Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Canonical
Collections’: The Case of the Caryāmelāpakapradīpa
Commentary Attributed to Śākyamitra1
Christian K. Wedemeyer
University of Chicago Divinity School
Abstract: This paper examines the nature of the Tibetan Buddhist canonical
collections with particular attention to the issues raised by the presence of a
signiicant number of pseudepigrapha (falsely attributed works, including many
penned by Tibetans) in the Bstan ’gyurs. A detailed case is made for one particular
work—the commentary on Āryadeva’s Lamp that Integrates the Practices
(Caryāmelāpakapradīpa) attributed to Śākyamitra—being of Tibetan authorship,
and an attempt is made to identify its author. On the basis of this evidence and the
writings of Bu ston rin po che (1290-1364) concerning the policies followed in
editing the canonical collections, it is argued that these corpora cannot be
considered “canonical” in the sense of being intended to serve as criteria for
religious authenticity. Rather, the Bstan ’gyur in particular is characterized by an
ad hoc nature, a deference to precedent regarding inclusion of works of dubious
provenance, and a drive toward inclusivity—aiming for comprehensiveness, rather
than authority.
Introduction
It is common in literate cultures that works by highly esteemed authors come to
bear exceptional authority therein and that these works are consequently invoked,
cited, paraphrased, and alluded to in order to marshall some degree of their authority
in the service of novel projects. In such circumstances it is no less commonplace
for entirely new works to be composed and attributed to such authors, long after
their decease. Thus, for instance, in the centuries after his passing, numerous
1
This research was irst delivered to the XIVth Conference of the International Association of
Buddhist Studies, London, England, 2 September 2005. I would like to thank the members of that body
for their hospitality and constructive criticism. Profs. Matthew Kapstein and David Seyfort Ruegg, in
particular, contributed very helpful insights.
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009): 1-31.
http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5700.
1550-6363/2009/5/T5700.
© 2009 by Christian K. Wedemeyer, Tibetan and Himalayan Library, and International Association of Tibetan Studies.
Distributed under the THL Digital Text License.
Wedemeyer: Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Canonical Collections’
2
dialogues were composed and attributed to the Greek philosopher Plato. Likewise,
after the death of the Apostle, “Pauline” letters continued to be penned and
circulated throughout the Mediterranean region. Examples could be multiplied.
Such novel attributions, or pseudepigrapha, have met with mixed success
historically. Some have had the good fortune of being accepted quite widely as
equally authoritative as the genuine products of those authors; others have been
treated as merely derivative sources, while some have been rejected entirely. As
with all fortunes, those of literary works rise and fall over time: as, for example,
in the case of Alcibiades I, a major “Platonic” dialogue seemingly universally
accepted as authentic until the early nineteenth century, since which time it has
generally been treated as spurious (and excluded from collections of the Dialogues)
until recent decades have again seen it accepted by many scholars as a genuine
work of Plato.2
In the Tibetan Buddhist canonical collections, of course, there are numerous
cases of pseudepigraphy, although the phenomenon in its own right has not received
a great deal of scholarly attention. On the whole, notice of pseudepigrapha in the
Tibetan Buddhist canons has been limited to cases wherein Buddhist esoteric, or
Tantric, works have been attributed to high-proile authors of early Universal Way
(Mahāyāna) scholasticism. Only quite recently does one begin to ind modern
skepticism of Tibetan canonical translations based upon more reined criteria—such
as close reading of the works themselves—and attendant inquiry into the nature
of authority and canonicity in the Tibetan literary world.
The issues raised by the phenomenon of pseudepigraphy become especially
acute when considered alongside those concerning canonicity. The degree to which
the Bka’ ’gyurs and Bstan ’gyurs may be considered “canonical” collections in
the strong sense is in large degree dependent upon their treatment of
pseudepigrapha. Recent work on these Tibetan scriptural collections qua canons
has focused largely on the issue of ixedness or closure. While this is undoubtedly
an important issue and an element in some notions of canon, canons are most
essentially about authority and authenticity: as, for instance, in the Oxford English
Dictionary deinition 2c, to wit, “a standard of judgement or authority; a test,
criterion, means of discrimination.” The other deinitions provided are all variants
on this basic theme: so, one reads of canon in the sense of “law, rule, edict,” and
so forth. The operative deinition in our case—that of a canon of literary works—is
similarly a variant of the basic sense of authority: “4. The collection or list of books
of the Bible accepted by the Christian Church as genuine and inspired. Also transf.,
2
Alcibiades I was included in Thrasyllus’ early-irst-century-C.E. edition of Plato’s works and was
accepted until Friedrich Schleiermacher irst disputed this attribution in the Introduction to his German
translation of it. See, for example, the comments of Nicholas Denyer in his “Introduction” to Plato,
Alcibiades, ed. Nicholas Denyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 14-26; see also, J.
M. Cooper and D. S. Hutchinson, eds., Plato: Complete Works (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett
Publishing Company, 1997), viii-x; and Freidrich Schleiermacher, Schleiermacher’s Introductions to
the Dialogues of Plato, trans. William Dobson (Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1992 [1836]), 328-336.
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
3
any set of sacred books; also, those writings of a secular author accepted as
authentic.”3
This notion of canon as a signiier of authenticity has not been entirely neglected
in discussions of the Tibetan Buddhist collections. Much has been made, in both
indigenous and Western writings, of the exclusion of certain Rnying ma scriptures
from the Bka’ ’gyurs, on the basis of a lack of conidence in their Indic pedigree.4
We do not propose to engage that discussion here, however. In what follows, we
will instead consider the case of the collections of translated śāstras (the Bstan
’gyurs) in which it will be seen that a concern for authenticity was in fact in play
in the redactional process, though it was evidently only one among several criteria
guiding the selection of which materials to include and which to exclude. Looking
closely at one particular case, I hope to demonstrate a) that the work in question,
which was included in the Tantric Commentaries (Rgyud ’grel) section of the Bstan
’gyurs, is demonstrably a Tibetan pseudepigraph—an indigenous Tibetan
composition attributed to a famed Indian paṇḍita, b) that a range of Tibetan
authorities considered this work somewhat dubious (though for generally opaque,
probably doctrinal, reasons), and that c) its inclusion in the Bstan ’gyur is
consequently and demonstrably instructive concerning important features of those
collections: their ad hoc nature, deference to precedent, drive to comprehensiveness,
and marked tendency toward inclusivity.
The Lamp that Integrates the Practices (Caryāmelāpakapradīpa)
and its Commentary
The work that we will primarily be concerned with herein presents itself as an
Indic commentary on the Caryāmelāpakapradīpa, or Lamp that Integrates the
Practices (hereafter the Lamp), a highly inluential scholastic work in the Esoteric
Community (Guhyasamāja) tradition of the Noble Nāgārjuna.5 The commentary
as it appears in the various Tibetan Bstan ’gyur collections is called the Extensive
Explanation of the ‘Lamp that Integrates the Practices’ (Spyod pa bsdus pa’i sgron
ma zhes bya ba’i rgya cher bshad pa; hereafter Extensive Explanation)6 and its
colophon attributes authorship to “the teacher endowed with supreme critical
wisdom, Śākyamitra.”7 Śākyamitra is an author (or authors) still rather opaque to
3
See canon s.v., in Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989),
838.
4
See, for example, D. S. Ruegg, Life of Bu ston Rin po che (Rome: Instituto Italiano per il Medio
ed Estremo Oriente, 1966), 26-27 (esp. n. 1, p. 27). See below, note 57, for more on this issue.
5
For translation, analysis, and critical Sanskrit and Tibetan editions of this work, see Christian K.
Wedemeyer, Āryadeva’s Lamp that Integrates the Practices (Caryāmelāpakapradīpa): The Gradual
Path of Vajrayāna Buddhism according to the Esoteric Community Noble Tradition (New York:
American Institute of Buddhist Studies/Columbia University Press, 2007).
6
See, for example, Sde dge Bstan ’gyur, Rgyud ’grel, vol. ci (Tōh. 1834), 237b.1-280b.2; or Peking
Bstan ’gyur, Rgyud ’grel, vol. ngi (Pek. 2703), 323b.7-380b.7. Citations from this work in this paper
refer to the Sde dge redaction.
7
Extensive Explanation, 280b.2: shes rab mchog dang ldan pa’i slob dpon shākya bshes gnyen gyis
mdzad pa/.
Wedemeyer: Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Canonical Collections’
4
modern scholarship—as well as to the Tibetan tradition8 —though he appears listed
as a major disciple of Nāgārjuna in second-millennium Tibetan historical writings.
There are not to my knowledge any signiicant Centrist (Madhyamaka) works
attributed to an author of this name. I surmise he is considered as such due to his
work, the Unexcelled Intention (Anuttarasaṃdhi), having been redacted as the
second chapter of the Five Stages (Pañcakrama, Rim lnga) attributed to Nāgārjuna.9
Of course, to raise the issue of the authenticity of such a work is already to beg
a variety of questions, if not to set oneself up to shoot ish in a barrel. Given that
the Lamp itself is a work believed by tradition to have been (in some sense at least)
composed by an early-irst-millennium Centrist author, yet not propagated until
the ninth century to which it is reasonably reliably datable;10 and that the
commentary is attributed to yet another igure held to have been a student of
Nāgārjuna, one wonders what kind of “authenticity” one could reasonably speak
of in the irst place: in the eyes of modern historical scholarship neither work is
what it claims to be and thus both are pseudepigrapha and neither can claim to be
authentic in a strict sense.
For our immediate purposes, I will bracket this larger issue of authorial
attribution, and focus instead solely on the more local Tibetan question of whether
or not such works “authentically” belong in the Tibetan Bstan ’gyurs where they
reside. From this perspective, the actual authorship of the works is arguably beside
the point: if held to such a standard, the Bka’ ’gyurs would presumably be empty;
and a fair bit of the Bstan ’gyurs too on rather shaky ground. What is important
from this perspective is whether or not these works are in fact translations of Indian
(or other, approved foreign) scriptures; as such a derivation is, in principle at least,
an indigenous criterion for inclusion in the Bstan ’gyur.11 Though the Lamp itself
8
In his Hermeneutics of the Esoteric Community (Gsang ’dus bshad thabs), Bu ston writes merely
“the biography of Śākyamitra is not told” (shākya bshes gnyen gyi rnam par thar pa mi gsung /); The
Collected Works of Bu-ston [Bu ston], vol. 9 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture,
1967), 32b.7 (64.7).
9
Recent work by Tōru Tomabechi has advanced the notion that this Śākyamitra, author of writings
in the Esoteric Community (Guhyasamāja) tradition, was an early, inluential source for both Vitapāda
and Āryadeva, author of the Lamp. If this is so, it would add further strength, were such needed, to the
arguments I advance below against the authenticity of this attribution. See Tōru Tomabechi, “Vitapāda,
Śākyamitra, and Āryadeva: On a Transitional Stage in the History of Guhyasamāja Exegesis,” in
Esoteric Buddhist Studies: Identity in Diversity, ed. Executive Committee, ICEBS (Koyasan: Koyasan
University, 2008), 171-177.
