The preliminaries of the Vajrāvalī Dipak Bhattacharya, Santiniketan

[Expression of indebtedness to Professor S.K.Pathak] §1.Introductory §2.The text of the Vajrāvalī with translation and notes i.The initial obeisance ii.Versified introduction Vs.1 Homage to Buddha and statement of purpose Vs.2 Homage to the Goddess Vs.3.Statement of purpose Vs.4 The necessity of the work iii.The introductory part of the description of rituals in prose. a. Beings in compulsory worldly shackles and Buddha’s resolve to rescue them. b. Preliminaries of the ritual. c. Enumearation of the rituals. §3. Observations]

◦ [This insignificant contribution is less of a research than a small homage to my respected

teacher Professor Suniti Kumar Pathak who has inspired scores of students like me to learn Tibetan. I am indebted to this sage of Santiniketan who introduced me to Tibetan studies in the eighties. About ten years before that I had made some unsuccessful attempts with the Tibetan version of the Sekoddeśa¶īkā of Naropā. The failure did not much harm my work (BHATTACHARYA1979) as the Sanskrit Sekoddeśa¶īkā had already been edited and published (CARELLI 1941) with a more or less correct version of the original. The manuscript of the Vajrāvalī proved tougher. Before that Professor Pathak had got me take up the Māyānirukti on my own to get introduced to Tibetan. I could hardly do anything with the Māyānirukti on my own. My teacher helped me in every step. It was because of his help that I could at least understand the enormity of the problems that one who has to work on Sanskrit texts with aid from Tibetan translations has to face. Naturally, though Professor Pathak’s help was forthcoming, with my limited knowledge only a preliminary utilisation of the Tibetan source could me made for the Vajrāvalī.

What might transpire even from this meagre work is the absolute necessity of aid from the Tibetan version for editing a Sanskrit text from a manuscript like that of the Vajrāvalī. A superficial knowledge of the language will hardly do. At least a reasonable mastery is called for.

It is from hearsay that I came to know that some work has already been done in Japan on the Vajrāvalī. The same is unavailable and the nature of that work is unknown to me. I do not know if the Sanskrit text has been edited and printed.]

§1.INTRODUCTORY

The Vajrāvalītantra of Abhayākaragupta, the great scholar of 11-12th century Bengal (BHATTACHARYYA1949: 11) and also the author of the more well-known NiÀpanna- yogāvalī and many other works (BHATTACHARYYA 1949: 9), is known to me from the photo-copy of a small manuscript collected from Nepal and at present deposited at the Oriental Institute, Vadodara. I am grateful to the Oriental Institute, Baroda for the photocopy without which this paper would not have been possible. Apart from that there is also the Tibetan translation Dkyil.hkhor.gyi cho.ga rdo.rje phre´.ba shes.bya.ba1 by the author himself. The Tibetan title is a literal translation of the elaborate Sanskrit name given in the Tibetan version as Vajrāvalināmama¸·alopayikā. The name of the work, then, is plain ‘Vajrāvalī’ or ‘Vajrāvali’ with the two different extensions ‘-ma¸·alopayikā’ and ‘-tantra’ indicating the subject-matter and the genre respectively.

The Vajrāvalī should have been composed between two other works by Abhayākaragupta, namely the Āmnāyamañjarī and the NiÀpannayogāvalī. In the Peking edition of the Bstan-hgyur as well as in the list mentioned by Benoytosh BHATTACHARYYA

(1949: 9) the Vajrāvalī (no.11 in Bhattacharyya’s list) finds place just before the NiÀpannayogāvalī (no.12). Moreover, the third verse of the NiÀpannayogāvalī begins with 1 No.3961, Bstan-hgyur: Rgyud-hgrel XXXV, The Tibetan Tripitaka: Peking Edition, Tokyo-Kyoto, 1957, vol. 80. This was available to me at the Department of Indo-Tibetan Studies, Visva Bharati.

1

the word vajrāvalīma¸·itam¸·aleÀu. The word vajrāvalī may have two meanings here including that of the work. An earlier composition of the Āmnāyamañjarī is confirmed by the fact that in the Vajrāvalī Abhayākara sometimes omits a discussion mentioning that it is available in the Āmnāyamañjarī. This should refer to Śrīsampu¶atantrarāja¶īkāāmnāya -mañjarīnāma coming as no.5 in the said list.

In the second part of this paper that deals with the text and its translation, the initial obeisance, the first four verses and the introductory part in prose that follows the verses have been treated in some detail. The introductory prose portion of the Vajrāvalī is followed by the description of rituals in prose mixed with verses in the manner of a manual. This description makes for the bulk of the book. It falls outside the scope of the present work. The third section consists of some observations on the ritual and the accompanying ideas of the Vajrāvalī

The Sanskrit manuscript is written in continuous script. The name of a particular topic appears at the end of its description. Otherwise no division into sections, numbered or otherwise, apart from the usual da¸·as and double da¸·as, came to my notice. As will be noticed the Tibetan version has a kind of division of sentences and units within sentences marked by da¸·as and double da¸·as. Below the restoration of the Sanskrit text(A) has been followed by a transliteration of the Tibetan version(B), an English translation(C) and statement of metre with exegetical comments(D). Text-critical comments too occur. For, there are errors in the Sanskrit ms. Some are obvious and others inferable from the Tibetan translation. The Tibetan translation too, it seems, has got some modifications from the original. Reconstructions from obvious erroneous readings (scribal error, omission etc) in the Sanskrit ms that have been restored without help from the Tibetan version have been marked with an asterisk, while when help has been taken from Tibetan the restoration has been marked with the plus sign +. This sign has been added also when a selected Sanskrit reading is missing in or differs from the Tibetan version. This means that I have treated the following work as based on two manuscripts. The readings which, according to me, are doubtful or are to be rejected have been underlined. The Tibetan text is reproduced verbatim with indication of page and line in the Peking edition as published in modern times in Tokyo2. The Romanisation follows S.C.Das’ Dictionary. In the transliteration the pages and lines of the Tibetan translation have been indicated.

The following should be noted about the modern reproduction of the Tibetan translation. Though it goes without saying that the Tokyo-Kyoto reproduction (1957) of the Peking edition of the Tibetan Buddhist texts has been a boon to students of classical Tibetan, those who have to use it know that this modern photographic reproduction is not entirely legible. In a few cases it was necessary and possible for me to see an original Tibetan indigenously printed ms. That was in the eighties. The same facility could not be available at present at the time of preparing the present paper. But checking with the original had appeared necessary for the fourth verse and some of the words of the part written in prose. Some of the errors or lacunae might have been part of the Peking edition itself. I shall be grateful to scholars noting and pointing out to me any error in the transliteration from Tibetan that might have occurred because of occasional partial illegibility of the photographic reproduction.

