Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist Canonical Collections

Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘CanonicalCollections’: The Case of the Caryāmelāpakapradīpa

Commentary Attributed to Śākyamitra1

Christian K. WedemeyerUniversity of Chicago Divinity School

Abstract: This paper examines the nature of the Tibetan Buddhist canonicalcollections with particular attention to the issues raised by the presence of asigniicant number of pseudepigrapha (falsely attributed works, including manypenned by Tibetans) in the Bstan ’gyurs. A detailed case is made for one particularwork—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 thewritings of Bu ston rin po che (1290-1364) concerning the policies followed inediting the canonical collections, it is argued that these corpora cannot beconsidered “canonical” in the sense of being intended to serve as criteria forreligious authenticity. Rather, the Bstan ’gyur in particular is characterized by anad hoc nature, a deference to precedent regarding inclusion of works of dubiousprovenance, and a drive toward inclusivity—aiming for comprehensiveness, ratherthan authority.

IntroductionIt is common in literate cultures that works by highly esteemed authors come tobear exceptional authority therein and that these works are consequently invoked,cited, paraphrased, and alluded to in order to marshall some degree of their authorityin the service of novel projects. In such circumstances it is no less commonplacefor entirely new works to be composed and attributed to such authors, long aftertheir 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 ofBuddhist Studies, London, England, 2 September 2005. I would like to thank the members of that bodyfor their hospitality and constructive criticism. Profs. Matthew Kapstein and David Seyfort Ruegg, inparticular, 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.

http://www.thlib.org?tid=T5700

http://www.thlib.org/tools/licenses.php#essay=/thl/text-license/

dialogues were composed and attributed to the Greek philosopher Plato. Likewise,after the death of the Apostle, “Pauline” letters continued to be penned andcirculated throughout the Mediterranean region. Examples could be multiplied.

Such novel attributions, or pseudepigrapha, have met with mixed successhistorically. Some have had the good fortune of being accepted quite widely asequally authoritative as the genuine products of those authors; others have beentreated as merely derivative sources, while some have been rejected entirely. Aswith 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 universallyaccepted as authentic until the early nineteenth century, since which time it hasgenerally been treated as spurious (and excluded from collections of theDialogues)until recent decades have again seen it accepted by many scholars as a genuinework of Plato.2

In the Tibetan Buddhist canonical collections, of course, there are numerouscases of pseudepigraphy, although the phenomenon in its own right has not receiveda great deal of scholarly attention. On the whole, notice of pseudepigrapha in theTibetan Buddhist canons has been limited to cases wherein Buddhist esoteric, orTantric, works have been attributed to high-proile authors of early Universal Way(Mahāyāna) scholasticism. Only quite recently does one begin to ind modernskepticism of Tibetan canonical translations based uponmore reined criteria—suchas close reading of the works themselves—and attendant inquiry into the natureof authority and canonicity in the Tibetan literary world.

The issues raised by the phenomenon of pseudepigraphy become especiallyacute when considered alongside those concerning canonicity. The degree to whichthe Bka’ ’gyurs and Bstan ’gyurs may be considered “canonical” collections inthe strong sense is in large degree dependent upon their treatment ofpseudepigrapha. Recent work on these Tibetan scriptural collections qua canonshas focused largely on the issue of ixedness or closure. While this is undoubtedlyan important issue and an element in some notions of canon, canons are mostessentially about authority and authenticity: as, for instance, in theOxford EnglishDictionary deinition 2c, to wit, “a standard of judgement or authority; a test,criterion, means of discrimination.” The other deinitions provided are all variantson this basic theme: so, one reads of canon in the sense of “law, rule, edict,” andso forth. The operative deinition in our case—that of a canon of literary works—issimilarly a variant of the basic sense of authority: “4. The collection or list of booksof 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 wasaccepted until Friedrich Schleiermacher irst disputed this attribution in the Introduction to his Germantranslation 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: HackettPublishing Company, 1997), viii-x; and Freidrich Schleiermacher, Schleiermacher’s Introductions tothe Dialogues of Plato, trans. William Dobson (Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1992 [1836]), 328-336.

2Wedemeyer: Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Canonical Collections’

any set of sacred books; also, those writings of a secular author accepted asauthentic.”3

This notion of canon as a signiier of authenticity has not been entirely neglectedin discussions of the Tibetan Buddhist collections. Much has been made, in bothindigenous andWestern writings, of the exclusion of certain Rnying ma scripturesfrom the Bka’ ’gyurs, on the basis of a lack of conidence in their Indic pedigree.4We do not propose to engage that discussion here, however. In what follows, wewill 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 playin the redactional process, though it was evidently only one among several criteriaguiding the selection of which materials to include and which to exclude. Lookingclosely 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 Tibetancomposition attributed to a famed Indian paṇḍita, b) that a range of Tibetanauthorities considered this work somewhat dubious (though for generally opaque,probably doctrinal, reasons), and that c) its inclusion in the Bstan ’gyur isconsequently and demonstrably instructive concerning important features of thosecollections: their ad hoc nature, deference to precedent, drive to comprehensiveness,and marked tendency toward inclusivity.

The Lamp that Integrates the Practices (Caryāmelāpakapradīpa)and its CommentaryThe work that we will primarily be concerned with herein presents itself as anIndic commentary on the Caryāmelāpakapradīpa, or Lamp that Integrates thePractices (hereafter the Lamp), a highly inluential scholastic work in the EsotericCommunity (Guhyasamāja) tradition of the Noble Nāgārjuna.5 The commentaryas it appears in the various Tibetan Bstan ’gyur collections is called the ExtensiveExplanation of the ‘Lamp that Integrates the Practices’ (Spyod pa bsdus pa’i sgronma zhes bya ba’i rgya cher bshad pa; hereafter Extensive Explanation)6 and itscolophon attributes authorship to “the teacher endowed with supreme criticalwisdom, 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 GradualPath 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 paperrefer 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/.

3Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

modern scholarship—as well as to the Tibetan tradition8—though he appears listedas a major disciple of Nāgārjuna in second-millennium Tibetan historical writings.There are not to my knowledge any signiicant Centrist (Madhyamaka) worksattributed to an author of this name. I surmise he is considered as such due to hiswork, the Unexcelled Intention (Anuttarasaṃdhi), having been redacted as thesecond chapter of theFive Stages (Pañcakrama, Rim lnga) attributed to Nāgārjuna.9

Of course, to raise the issue of the authenticity of such a work is already to bega variety of questions, if not to set oneself up to shoot ish in a barrel. Given thatthe 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 untilthe ninth century to which it is reasonably reliably datable;10 and that thecommentary is attributed to yet another igure held to have been a student ofNāgārjuna, one wonders what kind of “authenticity” one could reasonably speakof in the irst place: in the eyes of modern historical scholarship neither work iswhat it claims to be and thus both are pseudepigrapha and neither can claim to beauthentic in a strict sense.

For our immediate purposes, I will bracket this larger issue of authorialattribution, and focus instead solely on the more local Tibetan question of whetheror not such works “authentically” belong in the Tibetan Bstan ’gyurs where theyreside. From this perspective, the actual authorship of the works is arguably besidethe 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 importantfrom 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 /); TheCollected 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 Vitapādaand Āryadeva, author of the Lamp. If this is so, it would add further strength, were such needed, to thearguments 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,” inEsoteric Buddhist Studies: Identity in Diversity, ed. Executive Committee, ICEBS (Koyasan: KoyasanUniversity, 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 forour 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 theformat title-author-translator(s)—and the presence of the term “translate” (’gyur) in the titles of bothcollections—it seems beyond dispute that being a translated work is a baseline criterion for inclusionin the collections. See also Bu ston’s comments, below, note 63.


is certainly “authentic” on this criterion,12 there are clear indications that theExtensive Explanation is not.

