Vilāsavajra's Jñānapāda quotation traced

This has been giving me headaches for a while. As already noted by Anthony Tribe in his thesis (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, Oxford 1994), Vilāsavajra quotes Jñānapāda in his Nāmamantrārthāvalokinī, but the verse - to the best of my knowledge (but I'm woefully behind with secondary literature) - remains untraced. Here is the śloka in question (given by Tribe on p. 16 from his Ms. B = NGMPP E 360/16, f. 58r):

tathā coktaṃ Jñānapādaiḥ | 

sambodhicittam utpādya mahāmaitrīprayogataḥ | 
sarvadharmā nirātmāna iti jñātvā vimucyata iti ||

A slight correction based on the Cambridge ms. (Add. 1708, f. 81v): mahāmaitrī- rather than mahāmaitrīṃ . 

I have browsed through most of Jñānapāda's works, but could not find this verse. Well, it turns out I was looking in the wrong place. This is not from Jñānapāda's Tantric works, but from one placed among the Madhyamaka texts in the Tibetan Canon, the Mahāyānalakṣaṇasamuccaya (Tōh. 3905). This is actually the opening verse:

byang chub yang dag sems bskyed pa'i |

byams pa chen po'i sbyor ba ste |

chos rnams thams cad bdag med pa'i |

zhes bya ye shes mngon par brjod || 

Something has gone terribly wrong with the fourth quarter, but on the whole I would call this a good match.


UPDATE: a fragment of the Mahāyānalakṣaṇasamuccaya is extant in Sanskrit, see Yoshiyasu Yonezawa, "Sanskrit Fragment of the Mahāyānalakṣaṇasamuccaya". In: Journal of Research Society of Buddhism and Cultural Heritage No.7, 1998, 36-65. The Japanese scholar notes that the verse was already noted and transcribed by Sāṅkṛtyāyana (1937:40, n. 4). The reading adopted in these publications is iti jñātvā 'dhimucyate. (Thanks to Harunaga Isaacson and Ryugen Tanemura for the article.)

Tsong kha pa's definition of man ngag (upadeśa)

Ever wondered what those mysterious "oral teachings" are? Are they things that are never ever revealed anywhere in writing? Apparently not, at least that is what Tsong kha pa seems to think.


de'i phyir man ngag ni | rtsa rgyud rnams kyi don bshad rgyud kyi rjes su 'brangs nas phyin ci ma log par bshad de slob ma'i rgyud la go ba bde blag tu skyed pa'i thabs la zer bas zhal las shes lugs kyang de ltar du go bar bya yi | rgyud rnams su bri bar phangs nas de dag tu ma bkod par rna khung du rim pa bzhin brgyud pa la mi gzung ngo ||

Sngags rim chen mo (Mtsho sngon ed., p. 436)

Ganden (Dga' ldan) in 2006

Mahāpratisarā Mahāvidyārājñī (Hidas 2011)

After many years of work, the critical edition of the Mahāpratisarā ("The Great Amulet, Great Queen of Spells") is finally out as the 636th volume of the Śatapiṭaka series.

Nāgabuddhi's Vyavastholi[kā] sect. 1 ed. by Kimiaki Tanaka

In case you missed it (as I have), here is a link to an article by Dr. Kimiaki Tanaka in which he edits the first section of a very important work from the Guhyasamāja tradition. The English abstract pretty much puts everything into perspective, so there is no need to repeat the background information here.

Two words about the name of the author and the title. The Japanese scholar in his earlier articles rather constantly referred to him as Nāgabodhi. This is based on the Tibetan rendering of the name, Klu'i byang chub. However, at one point it was noticed (sorry for not looking up the exact date) that the work from which Tanaka reconstructed much of Nāgabodhi's ouvre, the Vajrācāyanayottama of Rāhulagupta, does mention the name in the form Nāgabuddhi. I prefer to mention him in this form, however, it should be kept in mind that the Vajrācāryanayottama is a rather late work, and it is possible that the name is not the 'original', but a corrupted form. Earlier works mentioning this author must be awaited to settle this question.

As for the title, Dr. Tanaka consistently prints [Samājasādhana]vyavasthālī, although he does note that it is usually spelt Vyavastholi (e.g. the first verse has Vyavastholir nigadyate). It is to be noted that a later authority, the Gūḍhapadā, has a similar form: Vyavastholikā[yāṃ] (ms. 50v). While the first form is doubtless the 'correct' Sanskrit, it cannot be an accident that the Middle-Indic form pops up this often and it should probably be retained, especially as there does not seem to be any semantic difference.

If you have ever tried your luck with what seems to be the single surviving manuscript of this work (more precisely: the photographs thereof in Göttingen), you will know what an arduous task it is to make any sense of some of the blurry photographs Rahula Sankrtyayana took. We must therefore be extremely grateful to Dr. Tanaka for undertaking this work. In what follows I will try to offer some readings that might help to constitute a better text. This is in no way meant to criticize the edition (based on which I corrected countless mistakes in my own partial transcription).

p. 451 (48): tato yogānuyogātiyogamahāyogāḥ krameṇa mahāvajradharam ātmānaṃ niṣpādya ... It is probably better to read the visarga as -nu-, therefore: ... -mahāyogānukrameṇa ...

p. 449 (50): for syandante it is perhaps better to read spandante, and correct varddhamānā to varddhamānāḥ.

p. 442 (57): for yāvad āyanti sāmagrīn na labhate ... we should perhaps read: yāvad utpattisāmagrīn na labhate. In the same sentence we are probably dealing with clumsy scribal punctuation, hence for ... tiṣṭhatīti niścayam āha| we should read ... tiṣṭhatīti niścaya āha, that is to say: tiṣṭhatīti niścaya[ḥ| ]āha| with the āha introducing a new question by the disciple.

