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
(Kälacakra), 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 Kälacakra 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 Kälacakra 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 Kälacakra
are contained in some of the oldest Sanskrit texts belonging to this
tradition —particularly the Laghukälacakratantra
(LKCT), the
Vimalaprabhä (VP) by Pundarika, which is a commentary on it, and
the introduction of the Sekoddesatïkâ (SUT) by Näropä— and in various Tibetan historiographies, beginning with the one in rGyud sde'i
zab don sgo 'byed rin chen gees pa ï 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
ttkä chen4 by mKhas grub rje dGe legs dpal bzaiï po (mKhas grub rje,
1385-1438), written in 1434,5 and the one included in the Deb ther
2
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 Kälacakra 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 Samantasrï around the end of the XI cent., the second
from 'Bro ses rab grags and the Kasmïrian Somanätha 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 Kälacakra in India according to the Rwa and the 'Bro lineages (fols. 28b3-3ia22 = ed. Chandra, fols. 56-61) has been translated by J.R. Newman
(1987a: 76-89; 1991 : 66-71).
4
The final ä of the word tikä 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
///. 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 Paramädibuddha). 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 sragdharä 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 Manjusrïyasas) 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 *Srïkàlacakratantrottaratantrahrdayanâma
(Tantrottara), a supplement to the
LKCT, and the *Sekaprakriyâ, 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 Laghutantratikä (LTT)
6
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 Kälacakra literature, see Läl 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 *Sekaprakriyä (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
2
256
BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
by the Bodhisattva Vajrapani, the Satsahasrika by the Bodhisattva
Vajragarbha and the Vimalaprabhä (VP) by the Bodhisattva Pundarïka, 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 Paramädibuddha 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 Kälacakra
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 Herukäbhidhänatantra or
simply Laghvabhidhäna), 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' (pindärtha)12 of the whole text. Hence, this commentary (tlka) is also called Hevajratantrapindärthatlkä
(HTPT). 1 3
Accordingly, in the conclusion of the LTT Vajrapani defines his work
as a pindärthavivarana, 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 mülatantra 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 Pundarïka actually were. The authors
12
With this meaning the compound pindärtha recurs in the commentarial literature
in Sanskrit; for instance, in the Satkotivyäkhyä by Candrakïrti (idânïm saptadasapatalänäm
pindärtho vidhïyate; p. 5) and in the Vyäkhyäna by Ruyyaka on the Vyaktiviveka b
Mahimabhatta (ayam atra pindärthah [...]; 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 laghutantraUkäyam samksepena pindärthah prakatlkrto [...] pindärthaviva
näma prathamaükäparicchedah (p. 159).
///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition
2
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 Mantrayäna and to achieving Buddhahood in a single
life.15 Pinda (Pindo), Kälacakrapäda the Elder, Kälacakrapäda 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 Kalkï Srïpâla, the first master in the
'Bro tradition, 16 taught all the niruttaratantras and the Bodhisattva
corpus to his disciple, who later became known as Kälacakrapäda
[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 Näropä (956 ca1040 ca) ,19 for instance, draw heavily and openly on this trilogy. The latter work summarizes the most important themes of the Kälacakra
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
c
5
h
u
6
b
a
y
a
c
r
f
d
d
o
N
H
1
7
T
u
u
a
n
e
s
c
i
o
s
h
r
e
9
s
'
n
v
2
S
a
V
a
i
n
d
a
j
a
d
g
K
ä
p
h
â
e
e
l
c
n
i
6
a
(
s
a
,
t
x
t
m
h
s
a
l
l
a
r
n
t
a
h
7
g
B
a
h
o
t
2
h
i
s
'
g
a
1
a
r
d
g
s
b
a
e
t
w
t
t
o
e
t
E
u
b
o
s
p
a
l
n
a
8
l
a
[
a
.
s
.
.
l
r
.
n
a
]
k
s
C
J
a
s
i
o
3
.
T
r
g
(
3
t
e
p
t
s
h
5
s
k
B
y
u
-
3
p
.
e
i
f
a
t
i
s
e
.
t
t
o
h
n
e
g
,
p
f
o
a
l
d
.
f
o
l
h
N
h
e
ä
a
r
P
k
a
p
n
1
i
c
9
g
2
ä
-
a
o
8
s
s
b
i
6
n
d
r
n
k
=
?
t
a
k
b
h
e
o
t
y
d
a
d
.
r
b
r
h
o
z
a
v
a
n
p
C
7
n
u
r
n
g
h
i
p
a
r
e
j
r
a
v
i
a
n
t
e
a
h
r
a
d
n
t
o
m
a
(
*
Y
n
P
0
I
d
d
u
r
b
a
y
a
,
f
n
o
l
.
e
m
'
9
8
7
'
,
t
:
o
l
s
r
g
r
.
6
)
e
I
u
g
a
s
e
t
o
h
8
n
t
s
s
t
'
o
a
n
a
y
i
f
h
o
a
m
n
a
0
l
i
a
1
c
.
u
p
e
3
s
c
l
a
t
t
a
i
s
n
.
s
u
p
a
x
_
b
o
n
-
'
.
a
k
e
r
a
p
o
e
e
h
s
i
d
a
a
t
n
a
s
t
a
t
b
a
s
b
t
o
.