Suspicions of Indigenous AuthoritiesIt is worth noting that several Tibetan authorities also deny the authenticity of theExtensive Explanation; and none to my knowledge cite the text as an authoritativesource, suggesting it was held in general suspicion by the Tibetan traditions. Theseauthors, it should be noted, employ yet another criterion for authenticity—one thatcollapses the two mentioned above. To be “authentic” in their eyes, a work mustbe not only a translation of a real Indian composition, but must be authored by theperson to whom it is attributed. While traditional authors do accept that a CentristŚākyamitra could very well have authored such a work, the Extensive Explanationis not held to be the work of this Śākyamitra. Among those who explicitly expressan 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 Integratesthe Practices (Caryāmelāpakapradīpa) attributed to Śākyamitra, it is conceivablethat it might just be someone with the same name as that teacher, but it isunacceptable 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 skyawriter ’Jam dgon a myes zhabs (1597-1659), who writes, “also, the one so-calledŚākyamitra 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 EsotericCommunity Noble Tradition].14

Establishing Tibetan Authorship of the Extensive ExplanationThus, a variety of Tibetan religious authorities, while incredulous of the primaryattribution of the Extensive Explanation and dismissive of its contribution to theliterature of the Noble Tradition, are nonetheless willing to allow that thiscommentary may have been at least semi-authentic by Tibetan criteria—being thework 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 ofthis work, corroborated by the fact that it is cited in a number of extant Sanskrit works, such as theSekoddeśaṭīkā of Naḍapāda (Nāropā), the anonymous Subhāṣitasaṃgraha, and the Pañcakramaṭippaṇīof Muniśrībhadra. See Mario E. Carelli, ed., Sekoddeśaṭīkā of Naḍapāda (Nāropa) (Baroda: OrientalInstitute, 1940); Cecil Bendall, ed., Subhāṣitasaṃgraha (Louvain: J.-B. Istas, 1905); and ZhongxinJiang & 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 mkhangyi shā kya bshes gnyen bya ba gcig byung ba de yang ’di dang mi gcig. ’Jam mgon A myes zhabsngag dbang kun dga’ bsod nams, Dpal gsaṅ ba ’dus pa’i dam pa’i chos byuṅ ba’i tshul legs par bśadpa gsaṅ ’dus chos kun gsal ba’i nyin byed (Dehradun: Sakya Center, 1985).


reading of the work, however, suggests otherwise. Based on evidence internal tothe commentary itself, it is to me strikingly apparent that it was composed inTibetan, by an author whose only knowledge of the Lampwas through the mediumof its eleventh-century Tibetan translation, attributed to Śraddhākaravarman andRin chen bzang po.15

Before turning to this evidence, one may observe that the author of the ExtensiveExplanation was quite skilled and careful in composing his forgery. He clearlywent to some trouble to make his work read as if it were in fact a translation of aSanskrit commentary. For example, there are several places wherein one indsredundant glosses. That is, the text will gloss a word with a precisely identical one.Thus, one reads:

1. ‘unreality’ [means] unreality,162. ‘pervading the ten directions’ [means] pervading the ten directions,17 and3. ‘divinity reality’ [means] divinity reality.18

In so doing, the author demonstrates his knowledge of the fact that Tibetantranslators were not infrequently unable to render effectively-synonymous Sanskritglosses—which are often near but never actual tautologies—with discrete Tibetanterms. That is, given the lexical richness of Sanskrit, an author commenting on aSanskrit work might offer a gloss such as śoṇitam iti raktaṃ. An elegant (ifinterpretative) translation of this gloss—taking advantage of the similar lexicalrichness of English—might read “crimson [means] red” (or, “blood [means] gore”).However, denotatively speaking, this just means “red [means] red;” and, given therelative lexical poverty of Tibetan, a translation in that language would no doubtread dmar po ni dmar po ste (or, khrag ni khrag ste). Thus, by providing a numberof 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 Sanskriticglosses, it seems our author may have been less than entirely careful. For, in orderto make such glosses realistic, it is necessary to be sensitive to the preciseparameters of the Sanskrit lexicon. While no doubt rich—perhaps evenincomparably so—it does have its limits. The following glosses would appearoverzealous:

1. ‘all things’ [means] all things,192. ‘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/.


While one can reasonably reconstruct plausible Sanskrit equivalents for thethree forms encountered previously, viz:

1. abhāva iti niḥsvabhāvaḥ,2. daśadigvyāpina iti daśadikkalilaḥ, and3. 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 suchspeciic, stock technical expressions that (while they might very well be explainedin a commentary) they would not be subject to glossing in this manner. While itis possible that one might try to gloss sarvadharma—for example with someexpression like sarvabhāva—these would almost inevitably end up with atranslatable difference, thus: chos thams cad ni dngos po thams cad ste.

There are muchmore striking laws in this author’s attempts to create the illusionof Indic origin, however. One’s suspicions are immediately aroused at the outsetof the work, wherein the Sanskrit title is given as *Caryā-samucchaya-pradīpaṃNāma Ṭīkā. Aside from the extraneous inlection of the term pradīpa, what is moststriking is the discrepancy in the central term: samuccaya instead of melāpaka.21Yet, the fact that the Sanskrit title is mis-constructed is not in itself evidence ofTibetan authorship—otherwise authentic translations of Indic works do bear false,reconstructed Sanskrit titles.22Onemight consider, for example, theGuhyendutilaka,an important esoteric scripture cited frequently in extant Sanskrit works, whosetranslation bears the title Candra-guhya-tilaka, a name evidently mechanicallyreconstructed from the Tibetan title Zla gsang thig le.23

One does not look long for more deinitive proof, however. There are two typesof feature—stylistic and substantive—that point to my conclusion: a) the commentsalways follow the word order of the Tibetan translation, not the Sanskrit original,24and 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 willargue 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 HumanCulture, 1994), 768-780.23 See, for example, Tōh. 477 and/or Pek. 111.24 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 ofIndo-Tibetan Buddhist literature, in the case of the Lamp the situation is rather straightforward, makingit an ideal focus for inquiry of this sort (see the use made of it in the analysis of Tibetan translationmethods, textual history, and strategies of legitimating authority in Chr. K. Wedemeyer, “TantalisingTraces of the Labours of the Lotsāwas: Alternative Translations of Sanskrit Sources in the Writings ofRje 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 inquite close concord in terms of their texts and they were produced in roughly the same period as boththe Lo chen Lamp and the Extensive Explanation.


on readings unique to the Tibetan translation of the Lamp. Both features are evidentin the comments on two separate citations of the famous injunction given to thefuture Buddha in the enlightenment narrative found in the important Tantra, theSarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha.25 In this esoteric scripture, when the bodhisattvaSarvārthasiddhi asks, “How shall I ind out what reality is?” (kathaṃ pratipadyāmikīdṛśaṃ tattvaṃ), all the Tathāgatas urge him, “Find out, O Noble One, by means

of the meditative focus that attends to your ownmind”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 createdby 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 gisemsiii so sor rtogs shigi, yielding: “O Noble One, know your own mind bymeditative focus.” The second citation of this line in the Lamp is rendered slightlydifferently, though it preserves the same word order and basic syntax. The onlydifference 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 rtogsshigi.

