sferra 2005 constructing the wheel of time

F R A N C E S C O S F E R R A

Constructing the Wheel of Time.

Strategies for Establishing a Tradition*

The founding project of a tradition is usually expressed in its earlytexts, but not always explicitly. What its authors say —especially in thepassages in which they introduce the tradition—, what they omit and,above all, the way in which they communicate content (apart from itsbeing true or untrue) reveals their inner concerns, their perceptionof the surrounding reality and the motivations, at least in part andaside from the ones given, that led them to write. The first steps takenin establishing traditions, and particularly their founding projects,are especially interesting for historical research, which does notmerely record the facts but also explores their mystification andenquires into the reasons for this.

The Buddhist tantric system known as the Wheel of Time(Kälacakra), which spread through Northern India and Tibet aroundthe beginning of the XI cent., is extremely interesting in this regardand has been studied relatively little according to the aforesaid per-spective, which is the one I intend to explore here. Except for thepremises necessary for my discourse (§ i) , I shall not reiterate thebasic historical information on this system, for which I refer the read-er to the contributions by John R. Newman.1

It is possible to show that the system's authoritativeness wasestablished by the early teachers of the Kälacakra and by the firstTibetan historiographers through a precise intellectual 'operation',

* I am grateful to Raniero Gnoli, John R. Newman and Harunaga Isaacson for havingread this paper before it was published and for their valuable advice and suggestions; toFederico Squarcini, the editor of this volume, for his pertinent and useful observations;and to Susan Ann White for her help in revising the English text.

Within this article numbers in subscript indicate the lines of the pages/folios of print-ed editions and MSS referred to.

1 Newman 1987a: 70-113, 19912, 1998b, 2004; cf. also Gnoli 1994.

254 BOUNDARIES, DYNAMICS AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRADITIONS IN SOUTH ASIA

which involved, among other things, the definition of the Scripturesand of the qualities that their interpreter should possess, the fixingof hermeneutical criteria and the choice of the main themes. Theysought to establish, within a consistent framework, a new Buddhistorthodoxy and to close the Buddhist ranks around the undisputedauthority, not without an anti-secular vein, of the monastic com-munity, probably in order to effectively meet the new socio-culturalchallenges that had arisen.

The following is therefore an attempt to shed light on some of thecultural forms and means through which the Kälacakra authors uti-lized and shared semiotic construction strategies to legitimize theirlineages and doctrine. They did this in various ways: by establishing acorpus consisting of three works through which, on the one hand, theycommented on celebrated works thus associating them with their ownsystem and, on the other, founded that same system (§§ 2-4); by stat-ing that their system began to spread at a precise and significant pointin history (§ 5) ; by drawing on a higher level of the scriptural tradition,used as a means of interpretation and available only to a select few (§6); and by describing the qualities a master must possess and thosenecessary for an author worthy of writing commentaries (§ 7) .2

1. Classic sources for studying the early history of the Kälacakraare contained in some of the oldest Sanskrit texts belonging to thistradition —particularly the Laghukälacakratantra (LKCT), theVimalaprabhä (VP) by Pundarika, which is a commentary on it, andthe introduction of the Sekoddesatïkâ (SUT) by Näropä— and in var-ious Tibetan historiographies, beginning with the one in rGyud sde'izab don sgo 'byed rin chen gees pa ï Ide mig ces by a ba written by Bu stonRin chen grub (Bu ston, 1290-1364) in 1329,3 the one in Dus 'khorttkä chen4 by mKhas grub rje dGe legs dpal bzaiï po (mKhas grub rje,1385-1438), written in 1434,5 and the one included in the Deb ther

2 Part of the material presented in § 4 and in § 6 was previously analyzed in Sferra 2001.3 It is generally held that the sources used by Bu ston are very old and that some of

them are based on oral traditions and perhaps date back to the very origins of the sys-tem. Bu ston narrates the history of the Kälacakra according to its two most importantlineages in Tibet: 1) the Rwa lineage and 2) the'Bro lineage. The first originated fromRwa chos rab and the Newar Samantasrï around the end of the XI cent., the secondfrom 'Bro ses rab grags and the Kasmïrian Somanätha around the middle of the XIcent. On these lineages, see Newman 1987a: 94 ff. and Oroflno 1994: 17 ff. Bu ston's ac-count of the history of the Kälacakra in India according to the Rwa and the 'Bro line-ages (fols. 28b3-3ia2 = ed. Chandra, fols. 56-61) has been translated by J.R. Newman(1987a: 76-89; 19912: 66-71).

4 The final ä of the word tikä is sometimes dropped by Tibetans in writing the title ofthis work. Here I adopt the correct form that occurs also in a copy of the collected worksby mKhas grub rje kept in the Tucci Tibetan Fund in the Library of IsIAO (ex IsMEO) ; cf.De Rossi Filibeck 1994: 76.

5 The description of the Rwa and 'Bro lineages in the work by mKhas grub rje (pp. 167-173) follows —sometimes verbatim— the text by Bu ston, especially where the Rwa lineageis concerned. In his translation of Bu ston's account, J.R. Newman has translated the sen-tences added by mKhas grub rje between brackets (for references, see above note 3).

///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition 255

snon po (Blue Annals), written between 1476 and 1478 by 'Gos lo tsaba gzon nu dpal (1392-1481),6 which are the most ancient.

Tibetan historiographies present valuable information not givenin the Sanskrit texts: they illustrate the early stages of the system'sdiffusion by providing the names of the first teachers and by describ-ing some events concerning them and their works. They record theexistence of different lines of transmission of the teaching ('Bro andRwa), differ with regard to several details, but agree, also with theSanskrit sources, in recognizing that the scriptural nucleus of the sys-tem was composed of a short tantra ( laghutantra), the LKCT, and aroot-tantra (mulatantra), the Adibuddha (or Paramädibuddha). Thelatter has never been translated into Tibetan and is preserved only infragments, the longest of which is the Sekoddesa (SU, fortunatelytranslated into Tibetan twice), which is held to be a section of thefifth chapter —or of the first chapter, according to the first Tibetantranslation—7 of the work.

Despite the importance attributed to the Adibuddha, the LKCT,which summarizes its teachings, is generally considered the basictext of the system. It is a long encyclopaedic work that, according tothe tradition, consists of 1,030 sragdharä stanzas;8 however, it is actu-ally composed of 1,048 stanzas, although some are repeated.9 Thetradition maintains that it was written down by Yasas (also calledSriyasas or Manjusrïyasas) upon the request of the brahmanas ofSambhala (alias Sambhala).10

Two other works are strictly linked to this nucleus. They are quot-ed as authoritative texts in Sanskrit and Tibetan sources, but havecome down to us in their entirety only in the bKa' 'gyur: the *Srïkàla-cakratantrottaratantrahrdayanâma (Tantrottara), a supplement to theLKCT, and the *Sekaprakriyâ, which deals with the initiation rites.11

Tibetan sources also concur that three exegetical works —which,significantly, are attributed to Bodhisattvas (while commentaries areusually written by panditas or siddhas)—, the Laghutantratikä (LTT)

6 Chapter 10, fols. ia~4ia = ed. Chandra, fols. 661-741; transi. Roerich 19762: 753-838.7 Cf. Orofmo 1994: 14-15.8 Cf. VP vol. i,p. 256.9 LKCT 2.116-121 in the printed editions are an obvious interpolation (J. Newman,

personal communication). These stanzas, which correspond to LKCT 4.192-197, do notappear in the Tibetan translation of the second chapter of the LKCT (cf. VP vol. 1, pp.232-233, note).

10 For a list of titles of the extant Kälacakra literature, see Läl 1994 (Sanskrit) andSamphel 1995 (Tibetan).

11 The Tantrottara (Qvol. 1, #5, fols. I42a1-i58a ) is quoted here and there in otherworks (e.g., in the Sadangayoga by Anupamaraksita, ed. pp. 137-139 [for further refer-ences, cf. ed. p. 65]). The *Sekaprakriyä (Qvol. 1, #7, fols. i6oa1-i64a5), in fact, is whollycomposed of stanzas from the LKCT: stt. 1-12 = LKCT 3.92-103; stt. 13-21 = LKCT 3.118-126; st. 22 = LKCT 5.112; st. 23 = LKCT 4.119; stt. 24-37 = LKCT 5.113-126; at the begin-ning, between stanzas 21 and 22, and at the end, there are a few lines in prose. Thecommentary (vrtti) by Darikapa on this text is preserved in the Tibetan translation (Qvol. 47, #2072, fols. 48b5-87b5).


by the Bodhisattva Vajrapani, the Satsahasrika by the BodhisattvaVajragarbha and the Vimalaprabhä (VP) by the Bodhisattva Punda-rïka, formed a body of integrated texts, known as the 'Bodhisattva cor-pus' (byan chub sems dpa'i skor) or the 'Bodhisattva commentaries'(byan chub sems dpa'i 'grelpa mams), which were fundamental to thespreading and the correct interpretation of the system.

2. However we may suppose that the concept of the corpus wassuperimposed later as a part of a founding project, and thereforeextraneous to the three texts. In particular, the LTT and the HTPTwere probably written at a time when the doctrines and practices ofthe 'Wheel of Time' were in the formative stage, even if the basic con-ception of the system was already in place when they were composed.These works —as their acceptance of the authority of the Para-mädibuddha clearly shows— were the products of the initial effort toestablish the tradition, although the founding project of which theywere part may not have been well-defined at that point. This wouldappear to be confirmed by the following:

2.1 Of this trilogy, the only text directly linked to the Kälacakrais the VP, an exhaustive commentary on the LKCT and the only completeone: Vajrapani merely comments on the first ten and a half verses ofthe Cakrasamvaratantra (CST, also called Herukäbhidhänatantra orsimply Laghvabhidhäna), which correspond to a part of the first chap-ter, and Vajragarbha dwells on the first five patalas of the first part(kalpa) of the Hevajratantra (HT), which, according to him, containthe 'concise meaning' (pindärtha)12 of the whole text. Hence, this com-mentary (tlka) is also called Hevajratantrapindärthatlkä (HTPT).13

Accordingly, in the conclusion of the LTT Vajrapani defines his workas a pindärthavivarana, lit. an 'explanation of the concise meaning' ,since in it he briefly illustrates the condensed meaning [of the shorttant ra] , which is contained in the first chapter.14

Tibetan historiographers also provide interesting information onthe first phase of the system's diffusion, including an explanation ofwhy the LTT and the HTPT are incomplete, but they do not tell uswhy the mülatantra has not come down to us in its entirety or why ithas not been translated into Tibetan —as we shall see, their silenceon this point is not devoid of meaning. Nor do they tell us whoVajrapani, Vajragarbha and Pundarïka actually were. The authors

12 With this meaning the compound pindärtha recurs in the commentarial literaturein Sanskrit; for instance, in the Satkotivyäkhyä by Candrakïrti (idânïm saptadasapatalänämpindärtho vidhïyate; p. 5) and in the Vyäkhyäna by Ruyyaka on the Vyaktiviveka byMahimabhatta (ayam atra pindärthah [...]; p. 16).

13 All passages from the HTPT in this paper are taken from my edition of the text(Sferra 1999), to which I refer the reader for variants in the MSS and the readings of theTibetan translation. The stanzas are quoted with the number of the section and the num-ber of the stanza while the parts in prose are quoted with the reference to MSS.

14 iha laghutantraUkäyam samksepena pindärthah prakatlkrto [...] pindärthavivaranamnäma prathamaükäparicchedah (p. 159).


themselves do not mention their own teachers in their works nor dothey elucidate —as was the custom— on the historical circumstancesin which they worked.

The importance of this trilogy is stressed in the Tibetan histori-ographies, which state that the first teachers of the school transmit-ted their knowledge of the Bodhisattva corpus to their disciples. Cilu(Tsi lu), the first teacher in the Rwa tradition realized, as Bu ston andmKhas grub rje inform us, that this corpus was fundamental to under-standing the Mantrayäna and to achieving Buddhahood in a singlelife.15 Pinda (Pindo), Kälacakrapäda the Elder, Kälacakrapäda theYounger and Cilu himself must each have studied this trilogy and, insome cases, after undertaking difficult and tiring journeys. Likewise,mKhas grub rje informs us that Kalkï Srïpâla, the first master in the'Bro tradition,16 taught all the niruttaratantras and the Bodhisattvacorpus to his disciple, who later became known as Kälacakrapäda[the Elder].17 The above-mentioned historiographers themselvesstudied this trilogy at length. It is well-known that Bu ston and mKhasgrub rje, in particular, wrote detailed commentaries on the VP, andthat the VP and the other glosses of the Bodhisattvas are included inthe list of works that 'Gos gzon nu dpal claims to have learnt from hismaster Saiis rgyas rin chen po (1336-1424).l8

The Indian tradition would also appear to confirm the significanceof these texts, although indirectly, through quotations or references toindividual works. The longer treatise on the sixfold yoga byAnupamaraksita (X-XI cent.) and, later, the SUT by Näropä (956 ca-1040 ca) ,19 for instance, draw heavily and openly on this trilogy. The lat-ter work summarizes the most important themes of the Kälacakrasystem, often using the words of the three Bodhisattvas and particular-ly those of Pundarika.20 From the Deb ther snonpowe know that the cel-ebrated pandita Vanaratna (Nags kyi rin chen, 1384-1468) composed a

• &

1 5 [ . . . ] s p y i r s a n s r g y a s t s h e g c i g g i s ' g r u b p a l a s n a g s k y i t h e g p a d g o s s i n k h y a d p a r d u b y a n

c h u b s e m s d p a ' i ' g r e l p a s g s a l b a r b y a s p a d g o s l a [ . . . ] ( B u s t o n , f o l . 2 8 b 6 ? = e d . C h a n d r a , f o l .