p. 441 (58): I wonder if we should conjecture idam idānīntanaṃ madīyakalevaram... for idānīn taṃ madīyaṃ kalevaram...

p. 441 (58) - 440 (59): anenotpattikramabhāvakair sā yogānuyogakrameṇa niṣpannadevatāmūrtir deśayati does not seem to yield any sense. I think we should rather read: anenotpattikramabhāvukānāṃ yogānuyogakrameṇa niṣpannadevatāmūrtiṃ deśayati| 

p. 440 (59): for manuṣyāṇām arthaḥ kartun na śaknuta iti kṛtvā it would be better to read manuṣyāṇām arthaḥ kartuṃ na śakyata iti kṛtvā. On the same page we have: tathā 'ntarābhavastho 'pi saptāhātyaye(=je) nānādisvavikalpavāsanāprabandhodbhūtakarmaṇā saṃcodite saty utpatti gṛhṇāty ... Better read tathāntarābhavam api saptāhāt [saṃ?]tyajya anādisvavikalpavāsanāprabandhodbhūtakarmaṇā saṃcodita utpattiṃ gṛhnāty ...? [later add.: make sure you read the first comment for this]

p. 435 (64): for punsān read pumān.

Sources of the Sampuṭa/Sampuṭodbhava

I greatly enjoyed the conference at LIRI. Here are some images from my handout.

Did Vajrapāṇi pass gas?

The short answer is: he did not. So why do we think he did?

"Even more dramatic is the Bhūtaḍamara [sic!], which begins with the sly Śiva requesting that Vajrapāṇi kill all the evil ones in the world, a category that normally includes Śiva himself. However, Vajrapāṇi agrees that this is a good idea and instantly slaughters all the other gods (Indra, Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and other available deities), whom he immediately revives with an enormous passing of gas from his anus, a hilarious transformation of the gods into an object of farce." [Ronald Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism, p. 333] 

Let us look at the incriminating passage in the Derge Kanjur (vol. Dza, 238a3-7, but I quote only the end):

de nas gsungs pa tsam gyis dpal Rdo rje 'chang gi shangs kyi bu ga nas rlung chen po ro 'tsho bar byed pa byung bar gyur te | [...]

A 'b' seems to make quite a lot of difference here. The reading is shangs, which of course means nostril, as opposed to bshangs, excrement. This is a small emendation then, but the note to the sentence (ibid. p. 416) does not tell us so (incidentally, the note again has Bhūtaḍamara).

Let us look at the Sanskrit then, before accusing Vajrapāṇi of uncouth behaviour:

athāsmin bhāṣita{|}mātre śrīvajradhara [=dharo] nāsikāt {||} mahāpavana[ṃ] mṛtasaṃji[¯]vani[ṃ] nisṛ[jati] sma || (Kaiser Library 244 = NGMPP C 27/3, 2r)

athāsmin bhāṣitamātre śrīvajradharanāsikātaḥ mahāpavana [=pavano] mṛtasaṃjīvanī niścarati | (Göttingen Xc 14/50 [1], 1v)

We could of course argue what emendations to propose. These are ad hoc, I have not studied the grammatical peculiarities of the Bhūtaḍāmara. The important bit is 'nāsikāt' and 'nāsikātaḥ', which both mean 'from the nostril'. Emitting 'wind' from the nostril to revive the dead is well-attested elsewhere (e.g. the Catuṣpīṭha 1.2.), but we do not have to go into that here. Vajrapāṇi can therefore be exonerated.

Yes, those are flames. Image borrowed from here.

Tsongkhapa vs. Nepalese vajrācāryas

This rather catty remark comes from the fifth chapter of the Sngags rim chen mo (p. 192)*:

phyag dang sems bskyed pa'i yul gyi sems can so so ba rnams dang nga rgyal gzung ba dang bka' bsgo ba'i yul la sogs pa la so so'i nyams bton pa'i gar mang po byed pa Phreng ba'i lugs su 'dod pa ni| Phreng ba dang Man snye dang Kha sbyor gyi 'grel pa gzhan gnyis dang Sgyu dra'i 'grel pa gnyis la sogs pa'i gzhung khungs thub sus kyang ma bshad pas| spros pa la dga' ba'i bod [pa] 'ga' zhig gis bal po'i sngags pa mi mkhas pa kha cig la brten nas rang gi blos btags pa tsam du zad do|| 

*Rgyal ba khyab bdag rdo rje 'chang chen po'i lam gyi rim pa gsang ba kun gyi gnad rnam par phye ba, Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang 1995, based on the Sku 'bum Byams pa gling blocks.

A minimalist's Pratipattisāraśataka

The second half of the Pratipattisāraśataka survives in the codex specified below. I know of no other available manuscripts for this work and as far as I know this fragment has not hitherto received any attention. The author is reputedly (an) Āryadeva*; for the Tibetan see Tōh. 2334; for a commentary by one Herukadeva see Tōh. 2335. The emendations offered here are of an ad-hoc nature, they do not reflect a deep reading of the text, or the translation, or the commentary.

*For the time being I distinguish three Āryadevas: i) the author of the CMP and perhaps the CVP; ii) the Catuṣpīṭha Āryadeva with several works; iii) the present, post-Hevajra Āryadeva. 


National Archives Kathmandu I-1697 vi bauddhastotra 14 [= NGMPP B 24/27]
Ff. 3 (numbered 4 to 6), 30 x 6 cm, palm-leaf, Gauḍīya script (12-13th c.?).

