A fragment from Vanaratna's Acalābhisamaya
Perhaps some of you will be interested that this work, the ``Acalābhisamayaḥ hṛṣṭābhidhāna'' (obviously not the original title but a Tibetan reconstruction, see Tōh. 1783), survives for the most part (ff. 2-9 out of probably not more than 10) as Göttingen Xc14/40b. Unfortunately the pictures are not very clear.
This completes the identification of works contained in Xc14/40 (40a has long been known as perhaps the oldest ms. of the Kriyāsamuccaya), since Kazuo Kano in 2004 and 2005 has established that 40c is a fragment from the *Suvarṇavarṇāvadāna. You can read about that in the following articles:
- Kazuo Kano, ``Göttingen shozō no Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana satsuei bonbun shahon Xc14/1, Xc14/57 ni tsuite'' (The Photocopies of Sanskrit Manuscripts Photographed by Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana preserved in Göttingen, Xc14/1 and Xc14/57). Mikkyō Bunka 212 (2004) 35-54.
- Kazuo Kano, ``Two folios from Sthiramati's Triṃśikābhāṣya in Sanskrit Photographed by Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana: Diplomatic and Critical Editions of Göttingen Xc14/1e''. WZKS XLIX (2005) 113-149.
Labels: Acala, Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇa, Göttingen, manuscripts, Sanskrit, tantric studies, Thaṃ bahi, Vanaratna, yoginītantra
posted by PDSz | 8:01 pm
14 Comments:
It's remarkable that these findings were published, as opposed to just rotting away on a hard drive, which is surely the more sensible approach. A few words on the relationship of the Acalābhisamaya to Newar Buddhism could have been said, but who gets points for that? We scholars deal with Great Traditions -- India-Tibet, not some Himalayan backwater.
Would be great if one could say a few words on how this abhisamaya was important in Newar Buddhism (certainly _not_ a backwater, whoever said that). But the fact is I don't know what the relationship is. For the time being I only see some strong resemblances between this saadhana and the Vajrasattvasaadhana of Candrakiirti, but the model could of course be much earlier. Any thoughts?
and incidentally, such remarks could be the first post in a renewed, sorely missed blog. hint hint.
For the time being I only see some
strong resemblances between this
saadhana and the Vajrasattvasaadhana of Candrakiirti, but the model could of course be much earlier.
Indeed much could be written about this work of Vanaratna's, and there is much to study here, from several aspects. To mention just one more: there is a rather striking echo of the Abhiṣekanirukti, which was of course of considerable interest to me (though not something that is all that surprising; we know after all that Vanaratna read, and indeed made a personal copy of that fascinating work).
H.I.
One thing to add is that all three titles in the codex might have been not only copied in Nepal, but also composed there. But this takes a bit of work to show. And I have to remind myself that it is pointless to get hot under the collar about people missing these connections, because Newar Buddhism is simply not part of anyone's curriculum in the Western world (I know of just one semi-regular class), and moreover can remain quite opaque even in situ. That's easy to overlook.
One thing to add is that all three titles in the codex might have been not only copied in Nepal, but also composed there. But this takes a bit of work to show.
'a bit of work', indeed, though it may be possible to show at least that that provenance is very probable. More generally, there are quite a few works for which one may suspect composition in Nepal, without being able to do more, at the moment, than show that that is quite plausible. Perhaps relevant to these matters, let me point out, since it has not yet been pointed out by our kind 'host', PDSz, that, though it would be perfectly possible of course to compose an abhisamaya of Acala without drawing from, or knowing, the Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇatantra, that is not the case here: Vanaratna's work does make it absolutely clear that he had studied that tantra. H.I.
Many thanks to the commentators! Indeed, the Nepalese provenance does seem plausible. Another point that should be touched on is the palaeography of this particular work. It looks (at least to me) like a `Bengali hand', and if HI is right about the Vanaratna codex, then this is not Vanaratna's handwriting. The corruptions (which are identifiable even after a cursory reading) make it likely that it is not an autograph. Could this be the work of a Bengali student of his? We'll probably never know, but it's worth keeping in mind.
As for Bengalis studying `Nepalese' tantras: we can add this to Ratnarakṣita's study of the Samvarodaya. Would be interesting to know what they thought about discovering tantras that were not known to them in the Valley. Apparently, issues of `authenticity' did not arise: Vanaratna composes the Abhisamaya and quotes the CMT, Ratnarakṣita comments on the SU. It's quite obvious that they did not think of Nepal as a backwater either... And once more: Atīśa was also supposed to have praised some rNying ma tantras he saw in Tibet (I have to follow up on this though).
