1 Introduction
The 7th and 8th centuries saw sudden-gradual debates popping up in all sorts of ways. Not only did the Chan Master Shenhui (668–760,
With such trends in view, the present chapter examines the role of samaya (Tib. dam tshig) in the early development of tantric Buddhist ritual. Arguing that the term was pivotal to 8th-century ritual developments in ways that have not yet been sufficiently recognised, the chapter suggests that the effecting of samaya’s entry (Skt. āveśa) into the practitioner’s heart constituted a central theme for both Yoga and early Mahāyoga. Indeed, once the centrality of samaya is recognised, the development of the ‘secret’ sexual practices of early Mahāyoga out of the earlier rites of the Yogatantras appears in a new light.4 For my evidence, I turn foremost to the Dunhuang collection, as its numerous ritual manuals offer so many rare glimpses of early tantric practice, but also to some closely associated tantras and commentaries.
2 Yogatantra
We begin with the rituals of the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha (henceforth the STTS), the most influential of the Yogatantras, portions of which likely date to the late 7th century. First, we will examine the place of samaya in the initiation ceremony as it is described in the tantra itself and then in a Dunhuang (
The fundamentals of the STTS ritual system may be found in the tantra’s first chapter. Following the creation of the system’s Vajradhātu maṇḍala, the chapter revolves around the initiation rites, which it describes in some detail. The ceremony’s central sequence begins, following some initial prostrations, when the teacher covers the disciple’s eyes and has him bind the so-called sattvavajrīmudrā, a gesture formed by clasping both hands together into a single fist and raising the two middle fingers to face each other. This gesture, as the late 8th-century STTS commentator, Śākyamitra, explains, represents a vajra standing upon a moon disc:
Resting within mind-only, that mind-only is explained to be like a moon disc. In order to make that firm, moreover, a five-spoked jñānavajra is placed there. This is the samaya; it is established as the form of the jñāna of the buddhas and bodhisattvas throughout the Mahāyāna. How so? The moon disc is demonstrated by the vajra-clasp, and the vajra is shown as the two raised middle fingers.5
The vajrasattvīmudrā, then, is an instantiation of the buddhas’ jñāna, here symbolised by a vajra standing upon a moon disc. The identification of samaya with the mind of buddha is seen throughout the STTS, wherein the four mudrās of mahāmudrā, dharmamudrā, samayamudrā, and karmamudrā are correlated with the buddha’s body, speech, mind, and activities. The vajrasattvīmudrā is therefore equivalent to the samaya and thus to the buddhas’ jñāna.
Having formed the sattvavajrīmudrā, the disciple pronounces the mantra: ‘You are the samaya’ (Skt. samayastvaṃ). This is a significant moment that marks the disciple’s initial encounter with the samayamudrā, the jñāna of the buddhas. The rites that follow all revolve around this same mudrā. Through a series of two acts, the ritual master installs the mudrā in the disciple’s heart. The first rite emphasises the aspect of the samaya as an oath, while the second highlights its aspect as jñāna.
Leading him into the maṇḍala, the ācārya has the disciple recite samaya hūṃ and explains that he will now generate the vajrajñāna within him. He then himself binds the same sattvavajrīmudrā that the disciple is still holding. Placing it face-downward on the disciple’s head, he explains that it is the samayavajra. We read on:
Then, with that same samayamudrā, he [consecrates] some water, pronouncing the pledge heart[-mantra] one time, then has the disciple drink it. Now, this is the pledge heart[-mantra]:
“Now Vajrasattva himself dwells in your heart. If you speak of this precept, you will instantaneously be destroyed. Oṃ vajrodaka ṭhaḥ.”6
Vajrasattva in the form of the sattvavajrīmudrā thus enters into the student as he drinks the water. “In order for the jñāna to enter, […]” concludes Śākyamitra in his commentary, “[…] the sattvavajrīmudrā is positioned in the student’s heart, and the heart[-mantra] is recited.”7 As Śākyamitra, explains, this is the crucial moment of entry (Skt. āveśa), when the buddhas’ jñāna enters inside the disciple for the first time. The master then informs the disciple that henceforth he must happily obey his every command or suffer dire consequences, after which he has the disciple pronounce, “May all the tathāgatas empower [me]! May Vajrasattva enter me!”8
Having thus completed the bestowal of the samaya in the context of the vows of obeisance, the master once again binds the now familiar sattvavajrīmudrā and explains that it is none other than Vajrasattva. “May the unsurpassable vajrajñāna enter you this very day. Vajrāveśa aḥ.”9 He then breaks open the disciple’s own sattvavajrīmudrā, which is still held at his heart, thereby causing it to enter once more into the disciple’s bodily interior. This time, the samayamudrā’s entry brings divine knowledge and all other pleasures, samādhis, and attainments. The rite concludes with the disciple reciting a mantra so that the vajrajñāna may consecrate his heart and remain there steadfastly.