5 6 ; c f . N e w m a n 1 9 8 7 a : 7 8 ) .

1 6 H e s h o u l d p r o b a b l y b e i d e n t i f i e d w i t h P i n d o ( c f . N e w m a n 1 9 8 7 a : 9 9 - 1 0 2 ) .

1 7 T h e s a m e c o n c e p t a p p e a r s i n B u s t o n : [ . . . ] n a n b y a n c h u b s e m s d p a ' i s k o r g s u m l a s o g s

p a r g y u d s d e m a n p o t h u g s l a b z u n n a s b y o n p a s 'jam d p a l k y i s p r u l p a y i n p a r g r a g s s i n I d e ' i m t s h a n

y a n d u s ' k h o r i a b s s e s z e r r o I ( B u s t o n , f o l . 3 0 a x _ 2 = e d . C h a n d r a , f o l . 6 0 ; c f . N e w m a n 1 9 8 7 a : 8 6 ) .

1 8 d e l a b d a g g i s k u n m k h y e n c h e n p o ' i d k y i l m c h o g g i s t e n n a s d u s k y i ' k h o r l o ' i d b a n y o n s s u

r d z o g s p a I r g y u d ' g r e l c h e n m o ' i b k a ' I y a n l a g d r u g g i k h r i d I d b a n m d o r b s t a n n ä r o p a ' i ' g r e l p a

d a n b c a s p a d a n I s e m s ' g r e l s k o r g i a n m a m s k y a n t h o s s o I { D e b t h e r s n o n p o , c h a p t e r 1 0 , f o l . I 3 a x _

2 = e d . C h a n d r a , f o l . 6 8 ; c f . R o e r i c h 1 9 7 6 2 : 7 8 0 ) .

1 9 J . N e w m a n h a s p o i n t e d o u t t o m e t h a t t h e r e i s n o c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t e s t a b -

l i s h e s N ä r o p ä ' s b i r t h d a t e a t 9 5 6 C E . I t i s p r o b a b l y a r e l a t i v e l y l a t e T i b e t a n ' r e c o n s t r u c t i o n '

o r ' i n v e n t i o n ' ( c f . a l s o N e w m a n 1 9 9 8 a : 3 1 5 - 3 1 6 , n o t e 8 ; 1 9 9 8 b : 3 4 7 , n o t e 1 0 ) .

2 0 N ä r o p ä i n h i s S U T ( c f . e d . C a r e l l i , p . 3 8 f f . , p p . 5 9 - 6 0 ) a n d A n u p a m a r a k s i t a i n h i s

S a d a n g a y o g a ( Q v o l . 4 7 , # 2 1 0 2 , f o l . 3 3 3 a a n d f o l . 3 3 9 a ) q u o t e s e n t e n c e s v e r b a t i m f r o m

V a j r a p â n i ' s a n d V a j r a g a r b h a ' s w o r k s . J . N e w m a n h a s k i n d l y b r o u g h t t o m y a t t e n t i o n t h a t

i n t h e l o n g c o m m e n t a r y o n t h e H T a t t r i b u t e d t o s N a n g r a g s b z a r i p o ( * Y a s o b h a d r a ) ( s D e

d g e # 1 1 8 6 ) , w h o m t h e T i b e t a n s i d e n t i f y a s N ä r o p ä , t h e r e a r e m a n y p a s s a g e s f r o m

K ä l a c a k r a t e x t s , t h e B o d h i s a t t v a C o r p u s a n d t h e P a n c a l a k s a h e v a j r a ( P L H ) .


Tibetan commentary on both the HTPT and the LTT and on the firsttwo chapters of the VP,21 but I was unable to locate copies of these texts.

The standing of Pundarika, Vajrapäni and Vajragarbha is alsoimplicitly indicated in a passage of the Ämnäyamanjan, thecommentary by Abhayäkaragupta (XI-XII cent.) on the Snsampu-tatantramja. Here, the latter quotes a criticism of the Kälacakravoiced by other Buddhists (probably Ratnäkarasänti and Vâgîsvarïkîr-ti)22 who, while pointing out that there were many contradictionsbetween the basic Kälacakra texts and the [three] vehicles, and thatthe authors were not Bodhisattvas as they claimed, groups them, sig-nificantly, with Yasas, and elevates them to the status of principalauthors of the system.

Although quotations from the works by Vajragarbha, Vajrapäniand Pundarika were made more frequently with the passing of time, forexample in the Amrtakanikä (AK) by Ravisrijnäna (XI-XII cent.) andin the Amrtakanikoddyota (AKU) by Yibhüticandra (XII-XIII cent.),23

there is no reference to these texts as a corpus in any Sanskrit work.2.2 Vajrapäni's and Vajragarbha's link to the Kälacakra is not

openly declared.2.2.1 Neither Vajrapäni nor Vajragarbha specifically mentions the

Kälacakra as a tradition: they do not refer to the stories concerningthe founding of the system, which, by contrast, are given considerableimportance in the LKCT and the VP, and other later texts. In fact,they make no reference to the traditional account of the teaching ofthe Kälacakra that the Buddha imparted at Dhänyakataka, to therealm of Sambhala, where the teaching was preserved and transmit-ted for centuries, or to the kings of Sambhala and the myth of Kalkin.

21 [...] dpal dus kyi 'khor loï le'u danpo gnis kyi 'grel bsad I rdo rje snin 'grel dan I phyagrdorstod 'grelgnis kyi dka' 'grel mdzad de I sems 'grel skor la bodyig byun ba la bzan I [...] {Deb thersiionpo, chapter 10, fol. 34ax_2 = ed. Chandra, fol. 727; cf. Roerich, 19762: 824-825).

22 The passage (sDe dge #1198, fols. I98t>5-i99a3) is transcribed and translated inNewman 1987a: 108-109. Cf. also Newman 1987a: 107, 110.

23 In the AK there are two quotations from Vajrapäni's work: 1) ad Manjusrlnä-masangiti (MNS) 6.20cd-22ab, where a passage is quoted in an abbreviated form from theedited text (LTT p. 140 ) and without mentioning the source (pp. 45-46 ), 2) ad MNS8.13, where a passage is quoted with slight changes from the edited text (LTT p. 15O2?_32):tad uktam vajrapänipädaih 'prajnäcumbanenänandaksano bhavati [...] jnänasamayascaturthaK (p. 65 ) ; and no reference to Vajragarbha's work. In the AKU there are two ref-erences to the HTPT: l) uktan ca vajragarbhe Hha vairocano bhümicakre [...] vajrasattvojnänacakre näyaka itï {ad AK 3.2 [= commentary on MNS 3.2]; p. 130 6); the quotationoccurs in the 10th pariccheda of the HTPT adHT 1.5.11.2) Quotation of HTPT 6.17 with slightchanges and without mentioning the source: tad uktam - 'pränäpänaksayenaivadvädasängaksayo bhavet I hetuphalanirodhena ko na buddho bhavisyati II' iti (p. n8n_12);Vajragarbha does not specify whether this is a passage from the mülatantra of the HT, whichis his main source. There are many citations from the VP in the Kälacakrabha-gavatsädhanavidhi by Dharmäkarasänti (XI cent.). The LTT is extensively quoted in theDäkimjälasamvararahasya by Anangayogin (p. 35 ? = LTT p. 1211O_13; p. 39_l6 = LTT p. I237_l6;p. 7H = LTT pp. 13821-1393; p. 74.6 = LTT p. 139„.15; P- 78.19 = LTT p. 140 ). As H. Isaacsonhas kindly pointed out to me, the reference to the Hevajratïka in AK aaMNS 1.1 (p. 26_?) isnot to Vajragarbha's HTPT but probably to a commentary (lost in Sanskrit) on the HTcalled Suvisadasamputa (see (̂ #2314 and #2321); the passage of the AK should be read 'not

III. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition 259

2.2.2 The word Kalacakra never appears in the LTT, and onlythree times in the HTPT as the name of the tantric deity: in stanzas49 and 112 of the 5 th pariccheda —in a long quotation from the sup-posed mülatantra of the HT, namely the Pancalaksahevajra (PLH), towhich we shall return later— and in the 10th pariccheda, in thecommentary on HT 1.5.9, where the twenty-four armed Heruka isidentified with Kalacakra and Ädibuddha.24 The latter, in particular,appears again in the HTPT, as an attribute of the tantric deity, instanza 173 of the 6 th pariccheda, the last stanza of the section, ad HT1.2.12-18, which in actual fact corresponds to Manjusrlnämasanglti(MNS) 8.24, even though the latter is not specifically mentioned.

2.2.3 The LTT and the HTPT never quote from the LKCT; the onlyKalacakra scripture cited therein is the Ädibuddha and in particular theSU: the few stanzas from the Ädibuddha can all be traced to the SU,with the exception of three stanzas quoted on pp. 124-125 and 147 ofthe edition of Vajrapani's work.25 In the LTT, the quotations from theSU appear at three different points: 1) p. 126, where st. 10 is introducedwith tathä ädibuddhe bhagavän äha; 2) p. 127, where we find stt. 8, 15-I7ab preceded by atra paramädibuddhe bhagavän äha; and 3) p. 157,where stt. 139 and 135 are preceded by tathä paramädibuddhe sekoddesebhagavän äha. The last quotation is the only explicit reference to theSU: at this point Vajrapani (or someone on his behalf) felt the need tospecify: 'In the Paramädibuddha, [and more precisely] in the Sekoddesa\which as we have already mentioned is considered a part of the former.In the HTPT there are two references to the Ädibuddha; the first adHT1.5.8, where SU 86-87 a r e quoted, after they have been introduced withtathä cäha samvrtyä ädibuddhe, and the second at a crucial point in thetext, at the end of the first pariccheda (st. 76), where an importanthermeneutic criterion, which we shall discuss briefly later, is estab-lished, namely that the deep meaning ( nitärtha) of the Cakrasamvara,the Catuhpithaka and the HT must be understood through the wordsof the Ädibuddha, which contain great secrets.26

2.2.4 Neither the LTT nor the HTPT makes any mention ofKalacakra teachers or of other independent works or commentaries

suvisadasphutam hevajratantratikäyäm as Lai suggests but suvisadasamputahevajratan-tratikäyäm (the MS Cambridge University Library Add 1108 reads suvisadasamputaheva-jratantrattkäyäm; visada is an often found alternative orthography for visada)'. The samereading of the MS kept in Cambridge occurs —but with the variant sva° instead of su°— inthe MS NAK 4/21, NGMPP Mf. B24/23, fols. 2^-2^ (I have consulted a photo of this MSmade by G. Tucci and kept in the Library of IsIAO in Rome [= folder 3.42] ).

24 näyakah sahajänandah sünyatälingito hevajro bhagavän caturvimsatibähur dvigunahsatcakrasamvarät kälavisesenävasthitah [...] evamsatkulätmako herukahkälacakrahsa evocyataädibuddhas ceti (Kaiser Library, Kathmandu, MS 128, NGMPP Mf. C14/6, fols. 54^-55^ ).

25 The stanza cited on p. 124, which reads karmamudräm parityajya jnänamudrämvikalpitäm I paramäksarayogena mahämudräm vibhävayet II, is also quoted in the VP (thePAJS), with attribution to the Mülatantra, vol. 3, p. 80 (H. Isaacson, personal communi-cation) .

26 'The Cakrasamvara and the Catuhpithaka must be understood through theHevajra. The Hevajra and the Catuhpithaka must be understood through the words of


of this tradition, not even the VP. By contrast, Vajrapani andVajragarbha frequently quote from authoritative texts that do notbelong to the Kälacakra tradition, such as the Däkintvajrapanjara, theGuhyasamäjatantra (GST), the Mäyäjäla, the Mahämäyä, the MNSand, among non-scriptural sources, the Gurupancäsikä attributed toÄryadeva, but, in the case of the latter, without mentioning the sourceor the supposed author (like Pundarïka, in his turn).