)
b
r
r
s
)
d
c
y
2
1
i
)
a
a
H
n
r
y
L
i
e
v
m
s
n
s
0
r
e
1
o
(
g
'
t
m
e
r
n
o
'
c
1
o
ä
d
a
-
a
l
p
e
p
n
t
m
r
a
e
u
t
h
k
s
n
t
o
n
w
o
9
s
s
n
c
e
i
g
h
a
,
A
e
k
t
g
,
a
e
'
s
9
'
r
N
b
d
s
e
e
4
.
i
o
i
:
a
g
b
i
T
e
b
e
c
n
f
r
p
a
p
r
y
n
e
3
a
c
k
o
7
d
a
;
o
n
t
:
s
a
i
a
)
y
h
s
v
l
0
8
s
p
s
n
9
m
n
d
s
n
0
g
6
u
m
r
e
i
.
d
y
u
l
l
n
8
s
y
s
o
6
a
o
1
b
a
e
l
n
u
p
h
q
,
l
b
a
h
f
9
9
g
a
a
e
)
n
n
t
v
5
a
l
c
i
;
9
b
o
t
.
s
o
a
a
d
e
n
l
3
N
D
s
p
3
s
{
u
,
n
I
d
8
p
.
o
e
e
,
n
s
i
t
.
i
I
r
o
f
r
a
e
m
c
r
r
t
w
n
p
d
s
e
a
s
n
e
N
y
i
a
a
.
b
y
o
r
f
i
h
s
e
n
t
g
k
y
,
a
h
g
c
n
k
C
s
h
f
t
o
8
d
a
d
o
l
d
m
t
y
n
6
3
n
h
(
a
l
i
)
t
a
.
g
b
1
w
u
0
a
p
h
g
o
n
d
t
8
a
a
b
u
b
d
]
c
n
o
,
i
r
a
r
N
n
.
e
m
7
a
r
n
u
y
1
.
d
l
d
t
i
.
t
d
l
i
.
=
i
:
p
P
[
2
y
g
2
3
l
3
a
s
:
e
_
x
e
i
h
:
'jam
k
m
t
n
k
s
t
r
a
6
i
o
s
d
7
a
a
0
l
m
o
9
o
3
i
9
I
C
a
n
1
t
p
'
a
t
w
s
.
o
a
.
9
H
a
v
y
d
n
l
h
u
f
o
o
m
c
e
u
p
I
.
,
y
n
n
C
i
B
f
e
1
2
h
,
i
d
f
b
'
a
e
0
t
i
s
h
n
.
'
n
c
6
i
n
s
o
o
5
t
i
a
r
d
a
n
T
h
i
p
n
a
i
e
9
f
e
k
g
e
c
t
b
o
m
o
s
r
(
e
d
o
w
b
g
s
s
n
i
t
#
r
g
a
d
n
e
'
n
T
y
i
y
r
n
u
R
a
,
r
t
e
i
e
U
o
i
a
u
y
.
e
c
b
e
B
k
f
g
r
e
h
s
o
t
N
4
m
t
p
S
a
l
c
a
o
.
j
e
s
e
e
p
z
(
k
m
;
s
s
I
n
r
8
d
i
o
o
,
a
e
g
6
h
h
V
m
w
e
.
'
.
t
h
a
b
b
m
h
p
a
o
s
b
&
.
a
n
c
)
y
l
r
u
8
t
s
r
t
l
l
p
g
s
l
n
v
d
o
m
o
s
a
7
u
l
a
s
b
e
e
y
g
a
c
h
Q
n
c
f
i
(
e
n
c
b
z
r
r
:
k
e
i
a
h
s
g
s
o
n
s
g
f
b
ä
e
s
a
'
a
)
I
,
s
p
g
8
r
g
'
n
1
k
n
7
t
i
'
a
r
o
s
g
d
m
'
o
s
a
8
o
g
r
p
p
c
n
r
w
o
b
s
l
9
p
a
u
n
e
d
e
a
d
ä
r
l
n
a
e
i
m
d
p
o
o
1
a
t
ä
y
l
#
a
n
a
d
n
o
a
y
a
r
1
u
i
g
s
g
n
o
b
r
N
N
r
a
r
e
g
o
r
'
a
a
a
.
0
n
r
t
p
i
a
h
m
h
I
ä
i
e
l
h
J
N
i
k
s
y
'
s
d
e
C
p
m
e
a
a
s
a
s
'
d
.
1
l
w
s
p
d
p
e
h
8
b
=
2
]
d
d
s
.
e
6
y
g
.
s
1
d
z
.
m
.
g
n
e
1
r
[
s
;
p
5
g
i
i
m
t
i
r
a
e
n
h
f
o
n
s
r
s
m
h
(
f
i
o
t
)
s
r
a
D
o
t
e
m
258
BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
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, Vajrapäni and Vajragarbha is also
implicitly indicated in a passage of the Ämnäyamanjan,
the
commentary by Abhayäkaragupta (XI-XII cent.) on the Snsamputatantramja. Here, the latter quotes a criticism of the Kälacakra
voiced by other Buddhists (probably Ratnäkarasänti and Vâgîsvarïkîrti) 2 2 who, while pointing out that there were many contradictions
between the basic Kälacakra 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, Vajrapäni
and Pundarika were made more frequently with the passing of time, for
example in the Amrtakanikä (AK) by Ravisrijnäna (XI-XII cent.) and
in the Amrtakanikoddyota (AKU) by Yibhüticandra (XII-XIII cent.), 23
there is no reference to these texts as a corpus in any Sanskrit work.
2.2 Vajrapäni's and Vajragarbha's link to the Kälacakra is not
openly declared.