The disciple then tosses the flower-garland and is introduced to the details of the maṇḍala, but with the double entry of the samaya, first as an oath and then as the buddhas’ jñāna, the main part of the initiation is complete. Two aspects of these proceedings stand out: the importance of entry and the dual valence of the samaya/samayamudrā, as oath and as jñāna.
The centrality of the samayamudrā, qua a vajra standing upon a moon disc, is evident already in the narrative that opens the STTS itself. There, the soon-to-be-awakened Sarvārthasiddhi (a.k.a. Śākyamuni) is led through the five stages of the pañcākārābhisaṃbodhikrama in order to generate himself as the Buddha Mahāvairocana. While the precise nature of these five stages differs between manuals, in the tantra itself, the first two stages produce a moon disc and its consecration, and the third and fourth produce a vajra upon that disc and its consecration. Significantly, the resulting formation of a vajra upon a moon disc is referred to twice as the sattvavajra, marking it as identical with the sattvavajrīmudrā that plays such a crucial role in the initiation ceremony.10 It is out of this mudrā that the form of Mahāvairocana emerges in the final, fifth stage. We may presume that the sattvavajra remains at the resulting buddha’s heart. Indeed, immediately following the last of the five stages, the resulting form is consecrated by all the tathāgatas entering into that same sattvavajra, presumably at Mahāvairocana’s heart, in a moment that mirrors in many respects the initiation described above.11 The presence of all these elements in the tantra’s framing narrative further confirms the importance of the sattvavajrīmudrā, the instantiation of the samaya, which is also the jñāna of the buddhas.
Following his initiation, the disciple would commence upon his sādhana practice. One such sādhana is the Tattvasaṃgrahasādhanopāyikā, a text that appears in at least five copies at Dunhuang, plus a nearly complete commentary. I have published on this text elsewhere, but for the sake of convenience, the relevant manuscripts are listed here:
Ārya-sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgrahasādhanopāyikā:
-
(1) P. 792/IOL Tib J 551: Complete copy.
-
(2) IOL Tib J 417 /P. T. 300/IOL Tib J 519: Almost complete (missing first folio).
-
(3) P. T. 265: Single folio from the middle of the sādhana.
-
(4) P. T. 271: Single folio from near the end.
-
(5) IOL Tib J 448/P. T. 270: Another copy, with various appended notes missing several folios from both beginning and end.
Commentary to the Tattvasaṃgrahasādhanopāyikā:
-
(1) IOL Tib J 447: Same paper and handwriting as IOL Tib J 448 (missing first folio).
