+ All Categories
Transcript

S TERREI CHI S CHEAKADE MI E DERWI S S E NS CHAF T E NPHILOSOPHISCH-HISTORISCHEKLASSE DENKSCHRIFTEN.370.BANDCATHYCANTWELL,ROBERTMAYEREarlyTibetanDocuments onPhurpa fromDunhuangder WissenschaftenOAWCATHYCANTWELL, ROBERTMAYER EarlyTibetanDocumentsonPhurpafromDunhuangSTERREI CHI SCHEAKADEMI EDERWI S S ENS CHAF TENPHILOSOPHISCH-HISTORISCHEKLASSE DENKSCHRIFTEN,370.BANDBeitrgezurKultur-undGeistesgeschichteAsiensNr.63STERREI CHI S CHEAKADEMI EDERWI S S ENS CHAFTENPHILOSOPHISCH-HISTORISCHEKLASSE DENKSCHRIFTEN,370.BANDCATHYCANTWELL,ROBERTMAYEREarlyTibetanDocuments onPhur pa fromDunhuangder Wissenschaften Wien2008 OAWVorgelegtvon w.M.E r n s t S t e i n k e l l n e r inderSitzung vom14.Mrz2008BritishLibrary CataloguinginPublicationdata ACataloguerecord of thisbookisavailablefrom the BritishLibraryDie verwendete Papiersorteistauschlorfreigebleichtem Zellstoff hergestellt, freivonsurebildendenBestandteilen und alterungsbestndig.AlleRechteVorbehaltenISBN978-3-7001-6100-4Copyright 2008by sterreichische Akademieder Wissenschaften WienDruck:BrsedruckGes.m.b.H.,A-1230Wien Printed and bound in Austriahttp://hw.oeaw.ac.at/6100-4 http://verlag.oeaw.ac.atT a b l e o fCo n t e n t sPrefaceand acknowledgementsviiNoteon Transliteration of TibetanviiiIntroductoryChapters1 General Introduction12Why did the Phur pa tradition becomeso prominentin Tibet?153The Dunhuang Phur pa Corpus:aSurvey32 History and Doctrine4 Pelliot Tibtain 44:A.Reflectionson the Text41Pelliot Tibtain 44:B.The Text56Soteriological RitualTexts5IOL Tib J 331 .III:A Discussion of the Text and its Parallelsin the Phurpa Literature686IOL Tib J 331.Ill:The Text88Appendix toChapter 61257IOL Tib J 754Section 7:ASet of Noteson Phur pa Ritual and itsSignificance1368Pelliot Tibtain 349:the Text and Comments1478b Appendix toChapter 8162Scriptural Texts9Sectionsof IOL Tib J 438:A Dunhuang version of the Guhyasamja with commentary16610Sectionsof IOL Tib J 321:TheThabs kyi zhags pa pad maphreng181 Miscellaneous11Fragments,Cursory Treatment, Dhramsand PragmaticRites194Bibliography212Index225CDImagesof Dunhuang Manuscriptsfrom theStein Collection in LondonPr e f a c ea n d a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t sIn 2002,wefoundourselvesengaged incriticallyediting twoPhur pa tantrasfrom therNying ma 7 rgyud 'bum,a project that eventuallysawfruitioninour volumeof 2007,TheKllaya Nirvana Tantra and the Vajra WrathTantra:twotexts fromtheAncientTantraCollection,Vienna,TheAustrianAcademyofSciences Press.It becameincreasingly evident that our understanding of the originsof traditionally transmitted rNying maPhurpatantrassuchasthesewouldremainincompletewithoutathoroughparallelinvestigationof the DunhuangPhurpamaterials,which,unlikethetraditionallytransmittedones,canbeguaranteedtohave remainedunmodifiedforalmost1,000years.HenceweproposedtotheBritishArtsandHumanities ResearchCouncil(AHRC),oursponsors,thatwebeginaparallelprojecttodecipher,transcribe,and translatetheDunhuangarchaeologicallegacyconcerningPhurpa,includingboththePhurpatextsperse, and all related Phur pa materialsthat wecouldfind.We hoped that byanalysing thismaterial philologically, and also tosomedegreecomparatively,historically,and anthropologically,we mightshedsomefurther light onthemysteryoftheoriginsoftheseremarkableandinfluentialtexts.Wehopedalsotoprovidea potentiallyvaluableresourceforunderstandingtheritual,socialandhistoricalfactorsthatgavesubsequent Tibetan religion itscharacteristically tantricaspect.Weareextremelygrateful to the AHRCfor awarding us fundsthatenabledustodevote25%ofourtimeoverthethreeyearperiod2004-2007tothiswork.By pursuingthesetwolinesof researchinnear-parallel,wehavebeenabletoseeconnectionsbetweenthe Dunhuangand transmittedPhur pa traditionsthatmightotherwisehaveremained unnoticed.TheDunhuang Phurpatextsinthemselvesalsoofferthepossibilityof anintimatehistoricalinsightintothepost-Dynastic period(mid9th to11th centuries),andwehopeouranalysishasmadesomemodestcontributiontosuch significations.We regret that the time limitationsdid not permit us togo beyond theearly Phur pa sources to moregeneralearlyhistoricalsources,whichcouldhaveprovidedmorethoroughcontextualisationofour material,a task which will have toawait a further study.Acknowledgementsandthanksareduetonumerouscolleaguesandfriendsforthehelptheyofferedus overthecourseof thiswork.FirstandforemostwemustthankDrCharlesRambleandProfessorErnst Steinkellner, whose generousand unstintingsupport for so many of our enterprisesover many years has been remarkable:their kindnessisdeeplyappreciated.Special thanksmust also beoffered toall our colleaguesin theOrientalStudiesFacultyof theUniversityof Oxford whoinonewayor another havehelpedour pathin thecourseof thisresearch.Anotheractivecontributor tothe work wasDr Jean-LucAchardof theCNRSin Paris,whohelpedinproofingourinputof theParisdocumentsagainsttheoriginals,ataskwhichledto stimulatingacademicexchangeson thenatureandcontentof themanuscripts.Thanksmustalsobeoffered tonumerousothercolleagues,whosehelpfoundexpressioninthiswork:DrSamvanSchaikandMr BurkhardQuesseloftheInternationalDunhuangProjectandtheBritishLibrary;ProfessorMatthew KapsteinofParisandChicago;DrAdelaideHermann-PfandtofMarburg;ProfessorRonaldDavidson, Fairfield,Vermont;Mr.HumchenChenagtshangofNgakMangInstitute,Qinghai;ProfessorCristina Scherrer-SchaubofParis;DrGudrunMelzer,Munich;MsKerstinGrothmann,Berlin;ProfessorAlexis Sanderson,Oxford;Dr.BrandonDotsonofSOAS,London;ProfessorVesnaWallaceofUniversityof California,Santa Barbara;Mr Ralf Kramer,Hamburg;Mr IanSinclair,Hamburg;Dr JacobDalton,Yale;Dr OmaAlmogi,Hamburg;LoponP.OgyanTanzinRinpoche,Samath;DrChristianWedermeyer,Chicago; ProfessorYaelBentor,Jerusalem;Ven.ChanglingTulku,ShechenMonastery,Bodnath,Nepal;MrSimon Cook,Paris.No t e o nT r a n s l i t e r a t i o no fT i b e t a nTransliterationof Tibetaninthisworkconformstotheinternationallywidelyusedsystemoftenreferred toasWylieConventions,1although wedonot usethesinglecontributionwhich Wylieproposed,thatis,the capitalisationof thefirstletterof awordwhereappropriate.Instead,if necessaryinthecaseof namesor titles,2 wecapitalisetherootTibetanletter(orthefirstRomanletterrepresentingtherootletter),sincethis conformsmorecloselytoTibetanconceptions,andhasawell-establishedusageinWesternscholarly writings,fromNebesky-Wojkowitz1956.3 ForTibetanrepresentationsofSanskritletters,weusethe generallyacceptedappropriateRomanletterswithdiacriticalmarks.FollowingtheTibetan&Himalayan Digital LibrarysExtended WylieTransliterationScheme,4we have used thecolon torepresent theTibetan gter shad found in gter ma texts, but we use thecolon differently in transcribing theOld Tibetan manuscripts (see below).Conventions used intranscribing the Dunhuang documentsInpresentingtranscriptionsof theDunhuangmanuscripts,wehaveconformedtotheusagesestablished byTsuguhitoTakeuchiina number of publicationsonOld Tibetan documents,madeinaccordancewith the suggestionsof A.Delatteand A.Severyns(1938:Emploidessignescritiques,dispositiondeVapparat dans les editions savantes detextes grecs et latins /conseils et recommandations par J.Bidez et A.B.Drachmann, Bruxelles:Union acadmiqueintemationale).We have not needed to use Takeuchiscomplete list but have used thefollowing.From TsuguhitoTakeuchi1995Old TibetanContracts fromCentral Asia,Tokyo pp.137-138:I reversed gi gu(abc) editors note[a(/b)] ambiguous readings[abc] our conjectural restorationsof letters partly illegible or lost in the original[abc?] uncertain readings[]illegible letters,number unknown[ - ]illegible letters,number known,indicated by broken line[3] illegible letters,approximate numbers known,indicated by numeral with]abc beginningof line lost through damageabc[ end of line lost through damage***blank spacesleft bycopyist1 FollowingTurrellWylie1959.Wylieadopted initsentirety thesystemearlier used byRende Nebesky-Wojkowitz(1956:xv) and DavidSnellgrove(1957:299-300).See the discussion in DavidSnellgrove1987a:xxiv,and our own commentsinCantwell, Mayer and Fischer 2002: Noteon Transliteration:"Not Wylie"Conventions(http://ngb.csac.anthropologv.ac.uk/csac/NGB/Doc/NoteTransliteration.xml).InlinewithTibetanunderstandingandthemost commoncontemporaryscholarly usage,wemodify thesystem by using"w"rather than"v"for thesubjoined Tibetanletter,"wa" {wa zur).2 Wedo not capitalise wordsat allin representingour Tibetansourcedocuments,but dosowithintheEnglishlanguagediscussion where necessary.3 Therootletter(ming gzhi)isthemainletter of asyllableandthat underwhichwordsareorderedinTibetandictionaries,soitis the letter of thesyllable to which attention isdrawn.4 ThissystemisusefulforautomatedfontconversionsbetweenRomanandTibetanscript,usingprogramssuchasWylieWord (developedbyDavidChapmananddistributedfreeontheTHDLwebsite).Forpresentationalreasons,wehavenototherwise adopted itsconventions here,such asfor Tibetan representationsof Sanskrit letters.Noteon Transliteration ixFromTsuguhitoTakeuchi1997-1998OldTibetanManuscriptsfromEast Turkestan inThe SteinCollectionof the British Library,Tokyoand London Vol.2: DescriptiveCatalogue1998,p.xxxii.$pageinitialsign (mgo yig, siddham)afeetext deleted in theoriginal manuscript5We have alsoadded one further convention::ornamentalpunctuationmark,generallymarkingasection endingandnewopening,andvaryingin design from two large vertically arranged circles to twodots.Conventions used intranslation, also following Takeuchi 1995:138(abc)translators note[abc]translatorssupplements[...]illegibleor missing letters,number unknown[]illegibleor missing letters,number known,indicated by broken line5 TsuguhitoTakeuchi'spreferredusageisnownottoincludedeletedwordswithinthemaintext,butratherintheCritical Apparatus,markedas,"cancellavit"(thisconventionisgiveninhis1995list).However,wehavemodifiedthatlistinthiscase, sinceitseemshelpfulinthecaseof ourtextswithonlyshortdeleted passages,forthereaderimmediatelytoseeatranscription which as closely as possible resemblesthe original.INTRODUCTORYCHAPTER S1Ge n e r a lI n t r o d u c t i o nThe Dunhuang Caves and scholarly interest intheir TibetanmanuscriptsA centuryago,a number of sitesalong theold'Silk Route'werediscovered,in whichculturalobjectsand manuscriptsindifferentAsianlanguageshadbeenpreservedformanyhundredsofyears.Themost impressivefindswerethoseoftheDunhuangcaves,whichtodayhavebecomeamajorheritagetourist destination,forthosewishingtoviewanastonishinglegacyofsculpturesandrockcarvings,murals,and otherartisticandculturalartefacts,foundin theremainsof alargecomplexof Buddhistcave-temples.1 For generations,especiallyduringthefirstmillenniumCEandtheearlypartofthesecondmillennium, Dunhuanghadbeenathrivingpolitical,economicandculturalcentre,whichhadseenconsiderable interculturalexchange between thevariousethnicgroupsof theregion.Textsrecoveredincludesecularand religiousmanuscripts,manyof whichhadbeenpartof abookrepositoryorlibrarywhichhadbeenwalled offintheearlyeleventhcentury.2 Thereisclearevidenceofmulticulturalism.Notonlyaredifferent languagesrepresentedamongstthehoardofmanuscriptsfound,butthereareinstancesofonelanguage written usingthescriptof another,or textswrittenon thereverseof paperoriginally usedforadocumentin another language.For historicalscholarshipon the peoplesandcultureswhowereatsomestage