2 See n.1above.

2

§2. THE TEXT WITH TRANSLATION

i. The initial obeisance

A. namaÅ śrīvajrasatvāya|

B. Tib. |gya.gar.skad.du| vadsrā.va.li.nā.ma.ma.¸·a.lo.pa. l2 yi.kā ϒbod.skad.du| dkyil.hkhor.gyi.cho.ga.rdo.rje.phre´.ba.shes.bya. l3 baϒ sa´s.rgyas.da´| bya´.chub.sems.dpah.thams.cad… l4 la. phyag.htshal.lo| C1. Tr. Obeisance to the magnificent Diamond-valiance. C2. Tr. of the Tibetan beginning: “In Indian language, Vajrāvalināmama¸·alopayikā (=‘The rules of ma¸·ala called Vajrāvali’). In Tibetan language ‘The rule of the wheel called Diamond-garland’. Obeisance to all Buddhas(lit. awakened) and Bodhisatvas(lit. valiants in purified mind).” D. -satva with one t is the reading found in Buddhist manuscripts. Recently Gaurishwar BHATTACHARYA(2004) has called the propriety of writing the word bodhisattva with -tt- into question. The single t is generally believed to be of Prakrit origin. Since Prakrit avoids three consecutive consonants the idea of a Prakrit origin looks plausible. In spite of that the theory of a Prakrit origin of satva is not necessary. satvan ‘gallant’, ‘brave’ is an old Vedic word. When thematised like dharma < dharman we get satva instead of satvan. Now, if the second member of the compounds bodhisatva, vajrasatva etc.is really a thematised form of satvan then the meaning should be ‘valiant in bodhi’ and there should be some trace of this meaning in the Tibetan equivalents of terms ending with -satva. vajrasatva is rdo.rje sems.dpah literally ‘vajravīracitta’, sems.dpah meaning śūra- or vīracitta. satva means this valiant mind. However, it also seems that there is a semantic shade of both sattva ‘life’ or ‘living being’ and satvan ‘valiant’ in sems.dpah. Quite in conformity with this the Tibetan Vajrāvalī(or Vajrāvali) begins with sa´s.rgyas. da´.bya´.chub.sems.dpah.thams.cad.la.phyag.htshal.lo = buddhabodhisatvebhyaÅ sarvebhyaÅ namaÅ. bya´.chub sems.dpah: ‘bodhisatva’ is literally bodhiśūra or bodhivīra. All these, I think, point to the original as satva meaning ‘valiant’. Naturally, there should be no objection to the spelling vajrasatva or bodhisatva and the doubling of t should be regarded as wrong. —vajrāvalināmama¸·alopayikā. Note the spelling vajrāvali in the Tibetan transcription. The –i(m.) and –ī(f.) at the end mean only a difference in the grammatical gender and not in the meaning that is ‘row of vajras.’ The type of cult (see the comments on vs.1b and 3b below) of the Vajrāvalī may suggest the likelihood of the feminine gender being original. There is no necessity of correcting to -ma¸·alopāyikā.

ii.Versified introduction Vs.1 Homage to Buddha and statement of purpose

vande śrīkuliśeśvaraÆ+ smarata re mārā+ +bhavāreÅ padaÆ krodhā dhāvata dikÀu ma´galagiro gāyantu *vajrā´girāÅ/

3

śrīmadvajrabh¤to mahimni jagad +ādhātuÆ mahāma¸·ale +niÀpratyūham ihābhayasya mahasā vajrāvalī mīlatu // B Tib. l.4 contd. |dpal.ldan. rdo.rje. dba´.phyug.la. hdud.bdud l5 rnams. srid.dgrahi.shabs. dran.gyis.śig. kvai. | khro.bo.rnams.ni. p.2a | |phyogs.su.rgyug.mdsod.rdo.rje.lha.mo.bkra.śis.glu.dbya´s.lo´| |dpal.ldan. l2 rdo.rje.hcha´.gi.phun.tshogs.dkyil.hkhor.chen.por.hgro.ba.yo´s.gzu´.phyir| |bjigs.pa. med l3 pahi.mthu.yis.bgegs.med.hdir.ni.rdo.rje.phre´.ba.hdu.bar.śog | C. I praise the magnificent lord of the thunderbolt. Remember, ye Māras, the (infallible) station of the destroyer of (transitory) becoming! Ye Angers run away in (different) directions! May the Vajra-A´girās sing the auspicious prayers. In order to establish the world in the great-circle, in the glory of the magnificent wielder of the thunder-bolt, may the (book) Vajrāvalī be well-accomplished without obstacles by the power of Abhaya here. D Variants: a Skt.—vande śrīkuliśeśvara: śrīkuliśeśvaraÆ+ after Tib.dpal.ldan.rdorje.dba´. phyug. la. —smarata re māro bhagareÅ padaÆ: bdud.rnams.srid.dgrahi.shabs. dran.gyis.śig. kvaï. lit. ‘Remember, O Māras! the station of the enemy of becoming.’ —māro: mārā(Å)+, voc.pl. corresponding to Tib. bdud.rnams. —bhagareÅ: bhavāreÅ+ Tib. srid.dgrahi. In ¦ÉMÉ®ä& of the ms the letter MÉ seems to have been confused with ´ÉÉ.

b—ma´galagiro gāyastu(→ntu) vajrā´gāroÅ: rdo.rje.lha.mo. 1bkra.śis. 2glu.dbya´s.lo´ ‘May the Vajra-A´girās sing the auspicious songs.’ —vajrā´gāroÅ: Read vajrā´girāÅ*: Tib. rdorje.lha.mo, literally vajradevī; may be identified as Vajra-A´girā. Apparently ´ÉXÉÉRÂÊMÉ®É& has been wriiten as ´ÉXÉÉRÂMÉÉ®äÉ& with the concave semi-circle atop Ê of ÊMÉ shifting to the top of ®É& making the latter look like ®úÉä& and then with further addition of the É sign to MÉ. A´giras and A´girā: The deification of A´giras, a Îgvedic sage belonging to a group of the same name, as a female deity might be of late Vedic antiquity. The deity appears with the name Partya´girā in Atharvavedic tradition. As observed by Durgamo-han BHATTACHARYYA (1968: 44) she was later identified as the goddess Durgā in the same tradition: “The Ā´girasakalpa identifies the Ātharva¸ic deity Pratya´girā with the Purā¸ic and Tantric goddesses Durgā and Bhadrakālī: yā durgā sā bhadrakālī saiva pratya´girā matā.” Apparently, the identification bases itself on an Atharvavedic hymn occurring as AV Śaunaka 10.1 and AV Paippalāda 16.35-38. But a closely similar hymn is found in the Khilas of the Îgveda. This shows that it is not impossible that the date of the incorporation of this deity with the Hindu and Buddhist pantheons is pretty old. See Durgamohan BHATTACHARYYA 1968 for the Tantric connection of A´giras and BAHULKAR 2004 for a comparative study of the hymns concerned.