Elsewhere I have argued that this work is a translation from an Indic original, though the lengthy commentary contained in IOL Tib J 447 is likely of Tibetan authorship.12 The sādhana’s general outline also closely mirrors the ritual structures followed in Amoghavajra’s (705–774, Chin. Bukong
According to our Tattvasaṃgrahasādhanopāyikā, following some prostrations and initial purifications, the practitioner generates himself as the deity, what we today might call the samayasattva, though that term may not yet have come into use at the time of our sādhana’s composition. As is well known, in sādhanas of later centuries, union with the deity was affected in two steps, with the practitioner first generating his body in the form of the buddha, called the samayasattva, and then consecrating that form by installing into himself the jñānasattva, or the mind of the buddha. In our Tattvasaṃgrahasādhanopāyikā, we find the same two-step process of creation and consecration, but here the inert form is consecrated not with the jñānasattva but with its equivalent, the samayamudrā. As I have suggested elsewhere, this shift in terminology, from the earlier samayamudrā to the later jñānasattva, probably occurred sometime around the late 8th century, and authors were quite explicit about the change.13
Returning to the specifics of our Tattvasaṃgrahasādhanopāyikā, the practitioner first generates himself in the form of the deity by means of the pañcākārābhisaṃbodhikrama. As in the STTS’s opening narrative about Sarvārthasiddhi, this is immediately followed by the practitioner’s (self-) consecration (Skt. svādhiṣṭhāna) of the resulting form:
For the tathāgata [buddha] family, bind the mudrā of Sattvavajrī. ‘You are the samaya’ [(Skt. samayastvam)]. By means of this [mudrā and mantra], place a moon disc that encircles one with light behind. For binding the sattvavajrī[mudrā], raise the middle fingers with level fingertips. With this [mudrā], bless the four places—the heart, between the eyes, the throat, and the top of the head—together with this mantra: Sattvavajrī adhitiṣṭhasva mām.14
Then generate pride, saying, “I am the mahāsamaya.” Then, thinking that oneself is identical with that sattva, who is one’s own mudrā, recite this heart[-mantra] and imagine it is so: “I am the samaya” [(Skt. samayo’ham)].15
Here the practitioner brings the samayamudrā, i.e., the enlivening jñāna of the buddhas, into his transformed body through a series of ritual acts. First, he arranges his hands into the now familiar sattvavajrīmudrā. Gazing at this mudrā, he pronounces a Sanskrit mantra: “You are the samaya” (Skt. samayastvam), precisely the same mantra that the disciple recited during his initiation, at the beginning of the sequence that affected its entry into his heart. The consecration of the practitioner’s body with the jñāna/samayamudrā is now performed by touching this sattvavajrīmudrā to four places on his own body, while reciting a mantra. This accomplished, he generates divine pride and finally seals the union by proclaiming, “I am the samaya” (Skt. samayo’ham).
This consecration of the practitioner’s body with the samayamudrā represents a significant moment in our sādhana’s proceedings. As Ānandagarbha, a 10th-century Indian commentator on the STTS, explains, this final statement, “I am the samaya” (Skt. samayo’ham), is “a display of the accomplishment of the mahāmudrā as the final result of one’s meditation.”16 Insofar as the consummation of the practitioner as the fully consecrated deity is accomplished through the entry of the samaya into his heart, the post-initiatory practitioner thus seeks to reenact his original initiation, to return to the original transmission he received from his guru. The entry of the samaya therefore marks a central moment in both the initiation and the associated post-initiatory sādhana rites.
3 Mahāyoga
Fifty to a hundred years after the STTS rites were taking shape, the sexual yogas of the Mahāyogatantras were spreading. It is now well established that the Mahāyoga materials from Dunhuang reflect a kind of ‘intermediate period’ in the development of sexual yoga.17 Perhaps better called ‘early Mahāyoga,’ this period is characterised by a ritual focus on a sacramental drop of sexual fluids—a transformative instantiation of bodhicitta. Accordingly, in India around the turn of the 9th century, there existed only the first two of the four tantric initiations that are common today. The equivalent of the vase initiation (Tib. bum dbang; Skt. kalāsābhiṣeka) had already emerged around the late 7th century with the Yogatantras, while the second, the so-called secret initiation (Tib. gsang dbang; Skt. guhyābhiṣeka), appears to have emerged roughly a century later to formalise what was by then the cutting-edge focus of early Mahāyoga sādhana practice.
Somewhat curiously, I know of no unambiguous reference to the secret initiation as such anywhere in the Dunhuang manuscripts, despite the fact that consuming the bodhicitta as a sacrament is a central element of the early Mahāyoga rituals seen at Dunhuang. The term secret initiation does appear in IOL Tib J 579, a Sarvadurgatipariśodhana-based initiation manual. There, the secret initiation is listed as the last of eleven initiations, the other ten being variations on the standard initiations that came to comprise the vase initiation.18 The procedure described, however, consists of just touching the mudrā of the principle deity to five places on the disciple’s body while reciting the relevant mantras.19 Possibly related are some odd lines in another Sarvadurgati initiation manual, IOL Tib J 439/712, which describe three levels (outer, inner, and secret) of bodhicitta initiations.