This to me was slightly surprising. I would have expected more conflict, rivalry, issues of authenticity, etc. But that is perhaps only because I grew up with Tibetan stuff?
Sorry about all this rambling. It's been a long day.
It looks (at least to me) like a `Bengali hand', and if HI is right about the Vanaratna codex, then this is not Vanaratna's handwriting.The corruptions (which are identifiable even after a cursory reading) make it likely that it is not an autograph.
Certainly not an autograph, so it is not surprising at all that the writing is very different from that which we have strong grounds for identifying as Vanaratna's own. Palaeography: I am not at all an expert. But for the very little that it is worth, my impression is a bit different; I would think that this is not the hand of a Bengali, or if it is, it is of a Bengali who had a very different educational background than Vanaratna, and who spent some of his formative years in Nepal. Note e.g., that the scribe regularly uses Newari style medial -e and -o, though I suppose less frequently than he has the pṛṣṭhamātra-style ones. Note also the letter-numerals---I would guess that both folio numerations are by the original scribe. Or again the 'hook' with which he writes the la.
But all of this I should rather leave discussion of to someone with better understanding of palaeography and its development.
We certainly could use a systematic study of the various types of hand which we find with apparent mixtures of Nepalese and other features. I suspect that the variety of hands that was written in Nepal used to be rather great.
H.I.
It is hard to see why issues of authenticity would arise, given that this particular tantric tradition (which is one of the two most active in Nepal) was at the time being practiced and propagated extensively enough for Vanaratna to know about it. More generally, 'Indians' do not seem to have been predisposed to overtly questioning the authenticity of such traditions in Nepal or anywhere else they happened to be visiting. This is not just because as visitors, they were reluctant to criticise their hosts (which is of course considered poor form in many cultures), nor because, as visitors, they were in an inherently precarious position (as Buddhist monks in Hindu-ruled lands, especially so). There were, and still are, serious practical and theoretical difficulties with imposing some ideal of canonicity, i.e., authenticity, in the pan-Indian tradition.
Outside the region, for those who had availed themselves of print technology (tantric Buddhists were among the earliest in history to have done so) or had tied themselves to some local sectarian ideology, it was more advantageous to confect and enforce such ideals in their own neighbourhoods. But serious problems arise when these groups try to affirm their proprietary systems over some Indic tradition such as that of the Newars. (1) It's hard to establish what the 'opponent' is actually doing, especially in a place like Nepal where Buddhists instinctively give away as little as possible and admit as few outsiders as possible. (2) Since it is a tantric tradition that functions only in connection with a body of largely unwritten expertise, problems of access are compounded massively: even if you breach secrecy to an extent and lay hands on the texts, that doesn't mean that you know what is actually going on. (3) You face the same problem as Theravadin missionaries with their Pali canon: you are unable to test your proprietary ideas in debate without being fluent in the local idiom, which tends to presuppose (1) and (2). At the very least it requires departure from a comfortable vernacular and the parochial thinking it encodes, and the considerable effort that goes with that. (4) Even if you succeed in calling into question a text or associated practice that you have somehow managed to understand at the required level, you then have to establish the attractiveness of your own alternative, in an environment which might be inappropriate and/or unreceptive.
Over the past three or four centuries, there has been no shortage of outsiders coming to Nepal and telling them how inauthentic their Buddhism is. And in the past few decades, as the tradition has come under unprecedented pressure, they have found a handful of people who were even willing to listen. But by and large their impact was, and still is, extremely marginal. In any case, Vanaratna does not seem to be the kind of person who harangued his associates with some noxious vision of the One True Buddhism. Rather, he seems to have been a keen and interested observer, as well as someone who could fit in and make a contribution, which he ultimately did -- at the very least, enriching the Newars' (and Tibetans') corpus with his learned writings, quite apart from his finding a niche in the Newar Buddhist community, commanding respect all the way up to the level of the local king (who is apparently depicted, by the way, in the painting you linked to) -- no small feat in itself.
Many thanks for the insightful comments. This is the reason why it is worth running this blog.
There were, and still are, serious practical and theoretical difficulties with imposing some ideal of canonicity, i.e., authenticity, in the pan-Indian tradition.