10
On the dating of the Lamp, see Wedemeyer, Āryadeva’s Lamp, 11-14; on the complex question
of the “traditional view” of this literature, see Wedemeyer, Āryadeva’s Lamp, 15-35.
11
There are, of course, a number of original, indigenous Tibetan works included in the Bstan ’gyurs,
such as the Lta ba’i khyad par of Ye shes sde (Tōh. 4360). Yet, these works form a separate class for
our purposes, since they are explicitly presented as Tibetan works and do not claim Indic (or Sinic)
authorship as the preponderance of other works do. They are, furthermore, segregated in the special
“miscellaneous” (sna tshogs) section. Given that the entries in Bu ston’s catalogs uniformly follow the
format title-author-translator(s)—and the presence of the term “translate” (’gyur) in the titles of both
collections—it seems beyond dispute that being a translated work is a baseline criterion for inclusion
in the collections. See also Bu ston’s comments, below, note 63.
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
5
is certainly “authentic” on this criterion,12 there are clear indications that the
Extensive Explanation is not.
Suspicions of Indigenous Authorities
It is worth noting that several Tibetan authorities also deny the authenticity of the
Extensive Explanation; and none to my knowledge cite the text as an authoritative
source, suggesting it was held in general suspicion by the Tibetan traditions. These
authors, it should be noted, employ yet another criterion for authenticity—one that
collapses the two mentioned above. To be “authentic” in their eyes, a work must
be not only a translation of a real Indian composition, but must be authored by the
person to whom it is attributed. While traditional authors do accept that a Centrist
Śākyamitra could very well have authored such a work, the Extensive Explanation
is not held to be the work of this Śākyamitra. Among those who explicitly express
an opinion, Rje rin po che (Blo bzang grags pa, a.k.a. Tsong kha pa; 1357-1419)
for example suggests that “concerning the commentary on the Lamp that Integrates
the Practices (Caryāmelāpakapradīpa) attributed to Śākyamitra, it is conceivable
that it might just be someone with the same name as that teacher, but it is
unacceptable to suppose that it is the Śākyamitra [who was a] disciple of the Noble
[Nāgārjuna].”13 Much the same is asserted by the seventeenth-century Sa skya
writer ’Jam dgon a myes zhabs (1597-1659), who writes, “also, the one so-called
Śākyamitra who composed a commentary on the Lamp that Integrates the Practices,
is not the same as this [Śākyamitra who was an authentic author of the Esoteric
Community Noble Tradition].14
Establishing Tibetan Authorship of the Extensive Explanation
Thus, a variety of Tibetan religious authorities, while incredulous of the primary
attribution of the Extensive Explanation and dismissive of its contribution to the
literature of the Noble Tradition, are nonetheless willing to allow that this
commentary may have been at least semi-authentic by Tibetan criteria—being the
work of an Indian paṇḍita named Śākyamitra, translated from Sanskrit. My own
12
This is apparent from a number of indications, not least being the extant Sanskrit manuscripts of
this work, corroborated by the fact that it is cited in a number of extant Sanskrit works, such as the
Sekoddeśaṭīkā of Naḍapāda (Nāropā), the anonymous Subhāṣitasaṃgraha, and the Pañcakramaṭippaṇī
of Muniśrībhadra. See Mario E. Carelli, ed., Sekoddeśaṭīkā of Naḍapāda (Nāropa) (Baroda: Oriental
Institute, 1940); Cecil Bendall, ed., Subhāṣitasaṃgraha (Louvain: J.-B. Istas, 1905); and Zhongxin
Jiang & Toru Tomabechi, eds., The Pañcakraṭippaṇī of Muniśrībhadra (Berne: Peter Lang, 1996).
13
Rim lnga gsal sgron [Brilliant Lamp of the Five Stages], 30a.6-30b.1: spyod bsdus kyi ’grel pa
shākya bshes gnyen gyis mdzad zer ba ni slob dpon de dang ming mthun pa tsam yin na ni rung la/
’phags pa’i slob ma shākya bshes gnyen la gor re na ni ye min par ’dug go. In The Collected Works
(Gsuṅ ’bum) of Rje Tsoṅ-kha-pa Blo-bzaṅ-grags-pa [Rje tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa], vol. 11
(New Delhi: Ngawang Gelek Demo, 1978).
14
That is, the Gsang ’dus ’phags lugs, the system of the Esoteric Community exegesis advanced by
Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva. Gsang ’dus chos ’byung, 41b: yang spyod bsdus la ’grel pa mdzad mkhan
gyi shā kya bshes gnyen bya ba gcig byung ba de yang ’di dang mi gcig. ’Jam mgon A myes zhabs
ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams, Dpal gsaṅ ba ’dus pa’i dam pa’i chos byuṅ ba’i tshul legs par bśad
pa gsaṅ ’dus chos kun gsal ba’i nyin byed (Dehradun: Sakya Center, 1985).
Wedemeyer: Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Canonical Collections’
6
reading of the work, however, suggests otherwise. Based on evidence internal to
the commentary itself, it is to me strikingly apparent that it was composed in
Tibetan, by an author whose only knowledge of the Lamp was through the medium
of its eleventh-century Tibetan translation, attributed to Śraddhākaravarman and
Rin chen bzang po.15
Before turning to this evidence, one may observe that the author of the Extensive
Explanation was quite skilled and careful in composing his forgery. He clearly
went to some trouble to make his work read as if it were in fact a translation of a
Sanskrit commentary. For example, there are several places wherein one inds
redundant glosses. That is, the text will gloss a word with a precisely identical one.
Thus, one reads:
1. ‘unreality’ [means] unreality,16
2. ‘pervading the ten directions’ [means] pervading the ten directions,17 and
3. ‘divinity reality’ [means] divinity reality.18
In so doing, the author demonstrates his knowledge of the fact that Tibetan
translators were not infrequently unable to render effectively-synonymous Sanskrit
glosses—which are often near but never actual tautologies—with discrete Tibetan
terms. That is, given the lexical richness of Sanskrit, an author commenting on a
Sanskrit work might offer a gloss such as śoṇitam iti raktaṃ. An elegant (if
interpretative) translation of this gloss—taking advantage of the similar lexical
richness of English—might read “crimson [means] red” (or, “blood [means] gore”).
However, denotatively speaking, this just means “red [means] red;” and, given the
relative lexical poverty of Tibetan, a translation in that language would no doubt
read dmar po ni dmar po ste (or, khrag ni khrag ste). Thus, by providing a number
of such glosses, the author of the Extensive Explanation sought to simulate the
(exhilarating) experience of reading a Tibetan translation of a Sanskrit commentary.
The illusion, however, is far from perfect. Even in the case of such Sanskritic
glosses, it seems our author may have been less than entirely careful. For, in order
to make such glosses realistic, it is necessary to be sensitive to the precise
parameters of the Sanskrit lexicon. While no doubt rich—perhaps even
incomparably so—it does have its limits. The following glosses would appear
overzealous:
1. ‘all things’ [means] all things,19
2. ‘bodhisattva’ [means] bodhisattva.20
15
For a blockprint redaction, see Sde dge Bstan ’gyur, Rgyud ’grel, vol. ngi (Tōh. 1803), 57a.2-106b.7;
for a critically-edited version, see Wedemeyer, Āryadeva’s Lamp, 499-657.
16
Extensive Explanation, 238a.7: dngos po med pa ni dngos po med pa ste/.
17
Extensive Explanation, 264b.7: phyogs bcur rab tu khyab pa ni phyogs bcur rab tu khyab pa’o/.
18
Extensive Explanation, 271a.4-5: lha’i de kho na nyid ni lha’i de kho na nyid do/.
19
Extensive Explanation, 240b.6: chos thams cad ni chos thams cad do/.
20
Extensive Explanation, 242a.2: byang chub sems dpa’ ni byang chub sems dpa’ ste/.
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
7
While one can reasonably reconstruct plausible Sanskrit equivalents for the
three forms encountered previously, viz:
1. abhāva iti niḥsvabhāvaḥ,
2. daśadigvyāpina iti daśadikkalilaḥ, and
3. devatā-tattvam iti amara-tattvam,
these two other examples strike me as highly implausible, if not outright impossible.
The terms being glossed—sarvadharma (“all things”) and bodhisattva—are such
speciic, stock technical expressions that (while they might very well be explained
in a commentary) they would not be subject to glossing in this manner. While it
is possible that one might try to gloss sarvadharma—for example with some
expression like sarvabhāva—these would almost inevitably end up with a
translatable difference, thus: chos thams cad ni dngos po thams cad ste.
There are much more striking laws in this author’s attempts to create the illusion
of Indic origin, however. One’s suspicions are immediately aroused at the outset
of the work, wherein the Sanskrit title is given as *Caryā-samucchaya-pradīpaṃ
Nāma Ṭīkā. Aside from the extraneous inlection of the term pradīpa, what is most
striking is the discrepancy in the central term: samuccaya instead of melāpaka.21
Yet, the fact that the Sanskrit title is mis-constructed is not in itself evidence of
Tibetan authorship—otherwise authentic translations of Indic works do bear false,
reconstructed Sanskrit titles.22 One might consider, for example, the Guhyendutilaka,
an important esoteric scripture cited frequently in extant Sanskrit works, whose
translation bears the title Candra-guhya-tilaka, a name evidently mechanically
reconstructed from the Tibetan title Zla gsang thig le.23
One does not look long for more deinitive proof, however. There are two types
of feature—stylistic and substantive—that point to my conclusion: a) the comments
always follow the word order of the Tibetan translation, not the Sanskrit original,24
and b) several interpretations offered in the commentary can only have been based
21
Note that this title is given in the Sde dge redaction. Peking has a more correct reading, but I will
argue below (see section 5, Local Signiicance) that this is the result of editorial intervention.
22
For one, fairly sanguine, analysis of this issue, see Peter Skilling, “Kanjur Titles and Colophons,”
in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies,
Fagernes, 1992, ed. Per Kværne, vol. 2 (Oslo: The Institute for Comparative Research in Human
Culture, 1994), 768-780.
23
24
See, for example, Tōh. 477 and/or Pek. 111.
While it is no doubt true that, given the complex redactional history of many of its most important
works, the notion of a Sanskrit original (in the singular) may be problematical in many instances of
Indo-Tibetan Buddhist literature, in the case of the Lamp the situation is rather straightforward, making
it an ideal focus for inquiry of this sort (see the use made of it in the analysis of Tibetan translation
methods, textual history, and strategies of legitimating authority in Chr. K. Wedemeyer, “Tantalising
Traces of the Labours of the Lotsāwas: Alternative Translations of Sanskrit Sources in the Writings of
Rje Tsong kha pa,” in Tibetan Buddhist Literature and Praxis: Studies in its Formative Period, 900-1400,
ed. R. M. Davidson and Chr. K. Wedemeyer [Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007], 149-182). This is not,
I would argue, a case wherein eleventh-century Tibetan apples are being compared to nineteenth-century
(Newari) Sanskrit oranges. In the case of the Lamp, the two sole surviving Sanskrit manuscripts are in
quite close concord in terms of their texts and they were produced in roughly the same period as both
the Lo chen Lamp and the Extensive Explanation.