A quick glance at the comments on these citations in the Extensive Explanationreveals the fact that they relect the wording (and attendant interpretation) of theTibetan 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 gzhagpa ni bsgom pa’o// des rang gi sems so sor rtogs shig ces pa ni sems cilta 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 ofKoyasan 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 itspraxical sense (“practise, perform, accomplish”). This could also be read as two questions: “how shallI practice? what is reality?” (this reading is implied by the punctuation added by the editor, viz: kathaṃpratipadyāmi? kīdṛśaṃ tattvaṃ?). However, since a) the latter question is not addressed, and b) “knowingreality” and “practicing enlightenment” are equivalent in this tradition, I think a stronger case can bemade to read this as one question. The Tibetan translations of the Lamp that we will discuss below alsorender 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).


‘Noble One’ is vocative. ‘Understand your own mind by meditative focus’ iswell-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 nirang gi sems la nan tan du gyis shig pa ste/ (Extensive Explanation, 265b4).

‘By meditative focus’ [means] by equipoise in samādhi. ‘Understand yourown mind’ [means] be careful with regard to the mind.

Worse still for the credibility of our commentary, the exposition here relectsthe inconsistency in the Lo chen translation of the two citations: the irst readingaccusative (rang gi sems) and the latter dative/locative (rang gi sems la). The factthat the commentary follows not only the variant grammar (and sense) of theTibetan translation, but also corresponds exactly to the inconsistent wording ofthe translation is strong evidence that it is based on the Lo chen translation, ratherthan the Sanskrit original.

Further conirmation comes from two more examples wherein the commentaryfollows 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 samegenre. The point he makes boils down to this: earlier masters wrote usingnigūḍha-śabda, that is “cryptic expressions.” Such a technique, he says, wasappropriate (yukta) for the astute readers of the earlier Kṛta, Tretā, and DvāparaYugas.29 But, he writes, this is no longer possible: in the contemporaneouscontext—writing for a rather dull audience in the Kali-yuga—demands that onewrite using uttāna-śabda, “straightforward expressions.” The meaning is quiteplain 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 thatthe commentary follows.30

A little further on, the commentary addresses Āryadeva’s list of tattvas, ortopics, covered in the Lamp. In Lo chen’s translation, there are ive: a) sngags kyide kho na nyid, b) phyag rgya’i de kho na nyid, c) bdag gi de kho na nyid, d) choskyi de kho na nyid, and e) lha’i de kho na nyid. The Extensive Explanation followsthis list and glosses them as corresponding to the ive stages of the Noble Traditionsystem:31 vajrajāpa,māyā[deha], cittanidhyapti, prabhāsvara, and yuganaddha.32

29Eras in the evolutionary world cycles which represent successive degeneration of the beings borntherein.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 theive stages of the perfection stage, see Wedemeyer, Āryadeva’s Lamp; or A. Wayman, Yoga of theGuhyasamāja Tantra (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1977).


While this idea is not unreasonable—indeed, absent knowledge of the Sanskritwork, it is almost intuitive—a thorough knowledge of the Lamp (even solely inTibetan) demonstrates that this cannot be the case. First of all, later references inthe 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 onthe part of “Śākyamitra.”

More to the point, however, both the extant Sanskrit manuscripts have only fourtopics, not ive:34 an equivalent for the fourth in the Lo chen Lamp and the ExtensiveExplanation’s lists (chos kyi de kho na nyid) does not appear and it is clear that itdoes not belong. Indeed, elsewhere in the Tibetan scholarlytradition—independently corroborating the reading of the Sanskrit manuscripts—thecitation of this passage from the Lamp in Tāranātha’s Great Commentary on theFive Stages (Rim lnga’i ’grel chen) does not include chos kyi de kho na nyid.35Hence, we may conclude, the list of ive topics evidently originated in Lo chen’stranslation of the Lamp; and its appearance in the Extensive Explanation providesfurther support for the view that the latter was commenting on the former, ratherthan a Sanskrit Lamp.

There are numerous other such indications. The commentary glosses kā li asthe “thirty-two consonants,”36 rather than the thirty-three as maintained by theIndic tradition Āryadeva represents. The homage verse at the outset of thecommentary is in remarkably natural Tibetan, all verbs being clause-inal—unusualin authentic translations. The author at times fails to grasp idiomatic usage ofSanskrit 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 Tibetanmedium).

The coup de grâce, however, is the interpretation the commentary gives of thetitle of the work. The central term ismelāpaka: an agentive causative, derived fromthe root √mil, “to meet.” Thus, my somewhat awkward rendering, the Lamp thatIntegrates the Practices. The commentary, however, states: “concerning ‘practiceintegration,’ [this means] abbreviating the practices, since [the author] was fearfulof prolixity.”37 What one sees here is a Tibetan author explaining the meaning ofthe Tibetan term bsdus, which serves to rendermelāpaka in the Tibetan translationof 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 thePractice of the Guhyasamāja Tantra (Thimpu: Kunsang Topgey, 1976), 3a1.36 Extensive Explanation, 242b5: kā li ni gsal byed sum cu rtsa gnyis te/.37 Extensive Explanation, 245a2: spyod pa bsdus pa ni spyod pa nyung du byas pa ste/ gzhung rgyas

pas ’jigs pa’o/.


the commentary), bsdus means “the opposite of vast” (rgyas pa’i ldog phyogs).38Melāpaka, as we have seen, corresponds to another of the meanings of bsdus, towit “to come or approach together, to meet, to interlace.”39 This reading serves toexplain the erroneous Sanskrit title given in the Sde dge Bstan ’gyur: Carya-samucchaya-pradīpaṃ Nāma Ṭīkā. Of course, samuccaya does not mean“abbreviated” either, but it is precisely the “reconstruction” one would expect forbsdus, if one were concocted by a Tibetan. Given that this interpretation is offeredby 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 isthe result of editorial intervention.

In short, based on the above observations, the commentary on the Lampattributed to Śākyamitra may fairly conidently be classiied as an indigenousTibetan work to which Indic origins and authorship have been attributed. Thereare 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 SigniicanceNow, as esoteric Buddhist scholastic literature is not a ield that generatestremendous interest, many (if not most) readers will hitherto have been (perhapsblissfully) unaware of either the existence of the Lamp or its importance in thehistory 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 seeminglyno impact on later Tibetan intellectual history? This is an important and entirelyvalid 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 isan indigenous Tibetan work masquerading as an Indic commentary, it is not worthyof study. It is, of course, useless as a direct witness to Indian commentary on theLamp 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 religiousgenius) and as an object lesson in the (evidently rather forgiving) standards appliedto works considered for inclusion in the Tibetan Bstan ’gyurs.

