Sie sind auf Seite 1von 42

WIENER STUDIEN ZUR TIBETOLOGIE UND BUDDHISMUSKUNDE

GEGRÜNDET VON

ERNST STEINKELLNER

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON

BIRGIT KELLNER, HELMUT KRASSER, HELMUT TAUSCHER

HEFT 70.1

WIEN 2007

ARBEITSKREIS FÜR TIBETISCHE UND BUDDHISTISCHE STUDIEN UNIVERSITÄT WIEN

PRAMĀṆAKĪRTI

PAPERS DEDICATED TO ERNST STEINKELLNER ON THE OCCASION OF HIS 70 th BIRTHDAY

EDITED BY BIRGIT KELLNER, HELMUT KRASSER, HORST LASIC, MICHAEL TORSTEN MUCH and HELMUT TAUSCHER

PART 1

WIEN 2007

ARBEITSKREIS FÜR TIBETISCHE UND BUDDHISTISCHE STUDIEN UNIVERSITÄT WIEN

Cover painting "die bunte hoffnung" (detail) by Arik Brauer, © by Arik Brauer

Copyright © 2007 by Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien

ISBN:

978-3-902501-09-7 (Part 1)

IMPRESSUM

Verleger:

Universitätscampus AAKH, Spitalgasse 2-4, Hof 2, 1090 Wien Herausgeber und für den Inhalt verantwortlich:

Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien

Birgit Kellner, Helmut Krasser, Helmut Tauscher alle: Spitalgasse 2-4, Hof 2, 1090 Wien

Druck:

Ferdinand Berger und Söhne GmbH, Wiener Straße 80, 3580 Horn

Contents

Ernst Steinkellner – Imprints and echoes

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

xi

Publications of Ernst Steinkellner

xxvii

Katia Buffetrille, “Pays caché” ou “Avenir radieux?” Le choix de Shes rab rgya mtsho

1

Gudrun Bühnemann, śivaligas and caityas in representations of the eight cremation grounds from Nepal

23

Christoph Cüppers, Die Reise- und Zeltlagerordnung des Fünften Dalai Lama

37

Elena De Rossi Filibeck, The fragmentary Tholing bKa’ ’gyur in the IsIAO Library

53

Max Deeg, A little-noticed Buddhist travelogue – Senghui’s Xiyu-ji and its relation to the Luoyang-jialan-ji

63

Hildegard Diemberger, Padmasambhava’s unfinished job: the subjugation of local deities as described in the dBa’ bzhed in light of contemporary practices of spirit possession

85

Georges Dreyfus, Is perception intentional? A preliminary exploration of intentionality in Dharmakīrti

95

Franz-Karl Ehrhard, The biography of sMan-bsgom Chos-rje Kun-dga’ dpal- ldan (1735–1804) as a source for the Sino-Nepalese war

115

Vincent Eltschinger, On 7 th and 8 th century Buddhist accounts of human action, practical rationality and soteriology

135

Eli Franco, Prajñākaragupta on pratītyasamutpāda and reverse causation

163

Toru Funayama, Kamalaśīla’s distinction between the two sub-schools of

Yogācāra. A

provisional survey

187

Richard Gombrich, Popperian Vinaya: Conjecture and refutation in practice

203

Michael Hahn, In defence of Haribhaṭṭa

213

Paul Harrison, Notes on some West Tibetan manuscript folios in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art

229

Jens-Uwe Hartmann, Der Sattvārādhanastava und das Kṣāranadīsūtra

247

Guntram Hazod, The grave on the ‘cool plain’. On the identification of ‘Tibet’s first tomb’ in Nga-ra-thang of ’Phyong-po

259

x

Contents

Harunaga Isaacson, First Yoga: A commentary on the ādiyoga section of Ratnākaraśānti’s Bhramahara (Studies in Ratnākaraśānti’s tantric works IV)

285

Takashi Iwata, An analysis of examples for the interpretation of the word iṣṭain Dharmakīrti’s definition of the thesis

315

David Jackson, Rong ston bKa’ bcu pa – Notes on the title and travels of a great Tibetan scholastic

345

Christian Jahoda, Archival exploration of Western Tibet or what has re- mained of Francke’s and Shuttleworth’s Antiquities of Indian Tibet, Vol. IV?

361

Muni Śrī Jambūvijayaji, Dignāga’s Nyāyapraveśakaśūtra

395

Shoryu Katsura, Dharmakīrti’s proof of the existence of other minds

407

Deborah Klimburg-Salter, Tradition and innovation in Indo-Tibetan painting. Four preaching scenes from the life of the Buddha, Tabo mid 11 th

 

423

Taiken Kyuma, Marginalia on the subject of sattvānumāna

469

Horst Lasic, Placing the Tabo tshad ma materials in the general development of tshad ma studies in Tibet. Part one: The study of the Nyāyabindu

483

Christian Luczanits, Prior to Birth II – The Tuita episodes in Early Tibetan Buddhist literature and art