2.2.1 Neither Vajrapäni nor Vajragarbha specifically mentions the
Kälacakra 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 Kälacakra that the Buddha imparted at Dhänyakataka, 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 loï 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 Vajrapäni's work: 1) ad Manjusrlnämasangiti (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 vajrapänipädaih 'prajnäcumbanenänandaksano bhavati [...] jnänasamaya
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 bhümicakre [...] vajrasat
itï {ad AK 3.2 [= commentary on MNS 3.2]; p. 130 6); the quotation
jnänacakre näyaka
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 - 'pränäpänaksayenaiva
dvädasängaksayo bhavet I hetuphalanirodhena ko na buddho bhavisyati II' iti (p. n8
Vajragarbha does not specify whether this is a passage from the mülatantra of the HT, which
is his main source. There are many citations from the VP in the Kälacakrabhagavatsädhanavidhi by Dharmäkarasänti (XI cent.). The LTT is extensively quoted in the
Däkimjälasamvararahasya 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 Hevajratïka 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 mülatantra 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 Ädibuddha. 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 Manjusrlnämasanglti
(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 Ädibuddha and in particular the
SU: the few stanzas from the Ädibuddha 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 tathä ädibuddhe bhagavän äha; 2) p. 127, where we find stt. 8, 15I7ab preceded by atra paramädibuddhe bhagavän äha; and 3) p. 157,
where stt. 139 and 135 are preceded by tathä paramädibuddhe sekoddese
bhagavän äha. 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 Paramädibuddha, [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 Ädibuddha; the first adHT
1.5.8, where SU 86-87 a r e quoted, after they have been introduced with
tathä cäha samvrtyä ädibuddhe, 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 ( nitärtha) of the Cakrasamvara,
the Catuhpithaka and the HT must be understood through the words
of the Ädibuddha, 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 hevajratantratikäyäm as Lai suggests but suvisadasamputahevajra
tratikäyäm (the MS Cambridge University Library Add 1108 reads suvisadasamputahevajratantrattkäyäm; 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
näyakah sahajänandah sünyatälingito hevajro bhagavän caturvimsatibähur
satcakrasamvarät kälavisesenävasthitah [...] evamsatkulätmako herukahkälacakrah
ädibuddhas ceti (Kaiser Library, Kathmandu, MS 128, NGMPP Mf. C14/6, fols. 54^-55^ ).
25
The stanza cited on p. 124, which reads karmamudräm parityajya jnänamudräm
vikalpitäm I paramäksarayogena mahämudräm vibhävayet II, is also quoted in the VP
PAJS), with attribution to the Mülatantra, 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
BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
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 Kälacakra tradition, such as the Däkintvajrapanjara, the
Guhyasamäjatantra (GST), the Mäyäjäla, the Mahämäyä, the MNS
and, among non-scriptural sources, the Gurupancäsikä attributed to
Äryadeva, but, in the case of the latter, without mentioning the source
or the supposed author (like Pundarïka, 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
Pundarïka. 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 nädlsamcaro laghucakrasamvare särdhadasaslokapindärthatikayä jnätavyah) . 2 7 Pundarïka, for his part, never refers to
Vajrapani and Vajragarbha as celebrated Kälacakra 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 ttkä by Vajrapani, which, like the HTPT, is
called Satsähasrikä: [...] evam astasmasänesu devyo veditavyäh I äsäm
vispharanena karmaprasarädikam
tantroktam
vajrapänikrtatikayä
satsähasrikayä boddhavyam laghutantre I tenätra 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 Pundarïka 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: samäjädlni tanträni prajnopäyätmakäni vai I yogatanträni sarväni prajnopäyätmanämabhih II sancäro
yogintnäm tu yatropäyasya samsthitih I samvrtyä yoginitantram bälänäm
gaditam mayä II yatropäyasya sancärah prajnäyäh samsthitir bhavet I
upäyatantram
evoktam samvrtyä tu yathä tathä 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 Ädibuddha, 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 ädibuddhavacanair jneyo mahäsamvaraih II). The Catuhpïthamahât
(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. Sänkrtyäyana and listed by him as MS XVII.2.92; c£
Sänkrtyäyana 1935: 36].
///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition
P u n d a n k a ' s paraphrase is as follows: yoginvyogatantram iti yatra
yogintnäm sancäro näyako niscalah samvrtyä tad yoginïtantram, yatropäyasya sancärah prajnä niscalä tad upäyatantram I svarüpatah sarvam evaprajnopäyätmakamyogatantram
(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)
Pundarïka may have based himself on the HTPT. In fact, he quotes
with few variations 33 stanzas from the root-tantra (tathä mülatantre
bhagavän äha [...]) —which in his text means from the Ädibuddha—
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 Pundarïka was not familiar with Vajragarbha's work,
they both mention, as we have seen above, the work by Vajrapäni, 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 Pundarïka, who declare themselves to be manifestations of
Manjusrï and Avalokitesvara respectively. 30 It is a known fact that
Vajrapäni, the Bodhisattva emanating from Aksobhya, is the mediator
between the Buddha and man in the imparting of tan trie teachings, 31
28
It is worth noting that stanza 6.155a, which in the HTPT is mülatantresu sarvesu,
appears as ädibuddhe mahätantre 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 Vajrapäni, see Lamotte 1966 and Snellgrove 1987, vol. I: 134-141.
2
262
BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
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 Ädibuddha; 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 tanträntarena boddhavyam),32 and, more specifically, that
every tantra must be understood through the Ädibuddha, 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 - mülatantras of the tantra that
they are commenting on 33 (both Vajrapäni and Vajragarbha quote the
Ädibuddha 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 mülatantras (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 yoginïtantras, 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 Visnusahasranäma—
was already extremely well-known when the early Kalacakra teachers
were active. Beginning with Pundarïka, 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 Vajrapäni claims that his teaching is based on the Laksäbhidhäna and
sometimes he actually quotes from this text (cf., for instance, p. 49).
///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition
2
Kalacakra doctrines and practices, as if it had actually been a text of
the system. In fact, Pundarïka —who would have been the author of a
Manjusrlnämasangitivimalaprabhä 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 Paramädibuddha, 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 Mantrayäna 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, Pundarïka states in
his Paramäksarajnänasiddhi (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,
Ravisrïjnâna, Näropä and so on) quote and gloss parts of the GST and
the Samäjottara^ diverges to varying degrees from that of Candrakïrti
and other authors like Munisrïbhadra, 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 (bhävanä), in the explanation of the pratyähära 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 däkints. 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 Pundarïka (J. Newman, personal communication).
