Sferra 2005 Constructing The Wheel of Time

FRANCESCO
SFERRA
Constructing the Wheel of Strategies for Establishing a
Time. Tradition*
The founding project of a tradition is usually expressed in its early texts, but not always explicitly. What its authors say especially in the passages in which they introduce the tradition, what they omit and, above all, the way in which they communicate content (apart from its being true or untrue) reveals their inner concerns, their perception of the surrounding reality and the motivations, at least in part and aside from the ones given, that led them to write. The first steps taken in establishing traditions, and particularly their founding projects, are especially interesting for historical research, which does not merely record the facts but also explores their mystification and enquires into the reasons for this. The Buddhist tantric system known as the Wheel of Time (Klacakra), which spread through Northern India and Tibet around the beginning of the XI cent., is extremely interesting in this regard and has been studied relatively little according to the aforesaid perspective, which is the one I intend to explore here. Except for the premises necessary for my discourse ( i), I shall not reiterate the basic historical information on this system, for which I refer the reader to the contributions by J o h n R. Newman. 1 It is possible to show that the system's authoritativeness was established by the early teachers of the Klacakra and by the first Tibetan historiographers through a precise intellectual 'operation', * I am grateful to Raniero Gnoli, John R. Newman and Harunaga Isaacson for having read this paper before it was published and for their valuable advice and suggestions; to Federico Squarcini, the editor of this volume, for his pertinent and useful observations; and to Susan Ann White for her help in revising the English text. Within this article numbers in subscript indicate the lines of the pages/folios of printed editions and MSS referred to. 1 Newman 1987a: 70-113, 19912, 1998b, 2004; cf. also Gnoli 1994.
254
BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
which involved, among other things, the definition of the Scriptures and of the qualities that their interpreter should possess, the fixing of hermeneutical criteria and the choice of the main themes. They sought to establish, within a consistent framework, a new Buddhist orthodoxy and to close the Buddhist ranks around the undisputed authority, not without an anti-secular vein, of the monastic community, probably in order to effectively meet the new socio-cultural challenges that had arisen. The following is therefore an attempt to shed light on some of the cultural forms and means through which the Klacakra authors utilized and shared semiotic construction strategies to legitimize their lineages and doctrine. They did this in various ways: by establishing a corpus consisting of three works through which, on the one hand, they commented on celebrated works thus associating them with their own system and, on the other, founded that same system ( 2-4); by stating that their system began to spread at a precise and significant point in history ( 5) ; by drawing on a higher level of the scriptural tradition, used as a means of interpretation and available only to a select few ( 6); and by describing the qualities a master must possess and those necessary for an author worthy of writing commentaries ( 7) . 2 1. Classic sources for studying the early history of the Klacakra are contained in some of the oldest Sanskrit texts belonging to this tradition particularly the Laghuklacakratantra (LKCT), the Vimalaprabh (VP) by Pundarika, which is a commentary on it, and the introduction of the Sekoddesatk (SUT) by Nrop and in various Tibetan historiographies, beginning with the one in rGyud sde'i zab don sgo 'byed rin chen gees pa Ide mig ces by a ba written by Bu ston Rin chen grub (Bu ston, 1290-1364) in 1329, 3 the one in Dus 'khor ttk chen4 by mKhas grub rje dGe legs dpal bzai po (mKhas grub rje, 1385-1438), written in 1434,5 and the one included in the Deb ther Part of the material presented in 4 and in 6 was previously analyzed in Sferra 2001. It is generally held that the sources used by Bu ston are very old and that some of them are based on oral traditions and perhaps date back to the very origins of the system. Bu ston narrates the history of the Klacakra according to its two most important lineages in Tibet: 1) the Rwa lineage and 2) the'Bro lineage. The first originated from Rwa chos rab and the Newar Samantasr around the end of the XI cent., the second from 'Bro ses rab grags and the Kasmrian Somantha around the middle of the XI cent. On these lineages, see Newman 1987a: 94 ff. and Oroflno 1994: 17 ff. Bu ston's account of the history of the Klacakra in India according to the Rwa and the 'Bro lineages (fols. 28b3-3ia2 = ed. Chandra, fols. 56-61) has been translated by J.R. Newman (1987a: 76-89; 19912: 66-71). 4 The final of the word tik is sometimes dropped by Tibetans in writing the title of this work. Here I adopt the correct form that occurs also in a copy of the collected works by mKhas grub rje kept in the Tucci Tibetan Fund in the Library of IsIAO (ex IsMEO) ; cf. De Rossi Filibeck 1994: 76. 5 The description of the Rwa and 'Bro lineages in the work by mKhas grub rje (pp. 167173) follows sometimes verbatim the text by Bu ston, especially where the Rwa lineage is concerned. In his translation of Bu ston's account, J.R. Newman has translated the sentences added by mKhas grub rje between brackets (for references, see above note 3).
3 2
///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition
snon po (Blue Annals), written between 1476 and 1478 by 'Gos lo tsa ba gzon nu dpal (1392-1481), 6 which are the most ancient. Tibetan historiographies present valuable information not given in the Sanskrit texts: they illustrate the early stages of the system's diffusion by providing the names of the first teachers and by describing some events concerning them and their works. They record the existence of different lines of transmission of the teaching ('Bro and Rwa), differ with regard to several details, but agree, also with the Sanskrit sources, in recognizing that the scriptural nucleus of the system was composed of a short tantra ( laghutantra), the LKCT, and a root-tantra (mulatantra), the Adibuddha (or Paramdibuddha). The latter has never been translated into Tibetan and is preserved only in fragments, the longest of which is the Sekoddesa (SU, fortunately translated into Tibetan twice), which is held to be a section of the fifth chapter or of the first chapter, according to the first Tibetan translation 7 of the work. Despite the importance attributed to the Adibuddha, the LKCT, which summarizes its teachings, is generally considered the basic text of the system. It is a long encyclopaedic work that, according to the tradition, consists of 1,030 sragdhar stanzas; 8 however, it is actually composed of 1,048 stanzas, although some are repeated. 9 The tradition maintains that it was written down by Yasas (also called Sriyasas or Manjusryasas) upon the request of the brahmanas of Sambhala (alias Sambhala). 1 0 Two other works are strictly linked to this nucleus. They are quoted as authoritative texts in Sanskrit and Tibetan sources, but have come down to us in their entirety only in the bKa' 'gyur: the *Srklacakratantrottaratantrahrdayanma (Tantrottara), a supplement to the LKCT, and the *Sekaprakriy, which deals with the initiation rites. 11 Tibetan sources also concur that three exegetical works which, significantly, are attributed to Bodhisattvas (while commentaries are usually written by panditas or siddhas), the Laghutantratik (LTT) Chapter 10, fols. ia~4ia = ed. Chandra, fols. 661-741; transi. Roerich 19762: 753-838. Cf. Orofmo 1994: 14-15. 8 Cf. VP vol. i,p. 256. 9 LKCT 2.116-121 in the printed editions are an obvious interpolation (J. Newman, personal communication). These stanzas, which correspond to LKCT 4.192-197, do not appear in the Tibetan translation of the second chapter of the LKCT (cf. VP vol. 1, pp. 232-233, note). 10 For a list of titles of the extant Klacakra literature, see Ll 1994 (Sanskrit) and Samphel 1995 (Tibetan). 11 The Tantrottara (Qvol. 1, #5, fols. I42a1-i58a ) is quoted here and there in other works (e.g., in the Sadangayoga by Anupamaraksita, ed. pp. 137-139 [for further references, cf. ed. p. 65]). The *Sekaprakriy (Qvol. 1, #7, fols. i6oa1-i64a5), in fact, is wholly composed of stanzas from the LKCT: stt. 1-12 = LKCT 3.92-103; stt. 13-21 = LKCT 3.118126; st. 22 = LKCT 5.112; st. 23 = LKCT 4.119; stt. 24-37 = LKCT 5.113-126; at the beginning, between stanzas 21 and 22, and at the end, there are a few lines in prose. The commentary (vrtti) by Darikapa on this text is preserved in the Tibetan translation (Q vol. 47, #2072, fols. 48b5-87b5).
7 6
256
by the Bodhisattva Vajrapani, the Satsahasrika by the Bodhisattva Vajragarbha and the Vimalaprabh (VP) by the Bodhisattva Pundarka, formed a body of integrated texts, known as the 'Bodhisattva corpus' (byan chub sems dpa'i skor) or the 'Bodhisattva commentaries' (byan chub sems dpa'i 'grelpa mams), which were fundamental to the spreading and the correct interpretation of the system. 2. However we may suppose that the concept of the corpus was superimposed later as a part of a founding project, and therefore extraneous to the three texts. In particular, the LTT and the HTPT were probably written at a time when the doctrines and practices of the 'Wheel of Time' were in the formative stage, even if the basic conception of the system was already in place when they were composed. These works as their acceptance of the authority of the Paramdibuddha clearly shows were the products of the initial effort to establish the tradition, although the founding project of which they were part may not have been well-defined at that point. This would appear to be confirmed by the following: 2.1 Of this trilogy, the only text directly linked to the Klacakra is the VP, an exhaustive commentary on the LKCT and the only complete one: Vajrapani merely comments on the first ten and a half verses of the Cakrasamvaratantra (CST, also called Herukbhidhnatantra or simply Laghvabhidhna), which correspond to a part of the first chapter, and Vajragarbha dwells on the first five patalas of the first part (kalpa) of the Hevajratantra (HT), which, according to him, contain the 'concise meaning' (pindrtha)12 of the whole text. Hence, this commentary (tlka) is also called Hevajratantrapindrthatlk (HTPT). 1 3 Accordingly, in the conclusion of the LTT Vajrapani defines his work as a pindrthavivarana, lit. an 'explanation of the concise meaning', since in it he briefly illustrates the condensed meaning [of the short t a n t r a ] , which is contained in the first chapter. 1 4 Tibetan historiographers also provide interesting information on the first phase of the system's diffusion, including an explanation of why the LTT and the HTPT are incomplete, but they do not tell us why the mlatantra has not come down to us in its entirety or why it has not been translated into Tibetan as we shall see, their silence on this point is not devoid of meaning. Nor do they tell us who Vajrapani, Vajragarbha and Pundarka actually were. The authors
12 With this meaning the compound pindrtha recurs in the commentarial literature in Sanskrit; for instance, in the Satkotivykhy by Candrakrti (idnm saptadasapatalnm pindrtho vidhyate; p. 5) and in the Vykhyna by Ruyyaka on the Vyaktiviveka b Mahimabhatta (ayam atra pindrthah [...]; p. 16). 13 All passages from the HTPT in this paper are taken from my edition of the text (Sferra 1999), to which I refer the reader for variants in the MSS and the readings of the Tibetan translation. The stanzas are quoted with the number of the section and the number of the stanza while the parts in prose are quoted with the reference to MSS. 14 iha laghutantraUkyam samksepena pindrthah prakatlkrto [...] pindrthaviva nma prathamakparicchedah (p. 159).
