SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HINDU AND BUDDHIST TANTRAS*

Francesco Sfewa
1. It is a well-known fact that Buddhst Tantric systems share numerous elements with Hindu Tantric traditions. Many scholars have sought to understand why these shared elements exist. Some have suggested that there is a common "religious substratumV.l Others have actually given a name to thls substratum, explaining the origin of Tantrism, at least in part, as an irruption of the beliefs and magical practices of the folk religion of India-including popular festivals, orgastic rites, the cult of female deities, etc.-into the rigd ambit of Brahmanical and Buddhlst orthodoxy.2 The conception of a "religous substratum" has been recently criticized by Alexis Sanderson in an article entitled "Vajrayiina: O r i g n and Function", whlch was published in Bangkok in 1994 in a volume of conference proceedings, Buddhirm into the Year 2000. T h e English scholar makes two points, the first explicitly: there is evidence only of the existence of a
I thank Raniero Gnoli, David Seyfort Ruegg and Harunaga Isaacson for having read an early draft of this paper, and for their stimulating comments. Special thanks are also due to Alexis Sanderson, who read the paper in its definitive form immediately prior to publication and not only gave me some valuable suggestions, but also allowed me to use some of his notes (see below, in particular notes 32, 33 and 37). Susan Ann White lundly helped me to revise the English version. E.g. S. Dasgupta, Obsczcre Religious Cults, 1969, pp. xxxiii-mxiv, 20; D. Seyfort Ruegg, "SW les rapports entre le bouddhisme et le 'substrat religeux7indien et tibktain", 1964, pp. 76-95; id., review of: David Snellgrove, Indo-Tibetan Buddbh: Indian Bz~ddhirtrand their Tzbetan nucessors, 1989, pp. 173-74. It should be noted that the "substratum model" proposed by Seyfort Ruegg is closely associated with the concept: of the laukika, and vy~vahzrika,in contrast to the lokottnra, and pzramgrthikn, and that it is not an exclusively "Tantric substratum". E.g. B. Bhattacharyya, An 6ztrodziction to Buddhist Esoterism, 193 1 (repr. Delhl 1980), p. 1; G . Tucci, Tibetan Painted Scrolls, 1949, pp. 2 10-1 1 and 2 15- 19; R. Gnoli, "Lntroduzione" to R. Gnoli and G. Orofino, Nm-opn. Iniziazione, 1994, p. 3 1.

'

Buddhst, ~ a i v a or Vaisnava Tantrism, and we can only have recourse to the hypothesis of a "religious substratum" when n o other possible explanation exists; the second, implicitly: that we must first do our utmost to attempt to determine possible relations of dependence between the various forms of Tantrism. Sanderson writes:
The problem with this concept of a 'religious substratum' or 'common cultic stock' is that they are by their very nature entities inferred but never perceived. or Buddhist, or V a i ~ ~ a vor a , something Whatever we perceive is always ~ a i v a else specific. Derivation from this hidden source cannot therefore be the preferred explanation for similarities between these specific traditions unless those similarities cannot be explained in any other way.'

Sanderson has studied a group of still unpublished Saivite works belonging to the Vidyiipifha of the Bhairava section of the Saiva canon, including the Siddhayogeharimata, the Tantrasadbhiva, the Jayadratbayrimala (also known as Tantrarqabbattliraka) and the Brabmayimala (also lmown as Picumata). H e has provided enough examples to establish that, with regard to the ritual framework, these texts preceded and served as a model for the "higher" class of Buddhist Tantras, the Yoginitantras, among which the Hevajraddkinijalasamvara, commonly known as Hevayatan~a, and the Cakrasa~varaare notable. Numerous passages in the aforesaid ~aivite works recur, for instance, in the Sa~varoahyatanwa, the Hemkibbidbina, the Vajradka, the Dakamava and the Abbidb~inottara.~ h one case in particular, we find an anomaly, the imprecise adaptation of a list that inequivocably betrays the ~ a i v a origin of the text. Evidently the redactor was not paying attention when he included this.'

Sanderson7sessay is important regardmg both the method of researchmg Tantris~n and the results, and marks a turning point in this field of studies. Recently, he published another important paper in which he gives further examples of inter-dependence between different scriptural sources and establishes a relative chronology for some of these.6 W e hope that the path he has taken will soon produce further interesting results. In turn, certain aspects of Sanderson's viewpoint have been critically analyzed by David Seyfort Ruegg. In his paper, "A Note on the Relations h p between Buddhist and 'Nndu7 Divinities in B u d h s t Literature and Iconology: T h e Laukika/Lokottara Contrast and the Notion of an Indian 'Religious Substratum"', published in 2001, he speaks of a bowuwing model (BM) and a submaturn model (SM), maintaining that Sanderson embraces the former and rejects the latter.' H e observes that:

. . . the notion of a common 'religious substratum' does not automatically exclude all possibility of borrowing between Hinduism/Brahmanism and Buddhism in cases where this assumption is clearly appropriate. Quite to the contrary, it can be argued that cultural borrowing would regularly take place precisely against a background of shared categories and concepts.'
With regard to thls matter, I have developed a line of reasoning that I expounded in a previous version of this paper presented at the 12th Conference of the International Association of Buddhst Studies in Lausanne in August 1999. My point of departure was a question not directly examined by Sanderson (but likely implicit in his discourse), that is, a reflection on what made it possible for the redactors of Buddhist Tantras to include passages fi-om advaita Saivite texts, such as the Bhairavatanuas, in their works. This question was reflected on independently by David Seyfort Ruegg in the above-mentioned paper, and I would refer readers to h s work for a more detailed discussion. Seyfort Ruegg convincingly points out that
(id., p. 95). Cf. also A. Sanderson, "~aivism and the Tantric Traditions", 1988, pp. 67879; id., "Purity and Power among the Brahmans of Kashmir", 1990, p. 2 14 note 106. A. Sanderson, "History through Textual Criticism in the Study of ~ a i v i s m the , Paiicariitra and the Buddhist Yoginitantras", 200 1, pp. 1-47. D. Seyfort Ruegg, "A Note on the Relationship between Buddhist and 'Hindu' Divinities in Buddhist Literanire and Iconology: The LnzrkikdLokottllra Contrast and the Notion of an Lndian 'Religious Substratum"', 2001, p. 737. p. 738. "d.,

'

A. Sanderson, "Vajrayaa: Origin and Function", 1994, pp. 92-93. Id., pp. 94-95. "This anomaly is the occurrence of Grhadevam after Pretapuri and before Sauriispa in the series of the Samvarodaya. This Grhadevam is the only place name that does not occur in the Tantrasadbhava's list; and it is the only name that is puzzling. It is puzzling because the meaning of the word is 'household deity', hardly a likely name for a place. Now, in the version in the Tantrasadbhiiva we are told not only the names of the pl:thas but also classes of deities associated with each. The class associated with SaurHspa is that of the Grhadevaas, the household deities. Evidently, while intending to extract only the place names from a list pairing names and deities, the redactor's mind has drifted without h s being aware of it from the name-list to that of the deity-list and back again"

'

60

Francesco Sfma shared what could be defined as a common way of interpreting reality and of relating to it, whch is expressed in a "common soteriological strategy7'. T h s common "substratum of beliefs and soteric practices" is the presupposition that allowed Buddhist authors to include passages or verses h-om non-dualist m n d u Tantras in their scriptures, and that permitted Hindu redactors to act in a similar way. Seen from such a perspective, this "substratum", unlike the supposed substratum of the folk religion, is neither radically inaccessible nor hidden. O n the other hand, it is important to bear in mind that a set of soteriological beliefs does not exist in itself, but only insofar as it is expressed through concrete forms that usually include rituals, various meditative techniques, ethical behaviour, oral teachings, scriptures, institutions, artistic, literary (and sometimes even archtectonic) representations, etc. Therefore, in order to arrive at a more global and accurate evaluation of Tantrism, i s origin and development, it is also necessary to analyze not only written sources, but also archaeological, historical and artistic evidence. Important contributions in thls direction have already been published by G. Buhnemann, who has studied the incorporation of Buddhist siidbanas, deities and mantras in late Hindu texts." W e can therefore hypothesize, as an essential pre-requisite, the existence of a common Weltanschauung, which has necessarily resulted in the development of a massive literary output and conceptual re-elaboration, as can be seen in other areas of Indian (and not only Indian) culture. This literary output, of course, has involved the composition of new scriptural sources but also the reworking and adaptation of existing materials, whch, as in other not necessarily Tantric contexts, can be classified in various categories. These are wide-rangng and include the simple reformulation of an idea, the tacit inclusion of passages, the quotation or modified quotation of existing materials.

a rejection of the SM would imply the existence of different self-contained religous systems without clarifying "the conditions under wluch the hypothesized dependence of Buddhism on ~aivism arose and developed".9 Seyfort Ruegg must be given the credit for having outlined, with great clarity, a hermeneutic model for the study of the laukika/lokottara contrast and the notion of an Indian religous substratum, and for having stressed the risks connected with one of the other possible approaches. However, it seems to me that he is probably mistaken when, concerning h s difference of opinion with Sanderson, he identifies the viewpoint of the latter with a rigid BM. Although there is no clear evidence that Sanderson does not actually deny the concept of substratum that Seyfort Ruegg sustains-the conciseness of Sanderson's words may have contributed to their being misinterpreted-there is reason to suppose that Sanderson wanted to discourage an acritical approach to the SM (perhaps in the sense of its identification with the folk religion of India) and intended to stress the need to examine the concrete examples we have at our disposal and to determine their possible relationshps, rather than actually rejecting the idea of a substratum in the sense in which it is spoken of in Seyfort Ruegg works and in the following pages.

