Isaacson 2007 First Yoga

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

PRAMĀṆAKĪRTIḤ

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

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

PART 1

WIEN 2007


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: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitätscampus AAKH, Spitalgasse 2-4, Hof 2, 1090 Wien Herausgeber und für den Inhalt verantwortlich: 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, śivaliṅgas 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 7th and 8th 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

Contents x

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 iṣṭaḥ in 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 11th century. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Tuṣita 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


PRAMĀṆAKĪRTIḤ

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

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

PART 2

WIEN 2007


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: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universitätscampus AAKH, Spitalgasse 2-4, Hof 2, 1090 Wien Herausgeber und für den Inhalt verantwortlich: 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 Aśvaghoṣa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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: prasaṅga 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

Contents vi

Helga Uebach and Jampa L. Panglung, A silver portrait of the 6th Źwa-dmar Karma-pa (1584–1630) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 7th 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 fragment of the Bhaṭṭīkā on inseparable connection (avinābhāva) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079

B. Kellner, H. Krasser, H. Lasic, M.T. Much, H. Tauscher (eds.), Pramāṇakīrtiḥ. 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.

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

(Studies in Ratnākaraśānti’s tantric works IV)

H a r u n a g a I s a a c s o n , H a m b u rg

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.

Harunaga Isaacson 286

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’ (bhrāntisamāropitaṃ bhrānticihnam 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... KhaKhaTaṬī p. 234. Note also the close resemblance in phrasing between tanniṣyandabhūtām ākāravatīṃ rakṣāṃ śuddhalaukikajñānasvabhāvāṃ bhāvayet (Bhramahara p. 159, ll. 12-13) and tanniṣ-yandaśuddhalaukikajñānasvabhāve saṃbhogakāye (KhaKhaTaṬī p. 241; the editor's tanniṣpanda° is either a typo or a careless error for tanniṣyanda°); in the latter text passage tan° clearly refers to the Dharmakāya, mentioned just before this.

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 goal2 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 padabharanamitorvīvegavikṣiptasindhu ... herukasya. Compare the maṅgala verse of Ratnākaraśānti’s commentary, the Muktāvalī, on the He-vajratantra:3

pādanyāsaiḥ pthivyā vihitavighaṭanaṃ bhūbhtām aṭṭahāsair dktejaḥketughaṇṭādhvanibhir api nayan nāśasṣṭīr jaganti |

bibhrāṇasyāvaliptapraśamanavidhaye bhīṣaṇān abhyupāyān pāyād vo jainaguhyatrayahdayahdas tāṇḍavaṃ herukasya ||

The formulation bhujavanapavanāstaprasthabandhaṃ girīṇāṃ 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 cordhvaṃ daśamukhabhujocchvāsitaprasthasaṃdheḥ kailāsasya tridaśavanitā-darpaṇasyātithiḥ syāḥ (MeDū 58ab).

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

uccairuttālakheladbhujavanapavanoddhūtaśailaughapāta- sphārodañcatpayodhiprakaṭitamakuṭasvardhunīsaṃgamāni |

jīyāsus tāṇḍavāni sphuṭavikaṭajaṭākoṭisaṃghaṭṭabhūri- bhraśyannakṣatracakravyavahitasumanovṣṭipātāni śambhoḥ ||

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-subhāṣitasaṃgraha (MaSuSaṃ no. 6338). No earlier source than Jalhaṇa’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.


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 advayaṃ jñānaṃ hekāraṃ hetvādiśūnyatā | rukārāpagatavyūhaṃ6 kakāraṃ na 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-hevajratantrakrameṇa svādhiṣṭhānakurukullāsādhana by Sahajavilāsa): iha tantre bhāvanādhikto mantrī (p. 381); SāMā 245 (Dvibhujaherukasādhana): iha tantre bhāvanādhikto yogī (p. 474); Kalahaṃsakumāra’s Cakrasaṃvara-sādhana: iha tantre bhāvanādhiktaḥ (ḌāJāCaSaṃRa p. 109). Construe the iha (tantre) as dependent on bhāvanādhiktaḥ.

p. 157, l. 9 bhāvanādhikto mantrī. The Tibetan translation renders bsgom pa daṅ bzlas pa la dbaṅ bar gyur pa’i sṅags 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 bhāvanādhiktaḥ may 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 japādhikāraḥ can 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 pratyahaṃ) could be obtained only by the bestowal by a qualified guru of the requisite consecrations (abhiṣeka) in the corresponding maṇḍala. Apparently some authorities regarded it as sufficient hereto that the śiṣya be given the lower consecrations up to the nāmābhiṣeka (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 VaĀv: ebhir abhiṣekaiḥ siktaḥ śiṣyaḥ kriyācaryātantrayoḥ śravaṇavyākhyānamantrasādhaneṣv adhikto bhavati. yogayoginītantrāṇām apīty ācāryaṃmanyamatam (ācāryaṃmanyamatam ] 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 arthaḥ. nairuktaḥ śeṣalopo hrasvatvaṃ ca (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.


which if performed fully would involve for monks infringement of the bhikṣu-saṃvara. 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 (jñānamudrā); no sin or infringement of vows follows, so long as the śiṣya 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 hdayārkanyastanijabījaḥ. The Tibetan translation, sñiṅ gar 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 arghaṃ parijapya. In the parallel passage in Ratnākaraśānti’s MuĀv (Nairātmyāsādhana in the commentary on HeTa I.viii) we find, after sukhāsane niṣadya, svamantreṇārghaṃ parijapya (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: hūṃkāreṇārghyaṃ (em., huṃkāreṇa arghyaṃ ed) parijapya sukhāsanopa-viṣṭaḥ (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 svamantreṇa reading tryakṣara (i.e. oṃ āḥ hūṃ), as well as a note on parijapya reading ekaviṃśativārān (f.50v, bottom margin).8 The use of the tryakṣara-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 oṃ jaḥ hūṃ vaṃ hoḥ khaṃ raṃ (HeTa II.i.14). Snellgrove, misled no doubt by his late paper manuscripts, prints hāḥ for hoḥ, 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.


yoginīmukhāgama by Indrabhūti9) mādhvīgauḍīpaiṣṭīs trividhadivyodakaṃ yathālābhaṃ pañcapīyūṣasaṃyuktam arghapātre saṃsthāpya tryakṣaraman-treṇābhi+mantrya+ ... (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].’

p. 157, ll. 16–18 tatra gaurī śaśinaṃ bibharti, caurī ravim ... puruṣāyate. For the 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.

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 bhaiṣajyaṃ dharti10 (with MSS B and C, bhaiṣajyadhartti A) for Snellgrove’s bhaiṣajya-dhartrī (copied by Tripathi and Negi, and further corrupted by Farrow and Menon to bhaiṣajyadhātrī).

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. bhaiṣajya, offered by Ghasmarī according to HeTa I.iii.9d, is more often identified as catuḥsamam, i.e. faeces (thus SaSaBīCi f. 220r). Ratnākara-śānti is not alone in his identification, however; cf. Vajragarbha’s majjāmāṃ-saṃ ca bhaiṣajyaṃ vajraṃ vairocanaḥ smtaḥ (ṢaSā B f. 47r). The problem goes back to the fact that both bhaiṣajya (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.


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

p. 158, l. 15–p. 159, l. 8 tataḥ sarvadharmān ... nirvikalpam. This passage is 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 oṃ śūnya-tājñānavajrasvabhāvātmako ’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.

tatas tuṣṭā sā devī idaṃ vacanam abravīt durdāntā durdurāḥ sattvā vaineyaṃ yānti kena hi. 8

tatas ] A B, tatra C ES EFM ET

N • sā ] A B C, tu sā ES EFM ET

N • durdurāḥ ] A C, durddarāḥ B, dundurāḥ ES E

FM ET

N • sattvā ... hi ] lost in B • vaineyaṃ ] C, vineyaṃ A ES E

FM ET

N

bhagavān āha.

poṣadhaṃ dīyate prathamaṃ tad anu śikṣāpadaṃ daśa vaibhāṣyaṃ tatra deśyet sūtrāntaṃ punas tathā. 9

bhagavān ... pra ] lost in B • daśa ] A B C, daśaṃ ES ETN, diśet EF

M • vaibhāṣyaṃ ] B C ES E

FM ET

N, vaibhāśyaṃ A • tatra ] A C ES EFM ET

N, tato B • deśyet ] C, deśyeta A, diśyeta B, deśeta ES E

FM ET

N • sūtrāntaṃ punas ] B C, punaḥ sūtrāntakaṃ A, sūtrāntaṃ vai punas ES E

FM ET

N • tathā ] A B ES EFM ET

N, tato B

yogācāraṃ tataḥ paścāt tad anu mādhyamakaṃ diśet sarvatantranayaṃ jñātvā tad anu hevajram ārabhet ghṇīyād ādaraṃ śiṣyaḥ sidhyate nātra saṃśayaḥ. 10