partof this multi-ethniccommunity,theDunhuangdiscoverymeantthepossibilityofresearchusingprimarysource materialsof inestimablevalue.Moreover,duetothedesertenvironmentin whichthemanuscriptshad been preserved,manyshowed remarkablylittlesign of deteriorationasa resultof thecenturiesduring which they had been sealed away.In theearlytwentiethcentury,SirMarc AurelSteincollectedalargenumberof manuscriptswhichhave since been keptinLondonandDelhi;PaulPelliotgatheredacollectionwhichwasdepositedinParis,while theauthoritiesinBeijing,andotherexplorersandinterestedpartiesacquiredotherpartsof thecorpusof manuscripts,sothatitbecamedistributedthroughoutanumberof internationallocations.Themomentous discoveryexcitedgreatinterestaround theworld,althoughscholarshiphasbeenimpeded bythedistribution of thecollectionanddifficultiesof access,problemswhichareonlytodaybeginningtobeovercomedueto internationalcooperation,digitisationofimagesofthemanuscriptsandthepublicationofwebbased catalogues(see http://idp.bl.uk/).Forscholarsof Tibetanmaterials,cataloguesweremadeof theLondonSteincollectionbyLouisdela VallePoussin(onlypublishedin1962,butcompiledin1914-1918)andofthePelliotcollectionby MarcelleLalou(1939,1950,1961).PioneeringworkontheTibetanmanuscriptsincludedthemajor publicationsof Hackin(1924),Bacot,ThomasandToussaint(1940-1946),andforthetantricmaterials, BischoffsworkontheMahbala-stra(1956).Inthepastfortyyears,scholarlyworkmakinguseof DunhuangTibetansourceshaswitnessedsomethingof anexponentialgrowth,butthereisstillmuchtodo. Inthisbook,wecontributetothisfieldbyourstudywhichfocusesonaspecificgroupoftantric manuscripts,thoseconcerningthe phur parites,withaviewtoascertainingwhatkindsof connectionwe mayfind between these textsand the received Tibetan tradition that claims descent from the early period.1 See the UNESCO World Heritagelisting on the MogaoCaves:http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/440/2 It iscurrently thought that theDunhuang manuscript collectionscamefromastorehouseof theThree Realms(Sanjie)Monastery (Xinjiang Rong1999-2000"The Natureof theDunhuangLibrary Caveand theReasonsfor itsSealing",Cahiersd'Extreme-Asie Vol.11:247-275,citedinTakeuchi,forthcoming).Takeuchi(forthcoming)reportsthatinthe10th century,amonkofthis monasterynamedDaozhenmadeconsiderableadditionstohismonastery'slibrarystocks,sothataproportionof theDunhaung texts might originatefrom Daozhen's time.2 Introductory ChaptersThe rNying maTantric traditionsThe rNying ma tantric tradition hasfor manycenturiesdefined itself in termsof its unique transmission of theThreeInnerTantras of Mahayoga,AnuyogaandAtiyoga,whichitclaimsweretranslatedfromIndie languagesatthetimeofPadmasambhava;yetmodemacademicscholarship,withwhichwearehere engaged,findsscant reliableevidenceforsuch TantrasduringtheEmpire.Bycontrast,therNyingma pado notverymuchdefinetheiridentityinrelationtotheso-called'lowertantras'of Kriya,CaryaandYoga-whicharetheonlyformsof tantrasfor whichWesternscholarscanfindunambiguousevidenceinImperial Tibet.(Suchdoxographicaltermscouldbeusedinconsistently,andalsohaddifferingusagesinIndiaand Tibet:e.gMahayogadescribedadistinctdoxographiccategoryinTibet,withwhichthisstudyisoften concerned;yetinSanskritperhapsmoreoftenmeantlittlemorethanamajorYogaTantra.Nevertheless, such doxographies wereimportant to Tibetansfrom early times,so we must consider them.)Theexactcircumstancesof theemergenceof whatarenow knownastherNying ma traditionsof Tibetan Buddhismremainsoneof theleastclearlydefinedareasof Tibetanhistoryfor modernscholarship.Perhaps thenearestwegettoageneralagreementisthevagueideathatatleastsomeproportionofrNyingma canonicalscriptureanditsrelatedliteraturesmusthaveemergedbeforethestartoftheNewTranslation activitiesof the late tenth century and onwards;although there have been divergent viewson just how great a proportionandwhatkindhaddevelopedbythen.Theearlieststartof rNyingmatantrismisparticularly disputed:some haveseensmalland varied yetsignificant beginningsduringtheImperial perioditself,while others haveargued that virtually no tantricdevelopmentswhatsoever,let alone those nowadayscharacterised as rNying ma,could begin untilafter the breakdown of the Empirein842.Whatmakestheearlyhistoryof rNyingamatantrismsodifficulttoestablishisthedearthof reliable historicalsources.Whatevertheexactstartdatesmighthavebeen,nomodernscholarsdoubtthatmuchof the mostimportant early development in rNying ma must have happened between842and theearlyeleventh century:yet thisis precisely that notoriouslyinaccessiblespan of Tibetan historysometimescalled,'the Dark Period'byWesternhistoriansbecauseithasbequeathed ussuchlimitedsources(thetraditionalnameisthe periodoffragmentation,silbu'idus,whichimpliespoliticalbreakdownbutdoesnotprecludecultural productivity).WhatfewsourceswehaveforTantrisminthisperiodareinmostcasesambiguousforone reason or another.To give a few examples:Of thethreeofficialImperialtranslationcataloguesweknowof,twostillsurvive,theIHankarmain severaleditions,andtheThangthangmainamorerecentlyrediscoveredsingleedition;yettheir interpretationsaremuchdisputed.SomeseetheIHandkarmaasolder,othersseetheThangthangmaas olderin parts;someacceptallseventy-plus'lower tantra'textslistedinThangthangmaasImperialperiod translations,otherssee thefinal tantricsection of Thang thang ma asa later addition of uncertain date.3Thereisampleevidence,includingsomecarved in rock,for an Imperial period'lower tantra'cultfocused ontheBuddhaVairocanaandinvolvingsuchcyclesastheMahavairocana-abhisambodhi,andthe Sarvadurgatiparisodhana with itsimportant funerary rites that were proposed asa Buddhist alternative to the traditionalTibetanburialwithitsbloodsacrifices.However,scholarshavevaryingviewsonhowwidely suchriteswereused.Weretheyreallyintendedonlyforthestateandroyalcourt,asDavidsondescribes (Davidson2005:65)?Orweretheyalsousedmorewidely- forexample,inthefuneralsof aristocratsas wellasemperors,and at placesthat werenotspecifically royallocations?Might they haveeven been used as regular practices by monasteries,aristocraticclans,or individuals?3 ThePhangthangmahasonlyrecentlycometolight,withfewpublishedanalysessofar- Kawagoe(2005;andalso2005 "'Pentanmokuru'nokenkyu[AStudyof theDkarchag'Phangthangma]",ReportoftheJapaneseAssociationforTibetan Studies51,115-131,citedinKuijp2006:173),andHalkias(2004).Theaboverangeof viewsaroseoutof discussionsand correspondenceswithanumberofcolleaguesfromseveralcountries,someofwhomareinprocessofpublishingstudies involving thePhang thang ma.General Introduction 3Oneof thefewgenuinelyearlysourcesfor theestablishmentof BuddhisminTibet,thetestimonyof the sBa/dBa/rBaclan(dBa'/sBabzhed),hassurvivedinthreeversions,alongwithmanyquotationsinlater literature.However,itisopen todifferentinterpretations,andof coursetherearealsovariationsbetween the different versions.Some versionssay that onlyCarya tantra waspermitted to betranslated.4 Other versions (WangduandDiemberger2000:88-89)saythatboth KriyaandCaryatantrasweretranslatedinfull,while Mahayogatranslationwasheldbackatthattimesincepeoplereadyforithadnotyetappearedamongthe Tibetans.5 Another veryearlysource,anofficialImperialedict concerning tantra translation,asincorporated in thesGrasbyor bambo gnyis pa,alsosurvivesinseveralversions,whichmightrepresentdifferentstages of theedictasit developedover a periodof some years.The historical relationsof the variant versionsof the edictthathavecomedowntousareamatterofdiscussion.Heretootheimplicationsforearlytantra translationiscomplex.CristinaScherrer-Schaub hasmadea highly detailed analysisof allextant versionsof thisdocument,includingthosefromTaboandDunhuang,andsheinterpretstheedictmerelytoseekthe proper regulationof secret tantric translations,which hadalready begun before thisedict was promulgatedin 783or 795(Scherrer-Schaub2002:287).Davidson,however,believesthat throughout thisperiod,therewas aconsistentImperialpolicythatquitesimplysoughttobanmosttantratranslation,allowingonlythefew moreexotericcourt-basedceremoniescentredonVairocana,sothatanyothertantratranslationsthatdid occur were necessarily clandestine(Davidson 2005:64-5,215).Therearesomeearlysourcesthatseektodescribetheemergenceof rNyingmatantrism,suchasthose attributedtoRongzom,Nyangral,andmKhaspalde'u.Whilesuchsourcesareostensiblycomparatively closeintimetotheeventstheydescribe,scholarsareunclearhowmuchof theirtestimonycanbetakenat facevalue.Overandabovenormalquestionsofredactionaltransmission,asPerSorensenhaswritten, Tibetanhistoriographyaboundsinattemptstoforgedocumentsthatlegitimisedpastgloriesandreputeor underpinnedbygoneprerogatives,whetherrealorfictitious.Infact,itwasconsideredawhollylegitimate procedure(Preface to Wangdu and Diemberger 2000:XIII).6The great bKa 'gyur compiler, Buston,madeexhaustive researchesinto the provenanceof Buddhist texts inthecourseofhisactivities.Some(Herrmann-Pfandt2002:136-8)believehishistory(chos'byung) indicatesthat heminutelystudiedallthreeImperialperiodtranslationcatalogues- IHankar ma(whichhas longbeenextant),Phangthangma(whichhasrecentlybeenrediscovered)andmChims puma(whichhas not yetcome tolight) -andfrom these,compiled alistof agreat manylower tantrasofficially translated in theImperialperiod.Others(suchasDavidson,whoalsocitesBuston'sChosbyung),byimplicationmight not agree with Herrmann-Pfandt in treatingas validevidence Buston'sacceptanceof such a great quantity of Imperialperiodtantratranslations,sincehetendstodescribetheImperialtranslationsonlyintermsof the4 Karmay1988a:4,121,discussingStein1961Une chronique ancienne debSam-yas: sBa-bzhed,Paris:52.5 tan tra las ma ha yoga mustegsdge bala g.