themselves do not mention their own teachers in their works nor do they elucidate as was the custom on the historical circumstances in which they worked. The importance of this trilogy is stressed in the Tibetan historiographies, which state that the first teachers of the school transmitted their knowledge of the Bodhisattva corpus to their disciples. Cilu (Tsi lu), the first teacher in the Rwa tradition realized, as Bu ston and mKhas grub rje inform us, that this corpus was fundamental to understanding the Mantrayna and to achieving Buddhahood in a single life.15 Pinda (Pindo), Klacakrapda the Elder, Klacakrapda the Younger and Cilu himself must each have studied this trilogy and, in some cases, after undertaking difficult and tiring journeys. Likewise, mKhas grub rje informs us that Kalk Srpla, the first master in the 'Bro tradition, 16 taught all the niruttaratantras and the Bodhisattva corpus to his disciple, who later became known as Klacakrapda [the Elder]. 1 7 The above-mentioned historiographers themselves studied this trilogy at length. It is well-known that Bu ston and mKhas grub rje, in particular, wrote detailed commentaries on the VP, and that the VP and the other glosses of the Bodhisattvas are included in the list of works that 'Gos gzon nu dpal claims to have learnt from his master Saiis rgyas rin chen po (1336-1424). l8 The Indian tradition would also appear to confirm the significance of these texts, although indirectly, through quotations or references to individual works. The longer treatise on the sixfold yoga by Anupamaraksita (X-XI cent.) and, later, the SUT by Nrop (956 ca1040 ca) ,19 for instance, draw heavily and openly on this trilogy. The latter work summarizes the most important themes of the Klacakra system, often using the words of the three Bodhisattvas and particularly those of Pundarika. 20 From the Deb ther snonpowe know that the celebrated pandita Vanaratna (Nags kyi rin chen, 1384-1468) composed a
&
1 5
'
'
'
'
'jam
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
258
Tibetan commentary on both the HTPT and the LTT and on the first two chapters of the VP, 21 but I was unable to locate copies of these texts. The standing of Pundarika, Vajrapni and Vajragarbha is also implicitly indicated in a passage of the mnyamanjan, the commentary by Abhaykaragupta (XI-XII cent.) on the Snsamputatantramja. Here, the latter quotes a criticism of the Klacakra voiced by other Buddhists (probably Ratnkarasnti and Vgsvarkrti) 2 2 who, while pointing out that there were many contradictions between the basic Klacakra texts and the [three] vehicles, and that the authors were not Bodhisattvas as they claimed, groups them, significantly, with Yasas, and elevates them to the status of principal authors of the system. Although quotations from the works by Vajragarbha, Vajrapni and Pundarika were made more frequently with the passing of time, for example in the Amrtakanik (AK) by Ravisrijnna (XI-XII cent.) and in the Amrtakanikoddyota (AKU) by Yibhticandra (XII-XIII cent.), 23 there is no reference to these texts as a corpus in any Sanskrit work. 2.2 Vajrapni's and Vajragarbha's link to the Klacakra is not openly declared. 2.2.1 Neither Vajrapni nor Vajragarbha specifically mentions the Klacakra as a tradition: they do not refer to the stories concerning the founding of the system, which, by contrast, are given considerable importance in the LKCT and the VP, and other later texts. In fact, they make no reference to the traditional account of the teaching of the Klacakra that the Buddha imparted at Dhnyakataka, to the realm of Sambhala, where the teaching was preserved and transmitted for centuries, or to the kings of Sambhala and the myth of Kalkin.
21 [...] dpal dus kyi 'khor lo le'u danpo gnis kyi 'grel bsad I rdo rje snin 'grel dan I phy stod 'grelgnis kyi dka' 'grel mdzad de I sems 'grel skor la bodyig2byun ba la bzan I [...] { siionpo, chapter 10, fol. 34ax_2 = ed. Chandra, fol. 727; cf. Roerich, 1976 : 824-825). 22 The passage (sDe dge #1198, fols. I98t>5-i99a3) is transcribed and translated in Newman 1987a: 108-109. Cf. also Newman 1987a: 107, 110. 23 In the AK there are two quotations from Vajrapni's work: 1) ad Manjusrlnmasangiti (MNS) 6.20cd-22ab, where a passage is quoted in an abbreviated form from the edited text (LTT p. 140 ) and without mentioning the source (pp. 45-46 ), 2) ad MNS 8.13, where a passage is quoted with slight changes from the edited text (LTT p. 15O2?_32): tad uktam vajrapnipdaih 'prajncumbanennandaksano bhavati [...] jnnasamaya caturthaK (p. 65 ) ; and no reference to Vajragarbha's work. In the AKU there are two references to the HTPT: l) uktan ca vajragarbhe Hha vairocano bhmicakre [...] vajrasat jnnacakre nyaka it {ad AK 3.2 [= commentary on MNS 3.2]; p. 130 6); the quotation occurs in the 10th pariccheda of the HTPT adHT 1.5.11.2) Quotation of HTPT 6.17 with slight changes and without mentioning the source: tad uktam - 'prnpnaksayenaiva dvdasngaksayo bhavet I hetuphalanirodhena ko na buddho bhavisyati II' iti (p. n8 Vajragarbha does not specify whether this is a passage from the mlatantra of the HT, which is his main source. There are many citations from the VP in the Klacakrabhagavatsdhanavidhi by Dharmkarasnti (XI cent.). The LTT is extensively quoted in the Dkimjlasamvararahasya by Anangayogin (p. 35? = LTT p. 1211O_13; p. 39_l6 = LTT p. I237_l6; p. 7 H = LTT pp. 13821-1393; p. 74.6 = LTT p. 139.15; P- 78.19 = LTT p. 140 ). As H. Isaacson has kindly pointed out to me, the reference to the Hevajratka in AK aaMNS 1.1 (p. 26_?) is not to Vajragarbha's HTPT but probably to a commentary (lost in Sanskrit) on the HT called Suvisadasamputa (see (^#2314 and #2321); the passage of the AK should be read 'not
III. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition
2.2.2 The word Kalacakra never appears in the LTT, and only three times in the HTPT as the name of the tantric deity: in stanzas 49 and 112 of the 5 t h pariccheda in a long quotation from the supposed mlatantra of the HT, namely the Pancalaksahevajra (PLH), to which we shall return later and in the 10th pariccheda, in the commentary on HT 1.5.9, where the twenty-four armed Heruka is identified with Kalacakra and dibuddha. 2 4 The latter, in particular, appears again in the HTPT, as an attribute of the tantric deity, in stanza 173 of the 6 t h pariccheda, the last stanza of the section, ad HT 1.2.12-18, which in actual fact corresponds to Manjusrlnmasanglti (MNS) 8.24, even though the latter is not specifically mentioned. 2.2.3 The LTT and the HTPT never quote from the LKCT; the only Kalacakra scripture cited therein is the dibuddha and in particular the SU: the few stanzas from the dibuddha can all be traced to the SU, with the exception of three stanzas quoted on pp. 124-125 and 147 of the edition of Vajrapani's work. 25 In the LTT, the quotations from the SU appear at three different points: 1) p. 126, where st. 10 is introduced with tath dibuddhe bhagavn ha; 2) p. 127, where we find stt. 8, 15I7ab preceded by atra paramdibuddhe bhagavn ha; and 3) p. 157, where stt. 139 and 135 are preceded by tath paramdibuddhe sekoddese bhagavn ha. The last quotation is the only explicit reference to the SU: at this point Vajrapani (or someone on his behalf) felt the need to specify: 'In the Paramdibuddha, [and more precisely] in the Sekoddesa\ which as we have already mentioned is considered a part of the former. In the HTPT there are two references to the dibuddha; the first adHT 1.5.8, where SU 86-87 a r e quoted, after they have been introduced with tath cha samvrty dibuddhe, and the second at a crucial point in the text, at the end of the first pariccheda (st. 76), where an important hermeneutic criterion, which we shall discuss briefly later, is established, namely that the deep meaning ( nitrtha) of the Cakrasamvara, the Catuhpithaka and the HT must be understood through the words of the dibuddha, which contain great secrets. 26 2.2.4 Neither the LTT nor the HTPT makes any mention of Kalacakra teachers or of other independent works or commentaries
suvisadasphutam hevajratantratikym as Lai suggests but suvisadasamputahevajra tratikym (the MS Cambridge University Library Add 1108 reads suvisadasamputahevajratantrattkym; visada is an often found alternative orthography for visada)'. The same reading of the MS kept in Cambridge occurs but with the variant sva instead of su in the MS NAK 4/21, NGMPP Mf. B24/23, fols. 2^-2^ (I have consulted a photo of this MS made by G. Tucci and kept in the Library of IsIAO in Rome [= folder 3.42] ). 24 nyakah sahajnandah snyatlingito hevajro bhagavn caturvimsatibhur satcakrasamvart klavisesenvasthitah [...] evamsatkultmako herukahklacakrah dibuddhas ceti (Kaiser Library, Kathmandu, MS 128, NGMPP Mf. C14/6, fols. 54^-55^ ). 25 The stanza cited on p. 124, which reads karmamudrm parityajya jnnamudrm vikalpitm I paramksarayogena mahmudrm vibhvayet II, is also quoted in the VP PAJS), with attribution to the Mlatantra, vol. 3, p. 80 (H. Isaacson, personal communication) . 26 'The Cakrasamvara and the Catuhpithaka must be understood through the Hevajra. The Hevajra and the Catuhpithaka must be understood through the words of
260
of this tradition, n o t even the VP. By contrast, Vajrapani a n d Vajragarbha frequently quote from authoritative texts that do not belong to the Klacakra tradition, such as the Dkintvajrapanjara, the Guhyasamjatantra (GST), the Myjla, the Mahmy, the MNS and, among non-scriptural sources, the Gurupancsik attributed to ryadeva, but, in the case of the latter, without mentioning the source or the supposed author (like Pundarka, in his turn). 2.3 None of the works of the trilogy makes reference to an intrinsic relationship with the others. Vajrapani mentions neither Vajragarbha and the HTPT nor Pundarka. Vajragarbha, in his turn, makes only one explicit reference to Vajrapani's LTT at the end of the fifth section of his text, where he mentions the commentary on the first ten and a half stanzas of the CST that we know to be by Vajrapani ([...] asyaiva kulapatalasya punar ndlsamcaro laghucakrasamvare srdhadasaslokapindrthatikay jntavyah) . 2 7 Pundarka, for his part, never refers to Vajrapani and Vajragarbha as celebrated Klacakra authors, nor do their names appear in the myth concerning the system's foundation or the teaching lineages. In the VP (ad LKCT 5.18) there is only one specific reference to the ttk by Vajrapani, which, like the HTPT, is called Satshasrik: [...] evam astasmasnesu devyo veditavyh I sm vispharanena karmaprasardikam tantroktam vajrapnikrtatikay satshasrikay boddhavyam laghutantre I tentra na likhitam (vol. 3, p. 13 26 2 g ) , and none at all to either Vajragarbha himself or his HTPT. We may suppose, nevertheless, that Pundarka was familiar with Vajragarbha's work, since, in at least one point of the VP (ad LKCT 5.9), he paraphrases, in prose, three stanzas, which appear in the 3 r d pariccheda (adHT 1.1.7) of the HTPT, and which are taken, according to Vajragarbha, from the PLH: samjdlni tantrni prajnopytmakni vai I yogatantrni sarvni prajnopytmanmabhih II sancro yogintnm tu yatropyasya samsthitih I samvrty yoginitantram blnm gaditam may II yatropyasya sancrah prajnyh samsthitir bhavet I upyatantram evoktam samvrty tu yath tath II (stt. 27-29).
the Cakrasamvara. The Hevajra and the short Cakrasamvara must be understood through the words of the Catuhplthaka. But the deep meaning [of all these tantras] must be understood through the words of the dibuddha, which contain great secrets' (hevajrena hi cakrasamvaram idam jneyam catuhplthakam hevajram khalu cakrasamvara jneyam catuhplthakam I hevajram laghucakrasamvaram idam jneyam catuhplthak nit art ha h punar dibuddhavacanair jneyo mahsamvaraih II). The Catuhpthamaht (alias Prakaranatantra) is still unpublished. I give here references to some MSS of this text: 1) NAK, MS 5-37, vi 51, NGMPP Mf. A138/10; 2) NAK, MS 5-38, vi 52, NGMPP Mf. B112/4; 3) NAK, MS 1-1078 vi, Saivatantra [sic!], NGMPP Mf. B26/23; 4) NAK, MS 4-20 vi, Bauddhatantra 65, NGMPP Mf. A 48/18; 5) NAK, MS 5-36, NGMPP Mf. A 138/10; 6) Cambridge University Library, MS Add. 1704 (12). I thank H. Isaacson for supplying some of these references. 2 7 Kaiser Library, Kathmandu, MS C 128, NGMPP Mf. C14/6, fols. 25^-26^; NAK MS A 1267/6, NGMPP Mf. A693/11, fol. 25r6.7; IsIAO, Rome, MS 1.20, 22/S, MT049, fol. i6r [photos of the same MS taken by R. Snkrtyyana and listed by him as MS XVII.2.92; c Snkrtyyana 1935: 36].