Wedemeyer: Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Canonical Collections’
8
on readings unique to the Tibetan translation of the Lamp. Both features are evident
in the comments on two separate citations of the famous injunction given to the
future Buddha in the enlightenment narrative found in the important Tantra, the
Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha.25 In this esoteric scripture, when the bodhisattva
Sarvārthasiddhi asks, “How shall I ind out what reality is?” (kathaṃ pratipadyāmi
kīdṛśaṃ tattvaṃ), all the Tathāgatas urge him, “Find out, O Noble One, by means
of the meditative focus that attends to your own mind”26 (pratipadyasvai kulaputraii
sva-cittaiii-pratyavekṣaṇaiv-samādhānenav).27
In both instances in the Lo chen translation of the Lamp,28 the element
pratyavekṣaṇaiv has not been rendered in the Tibetan. More remarkable still, a
direct object for the imperative “know/practice” (pratipadyasvai) has been created
by severing the irst element of the instrumental compound (svacitta/rang gi semsiii)
from the rest. The irst instance reads: rigs gi buii mnyam par gzhag pasv rang gi
semsiii so sor rtogs shigi, yielding: “O Noble One, know your own mind by
meditative focus.” The second citation of this line in the Lamp is rendered slightly
differently, though it preserves the same word order and basic syntax. The only
difference is that it renders the object (iii) in the dative/locative rather than the
accusative case: rigs gi buii mnyam par gzhag pasv rang gi sems laiii so sor rtogs
shigi.
A quick glance at the comments on these citations in the Extensive Explanation
reveals the fact that they relect the wording (and attendant interpretation) of the
Tibetan translation:
I: rigs kyi buii zhes pa ni bod pa’o/ mnyam par gzhag pasv rang gi semsiii
so sor rtogs shigi ces pa ni legs par lung bstan pa ste/ mnyam par gzhag
pa ni bsgom pa’o// des rang gi sems so sor rtogs shig ces pa ni sems ci
lta bu yin pa shes par gyis shig pa’o/ (Extensive Explanation, 259b6-7).
25
For Sanskrit edition of Chapter One utilized herein, see Kanjin Horiuchi,
“Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgrahaṃ nāma Mahāyāna-Sūtram,” Kōyasan-Daigaku-Ronsō [Journal of
Koyasan University], vol. III (1968): 35-118, esp. 41.
26
The superscript roman numerals here and following are used to indicate the word-order of the
Sanskrit relative to its renderings in Tibetan.
27
In this context, there is of course some ambiguity concerning the verb prati+√pad (Tib. so sor
rtogs). I am here reading it in its cognitive sense (“to perceive, ind out, discover”), rather than its
praxical sense (“practise, perform, accomplish”). This could also be read as two questions: “how shall
I practice? what is reality?” (this reading is implied by the punctuation added by the editor, viz: kathaṃ
pratipadyāmi? kīdṛśaṃ tattvaṃ?). However, since a) the latter question is not addressed, and b) “knowing
reality” and “practicing enlightenment” are equivalent in this tradition, I think a stronger case can be
made to read this as one question. The Tibetan translations of the Lamp that we will discuss below also
render pratipad in a cognitive sense.
28
This same passage is cited twice—at the beginning and end—of Chapter IV of the Lamp (A:27a
and A:34b). See Wedemeyer, Āryadeva’s Lamp, 395 and 412 (Tib: 555 and 569).
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
9
‘Noble One’ is vocative. ‘Understand your own mind by meditative focus’ is
well-explained [thus]: ‘Meditative focus’ is meditative cultivation (bhāvanā).
‘Understand your own mind by [means of] that’ [means] know mind as it is.
II: mnyam par gzhag pas zhes bya ba ni ting nge ’dzin la snyoms par
’jug pas so/ rang gi sems la so sor rtogs shing [read: shig] zhes pa ni
rang gi sems la nan tan du gyis shig pa ste/ (Extensive Explanation, 265b4).
‘By meditative focus’ [means] by equipoise in samādhi. ‘Understand your
own mind’ [means] be careful with regard to the mind.
Worse still for the credibility of our commentary, the exposition here relects
the inconsistency in the Lo chen translation of the two citations: the irst reading
accusative (rang gi sems) and the latter dative/locative (rang gi sems la). The fact
that the commentary follows not only the variant grammar (and sense) of the
Tibetan translation, but also corresponds exactly to the inconsistent wording of
the translation is strong evidence that it is based on the Lo chen translation, rather
than the Sanskrit original.
Further conirmation comes from two more examples wherein the commentary
follows readings unique to the Tibetan translation. In the prologue to the Lamp,
Āryadeva begins by depicting his literary aim relative to prior works in the same
genre. The point he makes boils down to this: earlier masters wrote using
nigūḍha-śabda, that is “cryptic expressions.” Such a technique, he says, was
appropriate (yukta) for the astute readers of the earlier Kṛta, Tretā, and Dvāpara
Yugas.29 But, he writes, this is no longer possible: in the contemporaneous
context—writing for a rather dull audience in the Kali-yuga—demands that one
write using uttāna-śabda, “straightforward expressions.” The meaning is quite
plain in the Sanskrit. Where Āryadeva’s work reads “appropriate” (yukta), however,
the Lo chen translation reads not the expected rigs, but mi rigs, “inappropriate,”
thus inverting the statement and confusing the entire passage. It is this reading that
the commentary follows.30
A little further on, the commentary addresses Āryadeva’s list of tattvas, or
topics, covered in the Lamp. In Lo chen’s translation, there are ive: a) sngags kyi
de kho na nyid, b) phyag rgya’i de kho na nyid, c) bdag gi de kho na nyid, d) chos
kyi de kho na nyid, and e) lha’i de kho na nyid. The Extensive Explanation follows
this list and glosses them as corresponding to the ive stages of the Noble Tradition
system:31 vajrajāpa, māyā[deha], cittanidhyapti, prabhāsvara, and yuganaddha.32
29
Eras in the evolutionary world cycles which represent successive degeneration of the beings born
therein.
30
Extensive Explanation, 239b4.
31
’Phags lugs: see above, note 14.
32
sngags kyi de kho na nyid ni rdo rje bzlas pa’o/ phyag rgya’i de kho na nyid ni bskyed pa’i rim
pa dang / sgyu lus lta bu’o/ bdag gi de kho na nyid ni sems la dmigs pa’o/ chos kyi de kho na nyid ni
’od gsal ba’o/ lha’i de kho na nyid zung du ’jug pa’i sku’o/ (Extensive Explanation, 240a1). On the
ive stages of the perfection stage, see Wedemeyer, Āryadeva’s Lamp; or A. Wayman, Yoga of the
Guhyasamāja Tantra (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1977).
Wedemeyer: Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Canonical Collections’
10
While this idea is not unreasonable—indeed, absent knowledge of the Sanskrit
work, it is almost intuitive—a thorough knowledge of the Lamp (even solely in
Tibetan) demonstrates that this cannot be the case. First of all, later references in
the Lamp itself indicate that the topics do not so correspond to the stages. Rather,
the inal topic, devatā-tattva, quite explicitly corresponds to the third (not the ifth)
of the ive stages.33 This may merely relect poor (or “creative”) commentary on
the part of “Śākyamitra.”
More to the point, however, both the extant Sanskrit manuscripts have only four
topics, not ive:34 an equivalent for the fourth in the Lo chen Lamp and the Extensive
Explanation’s lists (chos kyi de kho na nyid) does not appear and it is clear that it
does not belong. Indeed, elsewhere in the Tibetan scholarly
tradition—independently corroborating the reading of the Sanskrit manuscripts—the
citation of this passage from the Lamp in Tāranātha’s Great Commentary on the
Five Stages (Rim lnga’i ’grel chen) does not include chos kyi de kho na nyid.35
Hence, we may conclude, the list of ive topics evidently originated in Lo chen’s
translation of the Lamp; and its appearance in the Extensive Explanation provides
further support for the view that the latter was commenting on the former, rather
than a Sanskrit Lamp.
There are numerous other such indications. The commentary glosses kā li as
the “thirty-two consonants,”36 rather than the thirty-three as maintained by the
Indic tradition Āryadeva represents. The homage verse at the outset of the
commentary is in remarkably natural Tibetan, all verbs being clause-inal—unusual
in authentic translations. The author at times fails to grasp idiomatic usage of
Sanskrit verbal preixes (upasarga), glossing rjes su myong ba, that is anu+√bhū,
“to experience,” by phyis myong ba, to “experience later” (a problem that,
regrettably, one still inds in Buddhist translators working solely in a Tibetan
medium).
The coup de grâce, however, is the interpretation the commentary gives of the
title of the work. The central term is melāpaka: an agentive causative, derived from
the root √mil, “to meet.” Thus, my somewhat awkward rendering, the Lamp that
Integrates the Practices. The commentary, however, states: “concerning ‘practice
integration,’ [this means] abbreviating the practices, since [the author] was fearful
of prolixity.”37 What one sees here is a Tibetan author explaining the meaning of
the Tibetan term bsdus, which serves to render melāpaka in the Tibetan translation
of the title. In one of its meanings (the one explicitly referenced by the author of
33
Lamp, 40b; see Wedemeyer, Āryadeva’s Lamp, 244, 427-8, 581-2.
34
Lamp A:2a: mantra-tattvaṃ mudrā-tattvaṃ ātma-tattvaṃ devatā-tattvaṃ; see Wedemeyer,
Āryadeva’s Lamp, 338.
35
See Tāranātha, Rim lṅa’i ’grel chen rdo rje ’chang chen po’i dgongs pa [Rim lnga’i ’grel chen
rdo rje ’chang chen po’i dgongs pa]: A Detailed Commentary on the Pañcakrama Instructions on the
Practice of the Guhyasamāja Tantra (Thimpu: Kunsang Topgey, 1976), 3a1.
36
37
Extensive Explanation, 242b5: kā li ni gsal byed sum cu rtsa gnyis te/.
Extensive Explanation, 245a2: spyod pa bsdus pa ni spyod pa nyung du byas pa ste/ gzhung rgyas
pas ’jigs pa’o/.
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
11
the commentary), bsdus means “the opposite of vast” (rgyas pa’i ldog phyogs).38
Melāpaka, as we have seen, corresponds to another of the meanings of bsdus, to
wit “to come or approach together, to meet, to interlace.”39 This reading serves to
explain the erroneous Sanskrit title given in the Sde dge Bstan ’gyur: Caryasamucchaya-pradīpaṃ Nāma Ṭīkā. Of course, samuccaya does not mean
“abbreviated” either, but it is precisely the “reconstruction” one would expect for
bsdus, if one were concocted by a Tibetan. Given that this interpretation is offered
by the work itself, one is forced to conclude that the title given in the Sde dge Bstan
’gyur is original, and the more correct title found in the Peking Bstan ’gyur40 is
the result of editorial intervention.
In short, based on the above observations, the commentary on the Lamp
attributed to Śākyamitra may fairly conidently be classiied as an indigenous
Tibetan work to which Indic origins and authorship have been attributed. There
are types of mistakes that cannot derive from any other cause than “Tibeto-phony”
(a term that, though undoubtedly awkward, is rather apt in this case).