497

WIENER STUDIEN ZUR TIBETOLOGIE UND BUDDHISMUSKUNDE

GEGRÜNDET VON

ERNST STEINKELLNER

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON

BIRGIT KELLNER, HELMUT KRASSER, HELMUT TAUSCHER

HEFT 70.2

WIEN 2007

ARBEITSKREIS FÜR TIBETISCHE UND BUDDHISTISCHE STUDIEN UNIVERSITÄT WIEN

PRAMĀṆAKĪRTI

PAPERS DEDICATED TO ERNST STEINKELLNER ON THE OCCASION OF HIS 70 th BIRTHDAY

EDITED BY BIRGIT KELLNER, HELMUT KRASSER, HORST LASIC, MICHAEL TORSTEN MUCH and HELMUT TAUSCHER

PART 2

WIEN 2007

ARBEITSKREIS FÜR TIBETISCHE UND BUDDHISTISCHE STUDIEN UNIVERSITÄT WIEN

Cover painting "die bunte hoffnung" (detail) by Arik Brauer, © by Arik Brauer

Copyright © 2007 by Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien

ISBN:

978-3-902501-09-7 (Part 2)

IMPRESSUM

Verleger:

Universitätscampus AAKH, Spitalgasse 2-4, Hof 2, 1090 Wien Herausgeber und für den Inhalt verantwortlich:

Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien

Birgit Kellner, Helmut Krasser, Helmut Tauscher alle: Spitalgasse 2-4, Hof 2, 1090 Wien

Druck:

Ferdinand Berger und Söhne GmbH, Wiener Straße 80, 3580 Horn

Contents

Klaus-Dieter Mathes, Can sūtra mahāmudrā be justified on the basis of Mai- trīpa’s Apratiṣṭhānavāda?

545

Claus Oetke, About the assessment of views on a self in the Indian philo- sophical tradition

567

Patrick Olivelle, The term vikrama in the vocabulary of Aśvaghoa

587

Parimal G. Patil, Dharmakīrti’s white lie – Philosophy, pedagogy, and truth in late Indian Buddhism

597

Ole Holten Pind, Nāgārjunian Divertimento – A close reading of Mūla- madhyamaka-kārikā VII 30cd and VIII 7cd

621

Karin Preisendanz, The initiation of the medical student in early classical Āyurveda: Caraka’s treatment in context

629

Ernst Prets, Implications, derivations and consequences: prasaga in the early Nyāya tradition

669

Charles Ramble, The Aya: Fragments of an unknown Tibetan priesthood

683

Ludo Rocher, Commentators at work: Inheritance by brothers in Hindu law

721

Rosane Rocher, Henry Thomas Colebrooke and the marginalization of Indian pandits

735

Cristina Scherrer-Schaub, Immortality extolled with reason: Philosophy and politics in Nāgārjuna

757

Lambert Schmithausen, Problems with the Golden Rule in Buddhist texts

795

Walter Slaje, Werke und Wissen: Die Quellensammlung (AD 1680) des Kaschmirers Ānanda zum Beweis der Superiorität der karmajñāna- samuccaya-Doktrin

825

Per Sørensen, Restless relic – The Ārya Lokeśvara icon in Tibet: Symbol of power, legitimacy and pawn for patronage

857

Tom J.F. Tillemans, On bdag, gzhan and the supposed active-passive neutra- lity of Tibetan verbs

887

Toru Tomabechi, The extraction of mantra (mantroddhāra) in the Sarva- buddhasamāyogatantra

903

Raffaele Torella, Studies on Utpaladeva’s Īśvarapratyabhijñā-vivti. Part IV:

Light of the subject, light of the object

925

Kurt Tropper, The Buddha-vita in the skor lam chen mo at Zha lu monastery

941

vi

Contents

Helga Uebach and Jampa L. Panglung, A silver portrait of the 6 th Źwa-dmar Karma-pa (15841630)

975

Käthe Uray-Kőhalmi, Geser/Kesar und seine Gefährtinnen

 

989

Leonard W.J. van der Kuijp, *Nāgabodhi/Nāgabuddhi: Notes on the Guhya- samāja Literature

1001

Roberto Vitali, The White dPyal: Early evidence (from the 7 th century to the beginning of bstan pa phyi dar)

1023

Chizuko Yoshimizu, Causal efficacy and spatiotemporal restriction: An analytical study of the Sautrāntika philosophy

1049

Kiyotaka Yoshimizu, Reconsidering the inseparable connection (avinābhāva)

fragment

of

the

Bhaṭṭīkā

on

1079

First Yoga: A commentary on the ādiyoga section of Ratnākaraśānti’s Bhramahara *

(Studies in Ratnākaraśānti’s tantric works IV)

Harunaga Isaacson, Hamburg

Introductory remarks

In the introductory remarks to the editio princeps of the Bhramahara, Ratnāka- raśānti’s sādhana of the utpattikrama practice of Hevajra, I wrote that ‘[e]xtensive annotation on this text will be published separately’ (Isaacson 2002b p. 152). As contribution to this volume in honour of Ernst Steinkellner, whose studies and writings have, like Ratnākaraśānti’s, ranged from pramāṇa to tantra, I would like to offer a commentary to the first section, occupying more than half of the text, of this sādhana: the ādiyogasamādhi that teaches the preliminaries and the practitioner’s self-generation as Hevajra in union with Nairātmyā. In order not to exceed by too far what might be regarded as an appropriate length of a contribution to a felicitation volume, I have shortened some notes and omitted others. Those omitted mainly discuss purely philological problems of the constitution and transmission of the text, and the Tibetan translation’s peculiarities and discrepancies with the Sanskrit text. What is given here, therefore, is basically an abbreviated form of part of my annotation, aiming primarily at helping a student of this rich and difficult work to a better understanding of Ratnākaraśānti's intentions. Since philological problems cannot be wholly divorced from consideration of meaning and intention, there remains even in what is given here some discussion of a few text-critical questions.