[c?]ud pa'islad du gtsangrmemed par bstan pa choskyidbyings jilta ba nima rtogs palogpab[z?]ungdudogstemabsgyur/sngagsg.yog[foryoga?]nuspayangbodlami'byungnasmabsgyur(dBa'bzhed 24v.4).Notethatourinterpretationdiffersalittlefromthatof WangduandDiemberger(2000:89):"Outof thetantras,(inthe caseof)Mahayoga,for thesakeof steeringextremiststowardsvirtue,it wasnot translatedsincetherewastheconcernthat(they would)seizeonperversion,notunderstandingthedharmadhatunature(whichinforms)theteachingthatthereisnopurityor defilement.Also,(it)wasnottranslatedwhen(those)withtheabilitytoservethemantra(teaching)werenotforthcomingin Tibet."Wangduand Diemberger suggest g.yogasa misspellingfor yoga,and theymay becorrect,butit readsperfectlywellas it is.The phrasemayimply"help with",and may refer toTibetansof that period being unabletohelpwith thetranslation rather than unable to practise.6 Inthisstudy,wehavenothadtimeaccuratelytoweighupandassesstheseproblematicearlyhistoricalsources;norhavewe triedtorelyonmoreacessiblemodemhistoricalsourcessuchasDudjom,whosehistoryweonlyuseonceortwicetopointout the persistenceinto modem times of Dunhuang mythic passages, just as we(more frequently) use his various doctrinalor Phur pa writingstoshow continuities between themand the Dunhuang texts.Our approach here has been tolet the Dunhuang textsspeak directlyforthemselves,andtomeasurethemagainstthetransmittedrNyingmatradition.Acarefulstudyof theearlyhistories remainsa major desideratum.4 Introductory ChaptersfewtextslistedinIHankarma(Davidson2005:65,385,note16).7 Bycontrast,Herrmann-Pfandt(ibid.) hadconcludedfrom herinvestigationsintoBuston'swritingsthat noneof thethreecatalogueson theirown couldhavecontainedthecompletelistofofficialtantratranslations,andthatonlyasurveyofallthree together could yield thecomplete list.In thefaceof such general uncertaintyabout theoriginsof theearly Tibetan tantrictraditions,both'lower tantra'and rNyingma,wedecidedit might behelpfultoreturnoncemoretotheDunhuangcacheinsearch of furtherevidence.Remarkably,ahundredyearsaftertheirtransfertotheWest,thetantricsectionsof the Dunhuangfindsstillremainsubstantiallyunexplored.8 Inadditiontoexploringtheirbasicfeatures,it seemedtousthatafurtherspecificimportantquestionabouttheDunhuangtantrictextswasworthyof investigation:justhowdotheDunhuangtantrictextscomparewiththoseofthereceivedrNyingma tradition?Rather than focuson theelusivesearch for Indieantecedentsof the rNying ma tantras,here we are addressing differentquestions:What did Tibetan tantrism actuallylook likein the pre-gSar ma period?How similar wasit,and how different,to the later rNying ma tradition?Ofcourse,wedonotexpecteitheraspectof thisresearchtosolvemorethanalimitedrangeofour problemsaboutrNyingmaorigins.Thisisnotpossibleforanumberof reasons.First,thechronological interpretationofDunhuangmaterialsisnotinitselfstraightforward,andestimationsofthedatesofthe Dunhuang Tibetancollectionscontinuetofluctuate.Untilquiterecently,it wasacommonplacetolocatethe DunhuangTibetancollectionsasearlyasthe9thcentury,sinceitwasassumedthatthemajorityof Tibetan workshad beenleft thereduring theperiodof Tibetanoccupation,butmorerecentstudies9haveshownthat TibetancontinuedtobeusedinDunhuangafterthecollapseof theTibetanEmpire,andmanymanuscripts, includingthemajorityof tantrictexts,havenowbeenlocatedbetweenthemid10th andearly11th century (see,Daltonand vanSchaik2006:xxi).Itseemsmuchtoopremature,however,toexpectthatthematteris fullyresolvedyet.AsecondcomplicatingfactorwithDunhuangsourcesisthenatureof Dunhuang'smulticulturalsociety.Formanyyearsafterthelossof Tibetanpoliticalcontrol,manyDunhuanginhabitantsof differingethnicitiescontinuedtouseTibetanasacommonwrittenlanguage.Thismeansthatitisquite possiblethatsomeDunhuangtantrictextswerewritteninTibetan,butfortheuseofnon-Tibetan communities,andperhapswerealsotranslatedfromnon-Tibetansourcesmoreoftenthanhassometimes beenunderstood.Thirdly,itisperfectlypossiblethattheDunhuangfindsrepresentonlyasmallpartial sampleofearlyTibetantantricmanuscriptsandwehavenowayofknowingwhatsignificantearly translationsand compositionsmight not have been included.Nevertheless,regardlessof ongoingchangesin viewsabouttheirdatingandcontext,understandingthecontentsof theDunhuangtantrictexts,andtheir relationtothetransmittedrNyingmatradition,remainimportantlinesof research,withoutwhichhistorical clarity about rNying ma originscannot soeasily be envisaged.TheDunhuangtantriccollections,includingthosepartsmostobviouslyrelatedtothelaterrNyingama tradition,arebroadandextensive,andincludeenoughmaterialtooccupyseveralresearchersfordecades. Wethereforehadtochooseaspecificfocus.Wedecidedonphurpatexts,becausetheyofferavery particular insight into rNying ma.SincePhur pa remained fromearly timesin Tibet a particularly rNying ma traditionwithinBuddhistTantra,10 Phurpa'semergencemighttosomeextentcoincidewithorreflectthe7 Both these authors were writing before the recent rediscoveryof the'Phang thang mamanuscript,andit will beinteresting tosee what light further study of the'Phang thang ma might throw on thisdebate.8 Theearlycataloguers(seeabove)hadprovidedsomeindicationof itsscope,andattentionhadbeengiventoafewDunhuang tantricmanuscriptsbywell-knownTibetologistssuchasR.A.Stein(eg.Stein1971-2).Morerecentscholarlyworksinclude Daltonand vanSchaik,2006,KapsteinandDotson2007,andKapsteinand vanSchaik'sforthcomingeditedcollection(Chinese andTibetanTantra at Dunhuang,Specialedition of StudiesinCentral and East Asian Religions, Brill,Leiden).9 See especially the publicationsof Takeuchi(2004;forthcoming).10 Weare approaching the emergence of Bon Phur pa traditions,and their relation to rNying ma,in a subsequent study.TheSa skya PhurpatraditionisrNyingmainorigin,andtheSaskyaPhur pacommentarialliteratureseemstodependsubstantiallyonthe rNying ma tantras.GeneralIntroduction 5emergenceofrNyingmaasabroadercategory.Inaddition,ourpreviousworkonthePhurpatextual tradition(seeespeciallyMayer1996andCantwellandMayer2007)meantthatweareparticularlyfamiliar withthePhurpascripturalheritage,andfurthermore,theDunhuang phur pacorpuswasof amanageable sizetohandleinoneproject.Atthesametime,therearealsosubstantial phur paelementsintheso-called lowertantras,andwehavenotignoredDunhuangTibetanexamplesof thesefromourstudy.Whilethe lower tantras arenotincludedinthelaterrNyingmatantracollections,beinglargelysharedwiththebKa' gyurtradition,neverthelesstheyhavehadaroleinrNyingmareligiouslife,andtheirtestimonyis historically significant to theoverallemergenceand practiceof Tantrism in Tibet.The Selectionof Dunhuang Phur paTexts11Unfortunately,wedonothaveafulllengthPhur patantrafromDunhuang,althoughitwouldseemthat theyalreadyexistedbythattimebecauseatleastoneiscitedinaparticularlyvaluableDunhuangtext,the Thabs kyi zhags pa padma'phreng manuscript (IOL Tib J 321).12 However,the Dunhuang phur pa materials doincludea substantial twenty-two page text, with manyinterlinear notes,identified in theBritish Library as partIIIof IOLTibJ331.Thisistheclosestweget toafulllengthPhur paworkfromDunhuang;allother materialsare morefragmentary,comprising either veryshort complete texts,or excerptsfrom longer works.From the viewpoint of later tradition,phur pa textswould generally denote thescriptures,ritual practice and commentarial textsconnected with the Phur pa deity.As weshall see,there is not such a neat or obvious groupof textsamongst theDunhuang manuscripts,even thoughsomeof them -aswe will describe below -shareextensivepassagesorkeythemeswiththelatertradition.Giventhelackofanysuchclearly demarcatedgroupof texts,itisworthclarifyinghowweselectedthetextsweconsiderhere.Attheoutset, wedecided totake thewidest kindof definitionand toincludeany textswhichinsomemanner related toor includedmaterialrelevantfortheimageryandpracticesofthePhurpatradition.Atthesametime, boundarieshad tobesetsomewhere.Onecouldconstruecommentarialworkson Mahdyogaprinciplesand ritualasrelevanttothePhurpaheritage,orritualpracticesfocusedonwrathfulherukadeities,especially thosedealing with tantricmeditationstotransform hatredandaggression.13 Anexhaustivestudyof allsuch materialswould have been out of thequestionin thelimited timewe hadavailable,and would havedefeated theobject of a manageableselection of materials.Thus,wegaveour mainattention to thelimited number of textsortextsectionswithanexplicitcentralfocusonthePhurpa/Phurbutraditionoron phur parites.1411 NotethattheIOLTibJnumbersusedthroughoutthisbookrefertotheIndiaOfficeLibrarynumberingsystemfortheStein Tibetan manuscriptsnow held at theBritishLibraryin London,and thePTreferencesrefer tothePelliot tibtainnumbersof the Pariscollection.12 Wediscusssomeaspectsof thisimportanttext below(seeespeciallyChapter10);andweareinadditionconductingaseparate research project intoit.13 See in particular our comments below on IOL Tib J 306 and IOL TibJ 321(Chapter 3, p39).14 Intheinheritedtradition,thewords, phur pa, phurbu,kflaandkflayamaybeusedtodescribetheritualimplementand/orthe deity.Thenamesand termsmaycurrently be used withslightlydifferent connotationsfromthoseinDunhuangtextsandarenot alwaysusedconsistentlytoday.Thetermphurbu(sometimesinterpretedasequivalenttokflaka)inmoremodemusageis sometimesrestricted totheimplement,while phur pa(sometimesinterpretedasequivalenttokfla)canequallyrefer tothedeity or theimplement.Therestrictionof theword phur butotheimplementisbynomeansuniversal,andin practice,either phur bu or phur pamay beapplied totheimplement or thedeity.Insomeof theDunhuangmaterials,suchasinPT349(seeChapter8, text lines1,3and A), phur pa takes the form phur ba.Thisdoes not generally occur nowadaysat allexcept asanerror,but in the Amdoarea,thegrammaticalparticlepaissometimeswrittenasba,sointhiscontext,itmaybeconsideredacceptableby regionalconventions.(Thus,Maggsar[or themodem printingof Maggsar 2003]onoccasiongives"phurba"[eg.p. 164,168], andsimilarly,Ingaba[p.7],bcuba[p.3],stongba[p.51]etc.)ThetermkflayaorvajrakflayaisubiquitouslyusedinTibetan traditiontorefertothe yidamformof thedeityortoitstantrictexts(thedeifiedimplementsinthemaindeity'sretinue,often associated with the buddha families,aresometimescalled the kflayasandsometimes the kflas;hence,Buddha KTlaya/KTla,Ratna KIlaya/KIlaetc.).InsomeDunhuangandoldtexts- whereitmaynotbeclearthattheyidamdeityformasitcametobe recognisedbythetraditionisatissueatall- thetermsklla ya,kila ya,badzraklla yaetc.maybeusedsimplytorefer tothe implementorthedeifiedimplement.Inthisbook,weconformtotheusagepresentedintheDunhuangtextinquestion;orin moregeneraldiscussion,wesimplifyusagebyusingphurpafortheimplement,whichmayormaynotalsocarrythe6 Introductory ChaptersWealso looked more brieflyat other textsor sectionswhere the useof a ritual phur pa mayoccur asa minor featureinaritewithanaltogetherdifferentfocus.Hence,inparticularinthefinalchapter,weincluded someriteswhichareof uncertaindirectrelevanceforthedevelopmentofthePhurpatraditionassuch, althoughtheysupplyabackgroundcontexttoitsmorespecificuseof phur parites.Inconsideringany Dunhuang text relatinginsuch a broadsense to thePhur pa tradition,we nonethelessexcluded textsand text fragmentswhichmerelyreproducedsomeelementsof theprincipalmantrastringusedinthePhurpadeity practice,ie.bandzrakili kilaya.Itsoon becameclear that large numbersof Dunhuang tantrictextsusethese mantrasyllables,andwhilethePhurpatraditionsharesthem,themantrastringinitselfhaslittleorno relevancefor Phur pa ritesassuch.15 Wealsoexcluded usesof the term,phur pa which did not seem to have bearing on the ritual implement or deity.16'Liberative killing (sgrol ba)and the Phur pa heritageSeveralof theDunhuangtextspaydetailedattentiontothetopicof liberativekilling,or sgrolba.sGrol baisafamous Mahayoga rite which remainsto thisdaya verycentralfeatureof rNying maPhur pa ritual.17Indeed, theimagery of the Phur pa deity isintegrallyconnected to the associationsof ritual liberative killing- thedeityscentralhandswieldinga phur paritualimplement,themythologyof Phurpasoriginsinthe subjugationof Rudra,thefamouslinesof recitationbeginningmostPhurpasadhanasfocusingonvajra wrathcutting through hatred,that issooften interpreted in termsof sgrol ba}%The ritual which became the classiccontextfor theperformanceof sgrolba- thecarefullystructuredsummoningof evilforcesintoan effigy whichisthenstabbed,releasing theconsciousnessof the victim(s)intoa buddhafield,iswitnessedin theregularritesofnumerouswrathfuldeities,especiallyaspartofthetshogsofferingriteforrepairing tantricsamayacommitments.In thecaseof thePhur padeity,theritetakescentralstageasthebackdropto theimageryof thedeityand hiscemetery palace,and itsperformancemay beintegratedintothe main root sadhana.19 Themajorityof theDunhuang phur patextswediscussinthisbookeitherexplicitlydescribe sgrolbatyperituals,orrelatetoritesusingritual phur paswhichmightinvolvesomeaspectof sgrolba imagery,soitisworthintroducingthetopicbrieflyhere.Ourmanuscriptsrarelyusetheterm