2.3 None of the works of the trilogy makes reference to an intrin-sic relationship with the others.

Vajrapani mentions neither Vajragarbha and the HTPT norPundarïka. Vajragarbha, in his turn, makes only one explicit refer-ence to Vajrapani's LTT at the end of the fifth section of his text,where he mentions the commentary on the first ten and a half stan-zas of the CST that we know to be by Vajrapani ([...] asyaivakulapatalasya punar nädlsamcaro laghucakrasamvare särdhadasasloka-pindärthatikayä jnätavyah) .2 7Pundarïka, for his part, never refers toVajrapani and Vajragarbha as celebrated Kälacakra authors, nor dotheir names appear in the myth concerning the system's foundationor the teaching lineages. In the VP (ad LKCT 5.18) there is only onespecific reference to the ttkä by Vajrapani, which, like the HTPT, iscalled Satsähasrikä: [...] evam astasmasänesu devyo veditavyäh I äsämvispharanena karmaprasarädikam tantroktam vajrapänikrtatikayäsatsähasrikayä boddhavyam laghutantre I tenätra na likhitam (vol. 3, p.1326 2 g ) , and none at all to either Vajragarbha himself or his HTPT.We may suppose, nevertheless, that Pundarïka was familiar withVajragarbha's work, since, in at least one point of the VP (ad LKCT5.9), he paraphrases, in prose, three stanzas, which appear in the 3 r d

pariccheda (adHT 1.1.7) of the HTPT, and which are taken, accord-ing to Vajragarbha, from the PLH: samäjädlni tanträni prajnopäyät-makäni vai I yogatanträni sarväni prajnopäyätmanämabhih II sancäroyogintnäm tu yatropäyasya samsthitih I samvrtyä yoginitantram bälänämgaditam mayä II yatropäyasya sancärah prajnäyäh samsthitir bhavet Iupäyatantram evoktam samvrtyä tu yathä tathä II (stt. 27-29).

the Cakrasamvara. The Hevajra and the short Cakrasamvara must be understoodthrough the words of the Catuhplthaka. But the deep meaning [of all these tantras] mustbe understood through the words of the Ädibuddha, which contain great secrets' (heva-jrena hi cakrasamvaram idam jneyam catuhplthakam hevajram khalu cakrasamvarapadairjneyam catuhplthakam I hevajram laghucakrasamvaram idam jneyam catuhplthakairnit art ha h punar ädibuddhavacanair jneyo mahäsamvaraih II). The Catuhpïthamahâtantra(alias Prakaranatantra) is still unpublished. I give here references to some MSS of thistext: 1) NAK, MS 5-37, vi 51, NGMPP Mf. A138/10; 2) NAK, MS 5-38, vi 52, NGMPP Mf.B112/4; 3) NAK, MS 1-1078 vi, Saivatantra [sic!], NGMPP Mf. B26/23; 4) NAK, MS 4-20vi, Bauddhatantra 65, NGMPP Mf. A 48/18; 5) NAK, MS 5-36, NGMPP Mf. A 138/10; 6)Cambridge University Library, MS Add. 1704 (12). I thank H. Isaacson for supplyingsome of these references.

27 Kaiser Library, Kathmandu, MS C 128, NGMPP Mf. C14/6, fols. 25^-26^; NAK MSA 1267/6, NGMPP Mf. A693/11, fol. 25r6.7; IsIAO, Rome, MS 1.20, 22/S, MT049, fol. i6r[photos of the same MS taken by R. Sänkrtyäyana and listed by him as MS XVII.2.92; c£Sänkrtyäyana 1935: 36].


Pundanka 's paraphrase is as follows: yoginvyogatantram iti yatrayogintnäm sancäro näyako niscalah samvrtyä tad yoginïtantram, yat-ropäyasya sancärah prajnä niscalä tad upäyatantram I svarüpatah sar-vam evaprajnopäyätmakamyogatantram (vol. 3, p. 6 ). We cannotexclude that he might have drawn on another source; however, it isworth noting that also in another part of the VP (vol. 2, pp. 233-235)Pundarïka may have based himself on the HTPT. In fact, he quoteswith few variations 33 stanzas from the root-tantra (tathä mülatantrebhagavän äha [...]) —which in his text means from the Ädibuddha—that Vajragarbha cites from the PLH (= 6.n6-i2iab, 122-I3iab, 132,I48cd-i64).28 As we shall see later, Vajragarbha himself probablycomposed all —or at least a fair amount of— the stanzas he attrib-utes to the PLH. Furthermore, the classification of phonemes on thebasis of astronomical interrelationship that we find in the VP (adLKCT 1.8) probably derives from a scheme elaborated in the HTPT(4thpariccheda, adHT 1.1.13-21).

The above allows us to establish a likely chronological order for thecomposition of the texts: LTT, HTPT, VP. The LKCT and the VP wereprobably only works in progress when LTT and HTPT were completed.

3. In the light of this, we must seek to understand what it is exact-ly that enabled these texts to be grouped together in a single corpusas part of a founding project. We could start by saying that they derivefrom a common cultural environment: not only are certain themestreated in all three, but, notwithstanding the fact that the three textswere definitely composed by different people, each with an individualstyle,29 we find passages that literally correspond. Even if we were tosuppose that Pundarïka was not familiar with Vajragarbha's work,they both mention, as we have seen above, the work by Vajrapäni, andsometimes even seem to depend on him; for instance, several sen-tences of the 2 n d pariccheda of the HTPT and the tantradesanoddesa ofthe VP (vol. 1, pp. 12-22) would appear to be an elaboration of thefirst part of the LTT (p. 44 ff.).

Moreover, the texts are also linked by the fact that their authorschose particularly meaningful pseudonyms to give themselves a cer-tain authority, as J.R. Newman has already pointed out in the case ofYasas and Pundarïka, who declare themselves to be manifestations ofManjusrï and Avalokitesvara respectively.30 It is a known fact thatVajrapäni, the Bodhisattva emanating from Aksobhya, is the mediatorbetween the Buddha and man in the imparting of tan trie teachings,31

28 It is worth noting that stanza 6.155a, which in the HTPT is mülatantresu sarvesu,appears as ädibuddhe mahätantre in the VP (vol. 2, p. 23426).

29 I am aware that such a statement requires a deeper analysis of the language andsyntax of the LTT, the HTPT and the VP. I shall give more information on this in the intro-duction to my revised edition of Sferra 1999, which is in press.

30 Cf. Newman 1998a: 314; 1987a: 70. Cf. also Gnoli 1994: 63.31 On Vajrapäni, see Lamotte 1966 and Snellgrove 1987, vol. I: 134-141.


while Vajragarbha is the Buddha's interlocutor in the HT. In hisHTPT, Vajragarbha openly identifies himself with the Buddha's inter-locutor in the HT (1.71).

These elements, although significant, are not the prerogative ofthe Bodhisattva corpus and can also be found in Buddhist and non-Buddhist works, and therefore the grouping of the LTT, HTPT and VPin a corpus cannot be due solely to them. Perhaps more important,although the foregoing should not be minimized, are the following sixconsiderations: a) the importance these three texts give to the Ädibud-dha; b) the common hermeneutic criterion they all share, which can besummed up by the concept, which appears frequently in Kalacakra lit-erature, that a Tantra must be understood through another Tantra(tantram tanträntarena boddhavyam),32 and, more specifically, thatevery tantra must be understood through the Ädibuddha, as we haveseen in the above passage of the HTPT (§ 2.2.3 a n ( * note 26) ; c) the factthat all three Bodhisattvas quote the - mülatantras of the tantra thatthey are commenting on33 (both Vajrapäni and Vajragarbha quote theÄdibuddha as well) ; d) the unusual claim made by the three authors tohave unique authority in interpreting the tantra that they commenton, by right of their identity and their asserted access to the müla-tantras (which would be plausible if their claims regarding their ownidentity were accepted), which is precluded to other commentators; e)the aim of establishing the supremacy of monks over laymen (seebelow, § 7) ; and, perhaps most important, f) the desire to introducethe new Kalacakra doctrines and practices in religious circles wherethe works of the Adamantine Vehicle —and in particular the yoginl-tantras where the LTT and the HTPT are concerned— were studied.We may suppose that the idea of a corpus —which is not consonantwith the original texts— was introduced as part of a broader foundingproject, and used to Incorporate' the well-established traditions of theCST and the HT, the two most celebrated yoginïtantras, in the nascentKalacakra system and to give it greater credibility.

3.1 This need to incorporate or associate well-established tradi-tions in or with the new system and to give it more prestige, alsoexplains the importance the first authors of the Kalacakra attrib-uted to the MNS.

As we know, the MNS —on which there are several commentariesin both Sanskrit and Tibetan, and which takes many of the names'chanted' therein from the celebrated vaisnava Visnusahasranäma—was already extremely well-known when the early Kalacakra teacherswere active. Beginning with Pundarïka, an increasingly influential rolewas assigned to it also with regard to the interpretation of the

32 Cf., for instance, LTT p. 1452O; HTPT 1.77 and parts in prose of sections four andfive: NAK MS A 1267/6, NGMPP Mf. A693/11, fols. 16^-17^, 25^.

33 In the LTT Vajrapäni claims that his teaching is based on the Laksäbhidhäna andsometimes he actually quotes from this text (cf., for instance, p. 49).


Kalacakra doctrines and practices, as if it had actually been a text ofthe system. In fact, Pundarïka —who would have been the author of aManjusrlnämasangitivimalaprabhä that has come down to us only inTibetan translation (Q#2i i4)— 3 4 even goes as far as stating that theknowledge of the MNS depends on the knowledge of the Paramädi-buddha, and that the knowledge of the Gnosis Body of the Vajra-hold-er depends on the knowledge of the MNS. Those who do not know thisBody do not know the Mantrayäna and are, thus, separate from thepath of the Blessed One.35 The MNS gradually became an influentialsource of the Kalacakra system. Even though only a few stanzas fromthis text are quoted in the LTT and in the HTPT, Pundarïka states inhis Paramäksarajnänasiddhi (PAJS) that the essence of the BlessedOne's teaching is contained in the MNS.36 In the AK and the AKU,respectively a commentary and a sub-commentary on the MNS, theentire outer and inner worlds are said to correspond to the stanzas ofthe MNS.37 In these two texts, all the doctrines and practices of theschool are explained in the light of the MNS.

The fact that not one early Kalacakra work comments comprehen-sively on the GST merits further study. Here we shall limit ourselves toobserving that the way in which Kalacakra authors ( Anupamaraksita,Ravisrïjnâna, Näropä and so on) quote and gloss parts of the GST andthe Samäjottara^ diverges to varying degrees from that of Candrakïrtiand other authors like Munisrïbhadra, who adhere more closely to theGST tradition; for instance, in the commentary of the celebrated GST2.3, which contains an allusion to the insubstantiality of the meditativepractice (bhävanä), in the explanation of the pratyähära limb of thesixfold yoga and in the description of the signs (nimitta) that the yoginsees while practicing the sixfold yoga.

4. It would seem plausible therefore th<|t part of the tradition,that which is mirrored in the most ancient Tibetan historiographies,sought to endow the LTT and the HTPT with the same authority asthe VP, by claiming that these two works were originally more exten-sive and complete, and had become incomplete because the secondpart had been hidden by the däkints. The story is related by Bu stonand by mKhas grub rje when they describe the Rwa tradition, andalso by 'Gos gzon nu dpal. They tell us that the Bodhisattva corpus

34 Actually Bu ston questions and mKhas grub rje rejects the attribution of this workto Pundarïka (J. Newman, personal communication).

35 ato ye paramädibuddham na jänanti te nämasangitim na jänanti, ye nämasangitim najänanti te vajradharajnänakäyam na jänanti, ye vajradharajnänakäyam na jänanti temantrayänam na jänanti, ye mantrayänam na jänanti te samsärinah sarve vajra<dha>rabha-gavato märgarahitäh (VP vol. 1, p. 524_?). Cf. Newman 1987a: 83, 1987b: 93.

36 Cf. VP vol. 3, p. ioo25_26; Gnoli 1997: 78.37 Cf. AK pp. 2-3 and AKU p. 116.38 The Samäjottara is actually GST 18. This chapter, however, was probably added to

the text and is often quoted as a separate work.


was revealed to the ancient teacher Cilu from Orissa through an incarnation of Avalokitesvara (or Mafïjusrï according to another tradition). Then Cilu, prompted by the requests of his disciples, wrote down the three works of the corpus that he had memorized.

Then —we read in the Deb ther snon po— the troops of a foreign king invaded the country. They [the disciples] hid these commentaries on the tantras [the VP, the LTT and the HTPT] in a pit, and escaped. After the war was over, they returned and searched for the [hidden texts]. [They discovered] that the second half of the two shorter commentaries was missing. The disciples again requested [him] to write down [the missing portions, but] he declined, saying that the dakinïs had hidden them, and therefore it was improper to write them down [again] .39

The fact that the tables of content at the beginning of the HTPT and the LTT list all the chapters of the commented tantras, but the commentaries are interrupted after the first ten and a half stanzas of the CST (composed of 700 stanzas) and after the first 120 stanzas of the HT (composed of 750 stanzas) would appear to confirm that part of the works disappeared as tradition would lead us to believe (even if the dâkinïs were probably not responsible). But it should be noted that the two works were interrupted at different times, because, as we have seen, Vajragarbha's work contains an explicit reference to Vajrapäni's text, defined therein as a commentary on the ten and a half stanzas. Furthermore, a reading of the colophons of the HTPT and the LTT gives us the impression that the authors wished to comment on a part of the CST and the HT only, namely the part that corresponded to the pindärtha of the text, and decided to interrupt their work, even though this may have been due partially to circumstances beyond their control. As regards the HTPT, the Sanskrit manuscripts that have come down to us leave no room for doubt that Vajragarbha originally glossed only the first 120 stanzas of the HT, since none of them goes beyond the commentary of HT 1.5, and the colophon of the text reads as follows: 'Yogins should understand the meaning that has been condensed in five chapters with 120 stanzas by means of this commentary. [...] This is the end of the Snhevajrapindarthatika (vimsatyadhikasataslokaih pindarthah pancapatalesu yogibhir avagantavyo 'nayä tikayâ I [...] snhevajrapindarthatika samäpteti) .4° We must not forget, however, that the Tibetan translation of Vajragarbha's commentary covers the complete text of the HT. But this translation actually contains two colophons: one at the end of the commentary on the fifth chapter

39 de nasyul der rgyalpo gian gyi dmag 'ons nas rgyud 'grel de dag don du sbas te bros so\\ de nas dmag byer te star log nas bltas pa dan I 'grel pa chun nu gnis kyi smad mi 'dug nas I slob ma mams kyis kyan bri bar zus pa dan I mkha ' 'gro mas sbas pa yin pas dbrir [sic for brir ?] mi run gsun nas ma gnan no I (Deb ther snon po, chapter 10, fols. 5b -6a2 = ed. Chandra, fols. 670-671; cf. Roerich 19762: 762-763; Newman 1987a: 80-81).