A large part of the local signiicance of the work will depend on where andwhen 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 aconident answer to these questions, though some speculation is possible. Givenits 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.


of the work is late-tenth/early-eleventh century,41 while the reference to it in thetwo catalogs of the Bstan ’gyur42 by Bu ston (1290-1364) provides a terminus antequem in at least the early fourteenth century. There are archaisms, however, thatsuggest 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 bereconstructed as Kriyā-tantra, Caryā-tantra, Ubhaya-tantra, and Yogottara-tantra).The usage of this schema suggests the work predates the hegemony of the lateNew Translation Movement (Gsar ma) classiication that concludes with Rnal’byor and Rnal ’byor bla med rgyud (Yoga-tantra and Yoga-niruttara tantra). Whilethere is always the possibility that this is an intentional archaism deployed ascamoulage—much like the ersatz glosses mentioned above—itmay in fact relecta date of composition in the late eleventh century, not long after Lo chen’stranslation of the Lamp was completed. Jacob Dalton has recently argued that thehegemonic New TranslationMovement formulation did not come into vogue untilperhaps the twelfth century,43 which would suggest we locate the composition ofthe Extensive Explanation ca. 1050-1150.

This may be somewhat further corroborated, moreover, by what one might calla marked monkish conservatism in the trend of the commentary that suggests someafinity with the delicate sensibilities fostered in oficial Buddhist discourse ofWestern Tibet during the reigns of Zhi ba ’od (1016-1111) and his grand-uncleYe shes ’od, contemporaneously or immediately anterior to the period to whichwe have referred the Extensive Explanation.44 It is worth noting that this treatmentstands in rather marked contrast to the mode of Lamp exegesis advanced by Lochen’s contemporary, ’Gos khug pa lhas btsas, whose monumental Survey of theEsoteric Community (Gsang ’dus stong thun)45 had already established the Lampas an authoritative source for Tibetan intellectuals of this period.

For instance, the somewhat antinomian analysis of karma (las) in Chapter Fiveof the Lamp is rather eviscerated in its treatment by the commentator. The upshotof 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…betweenthe years 1013 and 1055.” See Claus Vogel, Vāgbhaṭa’s “Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā”: The First FiveChapters 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, Ritualsand 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. TheodoreRiccardi, Jr., ed. Todd T. Lewis and Bruce Owens, forthcoming.


are fundamentally predicated on the deeper processes of the subtle mind, the Tantrichero attains enlightenment—not by focusing on virtuous action—but through yogicintervention into the subtle mind. While the commentator does not contradict thispoint per se, he gives a much more conventional, Prajñāpāramitā-styleinterpretation of the antinomian implications (based on appeal to the superiorityof non-conceptual gnosis) and avails himself of every opportunity to include ratherconventional excurses on Buddhistic ethics.46 Furthermore, though the Lamp itselfcites esoteric scriptural authorities that suggest that monks (bhikṣu, dge slong) arenot ideal vessels for Tantric teachings47 (or, at least, for undertaking the antinomianpractices of the mad vow [caryāvrata or unmattavrata])48 the commentarynonetheless 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 racytopic of the antinomian practices (Caryā) to which the last three chapters of theLamp—practically a third of the work—are devoted and to which the title of thework itself refers.50 The commentary ends when it gets to these chapters, the authorexcusing himself rather hastily saying: “concerning the three practices, and thelike: because they are easy to understand, I fear prolixity, and other teachers haveexplained them at length, I will not discuss them.”51 It is hard to imagine threemore disingenuous reasons for refraining from commenting on these chapters andthis important aspect of the praxis of the higher Tantras. If they were so easy tounderstand, one doubts that Āryadeva himself would have spent so much timeelaborating them in the Lamp; nor presumably would Lo chen’s contemporary,the aforementioned ’Gos khug pa lhas btsas, have devoted forty-three folios (orroughly 16 percent) of his Survey of the Esoteric Community52 or (later) Tsong khapa 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” (uktaṃbhagavatā//_bhikṣu-bhāve sthitā ye tu ye tu tarka-ratā narāḥ/_vṛddha-bhāve sthitā ye tu teṣāṃ tattvaṃna 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, NewSeries, 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. SeeWedemeyer,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 nima bshad do/.52 See note 44, above.53 See note 13, above.


to this topic. “Fearing prolixity” is a common dodge in both Indian and Tibetancommentary, but one doubts that (having spent a mere forty-three folios to commenton a ifty-folio root text) this was a serious concern of the author. Since ’Gos hadpresumably already produced his extensive work on this topic, it is indeed possiblethat the Extensive Explanation’s author could have been referring to this work, butsince the authorial personality is supposed to have been the Indian Śākyamitra,54and 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 appearsrather limsy. Rather, I suspect the author was self-consciously elaborating a moreconservative interpretation of the Lamp than that represented by ’Gos.

One may speculate, then, that this commentary represents one salvo in thelate-eleventh/early-twelfth-century Tibetan Buddhist “culture wars,” seeking toadvance a more moderate take on the Tantric system of Nāgārjuna than representedin Indic śāstras such as the Lamp. Perhaps, we might further hypothesize, theauthor was a court-sponsored translator/teacher, charged with creating acommentarial digest of the authoritative Tantric teachings of Āryadeva, freed ofits antinomian strains. Such a work could be quite useful, insofar as the Lamp isremarkable for its erudite marshalling of mainstreamUniversalWay scholasticismin elaboration and defense of the teachings of the Esoteric Community: a real tourde force as a Tantric śāstra and quite inluential as a result. One could well imaginethat an emergent Tibetan Buddhist court—intrigued by the potentialities offeredby the ritual system of the Mahāyoga Tantras, yet concerned that its antinomianrhetorics not sow ethical confusion in the public square—would be grateful for anentirely scholastic presentation attributable to a renowned Indic authority.

If these premises are cogent, I would further advance the hypothesis that theauthor of the Extensive Explanationmay have been none other than Ba ri lo tsā barin chen grags (1040-1111). This eminent translator lourished precisely in the lateeleventh/early twelfth centuries to which I have tentatively dated the ExtensiveExplanation. He served in an oficial capacity in the burgeoning (if still somewhatprovincial) center of Sa skya—acting as abbot and administering the monasticestates during the minority of his student, Sa chen kun dga’ snying po55—and wasa junior contemporary of the West Tibetan King of Gu ge/Pu hrang, Zhi ba ’od,mentioned above as manifesting an ambivalent oficial relationship to esotericBuddhism.56 Notably, Bu ston’s Catalog of the Tengyur attributes the Zhwa lumanuscript 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), speciiesthat 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 subsequentlyattributed to an Indian paṇḍita. The ersatz glosses examined above speak strongly for the view that thepretense 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 dpeskrun khang, 2002), 1378; and Ronald M. Davidson, Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in theRebirth of Tibetan Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 295-99.56 See note 43, above.


Ba.57 Further, since Ba ri lo tsā ba is known to have translated a Cakrasaṃvaracommentary, certain tendencies toward the Yoginītantras in the ExtensiveExplanation would be thereby explained (for example, its reference to the “fourwheels,” a category not native to the system of Āryadeva). Of course, more carefulstudy of Ba ri lo tsā ba and his work is required to test this hypothesis, but he doeshave the right proile, right time, and documented connection both to a signiicantcenter of Tibetan polity as well as to the very work in question.