[ ] - presumably missing 
{ } - to be deleted 
< > - addition in ms. 
<| |> cancellation in ms.
(( )) difficult to read, suggestions welcome
x = number of missing verses / illegible akṣara
gemination, homorganic nasals standardized

Image from here.

[ya](4recto1)t prajñopā[ya]yor aik[y]aṃ sarvākāraikasamvaram|
sāvadhūtī vidhūtātmā madhyamā pratipat [= pratipan] matā|| x+1

ādimadhyāntasaṃkalpasambandhānavadhonataḥ|
śuddhasphaṭikasaṃkāśaḥ prakā(4recto2)śaḥ sāvadhūtikā|| x+2

sarvākārasamākārapratyavekṣāvilakṣaṇā|
lakṣ[y]alakṣaṇasaṃkṣiptākāraikam avadhūtikā|| x+3

yatrānando gaganamahimādhīnasambodhaśuddhaḥ
sa(4recto3)rvākāropacitasakalābhogasambhogagamyaḥ|
bhāvagrāmaḥ samarasatayā svapnanirmāṇatulyaḥ
śāntājñānāvaraṇavi[´]sadā sāvadhūtī viśuddhā{ḥ}|| x+4

dha(4recto4)rmasambhoganirmāṇamahāsukham iti kramaḥ|
mahāsukhasvabhāvena samaṃ cakracatuṣṭayam|| x+5

saṃkhyāpi kalpanārūḍhā saṃkhyeyānavadhonataḥ|
dvayor e(4recto5)va viyogātmā samarasyā'mbaropamaḥ|| x+6

vyomny upādhibhedo [']pi nirvikāratayā na hi|
nānātṛṇatarau dagdhe vane kiṃ bhedalakṣaṇam|| x+7

tattvāsadṛśa(4recto6)rūpatvaṃ saṃvṛto bhedadarśanam|
saṃvṛttir yatra naivāsti tatra kā paramārthatā|| x+8

bhāvā eva svarūpeṇa niḥsvabhāvā iti sthiti[ḥ]|
na hi vandhyāsutādīnā[ṃ] svarūpasya vicāra(4recto7)ṇā|| x+9

aparam api yatroddiśyate sūkṣmarūpaṃ 
na bhavati khalu tattvaṃ deśanāmātram etat|
paramasukha<|ka|>rasaikasvacchasantānabhāsaṃ
sphuradanubhavasāraṃ tattvam ālambya (4verso1) śūnyam|| x+10

ni[ḥ]svabhāvāḥ svarūpeṇa bhāvāḥ kalpitarūpakāḥ|
prakṛtiḥ sarvadharmāṇāṃ ye cāsau niḥsvabhāvatā|| x+11

svecchāyattasamāveśavāsanābalaviplutāḥ|
vi(4verso2)kalpyate tu jāyante bāhya[¯]rthaphalitā iva|| x+12

aho viṣayavaicitryam ekakālam anekadhā|
kadambavādyadhvanivat kalpanām anugacchati|| x+13

ekasminn eva bhāve (4verso3) ca nānākārārthakalpanā|
na tasyāsti tadātmatvam icchā[mā]tropakalpit<|e|>am|| x+14

icchāpi bhrāntacittānām avastuny api jāyate|
pūrvapūrvamanaskārasaṃ(4verso4)skāraphalitātmikā|| x+15

svarūpānavabodhena cittaṃ bāhyeṣu dhāvati|
bālakasyaiva duṣparśa [= duḥsparśaḥ] svayaṃ spṛṣṭāni duṣyati|| x+16

tac cittaṃ kalpitākāraṃ bahi(4verso5)rarthaś ca kalpitaḥ|
anayoḥ kalpanāhānā[t] kalpitā gaganātmikā|| x+17

ajñānena hi bhāvānāṃ svarūpaṃ bimbabhāvatā|
[s]a[j]jñānena hi bhāvānāṃ svarū(4verso6)paṃ niḥsvabhāvatā|| x+18

niḥsvabhāveṣu dharmeṣu svacchandaṃ kriyate 'khilam|
kriyāptās tu vibhajyante kārak<|au|>opamatādṛśam|| x+19

kriyākārakasambandhaḥ kalpanāveśabhedi(4verso7)taḥ|
na kriyā kārako nāpi svarūpasyāvabodhataḥ|| x+20

na kāryaṃ vidyate kiṃcit kārako [']pi sa tādṛśaḥ
saṃketamātralabdho 'yaṃ karotīti [sa] kārakaḥ|| x+21

niḥsva(5recto1)bhāveṣu dharmeṣu heyopādeyatā kutaḥ|
svapneṣu se[!]mastadharmeṣu heyopādeyatā yathā|| x+22

sarvāḥ pāramitās tasmāt sevitavyā[ḥ] samantataḥ|
sarvā[!]pāramitājñānaṃ prajñā(5recto2)pāramitā nanu|| x+23

saiva cittam anābhogaṃ nirupādhi nirañjanam|
nirindriya[ṃ] nirādhāraṃ nirākāraṃ nirākulam|| x+24

pañca pāramitā etā ānande[=ai]karasātmikāḥ|
ānanda(5recto3)sya parijñānaṃ prajñāpāramitottamā|| x+25

ānanda[ṃ] phalam āsāṃ tu bodho [']sau niḥsvabhāvatā|
dvayo[r] nirbharanirbhinnaṃ ratir eva mahāsukham|| x+26

prajñākaruṇayo(5recto4)r aikyaṃ pradīpālokayor iva|
prajñākaruṇayor bhedaḥ pradīpālokayor iva{ḥ}|| x+27

idaṃ dvayam abhinnātmā cittasyaikarūpakam|
prajñopāyātmakaṃ tena cittaṃ (5recto5) Hevajrarūpakam|| x+28

