q 316 Some Tibetan witnesses have “mi thub pa” as beginning the list of Vajravidāraṇa’s qualities. This is not included in the Dhīḥ edition. 314 95 it cannot be reduced to ashes by fire. It is durable (sra ba, dṛḍam) as it is hard to destroy, and it can’t be scattered by wind. Through those expressions, vajra wisdom (rdo rje ye shes) should be understood as free of the four kinds of suffering such as birth, and the four extremes. Therefore, it cuts and conquers (’joms) all conceptual entities and demonic spirits, so it is not inert (bems po). Thus, because it abides without change, this is the connection of the term, “stable (brtan pa, sthiram).” If one were to ask if it is vulnerable, it is not conquered anywhere (thams cad du ma pham pa, sarvatrāparājitam), because it is inherently without degeneration, and in being undefeated, it is victorious. As it is said, Because it is durable, stable, substantial, hollow, nonexistent, Unchanging, indestructible, and not flammable, It is referred to as ‘vajra.’317 By this, in the past, after King Lokpé Nyingpo and the others practiced it - they fulfilled their personal benefit: the vajra-like samādhi, the dharmakāya, and attained the vajra-like perfected saṃbhogakāya. It is also taught, After finishing the preliminary service (sngon du bsnyen pa), future318 people should understand that personal benefit will be accomplished. 2.1.3 Perfection of the Benefit of Others 317 Bhavyakīrti (ca. tenth-eleventh century) attributes a strikingly similar quote to the *Vajroṣṇiṣa (Rdo rje tse mo): (“rdo rje rtse mo las kyang/ brtan zhing snying po khong stong med/ dbyer med bcad med mtshan nyid can/ bsreg tu med dang mi ’jig ni/ stong nyid rdo rje zhes su bshad.”) Cf. Bhavyakīrti’s Pradīpoddyotanābhisaṃdhiprakāśikānāma-vyākhyāṭīkā (Tōh. 1793, 78r.6). It is also echoed three times in Vimalagupta’s Śrīguhyasamājālaṃkāra-nāma (Tōh. 1848), for example on 50v.1: “brtan zhing snying po khong stong med/ stong pa nyid la rdo rjer brjod/.” 318 +/de yang / /bde gshegs las ni sna tshogs pa ma ’ongs pas na sngon du bsnyen pa rdzogs pas bdag don ’grub par shes par bya’o] Q; + ma ’ongs pas ni sngon du bsnyen pa rdzogs pas bdag don ’grub par shes par bya’o] D. I suspect the inclusion of the preceding section in Q is due to eye-skip. See the following lemma. I follow Q, because it clarifies that the phrase into a new quote by retaining the introductory “de yang” to match the rdzogs tshigs “bya’o” in both. 96 If one were to ask, ‘After accomplishing personal benefit, is there no benefit for others?’ With “terrifying all sentient beings...”319 the vajra-like nirmāṇakāya is displayed through the fifteen [maṇḍala deites] in order to accomplish the benefit of others. {Q 186v} In short, these are the four activities. As it is said, As for the myriad activities of the Sugatas, They, in brief, are the four activities, such as pacifying.320 There are said to be eight [types of] direct intervention (mngon spyod, *abhicāra): Such as annihilating (tshar gcod) and holding (rjes gzung *anudhāra). Now, the underlying basis ālaya (kun gzhi) of sentient beings321 is the life force (srog), and {D 180v}that they are endowed with mental consciousness, all six realms are subsumed within the four types of rebirths, and so forth.322 Terrifying them is destroying [their] bodies and minds, and hating them.323 This is the relation of the phrase, “...said this wrathful annihilating vidyāmantra.”324 As for expels (’jil ba), after their bodies and minds are subdued,325 they are unable to move. This is done through this secret326 mantra and the deity, which are wrathful. The vidyā is the deity’s potent mantra, and understanding its power (nus pa), one is protected. It also connects327 all others, and severing them is to cut the continuity their power. This, too, is wrathful [activity]. 319 Dhīḥ reads, “sarvasattvavidrāvaṇakaraṃ sarvasattvotsādanakaraṃ” for “sems can thams cad skrag par byed pa / sems can thams cad ’jil bar byed pa /” There must be some confusion between ’jig, ’jigs, and ’jil. 320 /de yang/ bde gshegs las ni sna tshogs pa/ bsdu na zhi sogs las bzhi’o/] D; de yang las ni sna tshogs pa/ bsdu na bzhi sogs las yin te/] Q. 321 sems can ni] Q; sems kyi] D 322 skye gnas bzhis bsdus pa ‘gro ba rigs drug po thams cad do] D; skye gnas bzhis sdus pa ris drug po thams cad 323 sdangs par byed pa] Q; dangs] D 324 drag po tshar gcod par byed pa’i rig sngags ’di smras so] D P Q. This elaboration does not appear in any Sanskrit or Tibetan witnesses, or Tibetan commentaries consulted. 325 sba bkong] D; sba skongs] Q 326 +gsang sgnags] D; sngags] Q 327 kyi] D; kyis] Q 97 As for suppresses, it depletes their power and suppresses them, and they cannot move like the illusion of Skilled Illusionist.328 This is subjugating [activity]. As for the pacifying activity, it “conquers all actions.”329 This refers to all of the negative conduct, sorcery (byad stems), and so on, of others, and all illnesses of pollution330 that arise from previous defilements of actions. They are purified and reversed. “Others” refers to others; that is, other bhūta spirits and sentient beings. Their actions, such as sickness and so forth, and obscurations are destroyed (’jig pa); that is, they are demolished.331 “Demon” means those who do harm, that is, [the eighteen332 types of beings such as] gods (lha) and so on. To demolish them is to pulverize them into dust, which is wrathful [activity]. “Liberates” means to free them from their previous grasping (bzung ba), which is pacifying [activity]. Moreover333 as for what is subjugated: those bhūta spirits334 are so called because they were born (’byung ba) as sentient beings in the three realms. “Summoning (’gugs par byed pa/ākarṣāṇa-karam)” them is to guide them, and, after controlling them, establishing them in the teachings.335 328 This might be a reference to ’Phags pa sgyu ma mkhan bzang po lung bstan pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo (Tōh. 65), so I have translated the phrase, “sgyu ma mkhan bzang po.” 329 las thams cad ’joms par byed pa/] D; thams cad ’joms par byed pa] N Q 330 conj. em. gos pa’i nad. gos pas na las te] N Q; pa’i nang la ste] D P 331 ’jig pa ni brlag par mdzag pa’o] D; ’jigs pa ni brlag par mdzad p’o] Q; ’jigs pa ni brlags] N 332 + bco brgyad pa] D; -] bco brgyad pa] Q 333 + gzhan yang] D; - gzhan yang] Q [This and the preceding variant seem like the insertions of Sde dge editors. 334 ’byung po] Q; byung po] D 335 The following line of the fundamental dhāraṇī-sūtra is missing from Buddhagupta’s commentary: “’byung po thams cad tshar gcod pa/”/ and “sarvabhūtani-grahaṇakaram |” in Dhīḥ. 98 “Vidyā-mantra” {Q 187r} refers to those both mundane and transcendent.336 “Activities (las)” refers all without exception,337 such as pacifying. They are all enacted (’jug pa, parāyaṇakaram) swiftly; that is, the activities are engaged (’dzud pa) by this [one dhāraṇī]. This is also subjugating activity. What was previously unaccomplished (ma grub pa, asiddha) means what had never manifested: the accomplishments of the two kinds of gods (lha). Through this, they are all accomplished, and they become evident. Earlier accomplishments are retained in that those results are not carried away by obstacles, and because it is efficacious (don yod pa), they are not wasted (mi za ba). Desire means those things that are desired and pursued by the mind (yid): all completely perfect jewels, and so on. {D 181r} By this [dhāraṇī] they are fulfilled (sbyin pa). From this they arise, and are bestowed. This is enriching [activity]. It protects from illnesses, demonic spirits, and so on that haven’t arisen in the past, and those of the future are prevented and restrained. This is pacifying. In summary, pacifying means that all illness and so on are removed (med par byed pa). Enriching means all life, and so on, without exception, is increased. These two, and subjugating [activities] are thus addressed. All others are annihilated (tshar gcod pa). The wrathful activity paralyzes (rengs par byed pa, stambhanakaram) any spirits and sentient beings who do not have faith in the Buddha’s teachings - they cannot speak or move their body. It confuses them, so their minds are bewildered and they cannot comprehend anything at all. The words of the third utterance and the following are connected to each [activity]. Alternatively, it is taught, 336 337 ’jigs rten pa dang ’das pa’o] Q; ’jig rten pa dang ’jig rten las ’das pa’o] D ma lus pa] D; nus pa] Q 99 These words should be connected to each mantra following pith instructions. Likewise, this is the correspondent of the expression, Vajravidāraṇa said these wrathful words.338 If one were to ask who recited it, it was Vajrapāṇi. But here, it should be Vajravidāraṇa it was not literally Vajrapāṇi. Were one to ask what it was bestowed with, the blessings were given339 through the power (nus pa) of Śākyamuni and so forth; hence, it says, “through the power of the Buddha...” This is what is taught with such statements as, {Q 187v} The Victorious One teaches340 the dharma to whatever disciples there are.341 Also, this is because it is taught, All teachings and explanations are the power of the Buddha. If one were to ask how it is, this is the real meaning of the saying, The secret mantra is hidden, and because it is not taught to inferior people, its power is especially elevated over others. 338 de lta bu ’di rdo rje rnam par ’joms pas gsung du khro bo’i tshig tu smras so] Q; -gsung du] D P byin gyis brlabs pa] D; brlabs pa] Q 340 rgyal bas] ’rgyal ba’i] D 341 From Ārya-aṣṭādaśasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra (Tōh. 10). Cf. ’Phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa khri brgyad stong pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo, Lhasa (H. 12): vol. 32, 253v.6 339 100 The vajra mantra whose power is elevated over others, and is the highest over what is below, is what was said with, “this very powerful secret mantra;” and this is what was pronounced. These words [show] the qualities of the preceding retinue342 and is the teaching on accomplishing every benefit for others. Later, after completing the preliminary service, and by practicing in accordance with the manuals, they will be accomplished. This is the meaning shown with: After the offerings and so forth have been completed, the jewel of mantra is held. Possessing the station (gnas) of mantra {D 181v} and reciting the vajra words and wrathful speech, perform the emanation and absorption, which accomplish the benefit of self and other. And, At the time of the approach and enactment, adopt the conduct through the application free of obscurations, and so forth. § 3 The Result After the two sections demonstrating the causes and circumstances, now, in order to teach its result, the Excellent Teaching which is to be imparted - the actual vajra tantra, or the profound vajra mantra with the previously stated qualities - the text begins with, “Namo...” For the sake of facilitating comprehension of the meaning of these mantras, the subject [is as follows.] Long ago, after these vajra mantras expressed reverence to the fortunate king (bkra shis pa bdag po), through the four types [of activity] of the vajra speech of Vajravidāraṇa, 342 ’khor lo] Q; ’khor la] D 101 [they] annihilated (tshar gcad pa) all of the spirits. By caring for them through the manner of going for refuge in the Buddha and so forth, he entered the maṇḍala because the illnesses were pacified and so forth, and people had faith in the Buddha and so on, and King Lokpé Nyingpo mounted a beam of light and then went to that place {Q 188r}, and by doing so dwelled in auspiciousness and liberation. This is why it says “king” below. One should [proceed in the] manner of banishment (bskrad pa), the four activities, and the exhortation of the four wrathful343 ones, the ten [wrathful ones], and the principle figure(s) [of the maṇḍala]. This is what is meant by the quotation, Future practitioners should do the preliminary service, and so on, the protection [rite], then recite whichever of the three mantrapada (sngags tshig) of service are appropriate, and then the two activities of enactment. When practicing the activity associated with the principle [deity], the activities related to the retinue, and the activities related to both through pacifying activity, and so forth, one should know to practice with deity, substance (rdzas), intention (bsam pa), place, time, mantra, maṇḍala, samādhi, and the activities in accordance with the sādhanas. Also, it is said in the explanatory tantra of this text,344 A yogin should do the three kinds of service. While some assert two,345 some assert three:346 The principle figure, retinue, and assembly347 Divided into the four activities of mantra, and so on.348 3.1 The Text Itself 343 khro bo] D; kho bo] Q ’di’i bshad pa’i rgyud las gsungs so. The trite language of these quotes make database searching difficult. This indicated explanatory tantra (bshad pa’i rgyud) might be an explanatory tantra on the tantra that is quoted first, at length. The second quote seems to be a brief recapitulation of the first. This could provisionally be considered evidence in an argument for a lost, longer Vajravidāraṇa tantra, or it could be from another Kriyā-tantra. My guess would be the *Vidyādhara-piṭaka. 345 la la] Q las la] D 346 rnal ’byor bsnyen pa gsum du bya/ la] Q; °bya/ las] D; °byas/ las] N 347 ’dus] Q; ’dul] D P 348 /] D; -/] Q 344 102 Now, to enter into the text itself. First {D 182r}, with the two auspicious syllables,349 the salutation [is given]: namo ratnatrayāya | namaścaṇḍavajrapāṇaye | mahāyakṣasenāpataye | Homage to the Three Jewels! Homage to the furious Vajrapāṇi! Homage to the Yakṣa General! By these, homage is offered to the three principle one. Understand these to [encompass] all of the mantras. As for the seed [syllable(s)] (’bru), because of the degeneration (nyams pa) of the meaning, they are not to be explained. Understanding [them] through their natural sound, remember their meaning. 3.1.1 Annihilating and Protecting Mantra Then, the annihilating and protecting mantra is shown with “Tadyathā | Oṁ,” and so on: Tadyathā | oṁ truṭa truṭa350 | troṭaya troṭaya | sphuṭa sphuṭa351 | sphoṭaya sphoṭaya | ghūrṇa ghūrṇa352 | ghūrṇapaya ghūrṇapaya353 | sarvasattvāni354 | bodhaya bodhaya355 | saṃbodhaya saṃbodhaya |356 bhrama bhrama | saṃbhramaya saṃbhramaya |357 sarvabhūtāni358 kuṭa kuṭa |359 saṃkuṭaya saṃkuṭaya | sarvaśatrūn ghaṭa ghaṭa | saṃghaṭaya saṃghaṭaya | 349 bkra shis pa’i don. The meaning of this phrase remains opaque to me. taṭa] I; traṭa] E 351 sphuṭu] E 352 ghuṇa] I 353 ghuṇāpaya] I 354 sarvasattvānām] Dhīḥ. 355 vibodhaya 2] Dhīḥ 356 + trasa 2 soṁtrāsaya 2] I; traśa 2 trāśaya] E 357 - saṃbrahmaya] I 358 sarvabuddhābodhini] I 359 + kuṭaya 2] I 350 103 One who engages360 the four361— the first and last as wisdom, then wrathful, and auspicious— should understand in this way.362 3.1.2 Extensive Mantra That Praises and Exhorts Now, within the dhāraṇī there are three. Of these, the first is the extensive or principal mantra that praises and exhorts: sarvavidyā vajra vajra | sphoṭaya vajra vajra | kaṭa vajra vajra | maṭa363 vajra vajra | matha364 vajra vajra | aṭṭahāsanīla vajra365 | suvajrāya svāhā | Future people should understand that this is the eponymous mantra (sngags gdags pa). {Q 188v} As for the one connected with the principal366 activity, the pacifying mantra in accordance with the pith instructions is: 367 he phullu368 | niruphullu | nigṛhṇa kullu | mili cullu369 | 370kurukullu371 | vajravijayāya svāhā | 372kīli kīlāya svāhā |373 kaṭa kaṭa | maṭa maṭa | raṭa raṭa | moṭana pramoṭanāya374 svāhā | This is as [explained] before. The increasing mantra begins with, 360 ’dzugs pa can] Q; ’jug pa can] D bzhi] D, gzhi] Q. I read the “four (bzhi)” as possibly referring to the initial four syllables of the dhāraṇī-mantra, “oṃ tadyathā.” 