* This commentary has benefited from the experience of reading the Bhramahara with students and colleagues in Oxford, Hamburg, Philadelphia, and Pondicherry. I am grateful to the participants in these readings, and regret that it is not possible to mention them all by name. To Dr. Birgit Kellner I owe thanks for a number of editorial suggestions, as a result of which especially the English expression has been improved at several places. Some last-minute improvements were made in response to questions and suggestions of Iain Sinclair, to whom thanks are likewise due.

B. Kellner, H. Krasser, H. Lasic, M.T. Much, H. Tauscher (eds.), Pramāṇakīrti. Papers dedi- cated to Ernst Steinkellner on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Part 1. (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde 70.1) Wien 2007, pp. 285–314.

286

Harunaga Isaacson

Lemmas from the text of the Bhramahara are preceded by references by page and line to the edition in Isaacson 2002b. Other Sanskrit works are re- ferred to by verse number (in the case of published works in verse), page num- ber (in the case of editions of works not solely in verse), or folio number (in the case of manuscripts).

The full annotation to the entire text is expected to appear in the future as part of a volume on Ratnākaraśānti’s works related to the Hevajratantra.

Commentary

On the title of the Bhramahara van der Kuijp has commented as follows (1987 p. 174 col. 2):

That problems of certain kinds in the sādhana literature were also not foreign to the Indian tradition is born out by Ratnākaraśānti’s Bhramahārasādhana [sic HI] (P vol. 56, no. 2374) which, as the title already indicates, sought to bring clarity in the way in which Hevajra was supposed to be practiced

As van der Kuijp here suggests, Ratnākaraśānti very probably chose the title, which the work itself does not explain, at least partly because it was his goal to set down clearly the correct manner of practice of Hevajra, removing errors which he must then have held to be present in the practice as taught by some others. But it is possible that another point was intended as well. In an impor- tant phase of the sādhana (p. 158 l. 15–p. 159 l. 11), which others sometimes call śūnyatābodhi, Ratnākaraśānti teaches that after having produced (by going through certain steps of reasoning) the certain knowledge that all dharmas con- sist of mind and are empty of object- and subject-aspects, the practitioner should then strip away such aspects, which are ‘superimposed by error and the characteristic/sign of error’ (bhrāntisamāropitabhrānticihnam p. 159 ll. 3–4; cf. note below on bhrānticihnam), so that he perceives only the fundamental nature (prakti) of the dharmas, which is non-dual cognition/awareness. Though this phase is in a sense a preliminary one, a dissolution of impure appearances as a prelude to the arising of pure ones, it is also of great importance. For one thing, this non-dual cognition/awareness can be said to correspond to the Dharmakāya of Buddhas. 1 Calling the sādhana Bhramahara could be understood to allude to the fact that it involves the repeated practice of

1 Cf. e.g. dvayānupalambharūpasya dharmakāyasya

the close resemblance in phrasing between tanniyandabhūtām ākāravatīṃ rakṣāṃ śuddhalaukikajñānasvabhāvāṃ bhāvayet (Bhramahara p. 159, ll. 12-13) and tanni- yandaśuddhalaukikajñānasvabhāve sabhogakāye (KhaKhaTaṬī p. 241; the editor's tannipanda° is either a typo or a careless error for tanniyanda°); in the latter text passage tan° clearly refers to the Dharmakāya, mentioned just before this.

KhaKhaTaṬī p. 234. Note also

Ratnākaraśānti’s Bhramahara

287

the removal of errors, and of the contemplation of pure non-dual consciousness from which pure appearances, the nature of which is pure mundane awareness (śuddhalaukikajñāna), can be caused to arise. Its goal 2 is in one sense the definitive removal of all errors and traces of errors from the mental continuum of practitioners.

p. 157, ll. 3–6 padabharanamitorvīvegavikiptasindhu

the magala verse of Ratnākaraśānti’s commentary, the Muktāvalī, on the He-

vajratantra: 3

herukasya. Compare

pādanyāsaipthivyā vihitavighaanabhūbhtām aṭṭahāsair dktejaketughaṇṭādhvanibhir api nayan nāśasṣṭīr jaganti | bibhrāṇasyāvaliptapraśamanavidhaye bhīṣaṇān abhyupāyān pāyād vo jainaguhyatrayahdayahdas tāṇḍavaherukasya ||

The formulation bhujavanapavanāstaprasthabandhagirīṇāṃ in pāda c of our verse, which might appear a little odd at first reading, is probably an echo (con- scious or unconscious) of a verse from Kālidāsa’s Meghadūta. Cf. gatvā cordhvadaśamukhabhujocchvāsitaprasthasadhekailāsasya tridaśavanitā- darpaasyātithisyāḥ (MeDū 58ab).

Among many similar verses describing Śiva’s wild dance, 4 cf. in particular the following, attributed to Bherībhāṅkāra in Jalhaa’s Sūktimuktāvalī, which is not only written in the same metre as Ratnākaraśānti’s opening verse but has several strikingly close parallels: 5

uccairuttālakheladbhujavanapavanoddhūtaśailaughapāta-

sphārodañcatpayodhiprakaitamakuasvardhunīsagamāni | jīyāsus tāṇḍavāni sphuavikaajaṭākoisaghaṭṭabhūri- bhraśyannakatracakravyavahitasumanovṣṭipātāni śambho||

2 At least the ultimate goal, prayojanaprayojana, since the immediate goal, prayojana, should perhaps rather be said to be to qualify the practitioner for the practice of the utpannakrama; see the conclusion of the text, p. 174 ll. 9–11.