ānando [']pi nirālambas tadbodho [']pi sa tādṛśaḥ|
evaṃ Hevajrarūpeṇa niḥśeṣam avibhāvitaḥ|| x+29

yoginyaḥ kalpanāḥ sarvā maṇḍalaṃ bhu(5recto6)vanatrayam|
tatra krīḍati Hevajro mahāsukharasotsavaiḥ|| x+30

bhuñja[¯]no ramamāno [']pi śayāno [']pi <| | |> hasann api|
[tat?]tadyogasamāyogād yogī Hevajrapūjakaḥ|| x+31

niḥśaṅke[=śaṅko] (5recto7) vicared yogī sarvabhāveṣu sarvadā|
nirlepaḥ paṅkamadhye [']pi saṃsāre nirvṛtāyate|| x+32

māyāvinirmitaśateṣu yathaiva tajjñaḥ
khedapramodasamatāsakalapracā(5verso1)raḥ|
nirbhī bhayaṃkaraśate [']pi sukhodaye [']pi
yogī tathaiva tathatānugatasvabhāvaḥ|| x+33

na bhāvyaṃ yūthagatrāsti[?] bhāv<|o|>ako [']pi na kaścana|
bhāvanāpi dvayā<|bhyā|>bhāvāt kevalaṃ sa(5verso2)matā gatiḥ|| x+34

dvayākāraparityāgabhā<| | |>gābhāgavibhā<| x |>gitam|
sattāmātraparijñānaṃ bhāvanā naiva duṣyati|| x+35

mantrajāpādayo ye te samataikasvarūpiṇaḥ|
atas te (5verso3) [']pi na bādhyante sahajaṃ hi jagat [=jagan] matam|| x+36

deho dbhantir[?] manaś ceti hūṃkāratritayātmakaḥ|
dhvanat[?]saṃkalpa[saṃ]mūḍhān niḥsaṅgo Herukopamaḥ|| x+37

kalpanāvṛ(5verso4)ttim āskandya yad a[ka]lpitadarśanam|
rah{as}as tad eva te mantrāḥ sarvasiddhipradāyakāḥ|| x+38

svapnopameṣu dharmeṣu yathā vāco [']pi pe[´]salā|
mukhayanti tathā (5verso5) mantrāḥ śāntikādau niyojitāḥ|| x+39

vastuśaktisvabhāvo [']yaṃ saṃvṛttāv api dṛśyate|
saṃvṛttivyatirekena kā nāma paramārthatā|| x+40

na kāṣṭhādima(5verso6)yatvena buddhabimbeṣu heyatā|
svabhāvaṃ budhyamānasya tatpraṇāmo na duṣyati|| x+41

mṛdādimayabimbāni na name[t] sahajātmakaḥ|
sahajasyāvabodhe hi tatpraṇāmo (5verso7) niruttaraḥ|| x+42

dharmadhātusvarūpatvaṃ trayā[.]nām api tanmayam|
tathāpi svapnanirmāṇasamāno [']sau balikramaḥ|| x+43

tathatārūpanirbhinnatraidhātukaikasaṃvidām|
sa<|ṃ|> yo(6recto1)ginām avacchinna ānande [']pi mahābaliḥ|| x+44

yāvanto bodhisambhārās tāvanto [']traiva nirmalāḥ|
prajñāpāramitā śuddhir anuttaraphalaṃ yataḥ|| x+45

pratiṣṭhāhomayāgādi(6recto2)kriyāḥ sarvāś ca nirmalāḥ|
prajñopāya{¯}samāyogāt kṛtaṃ sambodhisādhanam|| x+46

saiva samastabuddhānā[ṃ] pratiṣṭhāpi niruttarā{ḥ}|
nirbhinnākārasamvittau Vajrasattva(6recto3)sya yā sthitiḥ|| x+47

yāvantaḥ sukhasambhārāḥ krīḍāsaṃbhūtahetavaḥ|
tāvanto 'nubhavann evaṃ yogī sambhārapūrakaḥ|| x+48

ullasannasanno rambhā[?] j[val]atkeśa(6recto4)racāruṇā|
padmenācintyayogātmā pūjayet kuliśeśvaram|| x+49

rūpādipañcakāpoya[=āropa?]bhakṣaṇaṃ samayo mahān|
tadviśuddhyā viśuddhaṃ hi sarvaṃ sambo(6recto5)dhisādhanam|| x+50

kalpanāyā nirāsena nādhimokṣasya saṃbhava[ḥ |]
svasamvedyam idaṃ tena [s]phuṭābhaṃ ca mahāsukham|| x+51

pīyūṣeṇaiva tṛpyante kecit tatkatha(6recto6)ne[na] ca|
rasavīryavipākas tu pratyakṣānubhavātmakaḥ|| x+52

sālambe kena rajyante rūpāḍambarasa[ṃ]vare|
nirālambe nimajjante<|o|> viralās te tu sattamā[ḥ]|| x+53

kecit śūnyata(6recto7)yā [= kecic chūnya˚] mugdhāḥ kecin nītiparākramāḥ|
kecit mahā[=kecin mahā˚]sukhollāsabhāsino 'traiva yoginaḥ|| x+54

kṛtvā prasādasaralaṃ pratipat[t]isāra[ṃ]
labdho mayā ya iha puṇyavi(6verso1)śuddharā[´]siḥ|
loko [']stu tena paridhūya vikalpajālaṃ
saṃbodhisaṃbhūtiparaḥ pratipattisāram<|ḥ|> [?]|| x+55

dṛṣṭāntaikarasātimūḍhamanasāṃ dārṣṭāntikadyotane
[?] vidye (6verso2) sphuṭam uttarottaragatau prajñānayo yady api|
labdho[d]deśam ananyabodhakalitaṃ tantrāntarā vajriṇas
tadvittipratipattisāraśatakaṃ śrīHerukenoditam ||   @   || x+56

(6verso3) pratipattisāraśatakaṃ samāptam||   @   ||

kṛtir iyaṃ Āryadevapādānām iti||

Mahāpratisarāvidyāvidhi published

As an update to an earlier post I am glad to announce that the text is now published by Dr. Gergely Hidas in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung. Volume 63 (4), 473–484 (2010).