4° Kaiser Library, Kathmandu, MS C 128, NGMPP Mf. C14/6, fol. 59^4.5-


of the first part of the HT, where the Sanskrit manuscript finishes,41

and another at the end of the work. What is contained between thetwo colophons is attributed to Vajragarbha and is the continuationof the commentary on the HT (1.6 ff.). Possibly, this part of the textis a later composition, written and translated into Tibetan after theDeb ther snon po; a few lines after the above-quoted passage, the lat-ter states the following: '[...] Also the statement that the last part ofthe two commentaries of the Dvikalpa [= HT] and the Samvara [=CST] were concealed by the dakints [is unreliable], since the pres-ent size [of these texts] in Tibetan is the one accepted by theBodhisattvas'.42

The colophon of the LTT, in its turn, states very clearly that thework actually finishes at that point, namely after the commentary onthe first ten and a half stanzas. In his History of Buddhism in India andTibet Bu ston refers to a commentary by Vajrapäni on the first part ofthe Tantra; this might also be a reference to the incompleteness ofthe LTT (cf. Obermiller 19992: 225).

5. Another issue that is worthy of consideration in relation to thefounding project is the choice of a definite date for its inception,which is a new and interesting occurrence in Indian religious culture.In fact, the Kälacakra was the first system that attempted to place itsfoundation in a historical context.

The LKCT and the VP state that the system was diffused within aspecific period of time, starting from the year 403 after the mlecchen-dravarsa, i.e. the Hijra, which corresponds to 1024/25 (or 1026/27 ifwe go by Abhayäkaragupta and the Kälacakränusäriganita). The dateis given, in the form of a prophecy, in LKCT 1.27.

41 This colophon (sDe dge #1180, fol. 46a ; Qvol. 53 #2310, fol. 52b6.?; ed. Ganden,vol. 7 [original vol. 16], fol. 63b ) reads: '[This work] was composed by the venerableBodhisattva Mahäsattva Vajragarbna. It was transalted [into Tibetan] by Dânasïla, Indianteacher, and by the lotsäwa 'Bro sen dkar säkya 'od. Then it was revised by Subhütisrisänti,Indian teacher, and by the lotsäwa Cog gru tin lie 'dzin bzari po'; rje btsun by an chub semsdpa ' sems dpa ' chen po rdo rje snin pos mdzad pa'oW rgya gar gyi mkhan po da na si la dan I lo tsäba 'bro sen dkar säkya 'od kyis bsgyur ba I slad kyi [Q: gyis; Ganden: kyis] rgya gar gyi mkhan posu bhü ti srl sänti dan I lo tsä ba cog gru tin ne 'dzin bzan pos zus so\\ II. The text continues withthe following words (sDe dge #1180, fol. 46a5 y; Qvol. 53 #2310, fols. 52b?-53a3; ed. Ganden,vol. 7 [original vol. 16], fol. 63b 6): yan slad kyi [Qand Ganden: kyis] rgya gar gyi mkhan porgyalpo'i sras I dpal 'jigs [Q: jig] med lha'i zal snar lo tsä ba snel [Q: snol] cor dge slonpradznäkirtisyul dbus 'gyurgyi dpes gtan la phabpa I slaryan dpal Idan son ston rdo rje rgyal mtshan gyislegs par bsadpa la sogs pa'i mthu las I brda sprodpa'i tshul rigpa'i dpan lo tsä ba dpal Idan biogros brtan pas I byan chub sems dpa 'i 'grel ba skor [Q and Ganden: 'grelpa bskor] gsum gyi tshulla sin tu dad ein blo'i snan ba rgyas pa 'i [Q and Ganden add: dge ba 'i] bses gften ra tun pa chosgrags dpal bzan pos I slob dpon chen po zi ba 'tsho'i tabs dpon slob kyis mdzadpa 'i I dbu ma 'i giunlugs chenpo de kho na nid bsduspa rtsa 'grel gyi glegs bam bris te yon du gnan nasyan dan yan dubskul ba'i nor legspar bcos te bsgyur ein zus nas gtan la [Q: las; Ganden: nas] phabpa'iyi gepani mdzad [Ganden: 'dzad] ston kun dga ' rgyal mtshan zes by a 'oil II.

42 [...] brtaggnis dan bde mchoggi 'grelpa gnis kyi mjugmkha ' 'gro mas sbaspar smra ba dela yan da Itar bod du 'gyur ba ï tshad de kho na byan chub sems dpas rjes su gnan no {Deb ther snonpo, chapter 10, fol. 6t>5 6 = ed. Chandra, fol. 672; cf. Roerich 19762: 764-765).


An indepth analysis of the reasons for choosing a date goes beyond the scope of this paper. While there may be some doubt as to the reliability of certain statements made by Kälacakra teachers, we can be sure that 1024/25 (or 1026/27) corresponds to the date that these masters intended to fix for the historical foundation of the system,43 as clearly demonstrated by J.R. Newman who has devoted an important study to this issue (1998b). There seems no good reason, however, to assume that they started producing their works and spreading their teachings precisely on that date.

In fact, the system must have already been fairly widespread when Näropä was writing (and we know that he died around 1040 CE), since he quotes widely from Vajrapäni, Vajragarbha and Pundarïka, and also from other authors, such as Anupamaraksita, who, in his turn, cites the LTT, the HTPT, the LKCT, the VP and the Tantrottara.

It should also be noted that both the LKCT and the VP were written in at least two stages. Stanzas from the LKCT are quoted in the PAJS by Pundarïka, but these are numbered differently from, and in some cases are not present in, the current version of the LKCT, which therefore must have been revised at some point. The PAJS, now a section of the VP (ad 5.127), probably existed as a separate and complete didactic text when the first version of the LKCT was written. This is confirmed by its specific stylistic features and by the fact that Pundarïka refers to it in the opening chapters of the VP (cf., e.g., vol. 1, pp. 159, 161) and that it is the only section of the VP that contains quotations from the LKCT.44

On the basis of the foregoing, we can say that the early Kälacakra literature was produced in at least five stages: 1) stanzas of the Ädibuddha (which included the SU), LTT, stanzas of the PLH, HTPT; 2) further stanzas of the Ädibuddha, LKCT (first version), PAJS, LKCT (revised version), VP, Tantrottara, Paramärthasevä;453) the two Sadangayoga treatises by Anupamaraksita; 4) SUT, Sekod-desatippanl by Sädhuputra Srïdharânanda; s) Sekoddesapanjikä,46

Gunabharant, AK, AKU. We cannot categorically exclude that, historically speaking, the

system was founded and began to spread in the years 1024/25 (or 1026/27), as the tradit ion maintains. However, it is unlikely —although not impossible— that such a complex system was created in a limited period of time, and such a vast literature produced in only fifteen years or so, as Raniero Gnoli has already pointed out (1994: 62). Indeed, if we assume for the sake of argument that the

43 It is well-known that the mythic history of the system dates back to the time of the historical Buddha.

44 For more information, see Gnoli 1997: 3-4; Cicuzza, Sferra 1997: 115-118. 45 We do not know exactly when the Paramärthasevä was written, but it might have

been composed after the VP, which does not make any reference to it. 46 This anonymous work is little more than a summary of the SUT.


account given in the LKCT-VP is true, the first four of the five earlystages of Kälacakra literature would have to have been produced inabout 16 years (from 1024/25 to 1040) .47

Probably the first two phases began before 1024/25, perhaps asearly as the end of the X cent. The terminus post quern for the secondstage could coincide with the first incursions the North-West India ofSebüktegin and expecially of his son Mahmud of Gaznï (r. 998-1030)around the end of the X cent, and the beginning of the XI cent.,48

since significant reference to mlecchas, i.e. barbarians, is made in theworks of Yasas and Pundarîka (see Newman 1998a). The fact that nomention of Islam is made in the LTT and the HTPT may well be inkeeping with the Indian spirit, but we cannot exclude that Islam waseither not present or not as strong when these texts were written.More generally, it was possibly irrelevant to the exegesis of the GSTand the HT.

What we can be certain of, independently of the date of the sys-tem's founding and diffusion, is that it was 'constructed' gradually.We may suppose that the early authors of the Wheel of Time firstbegan work on their texts and then chose a significant date on whichto officially unveil their system; a date that coincided with the begin-ning of a sexagenary cycle and had a symbolic importance. This is yetanother example of how these authors participated in the complexprocess of creating and consolidating their tradition.

6. Part of the strategy adopted with regard to the founding proj-ect of the Kälacakra was to refer to a 'higher level' of the tradition,namely that of the above-mentioned Paramädibuddha, the root-tantra of the system. The three Bodhisattvas, along with otherfamous authors such as Anupamaraksita, Sädhuputra Srïdharânan-da, Näropä, Ravisrïjnana and Vibhüticandra, quoted stanzas fromthis text, which is held to be the original scripture of the system andwhich according to the tradition consisted of 12,000 verses writtendown by Sucandra, emanat ion of the tenth-stage BodhisattvaVajrapäni and the first of the seven kings of the celebrated land ofSambhaia.49

Although, as we shall see, the Kälacakra authors' use of the root-tantras is original in many respects, the underlying idea that the

47 According to J. Newman (1998b), the year 403 proves that the passages of theLKCT and the VP containing the year 403 were composed during or after that year, butthe texts as a whole may have been composed prior to that date, and it is also possible thatthe LKCT and the VP were completed between 1025 ca. and 1040 CE.

48 Sebüktegin and his son arrived at Pesävara in 987 after Räjäjayapäla's defeat and sui-cide (cf. Bernardini 2003: 78). For further information on the plundering —Bhïmanagara(Nagarkot) (1008), Thänesvara (1011), Lahore (1014), Mathurâ (1018), Kannauj (1019),Somanätha (1025)— carried out by Mahmud of Gaznï, see Bernardini 2003: 82-85, and inparticular Wink 2002: 120-135, 328-333, and Haig 1987. On the Muslim colonies in Indiabefore the raids undertaken by the Ghaznavids, see Orofmo 1997: 723 and notes.

49 See Newman 1991: 51-90.


tantras that have come down to us were the abridged version of root-tantras in which the spiritual teaching would have been explained inmore depth is neither exclusively Buddhist nor belongs to theKälacakra. There is a similar instance in Hindu tan trie literature.The saiva Mälintvijayottara, for example, that has come down to usin twenty-three chapters is said to be a summary of the Mälinwijaya.According to tradition, the latter, which probably never existed,amounted to thirty million stanzas.50 A similar consideration may bemade with respect to other tantras, such as the Manthänabhairava,the original version of which was said to contain a billion verses(laksakoti),51 and the Sarvavlratantra, the basic text (mülasütra) ofwhich was said to be three hundred and fifty (chapters ?) long.52 Thesame applies to vaisnava texts, such as the Jayäkhyasamhitä (cf. 1.70-79) and the Pädmasamhitä. The latter, in particular, is held to be thecondensed teaching in 10,000 stanzas of a previous teaching in100,000 stanzas, which, in its turn, is believed to derive from a text of500,000 stanzas. The original work is said to have contained15,000,000 stanzas (Jnänapäda 1.32-33).

In Buddhist texts, references to mulatantras or brhattantras (lit.'long tantras') are to be found, for example, in the Yoginïsancaratantra(pp. 5, 9, 12, 52, 55, 69, 70) and in the CST (pp. 3, 19). We know thatthe root-tantra of the GST should have been a work of twenty-fivethousand verses, that of the Mäyäjälatantra a work of sixteen thou-sand verses, and that of the CST a work of one hundred thousandchapters, entitled Mahälaksäbhidhäna.53 These works have never actu-ally been found,54 that is to say they have not come down to us direct-ly but through quotations and, in one case (= SU), in a fragment;therefore, continual references to these texts have aroused interestand sometimes perplexity among scholars.55

By general consensus both in Hindu and Buddhist circles, the root-tantras were not only longer (and thus, in theory, more difficult tomemorize), but also more complex and complete, and containedbroader and more cryptic teachings. Usually mulatantras were onlymentioned —in theistic enviroments they were used to allude to theprofundity and uncontainability of divine revelation, which had to begradually simplified to be understood by man—; but Buddhist teachers—and this is quite interesting—, especially in the Kälacakra tradition,frequently quoted directly from them. The use these authors/teachersmade of the mulatantras reveals their true (and twofold) intent: to give

50 See Mâlinïvijayottara i.8b ff.; cf. also Matangapäramesvarägama, Vidyäpäda i.30cd-33ab.

51 See Dyczkowski 1988: 99.52 See Dyczkowski 1988: 110-111.53 See Tsuda 1974: 33.54 See Newman 1987a: 93-102.55 Cf. Nihom 1984: 21-22; Newman 1987b. On the root-tantras, see also Reigle 1986

and Snellgrove 1959, vol. I: 15-17.


authority to the new texts and to elevate their promulgators and inter-preters, i.e. themselves. Indeed, the mülatantraswere clearly accessibleonly to the few, although this was not stated specifically.