Local Signiicance
Now, as esoteric Buddhist scholastic literature is not a ield that generates
tremendous interest, many (if not most) readers will hitherto have been (perhaps
blissfully) unaware of either the existence of the Lamp or its importance in the
history of Buddhist thought, much less of the Extensive Explanation. Why, then,
one might well wonder, should we take notice of a spurious commentary that
(having been rejected and/or ignored by later Tibetan writers) has had seemingly
no impact on later Tibetan intellectual history? This is an important and entirely
valid question; so a few words on the implications of this fact are in order.
One thing I do not mean to suggest is that, since the Extensive Explanation is
an indigenous Tibetan work masquerading as an Indic commentary, it is not worthy
of study. It is, of course, useless as a direct witness to Indian commentary on the
Lamp or to the oeuvre of an Indic author or authors named Śākyamitra. However,
it does hold interest both in its own right (as a product of the Tibetan religious
genius) and as an object lesson in the (evidently rather forgiving) standards applied
to works considered for inclusion in the Tibetan Bstan ’gyurs.
A large part of the local signiicance of the work will depend on where and
when we can locate its composition. Who wrote this text, for whom, and why?
Regrettably, my own study has not progressed to the point where I can give a
conident answer to these questions, though some speculation is possible. Given
its demonstrated dependence on the Lo chen translation, the terminus post quem
38
Zhang Yisun, Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo (Pe cin: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1985), 1489.
39
’Dzoms par byed pa: Tshig dzod chen mo, 1470; deinition of ’dzom pa drawn from Sarat Candra
Das, ed., A Tibetan-English Dictionary with Sanskrit Synonyms (Kyoto: Rinsen Book Company, 1993
[1902]), 1056.
40
Sanskrit title in Peking Bstan ’gyur: Carya-melāpana-pradīpi [read: Paṃ] Nāma Ṭīkā.
Wedemeyer: Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Canonical Collections’
12
of the work is late-tenth/early-eleventh century,41 while the reference to it in the
two catalogs of the Bstan ’gyur42 by Bu ston (1290-1364) provides a terminus ante
quem in at least the early fourteenth century. There are archaisms, however, that
suggest it may be the product of an early phase of the Later Diffusion (phyi dar).
For instance, it categorizes the Tantras using the four-fold classiication, Bya rgyud,
Spyod rgyud, Gnyis ka’i rgyud, and Rnal ’byor bla ma’i rgyud (what can be
reconstructed as Kriyā-tantra, Caryā-tantra, Ubhaya-tantra, and Yogottara-tantra).
The usage of this schema suggests the work predates the hegemony of the late
New Translation Movement (Gsar ma) classiication that concludes with Rnal
’byor and Rnal ’byor bla med rgyud (Yoga-tantra and Yoga-niruttara tantra). While
there is always the possibility that this is an intentional archaism deployed as
camoulage—much like the ersatz glosses mentioned above—it may in fact relect
a date of composition in the late eleventh century, not long after Lo chen’s
translation of the Lamp was completed. Jacob Dalton has recently argued that the
hegemonic New Translation Movement formulation did not come into vogue until
perhaps the twelfth century,43 which would suggest we locate the composition of
the Extensive Explanation ca. 1050-1150.
This may be somewhat further corroborated, moreover, by what one might call
a marked monkish conservatism in the trend of the commentary that suggests some
afinity with the delicate sensibilities fostered in oficial Buddhist discourse of
Western Tibet during the reigns of Zhi ba ’od (1016-1111) and his grand-uncle
Ye shes ’od, contemporaneously or immediately anterior to the period to which
we have referred the Extensive Explanation.44 It is worth noting that this treatment
stands in rather marked contrast to the mode of Lamp exegesis advanced by Lo
chen’s contemporary, ’Gos khug pa lhas btsas, whose monumental Survey of the
Esoteric Community (Gsang ’dus stong thun)45 had already established the Lamp
as an authoritative source for Tibetan intellectuals of this period.
For instance, the somewhat antinomian analysis of karma (las) in Chapter Five
of the Lamp is rather eviscerated in its treatment by the commentator. The upshot
of Āryadeva’s analysis is that, since the processes of karmic virtue and non-virtue
41
More likely early eleventh since, as Vogel has noted, “from [the testimony of Sum pa mkhan po]
it would seem that Rin chen bzang po started his translations at a comparatively late date…between
the years 1013 and 1055.” See Claus Vogel, Vāgbhaṭa’s “Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā”: The First Five
Chapters of its Tibetan Version (Wiesbaden: Kommissionsverlag Franz Steiner Gmbh, 1965), 20-21.
42
The History of Buddhism (Chos ’byung) catalog was completed in 1322; the catalog of the Zhwa
lu manuscript Bstan ’gyur in 1335.
43
Jacob Dalton, “A Crisis of Doxography: How Tibetans Organized Tantra during the 8th-12th
Centuries,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 28, no. 1 (2005): 115-181.
44
See Samten Karmay, “The Ordinance of lHa Bla-ma Ye-shes-’od” and “An Open Letter by
Pho-brang Zhi-ba-’od” in Karmay, The Arrow and the Spindle: Studies in the History, Myths, Rituals
and Beliefs in Tibet (Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point, 1998), 3-16 and 17-40.
45
’Gos Lo-tsā-ba Khug-pa Lhas-btsas [’Gos lo tsA ba khug pa lhas btsas], gSaṅ ’dus stoṅ thun
[Gsang ’dus stong thun] (New Delhi: Trayang, 1973). On ’Gos and his work, see my “Sex, Death, and
‘Reform’ in Eleventh-century Tibetan Buddhist Esoterism: ’Gos khug pa lhas btsas, spyod pa (caryā),
and mngon par spyod pa (abhicāra),” in Sucāruvādadeśika: A Festschrift Honoring Prof. Theodore
Riccardi, Jr., ed. Todd T. Lewis and Bruce Owens, forthcoming.
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
13
are fundamentally predicated on the deeper processes of the subtle mind, the Tantric
hero attains enlightenment—not by focusing on virtuous action—but through yogic
intervention into the subtle mind. While the commentator does not contradict this
point per se, he gives a much more conventional, Prajñāpāramitā-style
interpretation of the antinomian implications (based on appeal to the superiority
of non-conceptual gnosis) and avails himself of every opportunity to include rather
conventional excurses on Buddhistic ethics.46 Furthermore, though the Lamp itself
cites esoteric scriptural authorities that suggest that monks (bhikṣu, dge slong) are
not ideal vessels for Tantric teachings47 (or, at least, for undertaking the antinomian
practices of the mad vow [caryāvrata or unmattavrata])48 the commentary
nonetheless encourages such monk-practitioners as particularly, if not exclusively,
qualiied to “attain the supreme secret.”49
Most notably perhaps, the author explicitly avoids all discussion of the racy
topic of the antinomian practices (Caryā) to which the last three chapters of the
Lamp—practically a third of the work—are devoted and to which the title of the
work itself refers.50 The commentary ends when it gets to these chapters, the author
excusing himself rather hastily saying: “concerning the three practices, and the
like: because they are easy to understand, I fear prolixity, and other teachers have
explained them at length, I will not discuss them.”51 It is hard to imagine three
more disingenuous reasons for refraining from commenting on these chapters and
this important aspect of the praxis of the higher Tantras. If they were so easy to
understand, one doubts that Āryadeva himself would have spent so much time
elaborating them in the Lamp; nor presumably would Lo chen’s contemporary,
the aforementioned ’Gos khug pa lhas btsas, have devoted forty-three folios (or
roughly 16 percent) of his Survey of the Esoteric Community52 or (later) Tsong kha
pa roughly 10 percent (thirty-six folios) of his Brilliant Lamp of the Five Stages53
46
Extensive Explanation, 266a3-271a3.
47
The Lamp, A:55b: “The Lord said: Those who remain in the state of a monk,/ Those men who
delight in logical disputation,/ And those who are aged—/ One should not teach reality to them” (uktaṃ
bhagavatā//_bhikṣu-bhāve sthitā ye tu ye tu tarka-ratā narāḥ/_vṛddha-bhāve sthitā ye tu teṣāṃ tattvaṃ
na deśayed iti/); see Wedemeyer, Āryadeva’s Lamp, 283, 462, 616-17.
48
On caryāvrata/unmattavrata, compare Christian K. Wedemeyer, “Locating Tantric Antinomianism:
An Essay Toward an Intellectual History of the ‘Practices/Practice Observance’ (caryā/caryāvrata),”
Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, forthcoming; or Christian K. Wedemeyer,
“Antinomianism and Gradualism: On the Contextualization of the Practices of Sensual Enjoyment
(caryā) in the Guhyasamāja Ārya Tradition,” Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies, New
Series, no. 3 (2002): 181-195.
49
Extensive Explanation, 259a3-6.
50
I argue that the word “practice” in the title The Lamp that Integrates the Practices is to be taken
in the restricted sense as referring speciically to these special, antinomian observances. See Wedemeyer,
Āryadeva’s Lamp, 54-56.
51
Extensive Explanation, 280a6-7: spyod pa rnam pa gsum la sogs pa ni go sla ba nyid dang / gzhung
rgyas pas ’jigs pa dang / slob dpon gzhan gyis kyang rgyas par bshad pa nyid kyi phyir bdag gis ni
ma bshad do/.
52
See note 44, above.
53
See note 13, above.
Wedemeyer: Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Canonical Collections’
14
to this topic. “Fearing prolixity” is a common dodge in both Indian and Tibetan
commentary, but one doubts that (having spent a mere forty-three folios to comment
on a ifty-folio root text) this was a serious concern of the author. Since ’Gos had
presumably already produced his extensive work on this topic, it is indeed possible
that the Extensive Explanation’s author could have been referring to this work, but
since the authorial personality is supposed to have been the Indian Śākyamitra,54
and I know of no other prior Indian treatment of the three-fold antinomian practice
(trividhā caryā; spyod pa rnam pa gsum) at any great length, this reason too appears
rather limsy. Rather, I suspect the author was self-consciously elaborating a more
conservative interpretation of the Lamp than that represented by ’Gos.
One may speculate, then, that this commentary represents one salvo in the
late-eleventh/early-twelfth-century Tibetan Buddhist “culture wars,” seeking to
advance a more moderate take on the Tantric system of Nāgārjuna than represented
in Indic śāstras such as the Lamp. Perhaps, we might further hypothesize, the
author was a court-sponsored translator/teacher, charged with creating a
commentarial digest of the authoritative Tantric teachings of Āryadeva, freed of
its antinomian strains. Such a work could be quite useful, insofar as the Lamp is
remarkable for its erudite marshalling of mainstream Universal Way scholasticism
in elaboration and defense of the teachings of the Esoteric Community: a real tour
de force as a Tantric śāstra and quite inluential as a result. One could well imagine
that an emergent Tibetan Buddhist court—intrigued by the potentialities offered
by the ritual system of the Mahāyoga Tantras, yet concerned that its antinomian
rhetorics not sow ethical confusion in the public square—would be grateful for an
entirely scholastic presentation attributable to a renowned Indic authority.