The date of the Gūḍhapadā (updated)

Much can be said of the Gūḍhapadā, and doubtless much will be said once we get down to work on this massive (180-folio!) commentary on the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṅgīti [henceforth MNS]. The only known ms. of this work is kept at the Royal Asiatic Society as no. Hodgson 34. There is no Tibetan translation, or if there is, it is certainly not canonical. The author is named as one Advayavakra(!), perhaps a slip for Advayavajra. The colophon (see the image) says that 'he came here, to Kashmir'.

Until today I thought that the work had gained little currency (only one ms. survives, no Tibetan translation) and was not at all influential (nobody seems to mention it or quote from it). I am happy to report that I was very wrong.

Leafing through the so-called Vanaratna codex (see Isaacson 2008) I noticed that the colophon (40r) of the Amṛtakaṇikā (henceforth AK), Raviśrī's commentary on the MNS,  contains two verses not attested elsewhere (that is to say the mss. used in the Sarnath edition and the Cambridge ms., Add. 1108/13). I am not very familiar with the script, so I will not give the full reading, only pāda b of the first verse, which says:

'ślāghyā* gūḍhapadāśritādbhutabṛhatkāśmīrapañjī sakhā(?)'

[*make sure you read the comments by HI on how to construe this]

In other words Raviśrī not only mentions the title, but also tells us that it is a Kashmirian work. Moreover, he seems to have been a fan ('ślāghyā'* [see above]), and openly admits to have drawn upon it. Oh, and he also says that the work is 'massive'. Everything seems to match.

As far as I know Raviśrī's dates are not settled with satisfying certainty. However, he must precede roughly 1200 CE, because the Uddyota, Vibhūticandra's sub-commentary to the AK, by definition must have been written after the AK. The mahāpaṇḍita came to Tibet for the first time in 1204 (see Stearns 1996), therefore Raviśrī should roughly date to the middle/second half of the twelfth century or before.

Since our Advayavajra not only knows the Kālacakra, but also quotes lenghtily from the notorious Ādibuddha, he must date after roughly the mid-11th century. Therefore the date of the Gūḍhapadā must fall between cca. 1040 to cca. 1160 CE.

Well, maybe I should have entitled this entry 'The (very rough) date of the GP'.



Isaacson 2008 -- Harunaga Isaacson, "Himalayan Encounter: The Teaching Lineage of the Marmopadeśa (Studies in the Vanaratha codex 1)". (pdf) Manuscript Cultures Newsletter 1.

Stearns 1996 -- Cyrus Stearns, "The Life and Tibetan Legacy of the Indian Mahāpaṇḍita Vibhūticandra". JIABS 19.1.


UPDATE: One more thing. I have somewhat incautiously regarded the two verses transmitted in the Vanaratna codex as auctorial, simply because they sounded like it. Here is some further evidence to back that up: Vibhūticandra has some lemmata from the verse we are interested in, including the line mentioning the GP. The end of the Uddyota is unfortunately not very legible on the only ms.* I have at hand, which is Tokyo Univ. Lib. 18 (see for yourself here - you will have to navigate to the end of the codex by yourself). The Sarnath edition gives: ...... dapadam āśritā|

But if you squint a little you can almost make out: + ślāghyā gūḍhapadām āśritā| I would be happier if it read gūḍhapadā āśritā or gūḍhapadāśritā, but there we are. I think this shuts the case. The remaining question now is: why on earth did other mss. of the AK decide to get rid of these two verses?

*A plea: if you happen to have the other two mss. of the Uddyota (1. Āśā sāphu kuṭi DH 366, or 5254 in the catalogue • 2. NAK 3-655 = NGMPP A 117/10) I'd be very grateful if you could tell me what they read just before 'ślāghyā'.

Kīli kīlaya

viditam astu bhavatām that Rob Mayer and Cathy Cantwell have opened a blog with a rather fascinating first post and hopefully many more to come.

The Āryamahāpratisarāyā vidyāvidhiḥ of Ratnākaraśānti

[post formerly had *Mahāpratisarācakralikhanavidhi]

Looking through prakīrṇapatras is always rewarding and well worth the frustration of trying to make sense of numeration, scripts, etc. NAK 4-130 = NGMPP B 24/20, although catalogued under the generic title `Varṣapaṇavidhamaḥ' (that is varṣāpaṇavidhayaḥ, `rituals of rain-making'), is one of these bundles with all sorts of works, most of which are indeed linked to nāgas and/or rainmaking.