P u n d a n k a ' s paraphrase is as follows: yoginvyogatantram iti yatra yogintnm sancro nyako niscalah samvrty tad yogintantram, yatropyasya sancrah prajn niscal tad upyatantram I svarpatah sarvam evaprajnopytmakamyogatantram (vol. 3, p. 6 ). We cannot exclude that he might have drawn on another source; however, it is worth noting that also in another part of the VP (vol. 2, pp. 233-235) Pundarka may have based himself on the HTPT. In fact, he quotes with few variations 33 stanzas from the root-tantra (tath mlatantre bhagavn ha [...]) which in his text means from the dibuddha that Vajragarbha cites from the PLH (= 6.n6-i2iab, 122-I3iab, 132, I48cd-i64). 2 8 As we shall see later, Vajragarbha himself probably composed all or at least a fair amount of the stanzas he attributes to the PLH. Furthermore, the classification of phonemes on the basis of astronomical interrelationship that we find in the VP (ad LKCT 1.8) probably derives from a scheme elaborated in the HTPT (4thpariccheda, adHT 1.1.13-21). The above allows us to establish a likely chronological order for the composition of the texts: LTT, HTPT, VP. The LKCT and the VP were probably only works in progress when LTT and HTPT were completed. 3. In the light of this, we must seek to understand what it is exactly that enabled these texts to be grouped together in a single corpus as part of a founding project. We could start by saying that they derive from a common cultural environment: not only are certain themes treated in all three, but, notwithstanding the fact that the three texts were definitely composed by different people, each with an individual style, 29 we find passages that literally correspond. Even if we were to suppose that Pundarka was not familiar with Vajragarbha's work, they both mention, as we have seen above, the work by Vajrapni, and sometimes even seem to depend on him; for instance, several sentences of the 2 n d pariccheda of the HTPT and the tantradesanoddesa of the VP (vol. 1, pp. 12-22) would appear to be an elaboration of the first part of the LTT (p. 44 ff.). Moreover, the texts are also linked by the fact that their authors chose particularly meaningful pseudonyms to give themselves a certain authority, as J.R. Newman has already pointed out in the case of Yasas and Pundarka, who declare themselves to be manifestations of Manjusr and Avalokitesvara respectively. 30 It is a known fact that Vajrapni, the Bodhisattva emanating from Aksobhya, is the mediator between the Buddha and man in the imparting of tan trie teachings, 31 It is worth noting that stanza 6.155a, which in the HTPT is mlatantresu sarvesu, appears as dibuddhe mahtantre in the VP (vol. 2, p. 23426). 29 I am aware that such a statement requires a deeper analysis of the language and syntax of the LTT, the HTPT and the VP. I shall give more information on this in the introduction to my revised edition of Sferra 1999, which is in press. 30 Cf. Newman 1998a: 314; 1987a: 70. Cf. also Gnoli 1994: 63. 31 On Vajrapni, see Lamotte 1966 and Snellgrove 1987, vol. I: 134-141.
28
262
while Vajragarbha is the Buddha's interlocutor in the HT. In his HTPT, Vajragarbha openly identifies himself with the Buddha's interlocutor in the HT (1.71). These elements, although significant, are not the prerogative of the Bodhisattva corpus and can also be found in Buddhist and nonBuddhist works, and therefore the grouping of the LTT, HTPT and VP in a corpus cannot be due solely to them. Perhaps more important, although the foregoing should not be minimized, are the following six considerations: a) the importance these three texts give to the dibuddha; b) the common hermeneutic criterion they all share, which can be summed up by the concept, which appears frequently in Kalacakra literature, that a Tantra must be understood through another Tantra (tantram tantrntarena boddhavyam),32 and, more specifically, that every tantra must be understood through the dibuddha, as we have seen in the above passage of the HTPT ( 2.2.3 a n ( * note 26) ; c) the fact that all three Bodhisattvas quote the - mlatantras of the tantra that they are commenting on 33 (both Vajrapni and Vajragarbha quote the dibuddha as well) ; d) the unusual claim made by the three authors to have unique authority in interpreting the tantra that they comment on, by right of their identity and their asserted access to the mlatantras (which would be plausible if their claims regarding their own identity were accepted), which is precluded to other commentators; e) the aim of establishing the supremacy of monks over laymen (see below, 7) ; and, perhaps most important, f) the desire to introduce the new Kalacakra doctrines and practices in religious circles where the works of the Adamantine Vehicle and in particular the yoginltantras where the LTT and the HTPT are concerned were studied. We may suppose that the idea of a corpus which is not consonant with the original texts was introduced as part of a broader founding project, and used to Incorporate' the well-established traditions of the CST and the HT, the two most celebrated yogintantras, in the nascent Kalacakra system and to give it greater credibility. 3.1 This need to incorporate or associate well-established traditions in or with the new system and to give it more prestige, also explains the importance the first authors of the Kalacakra attributed to the MNS. As we know, the MNS on which there are several commentaries in both Sanskrit and Tibetan, and which takes many of the names 'chanted' therein from the celebrated vaisnava Visnusahasranma was already extremely well-known when the early Kalacakra teachers were active. Beginning with Pundarka, an increasingly influential role was assigned to it also with regard to the interpretation of the
32 Cf., for instance, LTT p. 1452O; HTPT 1.77 and parts in prose of sections four and five: NAK MS A 1267/6, NGMPP Mf. A693/11, fols. 16^-17^, 25^. 33 In the LTT Vajrapni claims that his teaching is based on the Laksbhidhna and sometimes he actually quotes from this text (cf., for instance, p. 49).
Kalacakra doctrines and practices, as if it had actually been a text of the system. In fact, Pundarka who would have been the author of a Manjusrlnmasangitivimalaprabh that has come down to us only in Tibetan translation ( Q # 2 i i 4 ) 3 4 even goes as far as stating that the knowledge of the MNS depends on the knowledge of the Paramdibuddha, and that the knowledge of the Gnosis Body of the Vajra-holder depends on the knowledge of the MNS. Those who do not know this Body do not know the Mantrayna and are, thus, separate from the path of the Blessed One. 3 5 The MNS gradually became an influential source of the Kalacakra system. Even though only a few stanzas from this text are quoted in the LTT and in the HTPT, Pundarka states in his Paramksarajnnasiddhi (PAJS) that the essence of the Blessed One's teaching is contained in the MNS. 36 In the AK and the AKU, respectively a commentary and a sub-commentary on the MNS, the entire outer and inner worlds are said to correspond to the stanzas of the MNS. 37 In these two texts, all the doctrines and practices of the school are explained in the light of the MNS. The fact that not one early Kalacakra work comments comprehensively on the GST merits further study. Here we shall limit ourselves to observing that the way in which Kalacakra authors ( Anupamaraksita, Ravisrjnna, Nrop and so on) quote and gloss parts of the GST and the Samjottara^ diverges to varying degrees from that of Candrakrti and other authors like Munisrbhadra, who adhere more closely to the GST tradition; for instance, in the commentary of the celebrated GST 2.3, which contains an allusion to the insubstantiality of the meditative practice (bhvan), in the explanation of the pratyhra limb of the sixfold yoga and in the description of the signs (nimitta) that the yogin sees while practicing the sixfold yoga. 4. It would seem plausible therefore th<|t part of the tradition, that which is mirrored in the most ancient Tibetan historiographies, sought to endow the LTT and the HTPT with the same authority as the VP, by claiming that these two works were originally more extensive and complete, and had become incomplete because the second part had been hidden by the dkints. The story is related by Bu ston and by mKhas grub rje when they describe the Rwa tradition, and also by 'Gos gzon nu dpal. They tell us that the Bodhisattva corpus
34
Actually Bu ston questions and mKhas grub rje rejects the attribution of this work to Pundarka (J. Newman, personal communication). 35 ato ye paramdibuddham na jnanti te nmasangitim na jnanti, ye nmasangi jnanti te vajradharajnnakyam na jnanti, ye vajradharajnnakyam na jnanti te mantraynam na jnanti, ye mantraynam na jnanti te samsrinah sarve vajra<dha gavato mrgarahith (VP vol. 1, p. 524_?). Cf. Newman 1987a: 83, 1987b: 93. 36 Cf. VP vol. 3, p. ioo25_26; Gnoli 1997: 78. 3 7 Cf. AK pp. 2-3 and AKU p. 116. 38 The Samjottara is actually GST 18. This chapter, however, was probably added to the text and is often quoted as a separate work.
264
was revealed to the ancient teacher Cilu from Orissa through an incarnation of Avalokitesvara (or Mafjusr according to another tradition). Then Cilu, prompted by the requests of his disciples, wrote down the three works of the corpus that he had memorized.
Then we read in the Deb ther snon po the troops of a foreign king invaded the country. They [the disciples] hid these commentaries on the tantras [the VP, the LTT and the HTPT] in a pit, and escaped. After the war was over, they returned and searched for the [hidden texts]. [They discovered] that the second half of the two shorter commentaries was missing. The disciples again requested [him] to write down [the missing portions, but] he declined, saying that the dakins had hidden them, and therefore it was improper to write them down [again] . 39
The fact that the tables of content at the beginning of the HTPT and the LTT list all the chapters of the commented tantras, but the commentaries are interrupted after the first ten and a half stanzas of the CST (composed of 700 stanzas) and after the first 120 stanzas of the HT (composed of 750 stanzas) would appear to confirm that part of the works disappeared as tradition would lead us to believe (even if the dkins were probably not responsible). But it should be noted that the two works were interrupted at different times, because, as we have seen, Vajragarbha's work contains an explicit reference to Vajrapni's text, defined therein as a commentary on the ten and a half stanzas. Furthermore, a reading of the colophons of the HTPT and the LTT gives us the impression that the authors wished to comment on a part of the CST and the H T only, namely the part that corresponded to the pindrtha of the text, and decided to interrupt their work, even though this may have been due partially to circumstances beyond their control. As regards the HTPT, the Sanskrit manuscripts that have come down to us leave no room for doubt that Vajragarbha originally glossed only the first 120 stanzas of the HT, since none of them goes beyond the commentary of HT 1.5, and the colophon of the text reads as follows: 'Yogins should understand the meaning that has been condensed in five chapters with 120 stanzas by means of this commentary. [...] This is the end of the Snhevajrapindarthatika (vimsatyadhikasataslokaih pindarthah pancapatalesu yogibhir avagantavyo 'nay tikay I [...] snhevajrapindarthatika sampteti) . 4 We must not forget, however, that the Tibetan translation of Vajragarbha's commentary covers the complete text of the HT. But this translation actually contains two colophons: one at the end of the commentary on the fifth chapter
39 de nasyul der rgyalpo gian gyi dmag 'ons nas rgyud 'grel de dag don du sbas te bros so\\ de nas dmag byer te star log nas bltas pa dan I 'grel pa chun nu gnis kyi smad mi 'dug nas I slob ma mams kyis kyan bri bar zus pa dan I mkha ' 'gro mas sbas pa yin pas dbrir [sic for brir ?] mi run gsun nas ma gnan no I (Deb ther snon po, chapter 10, fols. 5b -6a2 = ed. Chandra, fols. 670-671; cf. Roerich 19762: 762-763; Newman 1987a: 80-81). 4 Kaiser Library, Kathmandu, MS C 128, NGMPP Mf. C14/6, fol. 59^4.5-