In short, the directional guardians, the bodhisattvas of good fortune, the goddesses of the times, and so on have been initiated by means of the outer bodhicitta. All appearances within the outer scope of all sentient beings, are likewise initiated by that outer bodhicitta, so that they arise in the manner of the saṃbhoga[kāya]. The eight great uṣṇīṣa [i.e. the buddhas] have the nature of the inner bodhicitta. When one has arrived there [at their circle], one obtains the initiation of the inner bodhicitta, being initiated by the nirmāṇakāya. The central circle is called the great peace of the dharmakāya, the secret bodhicitta. In that way, the master grants the excellent initiation of the dharmakāya, the secret bodhicitta, to the present patron and all limitless sentient beings. Having obtained [the initiation] thusly, they manifestly and completely awaken and are ones who display the siddhi of vastly enacting the purposes of all sentient beings in the nature of the spontaneously present three bodies.20
Despite the presence of this passage, the initiations that follow in the same manuscript make no further mention of a secret initiation. Significant, however, is one line in the Precept for Supreme Goodness, a brief Mahāyoga sādhana found in ITJ331/1. While it does not reference the secret initiation by name, it does describe the prerequisite to practice as the “initiation by means of the drop” (ITJ331/1, 1r.2: thigs pas dbang bskur). Given that the Precept is attributed to Mañjuśrīmitra, who lived in the second half of the eighth century, this may be our earliest evidence for the secret initiation, even if not by name. Otherwise, to date, our earliest dateable reference to the secret initiation by name remains the early 9th-century Dvitīyakramatattvabhāvanāmukhāgama of Buddhajñānapāda.21
What we do find in the Dunhuang manuscripts, however, is the bestowal of a so-called supreme samaya (Tib. dam tshig mchog) within the context of a group practice. P. 321 is a pothi-style manuscript of 24 folios from Dunhuang. Complete at the beginning, missing no pages in the middle, but cut off mid-sentence at the end, it remains unclear how many pages might be missing. The manuscript contains a single text, an untitled manual for a gaṇacakra. The text begins with the ritual master generating himself as Śrī Heruka at the centre of a wrathful maṇḍala, after which it directs the ritual participants to perform an offering of the five ambrosias (Tib. bdud rtsi lnga; Skt. pañcāmṛta), the five transgressive ambrosias of human flesh, urine, feces, semen, and menstrual blood. Though it is mixed with other substances, the text makes it clear that the semen, or bodhicitta, is primary. Thus, we read, for example:
This supreme samaya, then, consists primarily of the drop of seminal bodhicitta that is emitted through ritualised sexual union, even when the result is mixed with the other four substances.
After offering the preparation to the vajrācārya (here termed the ‘Vajra- King’),23 the assembled receive the samaya themselves:
Administer the samaya to the gathered [dharma] brethren:24 With the tips of one’s thumb and ring finger together, while perceiving that the nature of this ambrosia, the siddhis of body, speech, and mind, are being attained, place it upon the [disciple’s] tongue three times and pronounce these words:
The opening instruction here emphasises that the ambrosia’s nature, the buddha’s body, speech, and mind, is attained immediately upon its bestowal, yet the recited verses make it clear—and here we return to the dual valences of term—that the supreme samaya is also an oath not to be transgressed. This dual nature of the supreme samaya relates to the paradox that is fundamental to Mahāyoga practice, i.e. that one is already a buddha, yet often quite elaborate rituals are required. Put another way, the supreme samaya brings immediate and complete awakening, yet it needs to be cultivated.