If these premises are cogent, I would further advance the hypothesis that the
author of the Extensive Explanation may have been none other than Ba ri lo tsā ba
rin chen grags (1040-1111). This eminent translator lourished precisely in the late
eleventh/early twelfth centuries to which I have tentatively dated the Extensive
Explanation. He served in an oficial capacity in the burgeoning (if still somewhat
provincial) center of Sa skya—acting as abbot and administering the monastic
estates during the minority of his student, Sa chen kun dga’ snying po55 —and was
a junior contemporary of the West Tibetan King of Gu ge/Pu hrang, Zhi ba ’od,
mentioned above as manifesting an ambivalent oficial relationship to esoteric
Buddhism.56 Notably, Bu ston’s Catalog of the Tengyur attributes the Zhwa lu
manuscript Bstan ’gyur “translation” of the Extensive Explanation to Ba ri lo tsā
54
Though Bu ston himself, in the Catalog of the Tengyur (Bstan ’gyur dkar chag; 120a), speciies
that the colophons of the items in his new collection were frequently altered, based on other sources,
I don’t believe it possible that the Extensive Explanation could therefore be a Tibetan work subsequently
attributed to an Indian paṇḍita. The ersatz glosses examined above speak strongly for the view that the
pretense to Indic authorship must have originated with the author.
55
On Ba ri lo tsā ba, see Mkhas dbang dung dkar blo bzang ’phrin las mchog gis mdzad pa’i bod
rig pa’i tshig mdzod chen mo shes bya rab gsal zhes bya ba (Krung go: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe
skrun khang, 2002), 1378; and Ronald M. Davidson, Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the
Rebirth of Tibetan Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 295-99.
56
See note 43, above.
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
15
Ba.57 Further, since Ba ri lo tsā ba is known to have translated a Cakrasaṃvara
commentary, certain tendencies toward the Yoginītantras in the Extensive
Explanation would be thereby explained (for example, its reference to the “four
wheels,” a category not native to the system of Āryadeva). Of course, more careful
study of Ba ri lo tsā ba and his work is required to test this hypothesis, but he does
have the right proile, right time, and documented connection both to a signiicant
center of Tibetan polity as well as to the very work in question.
Broader Signiicance Regarding Bstan ’gyur Studies
There remains the question of how such an “inauthentic” work got into the Bstan
’gyurs in the irst place. Given Bu ston’s nefarious exclusion of certain Rnying
ma Tantras from the Bka’ ’gyur proper,58 one might legitimately wonder how such
an apparently bogus śāstra made the cut? Though Ronald Davidson, for example,
claims that “Tibetans, even with Sa skya paṇḍita’s background in Indian languages,
had some dificulty identifying which texts were authored in India, and which were
composed in Tibet or elsewhere,”59 I think a different factor was at work.
Though the Bka’ ’gyur was a site of fairly intense ideological struggle—resulting
in the exclusion or marginalization of some contested works60 —in the case of the
57
Bstan ’gyur dkar chag [Catalog of the Tengyur], 34a6-7: spyod bsdus sgron ma’i bshad pa slob
dpon shā kya bshes gnyen gyis mdzad pa … d-ī paṃ ka ra rakṣhi ta dang lams pa [read: khams pa]
ba ri lo tsā’i ’gyur/. Thanks to Dan Martin for pointing out the correct reading of Khams pa (Region
of Eastern Tibet) in the above. Dung dkar tshig mdzod (p. 1378) notes that, although Ba ri rin chen
grags was likely born in Stod mnga’ ris, some sources say that he was born in Khams (khams su ’khrungs
zhes pa’ang snang /).
58
Bu ston describes his policy at the conclusion of his Catalog of the Tantras: “[I have] added the
Tantras [and their] ancillaries that were not included in previous collections of the Tantras; those that
are certainly not Tantras, [I have] excluded; those that are dubious [I have], as before, set aside [yet]
included.” This last category, presumably, refers to the Old Tantras that he set aside in the Rnying
rgyud volumes. See Rgyud ’bum dkar chag in The Collected Works of Bu-ston [Bu ston], Part 26 (vol.
la), 399: sngar gyi rgyud ’bum rnams su ma chud pa’i rgyud yan lag rnams bsnan/ rgyud ma yin par
thag chod pa rnams phyung / the tshom za ba rnams sngar bzhin du bzhag nas bris so/; or Helmut
Eimer, Der Tantra-Katalog des Bu ston im Vergleich mit der Abteilung Tantra des tibetischen Kanjur
(Bonn: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1989), 124. It may be noted, however, that this policy was apparently
not original to Bu ston, but was adopted from at least one of his prototypes. The Tantra Catalog (Kye’i
rdo rje’i rgyud ’bum gyi dkar chag) of Rje btsun grags pa rgyal mtshan (1147-1216) includes the early
translations of the Esoteric Scriptures (Sngags snga ’gyur) in a sixth and inal section after the four
major Tantra classes (nos. 1-4) and the worldly Tantras (no. 5). Somewhat more charitably, the Tantra
Catalog (Rgyud sde’i dkar chag) of ’Phags pa blo gros rgyal mtshan inverts the order of these two,
placing the early Tantras before/above the worldly Tantras. On these works, see Helmut Eimer, “A
Source for the First Narthang Kanjur: Two Early Sa skya pa Catalogues of the Tantras,” in Transmission
of the Tibetan Canon: Papers Presented at a Panel of the 7th Seminar of the International Association
for Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995, ed. H. Eimer (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1997), 11-78, esp. 12-13.
59
Ronald M. Davidson, “Gsar ma Apocrypha: The Creation of Orthodoxy, Gray Texts, and the New
Revelation,” in The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism, ed. H. Eimer and D. Germano
(Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2002), 211.
60
Peter Skilling writes, “For the Tantras, the authenticity of the original Indic text and the legitimacy
of the translation (guaranteed by transmission from an Indian master) was a matter of great importance
to the Tibetans, and texts deemed spurious were rejected by Bu ston (and others).” Peter Skilling, “From
Wedemeyer: Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Canonical Collections’
16
Bstan ’gyur there seems instead to have been a marked tendency toward inclusion.
In his Catalog of the Tengyur, Bu ston several times mentions having included
works merely on the basis of precedent: that is, the precedent of having been
included in previous catalogs of the canons.61 For instance, concerning a Five
Stages commentary attributed to *Nāgabodhi, he writes: “although it is a fake,
since earlier [editors] inscribed it [in the canon, I also] do.”62 Likewise, explicitly
addressing the issue of Tibetan forgeries, he writes “concerning the commentary
ascribed to Āryadeva on the irst chapter of the Pradīpoddyotana, although this is
likely a Tibetan [work], since my predecessors inscribed it [in the canon], I have
put it in.”63 On the other hand, Bu ston elsewhere mentions the case of another
Five Stages commentary that he suspects may be a pseudepigraph, but which he
has included nonetheless based on its seemingly Indic authorship.64
Bu ston, however, does not mention any such qualms regarding the Extensive
Explanation. In neither the briefer “Catalog Section” of his History of Buddhism
nor in the Catalog of the Tengyur, does Bu ston raise any doubts about the work,
merely describing it as “composed by Śākyamitra”65 —a formulation that, without
other qualiication, may be taken to imply his assent to the attribution. Given his
frequent suspicion of other works in the same Esoteric Community genre—some
bKa’ bstan bcos to bKa’ ’gyur and bsTan ’gyur,” in Transmission of the Tibetan Canon, ed. H. Eimer,
100 n. 96.
61
At the end of the “Catalog Section” of his History of Buddhism, Bu ston mentions several of these
previous catalogs by name: pho brang stong thang ldan dkar gyi dkar chag dang / de’i rjes kyi bsam
yas mchims phu’i dkar chag dang / de’i rjes kyi ’phang thang ka med kyi dkar chag dang / phyis snar
thang gi bstan bcos ’gyur ro cog gi dkar chag dang / lo tsā ba chen pos bsgyur ba dang mdzad pa’i
dkar chag dang / klu mes la sogs pa’i mdo rgyud kyi rnam dbye dang khrigs kyi dkar chag; Bu ston,
Chos ’byung [History of Buddhism] (Krung go: Krung go bod kyi shes rig dpe skrun khang, 1988),
314.
62
Bu ston, Bstan ’gyur dkar chag, 34a5-6: mdzun ma yin par ’dug na’ang sngar kyi rnams kyis
kyang bris ’dug pas bris so/.
63
Bu ston, Bstan ’gyur dkar chag, 32a5-6: sgron gsal le’u dang po’i ’grel bshad slob dpon ’phags
pa lhas mdzad zer ba ni/ ’di bod ma ’dra bar ’dug na’ang sngar rnams kyis bris ’dug pas bzhugs su
bcug pa yin/.
64
The work in question is the Jewel Garland Commentary on the Five Stages (Nor bu’i phreng ba,
*Maṇimālā) attributed to the authorship of *Nāgabodhi/Nāgabuddhi and the translator team of Paṇḍita
Karmavajra and Lo tsā ba gzhon nu tshul khrims; Bu ston writes “although it is dubious whether this
is or is not the work of Ācārya Nāgabodhi, since it is the work of an Indian paṇḍita, I have inscribed
it [in the canon]” (’di slob dpon klu byang gis mdzad ma mdzad the tshom za bar ’dug na’ang rgya
gar gyi paṇḍi tas byas par ’dug pas bris so/); Bstan ’gyur dkar chag, 34a2 (467.2). Since this paper
was delivered in 2005, Leonard van der Kuijp has since assembled similar materials demonstrating
that this commentary and one other attributed to *Nāgabodhi/Nāgabuddhi included in the Bstan ’gyur
are similarly Tibetan pseudepigrapha. See L. W. J. van der Kuijp, “*Nāgabodhi/Nāgabuddhi: Notes
on the Guhyasamāja Literature,” in Pramāṇakīrtiḥ: Papers Dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the
Occasion of his 70th Birthday, ed. B. Kellner, H. Krasser, et al. (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und
Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2007), 1001-1022.
65
Bu ston, Bstan ’gyur dkar chag, 34a6-7: spyod bsdus sgron ma’i bshad pa slob dpon shākya bshes
gnyen gyis mdzad pa…dīpaṃ ka ra rakṣhita dang / lams pa [read: khams pa] ba ri lo tsā’i ’gyur/. Bu
ston, History of Buddhism: slob dpon ’phags pa lhas mdzad pa’i spyod pa bsdus pa’i sgron ma rin
chen bzang po’i ’gyur/ de’i bshad pa slob dpon shākya bshes gnyen gyis mdzad pa/. See Soshū
Nishioka, “Index to the Catalogue Section of Bu-ston’s ‘History of Buddhism’ (III),” Annual Report
of the Institute for the Study of Cultural Exchange, No. 6 (1983): 83.
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
17
of which he explicitly states appear to be Tibetan compositions66 —one wonders
how he could have let this one past. Insofar as Bu ston nowhere cites this
commentary in his own extensive writings, one reasonable hypothesis is that he
acquired the text rather late in the process of re-editing the Bstan ’gyur—one may
recall in this regard that he is said to have added one thousand works to the
collection67 —and thus included this commentary without having read it thoroughly;
or, if I am right about its Sa skya origins, it may well have been included due to
local precedent, rather than that of earlier catalogs.
