isaacson - 2009 a collection of hevajrasaadhanas and related works

Ernst Steinkellner, Duan Qing, Helmut Krasser (eds.), Sanskrit manuscripts in China. Proceedings of a panel at the 2008 Beijing Seminar on Tibetan Studies, October 13 to 17. Beijing 2009, pp. 89–136.

A collection of Hevajrasādhanas and related works in Sanskrit

Harunaga Isaacson, Hamburg

For our knowledge and understanding of the history of Indian tantric Buddhism, those works which survive in their original Indic language, usually Sanskrit,1 are of the fi rst importance. One of the most urgent tasks in the study of this subject is to survey this mate-rial, much of which is still unpublished and even uncatalogued. This is not to deny that translations (in the main Chinese or Tibetan) of Indian tantric texts are also of great value (as is, for that matter,

* I am gratefully indebted to Prof. Kazuo Kano (Koyasan University), Prof. Dr. Francesco Sferra (University of Naples “L’Orientale”), Mr. Iain Sinclair (Hamburg University) and Dr. Toru Tomabechi (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien) for reading drafts of this paper and for making helpful comments and suggestions. For help in gaining access to and acquiring copies and digital images of manuscripts used in this pa-per I would like to thank the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitäts-bibliothek, Göttingen; the library of the Royal Asiatic Society, London; Cambridge University Library; Dr. Dominic Goodall; Prof. Kazuo Kano, Dr. Isabelle Onians; and, last but not least, Prof. Dr. Albrecht Wezler and the Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project.

1 In the following I shall often simply refer to ‘Sanskrit (material, manuscripts etc.);’ it should be understood that I do not intend to exclude thereby texts that are partly or wholly written in some form of Middle-Indic. Similarly, although I occasionally use ‘India(n)’ and ‘Nepal(ese)’ contrastingly, when it is not obvious that a contrast is intended ‘Indian’ in this paper should be understood as generally including all of South-Asia, or rather the entire area in which Sanskritic culture was current in the tenth to twelfth centuries of the common era.

90 Harunaga Isaacson

archaeological and other ‘material’ evidence). It is indeed a won-derful thing that we have such translations, and they are of special importance of course when no manuscript of the Indic original has been discovered. Some of these translations have also come to lead a separate life, as it were, and have been signifi cant in their own right for many generations of Buddhists outside of India ‘proper;’ they deserve study not only as evidence for Indian Buddhism but per se, within their Tibetan, Chinese, or other, context. To put them to their best use for the study of Buddhism in India, however, requires thor-ough familiarity with the Sanskrit material, and constant awareness of and sensitivity to the problems inherent in working with transla-tions which are by various hands and of varied quality. It is even no exaggeration to say that a good part of the translated literature can only be read with reasonably accurate, precise, understanding by someone who is constantly aware of the possible phrasing of the Sanskrit original that underlies what he or she reads.2 What is more, in this area as well as in others within the larger fi eld of Indian Buddhist studies,3 it should be remembered that there is an appreci-

2 This is well-known to competent scholars working in various other areas of Buddhist studies, but perhaps less so to many of those who have written on tantric Buddhism, using primarily or exclusively Tibetan ma-terial. For an extreme case of a (poor) Tibetan translation that in many places only can be understood or corrected by a consideration of what Sanskrit reading (or what corruption of a Sanskrit reading) may lie behind it, see Candra kīrti’s Śūnyatā saptati vṛtti, of which the commentary on the fi rst 14 kārikās has been treated with admirable thoroughness by Felix Erb (1997). For an illustration of the importance of taking into account Sanskrit originals, when available, in dealing with Tibetan translations of tantric material see Tomabechi 2000. Wedemeyer 2006 also off ers a few useful refl ections on the problems of dealing with Tibetan translations of Sanskrit Buddhist texts, and calls (on p. 153) for a reassessment of ‘the nature and stature of Tibetan translations, their qualities and limitations.’ 3 To mention but a few instances of non-tantric Buddhist literature that seems to survive only in Sanskrit, in Abhidharma there is the case of the Abhidharma pradīpa and its commentary, which criticize the positions of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharma kośa bhāṣya; and in the fi eld of pramā ṇa śāstra the works of Jñāna śrī mitra, which are known to have been quite infl uential

91A collection of Hevajrasādhanas

able number of works that survive in Sanskrit of which we do not have any Tibetan (nor Chinese) translation at all.4 For this reason too, a student of (the history of) Indian tantric Buddhism should be equipped with a sound knowledge of Sanskrit, and must be able and prepared to read extensively in unpublished material that is at present available only in manuscripts. It may be added that it is clear that such a student would benefi t greatly from being able to take into consideration also Śaiva tantric literature in Sanskrit. This literature has quite evidently been an infl uence on Buddhist tantra, particu-larly in the later stages of the development of Vajrayāna;5 and apart from the question of the direction(s) of infl uence, it is clear that the Śaiva Mantramārga and the Buddhist Mantranaya are closely related and that they can shed mutual light on each other.6

(also on such non-Buddhist writers as his opponent Udayana), do not seem to have been translated. 4 As we shall see, this is the case with many of the texts in the collec-tion with which this article deals. To mention just a few other instances out of many: the commentaries by Mahāsukha vajra pāda on the Caṇḍa-ma hā ro ṣa ṇa tantra (the only one that appears to be extant in any form on this tantra) and by Keli kuliśa on the He vajra tantra (a unique work that comments on the He vajra tantra from the standpoint of the Ārya school of the Guhya samā ja tantra) survive in palm-leaf manuscripts in Sanskrit but do not seem to have been translated. 5 Already twenty years ago attention was drawn to some important evi-dence of direct textual borrowings from early Śaiva tantric literature in tantras of the Śaṃvara-cycle (Sanderson 1985, n. 106). This was expanded on in more recent articles by the same scholar (Sanderson 1994 and es-pecially 2002). A much more wide-ranging discussion of the relationship between Śaiva and Buddhist forms of tantra may be found in Sanderson 2009. 6 I could not express the need for this widening of one’s scholarly scope in this and in other ways better than by quoting from a recent publication of Sanderson: ‘… such breadth is in any case the royal road to success in scholarship. For… the critic… will… commonly fi nd himself confronting problems which only the cultivation of this breadth can equip him to re-cognize and solve. Most importantly, to master texts of this kind, written within a highly complex and multiform world of religious practice and


Of the materials extant in Sanskrit relevant to the Hevajra-cycle, a unique manuscript written (to judge from the script) in Nepal, per-haps in the early fourteenth century,7 that has been preserved in the Tibetan Autonomous Region, is particularly important for the study of the various Indian traditions of the sādhana of this deity or his consort Nairātmyā. The 272 folios8 of this manuscript contain 45 works,9 mainly sādhanas, but also including some stotras and ritual texts. A large proportion of the works seems not to have been trans-lated into Tibetan. Some are known from other surviving Sanskrit manuscripts, but for many this codex is probably the sole source that we have.10

doctrine and written for persons engaged in it, the critic must work to-wards an ever more thorough understanding of that world; and this will lead him from one area of the Tantric tradition to another and will also require him, like the Tantric scholars before him, to have a grounding in the domains that underly and inform the Tantric, such as those of Vaidika observance and hermeneutics in the case of the Śaiva and Pāñcarātrika systems, and of Abhidharma and Vinaya in the case of Tantric Buddhism’ (Sanderson 2002: 2). 7 The estimate of Diwakar Acharya, whom I thank for giving me his experienced judgement of the script of the manuscript. 8 Not counting a covering leaf before f. 1, with notes in Tibetan writ-ten on both sides. As Bandurski points out (1994: 76) there are two lea-ves numbered 136. The fi nal folio is numbered 271; there presumably was originally a 273rd folio, which would have been numbered 272, for the scribe’s concluding colophon is not quite complete. It may have been lost, or perhaps (since there may well have been no more than a few words on it) Sāṅkṛ tyā yana did not trouble to photograph it. 9 The number 42 given in Isaacson 2002a: 461, (and repeated, for in-stance, in Kano 2005: 143 and Sanderson 2009: 237 n. 541), is an error for which I alone am responsible. 10 Information on the existence or non-existence of a Tibetan transla-tion of the works contained in the manuscript, and of other manuscripts of those works, is given in tabular form in the Appendix to this paper. Of sādhanas of Hevajra or Nairātmyā that are extant in Sanskrit but not con-tained within this codex the most signifi cant are Rāhulagupta’s Hevajra-pra kāśa (IASWR MBB I-39, including also an anonymous Saṃ kṣipta-hevajra pū jā vidhi; a modern apograph of this palm-leaf manuscript was


The manuscript was long in the possession of the Ṅor monastery; it is there that it was seen and photographed by Rāhula Sāṅkṛ tyā-yana. Sāṅkṛ tyā yana also provided the fi rst description of the manu-script and its contents.11 The precise location of the manuscript today is not known to me; we may hope that the survey currently being carried out by the Tibetan Academy of Social Sciences may eventu-ally answer this question.12

The negatives that Sāṅkṛ tyā yana made in the course of his ex-peditions to Tibet are now preserved in the Bihar Research Society, Patna. Copies of a number of these negatives, made in the sixties and seventies, were brought to Germany and kept for some years in the Seminar für Indologie und Buddhismuskunde, Göttingen.13 They were subsequently moved from there to the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Göttingen, where the reproductions of the codex I am concerned with have the shelf-mark MS Xc 14/39.

A catalogue of the Göttingen collection by Frank Bandurski was published in 1994. Bandurski’s description of the contents of

owned by Gustav Roth) and an anonymous Dvibhuja heruka sādhana that has been published as Sādhana mālā 245. 11 It will be clear from my description below that Sāṅkṛ tyā yana’s descrip-tion is inadequate in many respects, but this is not something for which one should blame the Indian scholar. It must be remembered that Sāṅkṛ tyā yana had made no particular study of tantric literature, and that he was faced with a large number of manuscripts to be examined and photographed in very little time and under what must have been often demanding conditi-ons. Students of Indian Buddhism owe a great debt to Sāṅkṛ tyā yana for his prodigious labours to discover and publish Sanskrit texts, and more than sixty years after his expeditions many important manuscripts would not be available to scholars at all were it not for the negatives he made. And in making public his notes on the manuscripts he had examined, though no doubt himself conscious that they were likely to contain many errors, he performed a valuable service to generations of future scholars. 12 On the varied fortunes of Sanskrit manuscripts in Tibet in general, and on the history of modern scholarship connected with them, see Stein-kellner 2004, as well as the contributions to this volume. 13 Cf. Bandurski 1994: 12–13.


the manuscript is, however, as far as I can tell wholly dependent on Sāṅkṛ tyā yana’s. None of Sāṅkṛ tyā yana’s errors of commission or omission have been corrected, and some fresh mistakes have crept in, apparently simply due to carelessness in copying the earlier list of titles and authors’ names. Bandurski copies Sāṅkṛ tyā yana’s list of folios on which the individual works end without adding whether the colophons are on the recto or verso of the leaf, information which Sāṅkṛ tyā yana had omitted but which could easily have been sup-plied with access to the copies of the negatives.

Somewhat more useful is the contribution of the compilers of a bibliography of Buddhist tantric texts in Sanskrit (BBK: 304–309); though they did not have access to the manuscript and had to rely on Sāṅkṛ tyā yana’s descriptions they have added some useful notes and suggested possible correspondences with translations in the Ti-betan canon. This publication does not seem to have been known to Bandurski.

The only other account of the contents of the codex that I am aware of was published in an article in Hindi, aiming at surveying the literature related to the Hevajratantra. Its author, Lāl, must have examined (photographs of) the codex directly, and his description is independent of Sāṅkṛ tyā yana’s, and avoids several of the mistakes (of omission and commission) of the earlier lists. Lāl enumerates 39 texts, giving folio numbers of their beginnings and ends (but with-out specifying rectos or versos), and in most cases also providing an author’s name. No attempt has been made to identify Tibetan translations.

A thorough discussion of even a few of the numerous points of interest in these texts, and of their mutual relationships and the light that they throw on the history of the yoginī tantra traditions, would require much further study. Such work must wait for the future. The most basic task of editing and publishing the texts preserved in this codex has begun, and will be continued in the coming years.14

14 Editions of the two sādhanas by Ratnākaraśānti that are items 9 and 21 in the list of contents below have been published in Isaacson 2002a and


Among the works that we have access to through this manuscript, attention should be drawn in particular to that described as no. 18 below. In a way it is out of place here, for it is the only text that is not directly connected with the practice of Hevajra or his con-sort Nairātmyā. But if it was included through error, that error is one for which we may be thankful, for what it in fact is is a brief sādhanopāyikā of Heruka according to the Sarva buddha samāyoga-tantra (also known as Sarva buddha samā yoga ḍākinī jā la śaṃvara-tantra or Śaṃ vara tantra), written by the celebrated Yogatantra15 au-thority Ānandagarbha (see no. 18, p. 112, below). This may well be the most signifi cant work of the Sarva buddha samāyoga literature that has survived in Sanskrit.