of the first part of the HT, where the Sanskrit manuscript finishes, 41 and another at the end of the work. What is contained between the two colophons is attributed to Vajragarbha and is the continuation of the commentary on the HT (1.6 ff.). Possibly, this part of the text is a later composition, written and translated into Tibetan after the Deb ther snon po; a few lines after the above-quoted passage, the latter states the following: '[...] Also the statement that the last part of the two commentaries of the Dvikalpa [= HT] and the Samvara [= CST] were concealed by the dakints [is unreliable], since the present size [of these texts] in Tibetan is the one accepted by the Bodhisattvas'. 42 The colophon of the LTT, in its turn, states very clearly that the work actually finishes at that point, namely after the commentary on the first ten and a half stanzas. In his History of Buddhism in India and Tibet Bu ston refers to a commentary by Vajrapni on the first part of the Tantra; this might also be a reference to the incompleteness of the LTT (cf. Obermiller 1999 2 : 225). 5. Another issue that is worthy of consideration in relation to the founding project is the choice of a definite date for its inception, which is a new and interesting occurrence in Indian religious culture. In fact, the Klacakra was the first system that attempted to place its foundation in a historical context. The LKCT and the VP state that the system was diffused within a specific period of time, starting from the year 403 after the mlecchendravarsa, i.e. the Hijra, which corresponds to 1024/25 (or 1026/27 if we go by Abhaykaragupta and the Klacakrnusriganita). The date is given, in the form of a prophecy, in LKCT 1.27.
41
This colophon (sDe dge #1180, fol. 46a ; Qvol. 53 #2310, fol. 52b6.?; ed. Ganden, vol. 7 [original vol. 16], fol. 63b ) reads: '[This work] was composed by the venerable Bodhisattva Mahsattva Vajragarbna. It was transalted [into Tibetan] by Dnasla, Indian teacher, and by the lotswa 'Bro sen dkar skya 'od. Then it was revised by Subhtisrisnti, Indian teacher, and by the lotswa Cog gru tin lie 'dzin bzari po'; rje btsun by an chub sems dpa ' sems dpa ' chen po rdo rje snin pos mdzad pa'oW rgya gar gyi mkhan po da na si la ba 'bro sen dkar skya 'od kyis bsgyur ba I slad kyi [Q: gyis; Ganden: kyis] rgya gar gy su bh ti srl snti dan I lo ts ba cog gru tin ne 'dzin bzan pos zus so\\ II. The text continues the following words (sDe dge #1180, fol. 46a5y; Qvol. 53 #2310, fols. 52b?-53a3; ed. Ganden, vol. 7 [original vol. 16], fol. 63b 6): yan slad kyi [Qand Ganden: kyis] rgya gar gyi mkhan po rgyalpo'i sras I dpal'jigs[Q: jig] med lha'i zal snar lo ts ba snel [Q: snol] cor dge slon kirtisyul dbus 'gyurgyi dpes gtan la phabpa I slaryan dpal Idan son ston rdo rje rgyal legs par bsadpa la sogs pa'i mthu las I brda sprodpa'i tshul rigpa'i dpan lo ts ba dpa gros brtan pas I byan chub sems dpa 'i 'grel ba skor [Q and Ganden: 'grelpa bskor] gsu la sin tu dad ein blo'i snan ba rgyas pa 'i [Q and Ganden add: dge ba 'i] bses gften ra tun grags dpal bzan pos I slob dpon chen po zi ba 'tsho'i tabs dpon slob kyis mdzadpa 'i I db lugs chenpo de kho na nid bsduspa rtsa 'grel gyi glegs bam bris te yon du gnan nasyan bskul ba'i nor legspar bcos te bsgyur ein zus nas gtan la [Q: las; Ganden: nas] phabpa ni mdzad [Ganden: 'dzad] ston kun dga ' rgyal mtshan zes by a 'oil II. 42 [...] brtaggnis dan bde mchoggi 'grelpa gnis kyi mjugmkha ' 'gro mas sbaspar sm la yan da Itar bod du 'gyur ba tshad de kho na byan chub sems dpas rjes su gnan no {D po, chapter 10, fol. 6t>56 = ed. Chandra, fol. 672; cf. Roerich 19762: 764-765).
266
An indepth analysis of the reasons for choosing a date goes beyond the scope of this paper. While there may be some doubt as to the reliability of certain statements made by Klacakra teachers, we can be sure that 1024/25 (or 1026/27) corresponds to the date that these masters intended to fix for the historical foundation of the system, 43 as clearly demonstrated by J.R. Newman who has devoted an important study to this issue (1998b). There seems no good reason, however, to assume that they started producing their works and spreading their teachings precisely on that date. In fact, the system must have already been fairly widespread when Nrop was writing (and we know that he died around 1040 CE), since he quotes widely from Vajrapni, Vajragarbha and Pundarka, and also from other authors, such as Anupamaraksita, who, in his turn, cites the LTT, the HTPT, the LKCT, the VP and the Tantrottara. It should also be noted that both the LKCT and the VP were written in atleast two stages. Stanzas from the LKCT are quoted in the PAJS by Pundarka, but these are numbered differently from, and in some cases are not present in, the current version of the LKCT, which therefore must have been revised at some point. The PAJS, now a section of the VP (ad 5.127), probably existed as a separate and complete didactic text when the first version of the LKCT was written. This is confirmed by its specific stylistic features and by the fact that Pundarka refers to it in the opening chapters of the VP (cf., e.g., vol. 1, pp. 159, 161) and that it is the only section of the VP that contains quotations from the LKCT. 44 On the basis of the foregoing, we can say that the early Klacakra literature was produced in at least five stages: 1) stanzas of the dibuddha (which included the SU), LTT, stanzas of the PLH, HTPT; 2) further stanzas of the dibuddha, LKCT (first version), PAJS, LKCT (revised version), VP, Tantrottara, Paramrthasev;453) the two Sadangayoga treatises by Anupamaraksita; 4) SUT, Sekoddesatippanl by Sdhuputra Srdharnanda; s) Sekoddesapanjik,46 Gunabharant, AK, AKU. We cannot categorically exclude that, historically speaking, the system was founded and began to spread in the years 1024/25 (or 1026/27), as the tradition maintains. However, it is unlikely although not impossible that such a complex system was created in a limited period of time, and such a vast literature produced in only fifteen years or so, as Raniero Gnoli has already pointed out (1994: 62). Indeed, if we assume for the sake of argument that the
43 It is well-known that the mythic history of the system dates back to the time of the historical Buddha. 44 For more information, see Gnoli 1997: 3-4; Cicuzza, Sferra 1997: 115-118. 45 We do not know exactly when the Paramrthasev was written, but it might have been composed after the VP, which does not make any reference to it. 46 This anonymous work is little more than a summary of the SUT.
account given in the LKCT-VP is true, the first four of the five early stages of Klacakra literature would have to have been produced in about 16 years (from 1024/25 to 1040) . 47 Probably the first two phases began before 1024/25, perhaps as early as the end of the X cent. The terminus post quern for the second stage could coincide with the first incursions the North-West India of Sebktegin and expecially of his son Mahmud of Gazn (r. 998-1030) around the end of the X cent, and the beginning of the XI cent., 48 since significant reference to mlecchas, i.e. barbarians, is made in the works of Yasas and Pundarka (see Newman 1998a). The fact that no mention of Islam is made in the LTT and the HTPT may well be in keeping with the Indian spirit, but we cannot exclude that Islam was either not present or not as strong when these texts were written. More generally, it was possibly irrelevant to the exegesis of the GST and the HT. What we can be certain of, independently of the date of the system's founding and diffusion, is that it was 'constructed' gradually. We may suppose that the early authors of the Wheel of Time first began work on their texts and then chose a significant date on which to officially unveil their system; a date that coincided with the beginning of a sexagenary cycle and had a symbolic importance. This is yet another example of how these authors participated in the complex process of creating and consolidating their tradition. 6. Part of the strategy adopted with regard to the founding project of the Klacakra was to refer to a 'higher level' of the tradition, namely that of the above-mentioned Paramdibuddha, the roottantra of the system. The three Bodhisattvas, along with other famous authors such as Anupamaraksita, Sdhuputra Srdharnanda, Nrop, Ravisrjnana and Vibhticandra, quoted stanzas from this text, which is held to be the original scripture of the system and which according to the tradition consisted of 12,000 verses written down by Sucandra, e m a n a t i o n of the tenth-stage Bodhisattva Vajrapni and the first of the seven kings of the celebrated land of Sambhaia.49 Although, as we shall see, the Klacakra authors' use of the roottantras is original in many respects, the underlying idea that the
47 According to J. Newman (1998b), the year 403 proves that the passages of the LKCT and the VP containing the year 403 were composed during or after that year, but the texts as a whole may have been composed prior to that date, and it is also possible that the LKCT and the VP were completed between 1025 ca. and 1040 CE. 48 Sebktegin and his son arrived at Pesvara in 987 after Rjjayapla's defeat and suicide (cf. Bernardini 2003: 78). For further information on the plundering Bhmanagara (Nagarkot) (1008), Thnesvara (1011), Lahore (1014), Mathur (1018), Kannauj (1019), Somantha (1025) carried out by Mahmud of Gazn, see Bernardini 2003: 82-85, and in particular Wink 2002: 120-135, 328-333, and Haig 1987. On the Muslim colonies in India before the raids undertaken by the Ghaznavids, see Orofmo 1997: 723 and notes. 49 See Newman 1991: 51-90.
268
tantras that have come down to us were the abridged version of roottantras in which the spiritual teaching would have been explained in more depth is neither exclusively Buddhist nor belongs to the Klacakra. There is a similar instance in Hindu tan trie literature. The saiva Mlintvijayottara, for example, that has come down to us in twenty-three chapters is said to be a summary of the Mlinwijaya. According to tradition, the latter, which probably never existed, amounted to thirty million stanzas. 50 A similar consideration may be made with respect to other tantras, such as the Manthnabhairava, the original version of which was said to contain a billion verses (laksakoti),51 and the Sarvavlratantra, the basic text (mlastra) of which was said to be three h u n d r e d and fifty (chapters ?) long. 52 The same applies to vaisnava texts, such as the Jaykhyasamhit (cf. 1.7079) and the Pdmasamhit. The latter, in particular, is held to be the condensed teaching in 10,000 stanzas of a previous teaching in 100,000 stanzas, which, in its turn, is believed to derive from a text of 500,000 stanzas. The original work is said to have contained 15,000,000 stanzas (Jnnapda 1.32-33). In Buddhist texts, references to mulatantras or brhattantras (lit. 'long tantras') are to be found, for example, in the Yoginsancaratantra (pp. 5, 9, 12, 52, 55, 69, 70) and in the CST (pp. 3, 19). We know that the root-tantra of the GST should have been a work of twenty-five thousand verses, that of the Myjlatantra a work of sixteen thousand verses, and that of the CST a work of one hundred thousand chapters, entitled Mahlaksbhidhna.53 These works have never actually been found, 54 that is to say they have not come down to us directly but through quotations and, in one case (= SU), in a fragment; therefore, continual references to these texts have aroused interest and sometimes perplexity among scholars. 55 By general consensus both in Hindu and Buddhist circles, the roottantras were not only longer (and thus, in theory, more difficult to memorize), but also more complex and complete, and contained broader and more cryptic teachings. Usually mulatantras were only mentioned in theistic enviroments they were used to allude to the profundity and uncontainability of divine revelation, which had to be gradually simplified to be understood by man; but Buddhist teachers and this is quite interesting, especially in the Klacakra tradition, frequently quoted directly from them. The use these authors/teachers made of the mulatantras reveals their true (and twofold) intent: to give