4

Both the aspects of the Buddha, as generally represented by the diamond(vajra) and the lotus(kamala), seem to have been praised in the first half of the verse. Also see the comments on the third verse The second verse is meant for the lotus aspect only.

c—jagadādhātu mahāma¸·ale: Read jagad ādhātuÆ+ Tib. hgro.ba.yo´s. gzu´.phyir. On my query about it this restoration was suggested by Professor Pathak in preference to and corrrecting my translation with the compound jagad-ādhātur*. d—niÀpratyāham: Read +niÀpratyūham ‘unhindered, without obstruction.’ T. bgegs.med, lit. vighnahīna. praty-ūh ‘to push back’ is Îgvedic. The noun pratyūha ‘obstacle’ is availabale from the Mahābhārata onward. —vajrāvalī mīlatu T. rdo.rje.phre´.ba. hdu.bar.śog: lit. figurative 'may the diamond necklace (with its beads) come together ie be strung together’; successful accomplishment of the book as in the translation is the suggestion .

The following scansion yields the śārdūlavikrī·ita metre - ∪ ∪ ∪ ∪ ∪ ∪ │ ∪ ∪

Vs.2.Homage to the Goddess A antar vahir vajrabh¤teva vajraÆ* paraÆparābhir *dhriyatāÆ hrdīyaÆ// yajjyotir antas timiraÆ niyatma śrīvajrabh¤n*mūrtimatī *bibhartu// B Tib. ga´.gi. hod.kyis. na´.gi. mun. l4 bsal.nas.| |rdorje.hcha´.dpal. skur.bcas. hdsin.pa. hdi| | rdorje.hcha´.gis. phye. na´. rdorje. bshin| l5 re.ma.par.brgyu´.pa.sñi´.la.gzu´.bar.mdsod. C. Tr. Like the thunderbolt by the wielder of the thunderbolt internally and externally, may she be held in the heart (in continuity) by succession; by the light of which (ie the thunderbolt) having removed inner darkness the magnificent wielder of the thunderbolt herself (mūrtimatī lit. ‘with a form’, ‘in person’) may sustain. D.Upajāti. a—vajra for *vajraÆ. b—dvriyatāÆ for *dhriyatāÆ. T.gzu´.bar.mdsod. c—niyatma. ÎxɪÉi¨É can be a graphical error for ÎxÉ®Éi¨É or a less grammatical ÎxɪÉi¬. ÎxÉ®Éi¨É is not relevant. timiraÆ niyatya (or niyamya) gives sense but this gives the meaning ‘having restrained darkness’ while Tib. has bsal.nas.mun ‘having revealed darkness’ In conformity with this the English tranlation assumes *nirasya ‘having removed’ as demanded when, as in the Tibetan version, the absolute removal of darkness is meant. However, a final conclusion about the original reading is elusive. d—vajrabh¤t: t↔n is a common error; vibhartu=bibhartu. The MS has only the sign ´É for both ¤É and ´É.

5

The Tibetan translation has a bit different word order. It may give the following paraphrasing: yasya jyotiÀā antas timiraÆ nirasya iyaÆ śrīvajrabh¤t murtimatī bibhartu / vajrabh¤tā vahir antar vajram iva paraÆparābhir h¤di dhriytatām. The two halves exchange place and iyam finds place in the sentence beginning with yajjyotir etc. This connects iyam of the first half of the verse as the nominative agent to bibhartu of its second half and leaves us without the object of the passive verb dhriyatām in the first half. But in our translation that tries to be in conformity with the word order in the Sanskrit verse iyam is the object of the passive dhriyatām with the usual nominative case-ending. For bibhartu: ‘may sustain’ the whole world is understood as the object.

Vs.3.Statement of purpose A. ma¸·alādividhiÅ *śāstur vist¤taÅ kamalādvaye// *saÆkÀipyedam iha vyaktaÆ vrūmaÅ śakyakriyaÆ kramāt// BTib. dkyil.hkhor.la.sogs.cho.ga.ni││ston.pas.rgyud. l6.sde.gñis.su.spros.││de.hdir.bya.ba.nus.bsdus.nas.││gsal.var.rim.pas.bśad.par.bya.│ C.Tr. The rule of the ma¸·ala etc. (as told) by the Teacher has been extensively dealt with in the two Tantras (of the lotus?). Briefly is this here expressed. (For), we are describing in a practical (lit.performance-worthy) way according to the sequence (of the ritual acts). D AnuÀ¶ubh metre. a—śāstrar for *śāstur: scribal error. b—kamalādvaye: The lotus is known to represent the female principle of the Tantras. One is to infer from a comparison between the Sanskrit and the Tibetan version that kamalā- or *kamala- apparently means the Tantras based on the female principle. Tib.rgyud.sde.gñis.su ‘in the two Tantras’ itself does not indicate any such speciality. But that the term kamalā or *kamala is understood here as some Tantras should mean that the two classes of Tantras that are based on the female principle, that is to say are equivalent to the Śākta Tantras, have been meant. If the ā sign in kamalā is a scribal error, then we have to read *kamaladvaye. But it is difficult to say whether the ā is actually an error or not. The author might have deliberately used the feminine gender to mean the particular class of Tantras. The identity of the form of worship means that the initial invoking of the Vajrā´girās (vs.1 above) could not be unrelated. c—sakÀipyetam for *saÆkÀipyedam: apparently scribal error. The translation follows the Tib.version hdir…bsdus.nas. d—vrūmaÅ: After Tib.bśad.par.bya. Abhayākara means braviÀyāmaÅ. The above translation is literal.

Vs.4.The necessity of the work A kiñ cācāryair* granthitaprakriyāyāÅ* pūr¸atvaÆ na prastutatvaÆ sphu¶oktiÅ/ kvāpi kvāpy *āsthā tathā* ’yuktatā ve- ty *asmābhis tattadgu¸air ma¸·iteyaÆ//