To my knowledge the *Mahāpratisarācakralikhanavidhi (Tōh. 3118) attributed to the famous pundit has not been traced in Sanskrit. It is highly doubtful that this is indeed the work of Ratnākaraśānti, as so many works seek fame and authority by linking themselves to his prestige. The ms. mentioned above begins with two folios (only three pages are written) of this work, and I do not think that the short vidhi extended beyond a fourth. I have not checked the other folios thoroughly, so it's not impossible that the evasive third is hiding somewhere in the same bundle.*

The work begins with a scribal obeisance:

namo bhagavat[y]ai āryamahāpratisarāyai{ḥ} ||

Then the maṅgala/pratijñā:

natvā pratisarāṃ bhaktyā sarvabuddhābhinanditām |
vibhūtyai sarvasattvānāṃ taccakraṃ likhyate mayā ||

Which in the Tibetan runs as follows:

| sangs rgyas kun gyis mngon bstod pa'i |
| so sor 'brang ma la btud de |
| sems can kun la bsrung ba'i phyir |
| de yi 'khor lo bdag gis bri |

Notice the omission of `bhaktyā' and taking `vibhūtyai' as `bsrung ba'. There are several other inconsistencies in the translation as you read along. The rest of the work concerns itself with drawing an amulet on birch-bark or a cloth with the proper distribution of mantras and dhāraṇīs. And here for some reason I recall a quote from Valéry, something along the lines of: `My work is a work of patience executed by an impatient man'.

*Update: behold, it is there. The title preserved in this ms. is: Āryamahāpratisarāyā vidyāvidhiḥ. No author is given.

**Update 2: The text has been passed on for editing. We'll keep you posted.

Musings on a hat (+update)

A ms. now at the British Library (formerly of India Office Library, Thomas 7740) Mss Eur Hodgson vol. 26 (formerly 31/3h) is a comprehensive description of a thang ka (Skt. paṭa, N. paubāhā) from gZhis ka rtse (Shigatse for you and I, Jikhāche for the author). It was compiled by Amṛtānanda for Brian Hodgson, and it lists no less than 95 deities (plus consorts where applicable). This is the pratijñā as it were: uttarāpaṃthe jikhāche nāma pradeśe likhitāyāṃ paṭapratimāyāṃ nepālabhāṣayā paubāhā iti prakhyātāyāṃ likhitānāṃ devadevīgaṇānāṃ mūrtidhyānanāmāni likhyaṃte||

Aside from the intrinsic interest of this work (and indeed, the entire collection of Hodgson's papers) and aside from the fact that this painting seems to have disappeared, there is one small problem I wish to address here. A few of these `deities' are actually lamas (Tib. bla ma, lāmājū for the author) sporting something called an `ūrdhvajñāna...topikā' (p. 4, l. 1: ... ūrddhvajñānābhidhatopikābhṛt ...; l. 34: ... ūrddhvajñānākhyatoṣikayā ... [sic for topikayā, probably just a smudge]). I may be terribly ignorant here, but I'm still puzzled by this word.

Topi - if you learned Hindi or some similar language - is obviously `hat'. Lamas - or at least some of them - wear paṇ zhwas. Hazy memories from my undergraduate days somehow reminded me that Sum pa mkhan po has a story on how these hats came into fashion: de dus Bhaṃ ga la'i Tsa ti gha bo'i grong khyer gyi paṇ ṭi ta Pi ha ra zhes pa'i gtsug lag khang du mu stegs pa'i rgol ba zhig byung ba'i tshe rgan mo zhig gi kha la nyan nas tsher ma lta bu'i rtse can gyi zhwa gyon nas rtsod pas rgyal ba las paṇ zhwa rtse ring dar ro|| (Dpag bsam ljon bzang, p. 109). Das seem to identify Tsa ti gha bo with Cittagong.

Now what if Amṛtānanda somehow knew about this and produced a fake Skt. ūrdhva-jñāna from taking `gong' to be a Tibetan word for `ūrdhva', and `sems' or `tsi tta' a synonym for `jñāna'? For the time being this is the only way around this problem, but it seems almost too funny to be true.

UPDATE: It seems that I was (almost) entirely mislead. In light of MS Eur Hodgson vol. 26, pp. 89-91, another description of a paṭa from Tibet we find more about the puzzling ūrdhvajñāna hat. In this text we have an ūrdhvajñāna-rumuci, which is probably a re-Sanskritization of ye shes bla ma rin po che. For those versed in things rNying ma pa, here is an appetizer: there is a story here which Amṛtānanda claims to be a 'popular myth'. Ūrdhvajñāna-rumuci (who looks like Padmasambhava from the description, except that he is holding a vajra and a kīla) was an incarnation of Gorakṣa, disciple of Matsyendra. He appeared in this form on his master's command in order to defeat Śaṅkara (son of a widow and Viśveśvara-Rudra of Benares), who was rather miffed about losing a debate with Nāgārjuna and started persecuting Buddhism by disposing of their books. Rumuci defeats him repeatedly in debate and magical contests, the final battle taking place in a place called Guru-bharu. Yet another beautiful 'Himalayan encounter'!

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.

For a magnificent painting of the `last pundit in Tibet', see here.

Sanskrit Manuscripts from Tibet

Sanskrit manuscripts from Tibet; (1) Vimalaprabhā commentary on the Kālacakra-tantra, and (2) Pañcarakṣā, reproduced by Lokesh Chandra. — New Delhi, Aditya Prakashan, 2010, 144p., 29x43cm. (Sata-Pitaka Series; Indo-Asian Literatures, Volume: 629) ISBN 9788177420944. US$ 33.50 (or 1500 rupees in situ).

Before I begin to say a few words about this new publication it should be noted that this is not a review, but rather a small number of reminders for myself and anyone interested of what I saw yesterday at Biblia Impex Pvt. Ltd. (Daryaganj, Ansari Road 2/18, just behind the OUP store). Sanskrit Manuscripts from Tibet (dated 2010!), edited by Lokesh Chandra, contains reproductions of what the editor believes to be two manuscripts. I merely browsed through the introduction and I don't recall seeing anything hinting at where LC came across these manuscripts.