It is quite possible that the root-tantras may never have existed assuch, and that the Ädibuddha, in particular, consisted only of frag-ments and isolated stanzas. It is also possible that these stanzas andthe verses attributed to other root-tantras, such as the PLH, were writ-ten by the commentators themselves in order to bolster their ownworks. This can be ascertained by examining one or two examples.

In his HTPT Vajragarbha quotes literally hundreds of stanzasfrom the PLH, which, as we have already mentioned, he claims wasthe basic tantra (mülatantra or äditantra) of the HT. He writes:

The Blessed one, viz., Vajrasattva, taught the short tantra, which com-prises seven hundred and fifty stanzas and consists of twenty-two chap-ters and two brief parts: Sambodhi and Mäyäjäla. It is taken from thePancalaksahevajra, which is its root-tantra of thirty-two extensive parts.56

However, the PLH was undoubtedly written after the HT. Theeclectic nature of the former and its treatment of themes that presup-pose the development of speculations subsequent to the HT reveal itslater origin. R. Gnoli has proposed that root-tantras, such as theParamädibuddha and the PLH, never existed as independent worksand that the latter, in particular, may have been written byVajragarbha himself to give more importance to his own commentary(1994: 60, 66). David Snellgrove has put forward a similar hypothe-sis.57 Concerning the above, we should bear four points in mind.

6.1 First of all, this work —as far as we can say at present— is onlyknown through verses that, for the most part, can be traced to theHTPT that, therefore, may be the source. Apart from the above-men-tioned passage of the VP that does not cite the PLH, but containsstanzas that Vajragarbha attributes to it (§ 2.3), we have found versesthat according to the HTPT belonged to this text in works such as theAK,58 the AKU and the Dohäkosatikä by Amrtavajra, which althoughthey quote Vajragarbha a n d / o r his commentary, do not make explic-

56 pancalaksahevajrän mülatanträd dvätrimsanmahäkalpäl laghukalpadvayam sambo-dhimäyäjälalaksanam dvavimsatiparicchedatmakam särddhasaptasatagranthapramänamlaghutantram vajrasattvena bhagavatä sandesitam (2nd pariccheda, NAK MS A 1267/6,NGMPP Mf. A693/11, fol. 6v4_6; IsIAO, Rome, MS 1.20, 22/S, MT049, fol. 4^_2 [seeabove, note 27]). On this concept see also HTPT 1.3CL-6 and i.67ab (cf. below, § 6.4 andnote 73).

57 'As this mülatantra in common with other works of exegesis concentrates on the fig-urative sense, it is probably the work of some recognized master, and not impossibly ofthatwriter himself who goes by the name of Vajragarbha. [...] I remain persuaded that this par-ticular "basic text" is in any case later than the tantra itself and the early commentators,Saroruha, Kânha, Bhadrapada, and Dharmakïrti and unknown to Tankadâsa andRatnäkarasänti' (Snellgrove 1959, vol. I: 17-18).

58 In the AK (adMNS 9.10; ed. pp. 82-83) some stanzas of the PLH (= HTPT 5.2icd-35ab) are quoted without mentioning the source.


it mention of the PLH.59 Other quotations from this text can befound in works that were composed in a later phase of the spreadingof the Wheel of Time, such as the Sekoddesatippanl by SädhuputraSrïdharananda, who mentions the PLH but not Vajragarbha and theHTPT,60 the SUT by Näropä, who, as far as we know, is the onlyauthor who cites both Vajragarbha and the PLH,61 and the rDo rje'itshiggi sninpo bsdus pa'i dka' 'grelby sNan grags bzaii po.62

However, we must bear in mind that we also find quotations fromthe PLH that do not occur in the HTPT, such as the seven stanzasfrom the 'Bumphrag Ina pa 'i kye'i rdo rje (= PLH) that are to be foundin the *Sahajasiddhipaddhatiby Laksmi Bhattärikä, a commentary onLaksmïnkarâ's Sahajasiddhi,63 and that stanzas that Vajragarbhastates as deriving from the PLH are sometimes attributed to othersources. Particularly interesting in this regard is a long quotation inthe Trivajraratnävalimälikä, an unpublished commentary on theHT. The author of this work, Kelikulisa, quotes, with a few variantreadings and in a slightly different order, several stanzas that are tobe found in the fifth section of the HTPT. According to Vajragarbhathese stanzas are drawn from the PLH, but Kelikulisa refers to thesource text of these verses as Läksikadvikalparäjatantra and he evenspecifies the name of the chapter (candälikäyogapatala; elsewhere hecalls it candällyogapatala) ,64 The reasons for this difference in thename of what we would expect to be the same source should be inves-tigated more thoroughly. At present we are not able to establish therelationship between Vajragarbha and Kelikulisa. An hypothesisworthy of note was put to me by Harunaga Isaacson, who suspects

59 In his commentary on the Dohakosa by Krsnavajrapada, Amrtavajra {aliasAmitavajra, dPag med rdo rje; cf. Chimpa, Chattopadhyaya 1970: 304-305) quotes (pp. 131-132) some stanzas of the PLH (= HTPT 5.77-86ab, 9O-94ab). His text, in its turn, is incor-porated almost in its entirety and with only a few changes in an apparently late, stillunpublished tantric composition generically entiteled Kalparaja that includes many quo-tations and is divided into 13 patalas. The tïkâ by Amrtavajra corresponds to patalas 6-8 ofthe Kalparaja (fols. 27^-41^ = pp. 130-155). Stanzas 5.77 and 5.80 are not quoted (cf. fols.28r -28f ) in the Kalparaja. Amrtavajra knew Vajragarbha and was familiar with theHTrT: a passage from the 4th pariccheda of the HTPT is quoted with slight variations on p.138 of his commentary (tathä ca vajragarbhapädäh — 'näsädvayarandhre [...] mandala-cakrani). Amrtavajra quotes numerous stanzas of the SU and some stanzas of the LKCT; apassage from his work recurs verbatim in the SUT (cf. ed. Carelli, p. 38).

60 In the Sekoddesatippanï, Sädhuputra Sridharänanda (ad!SU 152-I53ab; p. 142) intro-duces with the words: tathä ca pancalaksäbhidhänahevajre a stanza that corresponds toHTPT i.4Ocd-4iab. The same stanza is quoted without mentioning the source byRavisrïjnana adMNS 10.3 (p. 90) and by Vibhüticandra in his AKU {ad AK 4.1; p. 134).

61 Cf. ed. Carelli, pp. 59-60 and p. 67, where Näropä quotes 11 stanzas from the PLH(= HTPT 10.4-14) introducing them with the words: yathä pancalaksäbhidhäne.

62 See above, note 20.63 sDe dge #2261, fol. 14b, Q#3io8, fol. 17a; see also Shendge 1967: 128, note 5.64 The opening sentence runs as follows: tathä coktam läksikadvikalparäjatanträ-

krstacandälikäyogapatale (fol. 26r12). The correspondences are: HTPT 5.2-4 {Trivaj-raratnävalimälikä, fol. 2Ôv ), 5.5-17 (fols. 26r2-26f ), 5.18-26 (fols. 26^-27^), 5.27«! (fol.27^.2), 5-28cd-53 (fols. 27^-29^).


that in Kelikulisa's time 'there was circulating a work that calleditself the Candäliyogapatala of the Läksikadvikalparäjatantra (some-thing like the SU), which had included material attributed byVajragarbha to the PLH'. Isaacson is aware that this must be con-firmed, if confirmation is ever possible. He also pointed out to methat Kelikulisa was familiar with the PLH and refers to it in otherparts of his work as Pancaläksika.

6.2 The eclectic nature of the text. Sometimes the PLH verses con-tain stanzas that can be found, in an identical or slightly different form,not only in the Paramädibuddha, the Pindtkramasadhana attributed toNägärjuna, the CST and in other celebrated Buddhist texts (e.g.,HTPT i.45ab = Madhyamakakärikä, I3.8ab), but also in Hindu works.For instance, Andrea Perrone has pointed out to me that some stanzasof the PLH dealing with alchemy correspond exactly to parts of theRasahrdayatantra, the Rasarnava and the Änandakanda.65 It is possiblethat the author of the PLH took these verses either from the above-mentioned alchemical texts themselves but, more likely, from an earli-er source on which these texts themselves drew. They were probablycomposed between the IX and the XIII cent. This would also explainwhy another verse of the PLH (= HTPT 9.34) dealing with the alchem-ical process (but not present in the above-mentioned works) alsoappears in the SU (st. 134) and in the saiva Kubjikämatatantra (3.104).

6.3 Stanzas quoted by Vajragarbha from the PLH are evidentlyconnected with Kälacakra themes. In a brief paper, published inDhïh (Cicuzza, Sferra 1997), we show the close relationship existingbetween the description of the arrangement of the main nädis inthe human body, as explained in the PLH and the Kälacakra doc-trines (cf. SU 46 ff.). According to the latter, the position of thethree nâdïs changes at the navel (näbhicakra). The rasanä, avadhütiand lalanä, which in the upper part of the Jbody are located on theright, in the centre and on the left, are turned towards the left, rightand centre in the lower part of the body.66 We also show that differ-ences between the HT and the PLH are sometimes evident. Forexample, when Vajragarbha describes the number of petals (dala)of the lotuses located in the cakras along the middle channel, hedoes not strictly follow the HT text (see, for instance, 1.1.23)67 butthe LKCT (cf. 2.57-59), the physiological concepts of which differslightly from those of the HT.

Further similar examples can be given. For instance, in describingthe different rosaries that have to be used during the rites for paralyz-ing, subduing and so forth, the PLH substantially agrees with the

65 For instance HTPT 9.30 = Rasahrdayatantra 6.14, Anandakanda 1.38, Rasarnava10.17. This stanza is also quoted in the PAJS (VP vol. 3, p. 93).

66 This is illustrated with figures in Gnoli, Orofino 1994: 272, note 2; Orofmo 1996:133; Cicuzza 2001: 27.

67 Cf. also Jnänodayatantra, p. 5.


description that we find in the PAJS, while it differs from that in theHT. The combinations of the rosaries and ritual actions are listed inthe following table.

HT 2.10.2-3

sphatïkaraktacandana

ristikäniramsuka

asvahaddabrahmahästhin

gajästhikamahisästhi

stambhanavasya

abhicärukavidvesa

uccätanaäkarsana

varsäpanamärana

PAJS (VP vol. 3, p. 65)

sphatikamuktäphalanaradantaustradanta

[kharadanta]putrajlvapadmaJnja

[raktacandana]rudräksa

rista

santikapaustikamäranauccätana

vasyaäkrsti

stambhanamohana

PLH (= HTPT 6.59CCI-63)

sphatïkamauktikanrdanta

kharadanta

putrafivakapadmatnja

[candanaMja]rudräksa

rista

santikapaustikamärana

vidvesana[uccätana]

vasyaäkrsti

stambhanamohana

Furthermore, we should remember that the PLH deals with a cer-tain number of themes, such as the death-sign (arista) and the medi-tation on the Krodharäjas, which are not treated in the HT butassume considerable importance in Kälacakra texts, such as the SU,the LTT, the LKCT and also the VP.68 In the PLH, the phonemes ofthe Sanskrit alphabet are divided on the basis of the elements (ether,wind, etc.) and arranged according to the Kälacakra doctrine: thedentals are placed after the labials and the position of the semi-vow-els LA and VA is reversed.69

Vajragarbha aligns the teachings of the HT with the doctrines ofthe Kälacakra by quoting the PLH, which is not in fact based on (orthe basis of) the HT but inspired by those doctrines.

6.4 The use Vajragarbha makes of the PLH in his work. He actuallyquotes frequently and at length from it in order to comment on versesof the short tantra that he is explaining. Such usage seems to contra-dict Vajrapäni's assertion in the LTT that the alpatantras (lit. 'shorttantras') —even though full of difficult words (vajrapada)— weredrawn from the mülatantras in order to meet man's now limited capac-ity to understand (tat kasya hetor bhagavann alpatantram mülatanträddesayasi iti I bhagavän aha I iha pancakasäyakäle jämbüdvlpakä manusyävisesenäryavisaye alpäyuso 'Ipaprajnä bhavisyanti [...] tasmät sarvamüla-tanträd alpatantradesanä buddhasya) .7° As the introduction of theHTPT shows, Vajragarbha shared with Vajrapäni and Pundarïka71 a dis-trust in man's inability to understand the short tantras, but, moreopenly than the other two, assigned a precise explanatory role to the

68 Cf., for instance, VP vol. 2, pp. 33-34, 67.69 The sequence of semivowels: YA, RA, VA, LA (wind, fire, water, earth) is also present

in the Candamahärosanatantra (p. 58).