Broader Signiicance Regarding Bstan ’gyur StudiesThere 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 Rnyingma Tantras from the Bka’ ’gyur proper,58 one might legitimately wonder how suchan 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 werecomposed 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—resultingin 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 slobdpon 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 (Regionof Eastern Tibet) in the above. Dung dkar tshig mdzod (p. 1378) notes that, although Ba ri rin chengrags was likely born in Stodmnga’ ris, some sources say that he was born in Khams (khams su ’khrungszhes 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 thatare 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 Rnyingrgyud 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 parthag chod pa rnams phyung / the tshom za ba rnams sngar bzhin du bzhag nas bris so/; or HelmutEimer, 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 apparentlynot original to Bu ston, but was adopted from at least one of his prototypes. The Tantra Catalog (Kye’irdo rje’i rgyud ’bum gyi dkar chag) of Rje btsun grags pa rgyal mtshan (1147-1216) includes the earlytranslations of the Esoteric Scriptures (Sngags snga ’gyur) in a sixth and inal section after the fourmajor Tantra classes (nos. 1-4) and the worldly Tantras (no. 5). Somewhat more charitably, the TantraCatalog (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, “ASource for the First Narthang Kanjur: Two Early Sa skya pa Catalogues of the Tantras,” in Transmissionof the Tibetan Canon: Papers Presented at a Panel of the 7th Seminar of the International Associationfor Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995, ed. H. Eimer (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie derWissenschaften, 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 importanceto the Tibetans, and texts deemed spurious were rejected by Bu ston (and others).” Peter Skilling, “From


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 includedworks merely on the basis of precedent: that is, the precedent of having beenincluded in previous catalogs of the canons.61 For instance, concerning a FiveStages commentary attributed to *Nāgabodhi, he writes: “although it is a fake,since earlier [editors] inscribed it [in the canon, I also] do.”62 Likewise, explicitlyaddressing the issue of Tibetan forgeries, he writes “concerning the commentaryascribed to Āryadeva on the irst chapter of the Pradīpoddyotana, although this islikely a Tibetan [work], since my predecessors inscribed it [in the canon], I haveput it in.”63 On the other hand, Bu ston elsewhere mentions the case of anotherFive Stages commentary that he suspects may be a pseudepigraph, but which hehas included nonetheless based on its seemingly Indic authorship.64

Bu ston, however, does not mention any such qualms regarding the ExtensiveExplanation. In neither the briefer “Catalog Section” of his History of Buddhismnor 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, withoutother qualiication, may be taken to imply his assent to the attribution. Given hisfrequent 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 hisHistory 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 bsamyas mchims phu’i dkar chag dang / de’i rjes kyi ’phang thang ka med kyi dkar chag dang / phyis snarthang gi bstan bcos ’gyur ro cog gi dkar chag dang / lo tsā ba chen pos bsgyur ba dang mdzad pa’idkar 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 subcug 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 PaṇḍitaKarmavajra and Lo tsā ba gzhon nu tshul khrims; Bu ston writes “although it is dubious whether thisis or is not the work of Ācārya Nāgabodhi, since it is the work of an Indian paṇḍita, I have inscribedit [in the canon]” (’di slob dpon klu byang gis mdzad ma mdzad the tshom za bar ’dug na’ang rgyagar gyi paṇḍi tas byas par ’dug pas bris so/); Bstan ’gyur dkar chag, 34a2 (467.2). Since this paperwas delivered in 2005, Leonard van der Kuijp has since assembled similar materials demonstratingthat this commentary and one other attributed to *Nāgabodhi/Nāgabuddhi included in the Bstan ’gyurare similarly Tibetan pseudepigrapha. See L. W. J. van der Kuijp, “*Nāgabodhi/Nāgabuddhi: Noteson the Guhyasamāja Literature,” in Pramāṇakīrtiḥ: Papers Dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on theOccasion of his 70th Birthday, ed. B. Kellner, H. Krasser, et al. (Wien: Arbeitskreis für Tibetische undBuddhistische 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/. Buston, History of Buddhism: slob dpon ’phags pa lhas mdzad pa’i spyod pa bsdus pa’i sgron ma rinchen bzang po’i ’gyur/ de’i bshad pa slob dpon shākya bshes gnyen gyis mdzad pa/. See SoshūNishioka, “Index to the Catalogue Section of Bu-ston’s ‘History of Buddhism’ (III),” Annual Reportof the Institute for the Study of Cultural Exchange, No. 6 (1983): 83.


of which he explicitly states appear to be Tibetan compositions66 —one wondershow he could have let this one past. Insofar as Bu ston nowhere cites thiscommentary in his own extensive writings, one reasonable hypothesis is that heacquired the text rather late in the process of re-editing the Bstan ’gyur—one mayrecall in this regard that he is said to have added one thousand works to thecollection67—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 tolocal precedent, rather than that of earlier catalogs.

However that may be, it is clear that—regardless of what Bu ston may havethought 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 goalwas comprehensiveness, not authoritativeness. At the conclusion of the “CatalogSection” of hisHistory of Buddhism, Bu ston writes of the experience of compilingthe canonical collections, clearly articulating both his deference to precedent inretaining works found in previous catalogs and his drive to expand the scope ofthe collections so as to be as comprehensive as possible:

[Working] on the basis of the [earlier catalogs of Ldan dkar, Bsam yas, ’Phangthang, and so forth], I added and inscribed [many works] in the Catalog: latertranslations, those among the exemplars of the various monasteries seen to beappropriate that had not previously been included, and those which I was orallyassured were authentic. Here, there are extremely few which should be excludedand still many stainless scriptures and commentaries to be added.68

Consequently, it may safely be asserted that, apart from the notable exceptionof his qualms about the Old Tantras—itself based on a general (and by no meansunique) desire for the works included to be of authentically Indic derivation69—Buston’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 tohave been written by Āryadeva appears to have been composed by a Tibetan; one might considerwhether it were Rngog Āryadeva” (ā rya de ba’i mdzad zer ba’i sgron gsal gyi ’grel bshad ni// bodgcig 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 [Buston], 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 andsmaller dharma colleges of Dbus and Gtsang. Adding about one thousand new scriptures and eliminatingall 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 barnams/ dbus gtsang gi chos grwa che chung rnams nas ’bad pa chen pos btsal te/ chos kyi rnam grangsstong phrag gcig tsam bsnan zhing / phyi mo na bzhugs pa’i zlos pa kun dor nas/ khyad par du ’phagspa’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/ ’dila dor bar bya ba shin tu nyung zhing dri ma med pa’i bka’ bstan bcos rnyed na da dung mang dubsnan par bya’o/; Bu ston chos ’byung, 314.69 See note 63, above.


of the canonical collections. He sought to include everything he could—many ofwhich items were included merely on the basis of oral assurances of the custodiansof the original manuscripts found scattered among various monasteries.

SummaryIt is well known, of course, that the several Bstan ’gyurs contain translations ofIndic pseudepigrapha: Sanskrit works not composed by the Indian authors to whomthey are attributed. More recently, scholarship has turned its attention to a secondphenomenon: so-called “gray texts” of mixed Indic and Tibetan derivation.70 Inaddition 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)—worksthat are not only pseudepigrapha, but whose authorship is indubitably Tibetan, thatwere not translated but composed in Tibetan, yet were nonetheless included in thecanonical collections due, among other factors, to the power of the status quo. Allof these varieties of Tibetan literature are, of course, equally worthy of our attentionas scholars.