2. T h e present article, originally delivered as a speech, deliberately retains that characteristic whle offering some general considerations on the relationshp between Buddhst and Hindu Tantric systems, and some reflections on the ways in whch Tantric scriptures were "edited". I would like to start by saylng that there is a need, as Seyfort Ruegg ~nentionsat the end of h s article,1 to integrate the SM and the BM in a single hermeneutic model; in fact a rigid BM can be criticized essentially for not acknowledgng that a "substratum" (in the sense of a shared body of soteriologcal beliefs) always exists even when there is undeniable evidence of borrowings. In order to explain the transposition and adaptation of parts of a text, not so much widun the same tradition-which is most frequentbut rather among different traditions, we must make a supposition: the authors of these adaptations were aware that they were using works that not only belonged to the same cultural milieu, but whch, more specifically,
Id., p. 740. Id., p. 741.

3. Several examples are gven in two articles published in Dbib. Journal of Rare Buddhist Texts Research Project in 1986 and 1987 by Vrajavallabha
"

'O

"The Goddess Mahiicinakrama-Tiirii (Ugra-Tiirii) in Buddhist and Hindu Tanmsrn", 1996, pp. 472-93; id., "Buddhist deities and mantras in the Hindu Tantras: I T h e Tamiasirasamg-ahn and the ~inaii~n~~rzldeunpaddhati", 1999, pp. 303 -34; id., "Buddhist deities and rnantras in the Hindu Tantras: 1 1The ~ r i v i d ~ i i ~ a v a t a nand t r a the T a n m sHraV,2000, pp. 2 7-48.

62

Francesco Sfeerva of initiations (abbiseka, diks4, but also a direct relationshp with a qualified master. Knowledge is not transmitted through the written word, but instead through direct contact with its living embodiment. Ultimately, all traditions identify the master with the deity, or with one of his manifestations. T h e master is Siva hmself or, as we read in a verse quoted by Ravigrijfi~na(l l th- 12th cent.), "he is the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha".'* T h e Gurupaiiciiiki, one of the fundamental Indo-Tibetan Buddhist texts on devotion to the master, states that to offend the master is to offend all Buddhas (st. 10). We can also consider what is perhaps the most typical characteristic of this set of beliefs, that is, conceiving of liberation as a transformation into the deity (or the Buddha) or one of h s manifestations, and conceiving of t h e emancipated living being eanmukta) as that same deity. Every manifestation of his existence is a manifestation of the deity, as we read, for instance, in the Sivaszitras (iani~av.mirwatam I kathgjapab; 3.2 6-2 7) and in the Hevajratantm bivanto by arigavikrepa vacasab prasar-ini ca I tivan to mantramudnib yub h-hemkapade sthite I 1 ; 1.7.26).13A similar concept appears in the ParatrimiikZ and in the Spandakir-iki. In this regard we can explain this belief in modem terms as a kind of "twofold process": the de-identification from the mundane and the identification or 'union7 (yoga) with personality @rdkkrtihavk8r-a) the deity. This twofold process has been described as the 'recognition' @ratyabh@ia)of one's "divine" or, in Buddhist terms, "adamantine" nature. Our Self is the deity. T h e Adamantine Being, as stated in the CakrasaFvaratantra, "resides continuously in the supreme and delightful secret that is the essence of everything".14 In the P~ajn"opiyaviniicayasiddhi by An~gavajra, we read: sa ma bhagavin vajn- tarnad dmniva devata (5.33cd, ed. p. 84). Similar words can be found in ~ a i v i t e texts: mlinnaiva devati proktg laliti viivavigrahd (quoted in the Mabdrthamalijar$arimala by Mahehar2nanda, ed. p. 123).

Dvivedi, who listed various quotations similar in form or content from Buddhist, ~ a i v i t e and Siikta Tantric texts. Rather than commenting on these quotations, he confined hmself simply to recording them. In some cases, the quotations actually correspond: words literally match, except for a few unimportant variants. In other cases, we meet with notable formal differences, while the content is basically identical. Only rarely is a reference to the original source made in the texts; in the main, the quotations are introduced by words such as tad z~ktam or tad d u b . Sometimes we find reference to an unspecified tradition, made with such expressions as tathi igamab. Dvivedi classified the quotations in twentyeight groups. Other groups can be added to these, each of whch can, of course, be extended further. A number of these classifications, formulations and common conceptions derive from ancient Indian culture and emerge in Tantric traditions of every kind. I refer in particular to mystic physiology (ndril, cakr-a, etc.), the micro-macrocosm relationship, the importance of mantras, yoga and ritual, the technical terminology used in these contexts (it is sufficient to consider the migamantvas, the Vedic jitis, such as vau!at, phat, etc., the oblation on fire [honza], etc.), and also linguistic speculations (i.e., the importance of the phoneme a, the association of semivowels with specific elements, etc.). If we exclude these, though, then we realize that there are various groups of quotations and formulations that express a common soteriology that we could qualify as "non-dualist (advaya, advaita) Tantric". I will not examine here the familiar characteristics of Tantrism in general and of Buddhist or Hindu Tantric systems in particular, but I would like to explore, if in a non-systematic way, some of those elements that best illustrate the aforementioned common "substratum of beliefs and soteric practices", by partially using some of the quotations listed by Dvivedi and by narrowing the field to non-dualist Tantric literature. In doing thls, we will see how Buddhist and Kindu Tantric traditions only appear to be distant from each other at the theoretical level when the common practices and "substratum" are imbued with a doctrinal content.

'*

4. In many cases there is no evidence of actual borrowing from other texts or sources, but merely of the reformulation of ideas. Let us consider, for instance, what is certainly one of the most essential and well-known elements of Tantrism (dualist and non-dualist): the belief that the practice of and access to esoteric teachmgs require, not only initiation-or a series

"

l4

gurur h d h o gumr dbamo gumb sanghas tathaiva m (Gzeabbara?ri, ed. p. 76). This verse is also quoted in the Abbisamayamaijari by subhakaragupta (ed. p. 154) and in the Ma7mtlkalikripaiijika by ViryaSrimih-a (ad TattvaflZ?zasa~z.siddhi4.6, ed. p. 5 3). It is very similar to Lndrabhuti's j5iZnasiddhi 1.24ab (gzlnlr h ~ ! d b o bbaved dhnrmnb smigbas' cripi sa eva hl]. See also V. Dvivedi, "Bauddha-Saiva-Sh tantrom mem tulaniitmaka s-gri (2)"' 1987, p. 96. rnhmye pn~anzeyamye sa?vitnmnisadi sthitab (1.2cd).

64

Francesco Sfewa
yet descended but external objects have nevertheless disappeared, then the Supreme Goddess shines.I6

The above examples show that in many cases we are not able to detect the origin of a certain conception, either because it is a fundamental expression of this "substratum" or because, even if we can envisage its original source, there is no concrete evidence of intermediate passages and we will have to content ourselves with a hypothesis. For instance, in h s recent new edition of the translation of Abhinavagupta's Tantrdoka, Raniero Gnoli points out that some elements of the Tanmc Saiva doctrine seem more consonant with a Buddhist vision. H e considers the number thirty-six, corresponding to the thirty-six principles in whch reality is might have subdivided in the Buddhlst tradition. H e suspects that ~aivites accepted its logic and been tempted to reformulate it in their doctrinal context, even though, in this case, their discourse would become extremely c~m~licated T . 'o ~ the twenty-five principles of Samkhya, others must be added that sometimes may appear amficial. It is also worth noting that in the Buddhist Tantric texts there is a precise correspondence between deities, feelings, bodily functions, etc., which does not pervade to the same extent in the Saiva scriptures, although it does appear in the Krama school, which may have been influenced by Buddhst ideas. Of course, these are simply hypotheses that must be corroborated by other examples and considerations, but I quote them here because they seem an interesting point of departure for further research.

tad uktanz anLigntLiyLim rridniyip pranage brihyagocnre I yri bhaven manaso 'vastbii bhavayet t r Z v payatnat& I I (Tamm-a~uivali, ed. p. 16, lines 15-6)
It has been said: [The yogin] should carehlly meditate on that mental state that is manifested when sleep has n o t yet descended but external objects have nevertheless disappeared.

This reveals how in the Buddhst context the reference to the unfolding of the supreme reality in its active, female principle has been concealed by a more neutral reference to the commianent of the yogin.17

6. Where a concept or practice has been taken fiom one context and
adapted to another, there are also cases in whch, although &S has been done very carefully, it is possible to determine the source. Max Nihom, for instance, demonstrates that text number 256 of the SZdbanamiIa "reflects a conscious and successful effort on the part of the unknown author to amalgamate features of both the DharmadhiituviigiSvaramandala system and Piigupatasiitra terrnin~logy".'~ Sanderson, in h s turn, shows how the process of the evocation of Sarpvara, the reabsorption of the mwdala into the syllable hzip and the Great Bliss that is reached at the end of meditation, re-express in Budcllust terms the structure of a ritual that we find in Saiva Tantras, such as the Svacchandatan~a.'~

5. Where different passages are concerned, sometimes the origin is

perfectly clear, but it is nevertheless interesting to study the modifications made by the author. For example, Advayavajra (alias Maitripiida) respectfully quotes numerous stanzas from Hindu works, and it is worth mentioning that some verses, which in one instance he claims belong to the Vedgntaviidins, actually come, with some variants, from one of the most celebrated and important ~ a i v a Tantras, the Vijiiinabbairava. Here we find the following stanza (bold face has been used to indicate where and how he modified the original):
anigatzyim n i d r i y i p pranage bzbyagocare I savasthii m a m a gamyrZ par% deviprakaate I I (VijZznabhairava 75, ed. p. 65) If [the yogin] succeeds in reaching with his mind that state where sleep has not
R. Gnoli, Abhilzavappta. Luce delle same scrimre, 1999, p. LXVI.