362 This entire challenging sentence in D reads, “de yang dang po dang tha mar ye shes dang drag po dang shis pa bzhi ’jug pa can te de bzhin du shes par bya/” 363 mata] E 364 matha] E 365 tatha sahanīlavajra] I; vajrāṭṭahāsanīlavajra] E 366 gtso bo’i las] D; las] Q 367 +oṁ] E, I 368 phalini] I; he he phu((llatr))āni] E 369 curu 2] I 370 saṃphu((++))anīghunaphu((++))] E 371 kuru] E; kara] I - but Iwamoto (1937:8 n.6) cites Ib as reading “kuru.” 372 +oṁ] Dhīḥ, I; +vajra] E 373 varakilikilmiṣa] Ia; Iwamoto notes that Ib omits this mantra after “oṁ,” reads as “°kilmiṣāya.” 374 moṭaya pramoṭanāya] I; mātanapramāṭanāya] E 361 104 caranicara375 | hara hara | sara sara376 māraya | vajravīdārā377 svāhā | The subjugating mantra begins with,378 kīlikīlāya The annihilating mantra begins with, māraya The mantra which severs [other] vidyā-mantras begins, 379 chinda chinda | bhinda bhinda | mahākīlikīlāya380 svāhā | The mantra which paralyzes [other] vidyā-mantras begins with, bandha bandha | krodha krodha | kīlikīlāya381 svāhā | 375 cara 2 vicara 2] I; cala 2 nicala 2] E husara 2] I; mara 2] E 377 vajravidāraṇāya] Dhīḥ, E, I 378 Here the order of the dhāraṇī-mantra as presented as lemmata in *Ratnabhāsvara diverges from all consulted witnesses of Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī. 379 +oṁ] Dhīḥ E I 380 mahākilikilāya] E 381 krodhavajrāya kilikilāya] I; krodhamahākilikiliāya] E; krodha krodha vajrakilikīlāya] Dhīḥ 376 105 In the same way, apply this in accordance with the pith instructions, begining with “...terrifies sentient beings.” 3.1.3 Mantras of the [Principal] Retinue [of Four Deities] Now, for the exposition of the mantras of the retinue, in the same manner as before, the mantra of *Vajrakīlaya (Rdo rje phur pa) begins, curu curu caṇḍalakīli kīlāya382 svāhā | The mantra of *Vajradaṇḍa begins, 383 trāsaya trāsaya384 | vajrakīli kīlāya | The mantra of *Vajramudgara385 begins, 386 hara hara387 vajradharāya svāhā | The mantra of *Vajracaṇḍa begins, 382 oṁ culu 2 caṇḍāli kilikilāya] I; oṁ curu 2 candrakilikilāya] E; oṁ curu curu caṇḍakilikīlāya] Dhīḥ +oṁ] Dhīḥ E I 384 trāśaya] E 385 rdo rje tho bo’i] D P; rdo rje thob pa yi] Q; rdo rje thob ba’i N. 386 +oṁ] Dhīḥ E I 387 dhara 2] I ms. B; hara 2] Dhīḥ E 383 106 prahara prahara | vajra prabhañjanāya388 svāhā | In order to praise and exhort them, affix and recite the [part of the] mantra beginning with, ehi vajra389 | śīghraṃ vajraya390 svāhā | As for the activity mantras associated with them, the pacifying mantra begins with, matisthira391 vajra | śrutisthira vajra | pratisthira vajra | mahāvajra | apratihata392 vajra | amogha vajra | ehi vajra393 | śīghraṃ vajraya394 svāhā | The increasing mantra begins, 395 dhara dhara dhiri dhiri dhuru dhuru sarvavajrakulamāvartaya396 svāhā | The subjugating mantra begins with, 397 namassamantavajrānām398 | sarvabale āvartaya399 | mahābale | kaṭabale | tatale400 | acale | maṇḍalamāye401 | ativajra |402 388 vajraprabhañjanāya] Dhīḥ I; vajrapraba((ñj))anāya] E - amogha vajra | ehi vajra |] E; ehy ehi vajra] I 390 vajrāya] Dhīḥ E I 391 ṛddhisthiravajra] I-a; natiṣṭitavajre] E 392 apratihasahivajra] E 393 - amogha vajra | ehi vajra |] E; ehy ehi vajra] I 394 vajrāya] Dhīḥ E I 395 +oṁ] Dhīḥ E; +aṁ] I 396 °āvartraya] E; °āvartāya] Dhīḥ 397 +oṁ] Dhīḥ E 398 °vajrāṇāṃ] E; namaḥ samantavajrāṇām |] Dhīḥ 399 sarvabalam°] Dhīḥ 400 sarvabalamāvartrāya mahāvale kaṭava tatare] E 401 °maye] Dhīḥ 402 This passage strays from the usual order. 389 107 The mantra of slaying is, amukaṃ403 māraya phaṭ404 | The mantra that severs other vidyā-mantras begins, mahābale | vegaraṇa405 | ajite | jvala jvala | ti ṭi ti ṭi406 | tiṅkale407 | The mantra that paralyzes other vidyā-mantras is, daha daha408 | tejovati409 | tili tili410 | bandha bandha411 | mahābale | vajrāṃkuśajvālaya412 svāhā |413 Here, too, {D 182v} by doing everything as before, all activities will be accomplished. Know these three applications (sbyar ba). As it is said, The vajra secret mantra is this All activities are accomplished without impediment. 403 amuka] Dhīḥ - amukhaṃ māraya phaṭ |, + mamasarvaśatrun-māraya hūṁ phaṭ svāhā |] E 405 maṭā ulamāḍe prativajramahāvimalena] E 406 ṭi ṭi 2] E 407 piṅgala] Dhīḥ E 408 -daha daha] E 409 tejavati] E 410 tini] E 411 -bandha bandha] E 412 °jvālāya] E; vajrāṅguśa°] I 413 aṁ dhara 2 dhiri 2 dhuru 2 huṁ huṁ phaṭ phaṭ svāhā || oṁ namaḥ samantabuddhānāṃ | oṁ mahābala kaṭa vegatare acale maṇḍala māraya ativajra mahāvegaraṇapūjite svala 2 ṭi ṭi ṭi ṭi ṭi ṭi || nara daha 2 dhara 2 vajra tejovati tiri 2 bandha 2 mahābala vajra vajrāṅkuśa jvālaya svāhā ||] I 404 108 Here, for the mantra(s) of the principal masculine-feminine aspects (gtso bo yab yum) according to pith instructions,414 first omit (bor) the “oṁ” and the final part(s) (yan lag). To “jvala,” and so on, supply (byin) “na” [so that it becomes] “°ya hūṁ phaṭ svāhā.” Doing the same above and below, do not omit the praises to the retinue,415 but add them to the homage (phyag ’tshal ba). To the “ra” in the “dhara” of the increasing [mantra],416 add an “i”417 and remove the main vidyā (rig pa) from the principle deities to separate them.418 {Q 189r} Or, alternatively, it is like this:419 just as for all of the above, in the “ś/ṣa (sha)” of the expelling [mantra], remove (phrogs) the cavity (stong) of the saṃ. To the “kuru” of the main pacifying [mantra], replace the later “u” with an “e.”420 It is the same for adding “e’s” to the “mahā” of the retinue [mantra],421 and to “na” of the “mana”422 of the subjugating mantra, and the “ya”423 of the slaying mantra, and so on. Do whichever of these two is appropriate - this is the teaching of samaya and what is meant be explained. These are the instructions of my master.424 Alternatively, this is what is meant by the phrase, Respectively apply those [modifications] beginning with “terrifies all beings...” 3.1.4 Condensed Essence Mantra Now, for the teaching on the condensed essence (mantra) that begins with, 414 This is the aforementioned difficult passage. ’khor gyi dag stod] N; rgyas pa’i sku la la zhi ba] D P 416 i.e., “dhara dhara dhiri dhiri dhuru dhuru sarvavajrakulamāvartaya svāhā |” 417 I.e., to make “dharī” 418 gsto bo’i bcing pa gnyis dbrog go] N Q 419 yin] C N Q; tin] D 420 I.e., to make “kure” 421 I.e., to make “mahe” 422 I.e., to make “mane” 423 I.e., to make “māraye” 424 No parallel for this passage is found in the Sgrub thabs cho ga zhib mo dang bcas pa of Kumārasena. 415 109 {VV-D 266v}425namo ratnatrayāya | namaścaṇḍavajrapāṇaye | mahāyakṣasenāpataye | tadyathā | oṁ hara hara vajra | matha matha vajra426 | dhuna dhuna427 vajra428 | daha daha429 vajra | paca paca vajra430 | dhara dhara vajra431 | dhāraya dhāraya vajra432 | dāruṇa dāruṇa vajra433 | chinda chinda vajra434 | bhinda bhinda vajra435 | 436hūṁ phaṭ ||437 Understand these just as above. Likewise, the ten blue (sngon) heart (thugs) wrathful ones who dwell within the retinue of the five deities are exhorted. In the future, because the four activities will be accomplished, their explanation is as follows: 1 “Hara” exhorts Hūṁkāra,438 and is wrathful. 2 “Matha”439 exhorts Vijaya,440 and is wrathful as well.441 3 “Dhuna” exhorts Nīladaṇḍa,442 and is subjugating. 4 “Daha” exhorts Yamāntaka,443 and is also subjugating. 5 “Paca”444 exhorts Ācala,445 and is wrathful. 6 “Dhara”446 exhorts Hayagrīva,447 and is pacifying. 7 “Dāraya” exhorts Aparājita,448 and is enriching. 8 “Dhāruna”449 exhorts Amṛtakuṇḍalī450 and is pacifying. 425 +oṁ] Dhīḥ I vajra matha 2] I 427 dhana] E 428 vajra dhuru 2] I 429 hara] E 430 - daha daha vajra | paca paca vajra] I; -paca paca vajra] E 431 vajra dhara 2] I 432 vajradharāya 2] I 433 vajraripuna] I 434 vajra cchinda 2] I 435 vajra bhinda 2] I 436 +vajra] I 437 +oṁ namaś Caṇḍavajrapāṇaye mahākrodhāya huru 2 vajra bandha hara 2 amṛte huṁ phaṭ svāhā|| hṛdayamantraḥ| oṁ namo Ratnatrayāya] I 438 Hūṁ dzad 439 mtha’] D P; - mtha’ ni rnam par rgyal ba bskul ba ste de yang drag po’o/] N Q conj. em. “matha ni,” following the Sanskrit. 440 Rnam par rgyal ba 441 +matha ni rnam par rgyal ba bskul ba ste de yang drag po’o] D; -] Q. “de yang” might alternatively be read, “yang khro,” or “extremely wrathful.” 442 Dbyug sngon can 443 Shin rje mtha’ byed 444 paca] Q; ca] D 445 Mi g.yo ba 446 dhā] D; dha] N Q 447 Rta mchog 448 Gzhan gyis mi thub pa 449 dā] D P N; dhā] Q 450 ’Dud rtsi ’khyil pa 426 110 9 “Chinda”451 exhorts Trailokyavijaya,452 which severs other vidyā-mantras. 10 “Bhinda” is the mantra of *Mahābala,453 and it paralyzes other vidyā-mantras. By applying all of their activities, all activity will be accomplished. 3.1.5 Extremely Condensed Innermost Essence Mantra Now for the teaching on the extremely {D 183r} condensed innermost essence [mantra] (yang snying, upahṛdaya) of these deities. 454 namaścaṇḍavajrakrodhaya455 | hulu hulu456 | tiṣṭha tiṣṭha | bandha bandha | hana hana457 | 458amṛte hūṁ phaṭ || This is the offering to the two types of principal deities and their essence mantra (snying po). 11 “Hulu hulu” is that of Vajrakīlaya459 and is increasing.460 12 “Tiṣṭha” is that of *Vajradaṇḍa,461 and is pacifying. 13 “Bandha” is that of *Vajramudgara,462 and is subjugating. 14 “Hana” is that of *Vajracaṇḍa,463 and is wrathful. 15 “Amṛte” is the mantra of the messengers, immortal wrathful father-mother consort delegates, and {Q 189v} Vajraśṛṅkhalā. They should be understood as cleansing and expelling. They also transpire as before. This is what is shown with the saying, 451 chinda] Q; cchinda] D Khams sum las rnam par rgyal ba 453 stobs po che 454 +oṁ] Dhīḥ E I 455 namaścaṇḍavajrapānāye-mahāvajrakrodhāyahuṁ phulu 2] E; namaś Caṇḍavajrapāṇaye] I 456 huru 2] I 457 - hana hana] I 458 +daha 2] E 459 rdo rje kī la ya] D P Q 460 rgyas pa’o] N Q; byas pa’o] D 461 rdo rje be con 462 Rdo rje tho ba 463 Rdo rje gtum po 452 111 In the preliminary service, recite whichever three are appropriate, but in the [stage] of enacting practice, know these to be indivisible. Apply [them] to the activity practice in accordance with pith instructions. And, Know distinctly the three [aspects of] service, the two types of accomplishment, and enactment. § 4 Conclusion: The Benefits and the Ritual Now for the excellent exposition of the ritual, along with its benefits that is the conclusion [of the proceeding]. As for the benefit of removing464 all suffering, the text continues, Purifying all negativity, This, the root of all tantras,465 Removes all suffering And is ornamented by all splendor. All sentient beings with degenerated faculties, Whose life-force is diminished or weakened, Those in poverty, or beset with desire, These466 show that in the past, this [dhāraṇī] was said in order to gladden those in the retinues of the King Lokpé Nyingpo,467 and so on, for whom doubts arose. In the future, apply the benefits of this practice. Here, “Negativity (sdig pa, pāpa)” is negativity such as the ten non-virtuous actions such as taking life, due to obscuration.468 “All” means those and all those related to them, without 464 bral bar byed pa] D; sel ba] Q All consulted Tibetan versions have “rgyud do cog,” which implies all tantras, while the consulted Sanskrit witnesses have, “mūlaṃ tat sarvamantrāṇāṃ,” for “the root of all mantras.” 466 de dag gi] D; de dag gis] Q 467 la sogs pa’i ’khor] D; stobs la sogs pa’i ’khor] Q 468 *Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa, 532, specifies that “negativity” refers to the obscurations (sgrib pa) of “nyon mongs pa’i sgrib pa, las kyis sgrib pa, chos kyi sgrib pa,” and others. 465 112 exception. Purifying (byang bar byas pa, kṣayam. RB: “dag par byed pa”) means [evil beings] purified through this [dhāraṇī]. Alternatively, besides that, because body, speech, and mind are tormented by unease (zug rngus gzir), there is suffering. That is, there are three or eight types of suffering such as that of change, and so forth. To “remove” is to clear away. As for the relationship to “sentient beings” and so on - it means those sentient beings whose six sense faculties, such as the eye faculty, have degenerated—like the blind and so on—owing to earlier actions, conditions, and bhūta spirits. After they are cleansed through this mantra, their degenerations are cleared (sos); this is related to the term “liberation (thar).” In the same way, life (tshe) is livelihood (’tsho ba). At the time when it is exhausted, it is extended. “Degeneration of life” means the extent of the conditions for living are shortened {D 183v} and their measure is nurtured. “Rich (phun sum tshogs pa)” is to be lacking nothing - jewels and so on. {Q 190r} The misfortune of having no accumulation of these469 is their absence; therefore, through this [dhāraṇī], [fortune] will come and stay, and sentient beings who have this desire will be rich. Deities that are aloof; “Deities” refers to mundane deities with power, magical abilities, and so forth,470 as well as transcendent deities. Although practiced,471 they are reticent (’phangs) - they don’t bestow accomplishments, so their backs are turned and they are aloof. They, too, are pleased. 469 I.e., a state of poverty (phun sum tshogs min) +la sogs pa] D; -] Q 471 bsgrubs] D; sgrubs] Q 470 113 Intimates, angry people, and472 Oneself and one’s relatives473 and the people one likes are intimates. Because they are separated, people can not see the truth. That anger is a lack of loving-kindness, and is also a [form of] loving-kindness. Oppressed people such as servants and slaves, “Servants (bran)” refers to one’s good retinue. “Family (bza’ mi)” means one’s wife, and so forth.474 “Such as” means all dear ones. Those tormented by spirits are those terrified and overcome [by them], as well as the deceased.475 Alternatively, some [versions of this] text read, Tormented ones, such as Brahmins,476 472 There is something of a discrepancy between the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of this line. Buddhagupta’s commentary follows the Sanskrit closely, but the Tibetan translation deviates. The Sanskrit in Dhīḥ (2004:163) reads, “kāntā priyaviyoge ca | duṣṭagraha upadrutaḥ |” These lines might be read together as, “[One] disturbed [by] inimical planetary forces (=°grahāḥ), and separated from [their] wives and loved ones.” The mistranslation seems to stem from a confusion between duṣṭa°, “inimical,” and dviṣṭha°, “hated.” The Tibetan of the Sde dge VV reads, “/mdza’ sdug skye bo sdang ba dang / /bran bza’ la sogs gtses pa dang /” 473 bdag dang yid bcugs] Q; ’das dang yid gcugs] D 474 bza’ mi ni chung ma la sogs pa’o] D; gza’ mi ni chung mi la sogs pa’o] Q 475 mi ’tsho] Q; mi ’tshe ba] D 476 bram ze la sogs gtses pa dang. This variation is indicative of two distinct translations. Sde dge has “bran bza’,” indicating servants and wives for “Oppressed people such as servants and slaves,” while Peking and Snar thang have “bram ze” indicating Brahmins. The Chinese translation (T 21.1417) references “婆羅門 brāhman (póluómén).” Vimalamitra (Rnam par bshad pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa, P 579) glosses it in this way: “bram ze la sogs gtses pa dang / zhes pa ni rgyal po log pa’i stobs can gyis bram ze la gseg shang brgyab pa’i rnam smin la bya ste...” 114 In that case, it means that all ordinary people in the world are liberated from the torment of being classified as (bdag) Brahmins, Rulers, Overlords, and Commoners.477 Or, by being so classified, Brahmins, monastics, and so on—all powerful ones (nus pa can)—and the harm and the influence (nus pa) of landowners (zhing dag) are reversed and evil is purified. Or, if the text says, “Carried by Brahmins,”478 it means those who have died under bad planets and constellations are benefitted through [this] ritual. Parties in disagreement with each other, Those harmed by loss of wealth; Self and other are mutual; they are in disagreement, so they fight with their speech and bodies. They are brought into agreement. Because earlier, great wealthy people possessed jewels, it says, “wealth,” that is, gold and so forth. “Loss”479 means that it was depleted. Therefore, suffering arose in their minds, and there was harm. Those who are pained [from] suffering,480 Fearful and destitute people, “Pained [from] suffering”481 means those exhausted by misery, and they are vulnerable to demonic spirits. Alternatively, if [the text has] “and (dang)”, they are harmed by exhaustion, and all ordinary injuries.482 477 These are the four varṇas of India’s stratified Brāhmanical society. “bram zes khyer ba” 479 ’grib pa] D Q 480 Padma ’byung gnas, *Vajrāloka, 184.10-12: “zhes bya ba ni sems mi bde ba’o/ ngal dang zhes bya bya ni de nyid kyi lus rab tu sdug bsngal bar gyur ba’o/.” 