Academia.eduAcademia.edu
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.