7. Apart from possible considerations on the origin of Tantric tradtions and on the precedence that one tradition takes over another, we can suppose that the redactors of the Tantras had at their disposal a whole collection of rituals and, sometimes, even docmnes, classifications, etc. These
This stanza is also quoted in the Spaadmi~naya by Ksemaraja ad 3.1-2 (ed. p. 56). For tantrom mem tulan~trnaka Further references see V. Dvivedi, "Bauddha-9aiva-5~kta siimagri (2)", 1987, p. 91. The other quotations from the fijfiinabbairava are: st. 69 in Sekani~aya (p. 29, lines 78) and st. 116 in Tattuaramivali(p. 18, lines 20-2 1). "Siidhanam~la 256 - A PiiSupata-Bauddha Tantristic S~dhana", 1994, p. 227. , "Vajraysna: Origin and Function", 1994, pp. 96-97.

Id

"

''
lS l9

66

F~ancesco Sfewa such practices. O n the contrary, with a pure mind, it is ~recisely through "ritualized" contact with the impure that practitioners may accomplish the alchemical transmutation resulting in the acquisition of powers and, for those who desire it, liberation. Naturally, h s transmutation does not occur through the mere performance of the ritual but requires an elixir (comparisons with alchemy are often found in both Buddhst and Hindu texts), that is, awareness or knowledge that allows us to establish direct contact with our most profound nature (mamabhiva). This contact marks the transition to a more profound and inexpressible land of knowledge. When it comes to defining one's own nature and the noetic, liberating experience, traditions are known to differ. O n the one hand, they may speak of the "deflagration" of the self and, on the other, of its "expansion". T h s nature is not inaccessible; it lies behind adventitious maculations; it is the divine light behind darkness, the ever-shming mind beyond suffering. Although the concepts relating to the true nature of the self are very different, the underlying belief is the same. That is to say, there is light hdden even in the dark aspects of reality. On a phenomenological level, h s belief can express itself by referring to the possibility of experiencing that which is negative in a positive way. A passage from the S i v a d ~by ~i Somiiinanda (9th-10th cent.) is very clear in b s regard: If someone were to object that suffering, etc., is different horn Siva, we would reply that "Sivahood" is also present in suffering, because Siva also manifests in suffering and we ourselves can feel content while experiencing it.*' Hence we have seen that a characteristic element of the non-dualist

were "ready-made" materials, so to speak, that they could incorporate without great difficulty by making a few changes within their own system, in perfectly "good faith" and in harmony with the exegetical and didactic Indian tradition, for whch the concept of plagarism does not exist ( I hnk this is the reason that the phenomenon has sometimes been defined as "pious plagarism"). They perceived that the underlylng beliefs were the same, even when the doctrines that justified them were far removed h-om their own, and therefore open to criticism. I would like to explore this last point further by briefly examining the function of theoretic thought in the process of re-elaboration. Theoretical thought is normally used to express the set of beliefs we are discussing here, and at times it is also used for justifying those beliefs. T h e doctrine supplies the underlylng structure to which every external contribution or new manifestation w i h n the tradition adapts; it would appear that the doctrine has the function of absorbing the new expressions of the said beliefs (on the various levels at whch they manifest: rite, conduct, etc.) and of reconciling them with the previous tradition. One or two examples will suffice.

8. First, I would like to consider an essential concept of this non-dualist set of soteriologcal beliefs. Although not born with Tantrism, h s concept was accorded particular emphasis, both in its application on an etlcal plane and in the conception of the ultimate reality: the idea that at any moment and in any reality it is possible to immerse oneself in the Absolute. Buddhist and Hindu texts describe transgressive practices and permit contact with the "impure" worlds of sexuality and, sometimes, of death, and the use of inebriating and repellent substances-all because "pure" and impure" are creations of the mind. Several Hindu and Buddhist texts stress that the pain of samsira and the beatitude of nirvi?za are created by the same mind;*' therefore, a1though ritual practices are usually not abandoned in Tantric traditions, pureness is not primarily attained through
C6

'O

Several different sources are quoted in the Spa?za!ap~ndipika by Bhagavatotpala, ed. p. 88. It is worth noting that the author of this text, Bhagavatotpala, is sometinles referred tobut only in secondary literature-as Utpalavaisnava and Utpaliicarya. However, Sanderson has pointed out that the name Bhagavatotpala, which appears in the colophon of his work, is confirmed by the existence of several similar names, for of Vallabhadeva, where we find the names of the following instance, in the Szibhz~itava/li

poets: Bh~gavatiimtadatta(nos. 608, 609), Bhsgavaarcitadeva (nos. 142, 143, 3Sol), Bhiigavatajayavardhana (nos. 42 5, 678, 76 1, 766, etc.), Bhiigavataaivikrama (nos. 866, 1029), Bhagavatavinka (no. 164), Bh~gavatavinitadeva(no. 1242), BhiigavataSarikha (nos. 1876, 35 14) and BhiigavataStira (nos. 927, 2276). See A. Sanderson, "Xstory through Textual Criticism in the Study of ~aivism, the Paficariitra and the Buddhist Yoginitantras", 2001, p. 35 note 38. duhkhgding viSe:c.as' cet tatriipy afivatn na ca I dubkhe 'pi pravikiisena duhkhirthe &rtisn~zgamit I I (st. 5.9); see also 7.88cd-89. In another passage of the same work we read: mkhe duhkhe vimohe ca sthito 'ham pal-amnb Sivab "In pleasure, in suffering and , [always] present" (7.lOSab). Both stanzas confusion, in all three, I, the Supreme ~ i v aam are quoted in the Pal-Ztrr'mSikritattuaviva~aby Abhinavagupta (ed. pp. 200, 203; see also p. 33 note 92).

68

Francesco Sfen-a

ONTHE RELATIONSHP BEWEN

HWDU AND BUDDHISTTANTRAS

69

Tantric set of soteriological beliefs is the conviction that access to the absolute reality is essentially through knowledge. In a stanza quoted by Maitrip~da we read:
When the yogn who, satisfied by the ambrosia of knowledge, has done what he had to do, nothing else must be done; if something should still be done, he would not be a true knower (or, 'a knower of truth') (tanumit).22

these two concepts would also be acceptable to a Buddhst. Sornsnanda

T h e pot knows through me; I know through the pot. I know through Sadaiiva and he knows through me. Yajiiadatta knows through Siva and Siva through Yajiiadatta. T h e pot knows through Sadsiiva and Sadsgiva through the pot. Everything consists of everything else, because the nature of each thing is the nature of all the other things. . . . Thus, it has been said that everything, whlch consists of Siva, is in everything else.14

A well-known passage of the MdZiniv~ayottaratantnz(1.2 3 cd-24ab), one of the most celebrated Saivite tantras, explicitly states that maculation, that is, what prevents us from obtaining liberation and constitutes the bond to transmigration (sal(tsdra) is nothing but nescience, or ignorance (ajlirina), which has exactly the same negative function as the av2jlj.a or avidyd described in Buddhist and also non-Buddhist texts. T h e same concept occurs in the Sivasiitra. According to all non-dualist traditions, overcoming ignorance or applying true knowledge involves at least two factors: first, a knowledge of the "toxicity" of ignorance (and of its products, starting with attachment and aversion); and second, a knowledge of the true nature of thlngs. Traditions hlly agree on the first point, a concept that is expressed with the metaphor of the poison-knower in numerous texts, including the Hevajratan~a,the Cittaviiuddhiprakampa by b a d e v a and the Mklinivijayottaraatantra. Only the poison-knower is able to eliminate the toxic element without damaging himself or others.23However, while in Buddhist terms knowing the true nature of things means knowing emptiness (SZlnyat4, in ~aivite terms it means knowing that "everything consists of everything else (sarwam samritmakam)" or "consists of Siva (s'iv8tmakam)", a formula that often recurs in the Sivadmi and in the texts of the Pratyabhjiis. Doctrines differ on this point, because the Saiva texts do not question the substantiality of things. But what does "substantiality" really mean in this context? We cannot but note how in the Saiva texts the interrelation of entities is emphasized and the idea of an autonomous and self-contained I-mine (ahap mama) is no longer justifiable. Although a theistic language is adopted,

It is no mere coincidence that a stanza probably of Jaina origin, according to whch he who sees the nature of even one being in its essence sees all beings in their essence, recurs in Buddhist, Saiva and Vai~gava works2' (eko ~ I eko s bhdvah bhdvas tattwato yena dystah same bhgviris tattvatas tena d sarvabhirivamabhavahsame bhava ekabhkvasuabhiriv$ I I ).26 Notwithstanding the agreement on such significant points, we must not

24

22

"

jfiinim.,tora hptarya k a k r t y q a yoginab I naivrini kiGcit kartazyam a.sti cet na sa t a m i t I I (quoted from the Yogridhy* in the Sekani~~zaya, ed. p. 29, lmes 2-3). ymiva vcakhgzdena m~-iymte sa~vajantavabI tenaiva v&tattv@fio vce?za sphotayed v ~ a m II (Iievnj7-atannu 2.2 -46); v~ipahi~-ivmnrrridisa~znaddho bhakrayann api I v * na mzrhyate