My purpose here is simply to give an improved and more detailed description of the contents of the manuscript. This description is an advance on the earlier ones in several respects: it adds no less than fourteen titles which were overlooked by Sāṅkṛtyāyana and are therefore absent in the descriptions that are based on his, while six works were overlooked by Lāl;16 a number of corrections have been made with regard to the titles and the names of authors;17 I have been able to confi rm or disconfi rm some earlier proposals of identifi ca-tions of Tibetan translations and have identifi ed Tibetan translations of several more works (it is likely, however, that more remains to be

2002b. 15 No doubt Ānandagarbha would have reckoned the Sarva buddha samā-yoga tantra as a Yogatantra, not as a Yoginītantra or Yoganiruttara tantra, just as appears to be the case for other early authors such as Vilā sa vajra and Ārya deva. It may be remarked in passing that the term Mahā yoga-tantra with which Ārya deva in the Caryā melā pa ka pra dīpa refers to the Sarva buddha samā yoga tantra (CaMePra p. 466) is one which he appears to use as interchangeable with Yogatantra, not to designate a separate class of scripture. 16 ‘Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al.’ below refers to the lists given in Sāṅkṛ tyā yana 1935, BBK, and Bandurski 1994. 17 There is sometimes a certain arbitrariness in the choice between dif-ferent possible names of works or of their authors.


done in this area); the beginnings and ends of each text have been quoted; and a number of additional notes have been added and pas-sages quoted. It should however be remembered that my description and transcriptions are out of necessity based solely on my perusal of a microfi lm of a copy of Sāṅkṛ tyā yana’s negatives. Though with persistence most of the manuscript can be deciphered from this mi-crofi lm, there still are some substantial portions which remain illeg-ible. It is to be hoped that the manuscript still survives, and if it, or a microfi lm made directly from it, were available, it would no doubt be possible to correct some of my readings. I do not think however that any new texts would be added to the list; even on those folios which are almost completely illegible in the microfi lm it is at least possible to say that there seems to be no colophon.

The additional notes and quotations are selective; I have merely mentioned some points noticed during my reading of the texts that seem to shed some light on the author and his relationship with other works (and hence on problems of chronology). I have not recorded here all of the many quotations (mostly from the He vajra tantra) that are found in the texts of the codex, but have mentioned some that seem unusual.

In the passages quoted from the manuscript I have preserved without standardization the scribe’s orthography in such matters as gemination or degemination of consonants before or after semi-vow-els. Syllables or parts of syllables the reading of which is particularly uncertain are placed within parentheses. Additions and cancellations are indicated by placing the former within plus-signs (+ +) and the latter within angled brackets (⟨ ⟩). The symbol is used to represent any of the small decorative motifs used in the colophons; these range from a simple circle to moderately elaborate fl ower designs.

It will be seen from the quotations that the manuscript is, to use an old catch-phrase of cataloguers, ‘not very correct.’ I have suggest-ed emendations (chiefl y of a very obvious sort) in a number of cases, placing the proposed reading in parentheses after the corrupt words and using the stock phrase ‘sic for;’ in other places I have added a question-mark after a corruption that is less easily repaired.


1 Hevajrasādhanopāyikā by Saroruhapāda (as the author’s name is given in the colophon of the work in this manuscript) or Saroruhavajra(pāda), as he is perhaps more commonly referred to. Rather surprisingly, this work is omitted from Lāl’s list, al-though it is included in those of Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al., and although Sāṅkṛ tyā yana’s description was known to and referred to by Lāl (1999: 36).

Begins: oṃ namo bhagavate śrīhevajrāya || śrīhevajraṃ na-mas kṛtya nairātmyāñ cāpi bhaktitaḥ | tatsādhanavidhiṃ vakṣye vajrā cā rya pra sā da taḥ || (f. 1v1). Ends: sādhanopāyikāṃ kṛtvā śrīhevajrasya durlabhāṃ | yan mayopārjjitaṃ śubhaṃ18 puṇyaṃ tena loko stu vajradhṛk || ⊗ || śrī hevajrasya sādha nopā yikā sam-āp tāṃ (sic for samāptā) || kṛtir ācāryasaroruhapādānām iti || ⊗ || (f. 8r4–5).

This sādhana is an important one in the history of the Hevajra-cycle, and it is a logical choice on the part of the compiler of the collection to put it at the head. Note that in the compilation of the Tibetan canon the same decision has been made; in both the Peking and Derge editions of the bstan ’gyur this is placed fi rst among the sādhanas associated with the Hevajra tantra.

No other complete Sanskrit manuscript of the text is available to me, but I have identifi ed one leaf of another palm-leaf manuscript among the incomplete materials now bundled together as Kaiser Library MS 139 [= NGMPP C 14/6] under the title Vajra yoginī-sādhana mālā. A considerable number of Sanskrit manuscripts survive of a commentary on this sādhana by one Suratapāda or Suratavajra.19 An edition of Saroruhapāda’s important work

18 It is not quite clear whether the word śubhaṃ has been cancelled (as it should be) or not. 19 One palm-leaf manuscript was seen and photographed by Sāṅkṛ tyā-yana in Ṅor monastery; copies of his negatives are now preserved in the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Göttingen, shelved as Xc 14/38 (see Bandurski 1994: 75, describing the text after Sāṅkṛ tyā yana as ‘Hevajra ṭippaṇa von Saroruhavajra’). For lists of several other manu-scripts, mainly recent and on paper, see BBK: 295–296 (Hevajra ṭippaṇī)


has recently been published in Dhīḥ 36, apparently based solely on a copy owned by Ṭhākursen Negī of a Nepalese MS titled Sādhanasaṃgraha. The text-quality of the edition is unfortu-nately not good; we must hope that a new edition, making use also of this Ṅor codex, will be prepared.

Tibetan translation: Tōhoku 1218, Ōtani 2347.

2 Hevajrākhya by Advayavajra. Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al. give the title of the work as Hevajrākhyayuganaddha, and Lāl as Hevajrākhye yuganaddhakramaḥ, but here yuganaddha is (part of) the name of the last section of the text. Sāṅkṛ tyā yana seems to have mis-takenly taken this text to be the Yuga naddha pra kāśa that has been published in the Advaya vajra saṃ graha.20

Begins: oṃ namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || evaṃkārasamāsīnañ catur-ānan dajaṃ vibhum | ādimadhyāntanirmmuktan tam vande va-jra dhā riṇaṃ || (f. 8r5–6).21 Ends: vara toyā nadī tīre vindhyā ko-ra sārapūrikā(?) | jāto smi māthure kule (sic contra metrum, for kūle?) so haṃ [f. 22v] maitreyasaṃjñakaḥ || iti śrīhevajrākhye yu-ga naddha kramaḥ || 35 || kṛtiyam (sic for kṛtir iyam) adva ya vajra-pādānām || (f. 22r7–22v1). After this there is an insertion mark and a two-line marginal addition can be found which is largely illegible to me; the parts that I can read are consistent with the

and 299 (Vajra pra dīpā); Moriguchi 1989, 146 (613 Heva jra tantra ṭippa ṇī and 616 Hevajra sā dha na ṭi ppaṇī). As far as I have been able to determine, all manuscripts that are listed as ‘Hevajra(tantra)ṭippaṇī (by Saroruhava-jra)’ are in fact of this ṭippaṇī on Saroruha’s sādhana, not of Saroruha’s commentary on the He vajra tantra, the Padminī (Tōhoku 1181, Ōtani 2311). To my knowledge no manuscript of that commentary survives. 20 Sāṅkṛ tyā yana’s assertion (1935: 38 n. 2), repeated/copied by Bandur-ski, that a Tibetan translation exists, is based on this wrong identifi cation. 21 This opening verse is almost identical with that of Garbha pāda’s Heruka sādhana (no. 14 below). See p. 110 below. Note that Ōtani 2398 (*Dvi bhu ja he vajra sā dha na, no author given) apparently starts with the same verse.


transcription given in Sāṅkṛ tyā yana 1935: 38 n. 2.22

There are the following intermediate colophons: iti śrī hevajrā-khye kāya vi vekaḥ prathama (sic for prathamaḥ) pari cchedaḥ sam āptaḥ || ⊗53 || || (f. 15v1–2); iti śrīhevajrākhye vāgviveko dvi-tīyaḥ paricchedaḥ || ⊗ || (f. 17v6); iti śrī hevajrākhye citta vi vekas tṛtīyaḥ pari cche daḥ || (2)7 || (f. 19r1–2); iti hevajrākhye sarvva-śuddhikramaś caturthaḥ paricchedaḥ || 43 || (f. 20v6–7).

The author, famous as a siddha, is credited with the authorship of many works, some of which have been published in Sanskrit under the collective name Advaya vajra saṃgraha. In Tibetan historiographical/hagiographical literature (and therefore also in modern secondary literature) he is often called Maitrīpa or Maitrīgupta. In texts written in and surviving in Sanskrit, his other name is more commonly given as Maitreya; the fi nal verse of this text (quoted above) has this form, and in the commentary by Rāmapāla (supposed to have been this master’s principal pu-pil) on Advaya vajra’s Sekanirdeśa (also known as Seka nirṇaya) the author is called Maitreya nātha.23 If the attribution to Advaya-vajra is genuine, and the fi nal verses are not interpolated, we have in them a rather rare scrap of autobiographical information.

As the titles of the chapters of the work indicate, we fi nd in it a structure of fi ve stages of practice that is rare, though not unique, in the Hevajra-system. The infl uence of the Ārya school of Guhya samā ja is evident here. The set of fi ve kramas taught here

22 Sāṅkṛ tyā yana’s transcription runs thus: ‘yasya prasādakiraṇaiḥ sphu-ri tātmatattvaratnaprabhāḥ pariku (sic?) prahatāndhakāraḥ | yasya (sic) anāviladṛśaḥ svavilāsam uccaiḥ tasmaiḥ (sic) namaḥ kṛtir iyaṃ guru bhās-karasya.’ Sāṅkṛ tyā yana’s assertion that this verse was inserted by Vajra-pāṇi, the translator (of the Yuganaddhaprakāśa, with which Sāṅkṛtyā yana wrongly identifi ed this work), is as far as I can see without basis. 23 After the initial verses, Rāmapāla’s commentary commences ihāyaṃ ma hā paṇḍitā va dhū ta śrī man mai tre ya nāthaḥ kriyā caryā yoga yogo ttara-yo ga niru ttara tantreṣv anutta ra guruḥ… (SeNiPa f. 1v3). A critical edition and annotated English translation of Rāmapāla’s commentary is under preparation by Francesco Sferra and the present author.


does not however agree precisely with any of the slightly diff er-ent structures that are commonly taught in the Ārya school.24

I have not been able to identify a Tibetan translation of this work. It is diff erent from Tōhoku 1243 = Ōtani 2372 (*Hevajra-nāma-sādhana by Avadhūtī-pa gñis med rdo rje); the only other Hevajrasādhana attributed to Advayavajra in the Tōhoku and Ōtani catalogues corresponds to no. 7 below.

3 Hevajratattvavikāśa by Divākaracandra.

Begins: namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || saha jā na ndai ka ra sā ya na(ṃ) vī-ra vi śu ddha cittaṃ | sama ya ca krā di ga ma nena buddha vi śu ddha -dehaṃ (?)25 | vara guhya śrī kama la ma dhya maṇḍa la cakra nāthaṃ amalaṃ vande guruvarā (sic for guruvaraṃ) sadā śirasā nate-na || (f. 22v1–2). Ends: pañcamudrā kulī khyātā anenaiva lakṣa-yet | bhedena lakṣayed dhātu svasva bījena codayet | codanā ⏓ gamiṣyat (sic for gamiṣyanti) sarvva siddhi pra dā yi kā (sic for sarva siddhi pra dā yikāḥ) | sandhyā bhā ṣa (sic for sandhyā bhā-ṣaṃ) vadanti te he va jre ṇa yathā coditā || || iti hevajra tatva vikā-śe ho ma vidhi gaṇa cakra bho jana nirddeśaḥ aṣṭ amaḥ samāptaḥ || ⊗ || kṛtir ācārya divākara candra pādānam iti (f. 47r5–7). There are the following intermediate colophons: iti hevajra ta tva vikāśe abhi sama ya sādhana utpa tti krama nirdeśaḥ prathamaḥ || ⊗ || (f. 27v3); iti hevajra tatva vi kā śe saṃ vṛtti vivṛtti-ava tā ra samaya-ra kṣa ṇā dvaya siddhi nirddeśo nāma dvitīyaḥ || ⊗ || (f. 28v6); iti hevajra tatva vikāśe adhyātma sam varaṇa bheda nibandha nir de-śas tṛtīyaḥ || ⊗ || (f. 29v4–5); iti tatvavikāśe evammayā(sthā)na-gu hya samva ra bhe da nirdeśaś caturthaḥ || ⊗ || (f. 35r5–6); iti śrī-hevajra tatva vi kā śe abhi ṣeka nirddeśaḥ pañamaḥ || ⊗ || (f. 38v6); iti vajra tatva vi kāśe (sic for hevajra tattva vikāśe) cchommā paṭ alaḥ

24 For a very brief discussion of the diff erences on this point within the Ārya school see the remarks in Tomabechi 1996: xii–xiv. A fuller discus-sion is given in the same author’s as yet unpublished doctoral dissertation (Tomabechi 2006: 27–36). 25 The text of both the fi rst two pādas is metrically bad, and I see no way to improve the metre without heavy and very speculative emendation.


ṣaṣṭ hamaḥ || || (f. 42r3); iti hevajra tatva vi kā śe caryā bhā vanā-sandhyā dhiṣṭ hāna sandhyābhāso nāmaḥ (sic for °bhāṣā nāma?) saptamaḥ (f. 43v4–5).