11 Thus the formulation of Davidson (1999 p. 28).


tataḥ ] A C ES EFM ET

N, tat B • mādhyamakaṃ ] A C, madhyamakan B, mādhyamikaṃ C, madhyamakaṃ ES E

FM ET

N • sarva ... śiṣyaḥ ] lost in B • tantra-nayaṃ ] A C, mantranayaṃ ES E

FM ET

N • ghṇīyād ādaraṃ ] A C, ghṇīyāt sādaraṃ ES E

FM ET

N • sidhyate ] B C ES EFM ET

N, sidhyante A

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 oṃ śūnyatājñānavajrasvabhāvātmakāḥ 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 (Saptākṣarasādhana 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 Śākyarakṣita 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 tatpuruṣa or a bahuvrīhi com-pound; both interpretations may be acceptable. I incline to prefer the tatpuruṣa interpretation, however. It is possible that Ratnākaraśānti has in mind the state-ment vitathapratibhāso hi bhrāntilakṣaṇam from Dharmakīrti’s Svavtti on his Pramāṇavārttika (PraVāSvaV p. 49).

p. 159, l. 10. oṃ śūnyatājñānavajrasvabhāvātmako ’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: śūnyatājñānam evābhedyatvād vajraṃ tasya svabhāvas tadātmako ’ham ity arthaḥ (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 anantaraṃ śūnyatābhāvanoktā tad adhimātra-prajñādhikārāt. tasya śūnyataiva paraṃ rakṣeti; YoMaPaKraṬi p. 13: tad anu paramārthe śūnyataiva paramā rakṣeti ... ; MaKa p. 13: athavādhimātrasattvā-


nāṃ śūnyataiva paraṃ rakṣeti prathamataḥ śūnyataiva bhāvyā. uktaṃ ca – tathataiva paraṃ rakṣā 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 tanniṣyandabhūtām ākāravatīṃ rakṣāṃ śuddhalaukika-jñānasvabhāvāṃ bhāvayet. Note that the pattern of a nirvikalpaka or dvaya-rahita jñāna (which is lokottara) followed by a śuddhalaukikajñāna (which may be called the niṣyanda of the former, or tatpṣṭhalabdha) is found in earlier Yogācāra material; cf. for instance the vtti on Viṃśatikā 17: yadā tu tatprati-pakṣalokottaranirvikalpajñānalābhāt prabuddho bhavati tadā tatpṣṭhalabdha-śuddhalaukikajñānasaṃmukhībhāvād viṣayābhāvaṃ yathāvad avagacchatīti samānam etat (ViV p. 9). Cf. also from Ratnākaraśānti’s Muktāvalī on HeTa II.ii.37b: ata eva śuddhalaukikavikalpaḥ sambhogakāyo dharmakāyaniṣyandaś ca kathyata iti (MuĀv p. 145).

p. 159, ll. 14–17 repheṇa ... pañjarabandhanaṃ ca. 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 maitryādibhāvanaṃ prathamā rakṣā, śūnyatābodhir dvitīyā. ttīyāṃ rakṣāṃ rephādiślokenāha. ayam asyārthaḥ – purastād agnivarṇena repheṇa sūryama-ṇḍalaṃ12 dhyātvā tanmadhye hūṃkāreṇa viśvavajraṃ vicintya tatkiraṇasūkṣma-vajraiḥ sphuradbhiś caturdiggatair13 atyantaṃ ghanībhāvāt prākāraṃ bhāvayet. uparigataiḥ prākāraśikharodgataṃ pañjaram, tābhyām api sphuradbhiḥ sīmā-bandham, cakārād adhogatair vajramayīṃ bhūmim ā rasātalāt. raviviśvavajrā-bhyāṃ ca raśmībhūya samantataḥ prastābhyāṃ tat sarvaṃ dḍhīkuryād iti (MuĀv p. 41).

Note that one might consider reading pañjara bandhanaṃ ca in the last pāda of the verse, taking pañjara as used for metrical reasons as equivalent to pañja-raṃ. Cf. Kamalanātha ad loc.: prākārakaṃ pañjara( )bandhanaṃ ceti vajra-prākāraṃ vajrapañjaram sīmābandhanaṃ ceti (RaĀvHePa f. 6r). pañjaraban-dhanam can of course also be taken as a dvandva compound. p. 160 ll. 7–9

12 sūryamaṇḍalaṃ ] A (C’s reading uncertain but probably the same), sūryaṃ maṇḍalaṃ ed. 13 caturdiggatair ] A C, caturdigantair ed.


dharmodayākhyaṃ mahāvajradharasvabhāvaṃ śaracchaśadharadhavalam adhaḥ sūkṣmam upari viśālaṃ trikoṇam antar gaganasvarūpam. Cf. from Ratnākaraśānti’s Muktāvalī:

kva vijahāra? sarvatathāgatakāyavākcittavajrayoṣidbhageṣu. sarvatathāgatānāṃ kāyavākcittaṃ triguhyasaṃhāraḥ, kāyaś cāsau vāk ca cittaṃ ceti ktvā. tat punar bhagavato vajradharasya rūpaṃ dharmodayākhyaṃ teṣām eva tathāgataguhyānāṃ suviśuddhatathatātmakam. tad dhi yasmāt triguhyasaṃhāras tasmāt trikoṇam. yasmāt suviśuddhā tathatā tasmāc charadindudhavalam antaḥsuṣiraṃ ca. yasmād uttarottaraviśālena pramuditādibhūmikrameṇa viśuddhaṃ tasmād uttarottaraviśā-lam (MuĀv p. 3).

p. 160, ll. 9–10 abhyantarodgataviśvadalakamalakarṇikāvasthitavipulaviśva-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 Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇa-tantra 2.8:

dalamālāhitaṃ dikṣu pītaṃ śyāmaṃ ca śādvalam | nīlam agnyādike yasya tad viśvābjasaṃjñakam14 || (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

pūrvādidigvāsidalāruṇābhaṃ vātānalāśādalapītabhāvam | pretādhipeśānadiśoś ca dūrvāśyāmābjakṣṇaṃ khalu 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:

nairtaṃ haritaṃ kṣṇam aiśam āgneyavāyave | pīte dikṣu tu raktāni dalāni viśvapaṅkaje || (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.


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, Ḍombī = 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 lokottarajñānaṃ vyāpaka-tvena sthitam. The same phrase (but with the inferior tv idānīṃ for tu tadānīṃ) is found in Ratnākaraśānti’s VaTāSā (p. 227). In Kalahaṃsakumāra’s ḌāJāCaSaṃRa, which is apparently closely modelled on Ratnākaraśānti’s sādhanas, the editors have printed tadekalokottarajñānavyāpakatvena saṃsthi-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-meṇa 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 pāramārthikaṃ bodhi-cittam), and there is agreement on the point that the bhāvaka who is going to generate himself as Hevajra remains ontologically distinct16 from the element-

16 Note also Ratnākaraśānti’s use of tanniṣyandatayaiva here, and earlier the expression tanniṣyandabhūtām 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 gandharvasattvaḥ and being reborn as the deity (the phalahevajraḥ). The other important implication of niṣyanda 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 niṣyandaḥ (= niṣyandaphalam) as hetusadśaḥ (Abhidharmakośa 2.57c, quoted by Ratnākaraśānti at MuĀv p. 185).


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 sarvalokadhātunairātmyasūcakaiḥ. Though E’s sarvadharmanairā-tmyasūcakaiḥ may 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 abhiprāyaḥ – athā śmaśāne nirātmakāḥ sattvās tathā sarvatreti nirātmakasarvasattvāvāsamudrā śmaśānam. sattvāḥ sattvasvabhāvena śūnyāḥ, sattvāvāsā api sattvāvāsasvabhāvena śūnyā iti śmaśānārthaḥ (MuĀv p. 46).

p. 161, l. 11 calaccitrapatākāgraghaṇṭāmukharadiṅmukham. 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 źiṅ bkra 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’i17 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 translator18 was evidently somewhat at sea with Ratnākaraśānti’s Sanskrit; nonetheless his understanding of °patākāgra° as ‘the tips of the banners’ is natural and is supported by Ratnāka-raśānti’s own commentary on the Piṇḍīkramasādhana, where he glosses ghaṇṭāpatāka° in 26d with the explanation dril bu daṅ bcas pa’i ba dan ni dril bu ba dan te (cited in Wayman 1971 p. 562).

p. 161, l. 16 māracatuṣṭayam. For the four Māras trampled by Hevajra see e.g. tatra skandhamāro brahmā kleśamāro viṣṇur devaputramāro devendro mtyu-māro maheśvaraḥ (HeViNi f. 69r).