26

tena tadvad yogi mahnmntib I I (Milinivijayottal-atantra 18.8 1). See also Cittavihlddhiprakarapz, stt. 17-18 and 45-46. maditman& ghap vetti vedmy aham v i ghatitman2 I I sadaaCivimanavedmi sa v2 vetti madamadatmarui I Sivitmani yajiiadatto yajfindattitmani fivab I I sadrTSivimnii vetti ghahntah sa ca ghatitman2 I same sarvitmakd bhivih sa?vasamama?-ipatab I [. ..] tena sarvagatanz sarvaTz iivanipanz ninipitawz I I (giuadgi 5.105cd- 107, 1l Ocd). by Vibhuticandra (12th-13th This stanza is quoted in the Anr.~aka?zikoddyotanibmrdha by cent.), ed. p. 212, without mentioning the source, in the Ca~igitikoiavyikhyi Munidatta (ed. Bagchi, p. 158), where it is stated that it is iigama[vacana], in the Sekoddeatippapiby Sedhupum ~ridhariinanda (l l th. cent.) (ad st. 106b, prihs ab, ed. p. 137) and also in Hindu works, such as the Pal-amirthast~mtiki by Yogargja (ad st. 26, ed. p. 59) and the Spandap-adijiki (ad st. 39, ed. p. 12 l), where pridas ab and cd are inverted, and the commentary by L a k s m i r ~ ~ on a the P a n i ~ p S i k @Z&s i d, ed. p. 13, line 8). The second part of this stanza (padas cd) is quoted in M~linivijayavrirttikaayavika 1.641 (ed. p. 59) by Abhmavagupta, who specifies that the concept expressed therein belongs to the Venerables (ayhat), i.e. the Jainas, and is also present in the S~%ira (T?-ikasi?-a),a lost work Yogar3ja states that this stanza is by ~ambhubhamraka. The same stanza is quoted by Jayar%ibhat~a,ed. p. 79, and in the Tmkar-ahagad$iki by in the Tattvopaplavasi~ha G~aratna (ad Sa&arsiznasamzucaya, Jainamatam, st. 55; ed. pp. 222 -23). For further references see V. Dvivedi, "Bauddha-Saiva-S~ktatanuom mem tulan~tmakasknagri", 1986, p. 101. The same stanza is also paraphrased in the Catubfataka by Aryadeva (3rd cent.) (8.16, ed. p. 82f; cf. p. 83 note 16, where there are other references). See also Mndhjarrcakak&iki-

70

Francesco Sfva not be conhsed with nihilism." Hence, there is agreement on &S point. Immediately afterwards, Sivopiidhy~yaquotes five stanzas from the Vimarfad$ika (pp. 110-11) in which it is declared that, according to the Saivites, emptiness must be identified with the freedom of the Lord, whereas emptiness for the Buddhists is only non-perception (agraba?za)."

be surprised if the idea of emptiness is criticised in f i n d u texts, and the idea of ihara in Buddhlst texts. W e cannot go into detail here, instead we simply note that the confrontation between traditions, or between different systems within a tradition," pivots on the main doctrinal issues and on what could be defined as "clichb"; for the most part, opponents resort to standard criticism. We h o w , for instance, that Puqdarika (l lth cent.) knew the Kula and the Siddhbta, which he mentions in the fifth chapter of the Vimalaprabb8 (ad Lnghuk~Zacakliltantlil5.49cd), but we have to admit that when in the second chapter he criticizes the Saiva positions, his analysis is quite generic and could apply to both ~aivitetradition^.^^ The criticism is not directed at specific elements of the opposing systems (whose tenets are in some cases close to hls own), but at the more general and well-known doctrines; in the case of Saivism he attempts, as does the entire Buddhist tradition, to deny the logcal admissibility of a Lord (ihara), considered as an independent creator (cf. Lagbukdacakratan~a 2.1 68- 169). In the Vzjganabhairava there is a stanza in which the absolute state, the plane of ~ i v ais , defined by the term izinya (st. 127). Sivop3dhyaya, a later commentator (18th cent.), tries to show to what degree we can speak of emptiness with reference to ~ i v a H . e explains the difference between emptiness according to the Buddhists (sugatasuta) and emptiness for those who worship the Goddess (devinayopasin). In thls regard he quotes a famous stanza from the AZokamd~ by the Buddhist Kambala, which we find in This stanza states that emptiness must several Saiva and Vaisnava works.29
v?-tti ad 4.9, where stanzas from other sources are quoted (Samidhi~ijasutra, Avagagaagk?jasadhi~tra) which repeat, with different words and slight differences, the same concept. Cf. S. McClintock, "Knowing All through Knowing One: Mystical Communion or Logcal Trick in the Tattvasamgrahapaiijiki7', 2000. In another quotation that Bhagavatotpala attributes to the PaiicarBtra, we read: ya&tmni sarvabhzitini pa$aty atmn-nap ca tep p@ak ca tebhyas taa% mrtyor mzlcyatejanmanaf ca (SpandupradIpikd ad st. 2 l , ed. p. 106). See also Bhagavadgii 6.29f (v. 30f Kashrnirian version). Cf. J.R. Newman, "Buddhist Siddhiinta in the Kiilacakra Tantra", 1992, pp. 227-34. Cf. G. Gronbold, "Heterodoxe Lehren und Ihre Widerlegung im Kiilacakra-Tanwa", 1992, pp. 273-97. The stanza by Kambala is quoted, for instance, in the SpandupradIpiki (ad st. 1.5, ed. p. 97), in the Spandanir?zaya (ad st. 1.12- 13, ed. p. 28) and in the Viji-i&abhairnvavi~i(ad st. 127, ed. p. 110).

9. Sometimes, there can be agreement also with respect to doctrines. Authors and texts of other Tanmc and non-Tannic traditions are quoted or incorporated in works when there is convergence on specific points. In the VimaZaprabbz, for instance, Pundarika quotes three padas of a stanza of . ~ 'the fifth chapter the Krilottardgama to explain the ariga, or d e a t h - ~ i ~ nIn

' O

"

32

"

sivasthg kim avqiiqi mamadrSaih irinyatocyate I ?m punar lokanidhyaiva n ~ ~ i ~ i r t h i ? n r p i t i ? z I I (Ahkmnd-, s t 142, ed. p. 168). This stanza is quoted in the DohikoSnvyikhya (ed. p. 100) and is paraphrased by Vajrapani in his L@uta?ztmtiki: manipato dvindriyajam kramsukham kotiraha.watamim api kalim n21-ghati param-ka7-m~khasyetiI ihik~arm~khiivastha y i sahaj~na~zdunipi~zisivasthi kipy avijlieyi bilayoginim I bodhisativaih hinyatisamidhir iiy ncyate I na punar lokarudhyi ndstikyi?~hihupitiniti (ed. p. 143): "hreality, the moved pleasure, born from the two organs, does not equal even an infinitesimal part of the supreme unchanging pleasure (jaramribraranrkha). Here, inexperienced yogins do not know this condition of unchanging pleasure, the nature of which is innate pleasure, whatever this may be. The Bodhisattvas call it 'the concentration of voidness7;[voidness] that one must not understand in a nihlistic sense according to the worldly conventional meaning". T h e same passage by Vajrapiini has been quoted in the Sadnlignyoga by Anuparnaraksita (ed. p. 135) and in the Sekoddeiatiki by Naropa (ed. p. 42). See also the Tantriloknviveka by Jayaratha ad 1.33 (ed. vol. 1, pp. 66-67) and the PI-atyabh$i-idh&ya by Ksemaraja ad slctra 8 (ed. p. 66). The three pidus quoted by Pwdarika are: yathi vim- tathgvmti madhyami ca tatbaiva ca I trivar~inte makhidi [...] (Vimalaprabhi ad 2.64, ed. vol. 1, p. 196). The first two padas occur with a slight variation in st. 18.5 of the printed edition of the Sii?-dhatl-iiatikiIotta?-igama-the only published recension of the Kdonarigam-whch reads: yathi cidyi tathi vimd madbyam- ca tathniva ca I kilacakram samakhydtam p'11t-r-asneh2d vi!e;atab I I (ed. p. 129). But, as Alexis Sanderson has kindly informed me, "they are almost identical to those in the text of the Sirdhatri'sati recension as it is transmitted in the Nepalese manuscript wadition (cf. NGMPP, Mf. B1 18/7 fol. 1lr2-3). The same is seen in the DviSatika recension (ibid. fol. 7r3-4: yathi V ~ V tathivanta Z ~ nzadhyama ca tathg bhavet) and, with other corruptions, in the Saptahtika recension (ibid. fol. 19c8-9:yathi ylimi tathz cimd madbyam2 ca tathi bhavet). They do not occur in the Trayodainatika recension."

72

Francesco Sfeerra

ONTHE RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN HINDU AND BUDDHISTTANI'RAS passages f?om Vaisnava, Saiva and Buddhst works. Many more examples could, of course, be @ven.14 W e could also mention cases of doctrinal contributions in the ambit of Hindu systems belongng to different traditions; for instance, the doctrine of the six "paths" (adbvan), which was probably first formulated in ~ a i v a circles and was later adopted and modified by Piificariitrins, as we can see in the Satvatasavhita (chap. 19). Then there is the attribution of the term dblira~d (lit. "support") to the semivowels (ya, ra, la, va)-related to the "cuirasses" (kafkzdka), which, as far as we know, appears for the first time in a ~aiva work, the Pardtrimiikd (st. 7), and whch is to be found in later Vaisnava texts, such as the AhirbudhnyasaphitZ (16.83-87) and the Laksmitantra (19.12-19ab).~' In Buddhst terms, we could say that sometimes the differences between the various traditions are more evident in the savvpi rather than the vivpi (or paramriltha) perspective. Pundarika twice quotes a verse from the Buddhst Yoginfsa~aratantm to confirm that all the philosophcal doctrines are equivalent from the relative point of view (sapvpisatya) and that the Buddhist doctrines are superior only with respect to emptiness, and thus from the point of view of the absolute truth (vivytiratya). In the Vimalaprabba he writes:
T h e theories of all dartanas, examined From the point of view of the relative m t h of the world, are the same for realizing mundane perfections. In other
laingikahrddhyddiramuttho mithyibodhah sa'pavasid~ajakalpab I 1 14.12 y a m i d viddha~z nitakamzrkbym nu tzntram tad yad bhzgah N Z prak.rtim ~ no samupeydt I ." More generally, it is evident that Buddhist doctrines constituted an important standard of comparison for many exponents of Hindu Tanuism, at least in exegetical Tantric Literature; one only has to think how heavily authors such as Utpaladeva (10th cent.) and Abhinavagupta (10th-l lth cent.) depended on Buddhist logicians just to develop their techmcal terminology. See R. Torella, "The Pratyabhijfie and the Logical-Epistemological School of Buddhism", 1992, pp. 327-45. Riimakqtha 1 1(second half of 10th cent.), in his commentary on the MataGgapirameivar-atan~a, quotes and attributes authoriq to numerous stanzas of the Prtcmri?zavrirttika by Dhannakirti (8th cent.). Cf. R. Torella, "The Knlinrkas in the Saiva and Vaisgava Tantric Tradition: A Few Considerations Between Theology and Grammar", 1998, pp. 55-86. More generally, on the relationship between the Saiva texts and the Paficariitrika scriptures, see A. Sanderson, "H~story through Textual Criticism in the Study of ~aivism, the Paficariiua and the Buddhist Yoginitanuas", 2001, pp. 35-41.