Divākaracandra is the author of no less than six texts in this collection. None of them appears to have been translated into Tibetan; however a Śrī heruka bhūta nāma maṇḍalopāyikā at-tributed to one Ñin mo’i ’byuṅ gnas zla ba’i źabs (*Divākara-candra pāda) and included among the works related to Hevajra in the Tanjur may be by the same author. He is evidently later than Ratnā ka ra śānti, to whom he refers (see p. 102 below); if the Śānta bhadra whom he mentions as his teacher (see p. 109 below) should happen to be identical with Śāntibhadra (we may have a scribal error here in our MS), who according to the Deb ther sṅon po (Blue Book, or, as it is more commonly referred to in secondary literature, Blue Annals)26 studied with Ratnā ka ra śānti and later, in Nepal, taught Sanskrit to the Tibetans ’Brog-mi and sTag lo gŹon nu brtson ’grus (Deb ther sṅon po 185; Roerich 1949: 205),27 Divākaracandra might be assigned to the second half of the eleventh century.28 It is somewhat uncertain whether he should be identifi ed with ‘Devākara candra’ (an odd sound-ing name, which it is extremely tempting to see as a corruption of Divākaracandra), which according to Tibetan sources such as the Deb ther sṅon po and Tāranātha was another name of sToṅ ñid tiṅ ’dzin (*Śūnyatā samādhi, conceivably the Śūnya samā dhi-vajra who wrote no. 32 below), one of the four principal disciples

26 It is likely, as van der Kuijp has shown (van der Kuijp 2006), that the Deb ther sṅon po was compiled by disciples of ’Gos Lo tsā ba working under his supervision, and that it was not completed before his death. 27 For a discussion of the fi gure Śāntibhadra see Lo Bue 1997: 639–642; Lo Bue concludes that the various references to a Śāntibhadra, sometimes referred to as hailing from Rājagṛha and sometimes as a Newar scholar, all may refer to one individual, born in India but later living in the Kathmandu Valley. 28 See also the discussion of the date of ‘Devākaracandra’ in Sakuma 2006, in which ‘ca. A.D. 1030–1130’ is arrived at.


of Advayavajra/Maitrīpa (see on this ‘Devā kara candra’ espe-cially Deb ther sṅon po 344–347, Roerich 1949: 392–394; Tatz 1987: 710; Lo Bue 1997: 637–638; Sakuma 2006). The Deb ther sṅon po gives details of other teachers of this ‘Devā kara candra’ (reported as having been born in Nepal and having studied fi rst in India and later in Nepal), but no Śānta bhadra or Śāntibhadra is mentioned as one of these, nor has any such connection between ‘Devākaracandra’ and Śāntibhadra/Śāntabhadra been reported, to my knowledge, in any other source.

Tibetan translation: none identifi ed.

4 Jñānapradīpābhidhāna Hevajrasādhana by Divākaracandra.

Begins: namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || brahmā brahmāṇḍasaṃsthaḥ sa-pu ra[f. 47v]pa ri ka raḥ kramyate yasya nādaiḥ (sic for pādaiḥ) śeṣo śeṣorageśaś caraṇabharaṇatorvā (sic for cara ṇa bha ra na-torvīṃ?) kathaṃcid bibhartti | hastai (sic for hastair) hasty ādi-bhāṇḍa gra ha ṇa guru ta rair bhāti satpadmava (sic for satpadma-vat) khe tadvat sat tāṇḍavaṃ vaḥ | pradisatu (sic for pradiśatu) viha san herukaḥ sanmasoggraṃ (?) (f. 47r7–47v2). Ends: kṛtvā jñānapradīpaṃ jina hṛ daya hṛdaḥ sādhanaṃ herukasya prā-dur bhūtaṃ viśuddhaṃ kuśalaṃm (sic for °lam) agha haraṃ yan mayot patti bhā jaḥ | tena kleśān vihāya vrajatu gajagad (sic for jagad) idaṃ heru+ka+tvaṃ mahīyo bhūyāsaṃ sa ca śāstā (sic for sarva śāstā?) saka la gu ṇa nidhir heruko ’hañ ca śī(gra)ghram iti || sam āptam idaṃ jñā na pra dī pā bhi dhā naṃ śrī he va jra[f. 61v]sā dha naṃ || ⊗ || kṛtir iyaṃ mahā pa ṇḍi tā cārya di vākara candra-pā dā nāṃ || ⊗ || (f. 61r6–61v1).

The author refers to Ratnā ka ra śānti as authority for the prac-tice that he teaches: śrī ratnā kara śānti pādāmataṃ (sic29) vakṣye sphuṭ a (sic for sphuṭ aṃ) sādhanam (f. 47v3).


29 A straightforward emendation to °pādamataṃ leaves the pāda (Śārdū-la vi krī ḍita metre) a syllable too short.


5 Cihnaviśuddhi by Divākaracandra. Sāṅkṛ tyā yana misread the title as Citta viśuddhi, which is repeated by Bandurski and in BBK. The title is given correctly by Lāl.

Begins: oṃ namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || jñānapradīpe devīnāṃ cih-na viśuddhir (sic, unmetrically, for cihnaśuddhir?) udāhṛtā | yathātatvaṃ krameṇaiva nairuktavidhinā mayā || (f. 61v1–2). Ends: iti cihnaviśuddhiḥ || vidhāya saccihnaviśuddhim agrāṃ devī gaṇāṃ (sic for devī gaṇā nāṃ) paramārtha rūpāṃ | puṇyaṃ samudbhūtam atīva śuddhaṃ yan me jagat tena jino ’stu śīghram iti || samāpteyañ cihnaviśuddhir iti || kṛtir iyam mahā paṇḍi tā-cārya śrī di vā kara candra pā dā nām iti || ⊗ || (f. 62v5–6).


A brief text giving viśuddhis of the ‘signs,’ that is the emblems held by the deities of the maṇḍala. Divā kara candra frequently employs the techniques of nirukti to support his viśuddhis, which are not by any means all standard ones.

6 Balividhi by Divākaracandra.

Begins: oṃ namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || natvā śrīherukaṃ mūrddhnā jinahṛ da hṛ dayaṃ (sic for jina hṛd dhṛdayaṃ?) vibhum || vakṣye vi-ghno paśāntyartham balim iṣṭ ārthasiddhadaṃ || (sic for °sid dhi-dam) (f. 62v6–7). Ends: kṛtvā balividhin divyaṃ hevajre yac chu-bham mayā | bhūyāsu (sic for bhūtāt tena?) jagat sarvaṃ śāstā śrī he ru ka prabhur iti || ⊗ || samāpto yaṃ śrī he va jrasya bali vidhi (sic for balividhir) vyākhyā tantrānusārata[f. 65r]ḥ || kṛtir iyaṃ ma hā paṇḍi tā cārya śrī divā kara candra pā dānām || (f. 64v7–65r1).


7 Śrīhevajraviśuddhinidhisādhana by Avadhūtipāda/Advayavajra. See BBK: 300.

Begins: namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || ṣoḍaśa+bhuja+m aṣṭ āsyaṃ hūṃ-jaṃ gauryā di veṣṭi tam | pādā krānta catumāra (sic for pādā krān-ta ca tur māraṃ) nairātmyā śliṣṭ a ka ndharaṃ || caturvviṃ śati ne-trā ḍhyaṃ śatārddha muṇḍa mālinaṃ | pañca mudrā dharan nīlan


natvā tat sā dha naṃ brūve (sic for bruve) || (f. 65r1–2). Ends: śrīmaddherukasādhanaṃ suviṣadaṃ śrī ratna devyāḥ kṛte sāṅ-go pāṅgam idaṃ viśuddhi nidhir ity ākhyā sa ma(grī)kṛtaṃ | kṛtvā puṇ yam upārjitaṃ khalu mayā yat tena duḥkhaṃ vinā || ye trai-lokya gatā janā laghu mahā mudrā padaṃ yāntu te || kṛtir iyaṃ ma hā paṇḍitā va dhū ta śrīmad advaya vajra pādānāṃ || grantha-pra mā ṇam asya saptatyādhikaṃ triśataṃ || śrīhe va jra vi śu ddhi-ni dhi sā dha naṃ samāptam || ⊗ || (f. 80v3–5).

Note that the fi nal verse quoted above states that the work was composed for one Ratna devī. She may be the Rin chen lha mo mentioned (as a ‘consort yoginī’) in Tāranātha’s account of Ad-vayavajra’s circle (cf. Templeman 1983: 13), and in the Deb ther sṅon po as teaching at Nālanda (Deb ther sṅon po 639, Roerich 1953: 729–730).


8 Hevajrābhisamayatilaka by Śākyarakṣita. See BBK: 302.

Begins: oṃ namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || bhāsvadviśvāravindopariśa-yita śavo raḥ stha mārta ṇḍa madhye nṛtyan nīlaḥ savidyo dadhad aśani saro janma bhāṇḍe karābhyām | ṣaṇmudro muṇḍamālī kṛta vikṛtamukha (sic for °mukhas) tryakṣakaḥ piṅgakeśa (sic for °keśas) trailokyākṣepavīras tava haratu tamo viśva-vajrā bjamauliḥ || (f. 80v5–7). Ends: abhi sama ya tila kam etat kṛtvā yad upārjitaṃ mayā kuśalaṃ | śrī he va jra vi bhū tiṃ tena bha jatāṃ (sic for bhajatu?30) satvaraṃ lokaḥ || śrī he va jrā-bhi sa ma ya ti la kam idaṃ samāptaḥ (sic for samāptam) kṛtir iyaṃ vyākhyātṛmahāpaṇḍitasthavira śākya rakṣita pādānāṃ || (f. 107v2–4).

One of the longest sādhanas in the collection, partly because Śākya rakṣita discusses a number of points in unusual detail, with references to a variety of diff erent opinions. Unfortunately he does not as a rule name the authorities he refers to, using instead

30 This seems the only straightforward way to keep the line from being unmetrical. Reading bhajatu the verse is in correct Āryā metre.


phrases such as iti kvacid vyākhyātam, ity api mataṃ dṛśyate, iti kvacit, iti kecit, iti kecid guravaḥ and the like. Exceptions are a reference to saroruhakrama (f. 85v6, i.e. the teachings of Saroruhapāda, in the Hevajra sādha no pāyikā that is the fi rst text in our collection), to Lūyī pā dā bhi samaya (f. 85v7, presumably the infl uentual Herukābhisamaya), to a Śāntipāda matā nu gata-dvi bhuja hevajra sā dhana (f. 85v7, perhaps Sādhanamālā 245), to the Viśuddhinidhi (f. 85v7, item 7 above), to Sa ro ru ha sādhana (f. 90v5, probably item 1 above), and to Vajragarbha (f. 92r2,31 perhaps the author of the ṣaṭ sāhasrikā, the Kāla cakra school commentary on the He vajra tantra). There is also a reference to the Saṃpuṭ atilaka tantra (ayañ ca saṃpuṭ atilakatantrotthitaḥ f. 93r2), and an āli kāli jāpa is taught that is said to be kāla cakra-krameṇa (f. 91v3).

According to the Tibetan author Tāranātha, possibly relying on information from his Indian guru Buddha gupta, Śākya rakṣita was born in Ceylon and originally was a Theravāda monk (‘Saindhava Śrāvaka,’ Willson 1986: 202), but later studied Mahāyāna and tantric Buddhism in Arakan in Burma (Willson 1986: 202 and 403 n. 98). From his position in the lineage that Tāranātha gives for the Tārā tantra, Willson (1986: 175) places him at the end of the thirteenth century, about which I can only say that such a relatively late date is quite consonant with the fact that a fully developed range of tantric teachings, including the Kālacakra, is known to him and has infl uenced the Hevajra-practice that he teaches.


9 Bhramaharasādhana by Ratnā ka ra śānti. See BBK: 300. Wrong-ly identifi ed, probably simply because of confusion with the fol-lowing sādhana, by Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al. as a Hevajrasādhana by Anaṅgavajra (so that two such works, with identical name

31 Reading śrīvajragarbheṇa deśitaḥ for the manuscript’s śrī vajra garbhe deśitaḥ.


and title are listed in succession). Lāl gives the title correctly but does not mention the author’s name.

Begins: namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || pada bhara ṇamitorovī vega vi kṣip-ta sindhu (sic for pada bharanamito°) pralaya gha na samā nair ānanair muktinādaṃ (sic for mukta nādam) | bhu ja va na pa va-nā sta pra stha va tvaṃ giṇī ṇāṃ (sic for girīṇāṃ) bhavatu bhaya-ha raṃ s (sic for vas) tāṇḍavaṃ he ru kasya || (f. 107v4–5). Ends: guru+guṇa+dhana nāmnaḥ (sic for guru guṇa dha na dhāmnaḥ) sādhanaṃ he ru kasya bhra ma ha ram abhi dhā ya spaṣṭ am aṣṭ ā-na nasya | kuśalam idam avāptaṃ jan (sic for yan) mayā janma-bhā jaṃ (sic for janma bhā jā) niravadhi hita hetus tena vajrī jinaḥ syāt (sic for syām32) || bhramaharasādhanaṃ samāptam || ⊗ || (f. 114r2–3).

One other palm-leaf manuscript of this sādhana is known to me: it is one which was discovered by Sāṅkṛ tyā yana in Tibet but by some route has now come into the collection of the Niedersäch-sische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Göttingen (Cod. ms. sanscr. 257, cf. Bandurski 1994: 113–114, Ehlers 1995: 220–221). There also seem to be several paper manuscripts containing the work. Most of these fall into two groups: those of a collection that styles itself the Kalpa rāja mahā tantra (cf. Dhīḥ vol. 7 (1989) 26–28), and those of a collection, partly overlapping with the former, named Jvā lā valī vajra mālā tantra (cf. BBK: 493, Dhīḥ vol. 7 (1989) 15–16). A critical edition based on the two palm-leaf manuscripts and one paper one has recently been published (Isaacson 2002b).


32 syām is the reading of the other palm-leaf manuscript of the Bhrama-hara (Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Göttingen, Cod. MS. Sanscr. 257 f. 5r1). Though it is somewhat uncommon to de-dicate the merit arising from the composition to one’s own Buddhahood (rather than that of all beings), compare the concluding verse of Ratnā ka-ra śānti’s Mahā māyā sādhana (Sādha na mā lā 239): bruvataivaṃ mahā mā-yā sādhanaṃ yan mayārjitam | kuśalaṃ tena buddhaḥ syāṃ vaśī viśvārtha-sādhane ||


10 Hevajrasādhana by Anaṅgavajra. Begins: oṃ namaḥ śrī he va-jrā ya || śrīmaddhekāravajraṃ paramasukhapadaṃ nirvvi kal pai-karūpaṃ puṇyajñānoditaṃ | sthi ra ca la sa ka lā śe ṣa bhā va sva bhā-vaṃ | sarvvā na ndair vibuddhaṃ paramuṣitamalaṃ ḍā ki nī ca-kra nāthaṃ tan natvā sarvabhāvaiḥ sphuṭ aviṣadaṃ padaṃ (sic for sphuṭ a viśa da padaṃ33) sādhanan tasya vakṣye || (f. 114r3–4). Ends: kṛtvā herukasādhanaṃ yan mayāsāditaṃ śubham | tenāstu nikhilo lokaḥ sarvva jñaj ñā na pā ra gaḥ || kṛtir iyaṃ yoginaḥ śrī-mad anaṅgavajrasya || (f. 123v1–2).