3 For an annotated translation of this verse together with the rest of the opening verses of the Muktāvalī see Isaacson 2001.

4 Some remarks on the similarity between descriptions and depictions of the dance of Heruka and of the dance of Śiva can be found in Bröskamp 2006.

5 SūMuĀv namaskārapaddhati 13 (p. 10). The verse is included in Sternbach’s Mahā- subhāṣitasagraha (MaSuSano. 6338). No earlier source than Jalhaa’s anthology (the compilation of which was completed in Śaka 1179 = AD 1258) seems to be known, and nothing else appears to be known that could allow us to date Bherī- bhāṅkāra more precisely.

288

Harunaga Isaacson

p. 157, l. 6 herukasya, i.e. hevajrasya. Already in the Hevajratantra Hevajra is

called (a) Heruka, as we see in HeTa I.vii.27, which also gives the tradition’s exegesis of the name:

śrīkāram advayaānahekārahetvādiśūnyatā | rukārāpagatavyūha6 kakārana kvacit sthitam ||

p. 157, l. 9 iha. This should be understood in the sense of iha tantre. This is

common enough usage (as is for instance iha in the sense of iha darśane in śāstra), and it is made explicit in several other texts, such as SāMā 183 (Śrī-

hevajratantrakramea svādhiṣṭhānakurukullāsādhana by Sahajavilāsa): iha tantre bhāvanādhikto mantrī (p. 381); SāMā 245 (Dvibhujaherukasādhana):

iha tantre bhāvanādhikto yogī (p. 474); Kalahasakumāra’s Cakrasavara- sādhana: iha tantre bhāvanādhikta(ḌāJāCaSaRa p. 109). Construe the iha (tantre) as dependent on bhāvanādhikta.

p. 157, l. 9 bhāvanādhikto mantrī. The Tibetan translation renders bsgom pa

dabzlas pa la dbabar gyur pa’i sags pa (P f. 222r5, D f. 189r6), as if the Sanskrit before the translator(s) was bhāvanājapādhikto (or bhāvanājāpādhi- kto) mantrī. Such a term does not seem to be attested elsewhere, whereas bhāvanādhiktamay be called a standard expression. See e.g. the passages quoted above in the note on iha, and, from Ratnākaraśānti’s other works, MuĀv p. 81 and MaMāSā p. 458. Note also that the notion of japādhikāracan be taken as implied by mantrī.

The authorization cum obligation (adhikāra) to perform the (mantra)sādha- na of a deity such as Hevajra as one’s daily practice (cf. Bhramahara p. 174 l. 9 pratyaha) could be obtained only by the bestowal by a qualified guru of the requisite consecrations (abhieka) in the corresponding maṇḍala. Apparently some authorities regarded it as sufficient hereto that the śiya be given the lower consecrations up to the nāmābhieka (in which he is given the name indicative of his new religious identity); but this view was strongly condemned by Abhayākaragupta, and was as far as we can tell from the texts decidedly a minority one. See the Va Ā v: ebhir abhi ekai sikta ḥ ś i ya kriy ā cary ā tantrayo ḥ śravaavyākhyānamantrasādhanev adhikto bhavati. yogayoginītantrāṇām apīty ācāryamanyamatam (ācāryamanyamatam ] A B, ācāryamanyamatam Sakurai) anāgamam (A f. 73r–73v, B f. 67v, Sakurai 1996 p. 462). It was thus considered necessary for the initiand to also take the higher consecrations,

6 Cf. Ratnākaraśānti’s commentary ad loc.: apagatavyūham iti rahitoham. rukāreti ruśabdasyārtha ity artha. nairuktaḥ śealopo hrasvatvaca (MuĀv p. 73). Note that the edition prints rahito’ham, apparently failing to recognize that rahitoham is a bahuvrīhi compound, with rahita corresponding to vyapagata and ūha to vyūha.

Ratnākaraśānti’s Bhramahara

289

which if performed fully would involve for monks infringement of the bhiku- savara. The standpoint of major authorities such as Abhayākaragupta is that it is preferable that in the case of a male initiand the ritual should be performed with an actual female consort (karmamudrā) rather than an imagined/visualised one (ānamudrā); no sin or infringement of vows follows, so long as the śiya and guru are both suitably qualified and maintain full awareness of the true (i.e. mind-only or empty) nature of reality. See for fuller discussion Sanderson 1994, Sakurai 1996.

p. 157, l. 9 hdayārkanyastanijabīja. The Tibetan translation, sñigar ñi ma la sa bon bsams la (P f. 222r5, D f. 189r6–7) ‘having visualized a seed syllable on a sun[-disk] in his heart’, renders rather freely, and lacks altogether an equivalent for the element nija in this compound. nijabījam should be under- stood as referring to Hevajra’s seed-syllable hūṃ.

p. 157, l. 13 arghaparijapya. In the parallel passage in Ratnākaraśānti’s MuĀv (Nairātmyāsādhana in the commentary on HeTa I.viii) we find, after sukhāsane niadya, svamantreṇārghaparijapya (p. 81). The recitation of a mantra over the argha/arghya offering is also prescribed in Ratnākaraśānti’s MaMāSā, though it is there mentioned before the practitioner’s seating him- self: hūṃkāreṇārghya(em., hukārea arghyaed) parijapya sukhāsanopa- viṣṭa(p. 458). It is absent in the VaTāSā, but that sādhana also does not mention the offering of the argha/arghya later, unlike the MaMāSā and our text.