481 mya ngan ngal dang gnod pa dang] D; mya ngan mang la dang gnod pa] Q 482 i.e., “dang” for “las” as attested in N, Q, and Sh. Dhīḥ has “and (ca).” 478 115 Continuing on, terror (skrag) and fear (bag tsha ba) refers to the Eight [Great] Fears beginning with legal penalty. Destitute means impoverished people, as above. Those oppressed by harmful planets, constellations, curses,483 And by intolerable demonic spirits;484 {Q 190v} Moreover, malevolent planets (gza’) {D 184r} such as Venus485 do harm, and this refers to those fallen into that misery. Constellations (rgyu skar) are those strewn across the sky and that move, such as Pleiades (smin drug). After performing this ablution, they are repelled and pacified. Curses (byad stems) means those oppressed by the yantra diagrams (’khrul ’khor) of wielders of evil vidyā-mantras who want to kill them. “Intolerable demonic spirits (mi bzad gdon)” means those that cast severe sickness, and so forth; that is, deities of great supernatural power (rdzu ’phrul che ba’i lha), and so forth. They oppress, or afflict. And those who see bad omens In dreams that arise from suffering: Suffering refers to various miseries of body, speech, and mind; through these the aggregates become weary, causing sleep, or the perceptible arising of bhūta spirits. Through their power (stobs), beings sleep, their minds are deluded, and when their mental consciousness stirs, dreams occur. By seeing bad omens, such as weapons, and so forth, within those [dreams], beings suffer. 483 cf. Padma ’byung gnas, *Vajrāloka, 184.18. Dhīḥ has “śokāyāsa-samurcchritam,” perhaps in error for “śokāyāḥ+samurcchitam” or “samuñcitam,” possibly meaning “[one] stupefied out of grief.” 485 pa bsangs] D; pa ba bzangs] Q 484 116 Regarding the term also (yang), this is applied to everything. Alternatively, if the text reads “and (dang),” it is distributed to the individual items in the list. Through this dhāraṇī, they are all dispelled, and [beings] are liberated from them. Through this, everything that arises in the mind (rgyud) is [also] dispelled.486 4.1 Benefits Now, for the teaching on that which connects one with all of the bliss of the tantras, This, the root of all tantras, Removes all suffering And is ornamented by all splendor.487 Because it is related to what has come before and is continuous, the continuum (rgyud)488 is tantra (rgyud do). “All” means the totality. It is the root because it is not dependent on any other, and it gives rise to others. It is said in the first of 108 sections of the Summit of Vajra Mount Meru Tantra,489 Thus, this is the explanation. I have seen that tantra. In the future, the totality of the490 qualities is all of the tantras, and since they arise from it, it is fundamental. Alternatively, it is because the root of all phenomena is the vajra-like samādhi. Some say this empowerment (dbang bskur ba) is that of the root of all tantras. They explain that is so because they depend on [cleansing] water, but this is not the case. 486 gis rgyud la] Q; gi rgyud las] D The dhāraṇī-sūtra of Buddhagupta's lemmata varies significantly from the order of the verses found in the Dhīḥ Sanskrit edition and all other canonical Tibetan versions. 488 rgyud] D Q; brgyud] N 489 rdo rje lhun po ri rab zom gyi rgyud 490 -bdag gi] N Q 487 117 Moreover, “all splendor” means that it is worthy of being taught, and {Q 191r} it has great qualities, such as wealth, [granting] progeny, and so on, or the two accumulations. They excellently adorn it because they are perfected and whole, which is done through the avenue of this [dhāraṇī]. {D 184v} Then, regarding the relation of the phrase, Beings’ lives and merit increase, And they are liberated from all negativity. “Merit” refers to fame and prosperity; and happiness of mind, body and speech flourish. “All negativity” is as explained above. Here “liberation (thar pa, vimokṣita)” means release; and here it means that all of the higher realms and ultimate bliss will be obtained. These are the benefits common to Kriyā-tantra rituals. Alternatively, understand how to apply distinct actions (bya ba) to all of these activities (las). 4.2 Explanation of the Ritual Likewise, after explaining the arising of benefits in this way, in order to explain the ritual, the text says: They are all completely cleansed491 When listening to this sacred sūtra. All those whose minds are clear and Radiant in clean clothes 491 The shorter commentary attributed to Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa, 535, gives a succinct overview of the ritual: “After the ritual associated with the maṇḍala has been completed, when the master has anointed and washed the crown of the head of the student with a vase of amrita, all impurities, and so on, are purified.” (“dkyil ’khor gyi cho ga rdzogs par byas la/ slob dpon gyis bdud rtsi’i bum pas slob ma’i spyi bor dbang bskur zhing khrus byas na mi gtsang ba la sogs pa thams cad ’dag go”) 118 Regarding that, the practitioner and the practice articles should be on the prepared seat.492 This means, in the past it was instructed, “do it like this.” But in the future, this will be the real ritual activity. Then the practitioner and practice articles, as it says, “are all completely cleansed.” The outer ablution is that by washing well with water and earth, stains are purified. This is to be done three times. “In clean clothes”493 means fresh clothes not used by others, changed three times. Likewise, the three white foods [are to be eaten] after one has fasted494 for one day. Regarding the inner ablution, it says, All those whose minds are clear and This means the vow to refrain from the ten non-virtuous deeds of body, speech, and mind. A clear mind is one with faith. These demonstrate the support, defiled individuals, and the abiding in the prepared seat. Then it says, Draw the maṇḍala in detail according to the the rituals for appropriating the site,495 and so on, in accordance with the ritual manuals and sādhanas, then arrange the substances, and practice. {Q 191v} Furthermore, First, sitting on a prepared seat And finishing the land ritual And drawing the detailed maṇḍala 492 sta gon, *saṃnaddha (bhūte kṛdanta of saṃ+ √nah), which I read as, “to be prepared, arranged.” Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa, 581, emphasizes the personality traits (such as faith, devotion, etc) that should ornament the student, not particular clothes: “Clean clothes,” means those new and clean, and also the robes of samādhi and diligence.” (“gtsang ma’i gos ni ras sar pa kha tshar ma nyams pa dang / ting nge ’dzin gyis byin gyis brlabs pa’i tha tshig”). 494 smyung bar gnas pa] D P; snyung bar gnas pa] Q 495 sa blang ba] D; sa bslang] Q; sa blang] N 493 119 Rely on the supports and practice. 4.3 Application - Deity Generation Then after the ablutions, and so on, have been done, regarding the deity generation (lha bskyed pa) the text says, Should listen to this profound sūtra, The profound scope of Buddhas. When this sūtra is heard, Through the brilliance of this sūtra, All living beings... Regarding the intent of that, after this profound dharma, the speech of the Buddha, is to be heard, and following the teaching of its benefits, the engagement (rjes su ’jug pa) is said to be the methods of deity generation, or mantra recitation {D 185r}. Here, “sūtra” is the same as tantra, because the profound meaning taught in that text (sder) is said to be verbally concise.496 Or, the place, teacher, and so forth, are taught. As it is said, Because it expresses the places, characteristics, And the meaning of the dharma, it is a “sūtra.”497 And, See the holy sūtras as sparse in words But vast in meaning.498 496 don zab mo sder ston la tshig gi mdo tsam du gsungs pa] P; tshig mdo tsam] Q Cf. Maitreya, Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkārakārikā (Theg pa chen po mdo sde’i rgyan zhes bya ba’i tshig le’ur byas pa, Tōh. 4020, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 123, 13r.6. 498 The only correlation to this is an unattributed source in Ratnakāraśānti’s Ratnāvali: “Smras pa/ tshig gi don thab [=zab] mo yin pa’i phyir don rgyas pa yang bsdus te/ dper na ji ltar sor gdub kyi me long la glang po che’i gzugs brnyan snang ba de bzhin du tshig nyung ba la yang don mang po bsdus par shes par bya ste/ chos gang rgyu las byung ba zhes bya ba las sogs pa bzhin no/” Cf. Ratnakāraśānti, Piṇḍīkṛtasādhanopayikāvṛtta-ratnāvali-nāma, (Mdor bsdus pa’i sgrub thabs kyi ’grel pa rin chen phreng ba zhes bya ba), Tōh. 1826, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 36, 11v.1. 497 120 Ultimately, this includes all dhāraṇī-sūtras, hence, holy (dam pa499) means supreme (mchog). The [teaching] which is to be heard500 is the advice; that which is heard from the Buddha or a teacher and which should be comprehended. Because this is difficult for others to realize, it is said, “This profound scope of Buddhas,” that is to say, it was taught by the Buddha. Moreover, the six [modes of the awakened] deity, such as dharmatā or emptiness and so on, are profound, and through them the form of the Buddha (sangs rgyas kyi sku) arises as that scope. Therefore, this is the meaning of the phrase, Understand that ‘service’ is mantra recitation within the Sound-abiding Concentration.501 When listened to, it is heard. Brilliance refers to light rays, which are glorious. Alternatively, the meaning of the six [modes of the awakened] deity is within the sūtra, so to hear them is meditation. 4.4 Concentration for Recitation Now, for the concentration for recitation. Because the deities of this sūtra possess jewel garlands, abiding within their hearts they have moons, vajras, and mantras. The emanation and 499 Buddhagupta reads dam pa for the more common zab mo. mnyan par bya ba] P Q, varies from all attested VV witnesses: nyan byed na. 501 sgra la gnas pa’i bsam gtan, *vāgāśrita-dhyāna. Cf. Mar me mdzad bzang po (Dīpaṃkarabhadra), *Vāgāśritadhyāna-nāma, Sgra la gnas pa’i bsam gtan zhes bya ba, Tōh. 3046, vol. 74. This specific concentration (Skt., dhyāna) is part of a group of dhyānas which seem to be specific to later Vajravidāraṇa generation stage (bskyed rim) and completion stage (rdzogs rim) practices. Dīpaṃkarabhadra was a tenth century student of Buddhajñānapāda, to whom 33 Sde dge Bstan ’gyur works on Vajravidāraṇa practice are attributed: Tōh. 2945-2956, 2969-2971, 2997-2999, 3007, 3018, 3024, 3031, 3033, 3034, 3036, 3037, 3039-3042, and 3046-3048. There is no colophonic translation data in the Sde dge versions of any of these texts. Tōh. 3073-3075 are catalogued in AIBS’ “The Buddhist Canons Research Database” as being written by Dīpaṃkarabhadra, but the colophons indicate that they are compositions of Ye shes rdo rje. 500 121 absorption of their light rays is brilliant. If one visualizes in that way, the bodies of living beings with wind imbalances502 {Q 192r} will be cured.503 Even unbearable diseases [...] Are seen as pacified. “Unbearable diseases” refers to those that are difficult to cure, like leprosy (mdze), and those that arise from the elements, and nāga demons. “Even (kyang)” refers to unconducive circumstances.504 The meaning is that when these are pacified, what need is there to speak of other illnesses?505 “Seen as pacified (zhi bar blta)” means that they are pacified. Alternatively, “Seen as pacified” means to recite the mantras. These are explained as wrathful speech, the mantra repetition of enactment. 4.5 Basis of Support for the Ritual 4.5.1 Materials for the Pitchers Now, regarding the basis which is the support for the practice, the text says, Fill pitchers of whatever material is appropriate, Such as gold and silver, with water, There is one pitcher for the service, and five for the activity (las). Gold506 is the best material. As for “Or (yang na ni),” other teachers say that silver is middling. “Whatever (kyang rung)” 502 rlung nad] Q; rlung nang] D. gnas pas ’tsho ba’o] Q; gnas pa ’tsho ba’o] D 504 rkyen] D; rgyan] Q 505 nad gzhan] Q; gnas gzhan] D 506 rin po che gser 503 122 refers to the [rest] assembled - copper, which is the least [appropriate].507 If you don’t have those,508 {D 185v} use a well-formed (ra ri med pa) red or black earthen pitcher. As it is said, A pitcher the color of a red lotus, and... This is the explanation of the materials of the pitchers. This is how it was in the past and it should be so in the future. 4.5.2 Substances and Adornments Now, the substance and adornments are shown with, “Fill with water...”509 Jewels, mustard seeds, dūrvā grass, Flawless sandalwood, Crystals, diamonds, and flowers, And bind them in clean cloth. Here, [the vessel] is filled with the water of a great river and milk. Wash and clean with that. Here it states, “water-gold,”510 this should be seen as the ignorance caused by delusion. After that, wrap them with clean, unused cloth in the manner of three topknots. There, the substances are jewels such as becoming, flawless pearls.511 Mustard seed (yungs kar) is the practice substance used to fill the precious obstacle-dispelling vessel, which is placed on top.512 507 Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa, 537, says that kings should use golden vases, ministers (blon po) should use silver, commoners (dmangs) can use copper. 508 de dag ma ’byor na] Q; de ltar ma ’byor na] D 509 chu yis dgang zhes] D Q; but no VV witness has “dgang.” I read the most parallel pāda as “chu yi ser ram yang na ni,” or “[water-]gold, or otherwise...” 510 -ram] Q N 511 mu tig mig med pa] D; mu tig med pa] Q 512 Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa, 536, gives the five ’bru lnga necessary for the ritual as: yungs kar, nas, so ba, til, and mon sran. 123 “Dūrvā” refers to the grass.513 Because it is auspicious, insert it along with leaves, kuśa grass, and seven peacock feathers in the openings of seven vases. Because it is rare, it is precious, and they are unblemished, which is to say unused––not old, but new. Alternatively, flawless are the five 514—gold, and so on—and white, fragrant sandalwood (candan). Along with that, pour in the other five scents;515 {Q 192v} the five grains, such as sesame (til); the five medicines, such as Hasadeva (ha sa de ba), and the five essential substances such as molasses (bu ram)516 in accordance with the secret and general tantras. Crystal (shel), diamonds (rdo rje pha lam), and blue flowers should also be put inside, and adorn the opening with a garland of them. That opening should also be adorned with flowering auspicious Aśoka517 branches, and so on.518 The vajra noose (rdo rje gzhag/bzhag, vajragranthita) is to bind [the vases] with auspicious rope, with which one should affix to the previous activity [vase]. These should be known as the service as well. Moreover, while one should understand the qualities of the jewels, and so on, the signs of the deities should be understood as unfixed. 4.6 Recitation Then, to show the [appropriate] amount of recitation, it says, This is to be recited twenty-one Or one hundred and eight times. 