It is noteworthy that the author identifi es himself in one of the concluding verses as ‘the new’ (i.e. later) ‘Anaṅgavajra,’ indicat-ing his awareness of an earlier authority with the same name: nūta nānaṅga vajreṇa acintyajñāna lābhinaḥ (corrected from acint ya jñā nā lā bhi naḥ, sic for acintya jñā na lā bhinā) | ādeśāl likhi taṃ samyak śrutvā na tv abhimānataḥ || (f. 123r7).34

Tibetan translation: Tōhoku 1264, Ōtani 2420.35

11 Bhavaśuddhihṛdyatilaka by Kokadatta (see the opening verse); the colophon gives the author’s name as Karuṇābalavajra.

Begins: namaḥ śrī he vajrāya || praṇata nikhila vidyā cakra pādā-ra vindo guru va ra pa ri caryā labdha saṃ bodhi mārggaḥ | nihita-sa ka la mā naḥ sva smṛto (sic for sva smṛtau) ko kka datto (sic for koka datto) likhati bhava vi śuddhyā sādhanaṃ herukasya || (f. 123v2–3). Ends: heva jra sā dha naṃ samyak vidvadbhi (sic for vidvadbhiḥ) pari piṇḍitam | lekhakānāṃ hitārthāya sa na va-tya dhi ka śa ta trayam | bhava śuddhi hṛdya ti la kā khyaṃ sādhanaṃ

33 The orthography viṣada for viśada is however so common in early manuscripts that, though etymologically unjustifi ed, it should perhaps be retained. 34 It should be noted that the anonymous compiler of the Subhā ṣi ta saṃ-graha refers to the author of the Prajñopāya viniścaya siddhi as nū ta nā-naṅgavajra (ed. Bendall Part 1: 379 and Part 2: 47). 35 BBK could not off er a certain identifi cation of a Tibetan translation, because there are two Hevajra sādhanas attributed to Anaṅgavajra in the Tibetan canon (the other being Tōhoku 1249, Ōtani 2378).


samāptaṃ || kṛtir iyam ācārya śrī ka rubaṇā ba la va jrasya || ⊗ || (f. 140r4–6).

Refers to the Cakrasaṃvara (f. 126v3), to the Ḍākinī vajra pañja-ra tantra (hevajra vyā khyā tantra vajra pañja rānu sāra taḥ f. 125r2, hevajra vyākhyā tantra vajra pañja ra saṃgraha maṇḍala pra-stāve f. 136r1), to a Padmāṅkurapāda (padmāṅkurapādoktitaḥ f. 125r2),36 and to Saroruha (saroruhopa deśāc ca f. 125r2), though in the last case the reading saroruhopa deśāc ca has been altered by a later hand to sadguropadeśāc ca.


12 Tattvapradīpā sādhanopāyikā, author not given. The lists by Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al. omit this work; Lāl has however noted it cor-rectly.

Begins: oṃ namaḥ śrī he vajrāya || natvā śrīherukaṃ vīra (sic for vīraṃ) nairātmyāsahavigraham | tasya sādhanaṃ saṃkṣepaṃ nisandhim (sic for niḥ sandhim) abhidhīyate || (f. 140r6). Ends: kṛte+ḥ+ puṇyam mayopāttaṃ saradindu sa mu jjva laṃ (sic for śarad indu samu jjva lam) | tena sādhako stu sad vajra sattva (sic for sad vajra sattvas?37) tvaritaṃ bhṛṣam (sic for bhṛśam) iti || ⊗ || tatvapradīpā nāma sādhanopāyikā samāptā || ⊗ || (f. 152r3–4).

Quotes Piṇḍī krama sādhana 105ab (f. 144v5, the only testimo-nium for this line that I have seen in sources preserved in San-skrit). Contains some details which other sādhanas in the collec-tion do not specify, such as the mantra used to purify the water for washing the mouth (oṃ padme padmākṣi padmasubhage phuḥ 3 f. 141r1–2).

36 A Padmāṅkura (pad ma’i myu gu) is mentioned in the Blue Book (Deb ther sṅon po 924, Roerich 1953: 1041) as receiving a lineage from Saro-ruhavajra. A brief summary of (a) Padmāṅkura’s teaching is given in the Nānā siddhopa deśa (ed. in Dhīḥ vol. 18: 15), and a verse purporting to give Padmāṅkura’s mahā mudro pa deśaḥ is found also in a paper manuscript fi lmed as NGMPP E 1484/7 (‘Guhya vakra vilā si nī sādhana’), f. 19v2–3. 37 The metre is however defective, so there probably is a deeper corrup-tion.



13 Nāḍīcakrābhisambodhi sādhanopāyikā by Divākaracandra. The title is given by Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al. as Paramagambhīrottāna-krama, evidently as a result of misreading the colophon.

Begins: namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || natvā hekāravajraṃ parama su-kha mayaṃ nistaraṅgasvarūpaṃ nāḍī cakrā nta ra sthaṃ gagan-am iva paraṃ vyāpinan nirnnimittam | satsampaddhetubhūtaṃ vyapagatavigati buddhyagamyaṃ praśāntaṃ bhā vā bhā va vya tī-taṃ saka la ji na ta nuṃ saṃ sphu rad bu ddha bi mbam || (f. 152r4–6). Ends: nāḍī cakrā bhi saṃbodhiṃ sādhanopāyikām parāṃ | kṛtod-bhū taṃ (sic for kṛtvodbhūtaṃ) śubhaṃ jan (sic for yan) me jagat tenāstu herukaḥ || || samāptāyaṃ (sic for samāpteyaṃ) nāḍī-cakrābhisambodhi nāma sādhanopāyikā | śrī he ru ka tantrā ni ga tā para ma ga mbhīro tpa nna kra ma sva rūpā || kṛtir iyaṃ paṇḍita śrī-divā kara candrasyeti || || (f. 156v4–6).

In the penultimate verse the author refers to himself as Divā-ka rābja, and gives his teacher’s name as Śānta bhadra: śrīśānta-bha dra caraṇā ṃbunidher analpam ādāya samyag upadeśajalaṃ viśuddhaṃ | utpanna pakṣa gata heruka mātṛ cakra varṣaḥ pravar-ṣa ti jagātsu (sic for jagatsu) divākarābjaḥ || (f. 156v3–4).


14 Herukasādhana by Bodhigarbha or Garbha pāda. The author’s name is given in the latter form in the colophon and by Sāṅkṛ t yā-yana et al. colophon. This is slightly odd – we are accustomed to fi nding names with garbha as the second member of a compound, such as Ānandagarbha. However Garbha pāda is also given as the name of the author of Sādhanamālā 142 (Kalpo kta marī ci-sā dhana). The byaṅ chub sñiṅ po of the colophon of the Tibetan translation suggests the name Bodhigarbha; if this is correct the fi nal verse (quoted below) would contain the author’s name em-bedded in a not uncommon fashion. Perhaps we should there fore probably understand the Garbha pāda of the colophon of the San-skrit manuscript as an abbreviation of Bodhi garbhapāda.


Begins: namaḥ śrī vajra ḍākāya || evaṃkāre samāsīnañ catur-ānan dajaṃ vibhuṃja | ādimadhyāntanirmmuktaṃ taṃ name vajra dhāriṇaṃ || (f. 156v6).38 Ends: kṛtvā heru ka sā+dha naṃ+ sphu ṭ a taraṃ hevajra tantro ditaṃ tad bhā ṣā krama saṅ gataṃ pa-da mitaṃ puṇyam mayāsāditaṃ | tenā śe ṣa ku dṛṣṭi doṣa visara-vyā mo ha sukhā śayāḥ (sic for °vyāpo ha su khā śa yāḥ) satvā+ḥ+ santu sukhai ka nimna ma na saḥ śrī bodhi garbbhātmakāḥ || ārya-bhā ṣoktaṃ śrīherukasādhanaṃ samāptaṃm (sic for samāptam) iti || || kṛtir iyam ācārya garbbha pāpā dānām (sic for ācārya gar-bha pā dānām or ācā rya bo dhi garbha pā dā nām) || (f. 160r5–7).

The second verse contains a reference to a Caryāvajra as a teacher or respected senior: gurubuddhān namaskṛtya dharmmaṃ saṃ-ghañ ca bhaktitaḥ || caryāvajrānyavṛddhāṃś ca vakṣye heva jra-sā dha naṃ || (f. 156v6–7).


15 Sahajadvibhujahevajrasādhana by Alalavajra.

Begins: namaḥ śrī hevajrāya || svacittaṃ sarvadaṃ sarvaṃ guruṃ he[f. 160v]va jra va jri ṇaṃ | praṇamya yo gi nī cakraṃ sahajaṃ kiñ-cid ucyate || (f. 160r7–160v1). Ends: iti sahajam acintyaikāndam (sic for acintyā nandam?) ādyan tanusthaṃ gaga na na ga ra-kalpaṃ maṇḍalaṃ viśvam etat | bha va śa ma sama rū pi pra sphu-ṭ aṃ niḥ sva bhā vaṃ pradadatu bha va bhā jāṃ sarvva sampatti-hetoḥ || iti saha ja dvi bhu ja he va jra sā dhanaṃ samāptaṃ || kṛtir iyam ācārya śrī mada lala vajra pā dā nāṃ || ⊗ || (f. 164r2–3).

The author refers to a Nandipāda as having given him permission (ājñā) to write the work, which probably means that he was Alala-vajra’s teacher (nandi pā dā jña yā svalpaṃ likhitaṃ[f. 164r]taṃ (sic for likhitaṃ) siddhi sā dhanam f. 163v7–164r1). A Nandipāda is also mentioned by Vīrya śrī mitra in his Marma kalikā, appar-ently as his teacher’s teacher (MaKa f. 3r1–2, ed. p. 3).

An Alalavajra is mentioned in the gurupāramparya of a work

38 Note that Advayavajra’s Hevajrākhya (no. 2 above) starts with an al-most identical verse (see p. 98 above).


called Marmopadeśa following Ḍombīheruka and preceding Garbharīpādaḥ (Royal Asiatic Society, London, MS Hodgson 35 f. 76r10; on this guru-lineage see Isaacson 2008). The same name is given as the author of a Śrī hevajra bali krama (Tōhoku 1298).

I have not identifi ed a Tibetan translation. Tōhoku 1235, a *Heva-jra dvibhuja sādhana by *Vajrālala, is a diff erent work.

16 Hevajra pūjāvidhi, author not given. Not listed by Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al., but included in the list of Lāl.

Begins: namaḥ śrī he vajrāya || śrī he vajrapūjane tu śrī he vajra-yoga vān mantrī śrī heruko ’haṃ vāra trayam uccāryya pratyūṣe yathā va saram vā kṛta sanmā rjja nā dike bhū bhāge hastan datvā (f. 164r3–5). Ends: pūrvvo kta kra me ṇa kanyādhidikaṃ datvā visa rjja nī yam iti || śrī he va jra bha ṭ ṭ ā rakasya pūjā+vi+dhiḥ sathamāptaḥ || || (f. 169r6–7).


17 Tarpaṇavidhi. No author given in the colophon, but the vilāsena in the opening verse (quoted below) is probably a self-reference. The author may have therefore been called Vilāsa vajra (a not uncommon name), but it is also possible that vilāsa is an abbre-viation of something else, e.g. Sahaja vilāsa (who is credited with the authorship of no. 42 below). Not listed by Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al., but included in Lāl’s list.

Begins: namaḥ śrī hevajrāya || praṇamya herukaṃ vīraṃ pra-jñopā yā tma kaṃ vibhuṃ | saṃgṛhyate vilāsena tarppaṇārthaṃ kiyat padaṃ || (f. 169r7). Ends: likhitaṃ tarppaṇaṃ śuddhaṃ nānā cā rya ma to dbha vaṃ | saṃ cintya tena tatvajñāḥ kṣantum arhanti paṇḍitāḥ | dharaṇīdhara yatnena tarppa ṇa vi dhir mmayā kṛtaḥ | nānācāryakṛtāmnāyaṃ dṛṣṭ vā na tv abhimānataḥ || tarppa ṇa vidhiḥ samāptaḥ || || (f. 170r5–6).



18 Vajrajvālodayā sādhanopayikā39 by Ānandagarbha.

Begins: namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || śrīherukaṃ namaskṛtya dur-ddānta da ma kaṃ vibhum | sādhanopayikāṃ vakṣye vajra jvā lo-dayām imām || (f. 170r6–7). Ends: vajrajvālodayāṃ kṛtvā yan ma yo pacitaṃ śubhaṃ ānanda garbha vi dyāgras tena lokas tu (sic for loko ’stu) vajradhṛg iti || ārya sarvva bu ddha samā ga tantrod-dhṛtaḥ (sic for °samā yo ga ta ntro ddhṛtā) bhagavataḥ śrīheruka-bhaṭ ṭ ārakasya sādhanopayikā samāptā || || kṛtir iyam ācārya ānanda garbha pā dānām iti || ⊗ || (f. 186r3–5).