of the Vimalaprabha the name of Kubjika recurs (vol. 3, p. 147), while stanza 3.104 of the ~ a i v a KuLjik&vzatatanwaappears in a slightly different form in the Sekoddeia (st. 134) and in Vajragarbha's commentary on the Hevajratantra, in a long quotation from the PaficaZak:ahevajra (section 9, st. 34).33Bhiigavatotpala, the author of the Spandaprad$ikri, quotes numerous

33

This stanza appears in the K u l s l i k h ~ y a recension of the Hid&ikiimatntant7n, critically edited by T. Goudriaan and J.A. Schoterman, p. 175: rasaviddham yathi t i m m m na bhziyas timmtivz vrajet l 4n'ividdhas tathzpy evam na sar?tsaram anzdkramet I 1 (3.1 04). In the Hevajratmn~api?z&r~hatFkti we read: rasaviddham yathi tarnram na punas tiimratim wajet I ji~ilaviddhastathi kdyo na punab pah~tim vrajet I I (Kathmandu, Kaiser Library, MS 128, NGMPP, Mf. C14/66, fol. 5Or; my forthcoming edition, p. 96). In the printed edition of the Sanskrit text of the Sekoddeia (st. 134) it appears as: rasaviddho yathti loho na punar lobattip vrajet I mkhaviddham tathti cittam na prrnar dz$khat&n w 4 e t l I, which is, in fact, a retranslation by Raniero Gnoli from the Tibetan on the basis of the parallel stanza in the Hmajratan@api?zhrtha.t2i. Several verses on the transmutation of copper into gold can be traced in Saiva tantric literature. I would like to thank Alexis Sanderson for providing the references quoted below with some personal comments: "1) (Nihaiakirikiyip) Dibsottara 5.90-92ab: 90 idam tat pal-amam biinam] + + + + + + + + i aitaviddhavt ynth2 timm? + + + + + + + + > I 1 91 nrvayzena sabaikatvam gacchate n&-asa~ziayabI jidnaviddhas tatha h i pa.hdr yzti param padmn I 1 92 fivena ca sahaikatvam gacchate [nitra sa~day&] I I (MSS: IFI T. 17, pp. 855-856 [A]; IF1 T. 150, p. 60 (B]). Variant readings: 90c nrva-m A, mudbuva~ena B; 91aFzinaviddhas conj.:j2inasiddhas A,Finafaktis B. I have conjectured that a further two ptidas are lacking in the common source of MSS A and B because I see no other way to accommodate the evidently missing part of the comparison. Most of the substance of the omitted text is obvious from the context and the paraphrase of the whole passage that has been given in Tantriloka 5.15 1 (with attribution in 5.148b): mayambhisitmantinena tzditmyam yity ananyadh* I I fivena hematrim yadvat t2mram rzitena vedhitam I I. 90c is a conjectural reconstlucaon. 2) Matasira, NAK 3-3 79 (NGMPP,Mf. B28/16), fol. 3 8r4-5: raaqn s p . m i yithd tZmram na bhziyo tinrrat@zw e t I I iiryo likab pam (38r5) tattve na bhziyah paiuttim vrajet I I vimuktab sarvapripebhyab sarvadvandvaviva~jitab I I dharmidbarmak:ayiitr mantri diksito bhavate fivab I 1. 3) Tanh-asadbhka, NAK 5-1 985 (NGMPP, Mf. A1 88/22), fol. 33v6 (9.145cd-146ab): yatha ~m7n<v> rasaspn?n ndvanzatwm zrpigatam I I y u w pare tatme na bhGyab parirtivz vrajet l . 4 ) Tantrasadbhiva, cod. cit. fol. 128r4 (26.5): tzmravad dhentam ripannam puna~-bhivo na yiti hi I I si2hakicirya deuefnpurrakk samayajn'nkib I 1 . 5) Tantrz'loka 14.1012a b: 14.10 ye y a z w k e iisanamdrge k?tadiKrih samgncchanto mohavafid vipratipattim I nzinam tesim nisti bhavadbhinzdniyogab sa~zkocahk i ~ z giTyaka?-ais t&wa~asn?zrim l 1 14.1 1 jn'Ztaj7;ieyri dhri~adnsthi api santo ye tvanmamargZt kiipathagis te 'pr na samyak I p~liyasteriim

'4

j5

74

Fmcesco Sferva More often, ancient texts simply speak of releasing conceptual constructions (vikalpa) or, more precisely, of not identifylng oneself with one's representations of the past and the future, and being in the present moment; numerous passages of the Pdi canon also deal with &us concept. The Bhnddekarattasuttain pamcular, while prescribing the right way to be in the present, i.e., not identifylng with material form, feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness, suggests, contrary to other Buddhist texts, that the real problem is not primady the vikalpas (conceptual constructions). Thls would seem to be in line with the importance attributed to vikalpas, when correctly used, in the (ancient and modern) Buddhist Theraviida tradition and in Buddhist Tantric systems; it is enough to mention all the practices of visualization that are part of the generationprocess (utpattikrama) and are actually based on vikalpas. It is also evident in the Hindu Tantric traditions, where, in the Mdinivijayottaratantra in particular and in those texts based on it, a fundamental role is attributed to tarka, correct reasoning. By using statements such as "I am not insentient", "I am not bound by my actions", "I am not endowed with maculation", and "I am not impelled [to act by others]" it is possible to uproot false convictions (niicaya) based on the opposite kind of vikalpas (cf. Tantroccaya, chap. 4). Therefore, we may declare that the real problem is, in fact, the attachment to vikalpas, namely the identification with vikalpas (which represent the raw material used to construct the idea of a self-contained Imine), and the tendency to create dichotomies (vikalpa primarily means "option") between what is pure or impure, and thus pleasant or unpleasant, etc., in lieu of surrendering oneself completely to the present moment. Buddhst and Hindu non-dualist Tantric texts unanimously proclaim that for the true yogin, it does not make sense to speak of what can or
Sanderson, again, has supplied me with some interesting information, taking it as meaning 'V Tantra" in the sense of Viimatantra, i.e. a Tantra of the V%masrotas:"The compound viditantmm occurs in this sense in Ksemar2ja7s commentary on Sivastotnivali 2.1 9: daksinicaro bhairavatan tram aviparitinz~&inam ca.. . vZmZciram viditan tram vipanntabamam... T h s interpretadon is supported by the fact that the title DZmara given citation in Milinivijnyottam 1.155 is that of one of a number of to the source of t h ~ s works grouped as the 8 ~ i k h a t a n t r a s in the Srikanthiyasamhiti1s list of 64 Bhairavatantras. Nearly all those 64 are Tantras of the Daksinasrotas. The exception is these 8 ~ikh;dtantras, which include a number of tides known to be of Tantras of the Varnasrotas canon, namely ECyR[iikhi] , Sammoha and Siraicbeda ."

words: "The human mind becomes identical to the reality with which it is united, just as a wishfulfilling jewel". T h e idea of a being and the ideas of elements, senses, etc., are equal; the mundane [ideas] of an agent, instrument of action, etc., are similar. [From this point of view] there is no difference between the Buddhists and the heretics. T h e only difference concerns the reality of emptiness, and this is the absence of a self, etc.36