The first is a well-written Vimalaprabhā, but don't feel too excited: unfortunately this also breaks off right in the commentary to the fourth chapter. The elusive fifth paṭala thus continues to be attested in a single ms. at the Asiatic Society (which is now unavailable "because it broke in half", as reported earlier on this blog). I would not be surprised if it had disappeared altogether since then; the venerable Society is in shambles. But perhaps we have the elusive fifth somewhere in Beijing?

The second is 'a' Pañcarakṣā, but it is immediately obvious that the collection is not the work of the same scribal hand, and perhaps not even the product of the same century. LC oddly dates the collection to the 9th century, but I don't believe this for a minute. The earliest of the lot seems to be the Mahāsāhasrapramardinī.

Before I could take more notes the friendly salesman pushed a catalogue in front of me, and later produced the Sarnāth edition of the Abhayapaddhati. But this is a story (not altogether pleasant) for another time.

Manuscripta Buddhica 1

Most of you will probably have read about this already on several mailing lists. I think I'm not alone when I say that this series should continue to flourish until the end of the kalpa.

Vajrayāna off-limits in two apologetic works

After a long silence and too many bzhad gad entries let us look at two fascinating little works hiding deep in the bowels of the Tengyur.

The section between Tōh. 3707 and 3729 houses what I informally think of as the 'essayistic' part of the Canon. Some works here are better known than others, with famous items such as the Tattvasiddhi (a new and complete edition by Toru Tomabechi, forthcoming), the Gurupañcāśikā (of which we now have a new manuscript, see Szántó, forthcoming), and Jñānaśrī's *Vajrayānāntadvayanirākaraṇa (recently studied by Taiken Kyuma and Ryugen Tanemura in Genesis and Development of Tantrism). But there are other works here which merit the same attention, such as the oft-quoted Nayatrayapradīpa, the *Triyānavyavasthāna of Ratnākaraśānti [?], and the *Yoganiruttaratantrārthāvatārasaṃgraha of Śraddhākaravarman.

And there are yet others which are read only on rainy days such as these two: the *Tattvasārasaṃgraha (TSS) of *Dharmendra (Tōh. 3711), and the *Mantranayāloka (MNA) of Mtho-btsun btso-yags (Tōh. 3710). Note the inversion in cataloguing, which suggests that the Tibetan compilers haven't read them with due attention either. The two obviously constitute a pair, since the author of the MNA clearly states that he wrote in defense of a claim made by his master in the TSS. So to get the timeline right: we had *Dharmendra write his TSS, which became controversial, and his disciple wrote the MNA to straighten out things. Both works were translated by Rin chen bzang po (the TSS with Janārdana, the MNA with Padmākaravarman). Hence Mtho-btsun btso-yags is either earlier or contemporary with Rin bzang, and *Dharmendra preceded both. However, I cannot help suspect that master and disciple wrote much earlier, perhaps a century or so, for reasons I will give below.

What was *Dharmendra's controversial claim then? You have to read through the work to find it. The TSS flows neatly in a Q/A format discussing several intriguing questions about the Mahāyāna. The conscientious objector asks at the end (98a1-99a2): surely, if the Buddha said that the Vajrayāna is the most efficient way for enlightenment, why is it that you do not speak about it here?

*Dharmendra does not deny that the way of Mantras exists as a valid revelation. Instead, he states that there are simply no suitable people in our day and age to practice it. The Buddha knew this very well and he actually prohibited *lokottara (understand, antinomian) practices. To this effect he quotes an obscure work, the Gsang sngags kyi theg pa tshul:

| shes rab de ni mi shes {99a7} shing |

| ngar 'dzin dri mas spags pa rnams |

| de yi 'jig rten 'das spyod pa |

| dmyal bar 'gro ba kho nar zad |

These people do not know wisdom and

mix [their practices] with the defilement of egoism–

their practices 'transcending this world'

result in nothing else but going to hell.

And again, from the same work:

| thabs bzang rnam par spangs nas ni |

| 'gal ba'i dam tshig la sogs pa |

| gang zhig gzhan du byed pa dag |

| de ni {99b1} ngu 'bod dag tu 'tshed |

Those people who behave perversely,

who turned away from good practices,

and adopted contradictory vows and the such

will roast away in the Howling Hell (raurava).

| dper na 'di na rab 'bar mer |

| rtsva dang shing la sogs pa'i tshogs |

| bcug pa thal ba nyid 'gyur gyis |

| slar ni rab tu skye mi 'gyur |

Take as an example a roaring fire:

heaps of grass, wood, and the such

are reduced to ashes when thrown in,

and will never resume their form.

| de bzhin de nyid rnam bral bar |

| shin tu rmad byung las byed pa |

| ji srid nam mkha' gnas par du |

| shi nas {99b2} dmyal bar 'gro bar 'gyur |

In the same way, those who are bereft of Truth

and [adopt] these strange practices,

will die and and go to hell

for as long as the sky abides.

There are two more quotes more or less to the same effect. *Dharmendra closes his work saying that since the Buddha prohibited such practices, he will follow suit and not speak a word about Vajrayāna.

Well, it's easy to see how this succinct treatment of such a sensitive topic could have elicited outrage. And elicit outrage it did. Enter Mtho-btsun btso-yags (sometimes spelt mtso-yags, tso-yag):

| dus kyi bdag nyid ngan pa dang |

| 'gro ba 'ang skal ba med pa dag |

| gzigs nas bdag gi bla ma yis | {76a6}

| gsang sngags tshul bshad bkag pa yin |

My master saw that times are bad

and people are unqualified,

hence he prohibited explaining

the way of Mantras.

| 'di ltar de nyid kyis mdzad pa'i |

| De nyid snying po bsdus par ni |

| de[r] ma bshad pa'i rigs pa dang |

| dgongs pa yang ni bstan pa yin |

And he did so in his work,

the Tattvasārasaṃgraha.