It is possible that, as explicitly in his MaMāSā, Ratnākaraśānti intended sim- ply the seed-syllable hūṃ (svamantra, i.e. svabīja) to be used here to pu- rify/empower/prepare the argha offering. 7 However another possibility was current: in MS A of the MuĀv a later hand has added a marginal gloss on svamantrea reading tryakara (i.e. oāḥ hūṃ), as well as a note on parijapya reading ekaviṃśativārān (f.50v, bottom margin). 8 The use of the tryakara- mantra for this purpose is standard practice: cf. e.g. GuSaSāMā 1 (Śrīvajra-

7 Note that the arghamantra is rather the mantra used in offering the argha. The arghamantra taught in the HeTa is ojahūṃ vahokhara(HeTa II.i.14). Snellgrove, misled no doubt by his late paper manuscripts, prints hāḥ for ho, and is followed in this (as in so many of his errors) by Farrow and Menon as well as by Tripathi and Negi. The palm-leaf MSS and the Tibetan translation have the correct reading, which is of course supported by numerous parallels.

8 Like other marginal annotations in this manuscript, many of which are of consider- able interest, this is not recorded in the edition by Tripathi and Negi.

290

Harunaga Isaacson

yoginīmukhāgama by Indrabhūti 9 ) mādhvīgauḍīpaiṣṭīs trividhadivyodakayathālābhapañcapīyūṣasayuktam arghapātre sasthāpya tryakaraman-

(f. 279v; syllables between plus-signs added in the

margin). If the marginal glossator of MS A of the MuĀv is right, and this is indeed intended by Ratnākaraśānti in his MuĀv and in the Bhramahara, svamantra would have to be understood as ‘the mantra proper to it [i.e. the (purification of the) argha].’

treṇābhi+mantrya+

p. 157, ll. 16–18 tatra gaurī śaśinabibharti, caurī ravim

goddesses and their attributes see, in the first place, the scriptural locus classicus HeTa I.iii.9–10. Note that Snellgrove (followed by Farrow and Menon, and even Tripathi and Negi, although the latter record many of their manuscripts as having the correct reading) has reversed Gaurī and Caurī in I.iii.9ab, and hence associated them with the wrong attributes. Once more the palm-leaf MSS and the Tibetan translation of the HeTa have the correct readings, confirmed by our passage and several others.

puruṣāyate. For the

p. 157, l. 17 ghasmarī palalam. The Tibetan translation renders palalam by stobs (P f. 222r8, D f. 189v2), usually a translation of Sanskrit bala. This may not be a mistake, however, nor need it be (though it certainly might be) based on a reading balam available to the translator(s). For there is a distinct possibil- ity that it could instead be a deliberate euphemism or obscuration. It is likely that the translator(s) knew, and he/they may here be using, the code taught in the HeTa, where in II.iii.56a bala is given as standing for māṃsa. In HeTa I.iii.9d another code-word or euphemism is found: read there bhaiajyadharti 10 (with MSS B and C, bhaiajyadhartti A) for Snellgrove’s bhaiajya- dhartrī (copied by Tripathi and Negi, and further corrupted by Farrow and Menon to bhaiajyadhātrī).

It should be noted also/however that there is disagreement within the tradition(s) about the identity of the substances offered by Ghasmarī and Pukkasī. bhaiajya, offered by Ghasmarī according to HeTa I.iii.9d, is more often identified as catusamam, i.e. faeces (thus SaSaBīCi f. 220r). Ratnākara- śānti is not alone in his identification, however; cf. Vajragarbha’s majjāmāṃ- saca bhaiajyavajravairocanasmta(aSā B f. 47r). The problem goes back to the fact that both bhaiajya (of HeTa I.iii.9d, associated with Ghasmarī) and vajra (of HeTa I.iii.10a, associated with Pukkasī) can be used as

9 In another MS of this work (Tokyo University Library 307) the title given is Śrī- vajrayoginīmukhāgamana and the author reported as Śrīśabarapāda.

10 That this curious form is indeed ‘correct’ is confirmed by several testimonia for this verse in early and good MSS.

Ratnākaraśānti’s Bhramahara

291

code-words for faeces. The late author Śākyarakita is probably aware of the problem/controversy; after stating that Pukkasī carries in her skull-bowl bala he adds yat tu pukkasī vajrahasteti dvikalpe ’bhihitatatrāpi vajra(vajra] em., vajra MS) māṃsam eva vyākhyātam (HeAbhiSaTi f. 81r).

p. 158, l. 15–p. 159, l. 8 tatasarvadharmān

translated in Bentor 2002 p. 50, principally on the basis of the Tibetan translation of the Bhramahara (although Bentor also was able to consult a draft of my edition of the Sanskrit; see her n. 21 on p. 50). Bentor’s paper also discusses some related passages from other works of Ratnākaraśānti; see

especially pp. 41–50.