sgrol/bsgral explicitly(althoughPT44[34]does,seep.65),moreoftenusingothertermsforliberation(eg.thar pa),connotationof a phur padeity,andPhur paorVajrakTlaya wherethereferenceismorespecificallyor primarilytothetantric yi dam.15 Insomeinstances,theissueis blurred.One text whichshares thebandzrakili kilayamantrastring but which we have not felt we neededtodealwithhereistheVajra-vidaranadharani (rdorjemam par'joms pazhesbyaba'igzungs),of whichthereare many copiesamongst the Dunhuang manuscripts,for instance,IOL Tib J 410;IOL TibJ 411;IOL Tib J 412;IOL TibJ 413;IOL Tib J 414Section1;IOLTib J 415;IOLTib J 416Section3;IOLTibJ 462Section2;IOLTibJ 544Section3;PT60Section 2;PT857fragment.SeealsoDalton'scommentson therelationshipbetweenthe Dunhuang versions,thecanonicalversionsand thecommentaries(Dalton and vanSchaik 2006:153).Thisdharani continues tohave an important placein theTibetan tradition: itisregularlyrecited,anditispossiblethatthispopulardharanitextonceprovidedrawmaterialsforlaterNGBtantras, includingthoseof Phur pa.Butitisdifficult toisolatespecificconnectionswithPhur pa,andthereseemedlittlepointingoing further than notingitspresence in Dunhuang.16 Insomecases,theterm,"phur pa"maybeusedwithratherdifferentmetaphoricalassociations,suchasinthephraseusedin earlyrDzogschentexts,"'dzinpa'i phur pa".Karmay(1988:72,75,andseealso84-5)discussestheuseof thisimagein commentingonIOLTibJ594,whereitoccursonfoliolv.4.Hetranslatesitas,"fixingstake"or"fixedpost";itindicatesan undesirablestateof contrivingorseekingtopindowntheintangiblenaturalcondition.Clearly,suchausageisinterestingin gaininga fullappreciationof the word,butnot unavoidablyrelevant tothefunctionof theritualimplement(let alonethedeity!) in phur pa rites.17 See Cantwell1997for a discussionof sgrol ba ritesin the rNying ma context.18 rdorje khros pas/khrobos zhe sdang good.Thisisthefirstlineof theroot verseforthearisingoftheKilaya mandala.Itopensthefamousshort Phur partsabargyud kyidumbufoundinthebKa''gyur,andcan alsobefound(withvarioustextualvariantsslightly amending the meaning)in all the major Phur pa tantras as well asin virtually every Phur pa sadhana.19 Forinstance,intheSaskyaPhurchen(33r-35r),anextensivesgrolbariteisperformedaspartof theofferingssectionof the main ritual.General Introduction 7transformationortransference,butthereisnodoubtthattheritesareexactlythesameasthoselatermore consistently referred toas sgrol ba.Aclassicfeatureof Mahayogaisthat riteslike sgrol baneed tohavecomplex doctrinalexegeseswithout whichtheritualmightbemeaningless,ormisunderstood.Thedoctrinalunderpinningsof sgrolbainclude Mahayanasourcesonbodhisattvaethicalprinciples,whichmayinvolvetheprincipleofcompassion overridingtheprecepttorefrainfromkilling.Inparticular,afocusinsuchsourcesisoftenlessonthe benefitsto the potentialfuture victimsof an aggressor whoisto be theobject of thecompassionateviolence, andmoreoncompassiontowardstheaggressorhimself,whoistobesavedfromtheterriblekarmaof his aggression,and liberatedfromsamsara.20 Thesameemphasisisfoundin sgrol ba rituals-themain point is toactonthebasisof compassionfor theobjectof therite.Atthesametime,inthe Mahayogacontext,the transgressiveengagementinviolence,channelledwithinaframeworkof ritualsymbolism,servestoattack and pacify aggression itself,in the process restoring harmony and the tantric bonds.Thus,acentralfunctionof sgrolbaisdirectlyandforciblytodestroyone'sprimalenemy,ignorance, usingritualandcontemplativetechniques.Typically,thismightentailtheextensionof theviolentmethods of sacrificial-exorcistic ritual21towards the moreinward and soteriologicalgoal of liberating one'sown mind, aswellasthoseofothers,fromthe'evilspirits'ofignorance.Atthesametime,suchsoteriologised exorcismswilloften retain their moreconventionalexternalexorcisticconnotationsasasecondary purpose, butnowentirelysubordinatedinbothdoctrineandliturgytothegreatercentralsoteriologicalpurpose.In Phur pa ritual,theexorcisticactivityof stabbinganeffigyrepresentsanassaulton theignoranceof deluded belief in thetrueexistenceof aself,usingasuitablyconsecrated phur pa,embodyingthewisdomof allthe Buddhas,through which theignoranceis'liberated'intowisdom.Inalltheserespects,thereisnodoubtthat the phur pasgrolbaritesfromDunhuangandthoseof thecontemporarytraditionarequitesubstantially similar,as weshall discuss below.Someof thedoctrinalexegesisisalsorepresentedatDunhuanginsimilartermstonowadays.IOLTibJ 43 622 givesadefinitionof Mahayogasgrolbaasliberationofonself{bdagbsgralba)andliberationof others(gzhanbsgral ba).A thousand yearslater,in astandard work representingmainstream understandings of Phurparitual,('Jammgon)Kongsprullikewisedescribessgrolbaastwofoldusingexactlythesame words:liberatingoneself throughwisdom{bdagbsgral),andliberatingothersthroughcompassion{gzhan bsgral)(94.6).IOLTibJ436goesontodescribeself-liberationasachievingtheapproachpracticetothe deity;Kongsprul goeson toexplainself-liberation as practising visualisationof oneself asthedeity's body -whichisanother wayof sayingexactlythesamething.IOLTibJ 436(line6)describesliberationof others in termsof the ten fieldssuitablefor liberation {zhing bcu);Kongsprul doesexactly thesame (97.3).Itisworthnoting,however,thattheDunhuangevidenceforthespecifickindof sgrolbaritualswhich persistinthepracticesof thePhurpadeityandinparalleldestructiveritualsof otherwrathfuldeitiesdoes20 IntheUpayakausalyaSutrastoryof thecompassionateship'scaptainkillingtherobberwhointendedtomurderfivehundredmerchantbodhisattvas,theemphasisis ontherobber'sevilkarma,andhisrebirthinapurelandthankstothecaptain'scompassionateact.Thelater Ratnakuta versionincludesthedetailthat thekillingwas performed bystabbing.(MarkTatz1994: 17-18,73-74.)ThisexampleisoftencitedinrNyingmapateachingsonsgrolbainPhurpapracticecontexts.Thereare numerousotherMahayanasourceswhichmakesimilarpointsinrelationtotheethicsoftakinglife,suchasAsariga's Bodhisattvabhumi(Wogihara ed.,Tokyo, 1930:165-6;see the discussionin Cantwell1997:110-111).21 Especiallyafter theriseof thebhakti cultsin India,exorcismsoften tooktheforminwhicha benigngreat deity would 'sacrifice'anevilhostilespirit,and thenbringit backtolifeagainasaspiritualservant.Theimplicationisthateventodieat the handsof Visnu,SivaorDevi,isagreatblessingthatbringsinstantliberationandenlightenment.Inthisway,sacrificeandexorcism become intertwined.See Chapter 2, p.17-20 below, where we talk further on thissubject.22 3v;IDP website(http://idp.bl.uk/database/oo_loader.a4d?pm=IOL TibJ 436)image 4,top.IOLTibJ 306alsoanalyses sgrol ba in similar terms,focusingon benefittingself and others.See below,Ch.3, p.39 note17.8 Introductory Chaptersnot exhaust the rangeof sgrol ba practicesfoundin Dunhuang texts.In IOLTib J 419and PT 42,23 aset(or sets)of notesonMahayogapracticeincludessomeinterestingdiscussionof sgrolbariteswhichhavea slightly different framing narrativeand ritual processfrom thosefound most typically in Phur pa ritesand the ritesdo not mention the useof phur paimplements.24 Twoaspectsstand out.First,in PT 42saccount (f.69- 70),thereisa meditationonseedsyllablesatfivepartsof thebody,presumablyreferringtothebodyof the ritesobjectoritseffigy,andthroughthis,thegatewaystothefivelowerdestiniesforrebirthareclosed, leavingonly the pathwayfor rebirthinagod realm.Thispathwayisthenopened througha meditationona further syllableon thecrown of the head (Meinert 2006:121-4).Unlikeastandard Phur pa sgrol ba, wherea number of specific partsof the bodyarestabbed with a phur pa,25 therewouldseem to beno violenceat this stage.Theritualstoppageofbirthinthedifferentrealmsisnotdissimilarfromapassageinthe TattvasamgrahaTantra,inwhichbeingsof thethreelowerrealmsaresummonedandreleasedfromtheir sufferinglivesintotherealmofVairocana,bycontactwithVajrapanisdisplayofmantraandmudra (Weinberger2003:193).Therearecloseparallelstothemeditationdescriptionintantricvisualisationsnot normallyclassifiedas sgrol ba,to purify the karmacausingdifferent realmsand to prevent rebirthin them.26Followingthis,theritualproceedstoamoretypicalsgrolbascenario(PT42:f.70-72),andthesecond notablecontrasttoPhur pa sgrol bapracticesisthatthesymbolickillingisperformedthroughameditation onthevajraweapon(rdorjemtshoncha),arisingfromthesyllablekrongatthecraniumaperture27 atthe crownof thehead,andmultiplyingintonumerousspears,28 whichslashthebody.Aftermeditatingonthe transformationand purification of theobject of the rite,thesymbolicliberativekilling isconcluded with the mantra of the tantricdeity,Takkiraja.29Anothermanuscriptwitharatherdifferentexplanationof theriteof sgrolbaisIOLTibJ754'ssection 8.30 Inthenotesontantricpracticehere,adiscussionof sgrolbafollowsexegesisonthetantricfeast23 The relationship between partsofthese two manuscriptshas been pointed out by Dalton(Dalton and vanSchaik 2006:156,158160).See also Meinert 2006.24 Phur pasare mentioned in PT 42in a quite different context of empowerment rituals(see Ch.11,p.210).25 See,for instance,IOLTib J 331.Ill,f.8r (Ch.6 below,p. 114-5),and also the'Bumnag (Boord:231-4)or the"Subsidiary Ritual" (smad las)section of the bDud'joms gNamIcags spu gri (Vol.Tha:471-476).26 SomerNyingmapreliminarypracticesincludesucha meditationonsixsyllables,oneforeachof therealms,atsixpartsof the body:seeforexamplethefoundationpracticeof thewidelypractiseddKonmchog spyi'duscycle(sngon\grosection:2526), wheretheplacesarethesameasthosegiveninPT42,withoneaddition.Puresyllablesthenbumupthelatenciesandpurify causesforrebirthinthesixrealms.TherearethreeobviousontrastswithPT42:1)thedifferentapproachtothegodrealm, assumedtobeasmuchpartof samsaraastheotherrealmsandnotanappropriategatewayforliberation;2)thefocusisaselfvisualisation,whereasPT 42ispresumablya visualisationbasedon therite'sobject;3)in thiscase,aseparateset of enlightened syllables purify theimpuresyllables(in PT 42, thesyllables visualised arealready described as the"warrior"[heruka]seeds (dp a' bo'bruInga,PT 42folio69;Meinert 2006:123)and theyeffectthepurification.Notwithstandingthesedifferences,theoverall similarityof the visualisationand functionof the meditationisstriking.Thepreliminary practicefrom thedKonmchog spyi'dus thatwedescribehereconstitutesatypicalinstanceoftherNyingmaandBonrDzogschenpreliminarypracticesofInner Separation(nang gi ru shan).27 mtshogsma=mtshog ma.Notethat Meinert(122note71and124)readsthiswordasmchogsma,interpretingitasmchog ma, top, peak.28 shag-ti(71.3-4) =Skt.sakti,spears;see Meinert:122note72.29 Furthermeditationstypicalof sgrolbaritescontinueinIOLTibJ419'ssection7(asorderedbyDaltonintheIDPcatalogue, Daltonand vanSchaik 2006:159-160),suchasofferingtheremainingfleshand blood tothedeitiesfor their consumption.This isa commoncomponentof sgrol baritesaswefind theminthePhur pa tradition,eg.constitutingthefinalsection(zhal du stob pa)of thesix-foldstructureof the'ActualRiteof LiberativeKilling'(sgrolchogdngos),aspresentedinthebDud'jomsgNam Icags spu gri(smad lassection,Vol.Tha:458,477ff).IOL TibJ 419'ssection12(folioRf.l3v-19vin thepaginationsystemin Dalton and vanSchaik 2005,and r 163 8in Dalton and vanSchaik 2006)givesa reiterationof the sgrol ba rite already described, inparts,rather moredetailedandinaslightlydifferentorder.Fromthataccount,itisexplicitthatinthiscase,Takkirajaisthe deity with whom thetantric