6

B. P.2b. l1 gshan.ya´. slob.dpon.rnams.kyis. bya.bahi.gshu´.mdsod.rnams. rdsogs.da´.skabs.su.(pūr¸atve?) bab.da´.gsal.bar. brjod.pa.min kha.cig. kya´.ni. gdams.pa. da´.bral?. rigs.pa.medde.phyir. kho.bohi. hdi.ni. l2 de.hdir?. yon.tan. brkyan C. Moreover, of the (ritual) process arranged by the teachers there is completeness (but) not assumption? (and) clear statement. Here and there there is (careful) advice (but) may be (apparent) unsuitability too. So it has been adorn by us with those particular qualities (that are not to be found in the Canon). D. Śālinī metre a — kiñ cācārye for kiñ cācāryair+. The 3rd case ending plural is clear from the Tibetan translation slob.dpon.rnams.gyis. — granthitaprakriyāsvā: granthitaprakriyāyāÅ* as reconstructed by us involves too bold an emendation. This conforms to bya.bahi. gshu´.mdsod.rnams. But one may wonder if the same translation would not have been made from kiñ cācārye granthitaprakriye ’syāÅ ‘Moreover, the teacher having arranged its (ie the Vajrāvalī’s) (ritual) acts…’ with an absolutive ācārye etc. The asyāÅ would correspond to the Vajrāvalī, ie mass of rituals. But this reconstruction cannot be pressed into. The actual problem in reconstructing … prakriyāyāÅ* is that the ms has no visarga in …prakriyāsvā. Phonemically a visraga is seen be dropped in mss before conjuncts beginning with unvoiced velars, labials or sibilants like kÀ, pr, st, śr. This is according to Prākrit dialectal trend. Such a case does not exist here. So I underlined the reconstruction. b —pūr¸atvaÆ: Tib. rdsogs.da´(´ar?).skabs.su is nearer to pūr¸atve. That is equally possible. —na prastutatvaÆ sphu¶oktiÅ T. bab.da´. gsal.bar.brjod.pa.min ‘There is no assumption and clear statement.’ This is no criticism of the Canon. as the literal rendering might make it look like. What Abhaya means to say is that general statements about the ritual are to be found in the Canon. But there is no step by step description of the ritual. Such a description assumes that one has done some act and is to do the next act. So there is assumption and then clear statement of the next act. The Canon by its nature does not do that. c — kvāpi kvāpyosnā tatrāyuktatā ve (vā+i )-. As it stands the pāda gives no sense. The reconstruction kvāpi kvāpy +āsthā tathā+ ’yuktatā ve- is mostly dependent on the Tibetan version which, however, gives a more literary renedering than a literal one. (a)yuktatā may mean ‘inconsistency’ but Abhaya cannot be expected to criticise the Canon. (a)yuktatā may also mean ‘unboundedness’ that is dispersed nature. With that the word can mean stray utterances in a general way in place of the expected continuous description. The same was meant by na prastutatvaÆ sphu¶oktiÅ in the previous pāda. d —(ve)ty +asmābhis tattadgu¸air ma¸·iteyaÆ. asmobhis of the ms is a scribal error; cf. vajrā´gāroÅ and māro for *vajrā´girāÅ and +mārā in the first verse.

iii.The introductory part of the description of rituals in prose [The introductory verses with obeisance and statement of the author’s aim and of

its justification are followed by a description in prose of the rituals on the Ma¸·ala. Here too, the actual procedure begins after some general statements about the fettered

7

condition of beings and the Buddha’s desire to rescue them resulting in the conception of the rituals to be described in the book. These are given below.]

iii a.Beings in compulsory worldly shackles and Buddha’s resolve to rescue them:

iha +hi (+sattvāÅ) +duÀ¶yajā’nādy-avidyādi-dāsa-paramparā-*baddha-*buddhīn durvārakarmmormmiraye prera¸ayā* prāyaśo ’pāya-traye sugatidvaye +ca +sugambhīra-saÆsāra- sarid-āvartte ’tiduÀ¶are *pratimuhūr nimajjanonmajjanair aviśrāmam +asvatantrā,+utsāhas tanubh¤taÅ parama+k¤pāpra¸ayāt samuddhartum +uddharaiÅ

A.

B. (l2) contd. hdir. sems.can.thams.ca´.thog.ma.med.bahi.ma.rig.pa.la.sogs.pa.dor. bar.dkah.bahi.hchi´.ba.brgyud.pas.bci´s.pahi.plo.can.bzlog.par.dkah. bahi.las. kyi.rlu´.gi.śugs. (l3 )kyis.hpha´s.la. phal.cher.´an.so ´.gsum.da´.bde.hgro.gñis.kyi.hkhor.bahi. rgya.mtsho.zab.mohi.rba.klo´. śin.du.rgal.dkah.bar.so.sor.ya´.da´.ya´.du. ltu´.shi´.hthon.pas. dal.skabs med. ci´.ra´.dba´.med.par. (l4)lus.len pa.rnams.sñi´.rje.mchog.tu.gshol.bas.ya´.dag.bar hdon.par.brcon. pa.rnams.kyis.| C. Since intelligent beings here are not independent because of incessant plunging and emerging in every moment in the extremely unsurmountable whirlwind of the very deep river of the world-of-becoming that commonly consists of the three evil states and the two good ways, (the said affliction resulting from) sending (them), who have their intellect fettered by the continuous stream of the chain of beginningless ignorance etc that is difficult to get rid of, into the irresistible current of waves of karman;,(there is ) the desire (of the Buddha) to fully rescue corporal beings with (his) aids by virtue of love out of supreme kindness. D.—+hi: Apparently missing in Tib. But the meaning is not lost as the causal presentation is made in the Tibetan version by its translation of asvatantrāÅ at the end of the clause. See below. — sems.can.thams.ca´ +sattvāÅ: missing in Sanskrit. Skt. duÀ¶yejānādya…for +duÀ¶yajā… —prera¸ayo: o for ā; common ms error, see vs.1; T. hpha´s.la is better understood as *prera¸āya. In that case since the next word is prāyaśo:T.phal.cher, the Sanskrit would have been *prera¸āya prāyaśo. It will require two emendations to make *prera¸āya out of prera¸ayo. Another problem is that we cannot also account for the -o in place of a; while ā→o is often found I did not note a→o as a common feature. Hence *prera¸ayā has been considered a better option based on the known trend of the ms. —Skt. prāyaśo ’pāyatraye sugatidvaye va sugastīra…: Obviously the well-known evil and happy existences in hell, as animals and as ghosts and as gods and men. prāyaśo may hint at the belief of four apāyas in early Buddhism. —saridāvartta: for …āvartte; sarit ‘river’, T.rgya.mtsho ‘extensive water-body’,’sea’.—pratirmuhūr for pratimuhūr; note the -ū-. —attvataÆtrā for +asvatantrā(Å): T.ci´.ra´.dba´.med.par. ‘being not independent.’ ‘because of non-independence.’ An exact Sanskrit equivalent would have been asvatantratvāt. But that has not been necessary. In the Sanskrit version the causal relation

8

has been expressed by the adverb hi and reading asvatantrā(Å) that means ‘since beings are not independent.’ In both versions the compulsion of a miserable existence is thus presented as the cause of what will follow in the text. See note on hi above.

—utsāhas: Missing in T. One may think that the sense of utsāha could be implied in sñi´.rje.mchog.tu.gshol.bas.that puts the exuding of great kindness causally. But this has been meant in Sanskrit by paramak¤pā(ms. krpo) pra¸ayāt.