513 ram pa Ibid., 536, gives, gser, shel, indranīla, byi ru.” among the the five precious substances (rin chen lnga). 515 Ibid., 536 lists the five scents (dri lnga) as, candan, gla rtsi [= kastūrikāṇḍa , or musk], gur gum, spos, a ka ru. 516 Ibid., 536 lists the five essential substances (snying po lnga) as me shel, chu shel, rtsi thog gi snying po mar, shing thog hi snying po bu ram, me tog gi snying po sbrang rtsi. 517 Mya ngan med pa: Saraca indica. 518 See Wayman 2008 (1973), The Buddhist Tantras: Light on Indo-Tibetan Esotericism, Table 7, for a lucid presentation of the substances according to Smṛtijñānakīrti’s VV commentary. 514 124 Because it is recited it again and again, it is counted. Recite the long dhāraṇī (gzungs rings) twenty-one times, and the hṛdaya and upahṛdaya [dhāraṇīs] one hundred and eight times.519 As for whom, it says, The third of the third type of agent (byed pa), {D 186r} then performs the ablution... This is the intended meaning of the words, In the past, these accumulations were sufficient.520 In the future, after finishing one hundred thousand preliminary service [mantras], know the activity endowed with concentration.521 4.7 Main Teaching on Enactment To show the main teaching on enactment (las la sbyor ba), it says, “king...” Thus reciting the Vajravidāraṇa mantra, A king should always perform ablutions. This refers to the fact that in the past, because he was a divine or important person, there was a King - Lokpé Nyingpo.522 He thought of taming his inner circle, not other retinues or sentinels. 519 Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa, 537, says that kings and ministers should recite it 108 times, the lower-ranking ministers and commoners should recite 21 times, and the lowest among the commoners (dmangs tha ma) should recite it seven times. 520 cho ga pa] Q; cho ga ba] D; chog pa] P for “it was allowed.” 521 bstan] Q; bsam gtan] D 522 Vimalamitra, Rnam par bshad pa, 537, concurs: “This means King Stobs can snying po. If one were to ask what is the purpose of speaking about an old king, it is because earlier, by doing this, one with merit gladdened everyone.” (“rgyal po stobs can snying po la bya’o/ rgyal po sngon la smos pa ci’i phyir zhe na/ bsod nams can gyis sngon la byas na thams cad la bde ba’i phyir ro/”) 125 The king expressed the523 merit [of that] to his followers. This is the relation of the entire phrase with “A king...” “Always” means during the three times, and the instruction is to “perform ablutions” using the water in the vase. The relation is that by doing so, it is said that the previously stated benefits will be obtained. Therefore, it is said, A yogin bathes at the three times, {Q 193r} and the practice is to do ablutions until there is pacification.524 This is explained as Kriyā-tantra. And, After having fashioned the supreme supports,525 For the adept who has performed ablutions higher rebirths and ultimate bliss will come about. By theses quotes, this is what is taught: after completing the preliminary service [requirements], sitting on the prepared seat, do the land ritual (sa’i cho ga), and draw the full maṇḍala in detail (dkyil ’khor ’byor ba’i bye brag). Then set a vase out, and visualize the deities (lhar bskyed). Then perform the recitation, combining mantra with samādhi in accordance with the pith instructions for ablutions. After [visualizing] the protection [circle], performing ablutions, and so 523 -che bas] N Q; +che bas] P That is, the pacification of illness, after the “Benefits” section of Rdo rje rnam ’joms kyi gzungs (166v.5): “srog chags dag ni thams cad kyi/ mi bzad pa yi nad rnams kyang / de dag thams cad zhi bar blta/” In addition, consider the instructions attributed to Buddhagupta in the Ekavīra sādhana: “Then, for the benefit of others, in order to pacify illness, and so on. On the prepared seat, perform the site ritual. Draw the maṇḍala and arrange the substances.” (“de nas gzhan don sgrub pa ni/ nad sogs zhi bar bya ba’i phyir/ sta gon gnas las cho ga bya/ dkyil ’khor bri zhing rdzas dgod pa/”) {Tōh. 2926 vol. 73:329b.5} 525 -/] Q 524 126 forth, since one is poor, practice the Solitary Hero teaching.526 “Finished”527 is attainment.528 This is said to be extracted from the great tantra.529 Colophons Composer’s Colophon Thus, these words of vajra advice Were previously received, So practice them without doubt And your limitless desires will be fulfilled. Exhorted by the deity and the master, This immaculate commentary Was composed by Buddhagupta. May all be liberated through it. Translation Colophon The Jewel’s Radiance, a commentary on the Ārya-Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī composed by Buddhagupta, the adept of Kriyā-tantra, {D 186v} is finished. That very master and Lotsāwa 526 dpa’ bo gcig pa bstan par bya’o. This is a reference to Sangs rgyas gsang ba, Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs kyi sgrub thabs dpa’ bo gcig tu sgrub pa (Tōh. 2926), Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 73 (rgyud, nu), folios 329a.6-330a.3, a Vajravidāraṇa sādhana attributed to Buddhagupta and also translated by Mañjuśrīvarman. See Appendix C for a diplomatic edition and translation of the same. 527 rdzogs pa. This might translate the traditional conclusion of a Sanskrit text, “samāptam.” This convention was not retained in Tibetan translations. 528 -yang dag par] N Q; +yang dag par] D 529 D reads, “rdzogs pa ni yang dag par thob pa ste rgyud chen po nas phyung zhes pa’o/” 127 Mañjuśrīvarman translated it. Later, the Paṇḍita *Jñānateṅhara and the Lotsāwa Da ’og530 Bsod nams mos pa531 again translated and edited it, then finalized the translation. {D 186v.1} {Q 193r.7} 530 Da ’og, as a nominal designation, has proven elusive. Mda’ ’og is a village in Gzhis ka rtse sa khul Prefecture, Pa snam rdzong county, at +29° 04’, + 89° 18’ https://www.oeaw.ac.at/tibetantumulustradition/tar-toponym-search/), drawn from from the TAR Toponymic Gazetteer (Xizang zizhiqu dimingzhi) (1993), published by Xizang zizhiqu renmin zhengfu. 531 Paṇḍita dznyon te ha tu la dang / lotsāwa da ’og bsod nams mos pa] Q; Paņḍita ’Jon te ta’u la dang lotsāwa ’og bsod nams mos pa] D 128 Appendix A: Diplomatic Edition of Vajravidāraṇā-nāma-dhāraṇi-hṛdayayopahṛdayāḥ mūlamantraḥ532 {4r.1} oṁ namo bhagava {4r.2} tyai āryavajravidāriṇyai | namo buddhāya || evamayā śrutaṃ {4r.3} mekasminsamaya bhagavān vajrosu viharati sma || sarvva {4r.4} sarīraṃ | vajrasamayamadhiṣtāya vajrapāṇiścabuddhānubhā {4r.5} vena | vajrasamādhisamāpannaḥ | tato vajrapāṇi būddhānubhā {4v.1} vena sarvvabuddhādhiṣṭhānā((cca))mahākrodasaṃbhutaṃ | vajrasārapada bhāṣante sma | a((chi))dam {4v.2} ā((ṭṭaḍha))smitaṃ | sarvvatrāpatihataṃ | sarvvatrāparājitaṃ | sarvvasattvānāṃ | vidāpārī((ka)) {4v.3} raṃ | sarvvasattvānām | tsādanakaraṃ | sarvvavidyācchedanakaraṃ | sarvavidyāstaṃbhanakaraṃ | {4v.4} sarvvakarmavidhvasanakaraṃ | sarvvakarmavidāṇakaraṃ | sarvvagahātsādanakaraṃ | sarvva {4v.5} grahavimokṣanakaraṃ | sarvvabhutāya((karṣa))nakaraṃ | sarvvavidyāmantramakarā((y))ana + {5r.1} karaṃ | āsiddhānāsiddhakaraṃ | siddhanāṃ cāvināsanakaraṃ | sarvvakamapada | sarvvasattvā {5r.2} nāṃ rakṣakaṃ | śāntikaṃ | pa((ṣti))kaṃ | sarvvasattvanāṃ ((stambhana))karaṃ |sarvvasattvānām | mohanaka {5r.3} raṃ | imāṃ mantramahābalaṃ sarvvabuddhānubhāvāya((kṣendro)) vajrapāniḥ | +bhāṣaṭaḥ | na mo ra {5r.4}tnatrayāya | namaśca((ṇḍa))vajrapānaya | yakṣas((ā))nāpataya | tadhyathā | oṁ traṭa 2533 toṭaya 2 {5r.5} sphuṭa 2 sphoṭaya 2 ghūṇa 2 ghuṇāpaya 2 sarvvasatvāni | bodhaya 2 | saṃ+dhaya 2 bhrama 2 {5v.1} +534saṃbhrāmaya 2 sarvvabuddhabodhini | kūṭa 2 saṃkuṭaya 2 sarvva((satrū))n | ghaṭa 2 saṃghāṭaya 2 {5v.2} sarvvavidyāṃ | vajra 2 sphoṭaya 2 vajra 2 kaṭavajra 2 matavajra 2 pathavajra 2 tatha + + ((nīlā)) {5v.3} vajra | suvajrāya svāhā | oṁ he phulini 2 gṛhna 2 kuru 2 mili 2 ((curu)) 2 kara 2 vajrā 2 {5v.4} vajravidarāya svāhā | om vajra kilikalāya svāhā | oṁ kaṭa 2 maṭa 2 raṭa 2 motaya {5v.5} motanāya svāhā | oṁ cara 2 vicara 2 ha((śa)) 2 māraya vajravidāranāya svāhā | oṁ chi((ndu)) 532 Vajravidāraṇā-nāma-dhāraṇi hṛdayayopahṛdayāḥ mūlamantraḥ (NGMCP: E 927/7). These are numeral twos (2) written in the ms. 534 This might be an instance of an akṣara being crossed-out due to a scribe’s error. 533 129 {6r.1} 2 bhindu 2 mahākilikilāya svāhā | oṁ bandha 2 kro((ḍha)) vajrakilikilāya svāhā | oṁ {6r.2} curu 2 caṇḍakilikilāya svāhā | oṁ trāśaya 2 vajrakilikilāya svāhā | oṁ hana {6r.3} 2 vajradharāya svāhā | oṁ prahara 2 vajra pa((bhāṃja))nāya svāhā | oṁ matisthiravajra | śruti {6r.4} sthiravajra | pratisthiravajra | mahāvajra | apatihatavajra | amoghavajra | e((hya))hiva {6r.5} jra | sighraṃ vajrāya svāhā | oṁ dhara 2 dhiri 2 dhūrū 2 + + + + | namaḥ samantavajrānāṃ || {6v.1} oṁ mahābale kaṭabale acale | maṇḍalamāye avajre mahā((bare)) | vigalana a {6v.2} jite jvāla 2 ṭi ṭi ṭi ṭi ṭi | ((na))le daha 2 dhara vajra te((javati)) | ti((ri)) 2 bandha 2 {6v.3} mahābale | vajra vajrāṃkūśa((jvā))raya svāhā | namo ratnatrayāya | namaścaṇḍaavajrapā {6v.4} naya mahāyakṣasenāpataya || tadyathā | om hara 2 vajra matha 2 vajra 2 dhūnū 2 vajra {6v.5} ṇaya 2 vajra dhāraya 2 vajradhi+ūna 2 vajra ((bā))ndha 2 vajra | hūṃ phaṭ | oṃ namacaṇdavajra {7r.1} pāṇaye mahākroḍhāya | hūrū 2 + + 2 bandha 2 hana 2 amṛte hūṁ {7r.2} phaṭ svāhā || hṛdayamantra || oṁ namo ratnatrayāya || namaśca {7r.3} ṇḍa vajra panaya | hūrū 2 tiṣṭha 2 bandha 2 amṛte hūṁ phaṭ svā {7r.4} hā || • || iti vajravidāraṇā nāma dhāraṇi {7r.5} hṛdayayopahṛdayāḥ mūlamantraḥ samāpta | 130 Appendix B: Diplomatic Edition and Translation of Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs (Tōh. 750) Diplomatic Edition {D 265v.3}535 rgya gar skad du/ badzra bi dā ra ṇā nā ma dhā ra ṇī536/ bod skad du/ rdo rjes537 rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs/ sangs rgyas dang538 byang chub sems dpa’ thams cad la phyag ’tshal lo/ ’di skad bdag gis thos pa539 dus gcig na/ bcom ldan ’das rdo rje la bzhugs te/ sangs rgyas kyi540 mthus lag na rdo rjes541 lus thams cad rdo rjer byin gyis brlabs nas542 rdo rje’i ting nge ’dzin la snyoms par zhugs543 so544/ de nas lag na rdo rje545 sangs rgyas kyi mthu dang / sangs rgyas kyi byin gyis brlabs546 dang / byang chub sems dpa’ thams cad kyis547 byin gyis brlabs548 kyis549 rdo rje khro bo las byung ba550 rdo rje snying pos551 rab tu smras te/ mi thub pa/552 mi chod pa/ mi shigs pa/ bden pa/ sra ba/553 brtan pa/ thams cad du thogs pa med pa/ thams cad du ma pham pa/ sems can thams cad skrag par byed pa/ sems can thams cad ’jil bar554 byed 535 For sigla and lists of witnesses employed in this edition of Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī, see the Bibliography, Appendix E. 536 vajra bi dā ra ṇa nā ma dha ra ṇi/] Ka S Sh; °dha ra ṇī] H N; vajra bi dā ra ṇī nā ma dhā ra ṇī] U1; vajra bi dā ra ṇā nā ma dha ra ṇī] Q 537 rdo rje] C N Q 538 +/] H N 539 pa’i] Q 540 kyis] N 541 rdo rje’i] Ka 542 +/] Ka 543 bzhugs] Q 544 zhugso] N 545 rdo rjes] Ka 546 gyi brlabs] C Q 547 kyi] Ka L P 548 gyi brlabs] C Q 549 +/] Ka S Q 550 +/] Ka 551 snying po rab tu smras te] C; snying po] Ka 552 - mi thub pa/] Ka S Sh; + mi thub pa] C N Q 553 -/] C 554 ’jig par] Q 131 pa/ rig sngags thams cad gcod par byed pa/ rig sngags thams cad gnon par byed pa/ las thams cad ’joms par byed pa/ gzhan gyi las thams cad ’jig par byed pa/ gdon thams cad rlag555 par byed pa/ gdon thams cad las thar par556 byed pa/ ’byung po thams cad ’gugs par byed pa/557 ’byung po thams cad tshar {D 266r} gcod pa/558 rig sngags kyi las thams cad byed du ’jug pa/ ma grub pa rnams grub par byed pa/ grub pa rnams chud mi za bar byed pa/ ’dod pa thams cad rab tu sbyin559 pa/ sems can thams cad bsrung560 ba/ zhi ba/ rgyas pa/ sems can thams cad rengs par byed pa/ rmugs par byed pa’i gsang sngags kyi mthu chen po ’di sangs rgyas kyi mthus lag na rdo rjes rab tu smras so/ na mo ratna tra yā ya/ na mashcaṇḍa badzra pā ṇa ye561/ ma hā yakṣa se nā pa ta ye/ tadya thā/ oṁ tru ṭa tru ṭa/562 tro ṭa ya tro ṭa ya/ sphu ṭa sphu ṭa/563 spho ṭa ya spho ṭa ya/ ghūrṇṇa ghūrṇṇa / ghūrṇā pa ya ghūrṇā pa ya/564 sarba satwā ni/565 bo dha ya bo dha ya/566 saṃ bo dha ya saṃ bo dha ya/567 bhra ma bhra ma/ saṃ bhra ma ya saṃ bhra ma ya/568 sarba bhū tā ni/569 ku ṭa ku ṭa/ saṃ ku ṭa ya saṃ ku ṭa ya/570 sarba sha trūn/571 gha ṭa gha ṭa/ saṃ gha ṭa ya saṃ gha ṭa ya/572 sarba bidyā573 badzra badzra/ spho ṭa ya badzra badzra/ ka ṭa574 badzra badzra/ 555 brlag] C Ka Q bar] C Q U1 557 -/] Q 558 - byung po thams cad tshar gcod pa/] N S; +] C L 559 spyin pa] U1 560 srung] L Ka S 561 na ma ścaṇḍa badzra pā ṇa ye] N; na ma ṣca ṇḍa badzra pā ṇa ye] U1 562 tra ṭa tra ṭa] N Q 563 spho ta spho ta] S 564 ghūrṇā ghūrṇā/ ghūrṇā pa ya ghūrṇā pa ya/] Ka L S; ghūrṇṇa pa ya] Q 565 sarba sa twan] N 566 bo dha bo dha] Q 567 saṃ bo dhā ya saṃ bo dhā ya/] Q 568 bhrā ma bhrā ma/ saṃ bhrā ma ya saṃ bhrā ma ya/] Ka 569 sarba bhū tā ni] C S; sarba bhū ta ni] Q 570 ku ṭṭa ku ṭṭa/ saṃ ku ṭṭa ya saṃ ku ṭṭa ya] Ka L N S 571 sha trūṃ naṃ] Q 572 gha ṭṭa gha ṭṭa/ saṃ gha ṭṭa ya saṃ gha ṭṭa ya/] L N S 573 bidyāṃ] S Sh; sarba bidyāya] P 574 +ya] L N S 556 132 ma ṭa575 badzra badzra/576 ma tha badzra badzra/ a ṭṭa hā sa nī la badzra/577 su badzrā578 ya swā hā/ he phu llu/ ni ru phu llu/ 579 ni gṛhṇa ku llu/580 mi li tsullu581/ ku ru ku llu/ badzra bi dza yā ya swā hā/ kī li kī lā ya582 swā hā/ ka ṭa ka ṭa/ ma ṭa ma ṭa/ ra ṭa ra ṭa/ mo ṭa na583 pra mo ṭa nā ya584 swā hā/ tsa ra ni tsa ra/ ha ra ha ra/ sa ra sa ra/ mā ra ya/585 badzra bī dā rā swā hā/586 tstshinda tstshinda/ bhinda bhinda/ ma hā kī li kī lā ya swā hā/ bandha bandha/587 krodha krodha/588 kī li kī lā ya swā hā/589 tsu ru tsu ru caṇḍa la kī li kī lā590 ya swā hā/ trā sa ya591 trā sa ya/592 badzra kī li kī lā ya swā hā/593 ha ra ha ra594 badzra dha rā595 ya swā ha/ pra ha ra pra ha ra/ badzra pra bha ñja nā ya596 swā hā/ ma ti sthi ra badzra/597 shru598 ti sthi ra badzra/599 pra ti sthi ra badzra/600 ma hā badzra/ a pra ti ha ta badzra/ a mo gha badzra/ e hi badzra/601 śī ghraṃ badzra ya602 swā ha/ 575 +ya] L N S +ma ṭa ya badzra badzra/] L N 577 -/] Ka; aṭṭa hā sa nī la badzra] L S U1; aṭ ta hā sa badza badzra/ nī la badza/] Q 578 badzrā] U1; su badzra badzra] Q 579 phu pu llu/] Q 580 ghihṇa ku llu] Sh; gri ṇṇa kullu] N; grihṇa kullu] S; ni grīhṇa kullu] C Ka; ni grhṇa ku llu] U1; ne ru phu lu/ ghri hna ku llu] Q 581 - mi li cullu/] P; cullu] Ka 582 kī li kī la ya] Ka; kī yi kī lā ya] U1; ki li ki lā ya] Q 583 +/] Ka L S 584 bra mo ṭa ṇa ya] U1 585 mā ra ya mā ra ya] L N S; mā ra yā] U1 586 badzra bi dā rā na] C N; badzra bi dā ra ya] S; badzra bi dā ra ṇa ya] Ka; badzra bi dā rā ya] U1 587 bandha bandha] S; ban dha ban dha] Q 588 - /] C L N; kro dha kro dha badzra] S; kro dha kro dha ki li ki lā ya] Q 589 krodha krodha badzra kī li kī lā ya swā hā/] L; kro dha badzra kī li kī la ya swā hā] Ka 590 kī li kī la ya] Ka; caṇṭa la kī li kī lā ya] U1; caṇ ḍa li ki li ki lā ya] Q 591 +/] Ka 592 -/] S 593 trā sa ya trā sa ya badzri ki li ki lā yā svā hā] Q 594 +/] L S 595 badzra dhā rā ya/ trā sa ya trā sa ya badzri ki li ki lā yā svā hā] Q 596 badzra pra bañja nā ya] L 597 - /] N 598 ((spu))] N; shū ti sthi ra badzra] Ka; shru ti sthi ra badza] U1 599 sru ti sthi ra badza] ṣha trā sa ya trā sa ya badzri ki li ki lā yā svā hā] Q; su ti sthi ra badzra] C 600 pra ti sthaṃre badzra] Q 601 e hye hi/] Ka 602 shrī ghraṃ badzrā] S; shrī ghraṃ] Sh Ka; shī ghraṃ badzra dha rā ya] L; trā sa ya trā sa ya badzri ki li ki lā yā svā hā] Q 576 133 dha ra dha ra/ dhi ri dhi ri/ dhu ru dhu ru/ sarba badzra ku la mā barta ya603 swā hā/ a mu kaṃ mā ra ya phaṭ604/ na massa manta605 badzrā nāṃ/ sarba ba le ā bartta ya/606 ma hā ba le/ ka ṭa be/ ta ta le/607 a tsa le/ maṇḍa la mā ye608/ a ti badzra/ ma hā ba le/609 be ga ra ṇa/610 a dzi te611/ dzwa la dzwa la/ ti ṭi ti ṭi/ tingka le/612 da ha da ha/613 te