practitioner istoidentify himself (Rf.l3v or r.26),and thereisadetailed descriptionof theliberation of the consciousnessof the rite'sobject.30 Here,weadoptDaltonandvanSchaik's(2006:321-325)classificationof sectionswithinthesetsof notesfoundinthisscroll manuscript(although notethat thesesections havenow beenrelabelledin their IDP webcatalogue).Section7has noteson Phur pa, which wediscuss below(Chapter 7, p.l36ff).General Introduction 9offering(tshogs)andonritesofunion{sbyorba).Thediscussionisterseandlackingdetailsofritual description, rather outlininga theoreticalclassification of sgrol ba,which again,specificallysuggests the aim ofreleasefromthesixrealmsof beings.Itlistsfouraspectsof sgrolba:liberationthroughtheView; through moral discipline;through samaya,and through conduct.31Thus,whileritesusingphurpascametotakethecentralplaceinritesofsgrolbainrNyingma Mahayoga practice,32asindeed theyalready did in a number of Dunhuang manuscripts,wecan seesuch rites asa particular development and expression of the wider themeof 'liberative killing'.ThePT42/IOLTibJ419sequencemightalsosuggestaconnectionbetweensgrolbaandanother complexof tantricmeditativeritual:thatof'phoba,thetransferenceof consciousnesstoaBuddhafieldat death,which may be performed bya practitioner for themselves,or on behalf of another,generallyfollowing oratthemomentof death.Thisisnottheplacetoelaborateatlengthonthesepractices,whichforman extremelyimportantpartof Tibetanfunerary rituals,33 butitisworthnotingthat sgrol baaspractisedin the Phur pa traditioncan beseenasa varietyof forcible transference.Interestingly,thetitlegiven tothelongest DunhuangPhur pa text which weexaminebelow,IOLTib J331.Ill(seeChapters5and6below),describes thetextastheenlightenedactivityoftransference( 'phoba7'phrlnlas).In'phoba,asinthePT42 description,thebody'slowergatewaysareshutandtheconsciousnessprojectedupfromthecrownof the head.In Phur pa sgrol ba rites,theconsciousnessof theevilonesistaken upfrom the heart of theeffigy by the phur pa,whichhasbeenconsecratedasthedeity'semanation.InthecommentaryonthebDud'joms gnamIcagsspugriversionof theritual,theconsciousnessarisinginthesyllable"nr"istransformedbyits enforcedcontact with the phur pa.Consecratedas,"a hum",it issent upfrom the phur pa with thesyllable, phat,toVajrasattva,whois uniting with hisconsortin theAkanisthaBuddhafield.Thus,the transmigrating consciousnessgains birth as Vajrasattva'sson,and hence,liberation.34Continuities,Transformations and their ImplicationsAmongstthemostsalientoutcomesof ourinvestigationof theDunhuang phur pacorpusistheevidence werepeatedlyfoundforaquitewelldevelopedPhur patraditionwithclearanddetailedcontinuitiestothe contemporaryrNyingmatradition.Forexample,theentirecontentof thelongestDunhuangPhurpatext, IOLTibJ331.Ill,isreproducedwithinthetraditionallytransmittedrNyingmapaPhurpascriptures,and fromthere,ithashadanimpactonthecommentarialandpracticetraditionstothisday.Weshalldiscuss thisatgreaterlengthbelow(Chapters5and6).Inthecaseofsgrolbaritesandexegesis,wesee preservation of both exegesisand ritual practice,as will be clear from a number of different Dunhuang texts.31 /snyingrje'ilasnlsgrolbamampabzhi'o//gangzhenaltabassgrolbadang/tshulkhrimskyissgrolbadang/damtsigkls sgrolbadang/spyodpassgrolba'o//deladamtsigmanyamspadang/tshulkhrimsmaralbadang/ltabamanorbaskyang rgyud drug klsemscanlas thar cing/ /bla na myed pa 'isangs rgyassu 'grub par 'gyur ro/ (R.9)32 In performancesof'subsidiary rites'(smad las),theelaborateritualdisplay of'Casting theTorma'(gtor ma'phang ba)directedat theevilspiritsrepresentsa finalculminationof the mainroot practice whichis performed first,and whichfeaturesa sgrol barite usingaritual phur paasitscentrepieceandthebasisfortheexpellingrite(seeCantwell1989:SupplementaryMaterials,"The Ritual whichExpelsall Negativities",especially9-15,24-25,for a descriptionof'subsidiaryrites'connected withthedeity,rDo rje Gro lod).See also below, p.32note2,on the category of smad las rites.33 'Pho ba practicecan be performed in connection with many tantricdeitiesalthough that associated with Amitabha with theobject of birthinSukhavatiisespeciallypopularinTibetanBuddhism(seeHalkias2006:152-159,anddiscussionof thespecifictexts following).Halkias(2006:153-4)interestinglydrawsattentiontoLamaThubtenYeshe'ssuggestion(nowfoundontheLama YesheWisdomArchive:http://www.lamaveshe.com/lamaveshe/toc/toc1.shtml)thatthe'phobateachingsderivefromthe Guhyasamaja.Thiscomment deservesfurther attention, which weare not in the position togiveit here.34 mamshesnrmgnaspadephur bustsangyisblangsteahumdu byingyisbrlabsnasphatkyis'ogmindurdorsemsyabyum gyisbyormtshamssuspar basrdorsemskyisrassugyurtesangsrgyasparbsampanibrtenpadbyingssubsgralba'o(bDud 'joms gNamIcags spu gri bsnyenyig Vol.Da:134.5-6).10 Introductory ChaptersOther general Mahayoga doctrinal themesalso persist between Dunhuang textsand the later tradition.For example,inChapter1 of theDunhuangThabskyi zhags pa padma'phreng bacommentary(IOLTibJ321), thereisreferencetothemtshannyidgsum,orThreeCharacteristics(oftheContinuumofthePath)]of Mahayoga'.Thesecategories remain very much a part of contemporary Mahayogaexegesis:thelateDudjom Rinpoche,forexample,analysedtheminhisbsTan pa'irnamgzhag,hereusingtheManngagIta'phreng, attributedtoPadmasambhava,ashissource.35 DudjomRinpoche'slanguageandunderstandingseemmuch the sameas that of theThabs zhagscommentator.SomecontinuitiesinparticulardetailsbetweenDunhuangtextsandthemodernrNyingmapatradition areequally remarkable because tosomeextent,they might beseenasgoingagainst thegrain.In PT349,we find a potentially confusingconflationof the namesof the major maleand female Phur pa deities that has the potentialtocreatesomeexegeticaldifficulties;yet,asweshowbelow(Chapter8p.152-157),eventhis potentially troublesomedetail was preserved intact through thecenturies.Wealsofind materialsclose to the modern tradition within Dunhuang historicaland legendary writing.In a late tenthcentury booklet,PT44,wefinda narrativeof Padmasambhava bringingPhur patoTibet viathe AsuracaveatPharpinginNepalcouchedintermsverysimilartotheverywell-knownPhurpalorgyus narrativesstillcurrent today(see below,Chapter 4).Similarly,PT307describesPadmasambhavaand oneof hisdisciples,Rlangdpalgyisengge,workingasapair, jointlysubduingthesevengoddessesof Tibetand converting theminto protectoresses.In modern ritualsstillregularly performed,thelegendof theverysame pairofPadmasambhavaandRlangdpalgyisenggesubduingthepowerfulfemaleprotectresesofTibet together,isstillcelebrated.36OnebeginstogettheimpressionthatratherlittleintheDunhuangTantricBuddhistrepertoire,however obscureitmightatfirstappear,waseversubsequentlythrownaway.Theethosseemstohavebeenthat everythingwillsomehowsomewherehavea use,andsomustbepreservedintactfor posterity.Atthesame time,thereis,ofcourse,abundantevidencethatritualtextinparticularcouldbebrokendowninto componentparts,andrecombinedwithothercomponentpartstocreatenewritualwholes.Thecentralskill inauthoring new ritual text istoachievea recombinationof existing ritual partsintoa new ritual whole,ina mannerwhichneverthelessreassertswithgreatprecisiontheparticularethosandsymbolismof thetantric genrebeingattempted.Inpursuitofthisgoal,onecanalsofindoverlappingpassagesbetweentextsof ostensiblyquitedifferentTantricgenres.PT349,aPhurpatext,hasexactparallelstocanonical Guhyasamaja passages,37which in turn incorporate materialsfrom dharanitextsfor rDo rjesder mo,38which inturnsharepassageswithcanonicalgDugsdkarorUsnisasitatapatradharani:s39 - andsoonandsoon. Thus,geneticconnectionsaresometimesdiscerniblewithintheritualdetailssharedbetweentantrictextsof differinggenresand periods.Textualrecyclingcan beat thelargerstructurallevelaswell:in thenineteenth century,Maggsar retainedthestructureof theSevenPerfectionswhichwefindinIOLTibJ331.Ill,citing35 AnannotationtotheThabszhagscommentaryChapter1 (lr.5)presentsthemas: "When[one]understandsthroughtheCharacteristicofKnowledge,bytheinherentpowerofbecoming familiarisedwiththeCharacteristicofthe Entrance,theCharacteristicof theResultisaccomplishedasBuddhaBody,SpeechandMind."("shes pa'imtshannyid gyisrtogsna'jug pa'i mtshannyid gyis goms pa'i mthus'bras bu'i mtshannyid sku gsung thugs su'grubbo").In Dudjom,following the Manngag Ita 'phreng(seeS.Karmay1988a:167),thesearegivenasrtogs parnam pabzhi'itshul rig pani shes pa'i mtshannyid (awareness inthemannerof theFourKindsof Realisationischaracteristicof knowledge); yang nas yong dugoms parbyedpani'jug pa'i mtshannyid (repeatedexperienceof itischaracteristicof theentrance); goms pa'imthusmngondugyur bani'brasbu'imtshan nyid (and actualisation of it by the power of experienceischaracteristicof the result).See Dudjom1991Vol1:265;Vol 2:111.36 For a discussion of PT 307,see Dalton 2004.Seealsoour comments(Ch.4, p.48note35below)on thesecontinuities.37 Forexample,fromthePindikramasadhanaof Nagarjuna;andthePindikrta-sadhanopdyika-vrtti-ratnavali ormDorbsdus pa'i sgrubthabskyi'grel parinchen phreng baattributedtoRatnakarasanti(Peking2690:297b1.7.to298b1.2).SeetheAppendix to Chapter 8, p. 162-163below.38 In particular,a mantra which isidentified asrDo rjesder mo'smantra;see Chapter 5,p.84-85.39 See Chapter 5, p.85note 61,and Chapter11, p.204 note69.General Introduction 11the'Phrinlas phunsumtshogs pa'irgyudashissource,butsomewhatreconstruedtheusesof itsprincipal categories(see below,Chapter5,p.78-87).Therearefewif any rulesgoverningthetypeor natureorsizeof recyclableritualitems- onlythattheymustworkintheirnewritualcontext.Of course,thereisnodoubt thatthisprocesshappenedconstantlyinIndia,asinTibet.Beyondthat,itisnotonlytantricritualthat developsthisway,butmuchof theworld'sritualandmythicsystems.Aclassicanthropologicaldescription of the processisfoundin Levi-Strauss'sexposition of what hedubbed'bricolage',which heinterpreted as the oftenskilful and ingenious"bending"(Fr.:bricoler) to new usagesof existing cultural artifacts(1976:16ff).SomecomparisonsbetweentheDunhuangtantrictextsandthelatertransmittedtextsalsoillustrate processesofscripturalchangethroughtextualtransmission.TheabovementionedThabskyizhagspa padma'phrengba,initsDunhuangversion(IOLTibJ321),comprisesanentirerNyingma'irgyud'bum (henceforth:NGB)Mahayogaroottantra,embeddedaslemmatawithinacommentary.Totheeyesof the averagereader,thereislittleintheThabszhagsroottantrathatmightobviouslybetrayanon-Indicorigin, andthissurelyhelpsexplainitsplacementinsomeeditionsof thebKa''gyur,whereitsometimesfindsits wayintotheirrNyingrgyudsections(atthetimeof writing,weourselvesremainuncertainastothisroot tantra'sIndieprovenance).40 Butthepagelayoutof theDunhuangmanuscript,andthemannerinwhichits lemmataareembeddedwithinthecommentary,exposepossiblereasonsfortheconsiderableredactional variationbetweentheroottantra'slaterextantcanonicalversions.Unliketheroottantra,thecommentary showsmoreobvioussignsofbeingcomposedinTibetan -forexample,in thewayitetymologisesTibetan translational terms,like dkyil'khor (initsChapter 6).Now,theThabs zhags manuscript hassome root tantra chapterssocompletelyembeddedinthecommentaryandwithoutanydistinguishingindications,thatin manycasesitisnotatalleasy todistinguish between thelemmatacitingthe root tantraand thesurrounding commentary.Infact,unlessthereaderisveryhighlyeducatedandpatient,itcansometimesbewellnigh