There is another possibility. The misery of beings, that has been put as a cause in both versions, has utsāhas tanubh¤taÅ etc ie the endeavour of Buddha to rescue beings by putting an end to their miseries as the effect in the Sanskrit version. Then it goes straight to the preliminaries of the ritual that we have not till now taken up above. In the Tibetan version on the other hand the rituals themselves, aimed at rescuing corporal beings, are understood as the effect without the intermediate desire. If our understanding of the Tibetan version is correct the text of the paragraph and the English rendering after it should be a bit different. In that case the paragraph above should end at asvatantrāÅ without utsāhas. Then one should read tanubh¤taÅ pramakrpā pra¸ayāt… muddharaiÅ and go straight to the subject of ritual that begins prathamam arghyādi (see below for thie part) etc. That will mean ‘Since intelligent beings here are not independent because of ……the difficult-to-prevent current of waves of karman, in order to fully rescue corporal beings with aids by virtue of love out of supreme kindness, one has first the items of offering…’ But this will not be very happy according to me. Apparently some mis-reading exists.— paramak¤popra¸ayāt samudvarttam…:Common errors.

iii b.Preliminaries of the ritual

A prathamam +arghādy-upakara¸a-+saÆnidhā(*nopasthāpa?)nādi-kramato manohara-vihārādi-kriyā-+pratiÀ¶hāpanā-+nuÀ¶hānādi, abhiÀekaśu(<*su?) pra tiÀ¶hādau+ ca yathāyogaÆ pu¸yasaÆbhāre+ jñānasaÆbhāre ca +samyag-utsāhy-ācāryaÅ+; +evaÆ +hi +śuśrūÀubhyo +mantra-nīti-+(ni)pu¸a-vi(dyā?or-d?)- dhairyā+-’mātsarya utsāhaśālibhiÅ k¤pālubhir+ yathākramaÆ, (vihārādy-arghyo’rghādi dānalakÀa¸aÆ...) B. (l4 continued) da´.por.mchod.yon.la.sogs.pa.ñe.bar.mkho.ba.gsag.ba.la.sogs. pahi. rim. pas.yid.du.ho´.bahi.gtsug.lag.kha´.la. (l5)sogs.pa. bya.ba.da´│ rab.tu.gnas.pa.bya.ba.la.sogs.pa.bsgrub.ba.da´│dba´.bskur. da´׀ thos.bsam. la. sogs. pahi. bsod.nams.da´ ye.śes.kyi. tshogs.la.ji.ltar.rigs. par. spro.ba. bskyed.du. gshug.go?│de.nas. (l6) slob.dpon.ma´.du.thos.pa. gsa´.s´ags.kyi. tshul.la.mkhas.pa│blo.brtan.pa│ser.sna. med.pa│ spro.bahi.da´(´a´?).tshul.can│sñi´.rje.da´.ldan.pas│rim.pa.bshin. du. C.One by one beginning with the collection etc.of immediate requirements like the fee for service etc., there is to be work for an attractive vihāra etc.(and) the accomplishment of the (ceremonial) establishment etc.(thereof). One properly giving inspiration to the proper [śu for su?] establishment etc. of (or hearing and cogitating etc. in) consecration and to the respective applicationwise accumulation of merit and the accumulation of

9

knowledge, is the teacher; thus indeed for those who intensively hear (śuśrūbhyo <+śuśrūÀubhyo) (the following are to be performed) according to the order (of enumeration) by (teachers) who are kind by nature and who inspire the sharp (one) in the Mantra discipline (ie. the Tantric lore), knowledge, steadiness (and) absence of jealousy; D Skt. arghody; Skt. saÆnidhāyopanādikramato; the preferred reading and translation are strictly after Tib. gsag.ba.la. sogs.pahi. The other reading too, implying the omission of -sthāpa- in the ms., is possible. Skt -kriyo and pratiÀ¶hodau. Tib. thos.bsam. la. sogs. pahi (translation in parentheses) may be an elucidative rendering. Skt. …saÆbhāra. The meaning is clear even without the emendation. Skt. saÆmyag utsāhyācāyaiva´gi. The restoration follows Tib. for the initial part. In the subsequent part the sentence seems to have been a bit restructured in the Tibetan version with the following changes. In the ms ācāryaÅ ends the sentence as the predicative noun so that with the preceding adjectives the sentence looks like a long definition of ācāryaÅ. This is then followed by evaÆ hi etc. in a new sentence with utsāhaśālibhiÅ k¤pālubhir as passive agents meaning the teacher. This new sentence enumerates the ritual acts according to the sequence of their performance. So the ‘kind ‘ ‘inspiring’ teachers are meant as the performers as grammatically passive agents. If I have understood it correctly, in Tib. samyag utsāhī (spro.ba.bskyed.du.gshug. go) followed by de.nas.slob.dpon… ‘then, the teacher…’ means that the sentence continues without break. In Tib. de.nas = ‘then’, a literary rendering of evaÆ hi, unlike in the Sanskrit version, is followed by and not preceded by ācāryaÅ ‘teacher’. The case endings and numbers in utsāhaśālibhiÅ k¤pālubhir being different from ācāryaÅ, I have regarded them as two sentences. But my resolutions and emendations may not be final. If saÆmyagutsāhy-ācāyaiva´gi was originally samyagutsāhyācāryair eva´ hi then the difference between the two versions is reduced while the import of the sentence remains the same. Skt. śuśrūbhya, emendation from Tib. Skt. maÆtraÆnītipu¸avidhairyo…+mantranīti: Also mantranaya; the terms used by the adherents of the religion themselves for what modern scholars refer to as Buddhist Tantras. I am not sure about the restoration in the penultimate word -vidyā-. The words in +mantranīti(ni)pu¸avi(dyā?or-d?) dhairyā’mātsarya(<e) have been regarded as forming a compound with the locative case-ending. Skt. k¤pālubhi

iii c.Enumearation of the ritual-acts according to the order of performances

B. (yathākramaÆ,) +vihārāder +argho, ’rghādi dānalakÀa¸aÆ pūrvasevāprayo-janaÆ, śiÀyasa´graho, +bhūkhananaÆ bhūśodhanaÆ bhūmiparigraho vighna-kīlanaÆ, vasudhārādhivāsanaÆ, +kalaśādhivāsanaÆ, *ma¸·alasūtra¸aÆ, +ra´gapātanaÆ, kalaśanyāso, ma¸·alasādhanaÆ, devatādhivāsanaÆ, pratimādi-pratiÀ¶hā, puÀkari¸yādipratiÀ¶hā +āmrārāmādipratiÀ¶hā, śiÀyādhivāsanaÆ, ācāryapraveśaÅ, śiÀyapraveśo, mālodakamuku¶avajragha¸¶ānāmasekāÅ+, trisamayadānam, +ācāryyābhiÀekaÅ, +mantrasamarpa¸am, añjanaÆ, darpa¸a-sekaÅ+, +śaraśleÀo, guhyaprajñājñānaÆ+, +caturthaseka-vidyāvrataÆ, vajravrataÆ, caryāvrataÆ, vyākara¸am, anujñā śvāsaÅ+, +svaseko, homo, ma¸·alopasaÆhāro+, mānasama¸·alaÆ, valivighnanivāra¸aÆ+ vajravajragha¸¶ā+lakÀa¸adhāra¸añ ceti pañcāśavidhayo+vidheyāÅ/