35
ato ye paramädibuddham na jänanti te nämasangitim na jänanti, ye nämasangi
jänanti te vajradharajnänakäyam na jänanti, ye vajradharajnänakäyam na jänanti te
mantrayänam na jänanti, ye mantrayänam na jänanti te samsärinah sarve vajra<dha
gavato märgarahitäh (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 Samäjottara is actually GST 18. This chapter, however, was probably added to
the text and is often quoted as a separate work.
264
BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
was revealed to the ancient teacher Cilu from Orissa through an
incarnation of Avalokitesvara (or Mafïjusrï 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 dakinïs 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 dâkinïs 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 Vajrapäni'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 pindärtha 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 'nayä tikayâ I [...] snhevajrapindarthatika samäpteti) . 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-
///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition
2
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 Vajrapäni 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 Kälacakra 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 Abhayäkaragupta and the Kälacakränusäriganita). 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 Mahäsattva Vajragarbna. It was transalted [into Tibetan] by Dânasïla, Indian
teacher, and by the lotsäwa 'Bro sen dkar säkya 'od. Then it was revised by Subhütisrisänti,
Indian teacher, and by the lotsäwa 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 säkya 'od kyis bsgyur ba I slad kyi [Q: gyis; Ganden: kyis] rgya gar gy
su bhü ti srl sänti dan I lo tsä 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 tsä 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 tsä 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
dpas rjes su gnan no {D
la yan da Itar bod du 'gyur ba ï tshad de kho na byan chub sems
po, chapter 10, fol. 6t>56 = ed. Chandra, fol. 672; cf. Roerich 19762: 764-765).
266
BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
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 Kälacakra 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
Näropä was writing (and we know that he died around 1040 CE),
since he quotes widely from Vajrapäni, Vajragarbha and Pundarïka,
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 Pundarïka, 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
Pundarïka 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 Kälacakra literature was produced in at least five stages: 1) stanzas of the
Ädibuddha (which included the SU), LTT, stanzas of the PLH,
HTPT; 2) further stanzas of the Ädibuddha, LKCT (first version),
PAJS, LKCT (revised version), VP, Tantrottara,
Paramärthasevä;453)
the two Sadangayoga treatises by Anupamaraksita; 4) SUT, Sekoddesatippanl by Sädhuputra Srïdharânanda; s) Sekoddesapanjikä,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 Paramärthasevä 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.
///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition
account given in the LKCT-VP is true, the first four of the five early
stages of Kälacakra 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
Sebüktegin and expecially of his son Mahmud of Gaznï (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 Pundarîka (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 Kälacakra was to refer to a 'higher level' of the tradition,
namely that of the above-mentioned Paramädibuddha, the roottantra of the system. The three Bodhisattvas, along with other
famous authors such as Anupamaraksita, Sädhuputra Srïdharânanda, Näropä, Ravisrïjnana and Vibhüticandra, 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
Vajrapäni and the first of the seven kings of the celebrated land of
Sambhaia.49
Although, as we shall see, the Kälacakra 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
Sebüktegin and his son arrived at Pesävara in 987 after Räjäjayapäla's defeat and suicide (cf. Bernardini 2003: 78). For further information on the plundering —Bhïmanagara
(Nagarkot) (1008), Thänesvara (1011), Lahore (1014), Mathurâ (1018), Kannauj (1019),
Somanätha (1025)— carried out by Mahmud of Gaznï, 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.
2
268
BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
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
Kälacakra. There is a similar instance in Hindu tan trie literature.
The saiva Mälintvijayottara, for example, that has come down to us
in twenty-three chapters is said to be a summary of the Mälinwijaya.
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 Manthänabhairava,
the original version of which was said to contain a billion verses
(laksakoti),51 and the Sarvavlratantra, the basic text (mülasütra) 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 Jayäkhyasamhitä (cf. 1.7079) and the Pädmasamhitä. 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 (Jnänapäda 1.32-33).
In Buddhist texts, references to mulatantras or brhattantras (lit.
'long tantras') are to be found, for example, in the Yoginïsancaratantra
(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 Mäyäjälatantra a work of sixteen thousand verses, and that of the CST a work of one hundred thousand
chapters, entitled Mahälaksäbhidhäna.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 Kälacakra 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.
51
See Mâlinïvijayottara i.8b ff.; cf. also Matangapäramesvarägama, Vidyäpäda 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
///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition
2
authority to the new texts and to elevate their promulgators and interpreters, i.e. themselves. Indeed, the mülatantraswere 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 Ädibuddha, 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 (mülatantra or äditantra) 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 Mäyäjäla. 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
Paramädibuddha 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 Dohäkosatikä by Amrtavajra, which although
they quote Vajragarbha a n d / o r his commentary, do not make explic-
56
pancalaksahevajrän mülatanträd dvätrimsanmahäkalpäl laghukalpadvayam s
dhimäyäjälalaksanam dvavimsatiparicchedatmakam särddhasaptasatagranthapram
laghutantram vajrasattvena bhagavatä 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 1.3CL-6 and i.67ab (cf. below, § 6.4 and
note 73).
57
'As this mülatantra 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, Kânha, Bhadrapada, and Dharmakïrti and unknown to Tankadâsa and
Ratnäkarasänti' (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
BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
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 Sädhuputra
Srïdharananda, who mentions the PLH but not Vajragarbha and the
HTPT, 6 0 the SUT by Näropä, 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 Bhattärikä, a commentary on
Laksmïnkarâ'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 Trivajraratnävalimälikä,
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 Läksikadvikalparäjatantra
and he even
specifies the name of the chapter (candälikäyogapatala; elsewhere he
calls it candällyogapatala) , 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 tïkâ 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 (tathä ca vajragarbhapädäh — 'näsädvayarandhre [...] 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 Sekoddesatippanï, Sädhuputra Sridharänanda (ad!SU 152-I53ab; p. 142) introduces with the words: tathä ca pancalaksäbhidhänahevajre a stanza that corresponds to
HTPT i.4Ocd-4iab. The same stanza is quoted without mentioning the source by
Ravisrïjnana adMNS 10.3 (p. 90) and by Vibhüticandra in his AKU {ad AK 4.1; p. 134).