The colophon thus informs us that this sādhanopayikā is sup-posed to be based on the Sarvabuddhasamāyogatantra (a.k.a. Sarva bud dha samā yoga ḍā kinī jāla saṃ vara tantra). The text itself explicitly indicates such a connection too, for after the open-ing verse (quoted above) the prose instructions commence with the words tatrā cāryaḥ sarva buddha samā yoga tantra vi dhā nena śrī heruka maṇ ḍale labdhasamayādiko yo[f. 170v]gī… (f. 170r7–170v1). Indeed it is clear that the work is not in fact directly relat-ed to the Hevajra-cycle, despite its inclusion here and the namaḥ śrī heva jrāya which the scribe has prefi xed to it. Its repertory of mantras and mudrās, its structure, and the iconography of the maṇḍala described set it clearly apart. Instead it is a sādhana of Heruka related to the older cycle of the Sarvabuddha samāyoga; it is, as far as I know, by far the most detailed work of that cycle that now survives complete in its original language,40 rich in

39 It is not necessary to emend this form, found twice in the MS, to the more normal sādhanopāyikā; cf. BHSD s.v. upayika. 40 Aside from this work of Ānandagarbha, there are a few other texts surviving in Sanskrit which are signifi cant sources for Sarvabuddha-samāyoga material. Two small sādhanas which have been published in the Sādhana mālā, SāMā 241 (Saṃkṣepato Herukasādhana, author unknown) and SāMā 242 (Śrī heruka sādhana by one Kalyāṇagarbha, a name I have not encountered elsewhere) are based on/related to the Sarva buddha-samāyoga tantra. These two short works seem also not to have been trans-lated into Tibetan. There are quotations from the Sarva buddha samāyoga-tantra in quite a few works which survive in Sanskrit. And portions of the tantra have also been borrowed, sometimes apparently with some revision,


quotations from the root tantra (Tōhoku 366, Ōtani 8). Though it remains unpublished so far, it has been drawn on extensively in Sanderson 2009, in particular in the section titled The Sarva-buddha samāyogaḍākinījālaśaṃvara: Heruka and his Yoginīs, Kāpālika iconography, the Gaṇamaṇḍala, and the beginning of Śaiva-Buddhist intertextuality (pp. 145–156), with extensive ex-tracts quoted in Sanskrit (from our codex) in the footnotes and summarized in English in the main text.

The author is most probably the same Ānandagarbha who is more famous as an authority on the Tattva saṃgraha. His initiation-manual based on the Tattva saṃgraha is preserved in incomplete form in a palm-leaf manuscript (NAK 3–360 = NGMPP A 48/7) dated Saṃvat 179 (AD 1059), and has been published by a group of Japanese scholars (Mikkyō Seiten Kenkyūkai 1986–87). The phrase ānanda garbha vidyāgraḥ (embedding the author’s name) in the fi nal verse cited above is also found in the verse that con-cludes the Sarvavajrodaya: āna nda ga rbha vi dyāgraḥ sarva sa-ttvai ka bā ndhavaḥ | aśesas tena lokāstu (sic MS for loko ’stu; lo-kas tu Mikkyō Seiten Kenkyūkai) ma hā va jra dha ro vibhuḥ (MS cit. f. 65v4, Mikkyō Seiten Kenkyūkai 1987: 223(84)).

Among the numerous works listed in the catalogues of the Peking and Derge bstan ’gyur that are attributed to an Ānandagarbha or Kun dga’ sñiṅ po I have found none that might be a translation of this text. The existence of a translation of a ṭ īkā by Ānanda-garbha on the Sarva buddha samā yoga tantra (Tōhoku 1667) con-fi rms, however, his connection with this cycle of teachings.

19 Dveṣavajrasādhana by Bhadrapāda. Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al. report it as Hevajrasādhana by Mahadapāda (the name has been mis-read); Lāl gives the name of the text and author correctly.

Begins: namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || śrīmaddherukaṃ nāthaṃ sukha-pha la saṃ ku laṃ ni sva bhā va sva bhā vaṃ (sic for niḥ sva bhā va sva-

in other tantras that survive in Sanskrit, such as the Sampuṭ atantra and the Vajraḍākatantra.


bhā vaṃ) śāntaṃ khasamaṃ paraṃ sarvvagaṃ śūnyābhinnaṃ nairātmāgarbhasthitaṃ | mūrttiś caturānandaṃ (?) nir vāṇa ga-tiṃ gato (sic for nirvāṇa gatiṃgataṃ) virahitakaluṣaṃ śuddhaṃ dve ṣa muṣitaṃ vande ḍākinīnāthaṃ kapālākulaprabhum (f. 186r5–7). Ends: spaṣṭ ī kṛtaṃ bhāva ka sukha hetave yatnāt tan ma yā kramam ānandaṃtu yoginī na yā dhi mu ktāḥ sukhena bha-dra nāmnā iti || || || ⊗ || dveṣa va jra sā dha naṃ samāptaṃ || kṛtir iyaṃ siddhā cā ryya śrī mad bha dra pā dānām iti || ⊗ || (f. 197r2–3).

The author names himself near the beginning of the sādhana as Bhadrapāda, great-great-grandson of Saroruhapāda, and in-forms us that he was requested (to write the work) by one Ko-dā lī: abhisamayaspaṣṭ īkaraṇahetor mayā saroru ha pā da na ptṛ-su taputreṇa bhadranāmnā kodālyā dhy eṣi tena … (f. 186v2–3). In a corrupt line of verse he refers to a Rāhu lapāda, either as his guru or as his guru’s guru: gopitaṃ yatnād rāhu la pā dasya pāda gurogurūṇāṃ (?) (f. 197r1).41 There is a reference to a Dharmapāda as his teacher or authority for the two sannāhas (i.e. kavacas): sannāhadvaya (sic for sannāhadvayaṃ) vakṣye dhar ma pāda prasādataḥ (f. 196v5–6).


20 Śrīhevajratantroktabalividhi, author not named. Not included in the lists of Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al., nor in that of Lāl.

Begins: namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || natvā herukaṃ vīraṃ nairātmyā-bhi nna saṃ pu ṭ aṃ | tadāmnā(yā) (sic for tadāmnāyād?) baliṃ vakṣye caryāpādakramāgataḥ (sic for caryāpādakramāgatam) (f. 197r3–4). Ends: oṃ mur iti ghaṇṭ āṃ vādayitvā visarjjayet || śrīhevajratantroktabalividhiḥ samāptaḥ || || (f. 199v1–2).

41 It is no doubt Rāhulagupta, the author of the Hevajra prakāśa, who is referred to. In several respects the present sādhana shows striking cor-respondences with the latter work. For instance, the remedy taught on f. 196v in case the practitioner has a morbid affl iction of the wind-humour because of the power of his meditative practice (bhāvanāśaktyā vātagṛhīto yadā) is found elsewhere only, to my knowledge, in the Hevajra pra kāśa (f. 33r–33v).


Note the reference to a Caryāpāda in the opening verse quoted above.


21 Hevajrasahajasadyoga by Ratnākaraśānti. Reported as Hevajra-sādhana by Sahajavajra in Sāṅkṛ tyā yana’s list (135), and as Heva jra sādhana by Jñānavajra in Bandurski’s list (apparently confusing with Sāṅkṛ tyā yana’s 139, no. 31 below).

Begins: namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || hevajrasaniṣyandaṃ paramaṃ praṇi patya yoginīcakraṃ syād utpannakapakṣe yathābhisama-yas tathā vakṣye || (f. 199v2–3). Ends: hevajrād atigahanād avika-lam uddhṛtya sahajasadyogaṃ | yad upacitaṃ mama kuśalaṃ bha vate[f. 201r]na (sic for bhavatu) jagat tena vajradharaḥ || kṛtir iyam paṇḍitaśrī ratnā kara śānti pādānām iti || sahajasadyogahe-va jrasya sādhanaṃ samāptaṃ || || (f. 200v7–201r1).

One other manuscript of this work is known to me: Royal Asiatic Society, London, MS Hodgson 35 (a palm-leaf Sammelhand-schrift copied by the celebrated fi fteenth-century Indian teacher Vanaratna; see Isaacson 2008). An annotated critical edition of the Sanskrit text of this brief but important sādhana, based on these two codices, has been published (Isaacson 2002a).


22 Bāhyapūjāvidhisaṃgraha by Śāśvatavajra. Bandurski wrongly lists the author as Samādhivajra; this is probably caused by con-fusion with Sāṅkṛ tyā yana’s 140, no. 32 below. Begins: namaḥ śrī he vajrāya | praṇamya nāthaṃ hevajraṃ sarvva dharmmaika-vigra haṃ | saṃgṛhyate yathāmnāyaṃ bāhya+pūjā+vidhir mayā (f. 201r1–2). Ends: bāhyapūjāvidhiḥ smṛtyai saṃgrahāt yan mayārjjita (sic for mayārjitam) puṇyaṃ tenāstu loko yaṃ satpūjābhājanaṃ paraṃ || || bāhya pūjā vidhi saṃ grahaḥ samāp-taḥ || || kṛtir iyaṃ śāśvata vajra sya || (f. 202r2–4).

The opening verse is nearly identical with that of the Saṃkṣipta-heva jra pūjā vidhi (MS IASWR MBB I-39, reading sarva dhar-


mai ka saṃ varam instead of sarvadharmaikavigraham), and there are some other close parallels between what none the less are two distinct works.

The name of Śāśvatavajra is also associated with a collection of small manuals on Cakraśaṃvara ritual published by Finot (1934).


23 Abhisamayakrama, no author listed. Begins: namaḥ śrī he va jrā-ya | śrīoḍiyāna vinirggata hevajra tantra ratnasyābhi samaya (sic for °samayaḥ) kathyate || (f. 202r4). Ends: caṇḍālī jvalitā nābhāv (He vajra tantra I.i.31a) iti mahāmudrayā līyante || abhi sama ya-kramaḥ samāptaḥ || || (f. 204v1–2).

A small work on the nāḍīs and cakras.


24 Catuḥṣaṣṭidaṇḍabheda, author unknown. No Tibetan marginal title. Not included in the lists by Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al., nor in that of Lāl. Rather a memorandum, in bad Sanskrit and covering less than two lines, than a composition, although there is a Tibetan translation. The text runs in its entirety thus (I have made no corrections): catuṣṣaṣṭidaṇḍasya lakṣaṇa (sic for lakṣaṇam) divār ddhena prāṇasaṃkhyā pañcasahasra 540 || evaṃ saṃkhyā gaṇi tena ahorātreṇa ṣaṭ śatā dhika (sic) eka viṃ śa ti sahasrañ ca yathā saṃ khyena gaṇitvā jñātavya ghaṭi ekena prāṇa 360 | catuḥ ṣaṣṭidaṇḍasya bhedaḥ samāptaḥ || (f. 204v2–4).


25 Sahajasiddhi by Ḍombīheruka. Not included in the lists by Sāṅ-kṛt yā yana et al., but included in Lāl’s list.

Begins: namaḥ śrī hevajrāya || sahajasiddhiṃ pravakṣyāmi satvā-nu gra ha he tu nā | homa yā ga ta po tī tāṃ ādikarmmikavarjjitaṃ (sic for ādikarmikavarjitām) || (f. 204v4). Ends: anyatra sthitān etān


prabhukti (sic!)42 śrī ḍombī he ru ka pā da kṛtā yāṃ sahajasiddhau sama ya tatva nirddeśas tṛtīyaḥ samāptaḥ || (f. 206v5).

This work has been edited twice: by Malati J. Shendge (in In-do-Iranian Journal 10 (1967)) and in the Guhyādi-Aṣṭ asiddhi-Saṅgraha. Our codex is evidently independent of the manuscripts used in these editions, and allows considerable improvement of the text. Thus, to give an example, in 1.2b, where the other manuscripts apparently read śāntyasiddhir ucyate, for which the Sarnath edition conjectures nityasaṃsiddhir ucyate,43 the Ṅor codex has what is probably the correct reading; sātatyaṃ siddhir ucyate (f. 204v5).


26 Ṣaḍaṅgasādhana by Durjayacandra. Not included in the lists by Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al., nor in that of Lāl.

Begins: oṃ namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || māyā maṇḍa la vartti vāri śaśa-bhṛt tulyā ṣṭ a devī pater hevajrasya vimokṣa vastu ta tha tā vaktrā-ṃghri dor nnirmi taiḥ | mārosthalaramyaraṅgabhuvanaiḥ (sic; in sertion mark after māro (or mārau?) satvārthakṛtyotsave bad dhvā ḍamambara pra ti nidher (?) avyāj jagat tāṇḍavam || (f. 206v6–7). Ends: sadguru dina kara bodhita devī tantrā ra vinda-vṛndeṣu | durjja ya candra madhu lihā pītvā sādhye na (sic, unmet-rically, for sādhana°) madhū dgīrṇṇaṃ | śrī karuṇā bala sā dhana-racanā śra ma janitam atra yat puṇyam | tad bhavatād bhava sāga-ra yāno tta raṇai ka naur jagatām || samāptam idaṃ vajrā cārya-durja ya candroddhṛtaṃ ṣaḍaṅga sādhanam iti || (f. 211r2–3).

These concluding verses and colophon are followed by a corrupt verse in Śālinī metre: ity asmābhir yoginīnāmacakraṃ cakraṃ cārūddhṛtya yat sāpi (?) puṇyan tad viśveṣāṃ durjjayopeta-

42 The text as edited ends anyatra sthito na prabhuḥ śaktasamanvitaś ceti. 43 This is to be rejected i.a. because it is clear that the author is explai-ning the words sahaja and siddhi separately in the two fi rst pādas of the verse.


candra pratyajñātām āsta (?) bodhir vidheyāt || (f. 211r3–4). This verse, with a clear reference to Durjayacandra, is not found in the Tibetan translation of the ṣaḍaṅgasādhana. It is followed in turn, before the start of the next work, by the following note: śūnyatā ānimitta apraṇihita kāyavedanācittadharmmanasmṛtiḥ (sic for kāya vedanā citta dharmā nu smṛtiḥ) (f. 211r4).

The third verse states this sādhana to be according to the tradi-tion of Ḍombīpāda, i.e. Ḍombīheruka: ajñāna paṭ a lāndhānām idam añjanam uddhare | ḍombīpādakramāyātaṃ śrī hevajrasya sādhanaṃ || (f. 207r1).

This work is considered of particular importance in the Sa skya pa lam ’bras tradition of Hevajra practice (cf. e.g. Davidson 1992: 111 and 116).