10

C.(P2b,l6 continued) (rim.pa.bshin.du.)gtsug.lag.kha´.la.sogs.pahi. mchod.yon.da´│ (l7)mchod.yon.la.sogs.pa.dbul.bahi.mtshan.ñid.da´│s´on.du.bsñen.pa(ba?)hi. dgos.pa da´│slob.ma.bsab.da´│sa.brko.ba. da´│sa.sbya´.ba.da´│sa.gzu´.ba.da´│bgegs. la.phur.bu.gdab.pa.da´│sa.hi.lha.mo. (l8) lhag.par.gnas.pa.da´│bum.pa.lhag.par.gnas.pa.da´│(?lha.lhag.par.gnas.pa.da´?)│ dkyl.hkhor.gyi.thig. gdab.pa.da´│tshon.bkyi.ba.da´│bum.pa.dgod(for hgod?).pa. da´│ dkyil.khor.bsgrub.pa. da´│lha.lhag. (P3a) ││par.gnas.pa.da´│sku.gzugs.la.sogs.pahi.rab.gnas.da´│rdsin.la.sogs.pahi.rab. gnas.da´│a.mrahi.skyed.mos.chal(for *tshal?).la. sogs.pahi.rab.gnas.da´│slob.ma. lhag. par. gnas. pa. da´│ (l2) slob.dpon.hjug.pa.da´│slob.ma.gshug.pa.da´│phre´.ba-da´│ ?.chu.da´│ cod.pan. da´│rdo.rje.da´│dril.bu.da´│mi´.gi.dba´.da´│dam.tshig.gsum.skyin.ba.da´│slob.dpon.kyi.dba´.da´│s´ags.sbyin.pa.da´ │ (l3) mig.sman.da´│me.lo´.gi.dba´.da´│mdah.hphe´.ba.da´│gsa´.ba.da´│ śes.rab.yi. śes.da´│dva´.bshi.ba.da´│rig.mahi.brtul.shugs.da´│rdo.rje.brtul.shugs. da´│ spyod. pahi.brtul.shugs. (l4) da´│lu´.bstan.p(?)a.da´│rjes.su.gna´.ba.da´│dbugs.dbyu´.ba.da´│na´. dba´.bskur.ba.da´│sbyin.sreg.da´│dkyil.hkhor.bsdu.ba.da´│yid.kyi.dkyil.hkhor. da´│ gtor.ma.da´│bgegs.pa.zlogs. (l5)pa.da´│rdo.rje.dril.buhi. mtshan.ñid.da´│gzu´.ba.ste cho.ga. l´a.bcu.ba. sgrub.par.bya.ho│ D. (The following are to be performed)(according to the order of enumeration): fee for service regarding the vihāra etc, fee etc. in the form of donation (ie. giving up); that requires prior respectful attendance; the collection (=bringing in) of the pupil; digging in the earth; (ritual) cleansing of the earth; accepting the land (thus processed) ; shutting in obstacles; solemnising goddess earth (lit.making the goddess have her dwelling); solemnising the jar; drawing in the lines for the ma¸·ala; applying colours; placing the jar; accomplishing the ma¸·ala; solemnising the deity (thereon); ritual establishment of icons etc.; ritual establishment of ponds etc.; ritual establishment of mango-groves etc;

solemnising the pupil; entrance of the teacher; entrance of the pupil; consecrations entitled wreath, water, crown, thunder-bolt, bell and name; giving three promises; consecration of the teacher; imparting the mantra; applying unguents; consecration of the mirror; drawing the arrow; learning the secret wisdom; observance of learning the fourth consecration; observance of the vajra; observance of duty; elucidation (of precepts); granting the precept; breathing out; inner (Skt. ‘own’) consecration; fire-offering; concluding (=summing up) the ma¸·ala; meditative ma¸·ala; offering, preventing obstacles; characteristric of the vajra and bell; and comprehension thereof; thus (there are) fifty rules (for acts) to be done. E. Skt. ◦vihārāghnirdyo ’rghādi◦dā… Transl. based on Tib. So everywhere below. Skt. bhūÀa¸anaÆ. À > kh is a common North Indian error; note the consequent change of n to ¸. Skt.sutra¸aÆrakÀapātanaÆ……. āmrārāmodipratiÀ¶hā … …vajragha¸¶hānāma sekā …ācāryyabhiÀeka maÆtra… darpa¸aseka saraśleyo …caturthāsakāvidyāvrataÆ… śvāśaÅ…… ma¸·alopasaÆhārā… nivāra¸avajravajragha¸¶hā … pañcāśavidhayovidheyoÅ/ pañcāśa for

11

pañcāśat. But this may be original. The number fifty, unless it is a number of completeness, is to be got by adding the common elements in items like mālodakamuku¶avajragha¸¶ānāmasekāÅ. Perhaps this is not a serious problem. Tib.2b line 8 cluster 3: lha.lhag.par.gnas.pa.da´ devatādhivāsanaÆ wrongly stated here and correctly repeated at the end of the line and 3a line 1 after dkyil.khor.bsgrub.pa.da´ ma¸·alasādhanaÆ

§3.Observations

Many of the items are common to non-Buddhist tantras under denominations like Śākta, Śaiva or VaiÀ¸ava. Some terms like seka, vajra etc. offer variety. But on close examination they too may reveal essential similarity with the other tantras.

The list does not give much indication beyond the names of the acts to be performed. But they may reveal the special characteristics of Abhayākara’s work. Abhayākara’s speciality lies in keeping his recommendations restricted to the external forms of the ritual like acts around the Ma¸·ala, fire-offering etc., ringing the bell and various symbolic offerings and physical acts like meditation, breathing, various gestures and postures including dance. This stands in contrast to what SNELLGROVE (1959: I.9-11) finds as the essential ingredients of Budhdhist mystic practice — the macabre and the irreligious. The Vajrāvalī may invite attention by the variant nature of the components of its ritual. We will come to this. Before reverting to SNELLGROVE the essential elements of the tantras require some elaboration.

In the following discussion the terms Hindu tantra and Buddhist tantra have been avoided as unscientific. Both call their discipline tantra. When one has to refer to the non-Buddhist tantras as a whole the other correct term should be Pañcopāsanā, a term used in the traditional daily worship of the Hindus, since they may have Śiva, Śakti, ViÀ¸u, Sūrya or Ga¸eśa as their deity. Very little work has been done on the last two. The VaiÀ¸ava tantras are known as pāñcarātra. The first two are often loosely called Āgama. The so called Buddhist tantric system is known to their adherents as Mantranaya or Mantranīti. We shall use these terms.

The Vajrāvalī does not elaborate the structural basis of its ritual but that is available in related Mantranaya treatises. One such work is the Sekoddeśa¶īkā of Nāropā. On close scrutiny one may discover that Mantranaya and Pañcopāsanā have closely similar ideas about creation, existence and dissolution that is enacted in the ritual (BHATTACHARYA 1979, KAVIRAJ, 1971). The Sekoddeśa¶īkā understands the Buddha as transcedental and two dimensional encompassing everything in space and time. The two dimensions are understood as cakra and kāla (BHATTACHARYA 1979: 92-94). It is common to refer to them as śūnyatā and karu¸ā. The Śākta-Śaiva idea of the process of the world finds description, among others, in the Pratyabhijñāh¤daya of Rājānaka KÀemarāja(10th -11th century CE). In the Śākta-Śaiva theory the transcedental is both self-introspective and enlightening. The two aspects are termed vimarśa and prakāśa, the two powers that contribute to creation, existence and dissolution. One finds that here the two systems come close each other. They also equally distinguish themselves from Vedānta in various respects, the most striking one being the absence of an illusion theory. The world is a manifestation of God and is as real as God. And both in the Pañcopāsanā tantras and the Mantranaya this reality is a continuous process — creation and dissolution being continuous and innumerable.