impossibletodiscerntheexactboundariesoftheroottantra.Facedwithsuchacircumstance,ascribe seekingtoextracttheroottantraonlyislikelytocopymoreratherthanless,tomakesurethatnoneof the preciousscriptureisleftoutof hiscopy;thusinadvertentlyincorporatingTibetancommentarialmaterials intothemoreplausiblyIndieroottantra.Theprecisenatureofthesubstantialvariationsbetweenthe differentextantcanonicalversionsof theroot tantra doindeedlookasthoughtheymight wellbeaccounted forbydifferentscribeshavingondifferentoccasionsidentifieddifferentpartsofthecommentaryas constituting the lemmata.Wearecurrentlyin processof a more detailedstudy which explores this possibility further.There might bea possibleexampleof exactly thisprocessof incorporatingcommentarial materialin the SouthernCentralandBhutaneseNGBrecensionof theGuhyasamajaroottantra.Eastman'spreliminary study(1980)of thevirtuallycompleteDunhuangmanuscript(IOLTibJ 438),collateditsversesof Chapter Three,togetherwiththreebKa''gyurwitnessesandoneSouthernCentralNGBedition(towhichwehave added another representing the Bhutaneselineof descent).These NGBversionsagree on oneadditionaltshig rkang whichtheygiveinverse2,whichcorrespondstoaninterlinearnoteintheDunhuangversion,butis notfoundin thebKa''gyur editions,norintheextantSanskritrootversesthatEastmanconsulted(seeCh.9 note5,p. 166-167below).Itwouldappear,then,thatthislinemighthavebeenintegratedintothetext throughcopyingfromamanuscriptwhich,likethemaintextoftheThabszhagscommentary,didnot differentiateclearly between thewritingof theroottextandthecommentary.41 Morebroadly,itseemssafe tosaythatsuchapparentlyfaultymechanismsof scribaltransmissionmayinadvertentlyintroducevariation40 Theroot tantra( Phags pathabs kyi zhags pa pad mo'i phreng donbsdus pa zhesby aba)isincluded intherNying rgyud section of Gragspa rgyal mtshan's Kye'i rdorje'irgyud'bum gyi dkar chags,which wasasourcefor thefirstsNar thangbKa'1gyur,and itisalsoin'Phagspa'sslightlylaterTantracatalogue;onthelatter,seeHelmutEimer1997:52.Wehavenot yetascertainedif anySanskritoriginalcouldbefoundbyBuston,althoughthisseemsunlikely,sincethetitleisnotlistedinhisChos'byungof 1322-3,nor in his rGyud'bum gyi dkar chag of 1339.41 Note that theThabs zhags manuscript alsoincludesinterlinear annotationsinsmall writing, which comment on the commentary.12 Introductory Chaptersandelaborationintoascripturaltextandmayalsosuggestastrikingwayinwhichatextuallybasedritual tradition may develop without any deliberate rationale.42Questions of historical contextTheThabszhagscommentary(IOLTibJ321),IOLTibJ331,PT44andmanyotherDunhuangtexts openanamazingwindowontotheritualanddoctrinalworldofTibetantantrabeforethegSarmapas. Amongother things,itshowsa thoroughlysophisticated andscholarly understandingof MahayogaTantrism thatisin many waystheequalof the presentday tradition.ReadingtheDunhuangThabs zhagscommentary alongsidealearnedcontemporaryrNyingmapalama,itwasstrikinghowfamiliarmuchof itwastohim. From hispointof view,while theThabs zhagscertainly hasitsown particularslantand ritualdetails,asone wouldexpectfromsuchadoxographicallysignificant tantra,43 itisnotinanywaysurprisingoralientothe contemporary tradition.The manuscripts we havestudied,according to present theory,were probably copiedor calligraphedfrom the late tenth toearly eleventh century,although it isoften hard to be veryclear.In most instances,no-oneis yet in a position to present much usefulevidenceabout the provenanceand datesof any originalsfrom which they might have beencopied.The best wecansayingeneraltermsisthat thetextswehavestudiedseem to represent a Tibetan Buddhism immediately prior to thegSar ma period.Takenasawhole,theDunhuangTantriccollectionthereforesignalsanactiveTantricBuddhisminthat region by the late tenth century,about which wecan say three things:[1]Significant aspectsof the rNying ma tantric practiceas wecurrently know it had already emerged.[2]SomeKriya,Carya,andYogatantratextswereinuse;aswellasaverygreatmanydharamtextsthat weresubsequently often classed as Kriya by Tibetan doxographers.[3]Moreover,PT849(Hackin1924;Kapstein2006)showsthatahandfulof earlyprecursorsof theYogini orYoganiruttaratantraslaterassociatedwith thegSar ma periodwerealready beingsignalled,including an earlier variantof verseslater to beassociated with thegSar ma pasiddha traditionof Cinta,consortof Darikapada(Kapstein2006:23-28).Oneof thetwoCatuspithatantras,nowadayspartof thegSarma collections,isalsocitedin PT849,confirmingtheveracityof itsbKa''gyur colophon,which mentionsa first translation prior even toSmrti'sof the late tenth or early eleventh century.44Unfortunately,theinadequaciesand ambiguitiesin thesurviving historicalsourcesfrom the post-imperial periodmeansthatwearenotyetableconfidentlytocontextualisetheevidencethattheDunhuangtantric textsoffer us.PaulSmith(1991:27)andBiancaHorlemann(2005,2007)havedemonstratedthattheTibetan federationsinthenorth-eastintheearly11th centurywerepowerfulinbothmilitaryandeconomicterms, acting as middle-men in trade between China and Inner Asia,especially dealing in horses,and we even know theChineserenderingof thenameof afamousTibetanleaderfromthattime:Jiaosiluo,whoissometimes42 In the Phur pa tradition,twoapparently minor scibal variantsof a phrasewithina key root verse{srog gi goru,or srog gi sgo ru) hasledtotworatherdifferentcommentarialelaborations(seeRobertMayer,AScriptureof the AncientTantraCollection:The Phur-pa bcu-gnyis,Oxford:Kiscadale,1996:213-6).43 TheThabs zhags isone of the most important tantrasin rNying ma doxography,as we discuss below.44 TheVajracatuspfthaisnowadaysseenasafamousgSar ma patantraextantintwo versionsinthebKa''gyur.Thetranslationof oneof theversionsbeforethegSarmaperiodissupportedbyitsbKa''gyurcolophons,whichindicateitwasretranslatedanew bySmrtijnanakirti,implyingtherehadbeenanevenearliertranslationbeforehim.ThesTogbKa''gyurcatalogue(p.206) includesthefollowingwordsinthecolophontooneofitstwoCatuspfthascriptures:Smrtijhanakfrtisgsardubsgyurte, translated anew bySmrtijnanakirti.GeneralIntroduction 13suggestedasthehistoricalprototypeforGesar.45 Obliqueinsightsintothesocialandinstitutionalbaseof TibetanlifeatthattimecomefromIwasaki(1993),whoseoldChinesesourcesdescribeavibrantand populousTibetanBuddhistcultureinnearbyTsongkhaattheturnoftheeleventhcentury,withactive monasteries.PoliticalleaderswithwhomtheChinesehadtodealatthattimewerefrequentlymonks,with thetitle,Rin poche.Theoldimperialusageof bTsan powasalsocurrentamonglayrulers.Thisfitswell with other evidence.In1990,usingDunhuang texts,Helga Uebach (1990)wasthefirst todemonstrate that a lineageof successorstoSantaraksitastillbearingtheimperialeclesiasticaltitleof bcomIdan'daskyiring lugshadpersistedat bSamyas,afindingfurthersupportedinKapsteinsworkonPT849.Moresignificant still,Uebachalsoshowedthatmonasticactivity,includingbothordinationlineagesandcollegesof higher studies,had persistedafterGlang Dar ma'stime.This wasparticularlysoin the North East,whereseveralof KhriRalpacansoriginalreligiousfoundationshadbeensituated,and wheretheycontinuedunbrokenafter 842.Ron Davidson (2005:Chapter 3,84-116) hassincesought toexpand on Uebachsfindings,describinga vigoroustraditionof EasternVinayamonksat thattime.Notforthelasttimeinhistory,thesuddendemise of theTibetanstatein842clearlydidnotsignifythesuddendemiseof Tibetancivilisation,northeinstant deathsofalllearnedBuddhists.Thecapacityofcommerce,civilisationandculturetocontinuewithouta functioningstateisamply demonstrated in numerous historicalexamples,including modern Nepal.Thus,theevidence we havefor a richand highly developed tantricBuddhist rituallifein Tibet in the pre- gSarmaperiod,wouldsuggestthatfarfrombeingadarkandsterileinterludebetweentwogreatepochs, tenthcenturyTibetcouldbeseenasoneofthemostproductiveandculturallytransformativetimesin Tibetanhistory.Itseemstohavebeenatimeinwhichawarrioraristocracybegantoreinventitself asa spiritualaristocracy;atimeinwhichBuddhismbegantodisplacetheindigenousreligionastheprime expressionofpopularpiety;andatimeinwhichtherNyingmatradition(andpossiblyalsotheBon tradition)attainedaremarkabledegreeofculturalpenetration,spiritualdepth,andscholasticandritual complexity,even if against a background of social and political turmoil.Conditionand Features of the Dunhuang ManuscriptsAsnotedabove(p.l),manyof thedocumentsareverywell-preserved.Asageneralpoint,thistends especiallytoapplyinthecaseof the pothT andconcertinastyletexts,wheretheconditionof thepapermay beextremelygoodwithlittledamageordiscoloration,andtheinkmayremainclear.Wherethis generalisationdoesnotholdgood,inparticular,withtextfragments,thereareobviouslimitationsinour assessment of the remaining text.Therearea variety of handwritingstyles, but therearesimilaritiesin someof the handwritingfeatures.In particular,manyof thetextsarewritteninastylewhichisbetweendbucananddbumed,withaslightly greatertendencytoresembledbumedorcursivehandwritingthandbucan,astylewhichTakeuchihas labelled,thePost-Imperialstyle.46 Generally,thewritingiseasilyreadable,spellingconventionsarenot greatlydissimilar from thoseof later periods(apartfrom knownarchaismssuchasthe dadrag),and evenin thecaseofwhatappeartobeaide-memoiresratherthancopiedtexts,inconsistentorunconventional spellingscanoftenbedeciphered.Inthisrespect,also,the pothiandconcertinatypemanuscripts,manyof whichsuggest well-madeinstitutional productions,farerather better thantheother typesof manuscripts.In thecaseof thetextswehaveexamined - anditshouldbeborneinmindthatthisisonlyasmallsampleof Dunhuangmanuscripts -thescrollswith Tibetan writing haveoftenseemed torepresent moread hocor less carefully composed writings.In fact, rather than being produced as"scrolls",the writingswe have examined45 Foradiscussionandreviewof scholarlyresearchonJiaosiluoasthehistoricalbasisof theGesarmyth,seeGeorgeFitzherbert, 2007:56ff.46 Takeuchiforthcoming,p.2.SamvanSchaikiscurrentlyinvolvedinanalysisof DunhuangTibetanmanuscriptpaleographical features,apreliminaryresultof whichwouldseemtosuggestacommunityof scribesknowntoeachother(Daltonandvan Schaik 2006:xxi).14 IntroductoryChaptershaveoften beensimply re-using the reversesideof earlier madescrollsof Chinese texts.Evenin thecaseof oneof thebookletstylemanuscriptswehavestudied,PT44,someof thepaperhadbeensalvagedfroma previousdocument.Undersuchcircumstances,perhaps,itisnotverysurprisingthatcareandaccuracyin the handwriting,and well-spaced out layout of the text, may not always bea prominent featureof these types of manuscripts.However,of theprincipaltextswediscussinChapters4-10,theonlymanuscriptwhich posed any significant problem due toillegible and fragmented text was PT 349(see Chapter 8).Overall,whenoneconsiderstheageof thematerials,theiraccessibilitytoustodayisamazing.Notonly aretheygenerallyrathereasytoread,butasweshallsee,theircontentsmaybeextremelyfamiliarto studentsof laterTibetantantrictraditions.Asnotedabove,inthecaseof the phur patexts,thereareclear continuitieswiththereceivedrNyingmascripturalandcommentarialheritage.Atthesametime,on occasiontherewereconceptualdifficultiesininterpretingsomepassagesof text.Clearly,whereweknow littleor nothingof thecontextof who wrote the textsand for what audience,where we havelitttleidea of the