The presence of such “black texts,” however, also recommends that scholarstake extra care to approach the contents of the Bstan ’gyur with a thoroughgoingskepticism. Beyond the more elementary—though still common—mistake ofreferring to Tibetan canonical translations as “Indian” rather than “Indic” works,71the presence in the Bstan ’gyurs of indigenous Tibetan compositions that claim tobe translations demonstrates the error of even this latter formulation (at least ifuncorroborated by other evidence). Though the relative proportion of Indic tonon-Indic material suggests a signiicant difference of degree, the ExtensiveExplanation reminds us that the Bstan ’gyurs (as indeed, the Bka’ ’gyurs) are notdifferent in kind from collections such as the Old Tantra Collections (Rnying ma’irgyud ’bum), which have aptly been described by David Germano as “complexmix[es] of translations, original Tibetan compositions, and literary products fallingsomewhere in between.”72 As we have seen, inclusion in a Bstan ’gyur is by nomeans an indication even that early-second-millennium Tibetan intellectualsconsidered a work either an authentic Indian source—or even of muchauthority—much less an indication that they represent authentic translations.Whatit does seem to mark is that someone at some time made such a claim, but little orno more than that.

70 See especially the articles in the second part, “Canons at the Boundaries: The Rnying ma Tantrasand Shades of Gray between the Early and Late Translations,” in The Many Canons, ed. Eimer andGermano, 199-376.71 They are, after all, Tibetan artifacts, not Indian.72 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.


Unlike Thrasyllus’ Plato,73 in the Bstan ’gyur the dubious and/or spurious workswere not set aside, but merely included unmarked and interleaved with moreauthentic literature. The Tibetan bibliographers were careful, however, to lag themas such in the catalogs. The catalogs such as Bu ston’s were thus indispensablereference tools for those within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition who sought to makecritical use of the Bka’ ’gyurs and Bstan ’gyurs. Similarly, it is no accident, Ibelieve, that the scholastic works of Tibetan intellectuals of this and the periodimmediately following typically devote considerable attention to determining fromamong the many religious documents available in the newly redacted canonicalcollections which were the authoritative local “canons” of study and practice.Tibetan scholars of this period, in writing on their respective traditions, were carefulto survey the literature before advancing their interpretations: often drawing onthe catalogs in doing so, but also engaging and supplementing those considerationswith their own arguments for and against authenticity and authority. Hence, scholarsmust not neglect to take full advantage of the catalogs and of Tibetan scholia, bothof 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 scripturecollection of an individual [Tibetan] monastery would…have been unique,incomplete, and unsystematic, a product more of accretion than deliberatecompilation.”74 In this climate, it seems, the impulse of the compilers of thecanonical collections was more on the order of addressing the incompleteness ofregional holdings than an attempt to advance a strongly normative stance aboutthe 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 strongsense of collections that are based on and subsequently serve as criteria for religiousauthenticity and authority. Close attention to the contents, the editorial policiesarticulated by their redactors, and the evidence of their reception and utilizationby the Tibetan intellectual élite reveal their ad hoc, eclectic, and indeed (somewhat)ecumenical nature. Rather than “canons,” they appear in a sense as somewhat akinto our contemporary classical libraries—minimally edited, inclusive of signiicantpseudepigrapha, and with a drive toward the comprehensive—something on theorder of a Zhwa lu Classical Library or Snar thang Classical Series, “Dr. Rin chengrags’s ifty-foot shelf of books.”

73 Adumbrating Bu ston’s policy for the Bka’ ’gyurs, the aforementioned Thrasyllus included in hisedition of Plato’s works not only those he considered authentic, but he appended a set of works heconsidered 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 NāmaMaṇḍalopāyikā, of which Péter-Dániel Szántó has commented that it “is unsigned and of such a lowquality that I am inclined to believe that it is no more than a rough irst attempt which somehow foundits way into the Canon.” See “Antiquarian Enquiries into the Initiation Manuals of the Catuṣpīṭha,”Newsletter of the NGMCP, no. 6 (Spring-Summer 2008): 4.


GlossaryNote: these glossary entries are organized in Tibetan alphabetical order. All entrieslist the following information in this order: THL Extended Wylie transliterationof the term, THL Phonetic rendering of the term, the English translation, theSanskrit equivalent, the Chinese equivalent, other equivalents such as Mongolianor Latin, associated dates, and the type of term.

Ka

TypeDatesOtherEnglishPhoneticsWylie

Termconsonantskalikā li

TextTantra CatalogKyé Dorjé GyübumgyiKarchak

kye’i rdo rje’i rgyud’bum gyi dkar chag

PublicationPlace

Trunggokrung go

PublisherTrunggoBökyi SherikPetrünkhang

krung go bod kyi shesrig dpe skrun khang

PublisherTrunggö Bö RikpaPetrünkhang

krung go’i bod rig padpe skrun khang

Title collectionKangyurbka’ ’gyur

Kha


PlaceRegion of EasternTibet

Khamkhams

Generic nameEastern TibetanKhampakhams pa

Text“Clarity”: TheGreat Encyclopediaof Tibetan Cultureby KewangDungkar LozangTrinlé

Kewang DungkarLozang Trinlé ChokgiZepé Börikpé TsikdzöChemo Sheja RapselZhejawa

mkhas dbang dungdkar blo bzang ’phrinlas mchog gis mdzadpa’i bod rig pa’i tshigmdzod chen mo shesbya rab gsal zhes byaba