27 Vajraḍākasādhana by Atulacandra. Not included in the lists by Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al., nor noticed by Lāl.

Begins: namaḥ śrī hevajrāya || śeṣaś charddati śoṇitaṃ jalanidheḥ śeṣaṅ gataḥ sūkaro dāḍhābhaṅgam upāgataḥ kṣitibhṛtaś cūrṇṇā bhavantīha ve (sic for vai?) kṣoṇīkampam akārṣīt (sic, unmetri-cal) padayugākṣepād vibhor yasya tan natvā śrīkaruṇā balasya katicit pūjāṃ pravakṣyāmy ahaṃ || (f. 211r5–7).

Ends: iti racanāsaṃkalitaṃ śaśabhṛddhalan (sic, unmetrically, for śaśabhṛddhavalaṃ?) tu yac chubhaṃ tena | atula (sic, un-metrically, for atulāṃ?) mahāsukhapadaṃ labhantāṃ (sic, un-metrically, for labhatāṃ) loko vinā kaṣṭ aṃ || uddhṛtyā na vivek-ena kin tu satvārthakāraṇāt | śraddhayā kīrttitañ cetat śrāddhe satve na dūṣaṇaṃ || vajraḍākasādhanaṃ samāptaṃ || kṛtir iyam mahā kavi kalyāṇa candra sūnor atulacandrasya || (f. 214r6–7).

Although the title as given in the colophon might suggest that this might not be a sādhana of Hevajra, a perusal of the text shows that the Vajraḍāka here is, in fact, Hevajra, and the opening of the work (the fi rst verse after the maṅgala-verse quoted above) refers to the intended practitioner as śrīmaddhevajra tantre ’smin


yo ’bhiṣikto vicakṣaṇaḥ (f. 211r7).

This work seems closely related to (indebted to?) the Śrīmad-ya māri sādhana of a Śrī maṅgala sena/Maṅgalasena, published as Sādhana mālā 273. Thus the pre-penultimate verse, quoted above, is very similar to the fi nal verse of the Śrīmad yamā ri-sādha na, and there are several other verses that are identical or nearly identical, and, as far as can presently be determined, not shared with any other sādhana.

Atulacandra, the son of Kalyāṇacandra (and grandson, according to the information given at the end of no. 28 below, of Māṇikya), is not known to me except from his two sādhanas (this one and the following work) preserved in this codex.


28 Yathālabdhasādhana by Atulacandra. Not included in the lists by Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al., but Lāl gives the name of the text, though without the name of the author.

Begins: atha tatraiva kūṭ ā[f. 214v]gāre gurubuddhapūjā di puraḥ-saraṃ | dvibhujakaruṇābalaṃ bhāvitavyaṃ kin tu gauryādau (sic for gauryādayo) ḍākinyaḥ pātra karttṛ dharāḥ || (f. 214r7–214v1).

Ends: rohitagiriniṣkrāntaṃ sthānaṃ vai pūtimānam iti tatraja-valla bha candrāt śrīmān māṇikya iti jātaḥ hevajra tantra bhaktaḥ śrīmān kalyāṇa candra iti nāmnā tanayas tasya kṛpālus tasyā-hannabdanohy (?) atulaḥ || vajraḍākājñayā spaṣṭ aṃ sā dha naṃ likhitaṃ mayā śiṣyāṇāṃ smaraṇārthyāya mādṛśāṃ prati patta-ye || śrī hevajra tantrasya yathālabdhaṃ sādhanaṃ samāptaṃ || (f. 216r3–5).

The prose passage quoted above that precedes the concluding verse evidently gives us some information on the family lineage of the author. Unfortunately some corruptions render it partly ob-scure. Apart from the author’s father Kalyāṇacandra (mentioned also in the colophon of no. 27 above), it names his grandfather, said to have been a hevajratantrabhakta, as Māṇikya (Māṇikya-candra?), and probably his great-grandfather as Vallabha candra,


born in Pūtimāna (?) near (?) the Rohitagiri.


29 Dvibhujahevajrasādhana, no author given. Bandurski gives the author as Sahajavajra (confusion with no. 21 above, Sāṅ kṛtyā-yana’s 135). Sāṅkṛ tyā yana and Bandurski give the title as sim-ply Hevajrasādhana; Lāl more accurately as Dvi bhu ja he va jra-sādhanam.

Begins: namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || jagadarttiśamopāyaṃ (sic for jagadārti śamo pāyaṃ) praṇamyādarato guruṃ | dvibhujaśrī he-ru kasyedaṃ vakṣyate sādhanam mayā || (f. 216r5–6).

Ends: tataḥ punar api pūjāṃ kṛtvā praṇidhānāni deva tā yo-gena visarjya vā (?) yathāyosukhaṃ (sic for yathāsukhaṃ or yathāyogaṃ sukhaṃ) vihared iti | dvibhujahevajrasya sādhanaṃ samāptaṃ || ⊗ || (f. 218v4–5).


30 Hevajrapūjāvidhi, no author given. Lacking an initial obeisance; perhaps partly for this reason overlooked in the lists of Sāṅkṛ tyā-yana et al., but included in that of Lāl.

Begins: oṃ trailokyākṣepa huṃ huṃ huṃ phaṭ svāhā | (f. 218v5–6). Ends: oṃ kṛto vaḥ sarvvasattvārtha siddhi (sic for sarvasattvārthaḥ siddhir) dattā yathānugā | gacchadhvaṃ buddhaviṣayaṃ punarāgamanāya ca || hevajra pū jā vidhi (sic for °vidhiḥ) samāptaḥ || (f. 219v5).


31 Sahajasadbījacintāmaṇi Hevajrasādhana by Jñānavajra. Ban-durski gives the author as Śāśvatavajra (confusion with no. 22 above, Sāṅkṛ tyā yana’s 136?).

Begins: oṃ namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || praṇamyāṣṭ a mukhaṃ vīraṃ sahajānandasundaram | kṛṣṇa jī mū ta saṃ kāśaṃ pralayāgni sa-vama prabhaṃ || (f. 219v6). Ends: smṛtyarthaṃ sādhanan tasya śiṣyāṇāṃ pratipatyarthaye (sic for pratipattaye) || likhitaṃ sadgu-


ror jñātuṃ nānyeṣāṃ guṇaśālināṃ (?) || saha ja sad bī ja cintā ma-ṇir nāma hevajrasādhanaṃ samāptam || kṛtir iyam ācārya jñāna-vajra pādā nām iti || ⊗ || (f. 224r5–6).


32 Hevajraguṇasragdharāstuti by Śūnyasamādhivajra. Sāṅkṛ tyā-yana gives the author’s name as Samādhivajra, Bandurski lists no author. Lāl names the author correctly.

Begins: namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || svargge svarggeśa mantrī sa-mamativibhavo ’pi klamatvān na notuṃ pātāle pannagendro na hi bahu ra sa no vaktum īśa (sic for īśaḥ) stutin te | martye martyaḥ sudhīḥ san guṇam abhigadituṃ sa kṣamo na kṣamo ’laṃ vakṣye ’han te tathāpi stutim ativikalāṃ bhakti[f. 224v]yukti pra yu ktam (sic for °prayuktaḥ) || (f. 224r6–224v1). Ends: kṛtvā nātha stutin te saka la ka li ma la kṣā la nai ka kṣa mān tāṃ yan me puṇyaṃ pra-sūtaṃ ha ra ha sa na ha saṃ kunda ca ndrā ṃśu śubhraṃ | bhūyāt tenāśu nāthas tri bha va bha va jano herukaḥ śrī ni vāsaḥ samyak-satvā r tha kā rī guru gu ṇa dhana – –mahā dharmma rā jaḥ || sam-āpte yaṃ bhagavataḥ śrī he va jra sya guṇasragdharā nāma stutiḥ | kṛtir iyam mahā paṇḍita śrī śūnya samādhi vajra pādā nām iti || + śrī srag dha rā stotraṃ || ⊗ || + (f. 228r1–3).

The name Śūnyasamādhivajra recalls the sToṅ ñid tiṅ ’dzin (*Śūnya tā samādhi?) to whom are attributed six works in the Ti-betan canon. According to Tibetan historians of Buddhism he was one of the four principal students of Advayavajra/Maitreya (the author of nos. 2 and 41 in our collection).44


33 Āśīrūpā stutiḥ, no author mentioned.

Begins: oṃ namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || nairātmyāśliṣṭ akaṇṭ haḥ ka ṭh-inakara yuga sparśa sañ jā ta māto (sic for °māno?) nṛtyan kūṭā la-yāntar gga ga na ni va sa no mātṛbhi (sic for mātṛbhir) veṣṭito yaḥ |

44 Note that this sToṅ ñid tiṅ ’dzin is said to be identical with ‘Devākara-candra;’ cf. p. 101 above.


dṛkchro tra ghrā ṇa jihvāt++45 subha nu bhṛtau (?) yasya vajrā di-devyā sampat tasya divyā (sic for tasyātidivyā?) tribha va ja na-nutā tiṣṭ ha tāt sā bhavatsu (f. 228r4–5). Ends: no bhāvo na ca bhā-va rū pa rahi to na kola (sic for naiko na?) naiko vibhuḥ śānta (sic for śāntaḥ) sarva gato nabhas tala[f. 230r]nibhaḥ satsampadām āspadanaḥ (sic for āspadaḥ) nirlepo ’vikṛtiḥ pra pañca ra hi taḥ pratyā tma ve dya pa ro dharmātmā pradadātu vaḥ samasukhaṃ śrīheruko nuttaram || śrīhe kā ra vajra bha ga vata āśīrūpā stutiḥ samāptāḥ (sic for samāptā) || (f. 229v7–230r2).


34 Hevajrabhaṭ ṭ ārakacakraviṃśikāstotra by Saroruha.

Begins: oṃ namaḥ śrī hevajrāya || sarvabhāvasvabhāvāgraṃm (sic for °gram) āryam satvātmani (sic for sarvātmani) sthitam | prajñopāyadvayaṃ (sic for prajñopāyādvayaṃ) vīraṃ hevajraṃ praṇamāmy ahaṃ || (f. 230r2). Ends: stutvā sadevatīcakraṃ hevajraṃ ḍākinīprabhum | yan mayopārjitaṃ śubhaṃ tena loko ’stu tatvavit || śrī hevajra bha ṭ ṭ ā ra kasya cakra viṃ śikā stotraṃ samāptaṃ || || kṛtir iyaṃ siddhā cārya saro ruha pādānām iti || ⊗ || (f. 231r1–2).

The number of twenty (verses) is correct, not counting the fi nal verse dedicating the merit.

This stotra, or rather a question as to the correct reading in its sixth verse and the implications thereof, was the subject of a po-lemical exchange between the Tibetan scholars Ṅor chen Kun dga’ bzaṅ po (1382–1456) and ’Jigs med grags pa (1375–1451) which has been discussed in an article by van der Kuijp (1987). It is to be noted that Ṅor-chen Kun dga’ bzaṅ po refers to ‘an Indian manuscript’ (van der Kuijp 1987: 174) as supporting the reading sṅo (nīlam); it is prima facie probable that our codex, which belonged to Ṅor monastery and indeed contains this read-ing (f. 230r5), was the manuscript to which the Sa skya pa scholar

45 There is an insertion mark by the fi rst hand, but no insertion in the margin.


referred.

A critical edition of the Sanskrit text by Dr. Luo Hong, based on our codex and another manuscript, of which copies are held in the library of the China Tibetology Research Center, is forth-coming in Tantric Studies.

Tibetan translation: Tōhoku 1225, Ōtani 2354 (erroneously ‘Ōtani 1225’ in van der Kuijp 1987: 177 n. 9). Edited in van der Kuijp 1987: 175–176.

35 A stotra (with no indication of a title in the colophon) to Hevajra by Kaṇha.

Begins: oṃ namaḥ śrīhevajrāya || sarvvathā sarvva satvā nāṃ sarvvā pā ya vi śo dha kaḥ | sarvvadharmā va buddhaś ca vajraḍāka namo ’stu te || (f. 231r2–3). Ends: daṣṭ otkaṭ amahā bhīmam (sic for daṃṣṭ rotkaṭ a°) antrasragdāmabhūṣitaṃ | bhakṣamāṇaṃ mahāmānsaṃ śrīherukaṃ namāmy ahaṃ || kṛtir iya (sic for iyaṃ) siddhācārya kahna pādānām (sic for °kaṇha pā dā nām) iti | (f. 231v2–3).

This stotra was evidently a popular one; it is incorporated in the Tattva pra dīpā (no. 12 above), the Saha ja sad bīja cintā maṇiḥ (no. 31 above, only part of the stotra), and the Gaṇa cakra vidhi (no. 45 below).


36 Nāḍīcakrasvarūpaśrīhevajrayoginīcakrastuti, author not given.

Begins: namaḥ śrīyoginīgaṇebhyaḥ || pīṭ ha (sic for pīṭ he) po-lā ra lākhye pramuditabhuvi sad dā na śuddhi sva bhāve ti ṣṭha n tī yottamāṅge nakhadaśanavahā nāḍikā’bhedyanāmā | ādar śa jñā-narūpā tribhavapariṇatā vī ta saṅ ka lpa doṣā vajra rū pa svabhā-vām anupasukhadān tām namasyāmi mūrddhnā || (f. 231v3–5). Ends: śrī he vajra kramāptaṃ sahaja sukha karā (sic for °karaṃ) yogi nī cakram agraṃ nāḍī cakra sva rūpaṃ śivasam asa ma sa-maṃ niṣprapañcaṃ kharūpam | stutvā yan me prasūtaṃ kuśalam aghahara (sic for aghaharaṃ) pūrṇa ca ndrā ṃśu śubhraṃ bhūyāt


tenāśu lokaḥ paramasukhamayo yoginīcakrarūpaḥ || samāpte-yam parama sahaja gambhī ro tpa nna+pakṣa+ga ta nāḍī cakra sva-rūpa śrī he va jra yogi nī cakra stutir iti || ⊗ || (f. 235v1–3).