71 Cf. Newman 1987a: 313-314.


mulatantras, and to the PLH in particular. This is not an obscure andincomprehensible text, but an explicative work (nirdesa) thatVajragarbha actually uses to illustrate the short HT and especially itsmost difficult parts.72 In the opening stanzas of the HTPT he writes:73

Impelled by Hevajra,74 I —the glorious Vajragarbha, the Lord of theten earths, who desire the welfare of all beings— am writing acommentary that explains the secrets of the [Hevajra] tantra, in orderfor the yogins to attain the [true] path. Since this short tantra of 750[stanzas], endowed with many adamantine words, has been taken froma great tantra of 500,000 [stanzas], this [commentary], called Satsähas-rikä, follows the root-tantra in order to elucidate on the [short] tantra.[...] The teaching of the Victorious One, which is [condensed] here, inthis short tantra, the Hevajra, and which in ancient times the Buddhastaught with 500,000 stanzas in the collection of the Äditantra remainsobscure to man. [...] [Therefore] the meaning [of the short tantrasonly] becomes clear from the commentaries. He who tries to reveal,without a commentary, the obscure [meaning of a] word in a shorttantra, resembles a blind man who attempts to follow the trail of a snakethat has long disappeared into the water.75

Similar observations can be made about the Ädibuddha. A deepanalysis of the quotations from this text would require a separatepaper. Here we would limit ourselves to pointing out that numerousstanzas attributed to the Ädibuddha are found in other tantras andindependent works (cf. Gnoli 1994: 60-61).

7. Essential element of the founding project, indeed one of themost important, is the description of the qualifications necessary forthose whose privilege and duty it is to preserve, transmit and inter-pret the Scriptures and spiritual teachings. This is evident, amongother things, from the space the texts devote to this topic.

j.i It is worth noting that, as is the case with other tantric cycles,the first Kälacakra authors felt the need to define the figure of thetrue master (sadguru) or adamantine teacher (vajräcärya) and, above

72 The threefold division uddesa, nirdesa and pratinirdesa, which we find elsewhere(e.g. in the Yoginlsancäratantra 1.2-3 and in its commentaries; pp. 37-8,123), is said to applyto Kälacakra literature in the SU 3-5 and to the Hevajra cycle literature in the HTPT whereit is stated that the HT is the uddesa, the PLH the nirdesa and, implicitly, the HTPT itselfthe pratinirdesa (cf. st. 1.77).

73 [...] tantraguhyagadikä tikä mayä likhyate II [3] srïmatâ vajragarbhena sarvasattvahi-taisinä I dasabhümlsvareneyam märgaläbhäya yoginäm II [4] pancalaksamahätanträdalpatantre samuddhrtel särddhasaptasate 'py asmin bahuvajrapadänviteW [5] hevajracoditenai-va yä satsähasrikä matä I seyam tantraprakäsärtham mülatantränusärint II [6] [...] hevajrejinadesanätra laghuke 'visphuteyam nrnäm laksaih pancabhir äditantranicaye buddhaih krtäyäpurä\ [...] tlkäbhir arthägamahW [67] yastlkärahito 'Ipatantranicayeguptampadamdesayetso'mbuny aksivivarjitas ciragatasyäheh padam vlksayet I [...] [68].

74 Cf. also st. i.65cd.75 This example occurs also in the Älokamälä by Kambala (st. 280):

jalaprayätähipadäni pasyatah [...] katham nu lokasya na jäyate trapä II (pp. 109-220).Another stanza of this text (st. 142) is paraphrased by Vajrapäni (LTT p. 143).


all, to deal with this issue at crucial points in their works, naturally giv-ing more space to it than the masters who followed them. In fact,Vajragarbha, rather than commenting on the HT immediately,devotes the first of the ten paricchedas into which his work is dividedto establishing the criteria for interpreting the Scriptures, and thequalifications necessary for imparting and glossing the teachings.Vajragarbha's arguments are treated also at the beginning of thethird section of the VP, where we find parallel passages; Pundarïkadeals briefly with these arguments also in other parts of the VP, butdevotes the entire first part of the Paramärthasevä to them. Vajrapânipresents the same arguments as Vajragarbha and Pundarïka, but in aless systematic and detailed manner.

What is characteristic of the early Kälacakra teachers is that theydo not limit themselves to describing the qualities and defects of theguru; instead they refer to (or 'stage') a polemical debate betweenthemselves and hypothetical exponents with a conflicting viewpoint.This is not a purely scholarly debate, and quite probably the texts ofthe three Bodhisattvas mirrored a debate that actually existed inBuddhist circles of the period and that must also have treated the cor-rect interpretation of some scriptural passages on the qualificationsand duties of the guru. To this end, the three Bodhisattvas cite andinterpret some verses and words of the Gurupancäsikä from a stand-point asserting the superiority of ordained monks.

Therefore, it is worth following the reasoning of Vajragarbha andPundarïka in more detail.76

In LKCT 3.2-3, as in other sources dealing with the vajräcärya-parlksä, the examination of the adamantine teacher, which is a prelim-inary to the gurvärädhana, a list is given of the qualities that a guru mustpossess and of the defects that he must not possess. The wise disciple(budha) must carefully examine both his qualities and defects, anddetermine if he is worthy of the role he wishes to assume. It is funda-mentally a question of moral qualities that he must have to be worthyof possessing the right teaching and of imparting it. Thus far there isnot much difference between the LKCT-VP and what we read in theGuhyasiddhi and in other works.77 In LKCT 3.2-3 no mention is madeof his cultural skills, whereas the VP does refer to them (vol. 2, p. 5),also by quoting stanzas 8 and 9 of the Gurupancäsikä; these concern theritual (dasatattva) and the Scriptures (the master is defined assästrakovida). The same stanzas are quoted in the HTPT (1.29-30).

The VP raises a rather interesting objection, which is also presentin the HTPT where the vis polemica is more evident. The objector(clearly another tan trie Buddhist, and possibly an exponent of the so-called ärya-scYiooY) states that the Tathägata himself said that onlythe qualities of a master must be considered and —as specified in the

76 See also Wallace 2001: 8-9.77 For further references, see Sferra 2004.


VP (the passage, however, seems to be partly corrupted)— ? 8 thatsince in the future this point of view may be thought to be held byfoolish people, that the defects of a guru must not be taken into con-sideration. In this regard the opponent in the debate is presented byVajragarbha (1.14,1.19) and by Pundarïka as quoting two stanzas: thefirst corresponds to a stanza of the Snmäyäjälamahätantraräja quotedalso by Candrakïrti in his Satkotivyäkhyä on the GST (p. 216); the sec-ond is Gurupancäsikä 2, which is quoted to stress that the fully initiat-ed vajräcärya is worshipped by the Tathägatas themselves (cf. GST 17,pp. 104-105; Jnânasiddhi, p. 151) and probably to infer that no ordi-nary man has the right to criticize him.

Vajragarbha's and Pundarïka's reply shows that their principalconcern was on the one hand to preserve, like the opponents, thegurus high standing, but, more importantly, on the other to limitaccess to this elevated position, to prevent it from being 'diminished'.The opponent 's unilateral interpretation might have finished byweakening the guru's stature and influence, with predictable anddamaging consequences. This is why, according to the Kälacakra mas-ters, it was important to consider also the defects of the guru, since itenabled them to create a hierarchy and to ensure that authority wasinvested only in those who were worthy of wielding it.

Both Vajragarbha and Pundarïka reply to the opponent, in thefirst place by quoting stanza 7 of the Gurupancäsikä, which states thatthe disciple must not accept as a master a morally immature person,in other words, a person who is without compassion, pitiless, etc.Vajragarbha briefly glosses this, associating a lack of compassion withthe secular activities of the farmer, and pitilessness with hatred formonks. In the second place, both establish a guru hierarchy and iden-tify the highest level with the guru who is a monk (bhikm). Both com-mentaries betray a certain aggressiveness, ^specially in their ironicalportrayal of laymen and their presuming to be Vajra-holders (vajrad-hara). The VP and the HTPT quote a similar stanza —the formerattributing it to the Ädibuddha, the latter to the PLH— that we findwith slight changes in the Samvarodayatantra (8.9). This stanza statesthat laymen, farmers, merchants and so on sell the Good Law, giving

78 The following is the reading of the editio princeps: tasmäd 'äcäryasya gunä grähyäh',ihänägate 'dhvani yad vaktavyam bälajanaih sanmärganastair 'äcäryasya gunä grähyä' itikesäncid märganastänäm vacanam bhavisyati, tasmäd ucyate 'dosä naiva kadäcane'ti I tan na[...] (vol. 2, p. 49_n); the same passage appears with different wording in a MS of the VPkept in microfilm form in the Library of IsIAO in Rome: tasmäd 'äcäryasya gunä grähyä'itikesäncin märganastänäm vacanam bhavisyati I tasmäd ucyate I ihänägate 'dhvani yad vak-tavyam bälajanaih sanmärganastair 'äcäryasya gunä grähyä dosä naiva kadäcane'ti I tan na[...] (Mf. 2.3, AAC, chapter 3, fol. 4 3̂.4; for a description of this MS see Sferra 1995: 360);the latter reading is also that of Bu ston's commentary on the VP (the glosses are placedbetween brackets) : de'iphyir slob dpon gyiyon tan blan bar by a 'o iespa (yan dag pa 'i \) lam (las)namspa (log par 'tsho ba \) 'ga'ziggi tshig 'byun bar 'gyur te I de'iphyir brjodpar by a ste I 'dir ma'ons pa 'i dus su lam nams pa 'i byis pa 'i skye bo mams kyis I slob dpon yon tan blan bya ste I skyonni namyan (brjodpar bya ba\) minpa nid\\ ces pa gan brjodpar bya ba de ni mayin te\ [...] (dBangi le'u'i 'grel mchan, ed. Chandra, fol. 23945).


us to understand that they are not truly generous; and we know fromVP adLKCT 3 4 that the disciple must avoid covetous (dhanärthin) laymasters (vol. 2, p. 7l8_2O). Both texts quote from common sources andcontinue by stating that of the three types of guru {bhiksu, navaka [orcellaka], grhastha) the first is by far the best, as stated also in theKriyasamuccayahy]?igz.àà'3ir"pdLn2i (a/zasDarpanäcärya) (fol. 2r), whoquotes from Kälacakra sources at the beginning of his work.79 TheLTT also speaks of the bhiksu's being superior to the cellaka and thegrhastha, when it comes to choosing the leader of the group', thegananäyaka (pp. 105-109). Gurupancäsikä %& and 5d are quoted there-in (p. 106), but not acknowledged, and glossed in the prose.

Hence, the basic requirements for a guru are moral integrity anda profound knowledge of rituals and Scriptures, and this appliesboth to Kälacakra teachers and others. But this is not the real point,since, in theory, these are qualities that anyone, even laymen, candisplay. It is interesting to note that Vajragarbha uses the futuretense in staging the above debate, to make it sound like a prophecy.In stanzas 1.10-11 we read:

'We are the Vajra-holders since we have attained Buddhahood, the stateof Vajrasattva, with effort, through the initiations', some will say toother men. 'All monks who observe moral precepts should not be hon-oured. We who wear white clothes, and who are the Vajra-holders inperson, must be honoured!'.80

The crucial point is that the three Bodhisattvas establish an indis-putable, objective criterion, namely that only monks, clothed in amonk's habit, who observe the monastic precepts, can truly possessintegrity and thus command respect. When fully initiated, they arethe supreme vajräcäryas, i.e. Vajra-holders.81

If a bhiksu is present the layman must not perform the rites, such asthe one connected with founding a monastery (vihâra), etc. Laymenmust not be worshipped as the Vinaya of the Mülasarvästivädin alsoreminds us;82 concerning this, stanzas 4 and 5 of the Gurupancäsikä arequoted and glossed in the VP and the HTPT.

At this point, a further, particularly significant qualification ofthe guru is introduced in the two texts: he must have attained the

79 As pointed out by V.A. Wallace (2001: 218, note 19) the concept recurs also in theVajramäläguhyasamäjavyäkhyätantra.

80 buddhatvam vajrasattvatvam sekaih samgrhya yatnatah I vayam vajradharäh kecidvadisyanti narä nrnäm II avandyä bhiksavah sarve silasamvaradhärinah I sitavasträ vayamvandyäh svayam vajradharä bhuvi II. It is worth noting the use and the order of the wordsin the Sanskrit text of stanza 10, particularly the fact that it ends with narä nrnäm (lit. 'menamong men') to create a 'surprise-effect' and to stress that these are the words of meremen talking to their equals.

81 In this part of the VP we sometimes find the words bhiksuvajradhara (compoundedor not compounded); cf. e.g. vol. 2, p. 6l6 and p. j v

82 Cf. Sayanäsanavastu, pp. 3-5, and also VP vol. 1, p. 5414.l6.


bhumis, otherwise the three jewels (Buddha, Dharma and Sarigha)will be weakened; the guru is a lingin, one who bears signs of being afollower of a religious path, which here probably means a monkwearing monk's robes, etc.83

The aforesaid, and especially the mode in which the authorsexpressed themselves through a particular use of words and arrang-ment of arguments, reveals how urgent it was to find a way of resolv-ing a socio-cultural situation in which the Buddhist (and not only theBuddhist) culture was held by the authors to be in decline and /o rseriously compromised.