10. I would like to conclude by briefly elaborating on the theme of deidentification that I touched on before. De-identification is crucial not only because of its obvious importance in relation to overcoming suffering (dubkha), which is the goal of all spiritual teachngs, but also because it represents a viewpoint that can shed light on other aspects of the nondualist Tanmc set of beliefs; I am referring specifically to the integration of llyper-ritualism and anti-ritualism, whch is contemplated by both Buddhst and N n d u Tantric traditions. One of the ways in which the ancient sapiential language speaks of deidentification (a modern term) is as "being in the present". Maitripiida mentions thls and Abhinavagupta refers to it extensively. The concept is also known in other Indian and Western religious traditions. In both the Par~tri~ziikdtattvaviva (ed. ~ a p. 198) and in the MiiZi~zivijayav&-ttika (1.156), Abhnavagupta quotes the following stanza:
Once the yogn has arrested the wheel of the rays and drunk his unsurpassed ambrosia, being free from the two times [i.e., the future and the past] and happy, he reposes in the present.37

j6

iba lokasa?pvrtyli vicri?yamli?zab samadmianasi~hlintahsamli7zo iaukikasiddhaye; tadyatbi yaza yena hi bblivma munab samyqjate n-qlim I tma tanmuyatlimyzti vi.ha~%po munir yatbi I I [= YogjniiamcZratant~a 11.2; also quoted in VP ad 5.47, ed. vol. 3, p. 341 iti bbivasamkalpob samu-nab; tatha db2tvindnylidivicZro )i tulyah I yivabinikap ka~p-karanridkap ca tnlyam I batuYbatirthikayor viiqro nisti; finyatlitattuam prati vi/e;ab, sa ca nairlitnyeyidi I (ad 2.16 1, ed. vol. l , p. 2 56, lines 2 -8). Harunaga Isaacson has lundly pointed out to me that the above-mentioned stanza of the Yoginmcli7-atann-o also occurs in other Buddhist Tantras, such as the Dikinivajrpaijara (1.29) and the Savvarodaya (31.3 l), and that similar stanzas appear in ~ a i v a texts; see, for instance, Ngr~yagakagtha's commentary on the Myrzdratantm (ki7jripd~ 3.41 -42) and the Nea-atana-a 1 3.16. nimdbya rahnicakram m a p pimimmrtam anzmamm I kiZobbny~pa?lccbi~z7ze vartnmmane mkbi bbavet I I. As Raniero Gnoli points out, Abhinavagupta states in the Parlim'm\likgtattuaviva?u?zathat it belongs to the Vidyatannn, whereas in the MiZi~zivijayavirttika, he attributes it to the DZma?-atantm (ed. p. 24). Concerning the word "Vadyatantra",

76

Francesco S ' n a reach liberation without initiation, rituals, yoga, etc.4' Some texts go as far as saylng that the true homa ritual is the offering of oneself to the deity, the m e ritual bath is the immersion in Consciousness, and so on." In the first stanza of the Anuttaragiki we read:
Here there is no need for transference of realization, creative meditation, clever speech, philosophical research, contemplation, concentration or repetitions of mantras. 'Tell me, what is the ultimate reality, the reality that is absolutely certain?' Listen! Do not leave anything nor take anything! Enjoy everything that is pleasant, in whatever condition you find yourself!43

cannot be eaten, drunk, and so The present moment already contains everythng. As Abhlnavagupta states in a verse of the Anuttarigiki, there is nothing to abandon, nothing to obtain. It is interesting that this same stanza is quoted by the Buddhist Munidana in the CalyrigitikoSavy8kby~ without a precise reference to the source.39 The same concept is expressed in similar words in other Buddhist texts, such as the Hevajratantra, and in Hindu works, such as the Sivadrsti (3.68cd). In the Gzc~abha7-ani by RaviSrijfiHna we find the following stanza of the Paramirthasevg by Pundarika: In the mind, there is nothing that you should add, nothing that you should remove, there is neither increase nor decrease. T h e three worlds are only a reflection of our mind in the mind, similar to the sun in water.40

If what we need is already present in the here and now, then we can also

'9

"

bhaksyibhaksyavicira~z nr peyipeyam tathaiva ca I gamyigamyam tathi nza?zm-vikalpam naiva kirayet 1 I (HPuojatantra 1.6.2 1); bhakgibhahyavinimzrktab peyipeyaviva?jitab I gamyiganlymiinimmzrkto bhaved yogi samihitah I I @-&siddhi 1.18); bhak&t]a? v2 yadi vibhakslyjam samathaiva na kalpayet I kiivika'ryam tathi gamyam agamyam caiva yogavit I na pu?zyam za ca v i pipam margav mo&v na kalpayet I sahajinandnikamzirtljt u t*hed yogiram-hitab I I (Ca?z&mhiro$anaatonwa 7.8cd- l Oab, ed. p. 32, h e s 18-2 1); k i ~ ; i i i a i r ya mq-ti hddhib s i 'hddhih iambhudariane I na hcir by aiurs tasmin nimikalpab mkhi bbavet I I (Vijiinabhairava, st. 123). For further references see V. Dvivedi, "Bauddhaiaiva-i&ta tantrom Inem tulan8tmaka swagri (Z)", 1987, pp. 94-95. samiv-o 'sti na tattvatas tanzrbhhta-m bandhasya vitaiva ka' bandho yaya najim taya vitathi muktaya muktiknyi I mithyimohak?-de?a m~ubhz~agacch~ipG~abhramo m- kiicit tyaja md g-hi?zavilasa manho yathivacthitab I I (Anuttarqiki, s t 2, quoted as igam[vaca?za] and with a few differences in CagrZgitikofazyikbya', ed. Bagchi, p. 74, ed. Kvxme, p. 166). citte na kaicid bhavatipanQo na ksepa?zjo na ca hznivrddhi I citte macittapratibhi%amrZt?-am widhitukam toyagato yathirkab I I (Gunabha-i, ed. p. 85; in the Tibetan translation of the Paramirtbasmi, Peking ed. vol. 47, p. 7, fol. 13b1.3). The concept that our mind does works. Cf., for example, not need anythmg, and so on, is well known in several Buddh~st Abhisamayila~kira 5.2 1, Ratnagotravibhiga 1.54, the last verse of the Pratitymamutpdahrdayakinki (ed. p. 124) and the Pa~z~kyar4iinmiddhi (Vimaluprabhi, ed. vol. 3, p. 9 1, lines 2 1-4). Harunaga Isaacson has pointed out to me that the stanza of the Ranzagohavibhiga is quoted by Jayaratha ad TantriIoka 4.9 (see also ad 4.260cd-261ab) and by Mandana Mi5ra in h s Brahmasiddhi (Brahmahda, p. 8). See also Yogavisr$ba, Utpattipraka7-ana,rarga 89, stanzas 39cd-41ab, and (Alberto Pelissero personal communication) Gau&pdakiriki 2.32.

Notwithstanding the anti-ritualist and anti-gradualist ideologies, ritual has not lost its importance: anti-ritualism and hyper-ritualism, antigradualism and gradualism are integrated in non-dualist Tantrism; in fact, &S integration is one of its most interesting and characteristic elements. In ~aiva texts, for instance, the salvific means are divided into three groups: rinava, iakta and ig~bhava, according to the prevalence of liturgical action and yoga, or knowledge. However, it is worth noting that in the Param~k~arajfianasiddhi, a section of the fifth chapter of the Vimalaprabhli, P~darika actually criticises t h s ~ a i v a conception of salvific means? He bases his criticism on some verses taken from the mzihtan~a, that is, the Adibuddha. However, these verses show a partial and biased understanding of the Saiva doctrine (which could be compared with the Buddhist kramas); the Saivites, in their turn, make an analogous simplification when, as we have seen, they try to explain and distance themselves from Buddhist doctrines such as emptiness.

"

*
43

This concept is to be found in Buddhst works: ama?z&lapravz$riS ca d?watyi bhavanti hi I (Samvaratmrtra, quoted in the?iinasiddhi, ed. p. 144); in ~aivite works: ad~ama?2dalo 'py evam yab kdcid vetti tattvatab I sa stddhibhig bhaven nitymn sa yogisa ca d i k b I I (Paritrimfiki, 18cd-19ab); evam yo vetti tattvena t a p nirvinagimini I dik@ bhavaty asamdigdhi til~yihutivarjii I I (ibid. st. 25); and in Vaisnava writings: cf. Samvitpakiia by Viimanadatta, stt. 6.3-4. See also Parim~&ikitammivarana (ed. pp. 24-25), Tanhiloka 3.289-290ab, Sivad.mi 7.5-6 and Cittavihddhiprakaraqa 79-8 1. Cf. Tannwcaya chapter 8 (ed. p. 176). See also Sivadrgi 7.84 ff. ramkrimo 'ha na bhivani 7 z a ca kathrijruktir na carci na ca dhyham v i na ca dhZra?zina ca japibhyisap-ayiso na ca l tat kim n i m nmGcita?.n vada param s a w ca tac chniyatw na tyiginapari@-ahibhaja mkhav ramam yathivasthitab I I ; Cf. also Parami~~hasira, st. 60. Ed. vol. 3, pp. 89-92.

Frnncesco Sfeva
kyadeva, CittaviSzddhipmkarana , ed. by P.B. Patel, Sanuniketan, 1949 (VisvaBharati Studies, 8). A ~ ~ a m a i i j u ~ n i z h z a x a mwith ~ i t i Am.rtaka?zikd-tippaniby Bhiksu RaviSrijiiirina and Am.rtakanikoddyota-nibandha of Vibhiiticandra, ed. by B. Lal, Central Institut of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, 1994 (Bibliotheca IndoTibetica, 30). Mvaghosa, GrwzqaZciSiki, Sanskrit text partially retransl. from Tibetan; ed. by J. Pandeya in "Durlabha grantha paricaya", Dhib. Jozwnal of Rare Buddhist Texts Research Project, l 3, pp. 16-20. Tibetan transl. : The Tibetan Tripitaka. Peking Edition, text No. 4544, vol. 8 1, Tokyo-Kyoto, 1957, pp. 205-6. Bhsgavatotpala, Spandapradqiki, ed. by G. Kavirsja Varanasi, 1992, pp. 83-1 28 (Tantramiigahah, vol. 1). Bhdekarattarz~tta= Majhima N q a 13l , ed. by R. Chalmers, London, 1899, pp. 187-89 (Pali Text Society, Text Series 62, vol. 3). Repr. 1987. C a h a ~ u a r a t a n t r a chapter , 1, ed. and transl. in C. Cicuzza and F. Sferra, "Brief f Rare Notes on the Beginning of Kslacaha Literature", Dbih. Jozwnal o Buddhist Texts Research Project, 23, pp. 113-26, 5 3 (pp. 118-2 1). Candumah&ro;apztama : The Candamahiro:a?za Tantra. Chapters I-VIII, A Critical Edition and English Translation by Chr.S. George, New Haven, 1974 (American Oriental Series, 56). DohikoSayikhya: Dohiko:a (Apabhrada Texts of the Sahajayina School). P a n I (Texts and Commentarier), ed. by P.C. Bagchi, Calcutta, 1938 (Calcutta Sanshit Series, 2 Sc). Gkhyridi-Agasiddhi-Sangraha,Sanskrit and Tibetan text, ed. by S. Rinpoche and V.V. Dwivedi, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, Varanasi, 1987 (Rare Buddhist Text Series, 1). Hari bhadra, S~rimasamurcaya:SaddarSanasamzucaya W ith Gu?zaratna's Commentary Tarkarahasyadqiki, ed. L. Suali, The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 19051914 (Bibliotheca Indica Series). Hevajratantra: The Hevajra Tantra. A Critical Study, Part I, Introduction and 1 , Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts, ed. by D.L. Snellgrove, Translation; Part 1 London, 1959 (London Oriental Series, 6). Indrabhuti, j'iZrzasiddhi, ed. in Guhyidi-Awddhi-Sarigraha , pp. 89- 157. Jayaratha, Tantrilakauiueka, see Tantrilaka. JayarsSibha~a,Tattvopaplavasimha, ed. with an introduction and indexes by S. Sanghavi and R.C. Parikh, Varanasi, 1987 (Bauddha Bharati Series, 20). Kambala, Alakamik, ed. by Chr. Lindtner in Miscellanea Buddhica, Copenhagen, 1985 (Indiske Studier, 5). Ksemariija, Pratyabhijfiihydaya : Pratyabhijiiihydayam. The Secret of Self-recognition, Sanskrit Text with English Translation, Notes and Introduction by J. Sing, Delhi, 1991'. Or. edn. 1963.