50
33ab.
See Mlinvijayottara i.8b ff.; cf. also Matangapramesvargama, Vidypda i.3
See Dyczkowski 1988: 99. See Dyczkowski 1988: 110-111. 53 See Tsuda 1974: 33. 54 See Newman 1987a: 93-102. 55 Cf. Nihom 1984: 21-22; Newman 1987b. On the root-tantras, see also Reigle 1986 and Snellgrove 1959, vol. I: 15-17.
52
51
authority to the new texts and to elevate their promulgators and interpreters, i.e. themselves. Indeed, the mlatantraswere clearly accessible only to the few, although this was not stated specifically. It is quite possible that the root-tantras may never have existed as such, and that the dibuddha, in particular, consisted only of fragments and isolated stanzas. It is also possible that these stanzas and the verses attributed to other root-tantras, such as the PLH, were written by the commentators themselves in order to bolster their own works. This can be ascertained by examining one or two examples. In his HTPT Vajragarbha quotes literally hundreds of stanzas from the PLH, which, as we have already mentioned, he claims was the basic tantra (mlatantra or ditantra) of the HT. He writes: The Blessed one, viz., Vajrasattva, taught the short tantra, which comprises seven hundred and fifty stanzas and consists of twenty-two chapters and two brief parts: Sambodhi and Myjla. It is taken from the Pancalaksahevajra, which is its root-tantra of thirty-two extensive parts.56 However, the PLH was undoubtedly written after the HT. The eclectic nature of the former and its treatment of themes that presuppose the development of speculations subsequent to the HT reveal its later origin. R. Gnoli has proposed that root-tantras, such as the Paramdibuddha and the PLH, never existed as independent works and that the latter, in particular, may have been written by Vajragarbha himself to give more importance to his own commentary (1994: 60, 66). David Snellgrove has put forward a similar hypothesis.57 Concerning the above, we should bear four points in mind. 6.1 First of all, this work as far as we can say at present is only known through verses that, for the most part, can be traced to the HTPT that, therefore, may be the source. Apart from the above-mentioned passage of the VP that does not cite the PLH, but contains stanzas that Vajragarbha attributes to it ( 2.3), we have found verses that according to the HTPT belonged to this text in works such as the AK, 58 the AKU and the Dohkosatik by Amrtavajra, which although they quote Vajragarbha a n d / o r his commentary, do not make explic-
56 pancalaksahevajrn mlatantrd dvtrimsanmahkalpl laghukalpadvayam s dhimyjlalaksanam dvavimsatiparicchedatmakam srddhasaptasatagranthapram laghutantram vajrasattvena bhagavat sandesitam (2nd pariccheda, NAK MS A 126 NGMPP Mf. A693/11, fol. 6v4_6; IsIAO, Rome, MS 1.20, 22/S, MT049, fol. 4^_2 [see above, note 27]). On this concept see also HTPT 1 . 3 C L 6 and i.67ab (cf. below, 6.4 and note 73). 57 'As this mlatantra in common with other works of exegesis concentrates on the figurative sense, it is probably the work of some recognized master, and not impossibly ofthat writer himself who goes by the name of Vajragarbha. [...] I remain persuaded that this particular "basic text" is in any case later than the tantra itself and the early commentators, Saroruha, Knha, Bhadrapada, and Dharmakrti and unknown to Tankadsa and Ratnkarasnti' (Snellgrove 1959, vol. I: 17-18). 58 In the AK (adMNS 9.10; ed. pp. 82-83) some stanzas of the PLH (= HTPT 5.2icd35ab) are quoted without mentioning the source.
270
it mention of the PLH. 59 Other quotations from this text can be found in works that were composed in a later phase of the spreading of the Wheel of Time, such as the Sekoddesatippanl by Sdhuputra Srdharananda, who mentions the PLH but not Vajragarbha and the HTPT, 6 0 the SUT by Nrop, who, as far as we know, is the only author who cites both Vajragarbha and the PLH, 61 and the rDo rje'i tshiggi sninpo bsdus pa'i dka' 'grelby sNan grags bzaii po. 6 2 However, we must bear in mind that we also find quotations from the PLH that do not occur in the HTPT, such as the seven stanzas from the 'Bumphrag Ina pa 'i kye'i rdo rje (= PLH) that are to be found in the *Sahajasiddhipaddhatiby Laksmi Bhattrik, a commentary on Laksmnkar's Sahajasiddhi,63 and that stanzas that Vajragarbha states as deriving from the PLH are sometimes attributed to other sources. Particularly interesting in this regard is a long quotation in the Trivajraratnvalimlik, an unpublished commentary on the HT. The author of this work, Kelikulisa, quotes, with a few variant readings and in a slightly different order, several stanzas that are to be found in the fifth section of the HTPT. According to Vajragarbha these stanzas are drawn from the PLH, but Kelikulisa refers to the source text of these verses as Lksikadvikalparjatantra and he even specifies the name of the chapter (candlikyogapatala; elsewhere he calls it candllyogapatala) , 64 The reasons for this difference in the name of what we would expect to be the same source should be investigated more thoroughly. At present we are not able to establish the relationship between Vajragarbha and Kelikulisa. An hypothesis worthy of note was put to me by Harunaga Isaacson, who suspects
59 In his commentary on the Dohakosa by Krsnavajrapada, Amrtavajra {alias Amitavajra, dPag med rdo rje; cf. Chimpa, Chattopadhyaya 1970: 304-305) quotes (pp. 131132) some stanzas of the PLH (= HTPT 5.77-86ab, 9O-94ab). His text, in its turn, is incorporated almost in its entirety and with only a few changes in an apparently late, still unpublished tantric composition generically entiteled Kalparaja that includes many quotations and is divided into 13 patalas. The tk by Amrtavajra corresponds to patalas 6-8 of the Kalparaja (fols. 27^-41^ = pp. 130-155). Stanzas 5.77 and 5.80 are not quoted (cf. fols. 28r -28f ) in the Kalparaja. Amrtavajra knew Vajragarbha and was familiar with the HTrT: a passage from the 4th pariccheda of the HTPT is quoted with slight variations on p. 138 of his commentary (tath ca vajragarbhapdh 'nsdvayarandhre [...] mandal cakrani). Amrtavajra quotes numerous stanzas of the SU and some stanzas of the LKCT; a passage from his work recurs verbatim in the SUT (cf. ed. Carelli, p. 38). 60 In the Sekoddesatippan, Sdhuputra Sridharnanda (ad!SU 152-I53ab; p. 142) introduces with the words: tath ca pancalaksbhidhnahevajre a stanza that corresponds to HTPT i.4Ocd-4iab. The same stanza is quoted without mentioning the source by Ravisrjnana adMNS 10.3 (p. 90) and by Vibhticandra in his AKU {ad AK 4.1; p. 134). 61 Cf. ed. Carelli, pp. 59-60 and p. 67, where Nrop quotes 11 stanzas from the PLH (= HTPT 10.4-14) introducing them with the words: yath pancalaksbhidhne. 62 See above, note 20. 63 sDe dge #2261, fol. 14b, Q#3io8, fol. 17a; see also Shendge 1967: 128, note 5. 64 The opening sentence runs as follows: tath coktam lksikadvikalparjatantrkrstacandlikyogapatale (fol. 26r12). The correspondences are: HTPT 5.2-4 {Trivajraratnvalimlik, fol. 2v ), 5.5-17 (fols. 26r2-26f ), 5.18-26 (fols. 26^-27^), 5.27! (fol. 2 7^.2), 5-28cd-53 (fols. 27^-29^).
that in Kelikulisa's time 'there was circulating a work that called itself the Candliyogapatala of the Lksikadvikalparjatantra (something like the SU), which had included material attributed by Vajragarbha to the PLH'. Isaacson is aware that this must be confirmed, if confirmation is ever possible. He also pointed out to me that Kelikulisa was familiar with the PLH and refers to it in other parts of his work as Pancalksika. 6.2 The eclectic nature of the text. Sometimes the PLH verses contain stanzas that can be found, in an identical or slightly different form, not only in the Paramdibuddha, the Pindtkramasadhana attributed to Ngrjuna, the CST and in other celebrated Buddhist texts (e.g., HTPT i.45ab = Madhyamakakrik, I3.8ab), but also in Hindu works. For instance, Andrea Perrone has pointed out to me that some stanzas of the PLH dealing with alchemy correspond exactly to parts of the Rasahrdayatantra, the Rasarnava and the nandakanda.65 It is possible that the author of the PLH took these verses either from the abovementioned alchemical texts themselves but, more likely, from an earlier source on which these texts themselves drew. They were probably composed between the IX and the XIII cent. This would also explain why another verse of the PLH (= HTPT 9.34) dealing with the alchemical process (but not present in the above-mentioned works) also appears in the SU (st. 134) and in the saiva Kubjikmatatantra (3.104). 6.3 Stanzas quoted by Vajragarbha from the PLH are evidently connected with Klacakra themes. In a brief paper, published in Dhh (Cicuzza, Sferra 1997), we show the close relationship existing between the description of the arrangement of the main ndis in the h u m a n body, as explained in the PLH and the Klacakra doctrines (cf. SU 46 ff.). According to the latter, the position of the three nds changes at the navel (nbhicakra). The rasan, avadhti and lalan, which in the upper part of the Jbody are located on the right, in the centre and on the left, are turned towards the left, right and centre in the lower part of the body. 66 We also show that differences between the H T and the PLH are sometimes evident. For example, when Vajragarbha describes the n u m b e r of petals (dala) of the lotuses located in the cakras along the middle channel, he does not strictly follow the HT text (see, for instance, 1.1.23)67 but the LKCT (cf. 2.57-59), the physiological concepts of which differ slightly from those of the HT. Further similar examples can be given. For instance, in describing the different rosaries that have to be used during the rites for paralyzing, subduing and so forth, the PLH substantially agrees with the
65 For instance HTPT 9.30 = Rasahrdayatantra 6.14, Anandakanda 1.38, Rasarnava 10.17. This stanza is also quoted in the PAJS (VP vol. 3, p. 93). 66 This is illustrated with figures in Gnoli, Orofino 1994: 272, note 2; Orofmo 1996: 133; Cicuzza 2001: 27. 67 Cf. also Jnnodayatantra, p. 5.
272
description that we find in the PAJS, while it differs from that in the HT. The combinations of the rosaries and ritual actions are listed in the following table. HT 2.10.2-3 PAJS (VP vol. 3, p. 65) PLH (= HTPT 6.59CCI-63)
sphatka sphatka stambhana sphatika santika santika raktacandana vasya paustika muktphala paustika mauktika ristik abhicruka naradanta mrana mrana nrdanta niramsuka vidvesa ustradanta ucctana kharadanta vidvesana [ucctana] [kharadanta] asvahadda ucctana vasya vasya putrajlva putrafivaka brahmahsthin karsana padmaJnja krsti krsti padmatnja [raktacandana] [candanaMja] gajsthika varspana rudrksa stambhana rudrksa stambhana mahissthi mrana rista mohana rista mohana Furthermore, we should remember that the PLH deals with a certain number of themes, such as the death-sign (arista) and the meditation on the Krodharjas, which are not treated in the HT but assume considerable importance in Klacakra texts, such as the SU, the LTT, the LKCT and also the VP. 68 In the PLH, the phonemes of the Sanskrit alphabet are divided on the basis of the elements (ether, wind, etc.) and arranged according to the Klacakra doctrine: the dentals are placed after the labials and the position of the semi-vowels LA and VA is reversed. 69 Vajragarbha aligns the teachings of the HT with the doctrines of the Klacakra by quoting the PLH, which is not in fact based on (or the basis of) the HT but inspired by those doctrines. 6.4 The use Vajragarbha makes of the PLH in his work. He actually quotes frequently and at length from it in order to comment on verses of the short tantra that he is explaining. Such usage seems to contradict Vajrapni's assertion in the LTT that the alpatantras (lit. 'short tantras') even though full of difficult words (vajrapada) were drawn from the mlatantras in order to meet man's now limited capacity to understand (tat kasya hetor bhagavann alpatantram mlatantrd desayasi iti I bhagavn aha I iha pancakasyakle jmbdvlpak manusy visesenryavisaye alpyuso 'Ipaprajn bhavisyanti [...] tasmt sarvamlatantrd alpatantradesan buddhasya) .7 As the introduction of the HTPT shows, Vajragarbha shared with Vajrapni and Pundarka 71 a distrust in man's inability to understand the short tantras, but, more openly than the other two, assigned a precise explanatory role to the Cf., for instance, VP vol. 2, pp. 33-34, 67. The sequence of semivowels: Y A , RA, VA, L A (wind, fire, water, earth) is also present in the Candamahrosanatantra (p. 58).