12

This somewhat blunt (and compulsorily brief) statement of the common theoretical basis of the two systems does not bring to light all of their characteristics. What has been said here is a purely synchronic statement based on some texts belonging to the adherents of the religions and composed around the tenth century AD. The statement here does not reflect upon the origin of these beliefs and systems, but it is important for understanding the basis of their ritual.

The rituals stand on the unstated belief that the enactment of the process of the world in a micro-cosmic plane contributes to the salvation of the believer. In the Mantranaya the seka is the culminating point of the act. The enactment may take more forms than one. As told above the transcendent has two aspects. Accordingly ritual may involve two persons a male and a female. Theoretically this enactment of the world process is true of all forms of the ritual. But differences are noticed in at least two factors.

The ritual aims at the same purpose when the act is done symbolically through the drawn Ma¸·ala, that is a synchronic and still presentation of the world process, fire-offering and various gestures and postures. This is so in the Śākta tantras too. For example, when the initiation is performed through such symbolic acts the ritual is called kriyāvatīdīkÀā (BHATTACHARYA 1984: 194 ff). In the daily prayers of the adherents, the external ritual is the prevalent norm now a days.

The first practice had another from too where dual performance was avoided. This might have been a later development but its importance was unlimited. From around the tenth century one finds strong traces of the development of solo practice without any partner. It developed at least with the tenth century North Indian saint Gorakhnāth whose legendary difference with his guru Matsyendranāth (also Mīnanāth; Macchindranāth in North India) on this point has been remembered in popular tales current all over northern and eastern India. But this is not only a matter of popular legends. The fact seems to be confirmed by what one gets from the texts ascribed to Gorakhnāth himself. In the final sentence of a long dialogue between Matsyendranāth and Gorakhnāth, the latter concludes e Àa¶cakra kā jāĸaiÄ bheva/ so āpaiÄ kartā āpaiÄ deva/ ‘Whatever one achieves of these six-cakras, one performs that oneself, (the performer) himself is the deity’ (Macchīndra GoraÀ bodh 127,Gorakhbāni BARTHWAL 1979: 202).3 Prior to this the words of Matsyendranāth himself occur in the twilight language (sandhyābhāÀā) of the Buddhist mystics and hence can be interpreted variously.

Solo practice will be found in Tibetan tradition too. All these different practices, however, aim at the same thing – arousing some inner power

latent with the individual that leads the devotee to bliss. The power is termed ku¸·alinī — the coiled power — in the Śākta tantras as well as by the Siddhas (Kaviraj 1965: 74), mostly followers of Gorakhnāth. They teach how to arouse the same. A macro-cosmic form seems to have been referred to in the Purā¸as as ŚeÀanāga who too is aroused from slumber. In Tibetan practice the power remains within the individual as latent fire that has to be kindled by practice (CHANG 1962: passim). It is not possible here to discuss all the points relevant to the emergence of solo practice but this was of prime importance and even transformed the philosophy of the Tantras apart from gaining popularity among common people. 3 I owe it to my late wife Dr. Dulu Bhattacharya, who was an ardent student of the literature relating to Gorakhnāth, that I came to know of this line in the Gorakhbāni which she thought gave the view of Gorakhnāth himself as against that of his guru. Macchindranāth. There has been hardly any attempt to reconstruct an authentic version of the story of Matsyendranātha and GorakÀanātha. GorakÀavijaya, Mīnacetana, Mānikchānder( or –pīrer) pāncāli,Mainamatīr gān etc have been printed in Bengali and in various names in other north Indian languages. BANERJEA 1964 is a brief account of the sect and its main centre. BANERJEA made some other studies too but they are not available to me. An authentic but partial account of the texts is available in SEN 1948:750-775.

13

As to the Vajrāvalī one has to examine if its object of description is the ritual embodying external ie symbolic acts and solo practice. The enumeration that does not speak of any female partner seems to indicate practice in that line. This should be so but the matter is more complicated and needs elaboration.

Apparently a pair is theoretically formed. But the matter stops at that. The event takes place after śaraśleÀa mentioned in the enumeration. In the text the ritual is called guhyābhiÀeka. But that has not been mentioned as such in the enumeration where+śaraśleÀa is followed by guhyaprajñājñānaÆ. According to the description the disciple ‘offers’, theoretically, one samayinī, if available, to the teacher and utters a prayer. Nothing more is stated. Two things call for attention. The matter is omitted in the enumeration. Secondly, there is no mention, not to speak of description, of the inner awakening that takes place with joint practice. This means that the offering of the samayinī is symbolic. It ends with that and is not important like the solo practice of the devotee that has been described subsequently. Possibly this is somewhat like the ‘human sacrifice’ of the Kātyāyana-Śrautasūtra 21.1-12. After all the preliminaries prior to the sacrifice have been performed, the puruÀa is to be released. That means no actual human sacrifice is to take place. This is reform that took place both with the Tantras and the Vedic sacrifice.

Some current popular ideas about Tantric practice should be viewed in the light of what has been stated above. D.L.SNELLGROVE notices the actual joint performance of the ritual by the yogin and the yoginī. That is indeed true of the Hevajratantra. But that is one form. Against that the following observation (SNELLGROVE 1959: 11)needs modification on the basis of further information given above

“Well may one question the right of these yogins to call themselves Buddhists, who experience the consummation of enlightenment in the embrace of a yoginī. It is this very act which is regarded as serving the universal good of living beings. Thereafter the pupil is free to pursue the practice of strenuous meditation and physical control…”

We shall miss a lot if we fail to notice the conscious attempts that had been made to transform the ritual to pure yogic practice of the lone individual with elements of prayer and worship. Much water had flown through the Ganga between the composition of the Hevajratantra in the 8th century (SNELLGROVE 1959: 14) and the Vajrāvalī and its contemporary texts a few centuries later..

This is not to claim that joint enactment had been totally forsaken in the tantric cult. Its prime importance and essentiality had been done away with but traces persisted also in the Vajrāvalī as we noted above. SNELLGROVE himself (1959: 8) speaks how later commentators spoke of the ‘malpractices’ as ‘practices used by fools’. This show that the reform was slow but real.

I think the error of Snellgrove in putting the emphasis on the origin is serious and many of us may commit such errors if the study does not take care of both the historical and the synchronic aspect of the ritual. What SNELLGROVE has dealt with is only the origins and that too rather perfunctorily. One of the sections in which the above descriptions occur bears the title ‘ORIGINS’. SNELLGROVE also explicitly states (ibid: 11) that he is speaking about origins: “Such is the circle in which our tantra has its origins, amidst outcasts and voluntary outcasts, who reassert their position by means of the powers with which they become credited, …”

Many will be tempted to discover that SNELLGROVE has hit the mark in guessing the historical origin of the tantras. But attractive and persuasive as they are his remarks cannot be let off without questions and modifications. In the first place, SNELLGROVE’s remarks imply the absence of seriousness of purpose among the performers of the ritual. But nothing is farther from

14

truth than the commonly held idea of the absence of seriousness among the performers of what appears as hideous to us. The origin is to be sought not among outcasts or anti-socials of any hue as expressly stated by SNELLGROVE but among those who had not yet found a place in the society as a caste, among honest and serious people belonging to the substratum, that is to say in the ever going process of acculturation in medieval and ancient India and adjacent regions. One does not find an iota of this reality among the remarks of SNELLGROVE.