Abbreviations
IF1 NAK NGMPP Institut franqais d'hdologie Nepal Archives of Kathmandu Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project

Sources
Abhinavagupta, Anuttari~iki,ed. in K.Ch. Pandey, Abhinavag-upta. An Historical and Philosophical Stzuiy, Varanasi, 1963*,pp. 404-5 (Chowkhamba Sansluit Studies, 1). ed. by M.K. Shastri, Srinagar, 1921 (Kashmir Abhinavagupta, Mili?ziuijayavi~ika, Series of Texts and Studies, 3 1). Abhinavagu p ta, ParamZrthasira : The Paramirtbasril-a by Abhinavagupta with the commentary o f Yogarqa, ed. by J.Ch. Chatterji, Srinagar, 1916 (Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, 7). : Il comment0 di Abhinavagupta alla Abhinavagupta, Parit~imiikitattvauiuara?za Parihw'iki, traduzione e testo, a cura di R. Gnoli, Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, Rome, 1985 (Serie Orientale Roma, LVIII). Abhinavagupta, Tantrihka, ed. with Jayaratha's Tantrahkauiveka by M.R. Shastri & M.K. Shastri, 12 vols., Srinagar, 1918-1938 (Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, 23, 28, 29, 30, 35, 36,41,47, 52, 57, 58, 59). Abhinavagupta, Tantroccaya, ed. by R. Gnoli and R. Torella, "The Tantroccaya of Abhinavagupta", in Indo Sino Tibetica. Studi in onore di Lzrciano Petech, ed. by P. Daffini, Rome, 1990, pp. 153-89 ("Studi Orientali" pubblicati dal Dipammento di Studi Orientali, 9). Advayavajra (Maiuip2da), Aduayavajl-asapgraha, ed. by H.P. Shastri, Baroda, 1927 (Gaekwad's Oriental Series, 40). Ahirbudbnyasa~hiti,ed. by M.D. Ramanujacharya under the supervision of F. Otto Schrader, revised by V. Krishnamacharya, 2 vols., Adyar, 1966 (The Adyar Library Series, 4). ed. h i in Guhydi-&siddhi-Sarigraha , pp. 63-8 7. Anarigavajra, P r ~ f i o p i y m i n ~ c q ~ d,d Anu pamar aksita, The Sadaligayoga b y Anupamaraksita with Rauihijfiina 'S Gunabhara~i~rrm:&rigayogatippani, text and annotated transl., ed. by F. Sferra, Istituto Italiano per 1'Africa e 190riente,Rome, 2000 (Serie Orientale Roma, LXXXV). kyadeva, Catubiataka : Aryadeva i Catubiataka. On the Bodhisattza i Czdtivation of Mnit and Kizowledge, ed. by K. Lang, Copenhagen, 1986 (Indiske Studier, 7).

80

Francesco S ' w a
Siidhuputra Sridhariinanda, Sekoddeiatippani, ed. by R. Gnoli: "La SekoddeSahppag di Sadhupuaa Sridharananda. I l testo sanscrito", Rivina degli Stzrdi Orientali 70, (1997), pp. 115-46. Sirdhahiiatikilottarigama : Sirdbaniintikiilottarigam. Avec le commmtaire de Bhana Rimakantha, edition critique par N.R. Bhatt, IFI, Pondichery, 1979. Sitvatasamhiti: Sitvatasamhitd. With Commentary b y Alaiinga Bhatta, ed. by Vrajavallabha Dwivedi, Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, 1982. (Library Rare Texts Publication Series, 6). Sekani~ya, ed. in Advayavajra, Admyavajrasa?pgraha , pp. 2 8-3 1. Sekoddeia, ed. by R. Gnoli: "SekoddeSah. Edition of the Sanskrit Text", Dhib. 3ournal of Rare Buddhirt Textr Research Projct 2 8, pp. 143-66. Sivanirra, ed. by J.Ch. Chatterji in Ksemarsja, Sivaszitravimarfini, Srinagar, 1911 (Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, l). sivop~dhyaya, 1/5@6nabhairavaviv~i, see v2jiiinabhairava. Somiinanda, Sivad-ysti,ed. with the Vmi by Utpaladeva by M.K. Shasti, Srinagar, 1934 ( K a s h r Series of Texts and Studies. 54). ~ubhakaragu~ta, "Abhisamayarnaiijari", ed. in Dhih. Journal of Rare Buddhist Terts Research Prgect 13, pp. 123- 154. Svacchanhtan~a, with commentary by Ksemariija, ed. by M.K. Shastri, 7 vols., Bombay, 192 1-1935 (Kashrmr Series of Texts and Studies, 31, 38,#, 48, 51, 53, 56). Tattvaratmtnaval< ed. in Advayavajra, Advayavajraamgraha , pp. 14-22. Vajragarbha, Hevajratantrapindir-thiki : The Satsihamikikhyi Hevajratantrapindirtbatik6 by Vajragarbha, Critical Edition and Translation by F. Sferra, forthcoming (Serie Orientale Roma). Vajrap2ni, Laghutantratiki : The Laghutantratikz by Vajapdni, A Critical Edition of the Sanskrit Text, ed. by C. Cicuzza, Istituto Italiano per I'Africa e I'Oriente, Rome, 2001 (Serie Orientale Rorna, LXYXVI). V~manadatta,Samvitprakda: The Samvitprakifa b y Vimnadatta, critical edidon and translation by R. Torella, forthcoming. Vasugupta, Spanhkirikd: Spanhkiirikis with the Viwi o f Rimakantha, ed. by J.Ch. Chatterji with the cpoperation of the Pandits of the Research Department of Kashmir State, Srinagar, 1969* (Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, 6). Or. edn. 1913. Vibhiiticandra,Am.rtakanikoddyotanibandha , see Ayamafiju~i-iiuimsamgtti . VzFinabhairava . With Commentay partly by &enzuriija and partly by SivopidLyiya, ed. with notes by M.R. Shastri, Bombay, 1918 (Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, 8). Vimalaprabhdtiki of Kalkin Sripu?rdarika on Sr~la~hukilacakratantrarija b y &-inzaZjrjuhafas, vol. I, Critically Edited & Annotated with Notes by J. Upadhyaya, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Samath, 1986

Ksemariija, Spanduniqaya: Spa~zduni~aya with Englih Translation, ed. by M. Kaul, Srinagar, 1925 (Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, 42). Kubjikimtatanna : The Kuljikimtatanwa. Kulilikimmiya Vmion, Critical edidon by T . Goudriaan and J.A. Schoterman, Leiden, 1988 (Orientalia RhenoTraiectina, 30). Laghukrilaakratatanna , reprinted in Vimalapabhi.tiki from A Critical i3iition o f Sri &-1acakratantra-&3a (Collated with the Tibetan version), ed. by B. Banerjee, The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1985 (Bibliotheca Indica, 3 11). Laksm-riima, Paritdikiviv?ti, ed. by J.Z. Shastri, Bombay, 1947 (Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, 69). Lak.mitanwa: Lakmitantra. A Piiicarritra Agama, ed. with Sanskrit Gloss and Introduction by V. Krishnamacharya, Adyar, 1959 (The Adyar Library Series, 87). MaheSvar~nanda, Mahirthamaiijar@arimala : Maheivariinanda, The Maharthamanjari with the Commentary Parimala of Mahesvarananda, ed. by Mahimahopidhyiya T. Gwapati Sh a ? , Trivandrum, 1919 (Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, 66). Milinivijayottaratantra, ed. by M.K. Shastri, Bombay, 1922 (Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, 37). Matangapiramehraratantra : Mataitgapiramehiaratantra (Vidyipida), avec le cornmentaire de Ramakantha, edition critique par N.R. Bhatt, IFI, Pondichery, 1977. Munidatta, Cayigitikoiavyikhyi: 1) Ca?yrgiti-ko~a o f Buddhist Siddha, edited and annotated by P.Ch. Bagchi in collaboration with S. Bhiksu Siistri, VisvaBharati, Santiniketan, 1956; 2) An Anthology o f Buddbirt Tanhic Songs. A Stzldy ofthe Cayigiti, ed. by P. Kvzme, Oslo, 1986*.Or. edn. 1977. NH giirjuna, Mzilamadhyamkakiriki : Mzilamadhyamakakiriki (MidhyamikasGtras) avec la Prasannapadi Commentaire de Candrakirri, publiee par L. de la Vallee Poussin, Imprimerie de 17AcademieImperiale des Sciences, St.Petersbourg, 1913 (Bibliotheca Buddhica, 4). Niijiirjuna, Pnrtityasamutpdizh~dayakririkri, ed. by L. de la Vallee Poussin, Thiorie des douze causes, Londres, 1913. NBropii, Sekoddeiatiki: Sekoddeiatiki o f Nadapida (N6ropi), The Sanskrit Text edited for the first time with an introduction in English by M. Carelli, Baroda, 1941 (Gaekwad's Oriental Series, 90). Padmavajra, Guhyasiddi, ed. in Guhyidi-Agasiddhi-Sangraha, pp. 1-62. ParrihMiki, see Abhinavagupta, ParitrrtrrmCikitattvavivara~ . Pundarika, dPal don dam pa'i bmyen pa (ParaMrthasarri), bsTan 'gyur, Peking ed., vol. 47, # 2065, fols. 1-25a. Pundarika, Vimalapabhi, see Vimzapabhitika. Raviirijfiaa, Gh?zabharani,see Anupamaraksita.