61
Cf. ed. Carelli, pp. 59-60 and p. 67, where Näropä quotes 11 stanzas from the PLH
(= HTPT 10.4-14) introducing them with the words: yathä pancalaksäbhidhäne.
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: tathä coktam läksikadvikalparäjatanträkrstacandälikäyogapatale (fol. 26r12). The correspondences are: HTPT 5.2-4 {Trivajraratnävalimälikä, fol. 2Ôv ), 5.5-17 (fols. 26r2-26f ), 5.18-26 (fols. 26^-27^), 5.27«! (fol.
2
7^.2), 5-28cd-53 (fols. 27^-29^).
///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition
2
that in Kelikulisa's time 'there was circulating a work that called
itself the Candäliyogapatala of the Läksikadvikalparäjatantra
(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 Pancaläksika.
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 Paramädibuddha, the Pindtkramasadhana attributed to
Nägärjuna, the CST and in other celebrated Buddhist texts (e.g.,
HTPT i.45ab = Madhyamakakärikä, 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 Änandakanda.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 Kubjikämatatantra (3.104).
6.3 Stanzas quoted by Vajragarbha from the PLH are evidently
connected with Kälacakra themes. In a brief paper, published in
Dhïh (Cicuzza, Sferra 1997), we show the close relationship existing
between the description of the arrangement of the main nädis in
the h u m a n body, as explained in the PLH and the Kälacakra doctrines (cf. SU 46 ff.). According to the latter, the position of the
three nâdïs changes at the navel (näbhicakra). The rasanä, avadhüti
and lalanä, 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 Jnänodayatantra, p. 5.
BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
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)
sphatïka
santika
santika
stambhana sphatika
sphatïka
muktäphala paustika
mauktika
paustika
raktacandana vasya
nrdanta
märana
ristikä
abhicäruka naradanta märana
ustradanta uccätana kharadanta vidvesana
niramsuka
vidvesa
[kharadanta]
[uccätana]
vasya
putrafivaka
putrajlva
vasya
asvahadda uccätana
padmatnja
äkrsti
äkrsti
brahmahästhin äkarsana padmaJnja
[candanaMja]
[raktacandana]
gajästhika varsäpana rudräksa stambhana rudräksa stambhana
rista
rista
mohana
mohana
mahisästhi märana
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 Krodharäjas, which are not treated in the HT but
assume considerable importance in Kälacakra 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 Kälacakra 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 Kälacakra 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 Vajrapäni's assertion in the LTT that the alpatantras (lit. 'short
tantras') —even though full of difficult words (vajrapada)— were
drawn from the mülatantras in order to meet man's now limited capacity to understand (tat kasya hetor bhagavann alpatantram mülatanträd
desayasi iti I bhagavän aha I iha pancakasäyakäle jämbüdvlpakä manusyä
visesenäryavisaye alpäyuso 'Ipaprajnä bhavisyanti [...] tasmät sarvamülatanträd alpatantradesanä buddhasya) .7° As the introduction of the
HTPT shows, Vajragarbha shared with Vajrapäni and Pundarïka 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
68
69
Cf., for instance, VP vol. 2, pp. 33-34, 67.
The sequence of semivowels: YA, RA, VA, LA (wind, fire, water, earth) is also present
in the Candamahärosanatantra (p. 58).
71
Cf. Newman 1987a: 313-314.
///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition
2
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 Satsähasrikä, 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 Äditantra 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 Ädibuddha. 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 Ädibuddha 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 Kälacakra authors felt the need to define the figure of the
true master (sadguru) or adamantine teacher (vajräcärya) and, above
72
The threefold division uddesa, nirdesa and pratinirdesa, which we find elsewhere
(e.g. in the Yoginlsancäratantra 1.2-3 and in its commentaries; pp. 37-8,123), is said to apply
to Kälacakra 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
[...] tantraguhyagadikä tikä mayä likhyate II [3] srïmatâ vajragarbhena sarvasa
taisinä I dasabhümlsvareneyam märgaläbhäya yoginäm II [4] pancalaksamahäta
alpatantre samuddhrtel särddhasaptasate 'py asmin bahuvajrapadänviteW [5] hevaj
va yä satsähasrikä matä I seyam tantraprakäsärtham mülatantränusärint II [6] [...] h
jinadesanätra laghuke 'visphuteyam nrnäm laksaih pancabhir äditantranicaye buddh
purä\ [...] tlkäbhir arthägamahW [67] yastlkärahito 'Ipatantranicayeguptampadamde
'mbuny aksivivarjitas ciragatasyäheh padam vlksayet I [...] [68].
74 Cf. also st. i.65cd.
75
This example occurs also in the Älokamälä by Kambala (st. 280):
jalaprayätähipadäni pasyatah [...] katham nu lokasya na jäyate trapä II (pp. 109-220
Another stanza of this text (st. 142) is paraphrased by Vajrapäni (LTT p. 143).
274
BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
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; Pundarïka
deals briefly with these arguments also in other parts of the VP, but
devotes the entire first part of the Paramärthasevä to them. Vajrapâni
presents the same arguments as Vajragarbha and Pundarïka, but in a
less systematic and detailed manner.
What is characteristic of the early Kälacakra 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 Gurupancäsikä from a standpoint asserting the superiority of ordained monks.