37 Nairātmyāśīrūpā stutiḥ, author not given. Not included in the lists of Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al., but noted by Lāl. Lāl gives the title as Nairātmyāstutiḥ; but the colophon has ante correctionem the expression āśīstutiḥ, and an insertion mark after āśī suggests (though no insertion is found) the possibility that āśīrūpā stutiḥ was intended, as in no. 33 above.

Begins: oṃ namaḥ śrī nairātmāyai || kleśā cchedā (sic for kleśa-cche dā ya) karttīṃ sarucam ahinibhām bibhratī savya doṣṇā bhāvābhāvāntakārddhāṃ (sic for °rthaṃ?) pari bhṛtam asṛjā māra hā nyā+na+doṣṇā(?) | cakraiś citraiś catubhir (sic for ca-turbhir) bhāga+hṛ+dayagaloṣṇīṣa deśeṣu (sic for bhaga hṛ da ya°) yuktā nairātmyā vo dadātāc chama sukham asamaṃ sarvvadā raudrarūpāṃ (sic for °rūpā) || (f. 235v3–5). Ends: vāmasthā lalanāhvayā jalavahā prajñāṃsikā (sic for pra jñā ṃśikā) śūnyatā savyasthā ra sa nā hva yā ṅga ja va hā kāru ṇyabhā vā tmi kā | madhyasthā tv avadhūtikā madavahā yā bhinna rū pā dva yā sā nāḍī tra ya rū pi ṇī bhagavatī nairātmikā pātu vaḥ || samā[f. 236v]pteyaṃ nairātmyāyā bhagavatyā āśī+ + (sic for āśīrūpā?) stutiḥ || || (f. 236r6–236v1).


38 Nairātmyāstuti, author not named. Not included in the lists of Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al., but noted by Lāl.

Begins: namo ’stu nairātmyā trailokyanāthe+the+śvarī | vivi-dha ga ti sattva jñā nāṃ mbu santarppa+bu san tarppanī (sic for °saṃ tarpaṇī or °saṃtarpaṇi) | (f. 236v1). Ends: satva saṃ sā-ra uddharaṇakaruṇeśvarī (sic for sattva saṃ sā ro ddha ra ṇa°) | aṣṭ a va ra kṣe tra ma dhya sthi ta yo gi nī || oṃ namo ’stu śa ra ṇā-gatapañcadaśayoginī || nairātmyāstutiḥ samāptā || || (f. 236v4–5).



39 Amṛtaprabhā Sādhanopāyikā attributed to Ḍombīheruka.46 Not included in the lists of Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al.; included by Lāl, but without giving a name to the author.

Begins: oṃ namaḥ śrīnairātmyāyai || ḍombī heruka pādair ddevī ca krasya bhāvanā kathitāḥ (sic for kathitā) | saṃpiṇḍya sakalatattvaṃ hevajrād yoginītantrāt || (f. 236v5–6). Ends: vyāghrā sīnaś cared yogī vividha pha ṇi dharair vibhūṣito ya (sic for °varair bhūṣito yaḥ) kṣamāvān | rāgaḍhā sambhogahantre (?)47 vi vidha madhu yate (sic for °yute) kaṅka ge hā khya nāmni || tenedaṃ sādhanendraṃ pa ra hita rucinā guhya prajñā ṅgasaṅga (sic for °saṅgaṃ?) lokasyārthāya kṛtaṃ (?)48 kṣamantu jinasutā bhāṣitaṃ yan mayedaṃ || amṛtaprabhā nāma sādhanopāyikā hevajrasya nairātmyāsādhanaṃ samāptaṃ || || (f. 239v2–240r1).

Edited as Sādhanamālā 228.


40 Nairātmyāsādhana, author not named.

Begins: oṃ namaḥ śrīnairātmyāyai || devīm praṇamya nair-ātmyāṃ mahāmaitrīkṛpāparām | tatsādhanavidhim vakṣye sarvva satvārtha siddhaye || (f. 240r1–2). Ends: oṃ akāro mukhaṃ sarvvadharmmāṇām ādyanutpannatvāt oṃ āḥ hūṃ phaṭ svāhā || vidhāya sādhana devyā nairātmyāyā upārjitaṃ | puṇyaṃ yad atra tenāśu jagat sambodhim āpnuyāt || nairātmyāsādhanaṃ samāptaṃ || || (f. 245v4–6)

46 I use the expression ‘attributed to’ rather than ‘by’ because internal evidence suggests that it is probable that we have in this text an anony-mous author’s setting down of what he had learned to be Ḍombīheruka’s teaching, rather than a composition by (a) Ḍombīheruka himself. For one thing, the wording of the fi rst verse, quoted immediately below, suggests this. For further discussion see Isaacson forthcoming. 47 The edition reads bāḍhaṃ saṃ bho ga yute, which is unmetrical. 48 The last line contains several metrical faults. The readings of the edi-tion diff er considerably.



41 Nairātmyāsādhana by Ratnākaraśānti.49

Begins: namaḥ śrīnairātmāyai || iha bhāvanādhikṛto mantrī prātar eva svahṛdi candramaṇḍale nairātmyā bījaṃ kira ṇa-mā linaṃ dṛṣṭ vā (f. 245v6). Ends: evaṃ dine dine kuryād iti || nairātmyāyāḥ sādhanaṃ samāptaṃ || kṛtir iyam mahāpaṇḍita-ratnā kara śānti pādānām || (f. 249r7).

This sādhana has probably been extracted, not by the author but by some other hand, from Ratnā ka ra śānti’s commentary on the He vajra tantra, the Muktāvalī, on paṭ ala I.viii.50 My main rea-son for suggesting that this is so (rather than that Ratnā ka ra śānti may have composed the sādhana as an independent work and then incorporated it into the commentary) is the fact that the sādhana lacks both an opening maṅgala-verse and a concluding verse dedicating the puṇya arising from composing the text.51 Such omissions would be unique among the works attributed to Ratnā ka ra śānti.


42 Nairātmyāsādhana by Sahajavilāsa. Not included in the lists of Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al., but noticed by Lāl.

Begins: oṃ namo bhagatyai (sic for bhagavatyai) ārya nair-ātmyā yai || prathamaṃ tāvat sarvva satvā rtha bhyu ddharaṇa-lakṣa ṇaṃ (sic for sarva sattvābhyuddha ra ṇa lakṣa ṇāṃ karuṇāṃ, as in the text as edited?) vibhāvya sa bāhyā bhyantaraṃ śūnyatāṃ sākṣāt kṛtvā (f. 249r7–249v1). Ends: oṃ āḥ svāhā || mantrajāpaḥ ||

49 The Tibetan translation gives the sādhana the name *Pauṣṭika nirdeśa. Like the concluding verse in the translation (see footnote below) this title may have been added to the text by the translators (whose names are not known). Lāl does not mention an author’s name for this text. 50 Cf. MuĀ pp. 81–86. 51 The Tibetan translation has added a concluding verse but not an ope-ning one.


nairātmyā sādhanaṃ samāptam || kṛtir iyaṃ sahajavilāsasya || (f. 249v4).

A *Śrī heruka sādhana by *Sahaja vilāsa (Tōhoku 1265, Ōtani 2421) is perhaps a work of the same author.

Edited as Sādhanamālā 231.

Tibetan translations: Tōhoku 3595, Ōtani 4417; Tōhoku 3393, Ōtani 4214; Tōhoku 3640, Ōtani 4462.

43 Tattvāvaloka Nairātmyāsādhana by Divākaracandra.

Begins: namo bhagavatyai hevajrapriyatamāyai || devyā nirjji ta -bhinna ka jja la ru cā nairātmyāyā (sic for nairātmyayā) yat svayaṃ śuklaṃ padmam idaṅ kare vinihitaṃ vāme vilapnoparo (?) | pūrṇaṃ pūratā (sic for pūrayatāt?) tavā bhi la ṣi taṃ raktena rak-todaran nīlā vṛtti ra varti sampuṭ am (?) iva prodbhāsi can drārk-kayoḥ || (f. 249v4–6). Ends: kṛtvā nairā tmi kā yāḥ jina ja na ka-tanoḥ sādhanaṃ suprasannaṃ yat sañ jātaṃ viśuddhaṃ kuśalam agha ha raṃ janmabhājo mamātra | tyaktvā doṣā samastāt (sic for doṣān samastān) bhavatu jagad idan tena nairātmikā drāt (sic for drāk) tenā bhinnā bha ve yaṃ vi ma la gu ṇa ga ṇaḥ sa tvā-rtha kā rī (sic for sarva sattvā rtha kā rī?) || samāptam i||dan ta-ttvā va lo kā bhi dhā na kra ma nairā tmyā sā dhanaṃ || ⊗ || kṛtir iyaṃ mahā paṇḍi ta divā kara candrasyeti || || (f. 260r2–5).


44 Nairātmyāprakāśa by Avadhūtādvayavajra. Not included in the lists of Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al., who wrongly take no. 43 to continue till what is in fact the end of 44, nor in the list of Lāl, though the latter gives the correct folio number (albeit, as is his prac-tice, without indication of whether the recto or the verso side is meant) for the end of the text.

Begins: oṃ namaḥ śrīnairātmyāyai || parihṛtaparikalpaṃ dhar-mma kāyaṃ yam āhur nirupamasukhamātraṃ cāru saṃ bho-ga kāyam | bhuvanahitavidhānād yasya nirmāṇakāyaṃ bha-vatu sa bhagavān vaḥ śreyase vajra satvaḥ || (f. 260r5–6). Ends:


abhisamaya vi sta rite (?) yad āptaṃ kuśalam anena samasta-lokaḥ (?)52 || ku li śa dha ra pada pratiṣṭ hi tātmā hata bhu va na traya-duḥkha daur ma na syaḥ || nairā tmyā pra kā śaḥ samāptaḥ || kṛtir iyaṃ śrīmat pa ṇḍi tā cāryyā va dhū tā dva ya vajra pā dānām iti || (f. 264v4–5).


45 Gaṇacakravidhi, author not given. I prefer this as the title (cf. the opening verse), rather than Bali cakra vidhi, which is what we fi nd in the concluding verse and colophon (and hence in the de-scriptions by Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al., as well as that by Lāl). The work does teach the bali-ritual as well, as is also announced in the opening verse, but the expression bali cakra is not known to me from other sources surviving in Sanskrit. It is possible that its occurrence twice at the end of the text is due to scribal error under infl uence of the fact that the concluding section deals with bali.

Begins: oṃ namaḥ śrīnairātmikāyai || natvā śrīherukaṃ vīraṃ mahāsukhasvarūpiṇam | gaṇa ca kra vi dhi (sic for °vidhiṃ) vakṣye baliṃ hevajrasaṅgataṃ || (f. 264v6). Ends: balicakravidhiṃ kṛtvā yan mayāsāditaṃ śubhaṃ | tenāstu nikhiloko (sic for nikhilo loko) ma hā su kha ma yaḥ sadā || bali ca kra vidhiḥ samāptaḥ || || (f. 271v4–5).


After this last work there is a concluding scribal colophon, in poor Sanskrit, from which we learn that the manuscript is a ‘reli-gious gift’ of and was written by a Bhikṣu Mitrarāja. The last few words must have been on a fi nal folio which has been lost or was

52 The fi rst pāda of this verse in Puṣpitāgrā metre is unmetrical, and the second lacks two syllables. A conjecture such as bhavet samastalokaḥ would repair the metre in the second pāda and supply an appropriate verb; for the problem in the fi rst pāda I see no obvious solution, nor does the Tibetan translation, which loosely renders the sense of the verse, suggests a conjecture.


not photographed. I transcribe this fi nal colophon, without emen-dation, thus: śrīhevajrasya sādhanaṃ saṃsārodadhitāraṇam | mittrarābhikṣuṇālekhi (sic) pāṭ havyagradhiyā punaḥ || ramate ’harnniśaṃ yasya cittaṃ hevajra sādhane | sarvve kiṅkaratāṃ yānti tasya puṇyamahātmanaḥ || ye dharmā hetuprabha(°bhā° a.c.)vā hetun teṣān tathāgata (sic) hy avadat teṣāñ ca yo nirodha evaṃvādī mahāśramaṇaḥ | deyadharmmo yaṃ pravara mahā-yāna yāyina bhikṣumittrarājña (sic) yad atra puṇyan tad bhavatv ācāryyopādhyāya mātā pitṛ pūrvvaṅgamaṃ sakalasattvarāśer anut-tara (here the folio ends).

Appendix

The following table shows for each work the folio and line on which it begins, whether we have the name of the author, whether other manuscripts are known to exist,53 whether it is included in the de-scriptions of Sāṅkṛ tyā yana et al., whether it is included in Lāl’s de-scription, and whether a Tibetan translation has been identifi ed.

Number Folio Author Other MS(S) Sāṅkṛ t yā yana Lāl Tibetan

1 1v1 √ √ √ √2 8r5 √ √ √3 22v1 √ √ √4 47r7 √ √ √5 61v1 √ √ √6 62v6 √ √ √7 65r1 √ √ √ √8 80v5 √ √ √ √9 107v4 √ √ √ √ √10 114r3 √ √ √ √11 123v2 √ √ √ √12 140r6 √13 152r4 √ √ √

53 A check is placed in this column even if the other manuscript(s) are incomplete.


Number Folio Author Other MS(S) Sāṅkṛ t yā yana Lāl Tibetan

14 156v6 √ √ √ √15 160r7 √ √ √16 164r3 √17 169r7 √ √18 170r6 √ √ √19 186r5 √ √ √20 197r221 199v2 √ √ √ √ √22 201r1 √ √ √23 202r4 √ √ √ √24 204v2 √25 204v4 √ √ √ √26 206v6 √ √27 211r5 √28 214r7 √ √ √29 216r5 √30 218v5 √31 219v6 √ √ √32 224r6 √ √ √33 228r4 √ √34 230r2 √ √ √ √ √35 231r2 √ √ √36 231v3 √ √37 235v3 √ √38 236v1 √39 236v5 √ √ √ √40 240r1 √ √41 245v6 √ √ √ √42 249r7 √ √ √ √43 249v4 √ √ √44 260r5 √ √45 264v6 √ √

Primary sources referred to

CaMePra Caryāmelāpakapradīpa by Āryadeva. Christian K. Wedemeyer (ed.): Āryadeva’s Lamp that Integrates the Practices (Caryā-melā pakapradīpa): The Gradual Path of Vajrayāna Buddhism, According to the Esoteric Community Noble Tradition. Edited


and translated with an introduction. New York: The American Institute of Buddhist Studies/Columbia University’s Center for Buddhist Studies/Tibet House US, 2007. Treasure of the Bud-dhist Sciences Series.