TextSan.CakrasaṃvaraWheel VowKhorlo Dompa’khor lo sdom pa

Ga


PlaceGugégu ge

TermSan. bhikṣumonkgelongdge long

ClanGö’gos

PersonGö Khukpa Lhetsé’gos khug pa lhasbtsas

AuthorGö Lotsawa KhukpaLhetsé

’gos lo tsā ba khug palhas btsas

Termtranslategyur’gyur

Termthe opposite of vastgyepé dokchokrgyas pa’i ldogphyogs

Textual GroupTantricCommentary

Gyündrelrgyud ’grel

Textcatalog of theTantra Collection

Gyüdé Karchakrgyud sde’i dkar chag


http://www.thlib.org/reference/transliteration/#essay=/thl/ewts/

http://www.thlib.org/reference/transliteration/#essay=/thl/phonetics/

TextTantra CatalogGyübum Karchakrgyud ’bum dkar chag

Nga


Volumenumber

ngi

ClanNgokrngog

TermSan. mantra-tattvamantra realityngakkyi dekho nanyisngags kyi de kho nanyid

TextualCollection

early translations ofthe esotericscriptures

Ngak Ngangyursngags snga ’gyur

Ca


Volumenumber

ci

Cha


TermSan. *dharma-tattva

object realitychökyi dekho nanyichos kyi de kho nanyid

Monasticcollege

Great DharmaCollege of snarthang

Chödra ChenpoNartang

chos grwa chen posnar thang

TextHistory ofBuddhism

Chönjungchos ’byung

Ja


Person1597-1659Jamgön Amyé Zhap’jam dgon ā myeszhabs

AuthorJamgön Amyé ZhapNgawang KüngaSönam

’jam mgon ā myeszhabs ngag dbang kundga’ bsod nams

PersonJé Tsongkhaparje tsong kha pa

Author1147-1216Jetsün DrakpaGyentsen

rje btsun grags pargyal mtshan

Person1357-1419Jé Rinpochérje rin po che

TermSan. anu+√bhūto experiencejesu nyongwarjes su myong ba

Nya


DoxographicalCategory

San. *Ubhaya-tantra

Dual TantraNyiké Gyügnyis ka’i rgyud

TermSan. samādhānenaby meditative focusnyampar zhakpémnyam par gzhag pas


Old TantraNying Gyürnying rgyud

OrganizationNyingmarnying ma

Title collectionAncient TantraCollections

Nyingmé Gyübumrnying ma’i rgyud’bum


Ta


TextTawé Khyeparlta ba’i khyad par

PlaceTö Ngaristod mnga’ ris

Title collectionSan. ŚāstraTengyurbstan ’gyur

TextCatalog of theTengyur

Tengyur Karchakbstan ’gyur dkar chag

Da


TextDungkar’sDictionary

Dungkar Tsikdzödung dkar tshigmdzod

TermSan. ātma-tattvaself realitydakgi dekho nanyibdag gi de kho nanyid

PlaceDenkarldan dkar

PlaceDegésde dge

Termto abbreviatedübsdus

Termto come orapproach together,to meet, to interlace

dübsdus

Na


TextSan. *MaṇimālāJewel GarlandNorbü Trengwanor bu’i phreng ba


San. yogaYogaNenjorrnal ’byor


San. *Yogottara-tantra

Superior YogaTantra

Nenjor Lamé Gyürnal ’byor bla ma’irgyud


San. Yoga-niruttaraTantra

Unexcelled YogaTantra

Nenjor Lamé Gyürnal ’byor bla medrgyud

Termmiscellaneousnatsoksna tshogs

PlaceNartangsnar thang

Pa


PlacePuhrangpu hrang

PublicationPlace

Pechinpe cin

TextSan. SaṃvarodayāNāmaMaṇḍalopāyikā

MaṇḍalaInstruction on theSaṃvarodaya

Pel Khorlo DechokJungwa ZhejawéKyinkhorgyi Choga

dpal ’khor lo bdemchog ’byung ba zhesbya ba’i dkyil ’khorgyi cho ga

TextHistory of the HolyEsotericCommunityTeaching, [called]the Sun thatclariies allteachings of theEsotericCommunity

Pel Sangwa DüpéDampé ChöjungwéTsül Lekpar ShepaSangdü Chökün SelwéNyinjé

dpal gsang ba ’duspa’i dam pa’i chosbyung ba’i tshul legspar bshad pa gsang’dus chos kun gsalba’i nyin byed


San. *Caryā-tantraPractice TantraChö Gyüspyod rgyud


TextExtensiveExplanation of the‘Lamp thatIntegrates thePractices’

Chöpa Düpé DrönmaZhejawé GyacherShepa

spyod pa bsdus pa’isgron ma zhes byaba’i rgya cher bshadpa

PracticeSan. TrividhāCaryā

three-foldantinomian practice

Chöpa Nampa Sumspyod pa rnam pagsum

Pha


TermSan. mudrā-tattvaseal realitychakgyé dekho nanyiphyag rgya’i de khona nyid

Time rangeLater DiffusionChidarphyi dar

Termexperience laterchi nyongwaphyis myong ba

AuthorPakpa LodröGyentsen

’phags pa blo grosrgyal mtshan

LineageNoble TraditionPakluk’phags lugs

PlacePangtang’phang thang

Ba


PersonBari Lotsawaba ri lo tsā ba

Person1040-1111Bari LotsawaRinchenDrak

ba ri lo tsā ba rinchen grags

Author1290-1364Butönbu ston

TextButön’s History [ofBuddhism]

Butön Chöjungbu ston chos ’byung

Author1290-1364Butön Rinpochébu ston rin po che

TextGreatTibetan-ChineseDictionary

Bögya TsikdzöChenmo

bod rgya tshig mdzodchen mo


San. *Kriyā-tantraAction TantraJa Gyübya rgyud

TermSan. bodhisattvaJangchup Sempabyang chub sems dpa’

PersonLozang Drakpablo bzang grags pa

Placeregion of centraltibet

Üdbus

Ma


Terminappropriatemirikmi rigs

PublisherPeople’s PressMirik Petrünkhangmi rigs dpe skrunkhang

Tsa


PersonTsongkhapatsong kha pa

Placeregion ofcentral-west tibet

Tsanggtsang

Tsha


TextGreat DictionaryTsikdzö Chenmotshig dzod chen mo


Dza


Termto come orapproach together;to meet; to interlace

dzompa’dzom pa

Termto cause to come orapproach together,meet, or interlace

dzompar jepa’dzoms par byed pa

Zha


Person1016-1111Zhiwa Özhi ba ’od

PlaceZhaluzhwa lu

Za


TextSan. Guhyendu-tilaka

Secret Moon Drop[Tantra]

Dasang Tiklézla gsang thig le

Ya


AuthorYeshé Déye shes sde

PersonYeshé Öye shes ’od

Ra


TermSan. svacittaown mindranggi semrang gi sems

TermSan. svacittato one’s own mindranggi semlarang gi sems la

TermSan. yuktaappropriaterikrigs

TermSan. kulaputranoble onerikgi burigs kyi bu

PersonRinchen Drakrin chen grags

PersonRinchen Zangporin chen bzang po

TextSan. PañcakramaFive StagesRimngarim lnga

TextBrilliant Lamp ofthe Five Stages

Rimnga Seldrönrim lnga gsal sgron

TextGreat Commentaryon the Five Stages

Rimngé Drelchenrim lnga’i ’grel chen

La


Volumenumber

la

TermSan. karmalélas

PersonLochenlo chen

PersonLotsawa ZhönnuTsültrim

lo tsā va gzhon nutshul khrims

Sa


OrganizationSakyasa skya

PersonSakya Penditasa skya paṇḍita


PersonSachen KüngaNyingpo

sa chen kun dga’snying po

PersonSumpa Khenposum pa mkhan po

TermSan. pratipadyasvaunderstandsosor tokshikso sor rtogs shig

TextHistory of theEsotericCommunity

Sangdü Chönjunggsang ’dus chos’byung

TextSurvey of theEsotericCommunity

Sangdü Tongtüngsang ’dus stong thun

LineageEsotericCommunity NobleTradition

Sangdü Paklukgsang ’dus ’phagslugs

TextHermeneutics of theEsotericCommunity

Sangdü Shetapgsang ’dus bshadthabs


New TranslationMovement

Sarmagsar ma

MonasterySamyébsam yas

Ha


TermSan. devatā-tattvadivinity realitylhé dekho nanyilha’i de kho na nyid

Sanskrit

TypeDatesSanskritEnglishPhoneticsWylie

PersonĀcārya Nāgabodhi

TextAnuttarasaṃdhiUnexcelledIntention

AuthorĀryadeva

Termātma-tattvaṃself reality

Termbhāvanāmeditativecultivation

AuthorBhūvācārya

PersonCandrakīrti

Practicecaryāantinomian practice

TextCarya-melāpana-pradīpi Nāma Ṭīkā

Commentary on the“Lamp thatIntegrates thePractices”

Text*Carya-samucchaya-pradīpaṃ NāmaṬīkā

TextCaryāmelāpaka-pradīpa

Lamp thatIntegrates thePractices

Practicecaryāvratapractice-observance

Termcittanidhyaptimind-objective

Termdevatā-tattvaṃdivinity reality

TermdvāparaTwo-fold [Era]


LineageGuhyasamājaEsotericCommunity

TextGuhyendutilakaSecret Moon Drop[Tantra]

Termkali-yugaKali Era

TermkṛtaPerfect [Era]


MadhyamakaCentrist


MahāyānaUniversal Way


MahāyogaGreat Yoga

Termmantra-tattvaṃmantra reality

Termmāyā[deha]phantasm [body]