It was only at that point that the qualities (guna) of the guruwere examined, namely after establishing the supremacy of themonks (and in particular the monks who had attained a very highlevel of spiritual development) over laymen, by quoting stanzas 8and 9 of the Gurupancäsikä and the gloss on stanza 2 of the sametext, which was previously used by the opponent to back up his argu-ment. Both the HTPT (1.20-23) and the VP give a twofold interpre-tation of the stanza, that is, its deep meaning (nltärtha) and itssurface meaning (neyärtha).

y.2 While it is important to establish who are the true masters toguide the Buddhist community and celebrate rituals, it is even moreimportant to identify who is fully qualified to compose and inter-pret the texts.

The three Bodhisattvas are perfectly clear on this as well: onlyBodhisattvas can write the commentaries. This statement firstappears in the LTT (and is repeated in the HTPT and the VP), wherewe read that in this period of decline (kasäyakäla) the grhasthas willwrite short and long commentaries (p. 51), but the wise men will fol-low only the commentaries written by the Bodhisattvas (p. 52).84 SU5cd states that these works must be composed by individuals endowedwith supernatural powers (abhijna) and not merely by learned men(naiva panditaih).8s Vajragarbha says the same thing, not at all mod-estly, in his HTPT: ttkä mayä likhyate [...] kecit ttkäm karisyanti pancä-bhijnädibhir vinä (stt. 1.3d, 9ab). The syllogism is not perfect, but it isevident what the author wishes to convey.

Thus, it is not a question of knowledge, but first and foremost ofspiritual achievement. Knowledge alone may even be an obstacle.The concept recurs in LKCT-VP 5.243, where it is stated that in India,the Vajra-holder (= Säkyamuni) hid the adamantine words (namely,

83 This meaning of lingin is known from Brahmanical, Saiva, Vaisnava and Buddhisttexts; it is common to contrast grhins/grhasthas and lingins, cf., e.g., Somasambhupaddhati,sräddhasämänyalaksana section, verse 2, pp. 624-625 (H. Isaacson, personal communication).

84 While introducing SU 63ab, in his SUT Näropä makes reference to those who areconfused and deceived (vipralabdha) for having heard laghutantras whitout the salvificassistance of Bodhisattvas.

85 In the Sekoddesatippant we read: abhijnäläbhibhir iti I dasabhümisvaramahäbodhi-sattvair eva [...] panditair iti alabdhabhümikaih (p. 119 ̂ )•


those concerning the 'supreme unchanging pleasure') in the RoyalTantras (yogatantra and yoginltantra), so that learned Buddhists whopresume to have knowledge will not understand the meaning by sim-ply reading, and without listening to a master.

The writings of the early Kälacakra authors reflected a kind ofclericalism, since they sought to create a strong, united front to facethe new powerful enemies, and to establish a strong and solid ortho-doxy with the necessary hierarchy to sustain it. There was no room fordoubt within the tradition.

Thus, the Kälacakra rather than codifying a popular movement—although it does assimilate and systematize the insights of theSiddhas, whose Apabhramsa stanzas are quoted by the dozen— orrepresent ing the apex of the gradual evolution of Buddhisttantrism, is, primarily, the product of a number of individuals whoconsciously developed a system that drew and elaborated on exist-ing practices and doctrines.

The Kälacakra authors placed themselves at the centre of theBuddhist tantric movement by defining a new orthodoxy. They didnot set themselves up as one of the tantric currents, but as the ortho-dox tantric current par excellence. They sought, perhaps for the firsttime in tantric Buddhist circles, to create a consistent, unifying sys-tem, capable of holding its own, firstly at the intrabuddhist and inter-religious level (especially with Hindu tantric traditions); secondly,with Islam that was an ever-growing presence. The Kälacakra authorsmaintained that it was necessary to ally Buddhism with a subordinat-ed Hinduism to defeat Islam (cf. Newman 1995).86 Thus it was noaccident that Buddha was described as the promulgator of the Veda(LKCT 1.156) and that Yasas warned the brähmanas against becom-ing barbarians (VP vol. 1, p. 24 ff.) .8?

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sigla

CIHTS Central Institute of Higher Tibetan StudiessDe dge sDe dge edition of the bKa' 'gyur and the bsTan 'gyur. Cf.

Chibetto Daizökyö Sömokuroku /A Catalogue-Index of the TibetanBuddhist Canons, by Ui H., Suzuki M., Kanakura Y., Tada T.,Sendai, Töhoku Imperial University aided by SaitöGratitude Foundation, Sendai 1934.

86 On the relationship between the Kälacakra and Islam, see Hoffmann i960, 1969;Grönbold 1992: 277-278, 284, 292-293; 1996; Orofmo 1997; Newman 1998a.

87 Cf. Newman 19912: 60.


Dhïh Dhih. Journal of Rare Buddhist Texts Research ProjectIIJ Indo-Iranian JournalIsIAO Istituto Italiano per 1'Africa e l'OrienteNAK National Archives, KathmanduNGMPP Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation ProjectQ Qianlong: The Tibetan Tripitaka. Peking Edition. Reprinted

under the supervision of the Otani University, Kyoto, vols.1-168. Edited by Suzuki D.T., Suzuki Research Foundation,Tokyo-Kyoto 1955-1961

RBTS Rare Buddhist Text SeriesRSO Rivista degli Studi OrientaliSOR Serie Orientale RomaWZKS Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens

Sources

AK Ravisrijnäna, Amrtakanikä: Äryamanjusrinämasamgiti withAmrtakanikätippani by Bhiksu Ravisrijnäna and Amrta-kanikodyotanibandha of Vibhüticandra, edited by B. Läl, Bib-liotheca Indo-Tibetica 30, CIHTS, Sarnath 1994.

AKU Vibhüticandra, Amrtakanikoddyotanibandha: see AK.Amrtavajra, Dohäkosattkä, edited in Dhïh, vol. 32 (2001), pp. 127-155;

cf. Qvol. 87, #5049, fols. 3ib6-48a3.Anaiigayogin, Däkinyälasamvararahasya, edited by S. Rinpoche, V.V.

Dwivedi, RBTS 8, CIHTS, Sarnath 1990.Änandakanda, Madras Government Oriental Series 59, Madras 1952.Anupamaraksita, Sadangayoga: The Sadangayoga by Anupamaraksita

with Ravisrijnäna's Gunabharanlnâmasadangayogatippanl,text edition and annotated translation by F. Sferra, SOR 85,IsIAO, Roma 2000.

Äryadeva, Gurupancäsikä: l) edition of the first 33 stanzas by S. Léviin «Journal Asiatique», vol. 215 (1929), pp. 255-263; 2) edi-tion and retranslation of stanzas 34-50 by J. Pandey, Dhïh,vol. 13 (1992), pp. 16-20 [reprinted in Bauddhalaghugran-thasamgraha, RBTS 14, CIHTS, Sarnath 1997, pp. 33-53].

Bu ston Rin chen grub, dBan gi le'u'i 'grel mchan: The Collected Works ofBu-ston. Part 2 (Kha), edited [= reproduced from an originalxylogaph] by L. Chandra, Sata-Pitaka Series, Indo-AsianLiteratures 42, International Academy of Indian Culture,New Delhi 1965, fols. 231-274.

rGyud sde'i zab don sgo 'byed rin chen gees pa 'i Ide mig ces by a ba:The Collected Works of Bu-ston. Part 4 (Na), edited [= repro-duced from an original xylograph] by L. Chandra, Sata-Pitaka Series, Indo-Asian Literatures 44, InternationalAcademy of Indian Culture, New Delhi 1965, fols. 1-92.

Candamahärosanatantra: The Candamahärosana Tantra, Chapters I-VIII. A Critical Edition and English Translation by Ch. S.


George, American Oriental Series 56, American OrientalSociety, New Haven (Conn.) 1974.

Candrakïrti, Satkotivyäkhyä: Guhyasamäjatantrapradlpodyotanatlkä-satkotivyäkhyä, edited by C. Chakravarti, Kashi PrasadJayaswal Research Institute, Patna 1984.

CST Cakrasamvaratantra: Srlherukäbhidhänam Cakrasamvara tan-tram with the Vivrti Commentary ofBhavabhatta, edited by J.S.Pandey, RBTS 26, 2 vols., CIHTS, Sarnath 2002.

Däkinlvajrapanjaratantra: Äryadäkinivajrapanjaramahätantraräja-kalpanäma, Q vol. 1, #11, fols. 2Ô2a6-30ib .

Dharmäkarasänti, Kälacakrabhagavatsädhanavidhi, edited in Dhïh,vol. 24 (1997), pp. 127-174.

'Gos lo tsâ va gzon nu dpal, Deb ther snon po: The Blue Annals, repro-duced by L. Chandra, Sata-Pitaka Series, Indo-AsianLiteratures 212, International Academy of Indian Culture,New Delhi 1976. See also Roerich 19762.

Govinda Bhagavat, Rasahrdaya, edited by J. Tricumji, AyurvedïyaGranthamälä 1, Bombay 1910-1911.

GST Guhyasamäjatantra: The Guhyasamäja Tantra. A New CriticalEdition, edited by Matsunaga Y., Toho Shuppan, Osaka 1978.

Guhyädi-Astasiddhi-Sangraha, edited by S. Rinpoche, V.V. Dwivedi,Sanskrit and Tibetan text, RBTS 1, CIHTS, Sarnath 1987.

HT Hevajratantra: see Snellgrove 1959.HTPT Vajragarbha, Hevajratantrapindärthattkä: see Sferra 1999.Indrabhüti, Jnänasiddhi, see Guhyädi-Astasiddhi-Sangraha, pp. 89-157.Jagaddarpana, Kriyäsamuccaya: Kriya-samuccaya. A Sanskrit Manuscript

from Nepal Containing a Collection of Tantric Ritual byJagaddarpana, reproduced by L. Chandra, InternationalAcademy of Indian Culture, Sata-pitaka Series, vol. 237, NewDelhi 1977.

Jayäkhyasamhitä'.Jayäkhyasamhitä ofPäncarätraÄgama, critically edit-ed with an Introduction in Sanskrit, Indices etc. by E.Krishnamacharya, Gaekwad's Oriental Series 54, OrientalInstitute, Baroda 1967.

Jnänodayatantra: edited by S. Rinpoche, V.V. Dwivedi, RBTS 2,CIHTS, Sarnath 1988.

Kalparäja: IsIAO, Rome, MS FGT V/ i , 263.Kambala, Älokamälä: Kambala's Älokamälä, in Miscellanea Buddhica,

edited by Chr. Lindtner, Indiske Studier, vol. V, Copen-hagen 1985, pp. 109-220.

Kelikulisa, Trivajraratnävalimälikä: Hevajradäkinijälasamvarapa-njikä, IsIAO, Rome, MS 3.23, folder 43 [photos of the sameMS taken by R. Särikrtyäyana and listed by him as MS XXV,118; cf. Sänkrtyäyana 1935: 38].

mKhas grub rje, Dus 'khor ttk chen: rGyud thams cad kyi rgyal po bcomIdan 'das dpal dus kyi 'khor lo mchoggi dan po'i sans rgyas kyirtsa ba 'i rgyud las phyun ba bsdus pa 'i rgyud kyi 'grel chen rtsa


ba 'i rgyud kyi rjes su 'jug pa ston phrag bcu gnis pa dri ma medpa'i 'od kyi rgya cher bsad pa de kho na nid snan bar byedpa zesby a ba, in mKhas grub dGe legs pa, Yab sras gsun 'bum: mKhasgrub. Kha, Tibetan Cultural Printing Press (Ses rig barkhan), Dharamsala 1983, pp. 97-1113.

Laksmïrïkarâ, Sahajasiddhi: see Shendge 1967.Laksmï Bhattärikä, *Sahajasiddhipaddhati: sDe dge #2261, fols. 4a -

2 5 ^ ; Qvol. 69, #3108, fols. 4b8-29a?.Kubjikämatatantra'. The Kubjikämatatantra. Kulälikämnäya Version,

Critical edition by T. Goudriaan and J.A. Schoterman,Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina 30, E J. Brill, Leiden 1988.

LKCT Laghukälacakratantra: 1) Snkälacakratantraräja. A criticalEdition, edited by B. Banerjee, The Asiatic Society, Biblio-theca Indica, Calcutta 1985; 2) Kälacakra-Tantra and OtherTexts: Part I, edited by L. Chandra, R. Vira, InternationalAcademy of Indian Culture, Sata-pitaka Series, vol. 69, NewDelhi 1966, pp. 53-378.

LTT Vajrapäni, Laghutantratïka: see Cicuzza 2001.Mahimabhatta, Vyaktiviveka: Vyaktiviveka edited with a Sanskrit

Commentary of Räjänaka Ruyyaka and the MadhusüdaniCommentary, edited by M. Misra, The Kashi Sanskrit Series121, Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan, Varanasi 1936.