Outside the region, for those who had availed themselves of print technology (tantric Buddhists were among the earliest in history to have done so) or had tied themselves to some local sectarian ideology, it was more advantageous to confect and enforce such ideals in their own neighbourhoods.
Yes; and one might add that it is a quite different thing to try to differentiate on the basis of a relatively clearcut criterium 'was this Tibetan-language tantra translated from an Indic original or not?' (however difficult that may be, practically, in some cases, to establish with some degree of certainty), than to differentiate, in an Indic cultural environment, between tantras which are all written in Sanskrit (or some kind of Indic anyway...), labeling one as inauthentic while accepting another (in many respects very similar, and sometimes sharing some text in common with the 'inauthentic' one) as one of the highest of scriptures. Of course we do have evidence of such attempts to distinguish between authentic and inauthentic tantras within 'India', but they are relatively rare. And note the veiled manner in which Ratnākaraśānti drops his hints, in his Hevajra commentary, that the Kālacakratantra (almost certainly; but without mentioning it by name!) is not to be relied on.
In any case, Vanaratna does not seem to be the kind of person who harangued his associates with some noxious vision of the One True Buddhism. Rather, he seems to have been a keen and interested observer...
The 'Vanaratna Codex' shows that Vanaratna, greatly honoured as he was in Tibet, with his initiations, transmissions, and instructions sought after by distinguished Tibetans, was ready to accept in his turn teachings from a Tibetan, and to put in the time and effort to translate some of them into Sanskrit. Most definitely someone open to learning new things from other Buddhists, even with quite different cultural backgrounds...
H.I.
"And note the veiled manner in which Ratnākaraśānti drops his hints, in his Hevajra commentary, that the Kālacakratantra (almost certainly; but without mentioning it by name!) is not to be relied on."
Dear H.I.: some examples would be greatly appreciated!
some examples would be greatly appreciated!
In my opinion the implied/intended criticism of the Kālacakra starts right on f. 1v (to avoid that modern expression 'on page 1'). The 'he who claims that the Buddha taught what the Buddha in fact did not teach', and who is therefore a maligner of the Tathāgata (and will no doubt suffer the consequences of that), is, I think, the proponent of the Kālacakra.
I should perhaps mention that this opinion of mine differs from that of one H.I., expressed in some papers written about a decade ago or so. Having studied R's commentaries a decade or so longer than the author of those papers, and come to slightly different conclusions, I beg to differ. (Those papers themselves already show, I suppose I should admit, trying to be fair, some slight development regarding this point, in what I think is the right direction). In other words, I think that the claim made by some Tibetan authors, that R is one of the learned people referred to by Abhayākaragupta who found fault with the KCT and associated literature, is very likely to be correct.
A close comparison of R's HT-commentary with the commentary by Vajragarbha (perhaps R would have preferred that I put that name in scare-quotes) is somewhat revealing. I see one very significant motive for R to write his Muktāvalī to have been to counter or rectify, as R might have seen it, Vajragarbha's Kālacakra-based/related interpretations.
I understand some passages in other commentaries by R too as containing veiled digs at the Kālacakra literature/authors, by the way.
But 'refuting' the remarks on this subject in the papers I referred to would require a discussion which the margin of this blog is I think too small to contain... Not that I wish to imply mathematical precision; in any event we can do no more than make a strong case, in the matters that we deal with, not provide a proof in the mathematical sense. So the 'almost certainly' of my earlier comment is to be taken as an expression of my evaluation that the evidence that R knew the KCT and the early literature associated with, and regarded them with great suspicion, though rather indirect evidence—which I think is a consequence of R deliberately veiling his criticism—is, taken together and considered carefully, very persuasive.
Apologies for using so much of your margin, or comment space or whatever it is called. Thanks again for the post and for hosting discussion.
H.I.
You should list the latest work on the Tibetan calendar coming out of Cambridge University on the Tibetan calendar. It's quite groundbreaking and is being constantly updated. There's a scholar there named Jacqueline Hobbs who looks at the politics of the calendar in Amdo and its link to all the time-reckoning systems in Tibet, India, Mongolia and China. Her main page of academic work is http://www.jacquelinehobbs.com/p/academic.html
Her third PhD chapter on the contradictions between Lhasa and Labrang is actually the most interesting but it won't go up til later next year I heard ...
Post a Comment
<< Home