Deb ther sṅon po Deb ther sṅon po attributed to ’Gos Lo-tsā-ba Gźon nu dpal. Lokesh Chandra (ed.): The blue annals: completed in A.D. 1478 by Hgos-Lotsawa Gzhon-nu dpal. New Delhi: Internation-al Academy of Indian Culture, 1974. Śata-piṭ aka series vol. 212. [Cf. Roerich 1949, 1953.]

BhraHa Bhramaharanāma Hevajrasādhana by Ratnā ka ra śānti. Edited in Isaacson 2002b.

MaKa Marmakalikā, a pañjikā by Vīryaśrīmitra on the Tattva jñā-na saṃsiddhi of Śūnyasamādhipāda. Janardan Shastri Pandey (ed.): Tattvajñānasaṃsiddhi of Śūnyasamādhipāda with Mar-ma kalikāpañjikā of Vīryaśrīmitra. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 2000. Rare Buddhist Texts Series 23.

MuĀ Muktāvalī, a pañjikā by Ratnā ka ra śānti on the He vajra tantra. Ram Shankar Tripathi and Thakur Sain Negi (eds.): Heva jra-tantram with Muktāvalī Pañjikā of Mahā paṇḍitācārya Ratnā-karaśānti. Sarnath, Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibet-an Studies 2001. Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica Series 48.

SāMā Sādhanamālā. Ed. Benoytosh Bhattacharya. Vol. 1 Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1925. Gaekwad’s Oriental Series 26. Vol. 2 Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1928. Gaekwad’s Oriental Series 41.

SeNiPa Sekanirdeśapañjikā by Rāmapāla, on the Sekanirdeśa of Ad-vayavajra. References are to Cambridge University Library MS Or. 149.

HePra Hevajraprakāśa by Rāhulagupta. Palm-leaf manuscript photo-graphed IASWR MBB I-39; NGMPP X 1504/1.

HeTa He vajra tantra. Edited by David L. Snellgrove: The Hevajra Tantra. A Critical Study. Part 2: Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts. London: Oxford University Press, 1959.


Secondary literature referred to

Bandurski, Frank

1994 Übersicht über die Göttinger Sammlungen der von Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana in Tibet aufgefundenen buddhistischen Sanskrit-Texte (Funde buddhistischer Sanskrit-Handschriften, III). In: Untersuchungen zur buddhistischen Literatur. Bearbeitet von Frank Bandurski, Bhikkhu Pāsādika, Michael Schmidt, Bang-wei Wang. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden, Beiheft 5. pp. 9–126.

BBK – see Tsukamoto, K. and Y. Matsunaga and H. Isoda

Davidson, Ronald M.

1992 Preliminary studies on Hevajra’s Abhisamaya and the Lam-’bras Tshogs bshad. In: Steven D. Goodman and Ronald M. Davidson (eds.): Tibetan Buddhism: Reason and Revelation. Albany, New York: 1992. SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies. pp. 106–132, with notes on pp. 176–184.

Edgerton, Franklin

BHSD Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. Volume II: Dictionary. New Haven 1953.

Ehlers, Gerhard

1995 Indische Handschriften Teil 12. Die Sammlung der Nieder-sächsischen Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen. Wies baden: Otto Harrassowitz. Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland II.12.

Erb, Felix

1997 Śūnyatāsaptativṛtti: Candrakīrti’s Kommentar zu den “Siebzig Versen über die Leerheit” des Nāgārjuna (Kārikās 1–14). Stutt-gart: Franz Steiner. Tibetan and Indo-Tibetan Studies 6.

Finot, Louis,

1934 Manuscrits Sanskrits de sādhanas retrouvés en Chine. In: Jour-nal Asiatique 225 (1934) 1–85.

Isaacson, Harunaga

2002a Ratnā ka ra śānti’s Hevajrasahajasadyoga (Studies in Ratnā ka ra-śānti’s tantric works I). In: Raff aele Torella (ed.): Le Parole e i Marmi: studi in onore di Raniero Gnoli nel suo 70° compleanno.


Roma: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente 2001 [appeared 2002]. Serie Orientale Roma XCII. pp. 457–487.

2002b Ratnākaraśānti’s Bhramaharanāma Hevajrasādhana: Critical Edition (Studies in Ratnā ka ra śānti’s tantric works III). In: Jour-nal of the International College for Advanced Buddhist Studies vol. 5 (2002) 151(80)–176(55).

2008 Himalayan Encounter: The Teaching Lineage of the Marmo pa-deśa (Studies in the Vanaratna Codex 1). In: Manuscript Cul-tures 1 (Autumn/Winter 2008) 2–6.

forthc. The Hevajra works of the lineage of Ḍombīheruka.

van der Kuijp, Leonard W. J.

1987 Ngor-chen kun-dga’ bzang-po on the Posture of Hevajra: a Note on the Relationship between Text, Iconography and Spiritual Praxis. In: Investigating Indian Art. Proceedings of a Sympo-sium on the Development of Early Buddhist and Hindu Icono-graphy held at the Museum of Indian Art Berlin in May 1986. Ed. Marianne Yaldiz and Wibke Lobo. Berlin: Museum für Indi sche Kunst, 1987. Veröff entlichungen des Museums für In-dische Kunst vol 8. pp. 173–177.

2006 On the Composition and Printings of the Deb ther sngon po by ’Gos lo tsā ba gzhon nu dpal (1392–1481). In: Journal of the In-ternational Association of Tibetan Studies 2 (August 2006) 1–46.

Lāl, Banārsī

1999 Bauddhatantra vāṅmaya kā paricaya (Hevajratantra). In: Dhīḥ 28 (1998) 25–42.

Lo Bue, Erberto F.

1997 The role of Newar scholars in transmitting the Indian Bud-dhist heritage to Tibet (c. 750–c. 1200). In: Samten Karmay and Philippe Sagart (eds.): Les habitants du Toit du monde: Études recueillies en hommage à Alexander W. Macdonald. Nanterre: Société d’ethnologie, 1997. Recherches sur la Haute Asie 12. pp. 629–658.

Mikkyō Seiten Kenkyūkai (eds.):54

1986–87 Vajradhātumahāmaṇḍalopāyikā-Sarvavajrodaya – Bonbun teki-suto to wayaku [Vajradhātumahāmaṇḍalopāyikā-Sarvavajrodaya

54 This is a collective of students of tantric Buddhism at Taishō Univer-sity.


– Sanskrit text and Japanese translation]. In: Taishō Daigaku Sōgō Bukkyō Kenkyūjō Nenpō 8 (1986) 257(24)–224(57) and 9 (1987) 294(13)–222(85).

Moriguchi, Mitutoshi

1989 Catalogue of the Buddhist Tantric Manuscripts in the Na-tional Archives of Nepal and Kesar Library. Tokyo: Sankibou Busshorin.

Roerich, George N. (trsl.)

1949, 1953 The Blue Annals. Calcutta 1949 (Part 1); 1953 (Part 2). Asi-atic Society Monograph Series 7.

Sakuma, Ruriko

2006 A Historical Background of the Trailokyavaśaṅkarabhugma Lokeśvara Sādhana in the Sādhanamālā. In: Nagoya Studies in Indian Culture and Buddhism: Saṃbhāṣā 25 (2006) 1–13.

Sanderson, Alexis

1985 Purity and power among the Brahmans of Kashmir. In: The category of the Person. Anthropology, philosophy, history. Ed-ited by Michael Carrithers, Steven Collins, Steven Lukes. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. pp. 190–216.

1995 Vajrayāna: Origin and Function. In: Buddhism into the Year 2000. Bangkok/Los Angeles: Dhammakaya Foundation, 1994. pp. 87–102.

2002 History through Textual Criticism in the study of Śaivism, the Pañca rātra and the Buddhist Yoginī tantras. In: François Grimal (ed.): Les sources et le temps. Sources and Time. A colloquium. Pondicherry 11–13 January 1997. Publications du département d’indologie 91. Pondicherry: Institut français de Pondichéry/Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient, 2001 [appeared 2002]. pp. 1–47.

2009 The Śaiva Age – The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism During the Early Medieval Period –. In: Shingo Einoo (ed.): Genesis and Development of Tantrism. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Cul-ture, University of Tokyo, 2009. pp. 41–349.

Sāṅkṛtyāyana, Rāhula

1935 Sanskrit Palm-leaf MSS. in Tibet. In: Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society 21.1 (1935) 21–43.


Steinkellner, Ernst

2004 A Tale of Leaves: On Sanskrit Manuscripts in Tibet, their Past, and their Future. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. [Eleventh Gonda lecture, held on 21 Novem-ber 2003 on the premises of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.]

Tatz, Mark

1987 The Life of the Siddha-Philosopher Maitrīgupta. In: Journal of the American Oriental Society 107.4 (1987) 695–711.

Templeman, David (trsl.)

1983 Tāranātha’s bka’. babs. bdun. ldan: The Seven Instruction Lin-eages by Jo.Nang. Tāranātha. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works & Archives.

Tomabechi, Toru

1996 Introductory remarks. In: Zhongxin Jiang and Toru Tomabechi (eds.): The Pañca krama ṭippaṇī of Muni śrī bhadra. Introduction and Romanized Sanskrit Text. Bern etc. 1996 (Schweizer Asi-atische Studien/Etudes asiatiques suisses vol. 23). pp. xi–xxvii.

2000 Notes on Robert Thurman’s translation of the Pañcakrama. In: Journal of Indian Philosophy 28 (2000) 531–548.

2006 Étude du Pañcakrama: Introduction et traduction annotée. Thèse présentée à la Faculté des lettres de l’Université de Lau-sanne pour l’obtention le grade du docteur ès lettres. Lausanne. [Unpublished doctoral thesis.]

Tsukamoto, K. and Y. Matsunaga and H. Isoda (eds.)

BBK Bongo Butten no Kenkyū IV, Mikkyō Kyōten Hen / A Descriptive Bibliography of the Sanskrit Buddhist Literature, Vol. IV: The Buddhist Tantra. Kyoto 1989.

Wedemeyer, Christian K.

2006 Tantalising Traces of the Labours of the Lotsāwas: Alternative Translations of Sanskrit Sources in the Writings of rJe Tsong kha pa. In: Ronald M. Davidson and Christian K. Wedemeyer (eds.): Tibetan Buddhist Literature and Praxis: Studies in its Formative Period, 900–1400. PIATS 2003: Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of the International Associa-tion for Tibetan Studies, Oxford, 2003. Leiden/Boston: Brill. pp. 149–182.


Willson, Martin

1986 In Praise of Tara: Songs to the Saviouress. London: Wisdom Publications.

Sanskrit manuscripts in ChinaProceedings of a panel at the 2008 Beijing

Seminar on Tibetan StudiesOctober 13 to 17

Edited by

Ernst Steinkellner

in cooperation with

Duan Qing, Helmut Krasser

China Tibetology Publishing HouseBeijing 2009

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

前言 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

•

DUAN QingA fragment of the Bhadrakalpasūtra in Buddhist Sanskrit from Xinjiang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

FAN MuyouSome grammatical notes on the Advayasamatā vijaya mahā -kalparājā . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Pascale HUGON

Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge’s synoptic table of the Pramāṇa -viniścaya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Harunaga ISAACSON

A collection of Hevajrasādhanas and related works in Sanskrit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Matthew T. KAPSTEIN

Preliminary remarks on the Grub mtha’ chen mo of Bya ’Chad kha ba Ye shes rdo rje . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Shoryu KATSURA

Rediscovering Dignāga through Jinendrabuddhi . . . . . . . . . 153

Helmut KRASSER

Original text and (re)translation – a critical evaluation. . . . . . 167

LI XuezhuCandrakīrti on dharmanairātmya as held by both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna – based on Madhyamakāvatāra Chapter 1 . . . . 179

6 Contents

李学竹

月称关于二乘人通达法无我的论证 – 以梵文本《入中论》第一章为考察中心 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

LUO HongA preliminary report on a newly identifi ed Sanskrit manu-script of the Vinayasūtra from Tibet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

LUO ZhaoThe cataloguing of Sanskrit manuscripts preserved in the TAR: A complicated process that has lasted more than twenty years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

罗炤

西藏梵文贝叶经的编目情况及二十余年的曲折经过 . . . . . . . . 235

SAERJI

Sanskrit manuscript of the Svapnādhyāya preserved in Tibet . . . 241

SFERRA

The Manuscripta Buddhica project – Alphabetical list of Sanskrit manuscripts and photographs of Sanskrit manu-scripts in Giuseppe Tucci’s collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

Ernst STEINKELLNER

Strategies for modes of management and scholarly treat-ment of the Sanskrit manuscripts in the TAR . . . . . . . . . . . 279

恩斯特∙斯坦因凯勒西藏自治区梵文手稿的管理模式及学术性处理方面的策略 . . . . 293

Tsewang GyurmeProtecting the Sanskrit palm-leaf manuscripts in the Tibet-an Autonomous Region – A summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

YE ShaoyongA preliminary survey of Sanskrit manuscripts of Madhya-maka texts preserved in the Tibet Autonomous Region . . . . . . 307

isaacson - 2009 a collection of hevajrasaadhanas and related works

Documents