82

Francesco S f w a
McClintock, Sara "Knowing All through Knowing One: Mystical Communion or 2000 Logical Trick in the Tattvasamgrahapaiijiki ". Journal of the InternationalAssociation of Buddhist Studies, 2 3 (2OOO), pp. 2 25-44. Newrnan, John Ronald "Buddhist Siddhiinta in the Kilacakra Tantra". Wiener Zeitschrzft 1992 fir die Kunde Sudasiens, 3 6 (1992), pp. 227-34. Nihom, Max "Sadhanamiili 256 - A PiiSupata-Bauddha Tantristic Sidhana". 1994 Wiener Zeitschrz$fir die Kunde Siidasim, 38 (1994), pp. 2 13-29. Sanderson, Alexis, "Saivism and the Tantric Traditions", in The World's Religions: The 1988 Religions ofAsia, ed. by F. Hardy, London, 1988, pp. 660-704. "Purity and Power among the Brahmans of Kashmir", in The 1990 f the Person, ed. by M. Carrithers et al., Cambridge, 1990, Category o pp. 190-216. "Vajrayiina: Origin and Function", in Buddhimr into the Year ZOO0 1994 (Confmce Proceeding$, Dharnmakaya Foundation, Bangkok, 1994, pp. 87-102. "History through Textual Criticism in the Study of ~aivism, the 2001 PaiicarHtra and the Buddhist Yoginitantras", in Les sources et le temps. Sources and Time. A Colloquium. Pondichkry 11-13 January 1997, ed by F. Grimal, Institut franqais de Pondichkry, Ecole franqaise d'Extr2me-Orient, Pondichkry, 200 l , pp. 1-47. Seyfort Ruegg, David "Sur les rapports entre le bouddhisme et le 'substrat religieux' 1964 indien et tibittain".~ournalAsiatique, 252 (1964), pp. 77-95. Review of David Snellgrove, Indo- Tibetan Buddbimt: Indian Bud1989 dhists and their Tibetan successors. Journal o f the Rqal Asiatic Society (1989), pp. 172-78. Ordre spirituel et ordre tmporel danr la p d e bouddbique de 171ndeet 1995 du Tibet, Paris, 1995. "A Note on the Relationship between Buddhist and 'Hindu' Di200 1 vinities in Buddh~st Literature and Iconology: The hkika/-Lokotia Contrast and the Notion of an Indian 'Religious Substratum"', in Le pamk e i mami. Studi in m m di Raniwo Gnoli nel ruo 70" compleanno, ed by R. Torella, Istituto Italiano per 1'Afi-ica e 170riente,Rome, 200 1, pp. 7 35-42 (Serie Orientale Roma, XCII, 1-2). Torella, Raffaele "The Pratyabhijiiii and the Logical-Epistemological School of 1992 Buddhism", in Ritual and Speculation in Early Tantrim. Studies in Honour of AndrP Padow, ed by T . Goudriaan, Albany, New York, 1992, pp. 327-45.

(Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica Series, 11); vols. 11-III, Critically Edited & Annotated with Notes by V.V. Dwivedi and S.S. Bahulkar, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, 1994 (Rare Buddhst Text Series, 12-13). ViryaSrimitra, Mamkalikripaqikii: Tattvajiiuinasamiddhi o f grinyasamidbipiida with Mamakalikipaiijikri of Vi?yaSrmmio-a, ed. by J. Shastri Pandey, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, 2000 (Rare Buddhist Text Series, 23). Yogariija, Paramidasiratiki, see Abhinavagupta, Paramirthasrira . Yopniiawatantra, NAK, MS 4-20, NGMPP, Mf. 48/5.

Books and articles

Bhattacharyya, Benoytosh 1931 An Introduction to Buddhist fioterism, Baroda, 1931. Repr. Delhi, 1980. Biihnemann, Gudrun 1996 "The Goddess Mahicinakrama-=ii (Ugra-Tari) in Buddhist and Hindu Tantrism". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and Afiican Stlldies , 59 (1996), pp. 472-93. 1999 "Buddhist deities and mantras in the Hindu Tantras: I The Tattvasirasamg-raha and the iiinaiivaPrudevapaddhatin. Indo-Iranian Journal, 42 (1999), pp. 303-34. 2 000 "Buddhist deities and mantras in the Hindu Tantras: I1 The Sri~id~iir~avatantra and the Tantrasiira". Indo-Iranian 30urna1, 43 (2000), pp. 27-48. Dasgupta, Shashibhusan 19693 Obscul-eReligiozls Cults, Calcutta, 1969. Or. edn. 1946. Dvivedi, Vrajavallabha 1986 "Bauddha-Saiva-Siikta tantrom mem tulanitmaka sHmagri". Dbih. 3oumal o f Rare Buddhist Texts Research Project, 1 (1986), pp. 99- l OS. 1987 "Bauddha-4aiva-Siikta tantrom mem tulanitmaka s2magri (2)". Dhib. Journal o f Rare Buddhist Texts Research Prqect, 3 (1987), pp. 88-96. Gnoli, Raniero 1994 "Introduzione" to R. Gnoli and G. Orofino, Niropi. Iniziazione, Mlano, 1994, pp. 13-103 (Adelphi, Biblioteca Orientale, l). 19992 Abhinavagupta. Luce delle sacre switture, Milano, 1999 (Adelphi, Biblioteca Orientale, 4). Or. edn. Torino, 1972. Gronbold, Giinter 1992 "Heterodoxe Lehren und Ihre Widerlegung im Glacakra-Tantra". Indo-Iranian Journal, 3 7 (1992), pp. 273-97.

Francesco Sfen-a
"The k5cukas in the Saiva and Vaiynava Tantric Tradition: A Few Considerations Between Theology and Grammar", in Studies in Hinduism II. Mixcellanea to the Phenomenon of Tantras, ed. by G. Oberhammer, Wien, 1998, pp. 55-86. Tucci, Giuseppe Tibetan Painted Scrolls, 2 vols. and a portfolio, Rome, 1949. 1949

CANONICAL QUOTATIONS W THE KHOTANESE BOOK OF VWIALAKTRTI*

The Late Khotanese text currently known under the conventional title f Virmlakirti (= Vlm) is a compendium of Mahiiyiinist doctrines. It of Book o is possibly an o r i p a l Khotanese composition, though it relies heavily on Indian sources. The extant portion of the text is contained in two miscellaneous manuscripts from Dunhuang: lines 224-386 of manuscript Ch 00266 of the British Library (= Vim C) and h e s 1-60 of manuscript P 2026 of the Bibliotheque nationale de France (= V z m P). Vlm C was first edited by Harold Walter Bailey in 195 1 in his Khotanese Buddhist Tern (ILBT 104113), whereas h P was edited but not identified by him in 1956 in the third volume of his Khotanese Texts (KT 3.48-50). The overlap between lines 1-22 of Vim P and the last lines of Vim C (lines 368-386) was recognised by Ronald Eric Ernmerick (Srudies 2.118 S.V. -mya-). While this z m article was in the press, a new edition and a provisional translation of V C and the overlapping lines of J4m P have been provided by Prods 0. Skjzrv0 (SDTV 6.489-499). T h e text is metrical, as is revealed by the almost complete verse numbering that is found in Em P. In Vim C, verse numbering is absent, and even punctuation marks dividing verses or padas are quite rare. Though some two hundred manuscript h e s are extant, the beginrung and the end of the text, which might have contained the title, were not copied. f KmaZakirti by Bailey on account The text was assigned the title of Book o of the fact that the name of Vimalakirti occurs five times in it (Vim C 3 163 17, 328, 337-338, 342 and 344; KBT 109-111). In the present article three passages preserved only in Vim C are offered in a revised, metrically
* I am grateful to my late teacher and friend Ronald E. Emmerick, to Francesco Sferra and to Fabrizio Torricelli for useful comments on a preliminary draft of this article, and

to Hisao Inagah for presenting me with a copy of his recent book (Amidz Dh&a?ziSzitra and j%i~zaga7-bha's Commentary, 1999) that I needed for this article.

Universiti degli Studi di Napoli "L'Orientale" Centro di Studi sul Buddhism0

Buddhist Asia 1
Papers from the First Conference of Buddhist Studies Held in Naples

Edited by Giovanni Verardi and Silvio Vita

Italian School of East Asian Studies. Kvoto 2003