I shall now teach the unstated but intended

meaning and the reasoning behind [this claim].

| gang yang blo dman kha cig ni |

| der des ma rtogs pa nyid dam |

| phrag dog yin par {76a7} dogs byed cing |

| rmongs pa yis kyang de brnyas byed |

Some people of low intelligence

either did not understand what he said there,

or they were just jealous and thus objected,

and deluded ones even spoke ill of him.

| de spang sdig pa'i me nang du |

| phye ma leb ltar ji srid ni |

| ltung bar ma gyur de srid du |

| de skyob pa la bdag 'bad do |

Our endeavour then is to refute this

and save them from the fire of sin,

lest they should fall in it like a moth.

The work goes on to criticize in detail these practices he and his master found unacceptable. The verses drip with sarcasm which in itself makes it a pretty enjoyable read, but what is most interesting for our immediate purposes is the prima facie view he quotes as reported by his adversaries:

«'on te de nyid rnal 'byor pa |

| bdag cag la ni kha zas {76b5} dang |

| spyod lam sogs kun ci dga' bar |

| Rnal 'byor rgyud las skyob pas gnang |

But for us, yogins of the Truth / true yogins,

the Lord allowed in the Yogatantras

to take food, adopt conducts,

and so on as we please.

«de yang 'di ni gsal nyid du |

| Zla gsang thig le la sogs las |

| rnal 'byor ba yis mi bya ba |

| ci yang med ces gsungs pa yin |

This is clearly stated in texts

such as Guhyendutilaka, to wit:

there is nothing that a yogin

is not allowed to do.

Well now, this is intriguing. Yogatantras and the Guhyendutilaka to justify antinomian practices? Why not yoginītantras? It doesn't get any more antinomian than that! And where have we seen this combination before? Yes, the prize goes to anyone who said Tattvasiddhi first. Could we be looking at the same environment?

The continuation of the rebuttal is just as exciting, but this is pretty much all I wanted to say to whet your appetite for reading these two texts. A couple of more interesting points to be noted: one of the punishments the author of the MNA has in view is that of temporal rulers–

| phyin ci log gi las byed na |

| re zhig 'jig rten smod byed la |

| de bzhin rgyal po la sogs kyi |

| chad pas rmongs pa 'jig par 'gyur |

If you perform perverted deeds

you will not only elicit scorn from the public,

but your delusion is sure to be cured

by the punishment of the king and others.

And just to give you an idea about the author's arguments:

| bkres skom tsha grang rmugs pa dang |

| gnyid sogs kyis rab gdungs gyur pa |

| snang na de ru khyod kyi ni |

| dngos po med pa gang du song |

[Everything is immaterial you say,]

but when hunger, thirst, hot, cold,

depression and torpor hit you

where is your 'immateriality'?

To wrap up, it should also be noticed that the MNA is not quite so dismissive as his master's work. He simply calls yogins to examine their attitude and their practices better.

PS: all translations were made ad hoc and without much thought. Suggestions are welcome.

Yet another Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa?

I did not have the time to follow up this one, but perhaps there are some of you out there who are interested. Today I picked up by chance D. K. Kanjilal & K. Kanjilal, Sanskrit and Allied Manuscripts in Europe (Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, Calcutta), apparently a recent acquisition of the Bodleian. The book is a long list of pretty confused notes about various manuscript libraries the authors had the chance to visit in the U.K. and the continent (and there is no index... and there are many typos... but let's forget about all that, it seems like a very useful book).

The author reports a list of Nepalese mss. at the Chester Betty [sic!] Library in Dublin. It's mostly Pañcarakṣās and dhāraṇīs, but one item - he says - is a Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa. Although he says that the ms. is 'very old', he also gives the 17th century as an estimated date. Does anyone happen to know more about this? It sounds like a false lead to me, but you can never know for certain.

A letter from the past

My partner came across this letter quite by accident: between the pages of a book she had ordered online. I do not think that much more needs to be said. Note the author's barely concealed excitement in the second paragraph of the letter.




Sanskrit College
Calcutta, February 19, 1907

Your Honour,

As Commander I beg
to send herewith the Sanskrit
College copy of Mr Tawney's
translation of the Mālavikā-
gnimitra a drama by the
greatest of Indian poets, Kalidāsa.

Your Honour will be glad to
hear that His Excellency the
Prime Minister of Nepal, whom
I saw on Thursday last, will,
when I go to his country, give
me every facility for my
work in connection with the
search of Mss.

Your Honour's most
obedient
Haraprasād Shāstri

Māraṇa on live TV

Sanal Edamaruku, president of the Rationalist International, challenged a Tantric magician to kill him on live TV by supernatural means. This went on for some time...



And then some more (notice the invocation of Bagalāmukhī to up the game a notch):



Then the homa pit comes out. The uttarasādhakas seem a bit confused for they recite mantras to paralize the man's speech, tongue, and mind (oṃ hrīṃ hrīṃ klīṃ bagalāmukhe sarvaduṣṭānāṃ vācaṃ mukhaṃ pādaṃ stambhaya jihvāṃ kīlaya 2 buddhiṃ vināśaya 2 hlīṃ oṃ phaṭ svāhā):



This may come as a surprise to some, but Surendra Sharma failed miserably. The explanation, in my humble opinion, is tantalizingly simple: Sanal Edamaruku was obviously protected by even more powerful mantras! Besides, every fool knows that a māraṇahoma is to be done in a triangular kuṇḍa...