71 68 69
Cf. Newman 1987a: 313-314.
mulatantras, and to the PLH in particular. This is not an obscure and incomprehensible text, but an explicative work (nirdesa) that Vajragarbha actually uses to illustrate the short HT and especially its most difficult parts. 72 In the opening stanzas of the HTPT he writes: 73 Impelled by Hevajra,74 I the glorious Vajragarbha, the Lord of the ten earths, who desire the welfare of all beings am writing a commentary that explains the secrets of the [Hevajra] tantra, in order for the yogins to attain the [true] path. Since this short tantra of 750 [stanzas], endowed with many adamantine words, has been taken from a great tantra of 500,000 [stanzas], this [commentary], called Satshasrik, follows the root-tantra in order to elucidate on the [short] tantra. [...] The teaching of the Victorious One, which is [condensed] here, in this short tantra, the Hevajra, and which in ancient times the Buddhas taught with 500,000 stanzas in the collection of the ditantra remains obscure to man. [...] [Therefore] the meaning [of the short tantras only] becomes clear from the commentaries. He who tries to reveal, without a commentary, the obscure [meaning of a] word in a short tantra, resembles a blind man who attempts to follow the trail of a snake that has long disappeared into the water.75 Similar observations can be made about the dibuddha. A deep analysis of the quotations from this text would require a separate paper. Here we would limit ourselves to pointing out that numerous stanzas attributed to the dibuddha are found in other tantras and independent works (cf. Gnoli 1994: 60-61). 7. Essential element of the founding project, indeed one of the most important, is the description of the qualifications necessary for those whose privilege and duty it is to preserve, transmit and interpret the Scriptures and spiritual teachings. This is evident, among other things, from the space the texts devote to this topic. j.i It is worth noting that, as is the case with other tantric cycles, the first Klacakra authors felt the need to define the figure of the true master (sadguru) or adamantine teacher (vajrcrya) and, above
72 The threefold division uddesa, nirdesa and pratinirdesa, which we find elsewhere (e.g. in the Yoginlsancratantra 1.2-3 and in its commentaries; pp. 37-8,123), is said to apply to Klacakra literature in the SU 3-5 and to the Hevajra cycle literature in the HTPT where it is stated that the HT is the uddesa, the PLH the nirdesa and, implicitly, the HTPT itself the pratinirdesa (cf. st. 1.77). 73 [...] tantraguhyagadik tik may likhyate II [3] srmat vajragarbhena sarvasa taisin I dasabhmlsvareneyam mrgalbhya yoginm II [4] pancalaksamahta alpatantre samuddhrtel srddhasaptasate 'py asmin bahuvajrapadnviteW [5] hevaj va y satshasrik mat I seyam tantrapraksrtham mlatantrnusrint II [6] [...] h jinadesantra laghuke 'visphuteyam nrnm laksaih pancabhir ditantranicaye buddh pur\ [...] tlkbhir arthgamahW [67] yastlkrahito 'Ipatantranicayeguptampadamde 'mbuny aksivivarjitas ciragatasyheh padam vlksayet I [...] [68]. 7 4 Cf. also st. i.65cd. 75 This example occurs also in the lokaml by Kambala (st. 280): jalapraythipadni pasyatah [...] katham nu lokasya na jyate trap II (pp. 109-220 Another stanza of this text (st. 142) is paraphrased by Vajrapni (LTT p. 143).
274
all, to deal with this issue at crucial points in their works, naturally giving more space to it than the masters who followed them. In fact, Vajragarbha, rather than commenting on the H T immediately, devotes the first of the ten paricchedas into which his work is divided to establishing the criteria for interpreting the Scriptures, and the qualifications necessary for imparting and glossing the teachings. Vajragarbha's arguments are treated also at the beginning of the third section of the VP, where we find parallel passages; Pundarka deals briefly with these arguments also in other parts of the VP, but devotes the entire first part of the Paramrthasev to them. Vajrapni presents the same arguments as Vajragarbha and Pundarka, but in a less systematic and detailed manner. What is characteristic of the early Klacakra teachers is that they do not limit themselves to describing the qualities and defects of the guru; instead they refer to (or 'stage') a polemical debate between themselves and hypothetical exponents with a conflicting viewpoint. This is not a purely scholarly debate, and quite probably the texts of the three Bodhisattvas mirrored a debate that actually existed in Buddhist circles of the period and that must also have treated the correct interpretation of some scriptural passages on the qualifications and duties of the guru. To this end, the three Bodhisattvas cite and interpret some verses and words of the Gurupancsik from a standpoint asserting the superiority of ordained monks. Therefore, it is worth following the reasoning of Vajragarbha and Pundarka in more detail. 76 In LKCT 3.2-3, as in other sources dealing with the vajrcryaparlks, the examination of the adamantine teacher, which is a preliminary to the gurvrdhana, a list is given of the qualities that a guru must possess and of the defects that he must not possess. The wise disciple (budha) must carefully examine both his qualities and defects, and determine if he is worthy of the role he wishes to assume. It is fundamentally a question of moral qualities that he must have to be worthy of possessing the right teaching and of imparting it. Thus far there is not much difference between the LKCT-VP and what we read in the Guhyasiddhi and in other works. 77 In LKCT 3.2-3 no mention is made of his cultural skills, whereas the VP does refer to them (vol. 2, p. 5), also by quoting stanzas 8 and 9 of the Gurupancsik; these concern the ritual (dasatattva) and the Scriptures (the master is defined as sstrakovida). The same stanzas are quoted in the HTPT (1.29-30). The VP raises a rather interesting objection, which is also present in the HTPT where the vis polemica is more evident. The objector (clearly another tan trie Buddhist, and possibly an exponent of the socalled rya-scYiooY) states that the Tathgata himself said that only the qualities of a master must be considered and as specified in the
76 77
See also Wallace 2001: 8-9. For further references, see Sferra 2004.
VP (the passage, however, seems to be partly corrupted) ? 8 that since in the future this point of view may be thought to be held by foolish people, that the defects of a guru must not be taken into consideration. In this regard the opponent in the debate is presented by Vajragarbha (1.14,1.19) and by Pundarka as quoting two stanzas: the first corresponds to a stanza of the Snmyjlamahtantrarja quoted also by Candrakrti in his Satkotivykhy on the GST (p. 216); the second is Gurupancsik 2, which is quoted to stress that the fully initiated vajrcrya is worshipped by the Tathgatas themselves (cf. GST 17, pp. 104-105; Jnnasiddhi, p. 151) and probably to infer that no ordinary man has the right to criticize him. Vajragarbha's and Pundarka's reply shows that their principal concern was on the one hand to preserve, like the opponents, the gurus high standing, but, more importantly, on the other to limit access to this elevated position, to prevent it from being 'diminished'. The opponent's unilateral interpretation might have finished by weakening the guru's stature and influence, with predictable and damaging consequences. This is why, according to the Klacakra masters, it was important to consider also the defects of the guru, since it enabled them to create a hierarchy and to ensure that authority was invested only in those who were worthy of wielding it. Both Vajragarbha and Pundarka reply to the opponent, in the first place by quoting stanza 7 of the Gurupancsik, which states that the disciple must not accept as a master a morally immature person, in other words, a person who is without compassion, pitiless, etc. Vajragarbha briefly glosses this, associating a lack of compassion with the secular activities of the farmer, and pitilessness with hatred for monks. In the second place, both establish a guru hierarchy and identify the highest level with the guru who is a monk (bhikm). Both commentaries betray a certain aggressiveness, ^specially in their ironical portrayal of laymen and their presuming to be Vajra-holders (vajradhara). The VP and the HTPT quote a similar stanza the former attributing it to the dibuddha, the latter to the PLH that we find with slight changes in the Samvarodayatantra (8.9). This stanza states that laymen, farmers, merchants and so on sell the Good Law, giving
78 The following is the reading of the editio princeps: tasmd 'cryasya gun grhy ihngate 'dhvani yad vaktavyam blajanaih sanmrganastair 'cryasya gun gr kesncid mrganastnm vacanam bhavisyati, tasmd ucyate 'dos naiva kadcane [...] (vol. 2, p. 49_n); the same passage appears with different wording in a MS of the VP kept in microfilm form in the Library of IsIAO in Rome: tasmd 'cryasya gun grhy'iti kesncin mrganastnm vacanam bhavisyati I tasmd ucyate I ihngate 'dhvani tavyam blajanaih sanmrganastair 'cryasya gun grhy dos naiva kadcane' [...] (Mf. 2.3, AAC, chapter 3, fol. 4^3.4; for a description of this MS see Sferra 1995: 360); the latter reading is also that of Bu ston's commentary on the VP (the glosses are placed between brackets) : de'iphyir slob dpon gyiyon tan blan bar by a 'o iespa (yan dag pa 'i \) la namspa (log par 'tsho ba \) 'ga'ziggi tshig 'byun bar 'gyur te I de'iphyir brjodpar by a s 'ons pa 'i dus su lam nams pa 'i byis pa 'i skye bo mams kyis I slob dpon yon tan blan by ni namyan (brjodpar bya ba\) minpa nid\\ ces pa gan brjodpar bya ba de ni mayin te\ [ gi le'u'i 'grel mchan, ed. Chandra, fol. 23945).
276
us to understand that they are not truly generous; and we know from VP adLKCT 3 4 that the disciple must avoid covetous (dhanrthin) lay masters (vol. 2, p. 7l8_2O). Both texts quote from common sources and continue by stating that of the three types of guru {bhiksu, navaka [or cellaka], grhastha) the first is by far the best, as stated also in the Kriyasamuccayahy]?igz.'3ir"pdLn2i (a/zasDarpancrya) (fol. 2r), who quotes from Klacakra sources at the beginning of his work. 79 The LTT also speaks of the bhiksu's being superior to the cellaka and the grhastha, when it comes to choosing the leader of the group', the gananyaka (pp. 105-109). Gurupancsik %& and 5d are quoted therein (p. 106), but not acknowledged, and glossed in the prose. Hence, the basic requirements for a guru are moral integrity and a profound knowledge of rituals and Scriptures, and this applies both to Klacakra teachers and others. But this is not the real point, since, in theory, these are qualities that anyone, even laymen, can display. It is interesting to note that Vajragarbha uses the future tense in staging the above debate, to make it sound like a prophecy. In stanzas 1.10-11 we read: 'We are the Vajra-holders since we have attained Buddhahood, the state of Vajrasattva, with effort, through the initiations', some will say to other men. 'All monks who observe moral precepts should not be honoured. We who wear white clothes, and who are the Vajra-holders in person, must be honoured!'.80 The crucial point is that the three Bodhisattvas establish an indisputable, objective criterion, namely that only monks, clothed in a monk's habit, who observe the monastic precepts, can truly possess integrity and thus command respect. When fully initiated, they are the supreme vajrcryas, i.e. Vajra-holders. 81 If a bhiksu is present the layman must not perform the rites, such as the one connected with founding a monastery (vihra), etc. Laymen must not be worshipped as the Vinaya of the Mlasarvstivdin also reminds us; 82 concerning this, stanzas 4 and 5 of the Gurupancsik are quoted and glossed in the VP and the HTPT. At this point, a further, particularly significant qualification of the guru is introduced in the two texts: he must have attained the