However that may be, it is clear that—regardless of what Bu ston may have
thought of the provenance of the work—his general policy in editing the Bstan
’gyur seems to have been to include practically any reasonable candidate: the goal
was comprehensiveness, not authoritativeness. At the conclusion of the “Catalog
Section” of his History of Buddhism, Bu ston writes of the experience of compiling
the canonical collections, clearly articulating both his deference to precedent in
retaining works found in previous catalogs and his drive to expand the scope of
the collections so as to be as comprehensive as possible:
[Working] on the basis of the [earlier catalogs of Ldan dkar, Bsam yas, ’Phang
thang, and so forth], I added and inscribed [many works] in the Catalog: later
translations, those among the exemplars of the various monasteries seen to be
appropriate that had not previously been included, and those which I was orally
assured were authentic. Here, there are extremely few which should be excluded
and still many stainless scriptures and commentaries to be added.68
Consequently, it may safely be asserted that, apart from the notable exception
of his qualms about the Old Tantras—itself based on a general (and by no means
unique) desire for the works included to be of authentically Indic derivation69 —Bu
ston’s editorial policy was one of general inclusivity and progressive augmentation
66
Once again, in a different context: “the commentary on [Candrakīrti’s] Pradīpoddyotana said to
have been written by Āryadeva appears to have been composed by a Tibetan; one might consider
whether it were Rngog Āryadeva” (ā rya de ba’i mdzad zer ba’i sgron gsal gyi ’grel bshad ni// bod
gcig gis byas par snang ngo / rngog ā rya de ba yin nam brtag par bya’o/). Bu ston rin po che, Gsang
’dus bshad thabs [Hermeneutics of the Esoteric Community], in The Collected Works of Bu-ston [Bu
ston], vol. 9 (New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1967), 36b3 (72.3).
67
Bu ston writes, “[We] edited the exemplar of the Bstan ’gyur located in the Great Dharma College
of Snar thang, and sought out rare exemplaria not found there and new translations in the larger and
smaller dharma colleges of Dbus and Gtsang. Adding about one thousand new scriptures and eliminating
all the duplicates among the exemplaria, there were 3,392 outstandingly excellent treatises”; Bstan
’gyur dkar chag, vol. la, 119b1-3 (638.1-3): chos grwa chen po snar thang na bzhugs pa’i bstan bcos
’gyur ro ’tshal la phyi mo zhus shing/ de na ma bzhugs pa’i phyi mo dkon pa dang / gsar du ’gyur ba
rnams/ dbus gtsang gi chos grwa che chung rnams nas ’bad pa chen pos btsal te/ chos kyi rnam grangs
stong phrag gcig tsam bsnan zhing / phyi mo na bzhugs pa’i zlos pa kun dor nas/ khyad par du ’phags
pa’i bstan bcos stong phrag gsum dang gsum brgya dgu bcu rtsa gnyis bzhugs so//.
68
De’i steng du phyis ’gyur ba dang / dgon pa so so’i dpe ci rigs par mthong ba’i nang nas ma chud
pa ji snyed dang / tshad mar gyur pa’i ngag las thos pa rnams bsnan nas dkar chag tu bris pa’o/ ’di
la dor bar bya ba shin tu nyung zhing dri ma med pa’i bka’ bstan bcos rnyed na da dung mang du
bsnan par bya’o/; Bu ston chos ’byung, 314.
69
See note 63, above.
Wedemeyer: Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Canonical Collections’
18
of the canonical collections. He sought to include everything he could—many of
which items were included merely on the basis of oral assurances of the custodians
of the original manuscripts found scattered among various monasteries.
Summary
It is well known, of course, that the several Bstan ’gyurs contain translations of
Indic pseudepigrapha: Sanskrit works not composed by the Indian authors to whom
they are attributed. More recently, scholarship has turned its attention to a second
phenomenon: so-called “gray texts” of mixed Indic and Tibetan derivation.70 In
addition to these categories, it is manifest that the Bstan ’gyurs also contain what
(on the same analogy) one might call “black texts” (or, at least, dark gray)—works
that are not only pseudepigrapha, but whose authorship is indubitably Tibetan, that
were not translated but composed in Tibetan, yet were nonetheless included in the
canonical collections due, among other factors, to the power of the status quo. All
of these varieties of Tibetan literature are, of course, equally worthy of our attention
as scholars.
The presence of such “black texts,” however, also recommends that scholars
take extra care to approach the contents of the Bstan ’gyur with a thoroughgoing
skepticism. Beyond the more elementary—though still common—mistake of
referring to Tibetan canonical translations as “Indian” rather than “Indic” works,71
the presence in the Bstan ’gyurs of indigenous Tibetan compositions that claim to
be translations demonstrates the error of even this latter formulation (at least if
uncorroborated by other evidence). Though the relative proportion of Indic to
non-Indic material suggests a signiicant difference of degree, the Extensive
Explanation reminds us that the Bstan ’gyurs (as indeed, the Bka’ ’gyurs) are not
different in kind from collections such as the Old Tantra Collections (Rnying ma’i
rgyud ’bum), which have aptly been described by David Germano as “complex
mix[es] of translations, original Tibetan compositions, and literary products falling
somewhere in between.”72 As we have seen, inclusion in a Bstan ’gyur is by no
means an indication even that early-second-millennium Tibetan intellectuals
considered a work either an authentic Indian source—or even of much
authority—much less an indication that they represent authentic translations. What
it does seem to mark is that someone at some time made such a claim, but little or
no more than that.
70
See especially the articles in the second part, “Canons at the Boundaries: The Rnying ma Tantras
and Shades of Gray between the Early and Late Translations,” in The Many Canons, ed. Eimer and
Germano, 199-376.
71
72
They are, after all, Tibetan artifacts, not Indian.
David Germano, “Canons at the Boundaries: The Rnying ma Tantras and Shades of Gray between
the Early and Late Translations,” in The Many Canons, ed. Eimer and Germano, 201.
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
19
Unlike Thrasyllus’ Plato,73 in the Bstan ’gyur the dubious and/or spurious works
were not set aside, but merely included unmarked and interleaved with more
authentic literature. The Tibetan bibliographers were careful, however, to lag them
as such in the catalogs. The catalogs such as Bu ston’s were thus indispensable
reference tools for those within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition who sought to make
critical use of the Bka’ ’gyurs and Bstan ’gyurs. Similarly, it is no accident, I
believe, that the scholastic works of Tibetan intellectuals of this and the period
immediately following typically devote considerable attention to determining from
among the many religious documents available in the newly redacted canonical
collections which were the authoritative local “canons” of study and practice.
Tibetan scholars of this period, in writing on their respective traditions, were careful
to survey the literature before advancing their interpretations: often drawing on
the catalogs in doing so, but also engaging and supplementing those considerations
with their own arguments for and against authenticity and authority. Hence, scholars
must not neglect to take full advantage of the catalogs and of Tibetan scholia, both
of which are sine qua non for properly critical research on the canonical collections.
As Peter Skilling has indicated, “up until the early 14th century…the scripture
collection of an individual [Tibetan] monastery would…have been unique,
incomplete, and unsystematic, a product more of accretion than deliberate
compilation.”74 In this climate, it seems, the impulse of the compilers of the
canonical collections was more on the order of addressing the incompleteness of
regional holdings than an attempt to advance a strongly normative stance about
the authenticity of the works contained therein.75
Thus, in utilizing the term “canonical collections” for the Bka’ ’gyurs and Bstan
’gyurs, we must take care to stress that this does not refer to a canon in the strong
sense of collections that are based on and subsequently serve as criteria for religious
authenticity and authority. Close attention to the contents, the editorial policies
articulated by their redactors, and the evidence of their reception and utilization
by the Tibetan intellectual élite reveal their ad hoc, eclectic, and indeed (somewhat)
ecumenical nature. Rather than “canons,” they appear in a sense as somewhat akin
to our contemporary classical libraries—minimally edited, inclusive of signiicant
pseudepigrapha, and with a drive toward the comprehensive—something on the
order of a Zhwa lu Classical Library or Snar thang Classical Series, “Dr. Rin chen
grags’s ifty-foot shelf of books.”
73
Adumbrating Bu ston’s policy for the Bka’ ’gyurs, the aforementioned Thrasyllus included in his
edition of Plato’s works not only those he considered authentic, but he appended a set of works he
considered spurious in a separate section. See Plato: Complete Works, ed. Cooper and Hutchinson, ix.
74
Skilling, “From bKa’ bstan bcos to bKa’ ’gyur and bsTan ’gyur,” in Transmission of the Tibetan
Canon, ed. Eimer, 98-99.
75
In this regard, one might also consider the inclusion of works such as Dpal ’khor lo bde mchog
’byung ba zhes bya ba’i dkyil ’khor gyi cho ga, a translation of Bhūvācārya’s Saṃvarodayā Nāma
Maṇḍalopāyikā, of which Péter-Dániel Szántó has commented that it “is unsigned and of such a low
quality that I am inclined to believe that it is no more than a rough irst attempt which somehow found
its way into the Canon.” See “Antiquarian Enquiries into the Initiation Manuals of the Catuṣpīṭha,”
Newsletter of the NGMCP, no. 6 (Spring-Summer 2008): 4.
Wedemeyer: Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Canonical Collections’
20
Glossary
Note: these glossary entries are organized in Tibetan alphabetical order. All entries
list the following information in this order: THL Extended Wylie transliteration
of the term, THL Phonetic rendering of the term, the English translation, the
Sanskrit equivalent, the Chinese equivalent, other equivalents such as Mongolian
or Latin, associated dates, and the type of term.