Therefore, it is worth following the reasoning of Vajragarbha and
Pundarïka in more detail. 76
In LKCT 3.2-3, as in other sources dealing with the vajräcäryaparlksä, the examination of the adamantine teacher, which is a preliminary to the gurvärädhana, 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 Gurupancäsikä; these concern the
ritual (dasatattva) and the Scriptures (the master is defined as
sästrakovida). 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 ärya-scYiooY) states that the Tathägata 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.
///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition
2
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 Pundarïka as quoting two stanzas: the
first corresponds to a stanza of the Snmäyäjälamahätantraräja quoted
also by Candrakïrti in his Satkotivyäkhyä on the GST (p. 216); the second is Gurupancäsikä 2, which is quoted to stress that the fully initiated vajräcärya is worshipped by the Tathägatas themselves (cf. GST 17,
pp. 104-105; Jnânasiddhi, p. 151) and probably to infer that no ordinary man has the right to criticize him.
Vajragarbha's and Pundarïka'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 Kälacakra 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 Pundarïka reply to the opponent, in the
first place by quoting stanza 7 of the Gurupancäsikä, 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 Ädibuddha, 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: tasmäd 'äcäryasya gunä grähy
ihänägate 'dhvani yad vaktavyam bälajanaih sanmärganastair 'äcäryasya gunä grä
kesäncid märganastänäm vacanam bhavisyati, tasmäd ucyate 'dosä naiva kadäcane
[...] (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: tasmäd 'äcäryasya gunä grähyä'iti
kesäncin märganastänäm vacanam bhavisyati I tasmäd ucyate I ihänägate 'dhvani
tavyam bälajanaih sanmärganastair 'äcäryasya gunä grähyä dosä naiva kadäcane'
[...] (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
BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
us to understand that they are not truly generous; and we know from
VP adLKCT 3 4 that the disciple must avoid covetous (dhanärthin) 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.àà'3ir"pdLn2i (a/zasDarpanäcärya) (fol. 2r), who
quotes from Kälacakra 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
gananäyaka (pp. 105-109). Gurupancäsikä %& 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 Kälacakra 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 vajräcäryas, 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 (vihâra), etc. Laymen
must not be worshipped as the Vinaya of the Mülasarvästivädin also
reminds us; 82 concerning this, stanzas 4 and 5 of the Gurupancäsikä 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
Vajramäläguhyasamäjavyäkhyätantra.
80
buddhatvam vajrasattvatvam sekaih samgrhya yatnatah I vayam vajradharä
vadisyanti narä nrnäm II avandyä bhiksavah sarve silasamvaradhärinah I sitavasträ
vandyäh svayam vajradharä 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 narä nrnäm (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. Sayanäsanavastu, pp. 3-5, and also VP vol. 1, p. 5414.l6.
///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition
2
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 Gurupancäsikä 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 (nltärtha) and its
surface meaning (neyärtha).
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 (kasäyakäla) 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: ttkä mayä likhyate [...] kecit ttkäm karisyanti pancäbhijnädibhir vinä (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 (= Säkyamuni) 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
sräddhasämänyalaksana section, verse 2, pp. 624-625 (H. Isaacson, personal communication).
84
While introducing SU 63ab, in his SUT Näropä 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: abhijnäläbhibhir iti I dasabhümisvaramahä
sattvair eva [...] panditair iti alabdhabhümikaih (p. 119 ^ )•
278
BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
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 Kälacakra 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 Kälacakra 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 Kälacakra 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 Kälacakra 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 brähmanas 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 Daizökyö Sömokuroku /A Catalogue-Index of the Tibetan
Buddhist Canons, by Ui H., Suzuki M., Kanakura Y., Tada T.,
Sendai, Töhoku Imperial University aided by Saitö
Gratitude Foundation, Sendai 1934.
86
On the relationship between the Kälacakra and Islam, see Hoffmann i960, 1969;
Grönbold 1992: 277-278, 284, 292-293; 1996; Orofmo 1997; Newman 1998a.
87
Cf. Newman 19912: 60.
///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition
Dhïh
IIJ
IsIAO
NAK
NGMPP
Q
RBTS
RSO
SOR
WZKS
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 für die Kunde Südasiens
Sources
AK
Ravisrijnäna, Amrtakanikä: Äryamanjusrinämasamgiti
with
Amrtakanikätippani
by Bhiksu Ravisrijnäna
and Amrtakanikodyotanibandha of Vibhüticandra, edited by B. Läl, Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica 30, CIHTS, Sarnath 1994.
AKU
Vibhüticandra, Amrtakanikoddyotanibandha: see AK.
Amrtavajra, Dohäkosattkä, edited in Dhïh, vol. 32 (2001), pp. 127-155;
cf. Qvol. 87, #5049, fols. 3ib 6 -48a 3 .
Anaiigayogin, Däkinyälasamvararahasya, edited by S. Rinpoche, V.V.
Dwivedi, RBTS 8, CIHTS, Sarnath 1990.
Änandakanda, Madras Government Oriental Series 59, Madras 1952.
Anupamaraksita, Sadangayoga: The Sadangayoga by Anupamaraksita
with Ravisrijnäna's
Gunabharanlnâmasadangayogatippanl,
text edition and annotated translation by F. Sferra, SOR 85,
IsIAO, Roma 2000.
Äryadeva, Gurupancäsikä: l) edition of the first 33 stanzas by S. Lévi
in «Journal Asiatique», vol. 215 (1929), pp. 255-263; 2) edition and retranslation of stanzas 34-50 by J. Pandey, Dhïh,
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.
Candamahärosanatantra: The Candamahärosana Tantra, Chapters IVIII. A Critical Edition and English Translation by Ch. S.
2
280
BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
George, American Oriental Series 56, American Oriental
Society, New Haven (Conn.) 1974.
Candrakïrti, Satkotivyäkhyä:
Guhyasamäjatantrapradlpodyotanatlkäsatkotivyäkhyä, edited by C. Chakravarti, Kashi Prasad
Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna 1984.
