Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

A Sanskrit Manuscript of the

Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālaśaṃvara

Péter-Dániel Szántó
on behalf of
Arlo Griffiths & Alexis Sanderson

Manuscripta Buddhica Workshop, Procida, 2013 September 8-11

Circumstances of discovery The manuscript was discovered and tentatively identified as


the SBS by Arlo Griffiths (ÉFEO, Jakarta) at the Bibliothèque de l'Institut d'Études Indiennes (Collège
de France) during the summer of 2013. On July 19 the identification was confirmed based on
the Tibetan translation by myself (and perhaps even earlier by Alexis Sanderson). Shortly
thereaer a decision was reached to work jointly towards an edition (in progress).

Details of the manuscript Shelved at the Bibliothèque de l'Institut d'Études Indiennes as Ms SL


no. 48 (collection Sylvain Lévi). Palm-leaf, ff. 54, 40/14 cm (according to the online catalogue;
more likely 28/5.5 cm is the actual size), in almost perfect condition (only minor tears and
occasional wormholes), accompanied by a note in Lévi's hand (a transcription of the chapter
colophons and miscellanea). The product of at least two scribes working in shis (some
corrections in a more recent hand). First and last page has various scribbles, including an
unrelated astrological diagram.

Contents Chapters 1-9, therefore almost complete (ca. 90%). Ch. 10 is missing, but can be
reconstructed from clichés and testimonia (Nāgabuddhi/Nāgabodhi). We cannot determine
for the time being why the scribe(s) stopped at the end of ch. 9 (AG: 108 completed pages?;
PDSz: incomplete exemplar?). A rather big chunk from ch. 9 is misplaced and another por-
tion corresponding to Derge (Tōh. 366) 185b to 189b is missing altogether.

Provenance How, when, and where Lévi acquired this ms. is still unknown. It is unlikely
that he realized what the text is (perhaps Filliozat did in his unpublished catalogue?). Based
on the script and some paratextual features (vertical lines separating margins and string space,
peculiar fleurons, siddham sign), we tentatively and provisionally date it to the second half of
the 11th century, Pāla Empire.

1
Date of the SBS Most likely already in existence in 741-746 CE (date of Amoghavajra's
travel to Ceylon and perhaps mainland India), mentioned by that author in Taishō 869, which
dates from 746-774 CE. (See Giebel 1995, Tomabechi 2007, Sanderson 2009). Another early
attestation is a narrative in Jñānamitra's *Adhyardhaśatikāṭīkā (Tōh. 2647), this title is included
in the Ldan/Lhan dkar ma catalogue (ca. 800-815 CE). This narrative involving Kukku[ra]rāja
and Indrabhūti has been studied several times (Kanaoka 1966, Davidson 2002, Weinberger
2003, Wedemeyer 2013). Possibly a motif from the story (Indrabhūti's accomplishment with
his harem) is alluded to by Āryadeva (Sūtaka, ed. Wedemeyer, p. 477). Quoted by Jñānapāda
and Āryadeva (turn of the ninth century).

Influence of the SBS Several passages appropriated by scriptures: Herukābhidhāna, Vajraḍāka,


Caturyoginīsaṃpuṭa, Abhidhānottara, Saṃpuṭodbhava, Ḍākārṇava, etc. Quoted with or without
attribution (sometimes simply incorporated) by the following early (i.e. 9th c.) works: Āt-
masādhanāvatāra, Sūtaka, Jñānasiddhi, Anonymous Tantric Treatise (NAK 3-737 = NGMPP A 37/4),
Nāmamantrārthāvalokinī, Cittaviśuddhiprakaraṇa, Svādhiṣṭhānakramaprabheda, Pradīpoddyotana, Va-
jrasattvaniṣpādanasūtra, Tattvasiddhi, Pañcakrama, Viṃśatividhi of Nāgabuddhi, Sārdhatriśatikā of
Dīpaṃkarabhadra, etc.

Texts informing the SBS The Trisamayarājakalpa (Tōh. 502; also alluded to, along with other
kalpas), the so-called 'longer' Paramādya/mantrakalpakhaṇḍa (Tōh. 488), the Vajramaṇḍālaṃkāra
(Tōh. 490; parallel - but not dependence - already noted by Tanaka 2007).

Exegesis of the SBS Alongside several minor ritual texts, major commentaries survive only
in Tibetan. Lost commentary by Ānandagarbha: can be shown that this is different from his
Sarvakalpasamuccaya commentary (Tōh. 1662), which is an uttaratantra of the SBS.1 Tōh. 1659
by Brgya byin sdong po is probably a canonized Tibetan work. Tōh. 1661 attr. to Indrabhūti
in the Tōh. Cat., but in reality by Śākyamitra partially survives in the Saṃpuṭatilaka. Tōh. 1663
by *Praśāntamitra (very likely a disciple of Jñānapāda2 ), who already alludes to anonymous
exegetical authorities (la la dag, gzhan dag); quotes only early scriptures: the longer Paramādya,
*Sarvamaṇḍalasāmānyavidhi (Tōh. 806). Tōh. 1660 by *Pramuditavajra is probably the latest,
refers to Ānandagarbha (not traceable in Tōh. 1662) and *Praśāntamitra; also discusses the
caturthābhiṣeka and refers to (amongst others) the Herukābhidhāna and a commentary of it, the
Catuṣpīṭha, and the Vajraḍāka.

1
Cf. Mahāmatideva's Tattvaviśadā nāma Ḍākinīvajrapañjarapañjikā (MS scattered, this passage is in NAK 5-20
= NGMPP A 47/17, f. 7r5): tathā coktaṃ Garbhapādaiḥ Sarvabuddhaṭīkāyāṃ saṃvaryādicaturdevīviśuddhirūpeṇa catuḥ-
pārśvaśūlaṃ tathāparaṃ turaṅgamādyair iti.
2
*Samantabhadrasādhanavṛtti (Tōh. 1867, ff. 141a6-7 & Ōta. 2730 ff. 170a7-8) names four of his 'eminent dis-
ciples' as Mar me mdzad bzang po (Dīpaṃkarabhadra), Rab tu zhi ba'i bshes gnyen (*Praśāntamitra), Rdo rje
bde ba chen po (*Vajramahāsukha), and Sgra gcan 'dzin bzang po (*Rāhulabhadra).

S-ar putea să vă placă și