Termmelāpakaintegration

Term√milto meet

Termmudrā-tattvaṃseal reality

PersonMuniśrībhadra

PersonNaḍapāda

Person*Nāgabodhi

PersonNāgabuddhi

PersonNāgārjuna

PersonNāropā

Termnigūḍha-śabdacryptic expressions

Term√pad

Termpaṃ

TextPañcakramaṭippaṇīCommentary on theFive Stages

Termpaṇḍita

PersonPaṇḍitaKarmavajra

Termprabhāsvarabrilliance

Term*pradīpalamp

TextPradīpoddyotanaBrilliant Lamp

TextPrajñāpāramitāTranscendentVirtue of Wisdom

Termprati

Termpratipadpractice, perform,accomplish,understand

Termpratyavekṣaṇaattends

PersonŚākyamitra

Termsamādhimeditation

Termsamuccayacompendium,gathering

Termsarvabhāvaall things

Termsarvadharmaall things


Buddhist deitySarvārthasiddhi

TextSarvatathāgata-tattvasaṃgraha

Compendium of theRealities of AllTranscendent Lords

TextualCollection

Śāstra

TextSekoddeśaṭīkāCommentary on theInitiationInstruction

TextSekoddeśaṭīkā ofNaḍapāda(Nāropa)

Nāropa’sCommentary on theInitiationInstruction

PersonŚraddhākaravarman

TextSubhāṣitasaṃgrahaCollected BonsMots

AuthorTāranātha

Buddhist deityTathāgata

Termtattvatopic

TermtretāThree-fold [Era]

Practiceunmattavratamad vow

Termuttāna-śabdastraightforwardexpressions

Termvajrajāpavajra recitation

PersonVitapāda

TextYoginītantraYoginī Tantra

Termyugaera

Termyuganaddhacommunion

Termupasargaverbal preix

Other


TermLat. ad hocarranged for aparticular purpose

TermFre. coup de grâce

TermFre. œuvrework

TermLat. sine qua nonan essentialcondition

TermLat. status quothe existing state ofaffairs

TermLat. terminus antequem

latest possible date

TermLat. terminus postquem

earliest possibledate

TermFre. tour de forcegreataccomplishment


BibliographyBendall, Cecil, ed. Subhāṣita-saṃgraha. Louvain: J.-B. Istas, 1905.

Bu ston. Chos ’byung [History of Buddhism]. Krung go: Krung go bod kyi shesrig dpe skrun khang. 1988.

———. Gsang ’dus bshad thabs [Hermeneutics of the Esoteric Community]. InThe Collected Works of Bu-ston, vol. 9. New Delhi: International Academy ofIndian 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: OrientalInstitute, 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 duringthe 8th-12th Centuries.” Journal of the International Association of BuddhistStudies 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, GrayTexts, 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 AbteilungTantra des tibetischen Kanjur. Bonn: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1989.

———. “A Source for the First Narthang Kanjur: Two Early Sa skya paCatalogues of the Tantras.” In Transmission of the Tibetan Canon: PapersPresented at a Panel of the 7th Seminar of the International Association forTibetan Studies, Graz 1995. Edited by H. Eimer, 11-78. Wien: Verlag derÖsterreichischen 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 Shadesof Gray between the Early and Late Translations.” In The Many Canons ofTibetan Buddhism. Edited by H. Eimer and D. Germano. Leiden/Boston/Köln:Brill, 2002.


’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 ’duspa’i dam pa’i chos byuṅ ba’i tshul legs par bśad pa gsaṅ ’dus chos kun gsalba’i nyin byed [Dpal gsang ba ’dus pa’i dam pa’i chos byung ba’i tshul legspar 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 moshes bya rab gsal zhes bya ba. Krung go: Krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrunkhang, 2002.

Nishioka, Soshū. “Index to the Catalogue Section of Bu-ston’s ‘History ofBuddhism’ (III).” Annual Report of the Institute for the Study of CulturalExchange, no. 6. 1983.

Oxford English Dictionary. Second Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

Plato, Alcibiades. Edited by Nicholas Denyer. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2001.

Rje Tsoṅ-kha-pa Blo-bzaṅ-grags-pa [Rje tsong kha pa Blo bzang grags pa]. TheCollected Works (Gsuṅ ’bum [Gsung ’bum]) of Rje Tsoṅ-kha-paBlo-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 edEstremo Oriente, 1966.

Schleiermacher, Freidrich. Schleiermacher’s Introductions to the Dialogues ofPlato. Translated byWilliam Dobson. Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1992 [1836].

Skilling, Peter. “From bKa’ bstan bcos to bKa’ ’gyur and bsTan ’gyur.” InTransmission of the Tibetan Canon: Papers Presented at a Panel of the 7thSeminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995. Editedby H. Eimer.Wien: Verlag der ÖsterreichischenAkademie derWissenschaften,1997.

———. “Kanjur Titles and Colophons.” In Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Fagernes,1992. Edited by Per Kværne, vol. 2. Oslo: The Institute for ComparativeResearch in Human Culture, 1994.

Szántó, Péter-Dániel. “Antiquarian Enquiries into the Initiation Manuals of theCatuṣpīṭha.” Newsletter of the NGMCP, no. 6 (Spring-Summer 2008).


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 onthe Pañcakrama Instructions on the Practice of the Guhyasamāja Tantra.Thimpu: Kunsang Topgey, 1976.

Tomabechi, Tōru. “Vitapāda, Śākyamitra, and Āryadeva: On a Transitional Stagein the History of Guhyasamāja Exegesis.” InEsoteric Buddhist Studies: Identityin Diversity. Edited by Executive Committee, ICEBS. Koyasan: KoyasanUniversity, 2008.

van der Kuijp, L. W. J. “*Nāgabodhi/Nāgabuddhi: Notes on the GuhyasamājaLiterature.” In Pramāṇakīrtiḥ: Papers Dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on theOccasion of his 70th Birthday. Edited by B. Kellner, H. Krasser, et al. Wien:Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien UniversitätWien, 2007.

Vogel, Claus. Vāgbhaṭa’s “Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā”: The First Five Chapters ofits 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 theContextualization of the Practices of Sensual Enjoyment (caryā) in theGuhyasamājaĀrya 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 CommunityNoble Tradition. NewYork: American Institute of Buddhist Studies/ColumbiaUniversity Press, 2007.

———. “Locating Tantric Antinomianism: An Essay toward an IntellectualHistory of the ‘Practices/Practice Observance’ (caryā/caryāvrata).” Journalof the International Association of Buddhist Studies (forthcoming, 2011).

———. “Tantalising Traces of the Labours of the Lotsāwas: AlternativeTranslations of Sanskrit Sources in the Writings of Rje Tsong kha pa.” InTibetan Buddhist Literature and Praxis: Studies in its Formative Period,900-1400. Edited by R.M. Davidson and Chr. K.Wedemeyer, 149-182. Leidenand Boston: Brill, 2007.

———. “Sex, Death, and ‘Reform’ in Eleventh-century Tibetan BuddhistEsoterism: ’Gos khug pa lhas btsas, spyod pa (caryā), and mngon par spyodpa (abhicāra).” In Sucāruvādadeśika: A Festschrift Honoring Prof. TheodoreRiccardi, 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.


Zhongxin Jiang and Tōru Tomabechi, eds. The Pañcakraṭippaṇī of Muniśrībhadra.Berne: Peter Lang, 1996.


Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist Canonical Collections

Documents

Transcript of Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist Canonical Collections