religiousandculturalmilieuinwhichthetextswerebeingproduced,wedoneedtoexercisecautionin interpretingtextoridentifyingparallelswithtransmittedconceptsandrites.Wethereforemakesome distinction between unmistakablecontinuitiesand more tentativeor possibleconnotations.The uniqueprominenceof thePhur pa traditionin Tibet and theHimalayasraisesan interestingquestion. PhurpaneverbecomeevenremotelysopopularanywhereelseinAsia,sowhydiditinTibet?Inthis chapter,wewish tosuggestsome possiblehypothesesthat might befruitfullytestedinanattempttoanswer thisquestion.TibetanPhurpaliteratureisvast.TheBuddhistcanonicalPhurpatantras,theinnermostcoreofthe tradition,comprisesroughlyseventytextsintheBhutaneseNGBeditions,totallingnearly 4,000pages.The bDud'jomsbKa' mahasforty-eight Phur pa texts,totalling2,692pages.A recentcollectionof Phur pa texts publishedbyZenkarRinpochethatincludesbothbka' maand gtermahasover1,200textsin41volumes, 32,200pagesinall;2 yetthisincludesonlyarepresentativeselectionof thevastgtermaandcommentarial literature.Thelargerof thesurvivingBonbKaf editionshasseventy-eightPhur patexts,and thebKa' brten hasover 350- the bKa' brten Phur pa textsalone filling around10,000 pages.PhurpaspopularityinTibetbeganinearlytimes,andaswecansee,ismoderatelywellrepresentedat Dunhuang.Bythedawnof thegSarmaperiod,Phur pawasalreadyveryprominentwithintheoldTantric lineages,aswe know,for example,from such polemicistsasPho brang Zhi ba od (b.eleventh century), who produceda longlistof Phur pa tantrasof which hedid notapprove(Karmay1998:33).Soon therNying ma pa wenton tobegin toproducethevastquantitiesof Phur patreasuretextsthat remainfamoustothisday -forexample,thoseof Nyangralnyimaiodzer(1136-1204).Becausetheybelievedithadanauthentic Indieorigin,fromthestartPhurpaalsoretainedpopularityamongimportantfollowersofthenew translations:forexample,theKhonhierarchsof SaskyakeptuptheirhereditaryrNyingmapapracticeof Phurpa,andagoodproportionof ourmostvaluableearlyPhurpaliteraturecomesfromsuchSaskyapa sourcesasGrags pa rgyal mtshan (1147-1216).3It wasalsofromaroundthebeginningof thegSarma periodthattheBonpobeganproducingtheirown comprehensivePhur paliterature.Theearliest Bon Phur paseemstohavebeenrevealed byKhu tshazlaod in the11thcentury,although thereisperhapssomefromgShenchenKludga afewyearsearlier.Thereare also less reliableaccountsof Bon Phur pa revelationsin the10th century,allegedly among the textsfound by threeNepaleseyoginsandhandedtomTha bzhinPhrulgsas.ItthereforeseemsthatBonPhurpawasin generalquite well established by thegSar ma period.In addition,variousformsof Phur pa practicesarealso foundamongethnicgroupsacrosstheSouthern Himalayan marginsof Tibet,but thesearebeyond thescope of our presentstudy.Despite this broad popularityacrosssomuchof theTibetan religiousspectrum,Phur paclearly remainsa specificallyrNyingma(andBon)tradition:withoutexception,therootscripturesof theBuddhistPhurpa2W h yd i dt h e P h u rp at r a d i t i o n b e c o m e s o p r o m i n e n ti nT i b e t ? 11 Anearlier versionof thischapter waspresentedat the11thSeminarof theInternational Associationfor TibetanStudiesin2006, andisduetobepublishedinOmaAlmogi(ed.),ContributionstoTibetanBuddhistLiterature.Proceedingsof theEleventh Seminaro ftheInternationalAssociation forTibetanStudies,Knigswinter2006.BeitrgezurZentralasienforschung.Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and BuddhistStudies.2 dPal chen kf layai chos skorphyogs bsgrigs,2002.3 Infact,itseemsthatmuchof thePhurpacyclewhichisincludedinGragspargyalmtshan'sCollectedWorksstemsfromhis father,SachenKundga'snying po(1092-1158).Thecolophontotheimportantcommentary,therDorje phur pa'imngon par rtogs pa reads:"The Realisationof Vajrakflaya has been transmitted from the manuscripts of Bla-maSa-chen."(/rdo rje phur pa'i mngon par rtogspa bla masa chengyiphyagdpelasbrgyud pa yinno// p. 182;367v.l[=13v.lin theseparate paginationof this groupof texts]).Apparently,thistext wasincludedin theRecord of MuschenSangsrgyasrgyalmtshan(1542-1618)asa work of Sachen(Jan-UlrichSobisch2007:57-8;seealso67-8,160).Thereisa noteat theendof thelistof contentsof thePhur pa cycleinthemodemeditionof Gragspargyalmtshan'sCollectedWorks,xii,afteritem105,whichalsosuggeststhattheprose textswerecomposed bySa chen,buteditedand brought togetherin theone placeinGrags pargyalmtshan'scollection(gong gi tshiglhug pa 'di/ sa chen gyismdzad pa yinna'ang'dir glegs bam kha lngs pa'iched du phur pa'isgrubskor mams/ phyogsgcig tu bsdebste bris pa mams bzhugsso/).16 Introductory ChapterstraditionarerNying ma.A tinysampleareincluded within therNying rgyud sectionsof thebKaf1gyurs,but the vast bulk exist only within the NGB,or within the gter maliterature.Thus theSa skya pa version of Phur paislittledifferentfrom therNyingma pa,and theSaskya paPhur pacommentariesdependonexactlythe samesourcetantrasastherNyingmapa- namely,themajorNGBPhurpatantras- eventhoughthereis possibleevidencethat thesemight haveincludedsomeof theverytextscriticisedbyPhobrangZhiba'od.4The bKabrgyud paschools have tended to borrow rNyingma pa Phur palineages,rather than preserve their own as theKhon lineage have done.Thehugeprominenceof Phur painTibetisinstarkcontrasttoitsverymodestprofileinotherBuddhist cultures.Ritualsusingphurpaswerewell-establishedinIndianBuddhisttantra,butwedonotfinda developed Phur pa herukacycle withany kindof prominence,anditisquitelikely that the majorityof NGB Phur pa tantras were redacted in Tibet.Asa result,a broad consensusemerged in1970's Western Tibetology that Phur pa wassomething largelyindigenous toTibet,with nosignificant Indian antecedents.Infact,some earlygSar ma paauthors,whileconvinced that theklla traditionitself wasIndian,haddoubted that manyof itsparticulartantricscriptureswereof unadulteratedlyIndieorigins,sothatinitiallynonewereadmittedto themainbodyof thebKaf'gyurexceptasmallfragmenteditedbySaskyaPandita(1182-1251).Perhaps influencedbythisprecedent,R.A.Steinleapttothefalseconclusionthatthe phur paimplementwasan indigenousdevice upon which Tibetans had projected Indianconceptualinterpretations;others,such asJohn HuntingtonandKeithDowman,broadlyagreedwithhimatfirst(Stein1971-2:499;Huntington1975:vii; Dowman1984:302).With time, theseideas have had to beadjusted.Inhisgraduatestudiesinthelate1980's,Mayerpointedoutthegreatwealthofevidenceforkllas throughoutSouth Asian civilisation.Thisincludedasignificant quantity of evidencefrom Theravadasources (Mayer1991),sincethehugelypopularTheravadaprotectiveritesknownasparittagivesuchgreat prominencetothekila,forwhichtheyusuallyusethePalitermindakhila(indrakila),meaningthegod Indra'skila.5 Inherwell-knownmonographstudyoftheparittaceremony,LilydeSilva(1981:57-79) dedicatesanentiresectiontotheindrakila,whichsuccinctlysumsupTheravadascholarship'sviewof the indrakilainthefollowingpoints:(i)theindrakilaisderivedfromandidentifiedwiththeancientVedic sacrificialstakeor yupa(pp.68-73)(ii)theindrakilaisidentifiedwiththecosmicMountMeruorMount Mandara(pp.64-68)(iii) theindrakila representsthecosmicaxisand the pathway between heavenandearth (p.72)(iv)theindrakilarepresentsimmovablestabilityandorder(pp.61-65)(v)indrakilasareusedto createaninviolablemagicalboundaryaroundimportantspaces(pp.63-66)(vi)indrakilasrepresentroyal authority(p.64)(vii)indrakilascan beinhabited bydeitiesandworshipped(p.66)(viii)sacrifice,including humansacrifice,can be associated with them (p.66).ButinadditiontothosesourcesthatdeSilvafoundrelevanttotheTheravadaheritage,ahugewealthof further referencesalso existsin South Asian tantric, puranic,and other sources.While thesourcescited by de SilvahavesomeiconographicsimilaritytoTibetan phur pas(suchastheeightfacettedshaft,aroundtop part,andclearlydividedtopandbottomhalvesofequallength),someoftheothersourcesarenot infrequentlyiconographicallyclosertoorevenidenticalwithTibetan phur pas.Togivejustoneamong numerousexamples,theManasaraSilpasastra,oneof themostfamousof theSilpasastras(classicIndian textsonarchitectureandrelateddisciplines),describesthestupikila,aceremonialkilaoftenusedasafinial onreligiousbuildings,asfollows:"Thelength(i.e.body)ofthekilaisstatedtobetriangular,thebase square,themiddlepartoctagonalandthetopcircular.Thewidthof thekilashouldbeoneahgula,andit4 Forexample,thetitlePhur buMyanganlas'das paoccursbothinPhobrangZhiba'od'sbka' shog(Karmay1980:18),andis referredtoinSaskyaPhurpacommentaries,suchastheextensiveandinfluentialcommentaryof('Jammgon)AmyesZhabs (1597-1659)(21.7;24.4).5 AsdeSilvapointsout(1981:57;68),whileindakhilaisbyfarthemostusualdesignation,therearealsoothertermsless frequentlyused,includingtheSinhalakapagaha(apparentlyequivalenttothePaliekatthambha),andrajagaha,whichshe believesmost probably has the meaning of'Royal Tree',although'Royal House"is also possible.Why did the Phur pa tradition becomeso prominent in Tibet? 17tapersgraduallyfrom basetotop.6 Notonlydotheclassiciconographicaldefinitionsof Manasaraspecify atriangularklla,butsodofamousSaivatantrictextssuchastheIsanasivagurudevapaddhati,andthe TantrasarasamgrahaofNarayana(Goudriaan1978:263,374ff).7 Sincethen,Huntingtonandotherart historianshavecataloguedsurvivingBuddhistHeruka Vajrakllas,perhapsbasedon theGuhyasamajatantra, found asfar afield as Hugh,in West Bengal,and Yogyakarta,in Java.8Thesedays,whilefewdoubtitsIndieorigins,wedosurmiseVajraklla'sritualprofilewasdifferentin India thanin Tibet.The presentconsensusis thatin Indian Buddhism (asin East AsianBuddhism),Klla was moreoftenasubsidiaryritualelementwithinotherTantriccycles,andcomparativelylessprominentasan independentdeitycycle.InTibet,bycontrast,Phurpabecameequallyprominentasacomponentof other cyclesand asa very major largely Mahayoga deity cyclein itsown right.Clearly,there wassomethingabout Phur pa that foundaspecial resonanceamongTibetan and Himalayan societies.Inthischapter,wereflectsomewhattentativelyonpossibleculturalandsocialfactorsthatmight account for early Tibets historicenthusiasm for the phur pa traditions.Cultural Affinities[1]Ourfirsthypothesisconcernsthethemeof bloodsacrifice.Asweshalldiscussbelow,webelieve bloodsacrifice,andperhapseveninsomeinstanceshumansacrifice,wasamajoraspectof pre-Buddhist religioninTibet;inthiscontext,itmightwellbesignificantthatbyfarthemoststrikingfeatureof the MahayogaPhurparitualisitsgraphicsymbolicre-enactmentof asacrificialbloodoffering.Whilemany Buddhisttantrascontainsomesacrificialimagery,Phurpaactuallytakesafull-scalesimulatedsacrificial offeringof avictimtotheThreeJewelsasitscentralritual(Cantwell1997;Mayer1998).Theimageryin thedeityvisualisationsdrawsrepeatedlyuponthesacrificialtheme,andthisisbroughtoutfurtherinthe phur pariteof sgrolba.Thebasicprocedureisusuallytomakeananthropomorphiceffigyorlihgaof a sacrificialvictimoutof dough,andsymbolicallytokill andmakeasacrificialofferingof ittotheThree Jewelsbyuseof the phur pa,therebytransferringorliberating'itsconsciousnesstoahigherspirituallevel (seeabove,Ch.lp.6-9).Symbolically,theanthropomorphiceffigymaybepersonifiedasthedemonRudra, whorepresentsself-clingingasthesourceofallotherspiritualobstacles,sothattransferringtheeffigy's mindtoahigherrealmrepresentsliberatingone'sown- andothers'- ignorantfixationsintoprimordial wisdom.Thelargeweightof evidenceforitfromDunhuangmightsuggestthatinthetenthcentury,this