79
As pointed out by V.A. Wallace (2001: 218, note 19) the concept recurs also in the Vajramlguhyasamjavykhytantra. 80 buddhatvam vajrasattvatvam sekaih samgrhya yatnatah I vayam vajradhar vadisyanti nar nrnm II avandy bhiksavah sarve silasamvaradhrinah I sitavastr vandyh svayam vajradhar bhuvi II. It is worth noting the use and the order of the words in the Sanskrit text of stanza 10, particularly the fact that it ends with nar nrnm (lit. 'men among men') to create a 'surprise-effect' and to stress that these are the words of mere men talking to their equals. 81 In this part of the VP we sometimes find the words bhiksuvajradhara (compounded or not compounded); cf. e.g. vol. 2, p. 6l6 and p. j v 82 Cf. Sayansanavastu, pp. 3-5, and also VP vol. 1, p. 5414.l6.
bhumis, otherwise the three jewels (Buddha, Dharma and Sarigha) will be weakened; the guru is a lingin, one who bears signs of being a follower of a religious path, which here probably means a monk wearing monk's robes, etc. 83 The aforesaid, and especially the mode in which the authors expressed themselves through a particular use of words and arrangment of arguments, reveals how urgent it was to find a way of resolving a socio-cultural situation in which the Buddhist (and not only the Buddhist) culture was held by the authors to be in decline a n d / o r seriously compromised. It was only at that point that the qualities (guna) of the guru were examined, namely after establishing the supremacy of the monks (and in particular the monks who had attained a very high level of spiritual development) over laymen, by quoting stanzas 8 and 9 of the Gurupancsik and the gloss on stanza 2 of the same text, which was previously used by the opponent to back u p his argument. Both the HTPT (1.20-23) and the VP give a twofold interpretation of the stanza, that is, its deep meaning (nltrtha) and its surface meaning (neyrtha). y.2 While it is important to establish who are the true masters to guide the Buddhist community and celebrate rituals, it is even more important to identify who is fully qualified to compose and interpret the texts. The three Bodhisattvas are perfectly clear on this as well: only Bodhisattvas can write the commentaries. This statement first appears in the LTT (and is repeated in the HTPT and the VP), where we read that in this period of decline (kasyakla) the grhasthas will write short and long commentaries (p. 51), but the wise men will follow only the commentaries written by the Bodhisattvas (p. 52). 84 SU 5cd states that these works must be composed by individuals endowed with supernatural powers (abhijna) and not merely by learned men (naiva panditaih).8s Vajragarbha says the same thing, not at all modestly, in his HTPT: ttk may likhyate [...] kecit ttkm karisyanti pancbhijndibhir vin (stt. 1.3d, 9ab). The syllogism is not perfect, but it is evident what the author wishes to convey. Thus, it is not a question of knowledge, but first and foremost of spiritual achievement. Knowledge alone may even be an obstacle. The concept recurs in LKCT-VP 5.243, where it is stated that in India, the Vajra-holder (= Skyamuni) hid the adamantine words (namely,
83
This meaning of lingin is known from Brahmanical, Saiva, Vaisnava and Buddhist texts; it is common to contrast grhins/grhasthas and lingins, cf., e.g., Somasambhupaddh srddhasmnyalaksana section, verse 2, pp. 624-625 (H. Isaacson, personal communication). 84 While introducing SU 63ab, in his SUT Nrop makes reference to those who are confused and deceived (vipralabdha) for having heard laghutantras whitout the salvific assistance of Bodhisattvas. 85 In the Sekoddesatippant we read: abhijnlbhibhir iti I dasabhmisvaramah sattvair eva [...] panditair iti alabdhabhmikaih (p. 119 ^ )
278
those concerning the 'supreme unchanging pleasure') in the Royal Tantras (yogatantra and yoginltantra), so that learned Buddhists who presume to have knowledge will not understand the meaning by simply reading, and without listening to a master. The writings of the early Klacakra authors reflected a kind of clericalism, since they sought to create a strong, united front to face the new powerful enemies, and to establish a strong and solid orthodoxy with the necessary hierarchy to sustain it. There was no room for doubt within the tradition. Thus, the Klacakra rather than codifying a popular movement although it does assimilate and systematize the insights of the Siddhas, whose Apabhramsa stanzas are quoted by the dozen or r e p r e s e n t i n g the apex of the gradual evolution of Buddhist tantrism, is, primarily, the product of a n u m b e r of individuals who consciously developed a system that drew and elaborated on existing practices and doctrines. The Klacakra authors placed themselves at the centre of the Buddhist tantric movement by defining a new orthodoxy. They did not set themselves up as one of the tantric currents, but as the orthodox tantric current par excellence. They sought, perhaps for the first time in tantric Buddhist circles, to create a consistent, unifying system, capable of holding its own, firstly at the intrabuddhist and interreligious level (especially with Hindu tantric traditions); secondly, with Islam that was an ever-growing presence. The Klacakra authors maintained that it was necessary to ally Buddhism with a subordinated Hinduism to defeat Islam (cf. Newman 1995). 86 Thus it was no accident that Buddha was described as the promulgator of the Veda (LKCT 1.156) and that Yasas warned the brhmanas against becoming barbarians (VP vol. 1, p. 24 ff.) . 8?
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sigla CIHTS Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies sDe dge sDe dge edition of the bKa' 'gyur and the bsTan 'gyur. Cf. Chibetto Daizky Smokuroku /A Catalogue-Index of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons, by Ui H., Suzuki M., Kanakura Y., Tada T., Sendai, Thoku Imperial University aided by Sait Gratitude Foundation, Sendai 1934.
86 On the relationship between the Klacakra and Islam, see Hoffmann i960, 1969; Grnbold 1992: 277-278, 284, 292-293; 1996; Orofmo 1997; Newman 1998a. 87 Cf. Newman 19912: 60.
Dhh IIJ IsIAO NAK NGMPP Q
RBTS RSO SOR WZKS Sources
Dhih. Journal of Rare Buddhist Texts Research Project Indo-Iranian Journal Istituto Italiano per 1'Africa e l'Oriente National Archives, Kathmandu Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project Qianlong: The Tibetan Tripitaka. Peking Edition. Reprinted under the supervision of the Otani University, Kyoto, vols. 1-168. Edited by Suzuki D.T., Suzuki Research Foundation, Tokyo-Kyoto 1955-1961 Rare Buddhist Text Series Rivista degli Studi Orientali Serie Orientale Roma Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde Sdasiens
Ravisrijnna, Amrtakanik: ryamanjusrinmasamgiti with Amrtakaniktippani by Bhiksu Ravisrijnna and Amrtakanikodyotanibandha of Vibhticandra, edited by B. Ll, Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica 30, CIHTS, Sarnath 1994. AKU Vibhticandra, Amrtakanikoddyotanibandha: see AK. Amrtavajra, Dohkosattk, edited in Dhh, vol. 32 (2001), pp. 127-155; cf. Qvol. 87, #5049, fols. 3ib 6 -48a 3 . Anaiigayogin, Dkinylasamvararahasya, edited by S. Rinpoche, V.V. Dwivedi, RBTS 8, CIHTS, Sarnath 1990. nandakanda, Madras Government Oriental Series 59, Madras 1952. Anupamaraksita, Sadangayoga: The Sadangayoga by Anupamaraksita with Ravisrijnna's Gunabharanlnmasadangayogatippanl, text edition and annotated translation by F. Sferra, SOR 85, IsIAO, Roma 2000. ryadeva, Gurupancsik: l) edition of the first 33 stanzas by S. Lvi in Journal Asiatique, vol. 215 (1929), pp. 255-263; 2) edition and retranslation of stanzas 34-50 by J. Pandey, Dhh, vol. 13 (1992), pp. 16-20 [reprinted in Bauddhalaghugranthasamgraha, RBTS 14, CIHTS, Sarnath 1997, pp. 33-53]. Bu ston Rin chen grub, dBan gi le'u'i 'grel mchan: The Collected Works of Bu-ston. Part 2 (Kha), edited [= reproduced from an original xylogaph] by L. Chandra, Sata-Pitaka Series, Indo-Asian Literatures 42, International Academy of Indian Culture, New Delhi 1965, fols. 231-274. rGyud sde'i zab don sgo 'byed rin chen gees pa 'i Ide mig ces by a ba: The Collected Works of Bu-ston. Part 4 (Na), edited [= reproduced from an original xylograph] by L. Chandra, SataPitaka Series, Indo-Asian Literatures 44, International Academy of Indian Culture, New Delhi 1965, fols. 1-92. Candamahrosanatantra: The Candamahrosana Tantra, Chapters IVIII. A Critical Edition and English Translation by Ch. S.
AK
280
George, American Oriental Series 56, American Oriental Society, New Haven (Conn.) 1974. Candrakrti, Satkotivykhy: Guhyasamjatantrapradlpodyotanatlksatkotivykhy, edited by C. Chakravarti, Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna 1984. CST Cakrasamvaratantra: Srlherukbhidhnam Cakrasamvara tantram with the Vivrti Commentary ofBhavabhatta, edited by J.S. Pandey, RBTS 26, 2 vols., CIHTS, Sarnath 2002. Dkinlvajrapanjaratantra: ryadkinivajrapanjaramahtantrarjakalpanma, Q vol. 1, #11, fols. 22a 6 -30ib . Dharmkarasnti, Klacakrabhagavatsdhanavidhi, edited in Dhh, vol. 24 (1997), pp. 127-174. 'Gos lo ts va gzon nu dpal, Deb ther snon po: The Blue Annals, reproduced by L. Chandra, Sata-Pitaka Series, Indo-Asian Literatures 212, International Academy of Indian Culture, New Delhi 1976. See also Roerich 1976 2 . Govinda Bhagavat, Rasahrdaya, edited by J. Tricumji, Ayurvedya Granthaml 1, Bombay 1910-1911. GST Guhyasamjatantra: The Guhyasamja Tantra. A New Critical Edition, edited by Matsunaga Y., Toho Shuppan, Osaka 1978. Guhydi-Astasiddhi-Sangraha, edited by S. Rinpoche, V.V. Dwivedi, Sanskrit and Tibetan text, RBTS 1, CIHTS, Sarnath 1987. HT Hevajratantra: see Snellgrove 1959. HTPT Vajragarbha, Hevajratantrapindrthattk: see Sferra 1999. Indrabhti, Jnnasiddhi, see Guhydi-Astasiddhi-Sangraha, pp. 89-157. Jagaddarpana, Kriysamuccaya: Kriya-samuccaya. A Sanskrit Manuscript from Nepal Containing a Collection of Tantric Ritual by Jagaddarpana, reproduced by L. Chandra, International Academy of Indian Culture, Sata-pitaka Series, vol. 237, New Delhi 1977. Jaykhyasamhit'.Jaykhyasamhit ofPncartragama, critically edited with an Introduction in Sanskrit, Indices etc. by E. Krishnamacharya, Gaekwad's Oriental Series 54, Oriental Institute, Baroda 1967. Jnnodayatantra: edited by S. Rinpoche, V.V. Dwivedi, RBTS 2, CIHTS, Sarnath 1988. Kalparja: IsIAO, Rome, MS FGT V / i , 263. Kambala, lokaml: Kambala's lokaml, in Miscellanea Buddhica, edited by Chr. Lindtner, Indiske Studier, vol. V, Copenhagen 1985, pp. 109-220. Kelikulisa, Trivajraratnvalimlik: Hevajradkinijlasamvarapanjik, IsIAO, Rome, MS 3.23, folder 43 [photos of the same MS taken by R. Srikrtyyana and listed by him as MS XXV, 118; cf. Snkrtyyana 1935: 38]. mKhas grub rje, Dus 'khor ttk chen: rGyud thams cad kyi rgyal po bcom Idan 'das dpal dus kyi 'khor lo mchoggi dan po'i sans rgyas kyi rtsa ba 'i rgyud las phyun ba bsdus pa 'i rgyud kyi 'grel chen rtsa