This meditation, which is followed by the recitation of the mantra ośūnya- tāānavajrasvabhāvātmako ’ham (on which see note below) which is supposed to ‘empower’ it, is, with its strong Yogācāra content and emphasis, typical of Ratnākaraśānti’s ‘systematic treatment of ritual and esoteric exegesis through the lens of Vijñānavāda’. 11 Ratnākaraśānti is not alone in providing a Yogācāra underpinning of Vajrayāna practice, but he is perhaps the most prominent and consistent of a relatively small minority. Notice that the Hevajratantra itself seems to put Madhyamaka above Yogācāra, most explicitly in a famous pas- sage from the eighth chapter of the second kalpa, which it is worth quoting here, also because the existing editions of the text should be corrected on several points.

nirvikalpam. This passage is

tatas tuṣṭā sā devī idavacanam abravīt durdāntā durdurāḥ sattvā vaineyayānti kena hi. 8

tatas ] A B, tatra C E S E

durddarāḥ B, dundurāḥ E S E

vineyaA E S E

M

E

N sā ] A B C, tu sā E S E M E

M E N sattvā

F

T

F

T

N T durdurāḥ ] A C,

hi ] lost in B • vaineya] C,

F

M E

N

F

T

bhagavān āha.

poadhadīyate prathamatad anu śikṣāpadadaśa vaibhāṣyatatra deśyet sūtrāntapunas tathā. 9

bhagavān B C E S E

F

pra ] lost in B • daśa ] A B C, daśaE S E N , diśet E M vaibhāṣya]

N T , tato B • deśyet ] C, deśyeta

N T sūtrāntapunas ] B C, punasūtrāntakaA,

N , vaibhāśyaA • tatra ] A C E S E

T

F

M E

T

M E

F

M E

T

F

A, diśyeta B, deśeta E S E sūtrāntavai punas E S E

M

E

F

M E

T

F

N tathā ] A B E S E

N , tato B

yogācāratatapaścāt tad anu mādhyamakadiśet sarvatantranayaātvā tad anu hevajram ārabhet ghṇīyād ādaraṃ śiyasidhyate nātra saṃśaya. 10

292

Harunaga Isaacson

tata] A C

E S

E M E

F

N T , tat B • mādhyamaka] A C, madhyamakan B,

śiya] lost in B • tantra-

N T ghṇīyād ādara] A C, ghṇīyāt sādara

mādhyamikaC, madhyamakaE S E

naya] A C, mantranayaE S E

M F E

M F E

N T sarva

E S E M E

F

N sidhyate ] B C E S E

T

M E

F

N , sidhyante A

T

In other sādhanas, we often simply find the cultivation of the four brahmavi- hāras followed by the repetition of the mantra (occasionally preceded by the companion mantra ośūnyatāānavajrasvabhāvātmakāḥ sarvadharmāḥ). Sometimes the practitioner is also instructed to ‘realize/actualize the meaning of [this] mantra’ (with formulations such as mantrārtham āmukhīkurvan); thus e.g. SāMā 251 (Saptākarasādhana by Advayavajrapāda) p. 490, and the ‘fundamental’ HeSāUpā by Saroruhapāda (f. 2v, ed. p. 134). Other authors prescribe different meditations as preceding the mantra. Thus for instance Śākyarakita offers two different methods (prakāradvaya) to contemplate sarvadharmaśūnyatā. The first is to generate the firm conviction that the universe, including the Bhagavān who has been drawn to the place and worshipped, and including the practioner(’s own body), enters into the ‘clear light’ (prabhāsvarapraviṣṭa). The second, more detailed, method is to imagine the Lord together with the offering goddesses as entering/merging into the seed-syllable (on the sun-disk in the sādhaka’s heart), then the practitioner himself into the sun-disk, the sun-disk into the ū of the seed-syllable, the ū into the ha, the ha into the head-line (śirasi), the head-line into the ardhacandra, that into the bindu, and that into the subtle nāda, until only this remains, as subtle as a one-hundred-thousandth of a tip of a hair (HeAbhiSaTi f. 82v).

p. 159, l. 4 bhrānticihnam. This could be either a tatpurua or a bahuvrīhi com-

pound; both interpretations may be acceptable. I incline to prefer the tatpurua interpretation, however. It is possible that Ratnākaraśānti has in mind the state- ment vitathapratibhāso hi bhrāntilakaam from Dharmakīrti’s Svavtti on his Pramāṇavārttika (PraVāSvaVp. 49).

p. 159, l. 10. ośūnyatāānavajrasvabhāvātmako ’ham. This mantra is of

vital importance in Buddhist tantric practice at least from the GuSaTa onwards. In that tantra it is found in chapter 3, prose before verse 1. The brief explanation of the mantra in the AbhiSaMa analyses the compound as follows:

śūnyatāānam evābhedyatvād vajratasya svabhāvas tadātmako ’ham ity artha(p. 5).

p. 159, l. 11 saiva paramā rakṣā. For the notion that (the realization of) empti-

ness is the supreme protection see also e.g. AbhiSaMa p. 8 yat tu lūyīpādābhi- samaye rakṣā vajrapañjarāder anantaraśūnyatābhāvanoktā tad adhimātra- prajñādhikārāt. tasya śūnyataiva pararaketi; YoMaPaKrai p. 13: tad anu

; MaKa p. 13: athavādhimātrasattvā-

paramārthe śūnyataiva paramā raketi

Ratnākaraśānti’s Bhramahara

293

nāṃ śūnyataiva pararaketi prathamataśūnyataiva bhāvyā. uktaca – tathataiva pararakṣā vighnāc cittavinirmitāt | sarvatra sarvadharmāṇāṃ viśuddhis tathataiva hi | (the source of this verse is not known to me; with its second half cf. HeTa I.ix.1cd).