Ka
Wylie
Phonetics
English
Other
Dates
Type
kā li
kali
consonants
kye’i rdo rje’i rgyud
’bum gyi dkar chag
Kyé Dorjé Gyübumgyi Tantra Catalog
Karchak
Text
krung go
Trunggo
Publication
Place
Term
krung go bod kyi shes Trunggo Bökyi Sherik
rig dpe skrun khang Petrünkhang
Publisher
krung go’i bod rig pa Trunggö Bö Rikpa
Petrünkhang
dpe skrun khang
Publisher
bka’ ’gyur
Title collection
Kangyur
Kha
Wylie
Phonetics
English
khams
Kham
Region of Eastern
Tibet
Other
Dates
Type
Place
khams pa
Khampa
Eastern Tibetan
Generic name
mkhas dbang dung
dkar blo bzang ’phrin
las mchog gis mdzad
pa’i bod rig pa’i tshig
mdzod chen mo shes
bya rab gsal zhes bya
ba
Kewang Dungkar
Lozang Trinlé Chokgi
Zepé Börikpé Tsikdzö
Chemo Sheja Rapsel
Zhejawa
“Clarity”: The
Great Encyclopedia
of Tibetan Culture
by Kewang
Dungkar Lozang
Trinlé
Text
’khor lo sdom pa
Khorlo Dompa
Wheel Vow
San. Cakrasaṃvara
Wylie
Phonetics
English
Other
gu ge
Gugé
dge long
gelong
monk
San. bhikṣu
’gos
Gö
Clan
’gos khug pa lhas
btsas
Gö Khukpa Lhetsé
Person
Text
Ga
Dates
Type
Place
’gos lo tsā ba khug pa Gö Lotsawa Khukpa
Lhetsé
lhas btsas
Term
Author
’gyur
gyur
translate
Term
rgyas pa’i ldog
phyogs
gyepé dokchok
the opposite of vast
Term
rgyud ’grel
Gyündrel
Tantric
Commentary
Textual Group
catalog of the
Tantra Collection
Text
rgyud sde’i dkar chag Gyüdé Karchak
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
rgyud ’bum dkar chag Gyübum Karchak
Tantra Catalog
21
Text
Nga
Wylie
Phonetics
English
Other
Dates
ngi
rngog
Volume
number
Ngok
Clan
sngags kyi de kho na ngakkyi dekho nanyi mantra reality
nyid
sngags snga ’gyur
Type
Ngak Ngangyur
early translations of
the esoteric
scriptures
Phonetics
English
San. mantra-tattva
Term
Textual
Collection
Ca
Wylie
Other
Dates
ci
Type
Volume
number
Cha
Wylie
Phonetics
English
Other
chos kyi de kho na
nyid
chökyi dekho nanyi
object reality
San. *dharmatattva
Dates
Type
chos grwa chen po
snar thang
Chödra Chenpo
Nartang
Great Dharma
College of snar
thang
Monastic
college
chos ’byung
Chönjung
History of
Buddhism
Text
Wylie
Phonetics
English
’jam dgon ā myes
zhabs
Jamgön Amyé Zhap
1597-1659 Person
Jamgön Amyé Zhap
’jam mgon ā myes
zhabs ngag dbang kun Ngawang Künga
Sönam
dga’ bsod nams
Author
Term
Ja
Other
Dates
Type
rje tsong kha pa
Jé Tsongkhapa
Person
rje btsun grags pa
rgyal mtshan
Jetsün Drakpa
Gyentsen
1147-1216 Author
rje rin po che
Jé Rinpoché
rjes su myong ba
jesu nyongwa
to experience
San. anu+√bhū
Wylie
Phonetics
English
Other
gnyis ka’i rgyud
Nyiké Gyü
Dual Tantra
San. *Ubhayatantra
1357-1419 Person
Term
Nya
Dates
Type
Doxographical
Category
mnyam par gzhag pas nyampar zhakpé
by meditative focus San. samādhānena
Term
rnying rgyud
Nying Gyü
Old Tantra
Doxographical
Category
rnying ma
Nyingma
rnying ma’i rgyud
’bum
Nyingmé Gyübum
Organization
Ancient Tantra
Collections
Title collection
Wedemeyer: Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Canonical Collections’
22
Ta
Wylie
Phonetics
lta ba’i khyad par
Tawé Khyepar
stod mnga’ ris
Tö Ngari
bstan ’gyur
Tengyur
bstan ’gyur dkar chag Tengyur Karchak
English
Other
Dates
Type
Text
Place
San. Śāstra
Title collection
Catalog of the
Tengyur
Text
Da
Wylie
Phonetics
English
dung dkar tshig
mdzod
Dungkar Tsikdzö
Dungkar’s
Dictionary
Other
Dates
Type
bdag gi de kho na
nyid
dakgi dekho nanyi
self reality
ldan dkar
Denkar
sde dge
Degé
bsdus
dü
to abbreviate
Term
bsdus
dü
to come or
approach together,
to meet, to interlace
Term
Wylie
Phonetics
English
Other
nor bu’i phreng ba
Norbü Trengwa
Jewel Garland
San. *Maṇimālā
Text
rnal ’byor
Nenjor
Yoga
San. yoga
Doxographical
Category
rnal ’byor bla ma’i
rgyud
Nenjor Lamé Gyü
Superior Yoga
Tantra
San. *Yogottaratantra
Doxographical
Category
rnal ’byor bla med
rgyud
Nenjor Lamé Gyü
Unexcelled Yoga
Tantra
San. Yoga-niruttara
Tantra
Doxographical
Category
sna tshogs
natsok
miscellaneous
snar thang
Nartang
Text
San. ātma-tattva
Term
Place
Place
Na
Dates
Type
Term
Place
Pa
Wylie
Phonetics
pu hrang
Puhrang
English
Place
pe cin
Pechin
Publication
Place
dpal ’khor lo bde
Pel Khorlo Dechok
mchog ’byung ba zhes Jungwa Zhejawé
bya ba’i dkyil ’khor Kyinkhorgyi Choga
gyi cho ga
Maṇḍala
Instruction on the
Saṃvarodaya
dpal gsang ba ’dus
pa’i dam pa’i chos
byung ba’i tshul legs
par bshad pa gsang
’dus chos kun gsal
ba’i nyin byed
Pel Sangwa Düpé
Dampé Chöjungwé
Tsül Lekpar Shepa
Sangdü Chökün Selwé
Nyinjé
History of the Holy
Esoteric
Community
Teaching, [called]
the Sun that
clariies all
teachings of the
Esoteric
Community
spyod rgyud
Chö Gyü
Practice Tantra
Other
San. Saṃvarodayā
Nāma
Maṇḍalopāyikā
Dates
Type
Text
Text
San. *Caryā-tantra
Doxographical
Category
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
23
spyod pa bsdus pa’i Chöpa Düpé Drönma
sgron ma zhes bya
Zhejawé Gyacher
ba’i rgya cher bshad Shepa
pa
Extensive
Explanation of the
‘Lamp that
Integrates the
Practices’
Text
spyod pa rnam pa
gsum
Chöpa Nampa Sum
three-fold
San. Trividhā
antinomian practice Caryā
Practice
Wylie
Phonetics
English
phyag rgya’i de kho
na nyid
chakgyé dekho nanyi seal reality
phyi dar
Chidar
Later Diffusion
Time range
phyis myong ba
chi nyongwa
experience later
Term
’phags pa blo gros
rgyal mtshan
Pakpa Lodrö
Gyentsen
’phags lugs
Pakluk
’phang thang
Pangtang
Pha
Other
Dates
San. mudrā-tattva
Type
Term
Author
Noble Tradition
Lineage
Place
Ba
Wylie
Phonetics
ba ri lo tsā ba
Bari Lotsawa
ba ri lo tsā ba rin
chen grags
Bari Lotsawa Rinchen
Drak
bu ston
Butön
bu ston chos ’byung
Butön Chöjung
bu ston rin po che
Butön Rinpoché
English
Dates
Type
Person
1040-1111 Person
1290-1364 Author
Butön’s History [of
Buddhism]
Text
1290-1364 Author
bod rgya tshig mdzod Bögya Tsikdzö
chen mo
Chenmo
Great
Tibetan-Chinese
Dictionary
bya rgyud
Action Tantra
Ja Gyü
Other
byang chub sems dpa’ Jangchup Sempa
Text
San. *Kriyā-tantra
Doxographical
Category
San. bodhisattva
Term
blo bzang grags pa
Lozang Drakpa
dbus
Ü
region of central
tibet
Wylie
Phonetics
English
mi rigs
mirik
inappropriate
Term
mi rigs dpe skrun
khang
Mirik Petrünkhang
People’s Press
Publisher
Wylie
Phonetics
English
tsong kha pa
Tsongkhapa
gtsang
Tsang
region of
central-west tibet
Wylie
Phonetics
English
tshig dzod chen mo
Tsikdzö Chenmo
Great Dictionary
Person
Place
Ma
Other
Dates
Type
Tsa
Other
Dates
Type
Person
Place
Tsha
Other
Dates
Type
Text
Wedemeyer: Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Canonical Collections’
24
Dza
Wylie
Phonetics
English
’dzom pa
dzompa
to come or
approach together;
to meet; to interlace
Other
Dates
Type
Term
’dzoms par byed pa
dzompar jepa
to cause to come or
approach together,
meet, or interlace
Term
Wylie
Phonetics
English
zhi ba ’od
Zhiwa Ö
zhwa lu
Zhalu
Zha
Other
Dates
Type
1016-1111 Person
Place
Za
Wylie
Phonetics
English
Other
Dates
Type
zla gsang thig le
Dasang Tiklé
Secret Moon Drop San. Guhyendu[Tantra]
tilaka
Wylie
Phonetics
English
ye shes sde
Yeshé Dé
Author
ye shes ’od
Yeshé Ö
Person
Text
Ya
Other
Dates
Type
Ra
Wylie
Phonetics
English
Other
rang gi sems
ranggi sem
own mind
San. svacitta
Term
rang gi sems la
ranggi semla
to one’s own mind San. svacitta
Term
rigs
rik
appropriate
San. yukta
Term
rigs kyi bu
rikgi bu
noble one
San. kulaputra
Term
rin chen grags
Rinchen Drak
rin chen bzang po
Rinchen Zangpo
rim lnga
Rimnga
Five Stages
rim lnga gsal sgron
Rimnga Seldrön
Brilliant Lamp of
the Five Stages
Text
Great Commentary
on the Five Stages
Text
rim lnga’i ’grel chen Rimngé Drelchen
Dates
Type
Person
Person
San. Pañcakrama
Text
La
Wylie
Phonetics
English
Other
Dates
la
Type
Volume
number
las
lé
lo chen
Lochen
San. karma
Person
lo tsā va gzhon nu
tshul khrims
Lotsawa Zhönnu
Tsültrim
Person
Term
Sa
Wylie
Phonetics
sa skya
Sakya
English
Other
Dates
Type
Organization
sa skya paṇḍita
Sakya Pendita
Person
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
25
sa chen kun dga’
snying po
Sachen Künga
Nyingpo
sum pa mkhan po
Sumpa Khenpo
so sor rtogs shig
sosor tokshik
understand
gsang ’dus chos
’byung
Sangdü Chönjung
History of the
Esoteric
Community
Text
gsang ’dus stong thun Sangdü Tongtün
Survey of the
Esoteric
Community
Text
gsang ’dus ’phags
lugs
Sangdü Pakluk
Esoteric
Community Noble
Tradition
Lineage
gsang ’dus bshad
thabs
Sangdü Shetap
Hermeneutics of the
Esoteric
Community
Text
gsar ma
Sarma
New Translation
Movement
Doxographical
Category
bsam yas
Samyé
Person
Person
San. pratipadyasva
Term
Monastery
Ha
Wylie
Phonetics
English
Other
lha’i de kho na nyid
lhé dekho nanyi
divinity reality
San. devatā-tattva
Phonetics
English
Sanskrit
Dates
Type
Term
Sanskrit
Wylie
Unexcelled
Intention
Dates
Type
Ācārya Nāgabodhi
Person
Anuttarasaṃdhi
Text
Āryadeva
Author
self reality
ātma-tattvaṃ
Term
meditative
cultivation
bhāvanā
Term
Bhūvācārya
Author
Candrakīrti
Person
antinomian practice caryā
Practice
Commentary on the Carya-melāpana“Lamp that
pradīpi Nāma Ṭīkā
Integrates the
Practices”
Text
Lamp that
Integrates the
Practices
*Caryasamucchayapradīpaṃ Nāma
Ṭīkā
Text
Caryāmelāpakapradīpa
Text
practice-observance caryāvrata
Practice
mind-objective
cittanidhyapti
Term
divinity reality
devatā-tattvaṃ
Term
Two-fold [Era]
dvāpara
Term
Wedemeyer: Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Canonical Collections’
Esoteric
Community
Guhyasamāja
Secret Moon Drop Guhyendutilaka
[Tantra]
26
Lineage
Text
Kali Era
kali-yuga
Term
Perfect [Era]
kṛta
Term
Centrist
Madhyamaka
Doxographical
Category
Universal Way
Mahāyāna
Doxographical
Category
Great Yoga
Mahāyoga
Doxographical
Category
mantra reality
mantra-tattvaṃ
Term
phantasm [body]
māyā[deha]
Term
integration
melāpaka
Term
to meet
√mil
Term
seal reality
mudrā-tattvaṃ
Term
Muniśrībhadra
Person
Naḍapāda
Person
*Nāgabodhi
Person
Nāgabuddhi
Person
Nāgārjuna
Person
Nāropā
Person
cryptic expressions nigūḍha-śabda
Term
√pad
Term
paṃ
Term
Commentary on the Pañcakramaṭippaṇī
Five Stages
Text
paṇḍita
Term
Paṇḍita
Karmavajra
Person
brilliance
prabhāsvara
Term
lamp
*pradīpa
Term
Brilliant Lamp
Pradīpoddyotana
Text
Transcendent
Virtue of Wisdom
Prajñāpāramitā
Text
prati
Term
practice, perform,
accomplish,
understand
pratipad
Term
attends
pratyavekṣaṇa
Term
Śākyamitra
Person
meditation
samādhi
Term
compendium,
gathering
samuccaya
Term
all things
sarvabhāva
Term
all things
sarvadharma
Term
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
Sarvārthasiddhi
27
Buddhist deity
Compendium of the SarvatathāgataRealities of All
tattvasaṃgraha
Transcendent Lords
Text
Śāstra
Textual
Collection
Commentary on the Sekoddeśaṭīkā
Initiation
Instruction
Text
Nāropa’s
Sekoddeśaṭīkā of
Commentary on the Naḍapāda
Initiation
(Nāropa)
Instruction
Text
Śraddhākaravarman
Person
Subhāṣitasaṃgraha
Text
Tāranātha
Author
Tathāgata
Buddhist deity
topic
tattva
Term
Three-fold [Era]
tretā
Term
mad vow
unmattavrata
Practice
straightforward
expressions
uttāna-śabda
Term
vajra recitation
vajrajāpa
Term
Vitapāda
Person
Yoginī Tantra
Yoginītantra
Text
era
yuga
Term
communion
yuganaddha
Term
verbal preix
upasarga
Term
English
Other
arranged for a
particular purpose
Lat. ad hoc
Collected Bons
Mots
Other
Wylie
Phonetics
Dates
Type
Term
Fre. coup de grâce
Term
work
Fre. œuvre
Term
an essential
condition
Lat. sine qua non
Term
the existing state of Lat. status quo
affairs
Term
latest possible date Lat. terminus ante
quem
Term
earliest possible
date
Lat. terminus post
quem
Term
great
accomplishment
Fre. tour de force
Term
Wedemeyer: Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Canonical Collections’
28
Bibliography
Bendall, Cecil, ed. Subhāṣita-saṃgraha. Louvain: J.-B. Istas, 1905.