sacrificialritewasatleastasprominentasitisnow.9 Called'LiberativeKilling',sgrolbainTibetan,the Indieversionsareoftenreferredtoinwordsrelatedtothecentraltermmoksa:forexample,asweshallsee6 See Manasara, viii,147-9;P.K.Acharya, Architecture o fManasara,Oxford,1933,205ff.Cited in Mayer1991:169.7 Yetit isof interest that thesetwotextshavebothapparentlyincorporatedsignificant Buddhistelements.SeeGudrunBuhneman 1999:303-304.8 SeeHuntingtonArchiveathttp://huntingtonarchive.osu.edu/,andsearchforVajrakila.Oneimageshowsastonesculpturethat conformswith theGuhyasamajaiconography for the Heruka Vajrakila.The entry is asfollows:"Name:Hugli:Monument:sculptureo f Vajrakila;Iconography:Vajrakila;Date:ca.eighthcenturyCE,701CE- 800CE; Material:grey stone;Dimensions:H - ca.25.00in;Current Location:AshutoshMuseum,Calcutta,West Bengal,India;Photo Copyright Holder:Huntington,JohnC.and Susan L.;PhotoYear:1969;Scan Number:0005993."Elsewhereinthesamecatalogue(asaccessed26April,2005),HuntingtonhaswrittenasanintroductiontotheTibetanPhur pa deity:"Vajrakumara,"YoungerVajra"istheembodimentofaritualimplementof greatantiquity.Duringtheperiodof the Brahmanas(abodyof ritualliteraturedating between1200and 800B.C.E.)the priests"cast" kflasliterally"pegs"inorderto controlweatherandevil forces.JustwhenthesetoolscameintotheBuddhisttechniquesof benefactionisunclear,butbythe seventhor eighthcentury anarray of techniquesincluding the personification,Vajrakumara,had beenincorporated intoTantric techniques."IainSinclairhasalsosentusaphotographof averyfinelydetailedherukaVajrakilafoundnearYogyakartathatalsoclosely conformswiththeGuhyasmajaiconography,andthesculpturefromHugli.SinclairestimatesthisJavaneseklladatesfrom somewhere between the eighth and twelfth centuries(personal communications,17thFebruary,2004 and 9thAugust,2007).9 As weshow in the following chapter.18 Introductory Chaptersshortlybelow,theNetratantra(..mocayantica..and...moksana...)andKsemaraja(..mukti...)usesuchterms (Halbfass1991:101,123);similarlytheVTnasikhatantratalksofmoksabeingachievedbythe anthropomorphiceffigyor linga beingslain throughstabbing with a kila(Goudriaan (1985:277-78);and the TibetantranslatorsofBhavivekatranslatedthetermfortheIndianritualschoolspecialisinginsuch practices,thenotoriousSamsaramocakas,withtheterm'khorbasgrolbyed pa(Halbfassp.100).10 In rNyingmapapractice,sgrolbacomprisesonehalf of thefamouspairof Mahayogarites,whencombined together with thesexual riteo f Union',sbyor ba.Thenotionof suchritualliberationisundoubtedlyIndianinoriginanddraws onIndian sacrificialritualcategoriesinconsiderabledetail.Forexample,intheSaiva Netratantra,andAbhinavagupta'scommentary onitinhisTantraloka,ritualkillingisseenashelpingthevictims(anugraha,whereKsemarajaglosses anugrahaasmukti),byreleasingthevictimfromtheirsins,worldlyfetters,andstains(papa,pasa,and mala).ThustheseSaivacommentatorsbelievethatsuchkillingisinaccordwithnon-violenceorahimsa, andthatitconstitutesavirtuousandbenevolentactof 'liberation'(moksana),whichisnotatallthesame thingasordinarykillingor harming(marana).uFrom Vedictimesonwards,it hasbeenaconstantthemein Indian bloodsacrificethat thevictim'sconsciousnessissent toa higher realm;hencetosacrificea victim to thegods was(and remains)equivalent to bestowingon the victim a kind of forcibleor involuntaryliberation or moksa.Whilethevast bulkof sacrificialvictimsareand usuallyhavebeenanimals,Halbfassmakesthe furtherinterestingpointthattherewasfromthesixthcenturyonwardsanextensiveIndian,oftenJaina polemicagainstliteralisticinterpretationsof moksanaorliberativekillingaspractiseduponunsuspecting specifically human victims.A major targetof these polemicswastheheterodoxschoolof Samsaramocakas, whosenamewouldsuggestthatsuchliberativekillingwastheirmainfocus.Criticismofthe SamsaramocakasoccurinBuddhist,JainandHindusources,andeveninTibetanscholasticismvia translationsof Bhaviveka'sworks.Halbfassraisesthepossibility that theSamsaramocakasmight never have reallyexisted,butmightinsteadhavebeenanotionalschool,originallyconfabulatedfromanIranian example,which wassometimes used for philosophical writingand debateasanillustrative negativeexample (Halbfass1991:100ff.)Itisnotcleartousifanyonehasyetexploredwhatbearing,ifany,the Samsaramocakadebatemight havehadon thesocialreceptionof theBuddhist ritesof 'liberativekilling';or onthepolemicalreferencestosgrol bainTibetin theearly gSar maperiod.Whatisclear,however,isthat theprincipleofsacrificialritualkillingor'liberation'ofbothanimaland humanvictims,inwhichtheirconsciousness wassent toa higher realm,wasdeeply entrenched in India.'Liberativekilling'alsohadamajorroletoplayintheall-importanttaskof controllingevilnon-human spirits.Especiallyafter theriseof devotionalreligion withitsstresson universalsalvation,afundamentally10 Languageasusedinreallife,especiallyarcanetechnicalterminology,mustalwaysbedifferentiatedfromlanguageasgivenin standarddictionaries.SomemightobjectthatthevariousIndiancognatesandvariantsrelatedtomoksashouldproperlyonly translateintotheTibetanthar pa\andthatsgrolbamustneedsbeatranslationof tdranaorsuchlike.Bethatasitmay,the probablyoncequitevariedIndiantermsrelatedtomoksathat wereusedinthespecificsenseofritualsof sacrificialliberation, for whatever reason,simplyhad becomeassociated withtheTibetanword sgrolbabythetenthcentury,howeverincorrectthat mightappeartosomecontemporarystrictlylexicographicalanalysis.Yetthemeaningsof thetermsmoksaand sgrolbaarenot after all unrelated,so wedo not reallyfind thisaltogethersurprising.Weshould add,theintellectually naverush to'correct'the SanskritfoundintantricandotherBuddhisttextsisoftensomewhatquestionable,sinceitiswellknownthattheoriginalswere veryoftennotinclassicalSanskritinthefirstplace.Forthatreason,wehaveelsewherepreferredtousetheverywell-known centralsemantictermmoksaastheeasiestIndiewordtoconveythebroadergistof theriteof sgrolbatoageneralWestern audience.ThetermmoksanaisperhapsmoreclassicallySanskriticallyexacthowever,sowecanperhapsusethat termhere,so long asour readers remember not to reify it into a 'correct'term.11 Halbfass1991:101 ff.ThisapologeticiscloselymirroredinTibetanPhurpatextsonsgrolba.Oneof themostfamousand ubiquitousversewithinPhur pa sgrol baliteraturestatesthat"thesamayafor killing(and)liberatingthroughcompassion,isnot really to killor suppress;(it is)to meditateon the essential vajra nature(of the)skandhas,and onconsciousnessas vajra"(snying rjes bsgral ba'idam tshig ni/ bsad cing mnan pa nyid min te/ phung po rdo rje'i bdag nyid de/ mam par shes pa rdo rjer bsgom/.In otherwords,sgrolbaliberatesthevictimfromallsamsaricdelusion,sothattheyrealisethe'vajranature'.SeeCantwell1997: 115.Why did the Phur pa tradition becomeso prominentin Tibet? 19exorcisticmodelcametobebuiltintothissacrificialtheme,whichmighthavebeenveryimportantforthe popularisationof Tibetan phur parites,aswediscussbelow.HiltebeitelandBiardeau(Hiltebeitel1989:1) haveneatlydescribedtherecurringthemeinIndianreligionswherethegodsconvertdemonsintotheir devotees,asservantswithaspecificallyprotectiverole,throughtheprocessof firstkillingthem,andthen resuscitatingthem.Asweshallseein thesecond hypothesis,p.20-22below,thisisexactlywhattherNying maMahayogaversionsof sgrolbaaimtodointheirdetailedandalmostuniversalemploymentofthe tamingof Rudranarrative.Inmanyliturgiesandinnumerousreiterationsof themyth,demonichell-bound Rudraisfirstkilled,andthenresuscitated,uponwhichhedevotedlyoffershimselfastheseatofthe victoriousBuddhist deities,becoming Mahakala(or someother benign Protector),now himself safelyon the path to Buddhahood.TheBuddhistMahayogariteof liberativekilling is,likemanyof theSaivaversions,symbolicrather than actuallysanguinary,andformsa major partof advanced Mahayogasoteriology.Here,asymbolicritual enactmentof thesacrificeof adougheffigyisintendedtoachievetheforcibleliberationof ignoranceinto wisdom.ThePhurpatantrasarewithoutdoubtsgrolba'smostfamouslocusinTibetanBuddhism;while sgrolbaisintegratedintotheextendedritualsofmanyotherrNyingmapadeities,thesestillnormally employa phur patoeffecttheactualsymbolickilling.Atsgrolba'sculmination,thesacrificedeffigyis often dismembered,and in the tshogsor tantricfeast,theeffigy may be divided into portions,and offeredfor consumptionsothatBuddhas,humanyogins,andthelowlyexcludedspiritseachreceivetheirappropriate portion (Cantwell1997:112-116;1989:197-205).MoksanacouldequallybeperformedinHinduIndia,asinBuddhistTibet,byusingakila:totake just oneexample,moksanabystabbingananthropomorphiceffigywithahuman-bonekilaoccursintheSaiva Vinasikhatantra.12Henceit need be nosurprise thatsacrificial meaningsareinscribed in the veryform of the kilaorphurpaandthatthisimplementcarefullyreplicatestheimmemorialiconographyoftheIndian sacrificialstake.13 Infact,overmanyhundredsof years,thekilahasconsistentlybeenidentifiedwiththe yupa,orVedicsacrificialstake.Wearenotsurewhenthishappened,butitwascertainlyveryearly:Pali scholarshavereportedthatatleastbythetimeof theappearanceof thePalicanon,the yupaandindrakila had becomeconflatedasasingleitem(deSilva1978:244-246).AselaboratedinthoseancientVedictexts called Brahmanas,thq yupa,asacentralimplementof Vedicreligion,wasitself deified,and thuscontinued tohaveamanifoldrituallifedownthecenturies.ItisoneamongseveralancientVedicritualdevicesthat evolvedtobecomepartof thecommonritualheritageof muchof Asia.Nowadays,the yupa-kilamotif still continuesindiversereligiouscontexts,includingtemplearchitecture,Theravadaparittaceremonies,and innumerable puranicand tantricrites.Thusitisoriginallyfrom the yupaor Vedicsacrificialstake,andfrom itscomplexexegesesintheBrahmanaliteratures,thattheTibetanphurpaverydistantlyyetquite recognisably inherits thestandardcanonically required features:the upper and lower part of equallength, the eight-facettedcolumn,theknotsattheendsof thecolumn,themakaraheadwithnagas,thefunctionof conveyingsacrificed victims up to higher realms,thedwellingof thehighestdeitiesatitstop,itsconception asacosmicaxis,theabilitytoactasagatekeeper,theabilitytokillenemiesatadistance,anditsthreefold lower shaft when used for killing.All of these distinctivefeaturesof the Tibetan phur pa werefirst specified in the Brahmanas and similar literaturefor thesacrificialstake oryupa.1412 SeeGoudriaan(1985:277-278):mnussthimayamkilamkrtvdtucaturagulam/ksiravrksambhagelikhyaligamvkilayet tatah //sandilas tu bhavet sdhya ardrayogo na samsayah /uddhrtenabhavenmoksamntra kry vicran //13 For a detailed discussion of this,see Mayer1991:170-18214 Mayer1991passim.SomeauthorsdonotdistinguishbetweenthissymbolicallyverycomplexVedic-descendedsacrificial tradition,and another groupof muchsimpler kilathemesfound peripherally innumerousIndian textsof all religions:thesimple non-sacrificialmagicalactsof overpoweringenemieswitha kilakaor peg.TypicallyclassifiedwithinIndianmagicalcategories askilana'piercing'orucctana'eradicating',suchpracticesareespeciallyeffectiveagainstdemonicforcesoropponentsina dispute,butlackthecomplexdistinctivelyVedicsacrificialmotifs.InaccordwithMadeleineBiardeau'slandmarkstudyof the Indiansacrificialpost,weagreethatoverthemillenniaasimplerpegmightbothdivergeandre-merge,terminologicallyand20 Introductory ChaptersWethereforebelieve thatanyanalysisof theintroductionof the kilatoTibet must


Top Related