p. 159, ll. 12–13 tatas tanniyandabhūtām ākāravatīṃ rakṣāṃ śuddhalaukika-

ānasvabhāvāṃ bhāvayet. Note that the pattern of a nirvikalpaka or dvaya- rahita jñāna (which is lokottara) followed by a śuddhalaukikajñāna (which may be called the niyanda of the former, or tatpṣṭhalabdha) is found in earlier Yogācāra material; cf. for instance the vtti on Viṃśatikā 17: yadā tu tatprati-

pakalokottaranirvikalpajñānalābhāt prabuddho bhavati tadā tatpṣṭhalabdha- śuddhalaukikajñānasamukhībhāvād viayābhāvayathāvad avagacchatīti samānam etat (ViVp. 9). Cf. also from Ratnākaraśānti’s Muktāvalī on HeTa II.ii.37b: ata eva śuddhalaukikavikalpasambhogakāyo dharmakāyaniyandaś ca kathyata iti (MuĀv p. 145).

pañjarabandhanaca. In the published editions of

the HeTa this verse has been somewhat distorted by the unmetrical misreading (Snellgrove’s, copied as usual by Farrow and Menon as well as by Tripathi and Negi) nābhau for ravau. The latter reading is supported by the palm-leaf MSS, the Tibetan translation of the HeTa (ñi der P f. 233v3), the Chinese translation (see Willemen 1983 p. 47 and p. 197 [Taishō 892, 590a13]), and numerous citations of the verse.

Here is how Ratnākaraśānti comments on this verse in his Muktāvalī:

tatra maitryādibhāvanaprathamā rakṣā, śūnyatābodhir dvitīyā. ttīyāṃ rakṣāṃ rephādiślokenāha. ayam asyārtha– purastād agnivarena rephea sūryama- ṇḍala12 dhyātvā tanmadhye hūṃkārea viśvavajravicintya tatkiraasūkma- vajraisphuradbhiś caturdiggatair 13 atyantaghanībhāvāt prākārabhāvayet. uparigataiprākāraśikharodgatapañjaram, tābhyām api sphuradbhisīmā- bandham, cakārād adhogatair vajramayīṃ bhūmim ā rasātalāt. raviviśvavajrā- bhyāṃ ca raśmībhūya samantataprastābhyāṃ tat sarvadḍhīkuryād iti (MuĀv p. 41).

Note that one might consider reading pañjara bandhanaca in the last pāda of the verse, taking pañjara as used for metrical reasons as equivalent to pañja- ra. Cf. Kamalanātha ad loc.: prākārakapañjara( )bandhanaceti vajra- prākāravajrapañjaram sīmābandhanaceti (RaĀvHePa f. 6r). pañjaraban- dhanam can of course also be taken as a dvandva compound. p. 160 ll. 7–9

p. 159, ll. 14–17 rephea

12 sūryamaṇḍala

]

A (C’s

reading

uncertain

but

probably

the

same),

sūrya

maṇḍalaed.

13 caturdiggatair ] A C, caturdigantair ed.

294

Harunaga Isaacson

dharmodayākhyamahāvajradharasvabhāvaṃ śaracchaśadharadhavalam adhasūkmam upari viśālatrikoam antar gaganasvarūpam. Cf. from Ratnākaraśānti’s Muktāvalī:

kva vijahāra? sarvatathāgatakāyavākcittavajrayoidbhageu. sarvatathāgatānāṃ kāyavākcittatriguhyasahāra, kāyaś cāsau vāk ca cittaceti ktvā. tat punar bhagavato vajradharasya rūpadharmodayākhyateṣām eva tathāgataguhyānāṃ suviśuddhatathatātmakam. tad dhi yasmāt triguhyasahāras tasmāt trikoam. yasmāt suviśuddhā tathatā tasmāc charadindudhavalam antasuiraca. yasmād uttarottaraviśālena pramuditādibhūmikramea viśuddhatasmād uttarottaraviśā- lam (MuĀv p. 3).

p. 160, ll. 9–10 abhyantarodgataviśvadalakamalakarikāvasthitavipulaviśva- vajram. A viśvadalakamala (more commonly viśvapadma; also viśvapattraka- mala, viśvakamala and other similar expressions) is an eight-petalled lotus, with petals of various colours. We find differing accounts of the precise arrangement. The following verse is quoted, from an unspecified and unidenti- fied source, by Mahāsukhavajrapāda in his commentary on Caṇḍamahāroaa- tantra 2.8:

dalamālāhitadiku pītaṃ śyāmaca śādvalam | nīlam agnyādike yasya tad viśvābjasajñakam 14 || (PaCaMaTaPa f. 9v)

This teaches that the petals in the south-east, south-west, north-west, and north- east are respectively yellow, ‘dark’ (i.e. probably black), green, and dark blue. The colour of the petals in the primary directions is not stated. More informa- tion, but information that is not consistent with the verse quoted by Mahā- sukhavajrapāda, is found in a verse that occurs in, among other texts, Padma- śrīmitra’s Maṇḍalopāyikā. 15

pūrvādidigvāsidalāruṇābhavātānalāśādalapītabhāvam | pretādhipeśānadiśoś ca dūrvāśyāmābjakṣṇakhalu viśvapadmam || (GuSaMaUp f. 2v)

According to this, the petals oriented to the primary directions are red, those in the south-east and north-west yellow, and those in the south-west and north- east black. A similar definition is given in a verse in Abhayākaragupta’s Vajrā- valī:

nairtaharitakṣṇam aiśam āgneyavāyave |

pīte diku tu raktāni dalāni viśvapakaje ||

(VaĀv MS B f. 36v)

14 The last pāda is hypometric and may be corrupt.

15 It is introduced in that source with the words viśvapadmam ucyate, and concluded with an iti, so presumably the verse is not by Padmaśrīmitra himself.