ba 'i rgyud kyi rjes su 'jug pa ston phrag bcu gnis pa dri ma med pa'i 'od kyi rgya cher bsad pa de kho na nid snan bar byedpa zes by a ba, in mKhas grub dGe legs pa, Yab sras gsun 'bum: mKhas grub. Kha, Tibetan Cultural Printing Press (Ses rig bar khan), Dharamsala 1983, pp. 97-1113. Laksmrkar, Sahajasiddhi: see Shendge 1967. Laksm Bhattrik, *Sahajasiddhipaddhati: sDe dge #2261, fols. 4a 2 5 ^ ; Qvol. 69, #3108, fols. 4b 8 -29a ? . Kubjikmatatantra'. The Kubjikmatatantra. Kullikmnya Version, Critical edition by T. Goudriaan and J.A. Schoterman, Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina 30, E J. Brill, Leiden 1988. LKCT Laghuklacakratantra: 1) Snklacakratantrarja. A critical Edition, edited by B. Banerjee, The Asiatic Society, Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta 1985; 2) Klacakra-Tantra and Other Texts: Part I, edited by L. Chandra, R. Vira, International Academy of Indian Culture, Sata-pitaka Series, vol. 69, New Delhi 1966, pp. 53-378. LTT Vajrapni, Laghutantratka: see Cicuzza 2001. Mahimabhatta, Vyaktiviveka: Vyaktiviveka edited with a Sanskrit Commentary of Rjnaka Ruyyaka and the Madhusdani Commentary, edited by M. Misra, The Kashi Sanskrit Series 121, Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan, Varanasi 1936. Mlinwijayottaratantra: Snmlinwijayottaratantram, edited by M.K. Shstr, Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 37, Bombay 1922. Matangapramesvargama. (Vidypda) avec le commentaire de Bhatta Rmakantha, dition critique par N.R. Bhatt, Publications de l'Institut Franais dTndologie 56, Pondichry 1977. MNS Manjusrnmasangti, see AK. Ngrjuna, Mlamadhyamakakrik: Mlamadhyamakakrik, edited by J.W. de Jong, The Adyar Library Series 109, The Adyar Library and Research Centre, Adyar 1977. Ngrjuna, Pindikramasdhana: Pindkrama: 1) edited by L. de la Valle Poussin in Pancakrama, Grand-Louvain 1896, pp. 114; 2) edited by R.S. Tripathi in Pindkrama and Pancakrama of crya Ngrjuna, Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica Series 25, CIHTS, Sarnath 2001, pp. 3-32. Nrop, Paramrthasangraha = Sekoddesatik: see SUT. Pdmasamhit: Pdma Samhit [prathamo bhgah], critically edited by S. Padmanabhan, R.N. Sampath, Pancaratra Parisodhana Parisad Series 3, Madras 1974. Padmavajrapda, Guhyasiddhi: see Guhydi-Astasiddhi-Sangraha, pp. 1-62. Pundarka, dPal don dam pa'i bsnen pa {^Paramrthaseva), Q v o l . 47, #2065, fols. i-25a. Vimalaprabh: see VP. Rasahrdayatantra: see Govinda Bhgavat.
282
Rasarnavakalpa: Rasarnavakalpa, edited and translated by M. Roy in collaboration with B.V. Subbarayappa, Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi 1976. Ravisrijnna, Gunabhranv. see Anupamaraksita, Sadangayoga. Sdhuputra Srdharananda, Sekoddesatippani: La Sekoddesatippani di Sdhuputra Srdharananda. Il testo sanscrito, a cura di R. Gnoli, in RSO, vol. 70 (1997), n. 1-2, pp. 115-146. Samvarodayatantra: see Tsuda 1974. Sayanasanavastw. The Gilgit Manuscript of the Sayansanavastu and the Adhikar anavastu. Being the l^th and 16th Sections of the Vinaya of the Mlasarvstivdin, edited by R. Gnoli, SOR 50, Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, Roma 1978, pp. 1-56. Sekoddesapanjik: Sekoddesapanjik, edition of the Sanskrit text, in Annual of the Institute for Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism, Taish University, vol. 16 (1994), pp. 354-289. Somasambhupaddhati. Troisime partie. Rituels occasionnels dans la tradition sivte de l'Inde du Sud selon Somasambhu. II: dks, abhiseka, vratoddhra, antyesti, srddha, Texte, Traduction et Notes par H. Brunner-Lachaux, Publications de l'Institut Franais d'Indologie No. 25.111, Institut Franais d'Indologie, Pondichry 1977. SU Sekoddesa, see Orofino 1994; Gnoli 1999. SUT Nrop, Sekoddesatka: l) editio princeps: Sekoddesatka of Nadapda (Nrop), edited by M. Carelli, Gaekwad's Oriental Series, vol. 90, Baroda 1941; 2) The Sekoddesatka by Nrop (Paramrthasamgraha), critical edition of the Sanskrit text by F. Sferra and critical edition of the Tibetan translation by S. Merzagora, SOR, IsIAO, Roma (forthcoming). Visnusahasranma: Visnusahasranma with the Bhsya of Sri Samkarcrya. Transaletd into English in the Light of Sri Samkara's Bhsya by R.A. Sastry, The Adyar Library and Research Centre, The Adyar-Library General Series 8, Adyar 1980. VP Pundarka, Vimalaprabh: Vimalaprabhtlk of Kalkin Srpundarka on Snlaghuklacakratantrarja by Srmanjusryasas, vol. I, edited by J. Upadhyaya, Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica Series 11, CIHTS, Sarnath 1986; vols. II-III, edited by V.V. Dwivedi, S.S. Bahulkar, RBTS 12-13, CIHTS, Sarnath 1994. Yoginsancaratantra'. Yoginsancaratantram with Nibandha of Tathgataraksita and Upadesnusrinlvykhy of Alakakalasa, edited byJ.S. Pandey, RBTS 21, CIHTS, Sarnath 1998. Studies Bernardini, M. (2003), Storia delmondo islamico (WI-XVIsecolo). Volume secondo. Il mondo iranico e turco dalVavvento dellTslm alVaffer-
mazione dei Safavidi, Piccola Biblioteca Einaudi, Storia e geografia 252, Torino. Chimpa, L., Chattopadhyaya, A. (transi.) (1970), Trantha's History of Buddhism in India, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi. Cicuzza, C. (ed.) (2001), The Laghutantratlk by Vajrapni, SOR 86, IsIAO, Roma. Cicuzza, C , Sferra, F. (1997), Brief Notes on the Beginning of the Klacakra Literature, in Dhh, vol. 23, pp. 113-126. De Rossi Filibeck, E. (1994), Catalogue of the Tucci Tibetan Fund in the Library oflsMEO, Volume 1, Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, Rome. Dyczkowski, M.S.G. (1988), The Canon oftheSaivgama and the Kubjik Tantras of the Western Kaula Tradition, State University of New York Press, Albany (N.Y.). Gnoli, R. (1994), Introduzione, in Gnoli, Orofino 1994, pp. 11-103. (1997), La realizzazione della conoscenza del Supremo immoto (Paramksarajnnasiddhi), in RSO, vol. 70, Supplemento n. 1. (1999), Sekoddesah [Edition of the Sanskrit Text], in Dhh, vol. 28, pp. 143-166. Gnoli, R., Orofmo, G. (transi.) (1994), Nrop. Iniziazione (Klacakra), Biblioteca Orientale 1, Adelphi, Milano. Grnbold, G. (1992), Htrodoxe Lehren und ihre Widerlegung im Klacakra-Tantra, in IIJ, vol. 35, n. 4, pp. 273-297. (1996), Kriegsmaschinen in einem buddhistischen Tantra, in Wilhelm, F. (ed.), Festschrift Dieter Schlingloff Verlag fr Orientalistische Fachpublikationen, Reinbek, pp. 63-97. Haig, T.W. (1987), Cambridge Shorter History of India, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hoffmann, H.H.R. (i960), Manichaeism and Islam in the Buddhist Klacakra System, in Proceedings of the 9th International Congress for the History of Religions, Tokyo, pp. 96-99. (1969), Klacakra Studies I. Manichaeism, Christianity, and Islam in ^ K l a c a k r a Tantra, in Central Asiatic Journal, vol. 13, n. 1, pp. 52-73. Lai, B. (1994), Bauddh tantr vmmay k paricay. (Klacakratantra), in Dhh, vol. 18, pp. 19-34. Lamotte, . (1966), Vajrapni en Inde, in Mlanges offerts Monsieur Paul Demiville, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp. 113-159. Newman, J.R. (1987a), The outer Wheel of Time: Vajrayna Buddhist cosmology in the Klacakra tantra, Ann Arbor, University Microfilms International (University of Wisconsin, Madison, Ph.D. Thesis). (1987b), The Paramdibuddha (The Klacakra mlatantra) and its Relation to the Early Klacakra Literature, in IIJ, vol. 30, n. 2, pp. 93-102. (1991 2 ), A brief history of Klacakra, in Simon, B. (ed.), The Wheel of Time. The Kalachakra In Context, Snow Lion Publications,
284
Ithaca (N.Y.), pp. 51-90 [Deer Park Books, Madison, Wisconsin 1985 1 ]. (1995), Eschatology in the Wheel of Time Tantra, in Lopez, D.S. Jr. (ed.), Buddhism in Practice, Princeton University Press, Princeton (N.J.), pp. 284-289. (1998a), Islam in the Klacakra Tantra, in Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 21, n. 2, pp. 311-371(1998b), The Epoch of the Klacakra Tantra, in IIJ, vol. 41, n. 4, pp. 319-349. (2004), Klacakra, in Buswell, R.E. Jr. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Buddhism, vol. 1 (A-L), Thomson, New York, pp. 408-411. Nihom, M. (1984), Notes on the Origin of Some Quotations in the Sekoddesatik ofNdapda, in IIJ, vol. 27, n. 1, pp. 17-26. Obermiller, E. (transi.) (1999 2 ), The History of Buddhism in India and Tibet by Bu-ston, Classic India Publications, Delhi [1927 1 ]. Orofino, G. (1994), Sekoddesa. A Critical Edition of the Tibetan Translation. With an Appendix by Raniero Gnoli On the Sanskrit Text, SOR 72, Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, Roma. (1997), Apropos of Some Foreign Elements in the Klacakratantra, in Krasser, H., Much, M.T., Steinkellner, E., Tauscher, H. (eds.), Tibetan Studies. VolumeII, Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien 1997, PP- 717"724Reigle, D. (1986), The Lost Klacakra Mla Tantra on the Kings of Sambhala, Klacakra Research Publications 1, Eastern School 1, Talent (Oregon), pp. 1-14. Roerich, G.N. (transi.) (1976 2 ), The Blue Annals. Parts I and II (Bound in One), Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi [Calcutta 1949 1 ]. Samphel, Th. (1995), Bauddh tantr vmmay k paricay. Klacakratantra (Bhot khand), in Dhh, vol. 20, pp. 99-136. Srikrtyyana, R. (1935), Sanskrit Palm-Leaf MSS. in Tibet, in Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Resarch Society, vol. 21, part. 1, pp. 21-43. Sferra, F. (1995), Textual Criticism Notes on the Vimalaprabh by Pundarlka, in East and West, vol. 45, pp. 359-364. (1999), The Satshasrikkhy Hevajratantrapindrthatlk by Vajragarbha, critical edition and annotated translation by F. Sferra, Universit degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza", Doctorate Thesis [a revised edition of this work is in press (Firenze University Press) ]. (2001), Alcune note sulla Hevajratantrapindrthatlk di Vajragarbha, in Botto, O. (ed.),Atti deWOttavo Convegno Nazionale di Studi Sanscriti (Torino 20-21 ottobre 1995), Associazione Italiana di Studi Sanscriti, Torino, pp. 125-135. (2004), Teaching and Spiritual Counselling in Indian Buddhist Traditions. Some Considerations on theRoleoftheKalynamitra,
in Rigopoulos, A. (ed.), Guru. The Spiritual Master in Eastern and Western Traditions: Authority and Charisma, Indoasiatica 2, Cafoscarina, Venezia, pp. 345-371. Shendge, MJ. (1967), Srisahajasiddhi, in IIJ, vol. 10, n. 2-3, pp. 126-149. Snellgrove, D.L. (1959), The Hevajra Tantra. A Critical Study. Part I. Introduction and Translation; Part II. Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts, London Oriental Series 6, London. (1987), Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. Indian Buddhists f their Tibetan Successors, 2 vols., Shambala, Boston-London. Tsuda S. (1974), The Samvarodaya-Tantra. Selected Chapters, The Hokuseido Press, Tokyo. Wallace, V.A. (2001), The Inner Klacakratantra. A Buddhist Tantric View of the Individual, Oxford University Press, New York. Wink, A. (2002 2 ), Al-Hind. The Making of the Indo-Islamic World. Vol. II The Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest, ilth-i^th Centuries, Brill Academic Publishers, Boston-Leiden [1996 1 ].
Boundaries,
Dynamics
and in South
Construction Asia
of Traditions
e d i t e d by F e d e r i c o Squarcini
F i r e n z e U n i v e r s i t y Press
2005
Munshiram
Manoharla
Boundaries, Dynamics and Construction of Traditions in South Asia / edited by Federico Squarcini. Firenze: Firenze University Press, 2005. (Kykion Studi e Testi. Scienze delle Religioni, 1.3) http://digital.casalini.it/8884532612 Stampa a richiesta disponibile su http://epress.unifi.it/ ISBN 88-8453-261-2 (online) ISBN 88-8453-262-0 (print) 305.600954 (ed. 20) Asia meridionale-Religione.
Grafica e layout di Mario Caricchio
2005 Firenze University Press Universit degli Studi di Firenze Firenze University Press Borgo Albizi, 28, 50122 Firenze, Italy http://epress.unifi.it/ Printed in Italy

Sferra 2005 Constructing The Wheel of Time

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Sferra 2005 Constructing The Wheel of Time

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

FRANCESCO

Constructing the Wheel of Strategies for Establishing a

BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition

BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition

BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

III. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition

BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition

BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition

BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition

BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition

BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

See Mlinvijayottara i.8b ff.; cf. also Matangapramesvargama, Vidypda i.3

///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition

BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition

BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

Cf. Newman 1987a: 313-314.

///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition

BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition

BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition

BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition

Dhh IIJ IsIAO NAK NGMPP Q

RBTS RSO SOR WZKS Sources

BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition

BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition

BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition

Grafica e layout di Mario Caricchio

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi