Pseudepigrapha in The Tibetan Buddhist Canonical Collections

Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist Canonical
Collections: The Case of the Carymelpakapradpa

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

Pseudepigrapha in The Tibetan Buddhist Canonical Collections

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pseudepigrapha in The Tibetan Buddhist Canonical Collections

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pseudepigrapha in the Tibetan Buddhist Canonical

Collections: The Case of the Carymelpakapradpa

You might also like