Ratnākaraśānti’s Bhramahara

295

In Tibetan art/practice a tradition close to that of Abhayākaragupta (itself close to that of Padmaśrīmitra) is very common; it can be found in for instance a painting of an Avalokiteśvara maṇḍala depicted in Lipton and Ragnubs 1996, catalogue no. 77, p. 153. Here the petals in the primary directions are indeed red, and those in the south-east and north-west yellow; the petal in the north- east is dark blue, and that in the south-west dark green.

p. 160, ll. 10–11 catvāri mahābhūtāni caturmaṇḍalākārāṇi caturdevīsvabhā- vāni. For the identifications see HeTa I.ix.16: Pukkasī = earth, Śabarī = water, Caṇḍālī = fire, ombī = air. Outside of the Hevajra system the standard identifications would be those of the Guhyasamāja; see GuSaTa 17.51 pthivī locanākhyātā abdhātur māmakī smtā | pāṇḍarākhyā bhavet tejo vāyus tārā prakīrtitā || (a verse which also occurs in LaŚaTa chapter 31, f. 24v).

p. 160, l. 16–p. 161 l. 1 bhāvakas tu tadānīṃ tad eva lokottarajñānavyāpaka- tvena sthitam. The same phrase (but with the inferior tv idānīṃ for tu tadānīṃ) is found in Ratnākaraśānti’s VaTāSā (p. 227). In Kalahasakumāra’s ḌāJāCaSaRa, which is apparently closely modelled on Ratnākaraśānti’s sādhanas, the editors have printed tadekalokottarajñānavyāpakatvena sasthi- tam, perhaps following their MS(S) (there is no apparatus) but certainly in error. Compare also Kamalanātha’s RaĀvHePa ad HeTa I.viii.2d (bhāvakaś ca yathodayam): śūnyatākaruṇābhinnabodhicittarūpo yathodayam udayānatikra- mea nirmāteva pthivyādimaṇḍalānāṃ draṣṭavyo na tu tadekarasa iti yāvat (f.9v). The terminology here differs from Ratnākaraśānti’s, but the śūnyatā- karuṇābhinnabodhicittam corresponds to Ratnākaraśānti’s lokottarajñānam (which had been explicitly equated earlier with the pāramārthikabodhi- cittam), and there is agreement on the point that the bhāvaka who is going to generate himself as Hevajra remains ontologically distinct 16 from the element-

16 Note also Ratnākaraśānti’s use of tanniyandatayaiva here, and earlier the expression tanniyandabhūtām ākāravatīṃ rakṣāṃ. One point of his using this term (of which niḥṣyanda and nisyanda are merely orthographical variants) is that in both cases the underlying all-pervasive non-dual awareness does not transform (there is no pariṇāma) but remains as omnipresent ground. This in turn is in part because it is only in this form that the sādhaka should be conscious of his own presence, after the contemplation on emptiness in which together with all other dharmas his own body had been dissolved (his ‘death’), and before his taking on the form of the mantric gandharvasattvaand being reborn as the deity (the phalahevajra). The other important implication of niyanda is that the element-maṇḍalas – and earlier the ākāravatī rakṣā – are to be realized to be fundamentally pure, being, at least on the level of highest reality, empty of subject and object aspects, and thus resembling their cause, in accordance with the definition of the niyanda(= niyandaphalam) as hetusadśa(Abhidharmakośa 2.57c, quoted by Ratnākaraśānti at MuĀv p. 185).

296

Harunaga Isaacson

maṇḍalas which appear in/from the all-pervading (awareness of) emptiness (in which form alone the bhāvaka is to imagine his own presence at this stage) and which will turn into the temple-palace (kūṭāgāra) and its fundament.

p. 161, l. 4 sarvalokadhātunairātmyasūcakai. Though E’s sarvadharmanairā-

tmyasūcakaimay seem more appealing, the Tibetan translators also render the reading we find in A and B (’jig rten gyi khams thams cad bdag med par ston pa’i P f. 223v7, D f. 190v4). For more by Ratnākaraśānti on the significance of the eight charnel-grounds, see the following from the Muktāvalī on HeTa I.iii.16: ayam abhiprāya– athā śmaśāne nirātmakāḥ sattvās tathā sarvatreti nirātmakasarvasattvāvāsamudrā śmaśānam. sattvāḥ sattvasvabhāvena śūnyāḥ, sattvāvāsā api sattvāvāsasvabhāvena śūnyā iti śmaśānārtha(MuĀv p. 46).

p. 161, l. 11 calaccitrapatākāgraghaṇṭāmukharadimukham. This line also oc-

curs in Ratnākaraśānti’s VaTāSā (p. 227, wrongly printed as prose, as are sev- eral other lines of verse in the same passage). It is noteworthy that the Tibetan translation of that work understands the compound rather differently from the Tibetan translation of our sādhana. In the Tibetan translation of the Bhrama- hara we find here g.yo źibkra ba’i ba dan mchog || phyogs kyi sgo la dril bu ’khrol (P f. 224r1, D f. 190v5–6), taking agra as used in the sense of ‘best of, excellent,’ and without direct relationship with the following ghaṇṭā. In the translation of the VaTāSā, however, we read sems g.yo ba’i 17 ba dan gyi rtse mo la dril bu’i sgra sna tshogs phyogs kun tu ’khor ba (Tōhoku 3490, sDe dge bstan ’gyur, rgyud vol. mu f. 141r3). The translator 18 was evidently somewhat

at sea with Ratnākaraśānti’s Sanskrit;