dzo ba ti/614 ti li ti li/ bandha bandha/615 ma hā ba le/616 badzrāṃ ku shadzā617 la ya swā {D 266v} hā/618 na mo ratna tra yā ya/619 na ma shchaṇḍa badzra pā ṇa ye/620 mahā yakṣa senā pa ta ye621/ tadya thā/ oṃ ha ra ha ra badzra/ ma tha ma tha badzra/ dhu na dhu na badzra/ da ha da ha badzra/ pa tsa ((pa tsa/))622 dha ra dha ra badzra/ dhā ra ya dhā ra ya badza/623 dā ru ṇa dā ru ṇa badzra/ tstshinda624 tstshinda badzra/ bhi nda bhi nda625 badzra626 hūṁ phaṭ/ na ma shtsa ṇḍa badzra627 kro dha ya628/ hu lu hu lu/ ti ṣṭha629 603 sarba badzra ku laṃ ā barta ya] L N S; sarba badzra ku lāṃ bartta ya] C; sarba ku la a wārta ya] Ka; sarba badzra ku la mā barta ya swā ha] U1; sarba badzra ku laṃ ā bar ta ya] Q 604 a mu ka mā ra ya phaṭ] Ka; a mu kaṁ mā ra ya phaṭ/] Q 605 na maḥ santa badzra ṇāṃ] L; na maḥ] N 606 sarba badzra ku laṃ ma warta ya/] Ka; sarba ba laṃ ā bartta ya] U1 607 sarba ba laṃ arwabarta ye ma hā ba le ka ṭa ba ta ṭa la] N; sarba ba laṃ a barta ye ma hā ba le ka ṭa be ta ṭa le/] S Sh; sarba ba lam ā barta ya/ ma hā ba la/ kata ba le/ ta ta le/] C; sarba ba laṃ a bar ta ya ma hā ba le ka ṭa be ta ta le] Q 608 maṇḍa la ma ye/] C; maṇ ḍa la ma ye] Q 609 -/] S 610 be ga ra na ra na] Ka; ma hā ba le be ga ra ṇa ra ṇa] Q 611 a dzi ti] C 612 ting ga le] Ka Q; tingga li] U1 613 bi ga le da ha da ha] N; piṃ ga le da ha da ha/] L S 614 te dzwa ba ti] Ka 615 bandha bandha] L Q S U1 616 -/] Ka 617 sha dzā] L; ma hā ba le badzra aṃ ku sha dzwa la ya swā hā/] Ka 618 badzrā ku sha dzā lā ya swā hā] N U1; ma hā ba le badzrā aṃku shdzwā la ya] Q 619 rad na tra yā ya] Q 620 na ma shtsaṇḍa badzra pā ṇa ye /] Q U1 621 ma hā yakṣa se nā pa ta ye] S 622 pa tsa pa tsa badzra/] C Ka L N S U1 623 dā ra ya dā ra ya badza] Q 624 tstshinda tstshinda] L 625 bhinda bhinda] S 626 +/] Q 627 badza] S 628 badzra kro dhā ya] U1 Q 629 tiṣhṭha tiṣhṭha] L N Q 134 ti ṣṭha/ bandha bandha/630 ha na ha na/ a mṛ te631 hūṁ phāt/ 632sdig pa thams cad byang byas nas/ /sdug bsngal thams cad med par byed/ /rgyud do cog gi rtsa ba ste/ /dpal kun gyis ni legs par brgyan/ /sems can dbang po nyams pa dang / /tshe zad pa dang tshe nyams633 dang / /phun sum tshogs min gang chags dang / /lha rnams rgyab kyis phyogs pa dang / /mdza’ sdug skye bo sdang ba dang / /bran bza’634 la sogs gtses pa dang / /phan tshun mthun635 pa ma yin dang / /nor ’gribs636 pas ni gnod pa dang / /mya ngan ngal las637 gnod pa dang / /’jigs pa dang ni phongs638 pa dang / /gza’ dang rgyu639 skar byad stems dang / /mi bzad gdon gyis nyen pa dang / /mya ngan ngal las byung ba yi/ /rmi lam sdig pa mthong na yang / /des640 ni rab bkrus gtsang ma yin/ /mdo sde dam pa mnyan par bya641/ /gang dag yid dge sems dang zhing/ /gtsang ma’i gos kyis642 rab brgyan te/ /zab mo sangs rgyas spyod yul ba/ /mdo sde ’di ni nyan byed na/ zab/mdo sde ’di yi gzi brjid643 kyis/ /srog chags dag ni thams cad kyi644/ /mi bzad pa yi nad645 rnams kyang / /de dag thams cad zhi bar blta/ /tshe dang bsod nams ’phel bar ’gyur/ /sdig pa kun las rnam par grol646/ /nor bu647 yungs kar dūr ba648 dang / /rin chen rma med tsandan649 bcas/ 630 bandha bandha] S; ban dha ban dha Q a mri te] L N S Q 632 D, Q begin all lines of verse with +/ 633 +pa] N 634 bram ze] N Q; bran gza’] C 635 ’thun] Q 636 ’grib] C L Ka S 637 dang] L N Q 638 ’phongs] Q 639 rgyud] N 640 de] Q 641 nyan par gyis] Ka 642 gyi] Q 643 bjid] N 644 kyis] N Q S 645 nad rnams] Ka U1 646 thar] Ka Q 647 bus] Q 648 dur ba] C L N Q S 649 tsan dan] N L Q S 631 135 /shel dang rdo rje me tog dang / /chu yis650 gser ram651 yang na ni/ /dngul gyi bum pa dag kyang rung / /gtsang ma’i gos kyis dkri zhing dgang / /lan grangs nyi shu rtsa gcig gam/ /yang na lan grangs brgya rtsa brgyad/ /rdo rje rnam ’joms bzlas nas ni/ /rgyal po rtag tu khrus gyis652 shig/ /rdo rjes653 rnam par ’joms pa zhes654 bya ba’i gzungs655 rdzogs so656// //rgya gar gyi mkhan po jinamitra657 dang/ dānaśīla658 dang / bod kyi lotsāwa659 bande660 ye shes sdes bsgyur cing zhus te gtan la phab pa//661 {D 266v.7} Translation of Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs (Tōh. 750) {D 265v.3} In the language of India: Āryavajravidāraṇā nāma dhāraṇī. In the language of Tibet: The Incantation of Vajra Splitter. Homage to the Buddha and all Bodhisattvas! Thus have I heard at one time: the Blessed One was abiding in Vajra.662 Through the power of the Buddha, Vajrapāṇi consecrated all form as vajra, and entered the Vajra-like 650 yi] Ka L Q S raM] C 652 kyis] N 653 rdo rje] C Ka Q 654 ces] N 655 +/] C 656 sho//] C Q. This is also seen in Dunhaung mss. 657 ’dzi na mi tra] Q 658 dā na shi la] C 659 lo ccha] D; loca] S 660 bandhe ye shes sdes] L Q 661 pa’o//] Q; slob dpon chen po padma ’byung gnas dang / vimalamitra dang / sangs rgyas gsang ba dang / ye shes rdo rje dang / smṛtijñāna la sogs pa’i ’grel pa’i nang nas gton te gzungs shin tu dag pa’o// //] Ka 662 “Vajra” has been left vague so the ambiguity and variant readings of the different commentaries can be supplied. Interpretations range between, “Vajra-Seat (Vajrāsana) [at Bodh Gaya],” “the Vajra[(-like) state],” as an epithet for 651 136 Samādhi. Then, through the power of the Buddha, the blessings of all Buddhas, and the blessings of all bodhisattvas, Vajrapāṇi emanated the great wrathful ones and pronounced the vajraessence that is unassailable,663 indivisible, indestructible, true, durable, stable, unopposed by all, and undefeated by all; that makes all beings flee, that expels all beings, that severs all vidyāmantras, paralyzes all vidyā-mantras, destroys all actions, puts to flight all actions, and expels all graha spirits; that liberates one from all graha spirits, summons all bhūta spirits, and annihilates all bhūta spirits; {D 266r} that enacts the activities of all vidyā-mantras, accomplishes what has not been accomplished, and preserves what has been accomplished from waste; that fulfils all desires and protects all beings; that pacifies, enriches, and paralyzes all beings; and that stupefies all beings. Through the power of the Buddha, Vajrapāṇi pronounced this very powerful secret mantra: namo664 ratnatrayāya | namaścaṇḍavajrapāṇaye | mahāyakṣasenāpataye | tadyathā | oṁ truṭa truṭa | troṭaya troṭaya | sphuṭa sphuṭa | sphoṭaya sphoṭaya | ghūrṇa ghūrṇa | ghūrṇapaya ghūrṇapaya | sarvasattvāni | bodhaya bodhaya | saṃbodhaya saṃbodhaya | bhrama bhrama | saṃbhramaya saṃbhramaya | sarvabhūtāni kuṭa kuṭa | saṃkuṭaya saṃkuṭaya | sarvaśatrūn ghaṭa ghaṭa | saṃghaṭaya saṃghaṭaya | sarvavidyā vajra vajra | sphoṭaya vajra vajra | kaṭa vajra vajra | maṭa vajra vajra | matha vajra vajra | aṭṭahāsanīla vajra | suvajrāya svāhā | he phullu | niruphullu | ultimate reality, “[the land of the] Vajra [historical polity of North India],” to “[the summit of] Vajra [Mount Meru].” 663 An equivalent for “mi thub pa” is missing in all Sanskrit witnesses consulted, and all consulted witnesses of *Ratnabhāsvara. 664 The Sanskrit retained here is compiled by comparing my reading of the dbu can transliteration of the Sanskrit syllables as found in Tōh. 750, with the two editions of the Sanskrit Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī - those of Iwamoto (1937) and Dhīḥ (2005). Finally, a late Devanāgarī manuscript witness of the same (NGMCP: E 1414/8) has been compared. It should be noted that the editor(s) of the Dhīḥ edition used the Sde dge version of the Tibetan as a source for back-translation where they lacked Sanskrit attestation, and so it is suspect as an independent source of Sanskrit spelling in those passages. 137 nigṛhṇa kullu | mili cullu | kurukullu | vajravijayāya svāhā | kīli kīlāya svāhā | kaṭa kaṭa | maṭa maṭa | raṭa raṭa | moṭana pramoṭanāya svāhā | cara nicara | hara hara | sara sara māraya | vajravīdārā svāhā | chinda chinda | bhinda bhinda | mahākīlikīlāya svāhā | bandha bandha | krodha krodha | kīlikīlāya svāhā | curu curu caṇḍalakīli kīlāya svāhā | trāsaya trāsaya | vajrakīli kīlāya | hara hara vajradharāya svāhā | prahara prahara | vajra prabhañjanāya svāhā | matisthira vajra | śrutisthira vajra | pratisthira vajra | mahāvajra | apratihata vajra | amogha vajra | ehi vajra | śīghraṃ vajraya svāhā | dhara dhara dhiri dhiri dhuru dhuru sarvavajrakulamāvartaya svāhā | amukaṃ māraya phaṭ | namassamantavajrānām | sarvabale āvartaya | mahābale | kaṭabale | tatale | acale | maṇḍalamāye | ativajra | mahābale | vegaraṇa | ajite | jvala jvala | ti ṭi ti ṭi | tiṅkale | daha daha | tejovati | tili tili | bandha bandha | mahābale | vajrāṃkuśajvālaya svāhā || {D 266b} namo ratnatrayāya | namaścaṇḍavajrapāṇaye | mahāyakṣasenāpataye | tadyathā | oṁ hara hara vajra | matha matha vajra | dhuna dhuna vajra | daha daha vajra | paca paca vajra | dhara dhara vajra | dhāraya dhāraya vajra | dāruṇa dāruṇa vajra | chinda chinda vajra | bhinda bhinda vajra | hūṁ phaṭ || namaścaṇḍavajrakrodhaya | hulu hulu | tiṣṭha tiṣṭha | bandha bandha | hana hana | amṛte hūṁ phaṭ || Purifying all negativity, This, the root of all tantras, Removes all suffering And is ornamented by all splendor. 138 All sentient beings with degenerated faculties, Whose life-force is diminished or weakened, Those in poverty, or beset with desire, Deities that are aloof; Anguished ones separated from their families, Oppressed people such as servants and slaves, Parties in disagreement with each other, Those harmed by loss of wealth; Those who are pained and suffering, Fearful and destitute people, Those oppressed by harmful planets, constellations, curses, And by intolerable spirits; And those who see bad omens In dreams that arise from suffering: They are all completely cleansed When listening to this sacred sūtra. All those whose minds are clear and Radiant in clean clothes 139 Should listen to this profound sūtra, The profound scope of Buddhas. When this sūtra is heard, Through its brilliance, Even the unbearable diseases Of all living beings Are seen as pacified. Beings’ lives and merit increase, And they are liberated from all negativity. Fill vases of whatever material is appropriate, Such as gold and silver, with water, Jewels, mustard seeds, dūrvā grass, Flawless sandalwood, Crystals, diamonds, and flowers, And bind them in clean cloth. This is to be recited twenty-one Or one hundred and eight times. Thus reciting the Vajravidāraṇa mantra, A king should always perform ablutions. 140 The Incantation of Noble Vajra Splitter is finished. This text was translated, edited, and finalized by the Indian Preceptor665 Jīnamitra, Dānaśīla, and the Tibetan Lotsāwa Bandé Yeshé Dé. {D 266v.7} 665 Tib., mkhan po, Skt., *upādhyāyaḥ 141 Appendix C: Diplomatic Edition and Translation of “The Solitary Hero Sādhana,” for the Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī (Tōh 2926) Diplomatic Edition {C 333v.1}{D 329r.6} {N 403v.2} {Q 366v.6} /rgya gar skad du/ vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇīekavīra-sādhana-nāma/ bod skad du/ rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs666 kyi sgrub thabs dpa’ bo gcig tu sgrub pa zhes bya ba/ ’phags pa ’jam dpal la phyag ’tshal lo/ /gang zhig rdo rje bdag gzhan don667/ /rdzogs nas668 mthar phyin skur669 gnas pa/ /rdo rje rnam ’joms phyag ’tshal te/ /bya ba nyung ba’i sgrub thabs bri/ /gang zhig shes rab chung gyur la/ /spros la mi dga’670 rnal ’byor pa/ /dam tshig {D 329v} dbang thob rjes671 gnang can/ /des ni don gnyis phyir ’di sgrub/ /rgyas par yan lag bya ba kun/ /sgrub thabs che las ’byung bzhin bya/ /khyad par man ngag ’di lta ste/ {Q 367r} /rab tu dben pa’i gnas dag tu/ /rnal ’byor ’khor dang bcas pa yi672/ /dus ngan bar chad bsal673 byas te/ /maṇḍal674 la brten mchod pa dang / /bum pa gnyis dag legs byas te675/ /sngon du rdo rje nus pas mnyes676/ /tho rangs dus su khrus gnyis677 bya/ /sha678 sogs spangs te stan bde la/ /gnas pas yang snying gis bgegs bskrad/ /lha gnyis bla ma mdun bltas te/ 666 gzung] Q rdzogs] N Q 668 na] N 669 phyin skur] C P Q; byin skur] N 670 dga’i] N Q 671 Illeg.] N 672 yis] N Q 673 Illeg.] N 674 maṇḍal] Q 675 bya ste] N Q 676 bsnyan] N; bsnyen] Q 677 gnyi] N 678 bshang] N Q 667 142 /bdun po dag byas stong par bsams679/ /de la680 rdo rje’i khang pa ste/ /gdan bcas steng du lha drug gi681 /bdag nyid phyag na rdo rjer bsam/ /bum pa stong sogs gdan dag la/ hūṁ las rdo rje rnam ’joms te/ /yum dang khro bo bcas par bsam/ /spyan drangs bgegs bskrad yon phul nas/ /phyag rgya sngags kyis bstim par bya/ /mchod de bstod la gsol ba gdab/682 phreng ba byin brlab683 thugs zla la684/ /rdo rje ste bar sngags bsams te/ /ngag gsang gsum bzlas don gnyis byas/ /bar chad byung na bsal la bskyar/ /spyod lam legs byas ’bad pa yis/ /rtags {N 404r} byung nus pa thob pa’o685/ /de nas gzhan don sgrub pa ni/ /nad sogs zhi bar bya ba’i phyir/ /sta gon gnas la sa686 cho ga bya/ /dkyil ’khor bri zhing rdzas dgod pa/ thig gdab pho brang zlum po la/ /rin chen phreng ba lha {C 334r} gnas nas687 gnyis/ /sgo ldan bris te rgyan bkram nas/ /bum pa dbus nas nub sgor te/ /khrus sogs sngar bzhin shes par bya/ /sngags gnyis grangs688 ldan grag pa’i sgras689/ rdo rje690 nad sogs ’joms par bsam/ /de nas khrus kyi las la sbyar/ /mtshan ma phyi691 nas nub sgo nas/ /dbus su bzhag nas bgegs bskrad nas/ /bya ba dang bsrung ba kun bya ste692/ /bum chu sngags dang bkra shis sgras/ dbang bskur khrus ba693 nad sogs zhi/ /bsams te rdzas brgyad byin bya ste/ /nub nas bton te las kyang bslab/ /yon phul694 lan gsum gyis rdzogs ’bar695/ /sngon gyi las kyang nges {Q 367v} par ’jig696 /’phral gyi rkyen {D 330r} dag smos ci dgos/ /gshegs bsdu 679 bsam] N Q las] N Q 681 gis] N Q 682 - /mchod de bstong la gsol ba gdab/] N Q 683 brlabs] N Q 684 zla ba] N Q 685 pa yi] N 686 las] N 687 -na] C 688 grang] Q 689 sgra] N Q 690 rdo rjes] Q 691 phyis] N Q 692 bya ste] N Q 693 bya] N Q 694 dbul] Q 695 ’gyur] Q 696 ’jigs] Q 680 143 phyi697 la legs par gnas/ /’di ni bsdus par gyur pa ste/ /lha698 gnyis bum pa gcig pa ni699/ /’byor pa cung zad shes700 bya zhes/ /bla mas gsungs701 te de bsten702 byas/ /bdag gis ’di byas dge rtsa yis/ khams gsum sems can nad gnyis can/ /de las grol te gsang bdag gi703/ /go ’phang rnam gnyis thob par shog / ’phags pa rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi sgrub pa’i thabs dpa’ bo gcig pa zhes bya ba mkhas pa chen po sangs rgyas gsang bas ri gangs704 can du mdzad pa rdzogs so// //mkhan po de nyid dang / lo tsā705 ba dba’ mañju shrī varmas bsgyur ba’o// {C 334r.5}{D 330r.3} {N 404r.6} {Q 367v.4} Translation {D 329r.6} {Q 366v.6} In Sanskrit: Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī-ekavīra-sādhana-nāma. In Tibetan: “The Solitary Hero Sādhana,” for the Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī. Homage to Noble Mañjuśrī! After perfecting the benefit of self and others, Abiding as the perfected form, And paying homage to Vajravidāraṇa, I will write a means of accomplishment entailing little effort. 697 phyis] C N Q ((lta))] Q 699 ste] C 700 zhes] Q 701 gsung] Q 702 brten] Q 703 gis] N 704 rigs] N 705 tsa] N Q 698 144 Those with meager insight, Or those who don’t like elaboration, Should, after receiving the samaya {D 329v} and empowerment Practice this to fulfil the two kinds of benefit. Perform all of the extensive branches As taken from the great sādhana. In particular, these are the pith instructions: {Q 367r} In extremely remote places, A yogin and their retinue, After having cleared obstacles of bad times Should make offerings depending on a maṇḍala. After preparing two vases well, In the beginning, with the power of the vajra perform the service. At dawn, perform the two types of ablution. Abandoning meat and so forth, sit on a comfortable seat. Resting so, banish obstacles with the innermost essence [mantra]. Visualizing the two deities and the guru in front of oneself, After purifying the seven, visualize them as empty. 