Mälinwijayottaratantra: Snmälinwijayottaratantram, edited by M.K.Shâstrî, Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 37, Bombay1922.

Matangapäramesvarägama. (Vidyäpäda) avec le commentaire de BhattaRâmakantha, édition critique par N.R. Bhatt, Publicationsde l'Institut Français dTndologie 56, Pondichéry 1977.

MNS Manjusrïnâmasangïti, see AK.Nägärjuna, Mülamadhyamakakärikä: Mülamadhyamakakärikä, edited

by J.W. de Jong, The Adyar Library Series 109, The AdyarLibrary and Research Centre, Adyar 1977.

Nägärjuna, Pindikramasädhana: Pindïkrama: 1) edited by L. de laVallée Poussin in Pancakrama, Grand-Louvain 1896, pp. 1-14; 2) edited by R.S. Tripathi in Pindïkrama and Pancakramaof Äcärya Nägärjuna, Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica Series 25,CIHTS, Sarnath 2001, pp. 3-32.

Näropä, Paramärthasangraha = Sekoddesatikä: see SUT.Pädmasamhitä: Pädma Samhitä [prathamo bhägah], critically edited by

S. Padmanabhan, R.N. Sampath, Pancaratra ParisodhanaParisad Series 3, Madras 1974.

Padmavajrapâda, Guhyasiddhi: see Guhyädi-Astasiddhi-Sangraha, pp.1-62.

Pundarïka, dPal don dam pa'i bsnen pa {^Paramärthaseva), Qvol . 47,#2065, fols. i-25a.

Vimalaprabhä: see VP.Rasahrdayatantra: see Govinda Bhägavat.


Rasarnavakalpa: Rasarnavakalpa, edited and translated by M. Roy incollaboration with B.V. Subbarayappa, Indian NationalScience Academy, New Delhi 1976.

Ravisrijnäna, Gunabhäranv. see Anupamaraksita, Sadangayoga.Sâdhuputra Srïdharananda, Sekoddesatippani: La Sekoddesatippani di

Sädhuputra Srïdharananda. Il testo sanscrito, a cura di R. Gnoli,in RSO, vol. 70 (1997), n. 1-2, pp. 115-146.

Samvarodayatantra: see Tsuda 1974.Sayanasanavastw. The Gilgit Manuscript of the Sayanäsanavastu and the

Adhikar anavastu. Being the l^th and 16th Sections of the Vinayaof the Mülasarvästivädin, edited by R. Gnoli, SOR 50,Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, Roma1978, pp. 1-56.

Sekoddesapanjikä: Sekoddesapanjikä, edition of the Sanskrit text, in«Annual of the Institute for Comprehensive Studies of Bud-dhism», Taishö University, vol. 16 (1994), pp. 354-289.

Somasambhupaddhati. Troisième partie. Rituels occasionnels dans latradition sivàîte de l'Inde du Sud selon Somasambhu. II: dïksâ,abhiseka, vratoddhära, antyesti, sräddha, Texte, Traduction etNotes par H. Brunner-Lachaux, Publications de l'InstitutFrançais d'Indologie No. 25.111, Institut Français d'Indologie,Pondichéry 1977.

SU Sekoddesa, see Orofino 1994; Gnoli 1999.SUT Näropä, Sekoddesatïka: l) editio princeps: Sekoddesatïka of

Nadapäda (Näropä), edited by M. Carelli, Gaekwad's OrientalSeries, vol. 90, Baroda 1941; 2) The Sekoddesatïka by Näropä(Paramärthasamgraha), critical edition of the Sanskrit text byF. Sferra and critical edition of the Tibetan translation by S.Merzagora, SOR, IsIAO, Roma (forthcoming).

Visnusahasranäma: Visnusahasranäma with the Bhäsya of SriSamkaräcärya. Transaletd into English in the Light of SriSamkara's Bhäsya by R.A. Sastry, The Adyar Library andResearch Centre, The Adyar-Library General Series 8,Adyar 1980.

VP Pundarïka, Vimalaprabhä: Vimalaprabhätlkä of Kalkin Srïpun-darïka on Snlaghukälacakratantraräja by Srïmanjusrïyasas,vol. I, edited by J. Upadhyaya, Bibliotheca Indo-TibeticaSeries 11, CIHTS, Sarnath 1986; vols. II-III, edited by V.V.Dwivedi, S.S. Bahulkar, RBTS 12-13, CIHTS, Sarnath 1994.

Yoginïsancaratantra'. Yoginïsancaratantram with Nibandha of Tathäga-taraksita and Upadesänusärinlvyäkhyä of Alakakalasa, editedbyJ.S. Pandey, RBTS 21, CIHTS, Sarnath 1998.

Studies

Bernardini, M. (2003), Storia delmondo islamico (WI-XVIsecolo). Volumesecondo. Il mondo iranico e turco dalVavvento dellTslàm alVaffer-

///. How to Produce, Construct and Legitimate a Tradition 2.83

mazione dei Safavidi, Piccola Biblioteca Einaudi, Storia egeografia 252, Torino.

Chimpa, L., Chattopadhyaya, A. (transi.) (1970), Täranätha's Historyof Buddhism in India, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.

Cicuzza, C. (ed.) (2001), The Laghutantratlkä by Vajrapäni, SOR 86,IsIAO, Roma.

Cicuzza, C , Sferra, F. (1997), Brief Notes on the Beginning of theKälacakra Literature, in Dhïh, vol. 23, pp. 113-126.

De Rossi Filibeck, E. (1994), Catalogue of the Tucci Tibetan Fund in theLibrary oflsMEO, Volume 1, Istituto Italiano per il Medio edEstremo Oriente, Rome.

Dyczkowski, M.S.G. (1988), The Canon oftheSaivägama and the KubjikäTantras of the Western Kaula Tradition, State University ofNew York Press, Albany (N.Y.).

Gnoli, R. (1994), Introduzione, in Gnoli, Orofino 1994, pp. 11-103.(1997), La realizzazione della conoscenza del Supremo immoto

(Paramäksarajnänasiddhi), in RSO, vol. 70, Supplemento n. 1.(1999), Sekoddesah [Edition of the Sanskrit Text], in Dhïh, vol.

28, pp. 143-166.Gnoli, R., Orofmo, G. (transi.) (1994), Näropä. Iniziazione (Kälacakra),

Biblioteca Orientale 1, Adelphi, Milano.Grönbold, G. (1992), Hétérodoxe Lehren und ihre Widerlegung im

Kälacakra-Tantra, in IIJ, vol. 35, n. 4, pp. 273-297.(1996), Kriegsmaschinen in einem buddhistischen Tantra, inWilhelm, F. (ed.), Festschrift Dieter Schlingloff Verlag fürOrientalistische Fachpublikationen, Reinbek, pp. 63-97.

Haig, T.W. (1987), Cambridge Shorter History of India, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Hoffmann, H.H.R. (i960), Manichaeism and Islam in the BuddhistKälacakra System, in Proceedings of the 9th InternationalCongress for the History of Religions, Tokyo, pp. 96-99.

(1969), Kälacakra Studies I. Manichaeism, Christianity, andIslam in ^ K ä l a c a k r a Tantra, in «Central Asiatic Journal»,vol. 13, n. 1, pp. 52-73.

Lai, B. (1994), Bauddh tantr vämmay kä paricay. (Kälacakratantra), inDhïh, vol. 18, pp. 19-34.

Lamotte, É. (1966), Vajrapäni en Inde, in Mélanges offerts à Monsieur PaulDemiéville, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp. 113-159.

Newman, J.R. (1987a), The outer Wheel of Time: Vajrayäna Buddhist cos-mology in the Kälacakra tantra, Ann Arbor, UniversityMicrofilms International (University of Wisconsin,Madison, Ph.D. Thesis).

(1987b), The Paramädibuddha (The Kälacakra mülatantra)and its Relation to the Early Kälacakra Literature, in IIJ, vol. 30,n. 2, pp. 93-102.

(19912), A brief history of Kälacakra, in Simon, B. (ed.), The Wheelof Time. The Kalachakra In Context, Snow Lion Publications,


Ithaca (N.Y.), pp. 51-90 [Deer Park Books, Madison,Wisconsin 19851].

(1995), Eschatology in the Wheel of Time Tantra, in Lopez, D.S. Jr.(ed.), Buddhism in Practice, Princeton University Press,Princeton (N.J.), pp. 284-289.

(1998a), Islam in the Kälacakra Tantra, in «Journal of theInternational Association of Buddhist Studies», vol. 21, n. 2,pp. 311-371-

(1998b), The Epoch of the Kälacakra Tantra, in IIJ, vol. 41, n. 4,pp. 319-349.

(2004), Kälacakra, in Buswell, R.E. Jr. (ed.), Encyclopedia ofBuddhism, vol. 1 (A-L), Thomson, New York, pp. 408-411.

Nihom, M. (1984), Notes on the Origin of Some Quotations in theSekoddesatikä ofNädapäda, in IIJ, vol. 27, n. 1, pp. 17-26.

Obermiller, E. (transi.) (19992), The History of Buddhism in India andTibet by Bu-ston, Classic India Publications, Delhi [19271].

Orofino, G. (1994), Sekoddesa. A Critical Edition of the TibetanTranslation. With an Appendix by Raniero Gnoli On the SanskritText, SOR 72, Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed EstremoOriente, Roma.

(1997), Apropos of Some Foreign Elements in the Kälacakratantra,in Krasser, H., Much, M.T., Steinkellner, E., Tauscher, H.(eds.), Tibetan Studies. VolumeII, Verlag der ÖsterreichischenAkademie der Wissenschaften, Wien 1997, PP- 717"724-

Reigle, D. (1986), The Lost Kälacakra Müla Tantra on the Kings ofSambhala, Kälacakra Research Publications 1, EasternSchool 1, Talent (Oregon), pp. 1-14.

Roerich, G.N. (transi.) (19762), The Blue Annals. Parts I and II (Boundin One), Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi [Calcutta 19491].

Samphel, Th. (1995), Bauddh tantr vämmay kä paricay. Käla-cakratantra (Bhot khand), in Dhïh, vol. 20, pp. 99-136.

Särikrtyäyana, R. (1935), Sanskrit Palm-Leaf MSS. in Tibet, in «Journalof the Bihar and Orissa Resarch Society», vol. 21, part. 1, pp.21-43.

Sferra, F. (1995), Textual Criticism Notes on the Vimalaprabhâ by Pun-darlka, in «East and West», vol. 45, pp. 359-364.

(1999), The Satsähasrikäkhyä Hevajratantrapindärthatlkä byVajragarbha, critical edition and annotated translation by F.Sferra, Università degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza",Doctorate Thesis [a revised edition of this work is in press(Firenze University Press) ] .

(2001), Alcune note sulla Hevajratantrapindärthatlkä di Vajra-garbha, in Botto, O. (ed.),Atti deWOttavo Convegno Nazionaledi Studi Sanscriti (Torino 20-21 ottobre 1995), AssociazioneItaliana di Studi Sanscriti, Torino, pp. 125-135.

(2004), Teaching and Spiritual Counselling in Indian BuddhistTraditions. Some Considerations on theRoleoftheKalyänamitra,


in Rigopoulos, A. (ed.), Guru. The Spiritual Master in Easternand Western Traditions: Authority and Charisma, Indoasiatica2, Cafoscarina, Venezia, pp. 345-371.

Shendge, MJ. (1967), Srisahajasiddhi, in IIJ, vol. 10, n. 2-3, pp. 126-149.Snellgrove, D.L. (1959), The Hevajra Tantra. A Critical Study. Part I.

Introduction and Translation; Part II. Sanskrit and TibetanTexts, London Oriental Series 6, London.

(1987), Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. Indian Buddhists àf their TibetanSuccessors, 2 vols., Shambala, Boston-London.

Tsuda S. (1974), The Samvarodaya-Tantra. Selected Chapters, TheHokuseido Press, Tokyo.

Wallace, V.A. (2001), The Inner Kälacakratantra. A Buddhist TantricView of the Individual, Oxford University Press, New York.

Wink, A. (20022), Al-Hind. The Making of the Indo-Islamic World. Vol. IIThe Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest, ilth-i^th Centuries,Brill Academic Publishers, Boston-Leiden [19961].

Boundaries, Dynamics and Construction

of Traditions in South Asia

e d i t e d b y F e d e r i c o S q u a r c i n i

Firenze Un i ve rs i t y Press • Munsh i ram Manohar la

2 0 0 5

Boundaries, Dynamics and Construction of Traditions in South Asia /edited by Federico Squarcini. Firenze: Firenze University Press, 2005.(Kykéion Studi e Testi. Scienze delle Religioni, 1.3)http://digital.casalini.it/8884532612Stampa a richiesta disponibile su http://epress.unifi.it/

ISBN 88-8453-261-2 (online)ISBN 88-8453-262-0 (print)305.600954 (ed. 20)Asia meridionale-Religione.

Grafica e layout di Mario Caricchio

© 2005 Firenze University Press

Université degli Studi di FirenzeFirenze University PressBorgo Albizi, 28, 50122 Firenze, Italyhttp://epress.unifi.it/

Printed in Italy

sferra 2005 constructing the wheel of time

Documents