One has to note that substratum effect is noticeable both in European Christianity and Indian Buddhism and Hinduism. The cult of Mary as it developed in medieval Europe was not original to Christianity. Its inroad into the official cult was accompanied by considerable modifications. India had an analogous case but here the modifications came late and slow. Perhaps, the extreme form of inclusiveness and non-violence that characterise Indian and Tibetan culture prevented a violent change in the pre-existing cults at the time of the entrance of the cults.

So much on the origins. When, in addition to this, a synchronic analysis, that necessarily includes post-origin developments, is made — and that is the main thing of the texts — the whole thing gets a reliable interpretation. I can only hope that the short part of the Vajrāvalī above and the accompanying remarks will lead to that. Bibliography ADHIKARI, R.C.1373 BE= 1966 CE

Pratyabhijñāh¤dayamam Text with Bengali transl. Introduc-tion by G.N.KAVIRAJ

University of Burdwan

BAHULKAR, S.K. 2004 ‘The Apocryphal (?) Hymn to Praty -a´girā in the Paipp -alāda Tradition’

The Vedas:Texts,Language &Ritual Ed. A.Griffiths & J.E. M. Houben

Groningen

BANERJEA, A.K.1964 The Nath-Yogi Samprdaya and the Gorakhnath Temple

Gorakhnath Temple, Gorakhpur

BHATTACHARYYA, Benoytosh 1949

NiÀpannayogāvalī of Mahāpa- ¸·ita Abhayākaragupta Ed. with an Introduction

Oriental Institute Baroda

BHATTACHARYA, Dipak. 1979

‘The CatuÀkāya Doctrine in the Mantranaya’

Journal of Research, Visva Bharati II.1, 1978-79 pp.92-130

Santiniketan

″ ″ ″ 1984 Mythological and Ritual Symbolism

S. P.Bhandar, Calcutta

BHATTACHARYYA, Durgamohan 1968

The Fundamental Themes of the Atharvaveda

S.P.Mandali, Poona

BHATTACHARYA, Gaurishwar 2004

‘Bodhisatva athavā bodhisattva?’ (Bengali)

India and Indology:Past, Present and Future Ed.B.N. Mukhopadhyay, D.Bhatta-charya and others:pp.53-55

National Book Agency Kolkata

BARTHWAL, P 1979 Gorakh-bānī Ed. with notes in Hindi

Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,Pra yag (Allahabad)

CARELLI, M.E.1941 Ed. Sekoddeśa¶īkā OI, Baroda CHANG, G.C.C 1962 Teachings of Tibetan Yoga N.Y. Gorakhbānī See BARTHWAL

KAVIRAJ G.N. 1938 ‘Some Aspects of Sarasvati Bhavana Studies, Varanasi

15

the Philosophy of the Śākta Tantra’

Vol.X

" " " 1965 ‘Sahajyān o siddhamārga’

Pp.71-110 Bharatiya Sadhanar Dhara

Sanskrit College, Calcutta

″ ″ ″. 1966 Foreword to Adhikari 1966

" " ". 1971 A critique of the Kālacakrayāna (Hindi)

Appeared as Foreword to Baud- dhadharmadarshan (Hindi) by Narendra Deva 2nd ed

Patna

Panchanan SASTRI 1349 BE = 1942-43 CE

Śāktānandatara´gi¸ī of Brahmā nanda Giri Ed. with a Bengali translation & introduction

Calcutta

Pratyabhijñāh¤daya of Rajānaka KÀemarāja See Adhikari

Śāktānandatara´gi¸ī of Brahmānanda Giri See Panchanan SASTRI

Sekoddeśa¶īkā See CARELLI

SEN, Sukumar 1948 Bangala Sahityer Itihas Modern Book Agency, Calcutta

SNELLGROVE, D.L.1959 The Hevajratantra: A critical Study Parts 1-2

OUP, London

POSTSCRIPT After the press-copy had been sent to the editor Mr.Gerd Mevissen, iconographist

and art-historian at Berlin kindly me furnished me with the following information to throw some light on the question at the end of my foreword. The Japanese scholar who has extensively worked on the Vajrāvali is Masahide MORI. He did his Ph.D. in 1997 at the SOAS in London:"The Vajrāvali of Abhayākaragupta. A Critical Study, Sanskrit Edition of Selected Chapters and Complete Tibetan Version", London: SOAS, 1997, c. 500 pages, apparently still unpublished. MORI has also published several research papers on the Vajrāvali, etc. in Japanese language.

For my information Mr.Mevissen attached the abstract of MORI’s Ph.D. thesis to his mail. The Vajrāvali.according to it, covers three main topics namely, the construction of maņđalas, the installation of religious objects(pratiÀ¶hā) and the consecrations (abhiÀekas). The iconography of twenty-six maņđalas has been taken up by MORI. He thinks that the Vajrāvali represents the most developed stage of tantric rituals. The critical edition covers the chapters on installation and consecration. Thus it leaves the part edited and translated in the present paper. The Tibetan text is based on the Peking, Derge and Narthang editions. Mr. Mevissen also told me of Professor Gudrun Bühnemann of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the papers on Abhayākaragupta and the facsimile edition of the NiÀpannayogāvalī published by her. Professor Bühnemann sent to me her valuable paper ‘Some remarks on the date of Abhayākaragupta and the chronology of his works’ ZDMG Band 142-Heft 1 1992:120-127. According to this the probable date of Abhayākaragupta is 1064-1125. BÜHNEMANN (pp.125-126) also thinks that since the Vajrāvalī and the Jyotirmañjarī and the Vajrāvalī and the NiÀpannayogāvalī refer to each other they must have been written at the same time. BÜHNEMANN’s work on the NiÀpannayogāvalī was published from Tokyo (1991)

16

under the title: NiÀpannayogāvalī.Two Sanskrit manuscripts from Nepal Compiled by G. BÜHNEMANN and M.TACHIKAWA. It also includes a paper on Abhayākaragupta by her. Among others the following paper too is mentioned in BÜHNEMANN’s Bibliography: ‘The Vajrāvalīnāma-Ma¸·alopāyikā of Abhayākaragupta’ in Tantric and Taoist studies in honour of R.A.Stein, ed. M.STRICKMANN Vol.I:70-95.Bruxelles 1981. Another related work mentioned by BÜHNEMANN is The Sekoddeśa¶īkā by Naropa (Paramārthasa´graha). Critical edition of the Sanskrit Text by F. Sferra. Critical edition of the Tibetan translation by S. Mergagora. Rome, 2006. The earlier works have been referred to in my paper. I express my deep gratitude to both the scholars for the information.

17