145 Then, within the vajra palace On a seat, with the six [aspects of the awakened] deity Visualize oneself as Vajrapāṇi. On a seat, in the hollow of the vase, and so on,706 Imagine that from [the syllable] HŪṀ, Vajravidāraṇa arises, Along with the mother and the wrathful ones.707 After inviting [the deities], banishing obstacles, and making offerings, Dissolve mudrā and mantra [into one.] Make offerings, praises, and supplications708 Bless the rosary, and on a moon at the heart, Visualize the mantra in the hub of a vajra. After fulfilling the two kinds of benefit by reciting the three secret mantras, If obstacles arise, dispel them again. Performing the observances well, and by exerting oneself, The signs arise, and power is obtained. Then, for the benefit of others, In order to pacify illness, and so on 706 bum pa stongs sogs gdan dag la yum dang khro bo bcas par bsam 708 This line is missing from N and Q 707 146 On the prepared709 seat, perform the site ritual. Draw the maṇḍala and arrange the substances. In the lines of the circular palace Draw both a jewel garland and the abodes of the deities With gates, after spreading the ornaments around, Move the middle vase to the western door. One should know to perform the ablution as before. With the sound of the two mantras recited, Visualize illness, and so forth, as pacified by the vajra. Then, apply the activity of ablution. From the western door, the sign is brought from outside. Placing it in the center, and banishing obstacles, Perform all of the activities and protective rites. Through the sounds of the mantras and auspicious syllables710 Pacify illness, and so on, through consecratory ablution. Imagining this, take the eight substances, Remove them through the western door, and train in the activities. 709 710 sta gon, *saṃnaddha (bhūte kṛdanta of saṃ+ √nah), which I read as, “to be prepared.” sngags dang bkra shis 147 By reciting the offering three times, they are completed, Previous actions will certainly {Q 367v} be destroyed, So what need is there to speak {D 330r} of adventitious circumstances? Rest well beyond coming and going. This is said to be the concise [method]: The two deities are inseparable with the vase And a few treasures. This is the speech of the guru, so heeding it, I have [composed] this. By the roots of it’s virtue, May sentient beings of the three realms with the two kinds of ailments Be liberated from them, And attain the two levels of the Lord of Secrets. “The Solitary Hero Sādhana,” for the Vajravidāraṇa-nāma-dhāraṇī composed by the great scholar Buddhagupta at the snow mountain,711 is finished. It was translated by the master himself and Lotsāwa Mañjuśrīvarman.712 {D 330r.3} {Q 367v.4} 711 This could be a specific reference to Mount Ti se/Kailāsa, or to the Himālayan mountain range in general, as discussed by Davidson (2002:378n135). 712 Sangs rgyas gsang ba, Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs kyi sgrub thabs dpa’ bo gcig tu sgrub pa, Tōh. 2926, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 73 (rgyud, nu), 330a.3: /’phags pa rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi sgrub pa’i thabs dpa’ bo gcig pa zhes bya ba mkhas pa chen po sangs rgyas gsang bas ri gangs can du mdzad pa rdzogs so// //mkhan po de nyid dang / lotsāba dba’ Mañjuśrīvarmas bsgyur ba’o// 148 Appendix D: Remarks on the Identity and Translation of Sangs rgyas gsang ba Who was Sangs rgyas gsang ba, to whom *Ratnabhāsvara and *Ekavīra-sādhana-nāma are attributed? Which forms of Buddhist practice did he master and promote? Which texts did he actually compose? How many figures were known to Tibetans as Sangs rgyas gsang ba? There are all open questions which I cannot answer. In these notes I wish only to address the issue of Sangs rgyas gsang ba’s original name, departing from a point of extreme personal curiosity. There are two different issues which have been treated as related in all of the discussions on Sangs rgyas gsang ba as noted above in footnote [4]: the translation of the name Sangs rgyas gsang ba, and the identity and commentarial work of the author(s) behind the name. Closer study of the content of the texts attributed to him is required to definitively disambiguate between identities and attributions, but I suspect the translation of the name is a matter more straightforward. We receive no Sanskrit text attributed to Sangs rgyas gsang ba, and to my knowledge we further have no Indic attestation of his name in an Indic language. I feel the original name for all possible figures was likely Buddhagupta, which was later standardized into Buddhaguhya in the period around the Great Revisions of the ninth century, after his floruit. In terms of etymology, the Tibetan term gsang ba is an amenable translation for both Sanskrit terms, guhya, and gupta. The semantic ranges of both terms can be roughly equivalent, though their etymologies are distinct: guhya derives from from the verbal root √guh, “to cover,” or “keep secret,” with a suffix that implies prescriptive or gerundive use, with a sense of, “[that which is to be kept] covered or secret.” Gupta comes from the verbal root √gup, “to conceal,” or “to hide,” and is a past passive participle, which might be read as, “[kept or made] hidden.” Both 149 forms function as anterior and posterior elements of proper Sanskrit nominal compounds, and both forms are attested in canonical and paracanonical Tibetan sources from the ninth century to the twenty-first century in reference to some Sangs rgyas gsang ba or another. In seeking an answer to why °guhya is favored by academics, I have briefly considered the received textual record. In this regard the only field of data available is that of Tibetan transliterations, which are found, generally stated, in two contexts: colophons and catalogue entries of works attributed to the author, and the main bodies of texts—those attributed to him, and those which concern him or his work in some way. In relevant entries of the 812-813 CE Ldan kar ma catalogue (DK) of translated Indic works held at the eponymous fortress, and in the slightly-later ’Phang thang ma catalogue,713 we only see some form of Buddhagupta in transliteration for texts later attributed to Sangs rgyas gsang ba/Buddhaguhya. Davidson was skeptical of this transliteration in DK, saying that he found it “equally likely that [Sangs rgyas gsang ba’s] name was translated back into Sanskrit by the [Ldan kar?] librarian.”714 But to me, the fact that a librarian at Ldan kar (or another Tibetan librarian) did so would seem to be evidentiary support for Buddhagupta. In three Dunhuang mss. that mention a correlated name, we see variations of Buddhagupta.715 In both thirteenth-century histories of Lde’u, we likewise see some permutation indicating Buddhagupta.716 After the Lde’u histories, the Buddhagupta variant gradually stopped making appearances. The historical/biographical works ’Dra bag chen mo, Theb der sngon po, and the extensive Lde’u chos ’byung all retain distinct references to both names. That is, they refer to seemingly different 713 Cf. Halkias, “Tibetan Buddhism Registered: A Catalogue from the Imperial Court of ’Phang thang,” 96, regarding PT 909, and 951. 714 Davidson, “Gsar Ma Apocrypha,” 376n132. 715 Lung chung, IOL Tib J 1774; and Sangs rgyas sbas pa’s Sbas pa’i rgum chung, IOL Tib J 594. Cf. Van Schaik, “Early Days of the Great Perfection,” 186-187, 187nn58-60. 716 Lde’u jo sras, Chos ’byung, 133 and Dge bshes lde’u, Lde’u Jo sras, Chos ’byung rgyas pa, 330. 150 people in Tibetan history with both °gupta and °guhya, respectively, in a chronological succession. For instance, in the ’Dra bag chen mo,717 Bhu ta kug ta is the name of the Rdzogs chen teacher who appears earlier in the biographical narrative, and Sangs rgyas gsang ba is the Kailāsa yogi of the third of Rong zom’s “Seven Descents” of the Rnying ma school as detailed in most academic treatments of Buddhagupta’s life.718 One of the aforementioned Dunhuang works, the Sbas pa’i rgum chung attributed to Sangs rgyas sbas pa (IOL Tib J 594), is a variable that has complicated this discussion for decades, for in it we see °gupta translated as the Tibetan °sbas pa (which might be read as a past participial form of the verb sba/sbed pa, “to conceal.”) The author of this seminal text on Rdzog chen, Buddhagupta, and the commentator at the root of this current study, the Sangs rgyas gsang ba (Buddhaguhya/°gupta) who stayed at Kailāsa and interacted with Tibetans, have been assumed to be different people. Furthermore, there have been repeated inquiries and assertions concerning the identity or distinction between the Sangs rgyas gsang ba to whom are attributed multiple commentaries on Māyājāla literature (a Mahāyoga corpus championed by the later Rnying ma school), with the Sangs rgyas gsang ba who was more concerned with the outer or “lower” tantric texts (utilized by later Gsar ma figures). It is this two-part question that has complicated consensus on the back-translation of the nominal element gsang ba, because it seems (by academic consensus alone) untenable to remain open to multiple early translations of °gupta. Few scholars have felt comfortable in proposing that the three—the Rdzog chen pa Sangs rgyas sbas pa, the Māyājāla commentator Sangs rgyas gsang ba, and the Sangs rgyas gsang ba purportedly active at Kailāsa 717 Yudra Nyingpo, comp. (2004), The Great Image: The Life Story of Vairochana the Translator [’Dra ’bag chen mo] trans. Ani Jimba Palmo (Boston: Shambhala), 59. 718 For instance, see Germano, “The Seven Descents and the Early History of Rnying Ma Transmissions.” 151 and Nālandā—were all Buddhagupta. Based on my research, I am comfortable remaining open to the possibility, although in doing so I wish to set aside the extremely important matter of correct attribution or pseudepigrapha. That is, I only want to discuss the names, and not so much the received personae and/or viewpoints of these three figures. Lacking the aptitude or opportunity for establishing clarification based on determining the attribution of all of the the works attributed to Sangs rgyas gsang ba, I undertook a limited survey of occurrences of the various names. My data set was readily available works of the Peking (Q), Sde dge (D) and Snar thang (N) Bstan ’gyurs concerning the outer tantras (that is, Kriyā-, Ubhayā-, and Yoga-tantra)—the area of Buddhagupta’s work with which I am most acquainted—and other documents available on the Tibetan Buddhist Resource Center database. What follows is by no means scientifically rigorous; I was primarily seeking insight into why Hodge (2003), whose monograph-length translation is the most thorough treatment of Buddhagupta’s life and work, chose °guhya in his work discussing the two Mahāvairocanābhisaṃbodhi-tantra (henceforth, MVA) commentaries attributed to Sangs rgyas gsang ba. The Sde dge (D 2662), Peking (Q 3486), and Snar thang (N 2287) editions of the short MVA commentary all have transliterated °guhya in the colophon. The canonical versions of the extensive MVA commentary consulted by Hodge (Q 3487, Q 3490, D 2663a/b, and N 2288) have the Tibetan Sangs rgyas gsang ba - a bifurcation not mentioned in Hodge’s translation of these commentaries. Pursuing this further, I compared all works attributed to Sangs rgyas gsang ba in the Peking, Sde dge, and Snar thang Bstan ’gyurs that are ostensibly concerned with the lower tantric classes. I saw no variation in identification across the three Bstan ’gyurs for specific 152 works. In other words, where one work had Sangs rgyas gsang ba, all recensions of the same work had Sangs rgyas gsang ba in the same locations. Three canonical works retained the °guhya transliteration: Q 3754, on Vajravidāraṇa; Q 3486, the shorter MVA commentary; and a paracanonical xyl. witness of Lam rnam par bkod pa (Q 4736). One canonical work retains the °gupta variant: *Sādhana-sakalpa (Q 3750), which is attributed to Buddhagupta in Q but is attributed elsewhere to Kumārasena, merely translated into Tibetan by Buddhagupta.719 It is °guhya that is used reflexively to refer to the author in all of the witnesses of Nagasawa’s recent critical edition of the epistle attributed to him (Q 5693, Tōh 556.). However, he proposes the provenance of that text is later (ca. fourteenth century) than Buddhagupta’s natural life, and again, we have seen °gupta in other, earlier Tibetan texts.720 If Buddhagupta’s letter was a work of pseudepigrapha written in the fourteenth century, as Nagasawa proposes, the internal use of Buddhaguhya in transliteration may be seen as supporting evidence for a later composition.721 In Bcom ldan Rigs pa’i ral gri’s (1227-1305) textual catalogue, Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od, the author of Bsam gtan phyis ma’i ’grel pa (Tōh. 2670) is given as Slob dpon Buddhagupta, with a later editor subsequently adding “Sangs rgyas gsang ba.”722 In the next line two commentaries on MVA are attributed to this same author, as above. The earliest attestations of the present text (*Ratnabhāsvara), found in the early-fourteenth-century Snar thang Bstan ’gyur catalogues (Tib., dkar chag) of Bu ston and Sangs rgyas ’bum, retain the Tibetan. But in the margins of an dbu med ms. of Sangs rgyas ’bum’s catalogue, an anonymous scrivener has 719 This fact in itself is interesting, supporting that Buddhagupta learned Tibetan. See Nagasawa, “Buddhaguhya and his Epistle.” 721 This infamous epistle is discussed in Karmay, “An Open Letter by Pho-Brang Zhi-Ba-’od to the Buddhists in Tibet;” in Samten Gyaltsen Karmay (1988), The Great Perfection (rDzogs Chen): A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism (Leiden: Brill); and is the subject of Nagasawa, “Buddhaguhya and his Epistle.” 722 Bcom ldan Rigs pa’i ral gri, 2006: “Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od,” 37v.2. 720 153 written “Buddhaguhya” in another form of dbu med script adjacent to the main text in two places.723 It is clear that Tibetans who read canonical materials would have been comfortable identifying Sangs rgyas gsang ba as both Buddhaguhya and Buddhagupta throughout the course of Tibetan history. So, to summarize, to the perspective of someone primarily considering the canonical data, it would seem that Buddhaguhya is the natural choice - but canonical colophons are suspect, being mutable and unreliable in their capacity to skew towards hagiography. Conversely, Buddhagupta is more common in internal evidence received from descriptive and historical secondary literature, including the earliest Tibetan catalogues. Karmay suggested that the translation difference may be based in sectarian divisions.724 By this he meant that “Buddhagupta” was promoted earlier than the “Buddhaguhya” of later Gsar ma traditions, who adopted Buddhagupta’s work more than Rnying ma traditions. I think this has more weight and possibility for making meaning than attempts at the disambiguation of the names based on etymology or translation alone. This can also relate to the lack of standardization in the translation of Sanskrit terms before the early ninth century, at the time Buddhagupta was purportedly working with Tibetan translators, as noted by Scherrer-Schaub.725 Accordingly, in the Mahāvyutpatti, the Sanskrit correspondence for the Tibetan, gsang ba, is guhya.726 Yet no work of Sangs rgyas gsang ba translated by Mañjuśrīvarman retains a 723 Cf. Sangs rgyas ’bum, Bstan ’gyur dkar chag, folios 26v.1 and 27v.3). Karmay, The Great Perfection, 62. 725 Cristina Scherrer-Schaub (2002), “Enacting Words. A Diplomatic Analysis of the Imperial Decrees and their Application in the Sgra sbyor bam po gñis pa Tradition,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 25, 1-2: 283. I was reminded of this citation as it was discussed in Nagasawa, “Buddhaguhya and his Epistle.” 