CST
Cakrasamvaratantra: Srlherukäbhidhänam Cakrasamvara tantram with the Vivrti Commentary ofBhavabhatta, edited by J.S.
Pandey, RBTS 26, 2 vols., CIHTS, Sarnath 2002.
Däkinlvajrapanjaratantra:
Äryadäkinivajrapanjaramahätantraräjakalpanäma, Q vol. 1, #11, fols. 2Ô2a 6 -30ib .
Dharmäkarasänti, Kälacakrabhagavatsädhanavidhi,
edited in Dhïh,
vol. 24 (1997), pp. 127-174.
'Gos lo tsâ 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, Ayurvedïya
Granthamälä 1, Bombay 1910-1911.
GST
Guhyasamäjatantra: The Guhyasamäja Tantra. A New Critical
Edition, edited by Matsunaga Y., Toho Shuppan, Osaka 1978.
Guhyädi-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, Hevajratantrapindärthattkä: see Sferra 1999.
Indrabhüti, Jnänasiddhi, see Guhyädi-Astasiddhi-Sangraha, pp. 89-157.
Jagaddarpana, Kriyäsamuccaya: 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.
Jayäkhyasamhitä'.Jayäkhyasamhitä ofPäncarätraÄgama, critically edited with an Introduction in Sanskrit, Indices etc. by E.
Krishnamacharya, Gaekwad's Oriental Series 54, Oriental
Institute, Baroda 1967.
Jnänodayatantra:
edited by S. Rinpoche, V.V. Dwivedi, RBTS 2,
CIHTS, Sarnath 1988.
Kalparäja: IsIAO, Rome, MS FGT V / i , 263.
Kambala, Älokamälä: Kambala's Älokamälä, in Miscellanea Buddhica,
edited by Chr. Lindtner, Indiske Studier, vol. V, Copenhagen 1985, pp. 109-220.
Kelikulisa, Trivajraratnävalimälikä:
Hevajradäkinijälasamvarapanjikä, IsIAO, Rome, MS 3.23, folder 43 [photos of the same
MS taken by R. Särikrtyäyana and listed by him as MS XXV,
118; cf. Sänkrtyäyana 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
///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition
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.
Laksmïrïkarâ, Sahajasiddhi: see Shendge 1967.
Laksmï Bhattärikä, *Sahajasiddhipaddhati: sDe dge #2261, fols. 4a 2 5 ^ ; Qvol. 69, #3108, fols. 4b 8 -29a ? .
Kubjikämatatantra'. The Kubjikämatatantra. Kulälikämnäya Version,
Critical edition by T. Goudriaan and J.A. Schoterman,
Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina 30, E J. Brill, Leiden 1988.
LKCT
Laghukälacakratantra: 1) Snkälacakratantraräja.
A critical
Edition, edited by B. Banerjee, The Asiatic Society, Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta 1985; 2) Kälacakra-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
Vajrapäni, Laghutantratïka: see Cicuzza 2001.
Mahimabhatta, Vyaktiviveka: Vyaktiviveka edited with a Sanskrit
Commentary of Räjänaka Ruyyaka and the Madhusüdani
Commentary, edited by M. Misra, The Kashi Sanskrit Series
121, Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan, Varanasi 1936.
Mälinwijayottaratantra:
Snmälinwijayottaratantram,
edited by M.K.
Shâstrî, Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 37, Bombay
1922.
Matangapäramesvarägama. (Vidyäpäda) avec le commentaire de Bhatta
Râmakantha, édition critique par N.R. Bhatt, Publications
de l'Institut Français dTndologie 56, Pondichéry 1977.
MNS
Manjusrïnâmasangïti, see AK.
Nägärjuna, Mülamadhyamakakärikä: Mülamadhyamakakärikä, edited
by J.W. de Jong, The Adyar Library Series 109, The Adyar
Library and Research Centre, Adyar 1977.
Nägärjuna, Pindikramasädhana: Pindïkrama: 1) edited by L. de la
Vallée Poussin in Pancakrama, Grand-Louvain 1896, pp. 114; 2) edited by R.S. Tripathi in Pindïkrama and Pancakrama
of Äcärya Nägärjuna, Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica Series 25,
CIHTS, Sarnath 2001, pp. 3-32.
Näropä, Paramärthasangraha = Sekoddesatikä: see SUT.
Pädmasamhitä: Pädma Samhitä [prathamo bhägah], critically edited by
S. Padmanabhan, R.N. Sampath, Pancaratra Parisodhana
Parisad Series 3, Madras 1974.
Padmavajrapâda, Guhyasiddhi: see Guhyädi-Astasiddhi-Sangraha, pp.
1-62.
Pundarïka, dPal don dam pa'i bsnen pa {^Paramärthaseva), Q v o l . 47,
#2065, fols. i-25a.
Vimalaprabhä: see VP.
Rasahrdayatantra: see Govinda Bhägavat.
2
282
BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
Rasarnavakalpa: Rasarnavakalpa, edited and translated by M. Roy in
collaboration with B.V. Subbarayappa, Indian National
Science Academy, New Delhi 1976.
Ravisrijnäna, Gunabhäranv. see Anupamaraksita, Sadangayoga.
Sâdhuputra Srïdharananda, Sekoddesatippani: La Sekoddesatippani di
Sädhuputra Srïdharananda. 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 Sayanäsanavastu and the
Adhikar anavastu. Being the l^th and 16th Sections of the Vinaya
of the Mülasarvästivädin,
edited by R. Gnoli, SOR 50,
Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, Roma
1978, pp. 1-56.
Sekoddesapanjikä: Sekoddesapanjikä, edition of the Sanskrit text, in
«Annual of the Institute for Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism», Taishö University, vol. 16 (1994), pp. 354-289.