17 This curious mistranslation is clearly based on a misreading calaccitta. Note also that the translator of the VaTāSā (like Bhattacharya, the editor of the Sanskrit) appar-ently did not realize that the text is metrical here. 18 The translation is ascribed to Grags pa rgyal mtshan, apparently working without the help of an Indian pandit. On the translation-skills of this Grags pa rgyal mtshan see e.g. Tanemura 2004 pp. 113–114 and 309–327 (note however also the review by Toru Tomabechi, forthcoming in the Journal of the American Society, of Tanemura 2004).


p. 161, l. 20–p. 162, l. 7 ādarśajā�asvabhāvam ... suviśuddhadharmadhātujñā-nātmakam. For a brief Ratnākaraśāntian explanation of the five wisdoms and their correlations with the bodies of a Buddha see the following from his commentary on the Mahāmāyātantra:

pañcajñānāny eṣām ādarśajñānaṃ samatājñānaṃ pratyavekṣaṇājñānaṃ ktyānu-ṣṭhānajñānaṃ suviśuddhadharmadhātujñānaṃ ceti. tatrādarśajñānam acchādarśa-nirmalam19 anantaṃ śāśvataṃ ca madhyavartino jñānatrayasyāśrayaḥ sarveṣāṃ jñānāntarāṇāṃ pratibimbodayasthānaṃ yena pratibimbodayena tathāgatāḥ sarvā-kārasarvadharmadarśino bhavanti. samatājñānaṃ sarvasattveṣv ātmanirviśeṣatā-jñānaṃ sadā mahāmaitrīmahākaruṇāsaṃprayuktam. pratyavekṣaṇājñānaṃ sarva-jñeyeṣv avyāhataṃ sarvasamādhidhāraṇīnāṃ nidhānaṃ parṣanmaṇḍaleṣu20 sarvā-sāṃ svavibhūtīnāṃ nidarśakaṃ mahādharmavṣṭīnāṃ21 pravarṣakam. yena jñānena tathāgatāḥ sarvalokadhātuṣv anantaiḥ kāyavākcittanirmāṇaiḥ pratikṣaṇam anantā-nāṃ sattvānām arthaṃ kurvanti tad eṣāṃ ktyānuṣṭhānajñānam. yena jñānena tathāgatāḥ sarvadharmatathatāṃ suviśuddhāṃ paśyanti tanmātradarśanāt sarvani-mittamalānām atyantam aprakhyānāt tad eṣāṃ suviśuddhadharmadhātujñānam. ādyāni trīṇi jñānāni sambhogakāyaḥ. caturthaṃ nirmāṇakāyaḥ. pañcamaṃ dharma-kāyaikadeśaḥ (GuMaMāTaṬī p. 9).

p. 162, l. 1 karttikapālau saṃyuktau svabījamadhyagatau. Here A’s reading svabījamadhyagatau has been accepted with some hesitation. It is in some ways a lectio difficilior, because it is liable to misunderstanding. For it is not the chopper and skull that are inside the bījas aṃ and hūṃ respectively, but the seed syllables that are on (presiding over/empowering) the symbols (cihna) that had previously been meditatively produced as transformations of the same syllables. One might therefore well consider adopting the reading of B (bīja-garbhau), or alternatively that which underlies the corruption in E, i.e. svabīja-garbhau. And the latter reading actually has external support, for it is what we find printed in the KYaSā (p. 140). Compare also below karttikapālayoḥ saṃ-yuktayor dḍhasamādhirūpayor garbhe tad eva bījadvayam, and from the sā-dhana of Nairātmyā alone in Ratnākaraśānti’s Muktāvalī akāraṃ tena kartrīṃ tadgarbhe akāraṃ ... vibhāvayet (MuĀv p. 83). (In the KYaSā we find also karttikapālasaṃyuktau, which must, I think, be a corruption.) However A’s reading may be understood as an inverted bahuvrīhi compound. And what finally swayed me in its favour is the consideration that in choosing for this potentially ambiguous or even misleading reading Ratnākaraśānti may have well been consciously echoing the words of the scripture. For it appears that (like two of the palm-leaf MSS available to me, A and C) he read in HeTa

19 acchādarśanirmalam ] MS, ādarśavan nirmalam ed. 20 parṣanmaṇḍaleṣu ] MS (cf. khor gyi dkyil ’khor du Tib), dharmamaṇḍaleṣu ed. 21 °vṣṭīnāṃ ] MS, °dṣṭīnāṃ ed.


I.iii.11b not bījaṃ madhyagataṃ bhavet as printed by Snellgrove but bīja-madhyagataṃ bhavet. The Tibetan translation of the phrase, gri gug daṅ thod pa’i dbus su raṅ gi sa bon gyis mtshan pa (P f. 224r5, D f. 191r1–2) ‘marked by [their] own bīja in the middle of a chopper and a skull’, does not render saṃyuktau and leaves rather unclear what the direct object is.

p. 162, ll. 9–10 tasyānandina āsyena ... dravet. For an English discussion, based primarily on Tsoṅ kha pa’s sṄags rim chen mo,22 of this element of the sādhana, which is found in several but by no means all yoginītantra sādhanas, see Beyer 1973 p. 113 and pp. 125–127. Ratnākaraśānti is perhaps deliberately slightly obscure here; it must be understood that the sādhaka visualises himself in the form of the seed-syllables aṃ and hūṃ, preceded and followed by hoḥ, and that he then enters into the mouth of the Hevajra generated in the pañcā-kārābhisaṃbodhi above and passes through the central channel of the deity’s body and via his penis into the womb of Nairātmyā, where the seed-syllables melt to form a single white drop.

More usually the gandharvasattva (the syllables sandwiched between the two hoḥs) has the form of oṃ āḥ hūṃ. Thus already in Dīpaṃkarabhadra’s early and important GuSaMaVi (preserved as part of the same Sammelhand-schrift that provides MS A of the Bhramahara) we read:

oṃ āḥ hūṃ iti tac cittaṃ bhāsvaddhorbhyāṃ (bhāsvaddhorbhyāṃ MS, bhā-svaddhobhyāṃ ed.) vidarbhitaṃ || guhyapadmodarāntaḥsthaṃ (corr., °ntasthaṃ MS ed.) (GuSaMaVi 38)

Likewise, in Maṅgalasena’s Kṣṇayamārisādhana (SāMā 273 p. 543):

hoḥkāradvayagarbhitam ātmānaṃ tryakṣaraṃ sphuṭaṃ dṣṭvā nirgatagabhastima-ṇḍalaparipūritasarvadigbhāgam

sukhena tasya praviśed vidhijñas tato ’tra padme drutatāṃ vrajec ca | tadraśmiyogāt pitarau vilīnau digdevatīgītam idaṃ tato ’tra ||

Among sādhanas of Hevajra, thus also e.g. (Avadhūtipa) Advayavajra’s He-vajrasādhana (Tōhoku 1243): de nas oṃ āḥ hūṃ gi yi ge gsum gyi raṅ bźin hoḥ dmar po gñis kyis mtshan pa mtha’ ma brten pa ... (sDe dge bstan ’gyur, rgyud vol. ña f. 166v5–6), and the same (?) author’s Viśuddhinidhi: tata oṃ āḥ hūṃ ity akṣaratrayaṃ kāyavākcittarūpaṃ hoḥkāradvayavidarbhitaṃ gandharva-sattvākhyaṃ sāndanasya bhagavato mukhena praveśya vajramārgeṇa devī-kamalodaraṃ praviśya drutaṃ paśyet (HeViNi f. 70v). The same is also taught

22 As explicitly acknowledged in note 178 on p. 485 of Beyer 1973 (Sngags-rim chen-po there is an error, though one in which Beyer is consistent).


in a commentary on the Ḍākinīvajrapañjaratantra (an important vyākhyātantra of the HeTa) by an unknown author. There, commenting on the line of the scripture teaching this part of the meditation (gandharve tu samāviṣṭe drutā-pattim anusmaret),23 we find gandharve glossed as raktahoḥkāradvayamadhyī-ktākṣaratraye (ḌāVaPaṬi f. 3v6). Not explicit is Rāhulagupta in his HePra: raktahoḥkārapaṅktidvayapariveṣṭitaṃ24 gandharvasattvaṃ ... (f.13r5–6).

The only alternative to the tryakṣara mentioned by Beyer is the syllable hūṃ. However Ratnākaraśānti is not alone in having the gandharvasattva consist of the two bījas of the parent deities. Mahāmatideva, in his commentary on the same line of the Ḍākinīvajrapañjaratantra referred to above, writes utpatsyamānadevatākāraṃ svāsyena praveśya svābhākamalodare hūṃaṃrakta-ho ... (TaViḌāVaPaPa f. 8r4); though the leaf is badly damaged and the rest of this sentence lost it is clear that he agrees here with (or rather usefully confirms the meaning of) what Ratnākaraśānti teaches. Thus also *Kṣṇa’s TaUd: de nas bar snaṅ la yi ge hoḥ gñis brten pa’i yi ge aṃ daṅ hūṃ bltas la ... (sDe dge bstan ’gyur, rgyud vol. ña f. 246v3–4).

p. 162, ll. 14–15 athotthānāya ... vajragītibhiḥ. The four corner goddesses have not been generated previously (or at least no generation of them has been taught), and they will be ‘born’, together with the four goddesses in the cardinal directions, later (p. 168, l. 8–p. 169, l. 3), after the arising of the hetu-hevajra and from his copulation with his consort. Ratnākaraśānti says nothing about where they appear from to sing their vajragītis, nor about where and when they subsequently disappear (as they must to make room for their own later ‘selves’). Different ‘solutions’ are found in the tradition(s); indeed this, and more generally the precise order of ‘events’ around this part of the sādhana, is another major point of difference and perhaps controversy.

Mahāmatideva has the four appearing from the central drop to exhort it, and merging into it again after singing their songs (TaViḌāVaPaPa f. 8r). In many other respects the procedure that he gives agrees with what Ratnākaraśānti teaches in this sādhana, against what appears to be a majority of other Hevajra-sādhanas, and I regard it as a reasonable prima facie assumption that Ratnāka-raśānti would have allowed this too. The same is also what is found in Karuṇābala’s sādhana (BhaŚuHTiSā f. 129v–130r). Others, however, teach a complete generation procedure of all the goddesses before the drutāpatti instead of after it. These include Garbhapāda (ĀBhāHeSā f. 157v–158r),

23 The line is quoted in its entirety by Mahāmatideva (TaViḌāVaPaPa f. 8r4). 24 It is unusual that Rāhulagupta speaks of a hoḥkārapaṅktidvaya rather than simply two syllables hoḥ.


Advayavajra (HeViNi f. 70r–71r), and the anonymous author of the Tattva-pradīpā (TaPra f. 145r–145v).

Jñānavajra’s sādhana resembles Ratnākaraśānti’s in teaching the generation of the goddesses only after the (re-)arising of the Lord and in giving no explanation of the appearance and disappearance of the corner-goddesses who sing the songs of exhortation and beseeching (SaSaBīCi f. 221v–222v).

The differences on opinion as to when the generation of the yoginīs should be visualized may well be caused largely by the fact that the main relevant passage from the root-scripture is far from being absolutely clear: it seems to refer to their generation and presence before but also after the drutāpatti (see HeTa II.v.13–37).

p. 162, l. 16–p. 163 l. 10 uṭṭha bharāḍo ... karuṇavicchitta. In editing these Apa-bhraṃśa vajragīti verses, I have consulted the palm-leaf MSS of the HeTa (though I have not reported their readings in the apparatus of the edition), and the commentaries on this part of the HeTa available to me in Sanskrit. Where the commentators disagreed, I followed Ratnākaraśānti’s interpretation in his Muktāvalī. I also took into account the readings of the SaTa, where these verses occur as 3.1.4–7.

Here is a literal Sanskrit chāyā of the verses, following Ratnākaraśānti’s Muktāvalī, with some of his additional glosses added in parentheses.

uttiṣṭha bhaṭṭāraka karuṇāmanāḥ pukkasīṃ māṃ paritrāhi | mahāsukhayogena kāmayasva māṃ tyaja śūnyasamādhim ||

tava vihīnena (= viraheṇa) mriye ’ham uttiṣṭha tvaṃ hevajra | tyaja śūnyasvabhāvam (= dravarūpatām) śavaryāḥ siddhyatu kāryam ||

lokaṃ nimantrya surataprabho śūnyena tiṣṭhasi kasmāt | ahaṃ caṇḍālī vijñāpayāmi tvayā vinā paśyāmi na diśam (= andhakāramātraṃ

paśyāmi) ||

aindrajālika uttiṣṭha tvam ahaṃ jānāmi tava cittam | vayaṃ ḍombyaś chekāḥ manyasva (= ity evaṃ jānīhi) mā kuru karuṇāvicche-

dam ||

In the Tibetan translation of the Bhramahara, suraapahu (surataprabho) in the third verse is rendered only gtso bo, with no reflex for surata. The canonical Tibetan translation of the HeTa has dga’ gtso (P f. 255v2). In the same verse ta viṇu (Sanskrit tvayā vinā) has been rendered slightly freely: the translation is khyod mi (mi D, gyis P) bźugs na (P f. 224v4, D f. 191r7). Once more the Tibetan translation of the HeTa itself is more accurate: khyod med (P f. 255v2).

In the final verse the Tibetan translator(s) probably took cche(y)amaṇu as a single word, rendering mkhas par dgoṅs (P f. 224v5, D f. 191v1) ‘of skillful


intentions’.25 In doing so the translators show themselves unaware of Ratnāka-raśānti’s commentary on this verse in the Muktāvalī, but in itself their inter-pretation is good, and it is close to that offered by Kamalanātha in his RaĀvHePa: ccheyamaṇu iti cchekā nāgarikās (em., nāgarikā MS) tāsām iva manaḥ paṭurūpaṃ yasyāḥ (f.21v1).26

That the language of the verses with which the Bhagavān is roused by goddesses from his samādhi is Apabhraṃśa27 seems to have been standard in the yoginītantra tradition (and this feature is found also in some tantras not of this class). This should probably be seen as related to the concept in the Śaiva tradition of Apabhraṃśa as the language of direct, intense, mystical relevation by the yoginīs, and perhaps also simply to the fact that women (and particularly women supposed to be of lower social status) would have been not normally expected to speak Sanskrit. Note that the prototype for this theme in the Guhyasamājatantra (not a yoginītantra!) has the four goddesses using Sanskrit (17.72–75; the content of the verses and several individual phrases are however very similar to what we find in the Hevajratantra). For other Apabhraṃśa examples see KYaTa 17.3–6; CaMaTa 4.25–28; SāMā 254 (Buddhakapāla-sādhana) p. 501.

p. 164, l. 11 muṇḍamālāmahāhāraṃ. This reading of B was presumably what the Tibetan translators had before them, for they render mgo phreṅ do śal chen po daṅ (P f. 225r4, D f. 191v5). But the reading of A, muṇḍamālāktaṃ hāram might well be original. In it metre has taken precedence over grammar, for this must be understood as equivalent to a single bahuvrīhi compound muṇḍamālā-ktahāram. This irregularity, like others in this set of verses, could be attributed to the fact that this description of Hevajra (the phalahevajra) is based on scriptural passages. This particular pāda corresponds to HeTa II.v.9a; Snell-grove prints muṇḍamālāktahāraṃ, but the palm-leaf manuscripts of the HeTa

25 The canonical Tibetan translation of the HeTa, however, renders quite differently dran ñams pas (P f. 255v3), perhaps based on understanding che(y)amaṇu as a com-pound equivalent to Sanskrit chinnamanāḥ; a reading which is distinctly improbable from the point of view of Apabhraṃśa phonology. 26 Similarly also in (the translation of) the TaUd, where we find simply sgrin mo ‘clever’ (f.247r1), probably based on taking the word like Kamalanātha as a compound equivalent to Sanskrit chekamanāḥ (for chekamanasaḥ). 27 Note that Ratnākaraśānti actually uses the name Apabhraṃśa for the language in which the Khasamatantra is written. In his commentary on that tantra Ratnākaraśānti calls it a vikāraḥ of Sanskrit: apabhraṃśas tu bhāṣātra vikāraḥ saṃsktasya sā (sā MS, ca Upādhyāya) | pūraṇaṃ hrasvadīrghatvabindudrutavilambitaiḥ || (KhaKhaTaṬī p. 232).


support the metrically superior reading, as does the SaTa, where HeTa II.v.9 occurs as 3.1.12. However it must be noted that in his commentary on the He-vajratantra Ratnākaraśānti seems to comment as if reading muṇḍamālākta-hāraṃ, writing muṇḍamālayā kto hāro ’neneti tathoktam (MuĀv p. 204).

p. 164, l. 12 viśvavajradharaṃ ... bhasmoddhūlitavigraham. Cf. HeTa II.v.9cd–10ab (= SaTa 3.1.12cd–13ab) viśvavajradharaṃ mūrdhni kṣṇavarṇabhayā-nakam || hūṃkāraṃ sphārayet svamukhād (A C (and SaTa 3.1.13a), sphārayen mukhād Snellgrove) bhasmoddhūlitavigraham. The words kṣṇaṃ sūryajvalat-prabham imply that the form to be visualized is that which is mentioned as an alternative to a purely black/dark Hevajra in HeTa I.iii.7ef:

athavā nīlāruṇābhaṃ ca bhāvayec chraddhayā khalu.

chraddhayā ] A B, (chru)ddhaye C, chandayā ES EFM ET

N

Ratnākaraśānti ad loc.: nīlāruṇābham iti nīlam aruṇacchāyaṃ mahākaruṇā-rāgasaṃsūcanārtham. śraddhayeti rucyā. yadi nīle rucir nīlam eva bhāvayet, atha nīlāruṇe tadā tam eva (MuĀv p. 42).

p. 165, ll. 1–2 śṅgāra° ... yutam. Ratnākaraśānti is not wholly explicit in his commentary on HeTa II.v.26, but evidently sees all the rasas as appearing in Hevajra’s eight heads: sarvamukheṣu śṅgāraḥ, śvete śāntaḥ, aśveteṣu raudraḥ, śeṣeṣu yathāyogam (MuĀv p. 204). Rāhulagupta’s explanation is fuller, but along quite different lines: tatra nairātmyayā sahaikarasatā śṅgāraḥ, śma-śānasthitir vīraḥ, bhkuṭīkarālatā bībhatsaḥ, jvalatprabhātvaṃ raudraḥ, vika-sitavadanatā hāsyaḥ, sārdramuṇḍamālatā bhayānakaḥ, sattvānugrahacittatā karuṇā, māyārūpatvam adbhutam, prahīṇarāgādikleśatā śānta ity ebhir yuktam (HePra f. 19v2–4, with silent emendations of several anusvāras to visargas). For the nine rasas in the proto-yoginītantra, the Sarvabuddhasamāyoga(ḍākinī-jālasaṃvara), see Tanaka 1994.

p. 165, ll. 7–8 hastyaśva° ... dvipādayaḥ. From Ratnākaraśānti’s commentary on this verse (HeTa II.v.24): kharo gardabhaḥ. gāvo gauḥ. utuko (A C; otuko ed.) biḍālaḥ. ete dvipādayo (A C; dvipādayor ed.) dakṣiṇeṣu bhujeṣu yāny aṣṭau kapālāni teṣu cihnāni (MuĀv p. 204). The YoRaMā glosses śarabhaḥ siṃhaḥ (twice, on p. 153, commenting on HeTa II.v.24, and p. 154 commenting on HeTa II.v.53a), as does Ratnākaraśānti in commenting on HeTa II.v.53a, though in his commentary on HeTa II.v.24 he does not gloss the word. Normally a śarabha is an eight-legged animal, and it is possible that this is meant here too, even if these commentators do not say so; note the phrase śarabhasiṃhastham in KYaTa 5.14c, on which Kumāracandra glosses śarabhasiṃho ’ṣṭapada-siṃhaḥ (KYaTaPa p. 39), and in SaUdTa 10.59e.


The animals in the skull-bowls in Hevajra’s right hands are sometimes said to represent the kleśas or, more specifically, eight kinds of disease, while the deities in the skull-bowls in his left hands represent his eight-fold mastery (aiśvarya); thus e.g. Rāhulagupta (HePra f. 18r).

p. 166, ll. 8–9 carmaṇi sapta bodhyaṅgāni, asthiṣu satyacatuṣṭayam. This may seem somewhat disturbing, especially since it is followed by evaṃ devatābhiḥ sakalīktya; it is hardly normal to refer to the seven bodhyaṅgas28 and the Four Noble Truths as devatās. One might wonder whether this phrase has been misplaced, and should follow tadaparāḥ śuddhīr adhimuñcet, with kpayā locane rakte and so on. And in the Herukasādhana by Anaṅgavajra that is the arrangement we find; after the assignment of Ḍombī to marrow and fat (quoting HeTa II.ix.13a–d), that sādhana continues iyataiva devatāviśuddhiḥ. idānīm anyā viśuddhir adhimuñcanīyāḥ (sic, AnaVaHeSa f. 119r). But although an error in the transmission of Ratnākaraśānti’s sādhana can not be entirely ruled out, it seems plausible to me that the awkwardness here is a result of our author’s sticking relatively closely to the text of the scriptural passage that he is paraphrasing (in more correct Sanskrit), in which the line caṇḍālī śukram ity uktaṃ ḍombī ca medamajjayoḥ (HeTa II.ix.13cd) is followed by carma bodhyaṅgasaptaṃ tu asthi satyacatuṣṭayam (HeTa II.ix.13ef). Ratnākaraśānti may have felt II.ix.13 (or at least II.ix.c–f; note that this is the end of the speech of the Bhagavān) to form a unit which he was unwilling to break up, even in a paraphrase; Anaṅgavajra, on the other hand, seems to have done just that, even though his choice of words is overall even closer to that of the tantra.

p. 166, l. 9 devatābhiḥ sakalīktya. The absolutive sakalīktya, and other deri-vatives of sakalī-√k, are relatively rare in Buddhist tantric texts (but see e.g. LaŚaTa, paṭala 20, sakalīktya cātmānaṃ [f.23r]). It should be noticed that this terminology is however standard in Śaivism; cf. e.g. SoŚaPa 1.3.31 (sakalīkar-aṇakramaḥ), SvaTa 3.131cd–132ab (upaveśya tataḥ ktvā sakalīkaraṇe vidhim || viśeṣaphalasiddhyarthaṃ mumukṣoḥ sādhakasya vā |); NiMu f. 20r (adhvānaṃ sakalīktvā, with ktvā for lyap). The procedure described is in Buddhist texts more usually called adhiṣṭhāna or kavaca; sometimes viśuddhi. The Tibetan translation renders very freely here by thams cad lhar gyur pa yin no (P f. 225v7, D f. 192r7).

p. 166, l. 11 kṣṇāṅgo maitracittataḥ. For the colour black as symbolizing maitra/maitrī see also e.g. Advayavajra’s atimaitrātmakatvāt kṣṇavarṇaḥ (PaĀk p. 223).

28 Commonly also saṃbodhyaṅgas: samādhi, vīrya, prīti, prasrabdhi, dharmapravi-caya, smti, and upekṣā.


p. 166, l. 12 pādāḥ saṃgrahavastūni bhujāḥ ṣoḍaśa śūnyatāḥ. The four saṃ-grahavastus are most commonly listed as dāna, priyavacana, arthacaryā, and samānārthatā. The sixteen kinds of emptiness are listed by Ratnākaraśānti and Kṣṇa in their commentaries on HeTa I.ix.15a bhujānāṃ śūnyatā viśuddhiḥ (viśuddhiḥ B C, śuddhiḥ Snellgrove). They are the following: adhyātmaśūnyatā, bahirdhāśūnyatā, adhyātmabahirdhāśūnyatā, mahāśūnyatā, śūnyatāśūnyatā, paramārthaśūnyatā, saṃsktaśūnyatā, asaṃsktaśūnyatā, atyantaśūnyatā, anavarāgraśūnyatā, anavakāraśūnyatā, praktiśūnyatā, svalakṣaṇaśūnyatā, sarvadharmaśūnyatā, abhāvaśūnyatā, and abhāvasvabhāvaśūnyatā (YoRaMā p. 131,29 MuĀv p. 109). See also MaViBhā ad Madhyāntavibhāga 1.16 (p. 24, with lakṣaṇaśūnyatā for svalakṣaṇaśūnyatā), and for discussions of these sixteen see e.g. Candrakīrti’s Madhyamakāvatāra (MaAva) 6.181–218.

p. 166, l. 14 mukhāny aṣṭau vimokṣāḥ. Cf. HeTa I.ix.15c mukhāny aṣṭavimo-kṣeṇa, HeTa II.ix.12a aṣṭāsyaṃ vimokṣā aṣṭau. A brief Ratnākaraśāntian version of the old list of the eight vimokṣas (remaining very close to the formulations of e.g. the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya) is rūpī rūpāṇi paśyati suva-rṇadurvarṇāni nīlapītalohitāvadātānīti prathamo vimokṣaḥ. adhyātmam arūpa-saṃjñī rūpāṇi paśyati pūrvavad iti dvitīyaḥ. śubhaṃ vimokṣaṃ kāyena sākṣāt-ktvopasampadya viharatīti ttīyaḥ. ākāśānantyāyatanādivimokṣāś catvāraḥ. saṃjñāveditanirodho ’ṣṭamaḥ (SāAṣṭaPraPāPa pp. 174–175).

p. 166, l. 14 tribhis tattvais trilocanaḥ. Cf. HeTa I.ix.15d netraśuddhis trivajri-ṇā,30 Rāhulagupta’s trinetratvaṃ (em., trinetrātvaṃ MS) trivajraviśuddhyā, kālatrayaparijñānāc ca (HePra f. 18v5). The three tattvas should therefore be understood as equivalent to the three vajras, i.e. those of body, speech, and mind. Cf. also Śubhākaragupta’s description of Vajravārāhī as kāyavākcitta-viśuddhakpāraktanetratrayām (AbhiSaMa p. 7).

p. 166 l. 15 pañca mudrā jināḥ pañca. Cf. e.g. HeTa I.iii.14cd pañcabuddhavi-śuddhyā ca etā mudrāḥ prakīrtitāḥ, HeTa I.viii.17cd pañcabuddhaviśuddhena31 pañcaite śuddha mudrakāḥ,32 HeTa II.vi.4cd pañcabuddhasya mudreṇa śarīraṃ mudritaṃ sadā, HeTa II.ix.12c mudreṇa pañca buddhāḥ syuḥ. For the precise correspondences see HeTa I.vi.11–12ab:

29 The order of praktiśūnyatā and svalakṣaṇaśūnyatā is reversed in the list in the YoRaMā. 30 trivajriṇā ] C, trivajriṇāṃ Snellgrove. 31 °viśuddhena ] A C, °viśuddhena tu B, °viśuddhyā ca Snellgrove. 32 Ratnākaraśānti interprets śuddha as a separate word intended as a feminine nomina-tive plural though lacking the correct ending: śuddheti śuddhāḥ (MuĀv p. 80).


akṣobhyaś cakrirūpeṇa amitābhaḥ kuṇḍalātmakaḥ ratneśaḥ kaṇṭhamālāyāṃ haste vairocanaḥ smtaḥ. 11

a. akṣobhyaś cakrirūpeṇa amitābhaḥ ] B, akṣobhyaś cakrirūpeṇa amitābha A, akṣobhyaṃ cakrarūpeṇa amitābha C, akṣobhyaś cakrīrūpeṇāmitābhaḥ ES E

TN,

akṣobhyaś cakrirūpeṇāmitābhaḥ EFM b. °lātmakaḥ ] A B ES E

FM ET

N, °lātmakaṃ C c. ratneśaḥ ] B ES E

FM ET

N, ... śa A, ratnesa C • kaṇṭha° ] B C ES EFM ET

N, kāṇṭha° A

Parallel: SaTa 5.4 (W f. 57r5.)

mekhalāyāṃ sthito ’moghaḥ prajñā khaṭvāṅgarūpiṇī

a. ’moghaḥ ] A B ES EFM ET

N, ’mo⟨bha⟩ghaṃ C

Parallel: SaTa 5.4 (W f. 57r5–57v1.)

p. 166, l. 16–p. 167 l. 4 kaṇṭhahdbhagamasteṣu ... oṃkārahūṃkārākārahaṃk-taiḥ. It is rather striking that Ratnākaraśānti gives no further details on these internal cakras, neither here nor anywhere in his Muktāvalī. For more informa-tion one must turn elsewhere, e.g. to the Yogaratnamālā, the commentary on the Hevajratantra by a Kāṇha or Kṣṇa who may be a disciple of Ratnākara-śānti.33 The relevant portion of this commentary contains several errors as printed in Snellgrove’s edition: the following is an attempt at a re-edition, using the same two palm-leaf manuscripts that Snellgrove had access to (although he cannot be said to have made full use of them, nor to have reported their read-ings accurately).

kāyacakraṃ yonau, vākcakraṃ kaṇṭhe,34 cittaca[C f. 6v]kraṃ35 hdi, trayāṇāṃ pari-jñānasvabhāvaṃ mahāsukhacakraṃ mūrdhni36 vijñātavyam. eṣv eva cakracatuṣṭa-yeṣu37 pthivyaptejo38 vāyu[K f. 5v]dhātusvabhāvāś catasro mudrā evaṃmayākhyāḥ. idānīṃ nirmāṇādicakreṣu padmadalānāṃ saṃkhyākathanam – nirmāṇacakretyādi. catuḥṣaṣṭi39 dalapadmamadhyāṣṭadaleṣu vāmāvartena akacaṭatapayaśāḥ,40 varaṭake aṃkāram. hdi adhomukhāṣṭadalapadmam, koṇadaleṣu caturṣu yaralavāḥ. digda-leṣu ā ī ū ai41 catvāraḥ, varaṭake hūṃkāram adhomukham. kaṇṭhe ṣoḍaśadalaṃ42

33 Cf. Isaacson 2002a p. 458, n. 4. 34 kaṇṭhe ] C K, kanthe E 35 cittacakraṃ ] K, cittaca[C f. 6v]cakraṃ C, citta ca cakraṃ ES

36 mūrdhni ] C K, mūrdhv�a�ni ES

37 cakracatuṣṭayeṣu ] C ES, catuṣṭayeṣu K 38 pthivyaptejo° ] K, pthavyapatejo° C ES

39 catuḥṣaṣṭi° ] C K, catuṣṣaṣṭi° ES

40 akacaṭatapayaśāḥ ] CpcK, akacaṭatapayaśaḥ Cac, a ka ca ṭa ta pa ya śaḥ ES

41 ā ī ū ai ] C supp. by Tib, ā ī ai au K, ā ī ū e ES


kamalam ūrdhvamukhaṃ,43 madhyasthitadigdaleṣu44 caturṣu vāmāvartena a i u e, varaṭake oṃkāraṃ. mūrdhani dvātriṃśaddalakamalam, varaṭake ’dhomukhaṃ haṃ-kāram. eṣu cakreṣu caturṣu vakṣyamāṇakā dharmā45 utpattikrame adhimokta[C f.

7r]vyāḥ. saṃkṣepavaratvena catvāraḥ kṣaṇā nirmāṇādicakreṣv adhimoktavyāḥ. evaṃ caturāryasatyāni adhimoktavyāni. cakrabhāvanāpariniṣpattau caturāryasatyabhā-vanāpariniṣpattiḥ syād iti ktvā catvāro nikāyāḥ. catuścakrabhāvanayā sarva-dharmasaṃgrahāt.

Other, partly different, details are given by Śākyarakṣita in his Hevajrābhisa-mayatilaka:

paścāc cakracatuṣṭayenātmānaṃ mudrayet. tatra nābher adho46 vyavasthitaṃ nir-māṇacakraṃ raktaṃ viśvavarṇaṃ vā catuḥṣaṣṭidalakamalaṃ pañcaraśmikaṃ kṣṇa-aṃkārādhiṣṭhitagarbham ūrdhvamukham. hdi dharmacakraṃ śuklāṣṭadalapadmaṃ tanmadhye nīlahūṃkārabījaṃ pūrvādidigdaleṣu vairocanādīnāṃ yathākramaṃ buṃ-āṃ-jrīṃ-khaṃ-bījān aiśānyādidaleṣu locanādīnām evaṃmayābījāni. etad adhomukham. kaṇṭhe sambhogacakraṃ raktaṣoḍaśadalaṃ saroruhaṃ tadvaraṭake rakta-oṃkāram ālikālipariveṣṭitam. etad ūrdhvamukham. śirasi mahāsukhacakraṃ śuklaṃ dvātriṃśaddalapaṅkajaṃ sitahaṃkārādhiṣṭhitamadhyam adhomukhaṃ paśyet. sarve ’mī varṇāś candrasthāḥ. (HeAbhiSaTi f. 86v–87r)

p. 167, ll. 6–7 tān aṣṭamātbhiḥ sampūjya. Throughout this passage Ratnākara-śānti’s choice of words is influenced by what is his main scriptural source here, the fourth paṭalaḥ of the first kalpa of the HeTa. In his Muktāvalī Ratnākara-śānti glosses aṣṭamātbhiḥ in HeTa I.iv.1e simply with gauryādibhiḥ (MuĀv p. 49). It is of course the eight yoginīs of (the outer circle of) the maṇḍala of Hevajra that are meant.

p. 167, l. 8 abhiṣiñcantu māṃ sarvatathāgatāḥ. This request is sometimes turned into a mantra by the addition of oṃ, as in MS A here, and that reading is what is found in Hevajratantra I.iv.2 (as printed by Snellgrove, supported also by the palm-leaf manuscripts B and C and by the Tibetan translation of the He-vajratantra), which is the source here. However the Tibetan translation of the Bhramahara does not contain an oṃ, and indeed translates the sentence (de bźin gśegs thams cad kyis bdag la dbaṅ bskur du gsol P f. 226r3, D f. 192v3), rather than treating it as a mantra. Ratnākaraśānti in his commentary on the He-

42 ṣoḍaśadalaṃ ] C K, ṣodaśadalaṃ ES

43 ūrdhvamukhaṃ ] em., ūrddham ūrddhamukhaṃ C, ūrdhamukhaṃ K, [ūrdhvam] ūrdhvamukhaṃ ES

44 °digdaleṣu ] K ES, °digadaleṣu C 45 vakṣyamāṇakā dharmā ] K, vakṣyamāṇakāyadharmā C ES

46 nābher adho ] em., nārabheradho MS


vajratantra has a pratīka starting abhiṣiñcantu, so it seems that the oṃ may not have been in the text of the Hevajratantra known to him.

Primary sources47

AnaVaHeSa Hevajrasādhana by Anaṅgavajra. In the HeSāSaṃ, f. 114r3–123v2.

AbhiSaMa Abhisamayamañjarī by Śubhākaragupta48 (= GuSaSāMā 5). Sarnath 1993. Rare Buddhist Text Series 11.

AmKa Amtakaṇikā by Bhikṣu Raviśrījñāna on the Āryamañjuśrīnāma-saṃgīti. Ed. Banarsi Lal: Āryamañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti with Amta-kaṇikā-ṭippaṇī by Bhikṣu Raviśrījñāna and Amtakaṇikodyota-nibandha of Vibhūticandra. Sarnath, Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1994. Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica 30.

ĀBhāHeSā Āryabhāṣoktaṃ Śrīherukasādhanam by Garbhapāda. Contained in the HeSāSaṃ f. 156v6-160.

KYaTa Kṣṇayamāritantra. Ed. Samdhong Rinpoche and Vrajvallabh Dwi-vedi [and others]: Kṣṇayamāritantram with Ratnāvalī Pañjikā of Kumāracandra. Sarnath, Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1992. Rare Buddhist Text Series 9.

KYaTaPa Kumāracandra’s pañjikā called Ratnāvalī on the KYaTa. MS NAK 4–122 = NGMPP A 140/12. For details of the edition see under KYaTa above.

KYaSā A sādhana of Kṣṇayamāri (by Ratnākaraśānti?), of which some leaves apparently came to be mixed up with a manuscript of the KYaTaPa; printed in consequence embedded in the text of the edition of that commentary.49 What survives appears to be nearly complete, with only the beginning lacking.

47 I am indebted to a large number of individuals and institutions for providing access to or photocopies or microfilms of Sanskrit manuscripts used in this study: Dr. Eliza-beth English, Prof. Dr. Minoru Hara, Dr. Isabelle Onians, Dr. Ryūgen Tanemura, Dr. Somdev Vasudeva, Prof. Dr. Albrecht Wezler; the Oriental Institute, Baroda; Cam-bridge University Library; the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Göttingen; and the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine. 48 This is the name given to the author in the published edition of the work, on the authority of the Tibetan translation. The Sanskrit manuscripts give the author’s name as Śāntarakṣita or Śākyarakṣita; cf. BBK p. 279, p. 286. 49 The text of the KYaSā is found on p. 135–136 and 139–144 (aṣṭādaśapaṭalavyā-khyānam) of the edition of the KYaTaPa. Note the editors’ footnote 16 on p. 135: ‘vety apare’ ity ata ārabhya paṭalasamāptiparyanto bhāgo nāsti bho., [i.e. in the Tibetan


KhaKhaTaṬī Khasamā Khasamatantraṭīkā by Ratnākaraśānti. Kaiser Library MS 227 = NGMPP C 25/8. Ed. Jagannāth Upādhyāya: ‘Khasama-tantrasya ācāryaratnākaraśāntiviracitā khasamā-nāmaṭīkā’ [sic], in: Saṅkāya Patrikā: Śramaṇavidyā [Vol. 1]. Varanasi: Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, 1983. pp. 226–255.

GuMaMāTaṬī Ratnākaraśānti’s ṭīkā called Guṇavatī on the Mahāmāyātantra. Kaiser Library MS 226 = NGMCP C 25/7. Ed. Samdhong Rinpoche and Vrajavallabh Dwivedi: Mahāmāyātantram with Guṇavatī by Ratnākaraśānti. Sarnath, Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1992. Rare Buddhist Text Series 10.

GuSaSāMā ‘Guhyasamayasādhanamālā’ (Vajrayoginīsādhanamālā?). Bodleian Library MS Sansk. C.16 (R).

GuSaTa Guhyasamājatantra. Ed. Yūkei Matsunaga. Osaka 1978.

GuSaMaVi Dīpaṃkarabhadra’s Guhyasamājamaṇḍalavidhi. Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Göttingen, Cod. MS. Sanscr. 257 f. 6v4–16v (the end which would have been on f. 17 has been lost). Edition published in Dhīḥ 42 (2006), pp. 109–154.

GuSaMaUp Guhyasamājamaṇḍalopāyikā by Padmaśrīmitra. Tokyo University Library MS 280.

CaMaTa Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇatantra. First eight chapters ed. Christopher S. George: The Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇatantra. A Critical Edition and English Translation. Chaper I–VIII. New Haven, Connecticut: American Orienal Society, 1974. American Oriental Series 56.

ḌāJāCaSaṃRa Ḍākinījālacakravartiśrīsaṃvararahasyaṃ nāma sādhanaṃ by Kala-haṃsakumāra. Edited in Dhīḥ 26 (1998), pp. 107–137.

ḌāVaPaṬi Ḍākinīvajrapañjaraṭippatiḥ, author unidentified. Kaiser Library MS 230 = NGMPP C 26/3.

TaPra Tattvapradīpā sādhanopāyikā, by an anonymous author. Contained in the HeSāSaṃ, f. 140r6–152r4.

TaViḌāVaPaPa Mahāmatideva’s Tattvaviśadā; a pañjikā on the Ḍākinīvajrapañjara-tantra. NAK 5–20 (‘Trisamayarājatantraṭīkā’) = NGMPP A 47/17 and NAK 5–23 = NGMPP A 47/18.50

translation of the KYaTaPa] tatsthāne vidyamānaḥ pāṭhas tatraiva draṣṭavyaḥ, and their footnote 1 on p. 139: kevalaṃ ‘gha’mātkāyāṃ vyākhyānam idaṃ dśyate. na cāsya ko ’pi saṃbandhaḥ paridśyate ’ṣṭādaśena paṭalena. ataḥ pariśiṣṭatayāyam aṃśo ’tra sthāpyate. 50 Though now shelved as two MSS, these originally belonged to the same codex. In addition to the larger part of the TaViḌāVaPaPa, NAK 5–20 contains (incomplete) at least two other texts; a Trisamayarājatantraṭīkā (author unidentified, apparently not translated into Tibetan), and an unidentified commentary on a Vajravārāhī sādhana.


TaUd *Kṣṇa’s (Nag po) Tattvoddyotakaranāma Hevajrasādhana. Trans-lated into Tibetan by Nag po and Tshul khrims rgyal ba. Tōhoku 1253, sDe dge bstan ’gyur, rgyud vol. ña f. 243v2–253v1.

NiMu Niśvāsamukha. NAK 1-227 = NGMPP A 41/14. I have also made grateful use of an electronic transcription by Dominic Goodall (with Peter Bisschop and Nirajan Kafle).

PaĀk Pañcākāra by Advayavajra. Ed. in Mikkyō Seiten Kenkyūkai: Advayavajrasaṃgraha – New Critical Edition with Japanese trans-lation (II). In: Annual for the Institute of Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism, Taisho University 11 (1989), 259(86)–200(145).

PaCaMaTaPa Padmāvatī; a pañjikā on the CaMaTa by Mahāsukhavajrapāda. MS NAK 3–402, vi. bauddhatantra 19 = NGMPP B 31/7.

PraVāSvaV Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇavārttikasvavtti. Ed. Raniero Gnoli: The Pra-māṇavārttikam of Dharmakīrti: the First Chapter with the Auto-commentary. Roma: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1960. Serie Orientale Roma 23.

BhaŚuHTiSā Bhavaśuddhihdyatilakasādhana by Kokadatta. In the HeSāSaṃ, ff. 123v2–140r6.

Bhramahara Bhramahara by Ratnākaraśānti. Critically edited in Isaacson 2002b. Tibetan translation: Tōhoku 1245, Ōtani 2374.

MaAva Madhyamakāvatāra by Candrakīrti. Ed. Louis de La Vallée Poussin: Madhyamakāvatāra par Candrakīrti. Traduction Tibétaine. St.-Pétersbourg: Imprimerie de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences, 1912. Bibliotheca Buddhica 9.

MaKa Marmakalikā; a pañjikā by Vīryaśrīmitra on the Tattvajñānasaṃ-siddhi of Śūnyasamādhipāda. Janardan Shastri Pandey (ed.): Tattva-jñānasaṃsiddhiḥ of Śūnyasamādhipāda with Marmakalikāpañjikā of Vīryaśrīmitra. Sarnath, Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 2000. Rare Buddhist Texts Series 23.

MaViBhā Madhyāntavibhāgabhāṣya by Vasubandhu. Ed. Gadjin M. Nagao: Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya: A Buddhist Philosophical Text Edited For the First Time From a Sanskrit Manuscript. Tokyo: Suzuki Research Foundation, 1964.

MaMāSā Mahāmāyāsādhana by Ratnākaraśānti. Edited as SāMā 239.

MaSuSaṃ Ludwik Sternbach (ed.): Mahāsubhāṣitasaṃgraha. Being an extensive collection of wise sayings in Sanskrit critically edited with introduction, English translation, critical notes, etc. Vol. 6. Hoshiar-pur: Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute, 1987. Vishveshva-ranand Indological Series No. 80.

MuĀv Muktāvalī; a pañjikā on the HeTa by Ratnākaraśānti. Edited by Ram Shankar Tripathi and Thakur Sain Negi; for details see under HeTa


below. Three palm-leaf manuscripts (and paper transcripts of two of these) are available to me: MS A = NAK 4–19 = NGMPP A 994/6, MS B privately owned = NGMPP E 260/2, MS C = Tokyo University Library 513.

MeDū Meghadūta by Kālidāsa. Ed. E. Hultzsch: Kālidāsa’s Meghadūta. Edited from Manuscripts with the Commentary of Vallabhadeva and provided with a complete Sanskrit-English Vocabulary. With a Foreword by Prof. Albrecht Wezler. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1998. [First edition 1911.]

YoRaMā Yogaratnamālā; a pañjikā on the HeTa by Kāṇha (Kṣṇa). Ed. by Snellgrove together with the HeTa, on the basis of a palm-leaf MS in Cambridge (Add. 1699; here referred to as MS C), restoring some of the lacunae therein from a palm-leaf MS in the National Archives, Kathmandu (3–364 = NGMPP B 31/25; MS K).

YoMaPaKraṬi Muniśrībhadra’s Yogimanoharā Pañcakramaṭippaṇī. Ed. Zhongxin Jiang and Toru Tomabechi. Bern etc.: Peter Lang, 1996. Schweizer Asiatische Studien/Etudes asiatiques suisses vol. 23.

RaĀvHePa Ratnāvalī; a pañjikā on the HeTa by Kamalanātha (who is also called Mañjuśrī). Kaiser Library MS 231 = NGMPP C 26/4.

LaŚaTa Laghuśaṃvaratantra. Oriental Institute, Baroda, MS 13290. Ed. Janardan Shastri Pandey: Herukābhidhānam Cakrasaṃvaratantram with the Vivti Commentary of Bhavabhaṭṭa. Sarnath, Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 2002. Rare Buddhist Texts Series 26.

VaTāSā Vajratārāsādhana by Ratnākaraśānti. Edited as SāMā 110.

VaĀv Abhayākaragupta’s Vajrāvalī. MS A = NAK 3–402 vi. bauddha-tantra 76 = NGMPP A 48/3, MS B = NAK 5–84 vi. bauddhatantra 78 = NGMPP B 31/14.

ViV Vasubandhu’s vtti on his Viṃśatikā. Ed. Sylvain Lévi: Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi. Deux Traités de Vasubandhu: Viṁśatikā (La Vigntaine) accompagnée d’une explication en prose et Triṁśikā (La Trentaine) avec le commentaire de Sthiramati. 1 Partie. Texte. Paris: Librarie ancienne Honoré Champion, 1925.

ṢaSā Ṣaṭsāhasrikā; a pañjikā on the Hevajratantra by Vajragarbha. MS A = NAK 3–693 = NGMPP A 1267/6, MS B = Kaiser Library MS 128 = NGMPP C 14/6.

SaTa Sampuṭatantra (also known as Sampuṭobhavatantra). Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine MS ɛ 2.

SaUdTa Saṃvarodayatantra. Shinichi Tsuda: The Saṁvarodaya-tantra: Selected Chapters. Tokyo: The Hokuseido Press, 1974.

SaSaBīCi Sahajasadbījacintāmaṇi Hevajrasādhana by Jñānavajra. Contained in the HeSāSaṃ, f. 219v6–224r6.


SāMā Sādhanamālā. Ed. Benoytosh Bhattacharya. 2 vols. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1925 (Gaekwad’s Oriental Series 26) and 1928 (Gaekwad’s Oriental Series 41).

SāAṣṭaPraPāPa Sāratamā (or Sārottamā?); a pañjikā on the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñā-pāramitā by Ratnākaraśānti. Ed. Padmanabh S. Jaini. Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1979. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series No. XVIII.

SūMuĀv Sūktimuktāvalī of [i.e. compiled by] Jalhaṇa. Ed. Embar Krishnam-acharya. Vadodara: Oriental Institute, 1991. Gaekwad’s Oriental Series No. 82. [Photomechanical reprint of (first) edition of 1938.]

SoŚaPa Somaśambhupaddhati (a.k.a. Karmakāṇḍakramāvalī) by Soma-śambhu. Ed. Hélène Brunner: Somaśambhupaddhati: Première Partie. Le rituel quotidien dans la tradition śivaïte de l'Inde du sud selon Somaśambhu. Pondicherry: Institut français d'indologie, 1963. Publications de l'Institut français d'indologie 25.1.

SvaTa Svacchandatantra. Ed. Madhusūdan Kaul Śāstrī: The Svacchanda-Tantram with Commentary by Kshema Rāja. Bombay: Nirnaya-Sagar Press, 1921. Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 31.

HePra Hevajraprakāśa by Rāhulagupta. Palm-leaf manuscript formerly owned by Hemrāj Śākya; microfilmed by the NGMPP on reel X 1504/1 (microfilm now shelved in the Staatsbibliothek Berlin as Hs. or. sim. 1504).

HeTa Hevajratantra. Edited by David L. Snellgrove: The Hevajra Tantra. A Critical Study. Part 2: Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts. London: Oxford University Press, 1959. London Oriental Series 6. (ES ); by G.W. Farrow and I. Menon: The Concealed Essence of the Hevajra Tantra. With the Commentary Yogaratnamālā. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1992 (EF

M); by Ram Shankar Tripathi and Thakur Sain Negi: Hevajratantram with Muktāvalī Pañjikā of Mahāpaṇḍitācārya Ratnākaraśānti. Sarnath, Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 2001 Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica Series 48. (ET

N).

Sanskrit manuscripts referred to (all palm-leaf): MS A =NAK 1–1697 = NGMPP A 933/7, MS B = NAK 5–93 = NGMPP A 48/8, MS C = Cambridge University Library Add. 1697.

Tibetan translation (HeTa): Peking bka’ ’gyur vol. ka f. 230r3–262r5, sTog Palace bka’ ’gyur vol. rgyud ga f. 107r5–148v6, and edited by Snellgrove on the basis of Narthang and occasional use of Peking.

HeViNi Hevajraviśuddhinidhi or Viśuddhinidhi by Advayavajra. Contained in the HeSāSaṃ f. 65r1–80v5.

HeSāUpā Hevajrasādhanopāyikā by Saroruhavajra. Contained in the HeSāSaṃ, f. 1v1–8r5. Tibetan translation: Tōhoku 1218, Ōtani 2347. Edited in Dhīḥ 36 (2003), pp. 131–144.


HeSāSaṃ Hevajrasādhanasaṃgraha, a palm-leaf codex containing 45 works, photographed in Ṅor by Rāhula Sāṅktyāyana; copies kept in the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Göttingen, under shelfmark Xc 14/39. For a description of the contents of this unique codex see Isaacson forthcoming.

HeAbhiSaTi Hevajrābhisamayatilaka by Śākyarakṣita. Contained in the HeSāSaṃ, f. 80v5–107v4. Tibetan translation: Tōhoku 1277, Ōtani 2399.

Secondary sources

BBK Tsukamoto, K and Y. Matsunaga and H. Isoda (eds.): Bongo Butten no Kenkyū IV, Mikkyō Kyōten Hen / A Descriptive Bibliography of the Sanskrit Buddhist Literature, Vol. IV: The Buddhist Tantra. Kyoto: Heirakuji shoten, 1989.

Bentor, Yael 2002 Fourfold Meditation: Outer, Inner, Secret, and Suchness. In: Religion and

Secular Culture in Tibet. Tibetan Studies II. PIATS 2000: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Leiden 2000. Edited by Henk Blezer with the assistance of Abel Zadoks. Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library vol. 2/2. Leiden etc.: Brill 2002. pp. 41–58.

Beyer, Stephan 1973 The Cult of Tārā: Magic and Ritual in Tibet. Berkeley etc.: University of

California Press.

Bröskamp, Bernadette: 2006 A Note on the Dancing Heruka. In: Klaus Bruhn and Gerd J.R. Mevissen

(eds.): Vanamālā: Festschrift Adalbert J. Gail. Berlin: Weidler, 2006. pp. 21–27.

Davidson, Ronald M. 1999 Masquerading as pramāṇa: Esoteric Buddhism and epistemological nomen-

clatura. Shoryu Katsura (ed.): Dharmakīrti’s Thought and Its Impact on Indian and Tibetan Philosophy. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999. pp. 25–35.

Isaacson, Harunaga 2001 The opening verses of Ratnākaraśānti’s Muktāvalī (Studies in Ratnākara-

śānti’s tantric works II). In: Ryutaro Tsuchida and Albrecht Wezler (eds.): Harānandalaharī: Volume in Honour of Professor Minoru Hara on his Seventieth Birthday. Reinbek: Dr. Inge Wezler Verlag, 2000 [appeared 2001]. pp. 121–134.


2002a Ratnākaraśānti’s Hevajrasahajasadyoga (Studies in Ratnākaraśānti’s tantric works I). In: Raffaele Torella (ed.): Le Parole e i Marmi: studi in onore di Raniero Gnoli nel suo 70 compleanno. Roma: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente 2001 [appeared 2002]. Serie Orientale Roma vol. 92. pp. 457–487.

2002b Ratnākaraśānti’s Bhramaharanāma Hevajrasādhana: Critical Edition (Studies in Ratnākaraśānti’s tantric works III). In: Journal of the Inter-national College for Advanced Buddhist Studies vol. 5 (2002), pp. 151(80)–176(55).

forthcoming A collection of Hevajrasādhanas and related works in Sanskrit. To be published in the Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli.

Lipton, Barbara, and Nima Dorjee Ragnubs 1996 Treasures of Tibetan Art: collections of the Jacques Marchais Museum of

Tibetan Art. Staten Island, N.Y./New York: The Museum/Oxford University Press.

Sakurai, Munenobu 1996 Indo Mikkyō Girei Kenkyū: Kōki indo Mikkyō no Kanjōshidai. Kyoto:

Hōzōkan, 1996.

Sanderson, Alexis 1994 Vajrayāna: Origin and Function. In: Buddhism into the Year 2000.

International Conference Proceedings, Bangkok/Los Angeles: Dhammakāya Foundation, 1994. pp. 87–102.

Tanaka, Kimiaki 1994 Navarasa Theory in the Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālasaṃvaratantra

Reconsidered. In: Tōhō 10 (Dec. 1994), p. 323–331.

Tanemura, Ryugen 2004 Kuladatta’s Kriyāsaṃgrahapañjikā: a critical edition and annotated trans-

lation of selected sections. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Groningen Oriental Studies vol. 19.

Van der Kuijp, Leonard W.J. 1987 Ṅor-chen kun-dga' bzaṅ po on the Posture of Hevajra: a Note on the

Relationship between Text, Iconography and Spiritual Praxis. In: Marianne Yaldiz and Wibke Lobo (eds.): Investigating Indian Art. Proceedings of a Symposium on the Development of Early Buddhist and Hindu Iconography held at the Museum of Indian Art Berlin in May 1986. Berlin: Museum für Indische Kunst: Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, 1987. Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Indische Kunst 8. pp. 173–177.

Wayman, Alex 1971 Contributions on the Symbolism of the Maṇḍala-Palace. In: Études

Tibétaines à la mémoire de Marcelle Lalou. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1971. pp. 557–566.


Willemen, Charles 1983 The Chinese Hevajratantra. The Scriptural text of the Ritual of the Great

King of the Teaching, the Adamantine One with Great Compassion and Knowledge of the Void. Orientalia Gandensia VIII. Leuven: Peeters, 1983.

Documents

Isaacson 2007 First Yoga