726 Cf., “Mahāvyutpatti with Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa,” accessed 9/18/2018, http://www2.hf.uio.no/common/apps/permlink/permlink.php?app=polyglotta&context=record&uid=11caa902-afa611df-b371-001cc4df1abe. 724 154 “Buddhaguhya” transliteration, even though the translator is named as a lotsāwa in the Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa. Holding both of these propositions, we see Buddhagupta in attestations before the Great Revisions of the ninth century, in the earliest catalogues of Tibetan translations, and in historical works. Between the ninth century and thirteenth centuries, we have mixed attestations, and after the Rnying ma/Gsar ma division is complete, we have intractable sectarian positions. That which became the Rnying ma school, which traces its roots to the Yar klungs dynastic period accordingly favor Buddhagupta, a name that has been linked to writings about Māyājāla and Rdzogs chen, which are textual traditions fundamental to Rnying ma practice. The Gsar ma schools, on the other hand, who apparently place more emphasis on Buddhagupta’s outer tantric exegesis (as evinced by Tshong kha pa, Padma dkar po, et al.) and were formed long after Tibetan language standardization efforts, more universally use Buddhaguhya. On a tangential note, °gupta was a common final element of names of men of the Vaiśya, or agricultural caste, as glossed by Monier-Williams.727 The sun finally set on the Imperial Guptas around 550 CE, around two hundred years before the time under present consideration.728 Although Sangs rgyas gsang ba is clearly a religious name, within Buddhagupta’s lineage of Mahāvairocanābhisaṃbodhi, Hodge makes mention of one Dharmagupta active at Nālandā, where Buddhagupta was said to have trained.729 Thus, the °gupta element is well-attested in secular and religious naming conventions, and (arguably) remained a strong identity to be aligned with at the time of Sangs rgyas gsang ba’s interactions with Tibetans. 727 Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, 293/1. Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism, 26. 729 Hodge, The Mahā-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra, 20. 728 155 In the most conservative stance, we could follow what Karmay suggests: that Buddhagupta and Buddhaguhya are identical when it comes to Yoga-tantra and lower, but the relation between these and Mahāyoga-tantra material attributed to Sangs rgyas gsang ba remain uncertain (i.e., those pertaining to Māyājāla literature: Q 4722, 4731, 4734-6, and 4738).730 Davidson says it is “unlikely [Buddhaguhya] had much to do with the works of Māyājāla.”731 Hodge likewise surmises, based on stylistic and intertextual grounds, that the Buddhaguhya concerned with Māyājāla and the Buddhaguhya of the lower tantras are different.732 Conversely, after surveying the situation, Van Schaik concluded, based on traditional histories and intertextual and interpersonal connections referenced in Dunhuang manuscripts, that “there are good reasons to believe that [Sangs rgyas sbas pa, or Buddhagupta of Dunhuang attestation] really was the Mahāyoga exegete Buddhagupta [Sangs rgyas gsang ba] (who may be identical with the Yoga tantra exegete of the same name).”733 Or, in other words, like different parts of a proverbial elephant felt in the dark, we encounter traces of only one paṇḍita. The colophon of the paracanonical xylograph of Rdo rje theg pa’i lam gyis rim pa rnam par bkod pa734 links this Māyājāla work attributed to Sangs rgyas gsang ba with Gnyags Jñānakumāra in “Mang yul khri babs,” which might have been around Kailāsa or the Himalāya mountains, where the paṇḍita concerned with outer tantras purportedly stayed in retreat, and declined his invitation to Tibet. This merely shows that, if authorial style comes to be the crux of this debate, the Māyājāla literature attributed to Sangs rgyas gsang ba should receive due attention in the future. These neglected texts may hold keys to Sangs rgyas gsang ba’s identity. 730 Karmay, The Great Perfection, 62. Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism, 158. 732 Hodge, The Mahā-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra, 23. 733 Van Schaik, “The Early Days of the Great Perfection,” 187. 734 Sangs rgyas gsang ba, Rdor rje theg pa’i lam gyis rim pa rnam par bkod pa, 61r.5. 731 156 Until then, while both Buddhaguhya and Buddhagupta are valid back-translations for Sangs rgyas gsang ba, I have adopted Buddhagupta. 157 Appendix E: Bibliography Primary Sources Sanskrit Sources Ādityādigrahamātṛkā. NGMCP: B 107/18. “Āryavajravidāraṇā-nāma-dhāraṇī.” Dhīḥ 40 (2005): 159-164. Vajravidāraṇahṛdayamantradhāraṇī. NGMCP: E 1414/8. “Vajravidāraṇonāma-dhāraṇīhṛdaya(...)mūlamantra,” in Saptavāra. NGMCP: E 927/7. (N.S. 803 (ca. 1683)). Dhāraṇyādisaṃgraha, NGMCP: 861/13. Bhattacharyya, Bentosh. (ed.) (1925-1928) Sādhanamālā. 2 vols. Baroda. Iwamoto, Yutaka (ed.). (1937) Kleinere Dhāraṇī Texte, vol. 2. Kyoto. Lee, Yong-Hyun (ed.). (2004) Niṣpannayogāvalī by Abhayākaragupta: A New Critical Edition of the Sanskrit Text (Revised Edition). Seoul: Baegun Press. Tibetan Sources Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa gzungs Witnesses C = Rnam ’joms gzung. Cone 411, Co ne Bka’ ’gyur, vol. 18 (rgyud, tsha), folios 70b.2-72a.3. D = Rdo rje rnam ’joms kyi gzungs. Tōh. 750, Sde dge Bka’ ’gyur, vol. 95 (rgyud, dza), folios 265b.3-266b.7. Ka = Bdud ’joms rin po che, ed. (1982-1987) Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs. In Bka’ ma rgyas pa, vol. 2 (kha), 665-672. Kalimpong: Dupjung Lama. L = Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs. Shey 715, Shel mkhar Bka’ ’gyur, vol. 105 (rgyud, tsha), folios 87b.8-89b.7. N = Rnam ’joms gzungs. Snar thang 655, Snar thang Bka’ ’gyur, vol. 95 (rgyud, ma), folios 368a.7-370b.4. 158 Q = Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs. Peking 406, Peking Bka’ ’gyur, vol. 8 (rgyud, tsha), folios 60b.3-62a.1. S = Rnam ’joms gzungs. Stog 702, Stog pho brang bris ma Bka’ ’gyur, vol. 109 (rgyud ’bum, tsha), folios 85v-87v. U1 = Rnam ’joms gzungs. U rga 750, U rga Bka’ ’gyur, vol. 96 (rgyud ’bum, dza), folios 265b.3266b.7. Rin po che gsal ba Witnesses C = Sangs rgyas gsang ba. Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi ’grel pa rin po che gsal ba. Co ne Bstan ’gyur vol. 71 (rgyud, tshu), folios176r-186v. D = Sangs rgyas gsang ba. Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi ’grel pa rin po che gsal ba. Tōh. 2860, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 70 (rgyud, thu), folios 176a.6-186b.1. N = Sangs rgyas gsang ba. Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi ’grel pa rin po che gsal ba. Snar thang 2304, Snar thang Bstan ’gyur vol 68 (rgyud ’grel, chu) folios 173a.7-184a.7. P = Sangs rgyas gsang ba. ’Phags pa rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs kyi rgya cher ’grel pa rin po che gsal ba. Tōh. 2860, Dpe bsdur ma Bstan ’gyur vol. 36 (rgyud, thu), pages 489-519. Q = Sangs rgyas gsang ba. Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi rgya cher ’grel pa rin po che gsal ba. Otani 3504, Peking Bstan ’gyur vol. 78 (rgyud ’grel, chu), folios 181b.2-193a.7. Dpa’ bo gcig tu sgrub pa Witnesses C = Sangs rgyas gsang ba. Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs kyi sgrub thabs dpa’ bo gcig tu sgrub pa. Co ne Bstan ’gyur vol. 73 (rgyud, nu), folios 333v-334r. D = Sangs rgyas gsang ba. Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs kyi sgrub thabs dpa’ bo gcig tu sgrub pa. Tōh. 2926, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 73 (rgyud, nu), folios 329a.6330a.3. N = Sangs rgyas gsang ba. Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs kyi sgrub thabs dpa’ bo gcig tu sgrub pa. Snar thang 2547, Snar thang Bstan ’gyur vol. 70 (rgyud ’grel, nyu), folios 403b.1-404a.6. Q = Sangs rgyas gsang ba. Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs kyi sgrub thabs dpa’ bo gcig tu sgrub pa. Otani 3751, Peking Bstan ’gyur vol. 70 (rgyud ’grel, nyu), folios 366b.5-367b.4. 159 Other Tibetan Texts Dunhuang mss. referenced: Pelliot Tibétain 433; IOL Tibetan J 410-416; IOL Tibetan J 1774. ’Phags pa dpung bzang gis zhus pa zhes bya ba’i rgyud (Ārya-subāhu-paripṛcchā-nāma-tantra)., Tōh. 805, Sde dge Bka’ ’gyur vol. 96 (rgyud, wa), folios 118a1-140b7. [Anonymous]. (2003) “Dkar chag ’phang thang ma,” in Dkar chag ’phang thang ma/ Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang. [Unknown]. (1983) Gangs ljongs skad gnyis smra ba blo gsal dga’ skyed. Mtsho sngon: Kun lho bod rigs rang skyong khul rtsom sgyur cu’u. ’Phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa khri brgyad stong pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo (Ārya-aṣṭādaśasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra. Lhasa 12, Lha sa Bka’ ’gyur vols. 30-32 (khri brgyad, ka-gha), ka 1b.1-ga 317a.5. Bcom ldan rigs pa’i ral gri. (2006) “Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od.” In Gsung ’bum: Bcom ldan rig pa’i ral gri. Vol. 1: 99-260. Lhasa: Khams sprul bsod nams don grub. Bde skyid, ed. (2016 (2009)) Rba bzhed phyogs bsgrigs. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang. Bhavyakīrti. Sgron ma gsal bar byed pa’i dgongs pa rab gsal zhes bya ba bshad pa’i ṭīkā (Pradīpoddyotanābhisaṃdhiprakāśikā-nāma-vyākhyāṭīkā). Tōh. 1793(a), Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 32 (rgyud, ki), folios 1b.1-155a.5. Bsam gtan bzang po. (2006) “Bcom ldan rigs pa’i ral gri’i rnam thar dad pa’i ljon shing.” In Gsung ’bum: Bcom ldan rig pa’i ral gri. Vol. 1, 45-98. Lhasa: Khams sprul bsod nams don grub. Bu ston rin chen grub. Bde bar gshegs pa’i bstan ba’i gsal byed chos kyi ’byung gnas gsung rab rin po che’i mdzod ces bya ba. .docx file, source unknown. Bu ston rin chen grub. (1965-1971) “Bstan ’gyur gyi dkar chag yid bzhin nor bu dbang gi rgyal po’i phreng ba.” In Bu ston rin chen grub kyi gsung ’bum, vol. 26 (la), pp. 401-644. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture. Chos kyi grags pa. (1999) “Rdo rje rnam ’joms dang sme ba rtsegs pa’i lo rgyus bsdus pa” In Gsung ’bum: Chos kyi grags pa. Vol. 5, pp. 271-278. Kulhan: Drikung Kagyu Institute. Dge bshes lde’u, Lde’u Jo sras. (1987) Mkhas pa lde’us mdzad pa’i rgya bod kyi chos ’byung rgyas pa, Gang can rig mdzod, Vol. 3. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi rigs dpe skrun khang. 160 Dīpaṃkarabhadra (Mar me mdzad). Sgra la gnas pa’i bsam gtan zhes bya ba (*Vāgāśritadhyāna-nāma). Tōh. 3046, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 74 (rgyud, pu), folios 88a.3-90a.4. Gtsug lag ’phreng ba. (2006) Chos ’byung mkhas pa’i dga’ ston. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang. Gzhon nu sde (Kumārasena). Rnam ’joms kyi gzungs kyi sgrub thabs cho ga zhib mo dang cas pa (*Āryavajravidāraṇā-nāma-dhāraṇīsakalpasādhana). Tōh.2925, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur, vol. 73 (rgyud, nu), folios 325a.2-329a.6. Ko zhul grags pa ’byung gnas and Rgyal ba blo bzang. (1982) Gangs can mkhas grub rim byon ming mdzod, Lanzhou: Kan su’u mi rigs dpe skrun khang. Lde’u jo sras. (1987) Chos ’byung chen mo bstan pa’i rgyal mtshan. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi rigs dpe skrun khang. Longs khang phun tshogs rdo rje, editor. (2010 [1988]) Dba’ bzhed bzhugs so. Gang can rig mdzod, Vol. 56, Lhasa: Bod ljons mi dmangs dpe skrun khang. Maitreya. Theg pa chen po mdo sde’i rgyan zhes bya ba’i tshig le’ur byas pa (Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkārakārikā). Tōh. 4020, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 123 (sems tsham, phi), folios 1b.1-39a.4. Mi pham rgya mtsho. (2014) “Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi mchan ’grel.” In Rgyal po mdo bcu’i rtsa ’grel phyogs bsgrigs, edited by Thar lam gsal sgron. Vol. 1, 443-458. Chengdu: Si khron dus deb tshogs pa dang si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang. Negi, J.S. (1993-2003) Bod skad dang legs sbyar gyi tshig mdzod chen mo [Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary.] Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. Ne’u Paṇḍita Grags pa smon lam blo gros. (1990) “Sngon gyi gtam me tog phreng ba zhes bya ba bzhugs” in Bod kyi lo rgyus deb ther khag lnga, Gang can rig mdzod vol. 4. Lhasa: Bod ljongs bod yig dpe rnying dpe skrun khang. 3-54. Nyang nyi ma ’od zer. (2010 (1988)) Chos ’byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud. Gang can rig mdzod, Vol. 5, Lhasa: Bod ljons mi dmangs dpe skrun khang. Padma dkar po. (1973-1974) “Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i lha khrid rgyud gsum gyi snying po,” In Gsung ’bum: Padma dkar po, Vol. 11, 545-566. Darjeeling: Kargyud sungrab nyamso khang, ———. (1973-1974) Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs kyi ’grel pa sngags don rnam par bshad pa,” In Gsung ’bum: Padma dkar po, Vol. 11, 439-484. Darjeeling: Kargyud Sungrab Nyamso Khang. 161 Padma ’phrin las. (1972) Bka’ ma mdo dbang gi bla ma brgyud pa’i rnam thar. Vol. 37. Leh: Smanrtsis Shesrig Spenmdzod. Padma ’byung gnas. Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs kyi rnam par bshad pa rdo rje sgron ma (*Vajravidāraṇā-nāma-dhāraṇīvyākhyāna-vajrāloka-nāma). Tōh, 2679, Dpe bsdur ma Bstan ’gyur vol. 36 (rgyud, thu), pages 486-527. Ratnakāraśānti. Mdor bsdus pa’i sgrub thabs kyi ’grel pa rin chen phreng ba zhes bya ba (Piṇḍīkṛtasādhanopayikāvṛtt ratnāvali-nāma). Tōh. 1826, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 36 (rgyud, ci), folios 1b.1-95a.6. Sangs rgyas ’bum. Bstan ’gyur dkar chag. 81ff. BDRC no. W2C7507. Sangs rgyas gsang ba. ’Phags pa dpung bzangs kyis zhus pa’i rgyud kyi bsdus pa’i don. (Āryasubāhuparipṛcchā-nāma-tantrapiṇḍārtha). Tōh. 2671, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 71 (rgyud, thu), 38a3-54b7. ———. Bsam gtan phyi ma rim par phye ba rgya cher bshad pa (Dhyānottarapaṭalaṭīkā). Tōh. 2670, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 71 (rgyud, thu), 1b.1-38a.3. ———. Ngan song sbyong ba’i don gyi ’bru ’grel (*Durgatipariśodhanārthavyañjanavṛiti). Tōh. 2624, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 66 (rgyud, cu), 152b1-231a3. ———. Rdor rje theg pa’i lam gyis rim pa rnam par bkod pa. 62ff. Sba gsal snang. (1982) Sba bzhed ces bya la las Sba gsal snang gi bzhed pa bzhugs so. Edited by Mgon po rgyal mtshan. Chengdu: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang. Sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa. Tōh. 4347, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 204 (sna tshogs, co), folios 131b.1-160a.7. Shyuki Yoshimura, ed. (1950) The Denkar-ma: An Oldest Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons. Vol. 18. Kyoto: Ryukoku University. Smṛtijñānakīrti. (2014) “Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa zhes bya ba’i gzungs kyi ’grel pa.” In Rgyal po mdo bcu’i rtsa ’grel phyogs bsgrigs edited by Thar lam gsal sgron. Vol. 1. Chengdu: Si khron dus deb tshogs pa dang si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang. Thar lam gsal sgron, ed. (2014) Rgyal po mdo bcu’i rtsa ’grel phyogs bsgrigs. 10 Volumes. Chengdu: Si khron dus deb tshogs pa dang si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang. Vimalagupta. Dpal gsang ba ’dus pa'i rgyan zhes bya ba (Śrīguhyasamājālaṃkāra-nāma). Tōh. 1848, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 40 (rgyud, ti), folios 1b.1-152b.5. 162 Vimalamitra. Rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs zhes bya ba’i rnam par bshad pa (Vajravidāraṇā-nāma-dhāraṇīṭīkā). Tōh. 2681, Dpe bsdur ma Bstan ’gyur vol. 36 (rgyud, thu), folios 186b.1-193a.7. ———. ’Phags pa rdo rje rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs rnam par bshad pa’i rgya cher ’grel pa. (Āryavajravidhāraṇā-nāma-dhāraṇīvyākhyānabṛhaṭṭīkā). Tōh. 2682(a), Dpe bsdur ma Bstan ’gyur vol. 36 (rgyud, thu), folios 193a.7-211b.2. Ye shes rdo rje. ’Phags pa rnam par ’joms pa’i gzungs zhes bya ba’i rim par phye ba’i rgya cher ’grel ba gsal ba’i sgron ma zhes bya ba (Vajravidāraṇā-nāmadhāraṇīpaṭalakramabhāṣyavṛttipradīpa-nāma). Tōh. 2687, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur vol. 71 (rgyud, thu), folios 243b.6-269a.3. Tibetan Sources in Translation ’Gos Lotsāwa Gzhon nu dpal. 1976 (1996). The Blue Annals. Translated by George N. Roerich. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Dorjé, Nyoshul Khenpo Jamyang. (2005) A Marvelous Garland of Rare Gems: Biographies of Masters of Awareness in the Dzogchen Lineage. Translated by Richard Barron (Chökyi Nyima). Junction City: Padma Publishing. Rinpoche, Dudjom. (1991) The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism: Its Fundamentals and History. Translated by Gyurme Dorje and Matthew Kapstein. Boston: Wisdom Publications. Wangdu, Pasang and Hildegard Diemberger. (2000) Dba’ bzhed: The Royal Narrative Concerning the Bringing of the Buddha’s Doctrine to Tibet. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Yudra Nyingpo, comp. Ani Jimba Palmo, trans. (2004) The Great Image: The Life Story of Vairochana the Translator. Boston: Shambhala. Secondary Sources Attwood, Jayarava. (2014) “Escaping the Inescapable: Changes in Buddhist Karma.” Journal of Buddhist Ethics, Vol. 21:503-535. Bentor, Yael. (1996) Consecration of Images and Stūpas in Indo-Tibetan Tantric Buddhism. Vol. 11. Leiden: Brill. ———. (1995) “On the Indian Origins of the Tibetan Practice of Depositing Relics and Dhāraṇīs in Stūpas and Images.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 248–261. 163 ———. (2003) “The Content of Stūpas and Images and the Indo-Tibetan Concept of Relics.” The Tibet Journal 28, no. 1/2:21–48. Boord, Martin J. (2002.) A Bolt of Lightning from the Blue: The Vast Commentary on Vajrakīla That Clearly Defines the Essential Points. Berlin: Ed. Khordong. Braarvig, Jens. (1985) “Dhāraṇī and Pratibhāna: Memory and Eloquence of the Bodhisattvas.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, no. 8, 1: 17–30. Bronkhorst, Johannes. (2007) Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India Vol. 19 of Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section Two: India. Leiden: Brill. Bühnemann, Gudrun. (2014) “A Dhāraṇī for Each Day of the Week: The Saptavāra Tradition of the Newar Buddhists.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 77, no. 1: 119–36. Campbell, John R. B. (2009) Vajra Hermeneutics: A Study of Vajrayāna Scholasticism in the Pradīpoddyotana. PhD diss., Columbia University. Cantwell, Cathy, and Robert Mayer. (2009) “A Noble Noose of Methods, the Lotus Garland Synopsis: Methodological Issues in the Study of a Mahāyoga Text from Dunhuang.” Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5: 1–51. Copp, Paul. (2014) The Body Incantatory: Spells and the Ritual Imagination in Medieval Chinese Buddhism. New York: Columbia University Press. Dalton, Jacob P. (2004) “The Early Development of the Padmasambhava Legend in Tibet: A Study of IOL Tib J 644 and Pelliot Tibetain 307.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 759–772. ———. (2005) “A Crisis of Doxography: How Tibetans Organized Tantra during the 8th–12th Centuries.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 28, no. 1: 115– 181. ———. (2016) “How Dhāraṇīs WERE Proto-Tantric: Liturgies, Ritual Manuals, and the Origins of the Tantras.” In Tantric Traditions in Transmission and Translation, edited by David B. Gray and Ryan Richard Overbey, 199-229. New York: Oxford University Press. Davidson, Ronald M. (2002) “Gsar Ma Apocrypha: The Creation of Orthodoxy, Gray Texts, and the New Revelation.” The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism. edited by Helmut Eimer and David Germano, 203–224. Leiden: Brill. ———. (2004 [2002]) Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. 164 ———. (2005) Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture. New York: Columbia University Press. ———. (2009) “Studies in Dhāraṇī Literature I: Revisiting the Meaning of the Term Dhāraṇī.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 37, no. 2: 97–147. ———. (2012) “Some Observations on an Uṣṇīṣa Abhiṣeka Rite in Atikūṭa’s Dhāraṇīsaṃgraha.” Transformations and Transfer of Tantra: Tantrism in Asia and Beyond, 77–97. ———. (2014a) “Studies in Dhāraṇī Literature II: Pragmatics of Dhāraṇīs.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 77, no. 1: 5-61. ———. (2014b) “Studies in Dhāraṇī Literature III: Seeking the Parameters of a Dhāraṇīpiṭakam the Formation of the Dhāraṇīsaṃgrahas, and the Place of the Seven Buddhas.” In: R.K. Payne, ed., Scripture: Canon: Text: Context: Essays Honoring Lewis Lancaster, 119-180. Berkeley. ———. (2017) “Studies in Dhāraṇī Literature IV: A Nāga Altar in 5th Century India.” In Consecration Rituals in South Asia, edited by István Keul, 123-170. Leiden: Brill. DeCaroli, Robert. (2004) Haunting the Buddha: Indian Popular Religions and the Formation of Buddhism. New York: Oxford University Press. Dotson, Brandon. (2007) ““Emperor” Mu rug btsan and the ’Phang thang ma Catalogue,” in Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies Issue 3: 1-25. Edgerton, Franklin. (1953) Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary (2 vols.), Vol. 2. New Haven: Yale University Press. Ganeri, Jonardon. (2010) “Sanskrit Philosophical Commentary.” Journal of The Indian Council of Philosophical Research 27: 187–207. Germano, David. (2002) “The Seven Descents and the Early History of Rnying Ma Transmissions.” In The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, edited by Helmut Eimer and David Germano, 225–263. Brill: Leiden. ———. (2004) “Architecture and Absence in the Secret Tantric History of the Great Perfection (Rdzogs Chen).” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 17 (2): 203–335. Granoff, Phyllis. (2012) “After Sinning: Some Thoughts on Remorse, Responsibility, and the Remedies for Sin in Indian Religious Traditions.” In Sins and Sinners Perspectives from Asian Religions. Edited by Phyllis Granoff and Koichi Shinohara, 175-215. Brill: Leiden. 165 Gruber, Joel. (2016) “The Sudden and Gradual Sūtric (and Tantric?) Approaches in the Rim gyis ’jug pa and the Cig car ’jug pa,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 39:405-427. Gyatso, Janet. (1992) “Letter Magic: A Peircean Perspective on the Semiotics of Rdo Grubchen’s Dhāraṇī Memory.” in In the Mirror of Memory: Reflections on Mindfulness and Remembrance in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, 173-213. Albany: State University of New York Press. Haarh, Erik. (1969) The Yarluṅ Dynasty. Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad’s Forlag. Hackett, Paul. “The Buddhist Canons Research Database.” Accessed July 22, 2018, http://databases.aibs.columbia.edu. Hakuju Ui, Munetada Suzuki, Yenshō Kanakura, and Tōkan Tada, eds. (1934) Chibetto Daizōkyō Sōmokuroku/A Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons (Bkaḥḥgyur and Bstan-ḥgyur). Sendai: Tōhoku Imperial University. Halkias, Georgios. (2004) “Tibetan Buddhism Registered: A Catalogue from the Imperial Court of ’Phang thang.” The Eastern Buddhist 36, nos. 1-2: 46-105. Harrison, Paul. (1996) “A Brief History of the Tibetan bKa’ ’gyur.” In Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre, edited by José Ignacio Cabezón and Roger R. Jackson, 70–94. Ithaca: Snow Lion. Harrison, Paul, and Helmut Eimer. “Kanjur and Tanjur Sigla: A Proposal for Standardization.” In Transmission of the Tibetan Canon: Papers Presented at a Panel of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995, edited by Helmut Eimer, Vol. 3., xi xiv. Graz: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1995. Herrmann-Pfandt, Adelheid. (2002) “The Lhan kar ma as a Source for the History of Tantric Buddhism.” In The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Leiden 2000, edited by Helmut Eimer and David Germano, 129-49. Leiden: Brill. Hidas, Gergely. (2007) “Remarks on the use of the Dhāraṇīs and Mantras of the MahāpratisarāMahāvidyārājñī”, in Indian Languages and Texts through the Ages: Essays of Hungarian Indologists in Honour of Prof. Csaba Töttössy, edited by C. Dezsö, 185–207. Delhi. ———. (2012a) Mahāpratisarā-Mahāvidyārājñi - the Great Amulet, Great Queen of Spells: Introduction, Critical Editions and Annotated Translation, Śata-piṭaka series: Indo-Asian literatures vol. v. 636. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture and Aditya Prakashan. 166 ———. (2012b) “Rituals in the Mahāsāhasrapramardanasūtra”, in Pushpika: Tracing Ancient India through Texts and Traditions. Contributions to Current Research in Indology, vol. 1, edited by N. Mirnig et al., 225–40. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. (2015) “Dhāraṇī Sūtras.” In Brill Encyclopedia of Buddhism (BEB), vol. 1, edited by Jonathan A. Silk, et al., 129-137. Leiden: Brill. Hodge, Stephen. (2003) The Mahā-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra: With Buddhaguhya’s Commentary. London: Routledge. Hopkins, Jeffrey. (1987) Tantra in Tibet: The Great Exposition of Secret Mantra. Vol. 1. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. ———. (2009) Tantric Techniques. New York: Shambhala. Hopkins, Jeffrey, and T. Gyatso. (1981) The Yoga of Tibet. London: George Allen & Unwin. Kapstein, Matthew T. (2000) Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation and Memory. New York: Oxford University Press. Karmay, Samten Gyaltsen. (1980) “An Open Letter by Pho-Brang Zhi-Ba-’od to the Buddhists in Tibet.” The Tibet Journal V/5, no. 3:3–28. ———. (1988) The Great Perfection (rDzogs Chen): A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Lewis, Todd Thornton, Subarna Man Tuladhar, and Labh Ratna Tuladhar. (2000) Popular Buddhist Texts from Nepal: Narratives and Rituals of Newar Buddhism. New York: State University of New York Press. Lienhard, Siegfried, Wolfgang Voigt, Dieter George, and Hartmut-Ortwin Feistel. (1988) Nepalese Manuscripts. Vol. 1. Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden. Linrothe, Robert N. (1999) Ruthless Compassion: Wrathful Deities in Early Indo-Tibetan Esoteric Buddhist Art. Boston: Shambhala. Martin, Dan. “Tibskrit Philology,” last modified April 21, 2014. http://tibetologic.blogspot.in/2014/04/released-tibskrit-2014.html Mathes, Klaus-Dieter (1996). Unterscheidung der Gegebenheiten von ihrem wahren Wesen (Dharmadharmatā-vibhāga): Eine Lehrschrift der Yogācāra-Schule in tibetischer Überlieferung. Indica at Tibetica: Swisttal-Odendorf. McBride, Richard D. (2005) “Dhāraṇī and Spells in Medieval Sinitic Buddhism.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 28, no. 1: 85–114. 167 ———. (2011) “Practical Buddhist Thaumaturgy: The Great Dhāraṇī on Immaculately Pure Light in Medieval Sinitic Buddhism.” Journal of Korean Religions 2, no. 1: 33–73. Mitra, Rājendralāla. (1882 (1971) The Sanskrit Buddhist Literature of Nepal. London: Asiatic Society of Bengal. Monier-Williams, Monier. (1872 [2012]). A Sanskrit-English dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-european Languages. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Nagasawa, Jake Ernest. (2017) Buddhaguhya and his Epistle to the Ruler, his Subjects, and the Clergy of Tibet (Rje ’bangs dang bod btsun rnam la spring yig): A Biography of the Saint, a Tibetan Critical Edition of the Epistle, and its English Translation. M.A. thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara. Nance, Richard F. (2012) Speaking for Buddhas: Scriptural Commentary in Indian Buddhism. New York: Columbia University Press. Overbey, Ryan Richard. (2010) Memory, Rhetoric, and Education in the Great Lamp of the Dharma Dhāraṇī Scripture. PhD diss., Harvard University. Pagel, Ulrich. (2007) “The Dhāraṇīs of Mahāvyutpatti #748: Origin and Formation.” Buddhist Studies Review 24, no. 2: 151–191. Pollock, Sheldon. (1985) “The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory in Indian Intellectual History.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 105: 499-519. ———. (2006) The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India. Ranikhet: Permanent Black. Radich, Michael. (2011) How Ajātaśatru Was Reformed: The Domestication of “Ajase” and Stories in Buddhist History. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies. Rapson, E.J., ed. (1922) The Cambridge History of India, Volume I: Ancient India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sastri, V. A. R. (1952) “Śāstra - An Independent Pramāṇa.” Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 12: 437-441. Scherrer-Schaub, Cristina (2002). “Enacting Words. A Diplomatic Analysis of the Imperial Decrees and their Application in the Sgra sbyor bam po gñis pa Tradition,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 25, 1-2: 263-340. 168 Schoening, Jeffrey D. (1996) “Sūtra Commentaries in Tibetan Translation.” In Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre, edited by José Ignacio Cabezón and Roger R. Jackson, 111124. Ithaca: Snow Lion. Shastri, Lobsang. (2002) “Activities of Indian Paṇḍitas in Tibet from the 14th to the 17th century.” In Tibet: Past and Present, edited by Henk Blezer, 129-138. Boston: Brill. Skilling, Peter. (1992). Rakṣā Literature of the Śrāvakayāna.” Journal of the Pali Text Society 16, 109-182. ———. (1997) “From bKa’ bstan bcos to bKa’ ’gyur and bsTan ’gyur.” In Transmission of the Tibetan Canon: Papers Presented at a Panel of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995, edited by Helmut Eimer, 87-111. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Snellgrove, David. (1987) Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and Their Tibetan Successors. Boulder: Shambhala. Suzuki, Deisetz T, ed., (1961) The Tibetan Tripitaka, Peking Edition, Kept in the Library of the Otani University, Kyoto. 168 vols. Kyoto: Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute. Szántó, Péter-Dániel. (2012) “Selected Chapters from the Catuṣpīṭhatantra.” PhD diss., Oxford University. Tribe, Anthony H. (1994) “The Names of Wisdom. A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation of Chapters 1-5 of Vilāsavajra’s Commentary on the Nāmasaṃgīti, with Introduction and Textual Notes.” Ph.D. diss., Oxford University. Van Schaik, Sam. (2004) “The Early Days of the Great Perfection.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies vol. 27 no. 1: 165-206. Van Schaik, Sam, and Kazushi Iwao. (2008) “Fragments of the “Testament of Ba” from Dunhuang.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 128, no. 3: 477-487. Waddell, L. A. (1912) “The “Dharani” Cult in Buddhism; Its Origin, Deified Literature and Images.” Ostasiatische Zeitschrift vol. 1:155-195. ———. (1914) ““Dhârani,” or, Indian Buddhist protective spells”, Indian Antiquary vol. 43: 3795. Wayman, Alex. (1983) “Three Tanjur Commentators—Buddhaguhya, Ratnakarasanti, and Smrtijnanakirti.” The Tibet Journal 8, no. 3: 24–36. Wedemeyer, Christian K. (2001) “Tropes, typologies, and Turnarounds: A Brief Genealogy of the Historiography of Tantric Buddhism.” History of Religions Vol. 40, No. 3: 223-259. 169 ———. (2007) Āryadeva’s Lamp that Integrates the Practices (Caryāmelāpakapradīpa) The Gradual Path of Vajrayana Buddhism According to the Esoteric Community Noble Tradition. New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies. Weinberger, Steven Neal. (2003) “The Significance of Yoga Tantra and the Compendium of Principles (Tattvasaṃgraha Tantra) within Tantric Buddhism in India and Tibet.” Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia. Wilson, Joe Bransford. (1996) “Tibetan Commentaries on Indian Śāstras.” In Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre, edited by José Ignacio Cabezón and Roger R. Jackson, 125-137. Ithaca: Snow Lion. Wu, Juan. (2014) “Violence, Virtue and Spiritual Liberation: A Preliminary Survey of Buddhist and Jaina Stories of Future Rebirths of Śreṇika Bimbisāra and Kūṇika Ajātaśatru.” Religions of South Asia 8.2:149-179. 170