Bu ston. Chos ’byung [History of Buddhism]. Krung go: Krung go bod kyi shes
rig dpe skrun khang. 1988.
———. Gsang ’dus bshad thabs [Hermeneutics of the Esoteric Community]. In
The Collected Works of Bu-ston, vol. 9. New Delhi: International Academy of
Indian Culture, 1967.
———. Rgyud ’bum dkar chag. In The Collected Works of Bu-ston. Part 26, vol.
la. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971.
Carelli, Mario E., ed. Sekoddeśaṭīkā of Naḍapāda (Nāropa). Baroda: Oriental
Institute, 1940.
Cooper, J. M. and D. S. Hutchinson, eds. Plato: Complete Works.
Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.
Dalton, Jacob. “A Crisis of Doxography: How Tibetans Organized Tantra during
the 8th-12th Centuries.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist
Studies 28, no. 1 (2005): 115-181.
Das, Sarat Candra, ed. A Tibetan-English Dictionary with Sanskrit Synonyms.
Kyoto: Rinsen Book Company, 1993 [1902].
Davidson, Ronald M. “Gsar ma Apocrypha: The Creation of Orthodoxy, Gray
Texts, and the New Revelation.” In The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism.
Edited by H. Eimer and D. Germano. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2002.
———. Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture.
New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.
Eimer, Helmut. Der Tantra-Katalog des Bu ston im Vergleich mit der Abteilung
Tantra des tibetischen Kanjur. Bonn: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1989.
———. “A Source for the First Narthang Kanjur: Two Early Sa skya pa
Catalogues of the Tantras.” In Transmission of the Tibetan Canon: Papers
Presented at a Panel of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for
Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995. Edited by H. Eimer, 11-78. Wien: Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1997.
Eimer, H. and D. Germano, eds. The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism.
Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2002.
Germano, David. “Canons at the Boundaries: The Rnying ma Tantras and Shades
of Gray between the Early and Late Translations.” In The Many Canons of
Tibetan Buddhism. Edited by H. Eimer and D. Germano. Leiden/Boston/Köln:
Brill, 2002.
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
29
’Gos Lo-tsā-ba Khug-pa Lhas-btsas [’Gos lo tsA ba khug pa lhas btsas]. gSaṅ
’dus stoṅ thun [Gsang ’dus stong thun, Survey of the Esoteric Community].
New Delhi: Trayang, 1973.
Horiuchi, Kanjin. “Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgrahaṃ nāma Mahāyāna-Sūtram.”
Kōyasan-Daigaku-Ronsō [Journal of Koyasan University] 3 (1968): 35-118.
’Jam mgon A myes zhabs ngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams. Dpal gsaṅ ba ’dus
pa’i dam pa’i chos byuṅ ba’i tshul legs par bśad pa gsaṅ ’dus chos kun gsal
ba’i nyin byed [Dpal gsang ba ’dus pa’i dam pa’i chos byung ba’i tshul legs
par bshad pa gsang ’dus chos kun gsal ba’i nyin byed]. Dehradun: Sakya Center,
1985.
Karmay, Samten. The Arrow and the Spindle: Studies in the History, Myths,
Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet. Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point, 1998.
Mkhas dbang dung dkar blo bzang ’phrin las. Bod rig pa’i tshig mdzod chen mo
shes bya rab gsal zhes bya ba. Krung go: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun
khang, 2002.
Nishioka, Soshū. “Index to the Catalogue Section of Bu-ston’s ‘History of
Buddhism’ (III).” Annual Report of the Institute for the Study of Cultural
Exchange, no. 6. 1983.
Oxford English Dictionary. Second Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Plato, Alcibiades. Edited by Nicholas Denyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2001.
Rje Tsoṅ-kha-pa Blo-bzaṅ-grags-pa [Rje tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa]. The
Collected Works (Gsuṅ ’bum [Gsung ’bum]) of Rje Tsoṅ-kha-pa
Blo-bzaṅ-grags-pa, vol. 11. New Delhi: Ngawang Gelek Demo, 1978.
Ruegg, D. S. Life of Bu ston Rin po che. Rome: Instituo Italiano per il Medio ed
Estremo Oriente, 1966.
Schleiermacher, Freidrich. Schleiermacher’s Introductions to the Dialogues of
Plato. Translated by William Dobson. Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1992 [1836].
Skilling, Peter. “From bKa’ bstan bcos to bKa’ ’gyur and bsTan ’gyur.” In
Transmission of the Tibetan Canon: Papers Presented at a Panel of the 7th
Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995. Edited
by H. Eimer. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
1997.
———. “Kanjur Titles and Colophons.” In Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the
6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Fagernes,
1992. Edited by Per Kværne, vol. 2. Oslo: The Institute for Comparative
Research in Human Culture, 1994.
Szántó, Péter-Dániel. “Antiquarian Enquiries into the Initiation Manuals of the
Catuṣpīṭha.” Newsletter of the NGMCP, no. 6 (Spring-Summer 2008).
Wedemeyer: Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Canonical Collections’
30
Tāranātha. Rim lṅa’i ’grel chen rdo rje ’chang chen po’i dgongs pa [Rim lnga’i
’grel chen rdo rje ’chang chen po’i dgongs pa]: A Detailed Commentary on
the Pañcakrama Instructions on the Practice of the Guhyasamāja Tantra.
Thimpu: Kunsang Topgey, 1976.
Tomabechi, Tōru. “Vitapāda, Śākyamitra, and Āryadeva: On a Transitional Stage
in the History of Guhyasamāja Exegesis.” In Esoteric Buddhist Studies: Identity
in Diversity. Edited by Executive Committee, ICEBS. Koyasan: Koyasan
University, 2008.
van der Kuijp, L. W. J. “*Nāgabodhi/Nāgabuddhi: Notes on the Guhyasamāja
Literature.” In Pramāṇakīrtiḥ: Papers Dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the
Occasion of his 70th Birthday. Edited by B. Kellner, H. Krasser, et al. Wien:
Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien Universität Wien, 2007.
Vogel, Claus. Vāgbhaṭa’s “Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā”: The First Five Chapters of
its Tibetan Version. Wiesbaden: Kommissionsverlag Franz Steiner Gmbh,
1965.
Wayman, A. Yoga of the Guhyasamāja Tantra. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1977.
Wedemeyer, Christian K. “Antinomianism and Gradualism: On the
Contextualization of the Practices of Sensual Enjoyment (caryā) in the
Guhyasamāja Ārya Tradition,” Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies,
New Series no. 3 (2002): 181-195.
———. Āryadeva’s Lamp that Integrates the Practices (Caryāmelāpakapradīpa):
The Gradual Path of Vajrayāna Buddhism according to the Esoteric Community
Noble Tradition. New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies/Columbia
University Press, 2007.
———. “Locating Tantric Antinomianism: An Essay toward an Intellectual
History of the ‘Practices/Practice Observance’ (caryā/caryāvrata).” Journal
of the International Association of Buddhist Studies (forthcoming, 2011).
———. “Tantalising Traces of the Labours of the Lotsāwas: Alternative
Translations of Sanskrit Sources in the Writings of Rje Tsong kha pa.” In
Tibetan Buddhist Literature and Praxis: Studies in its Formative Period,
900-1400. Edited by R. M. Davidson and Chr. K. Wedemeyer, 149-182. Leiden
and Boston: Brill, 2007.
———. “Sex, Death, and ‘Reform’ in Eleventh-century Tibetan Buddhist
Esoterism: ’Gos khug pa lhas btsas, spyod pa (caryā), and mngon par spyod
pa (abhicāra).” In Sucāruvādadeśika: A Festschrift Honoring Prof. Theodore
Riccardi, Jr. Edited by Todd T. Lewis and Bruce Owens. Forthcoming.
Ye shes sde. Lta ba’i khyad par. Sde dge Bstan ’gyur, sna tshogs, vol. jo, ff.
213b1-228a7. Tōh. 4360.
Zhang Yisun. Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo. Pe cin: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang,
1985.
Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)
31
Zhongxin Jiang and Tōru Tomabechi, eds. The Pañcakraṭippaṇī of Muniśrībhadra.
Berne: Peter Lang, 1996.