Somasambhupaddhati. Troisième partie. Rituels occasionnels dans la
tradition sivàîte de l'Inde du Sud selon Somasambhu. II: dïksâ,
abhiseka, vratoddhära, antyesti, sräddha, Texte, Traduction et
Notes par H. Brunner-Lachaux, Publications de l'Institut
Français d'Indologie No. 25.111, Institut Français d'Indologie,
Pondichéry 1977.
SU
Sekoddesa, see Orofino 1994; Gnoli 1999.
SUT
Näropä, Sekoddesatïka: l) editio princeps: Sekoddesatïka of
Nadapäda (Näropä), edited by M. Carelli, Gaekwad's Oriental
Series, vol. 90, Baroda 1941; 2) The Sekoddesatïka by Näropä
(Paramärthasamgraha), critical edition of the Sanskrit text by
F. Sferra and critical edition of the Tibetan translation by S.
Merzagora, SOR, IsIAO, Roma (forthcoming).
Visnusahasranäma:
Visnusahasranäma
with the Bhäsya of Sri
Samkaräcärya. Transaletd into English in the Light of Sri
Samkara's Bhäsya by R.A. Sastry, The Adyar Library and
Research Centre, The Adyar-Library General Series 8,
Adyar 1980.
VP
Pundarïka, Vimalaprabhä: Vimalaprabhätlkä of Kalkin Srïpundarïka on Snlaghukälacakratantraräja
by Srïmanjusrïyasas,
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.
Yoginïsancaratantra'. Yoginïsancaratantram with Nibandha of Tathägataraksita and Upadesänusärinlvyäkhyä 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 dellTslàm alVaffer-
///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition
mazione dei Safavidi, Piccola Biblioteca Einaudi, Storia e
geografia 252, Torino.
Chimpa, L., Chattopadhyaya, A. (transi.) (1970), Täranätha's History
of Buddhism in India, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.
Cicuzza, C. (ed.) (2001), The Laghutantratlkä by Vajrapäni, SOR 86,
IsIAO, Roma.
Cicuzza, C , Sferra, F. (1997), Brief Notes on the Beginning of the
Kälacakra Literature, in Dhïh, 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 oftheSaivägama and the Kubjikä
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
(Paramäksarajnänasiddhi), in RSO, vol. 70, Supplemento n. 1.
(1999), Sekoddesah [Edition of the Sanskrit Text], in Dhïh, vol.
28, pp. 143-166.
Gnoli, R., Orofmo, G. (transi.) (1994), Näropä. Iniziazione (Kälacakra),
Biblioteca Orientale 1, Adelphi, Milano.
Grönbold, G. (1992), Hétérodoxe Lehren und ihre Widerlegung im
Kälacakra-Tantra, in IIJ, vol. 35, n. 4, pp. 273-297.
(1996), Kriegsmaschinen in einem buddhistischen Tantra, in
Wilhelm, F. (ed.), Festschrift Dieter Schlingloff Verlag für
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
Kälacakra System, in Proceedings of the 9th International
Congress for the History of Religions, Tokyo, pp. 96-99.
(1969), Kälacakra Studies I. Manichaeism, Christianity, and
Islam in ^ K ä l a c a k r a Tantra, in «Central Asiatic Journal»,
vol. 13, n. 1, pp. 52-73.
Lai, B. (1994), Bauddh tantr vämmay kä paricay. (Kälacakratantra), in
Dhïh, vol. 18, pp. 19-34.
Lamotte, É. (1966), Vajrapäni en Inde, in Mélanges offerts à Monsieur Paul
Demiéville, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp. 113-159.
Newman, J.R. (1987a), The outer Wheel of Time: Vajrayäna Buddhist cosmology in the Kälacakra tantra, Ann Arbor, University
Microfilms International (University of Wisconsin,
Madison, Ph.D. Thesis).
(1987b), The Paramädibuddha (The Kälacakra mülatantra)
and its Relation to the Early Kälacakra Literature, in IIJ, vol. 30,
n. 2, pp. 93-102.
(1991 2 ), A brief history of Kälacakra, in Simon, B. (ed.), The Wheel
of Time. The Kalachakra In Context, Snow Lion Publications,
2
284
BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
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 Kälacakra Tantra, in «Journal of the
International Association of Buddhist Studies», vol. 21, n. 2,
pp. 311-371(1998b), The Epoch of the Kälacakra Tantra, in IIJ, vol. 41, n. 4,
pp. 319-349.
(2004), Kälacakra, 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
Sekoddesatikä ofNädapäda, 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 Kälacakratantra,
in Krasser, H., Much, M.T., Steinkellner, E., Tauscher, H.
(eds.), Tibetan Studies. VolumeII, Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien 1997, PP- 717"724Reigle, D. (1986), The Lost Kälacakra Müla Tantra on the Kings of
Sambhala, Kälacakra 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 vämmay kä paricay. Kälacakratantra (Bhot khand), in Dhïh, vol. 20, pp. 99-136.
Särikrtyäyana, 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 Vimalaprabhâ by Pundarlka, in «East and West», vol. 45, pp. 359-364.
(1999), The Satsähasrikäkhyä Hevajratantrapindärthatlkä
by
Vajragarbha, critical edition and annotated translation by F.
Sferra, Università degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza",
Doctorate Thesis [a revised edition of this work is in press
(Firenze University Press) ].
(2001), Alcune note sulla Hevajratantrapindärthatlkä 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
theRoleoftheKalyänamitra,
///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition
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 àf 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 Kälacakratantra. 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 ].
2
Boundaries,
Dynamics
of Traditions
and
in South
Construction
Asia
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.
(Kykéion 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
Université degli Studi di Firenze
Firenze University Press
Borgo Albizi, 28, 50122 Firenze, Italy
http://epress.unifi.it/
Printed in Italy
Francesco Sferra