Having swallowed the sacramental drop, the gaṇacakra recipients are told to “rest with vitality in the realisation of the conqueror.”26 To get a better sense of what was expected from drinking the sacrament, we may look to chapter eight of the Padmasambhava-attributed commentary on the Thabs kyi zhags pa. Here again, the sacrament is bestowed in conjunction with a group practice (Tib. tshom bu) that culminates in gaṇacakra-style feasting, singing, and dancing, and here the bodhicitta is bestowed alone, without the other four substances:
When one drinks it down, the supreme accomplishment is attained […] Through the consecration that thusly unites expanse and awareness, there arises an awareness that unerringly realises the aim. By means of that bodhicitta, which is Vajrasattva, one passes beyond subject and object and enters into absorption in non-duality, the realm of mūṃ [i.e., emptiness]. For this reason, one is called Vajrasattva, he who dwells on the level of Vajra Holder, and he of the thirteenth level. This is the supreme accomplishment.27
The sacrament thus bestows a direct taste of buddhahood. Ritual falls away, and a direct meditation on non-duality emerges.
The secret initiation likely would have been supposed to engender a similar taste of immediate realisation. Writing around the turn of the ninth century, Buddhajñānapāda offers an early glimpse of how the secret initiation was understood:
Having descended, [the drop] enters the lotus at his heart. By this means, the field is purified; [Perceiving] all phenomena as illusions, and so forth—the twelve [experiences]—are realized in actuality.28
As Jñānapāda’s commentator, Vaidyapāda, explains, the ‘field’ here refers to the disciple’s psycho-physical aggregates, while the twelve experiences engendered by the secret initiation are twelve metaphors that demonstrate the illusory nature of phenomena.29 Again, the drop’s entry into the heart brings instant insight into the nature of reality.
With the shift from Yoga to Mahāyoga, the entry of the samaya into the initiand’s heart acquired a new, ‘secret’ (read sexualised) form. The samayamudrā and the samaya water it consecrated in the STTS were replaced in Mahāyoga with the supreme samaya/the seminal drop of bodhicitta. In both vehicles, the samaya would come to rest in the recipient’s heart, and in both, it played on the term’s dual valences of oath and jñāna.
The taking of bodhicitta as a sacrament also appears in post-initiatory Mahāyoga sādhana practice. Here we see the practitioner administering the sacrament to himself. IOL Tib J 464 offers a particularly clear example. We join the text at the end of the sexual yoga, just after the drop of bodhicitta has been emitted:
Having thoroughly cultivated in that way, by means of the inner and outer praises and the melodies of the ṣāḍava and so forth, in the manner of supreme yearning, strongly praise the great identity. The offering is made, and the siddhi [i.e. the drop] received [(…)] When one comes to know it is time for the dismissal, snap the fingers with [arms] crossed.30
Of particular interest and significance is the ellipsis, the three dots (…). Of course, these appear only in my translation, but their presence is implied by the author’s careful wording. The text could have said, “when it is time for the dismissal” (Tib. gtong ba’i dus na), but it adds, “when one comes to know it is time” (with shes pa na), so that following the reception of the siddhi (elsewhere clearly the drop of bodhicitta), one loses track of time, until one emerges from the resultant state.31 It would seem, then, that the manual’s careful wording represents a nod to the idea that following the reception of the sacrament, one is supposed to enter a non-dual state of timelessness, “the realm of mūṃ,” as the Thabs kyi zhags pa said. The culmination of such early Mahāyoga practices was in this sense a reenactment of the secret initiation and a recollection of the encounter with awakening that one first experienced at that moment.
While IOL Tib J 464 does not refer to the sacramental drop of bodhicitta that is self-administered in post-initiatory sādhana practice as the samaya, the Guhyagarbhatantra does. In fact, the Guhyagarbha uses the now-familiar term, supreme samaya, regularly. Chapter nine includes a particularly relevant verse:
Here we see a fairly standard, if abbreviated, description of the sexual yoga that results in the emission of the bodhicitta, which is then offered first to the buddhas and then to oneself as ‘the supreme samaya’ that grants all siddhis. The sPar khab, an early (though just how early remains a question) Guhyagarbha commentary traditionally attributed to the mid-8th-century Indian author, Vilāsavajra, explains that the verse teaches the secret worship (Tib. gsang ba’i mchod pa).33 Such a worship (Skt. pūjā) could constitute a stand-alone sādhana or function as part of the master’s preparations for an initiation rite. And indeed, a description of the Guhyagarbha’s initiation rite does follow shortly after the above-cited verse. Either way, we may conclude that still in the second half of the eighth century (when the Guhyagarbha was likely composed), the term ‘supreme samaya’ was being used not only in the context of a gaṇacakra, but also in sādhana-style practice to refer to the self-administered sacramental drop of bodhicitta.
As in the earlier Yogatantra system of the STTS, then, the early Mahāyoga sādhana practitioner sought to reenact the entry of the buddhas’ jñāna into his heart that he first experienced during the secret initiation.
4 Conclusions
Throughout this paper, we have repeatedly observed how the term samaya carried two meanings. From the STTS’s initiation to the early Mahāyoga gaṇacakra, whether in the form of the samayamudrā or the supreme samaya, it was both an oath and the buddhas’ jñāna. In his mid-8th-century commentary to the STTS, Buddhaguhya/Buddhagupta addresses these two uses of the term explicitly and reconciles them as follows:
The secret mind of the great beings is referred to with the term samaya. The tantras explain that samaya can be for what will be correctly attained or realised, or for the purpose of what is not to be transgressed. Why? The suchness of one’s own domain is the samayamudrā […] Because it is like that, the symbol of the secret mind of the deity is explained as the samaya.34
For Buddhagupta, the samaya defines the horizon of the Buddha’s mind, as both an oath not to be transgressed and the mind of awakening that is always already accomplished. The samaya that is the tantric oath is precisely the mind of the Buddha, which in both the STTS’s ritual settings of initiation and sādhana takes the form of a vajra upon a moon-disc at the practitioner’s heart.
Samaya was therefore a Janus-faced concept, at once an oath, or set of oaths, to be observed and an instantiation of jñāna that could be immediately inserted into one’s heart and mixed with one’s mindstream. Insofar as the efficacy of mantra was rooted in samaya, then, it depended on the purity of the mantra reciter but also on the entry of the jñāna into his heart, put another way, on his having received the proper initiation. Here it may be significant that chapter nineteen of the Guhyagarbha opens with: “Then the Bhagavan, with great pleasure, expressed the mahāsamaya, so that mantrins might accomplish their aims.”35 The chapter then proceeds to discuss first this mahāsamaya, which it also terms the ‘supreme samaya,’ as beyond all transgression, and then proceeds to enumerate the various samaya vows to be maintained.
Over time, the ritual centrality of samaya as the buddhas’ jñāna faded, though its vestiges may still be seen in moments such as the drinking of the samaya waters, the secret initiation, and the entry of the jñānasattva. Already in the late 8th century, the all-important samayamudrā was being replaced by the jñānasattva, and by the turn of the 9th century, identifications of the sacramental drop of bodhicitta as a supreme samaya were becoming increasingly rare. In later centuries, the tantric term samaya came to be generally understood in terms of the oaths taken during an initiation, oaths that could be enumerated in various ways.36 Occasionally, one might encounter in later writings an ultimate-truth discussion of samaya as being beyond any possibility of transgression, but the ritual significance of such distinctions has been largely lost.
From the late 7th century, right through to the end of the 8th century, samaya played a crucial role in tantric Buddhist practice, not simply as sets of tantric vows to be observed but as a core aspect of immediate awakening.37 Recognising the larger ritual significance of samaya in this way allows us to see too the importance of entry (Skt. āveśa) and how the earlier Yogatantra practices of the STTS underwent remarkably straightforward transformations to become the ‘secret’ rites of early Mahāyoga. These transformations turned the STTS initiation’s key moment of āveśa, or entry of the samaya into the practitioner’s heart, into the secret initiation’s swallowing of the bodhicitta whereby the sacramental drop comes to rest, once again, at the heart. Meanwhile, the installation of the samayamudrā (read jñānasattva) within one’s own body within the context of post-initiatory sādhana practice in the STTS became the self-administering of the drop of bodhicitta, the supreme samaya, at the culmination of early Mahāyoga sexual union. According to the logic of this transformation, the Mahāyoga’s bodhicitta sacrament is the jñānasattva. The development of early Mahāyoga practice in the 8th century was thus fundamentally rooted in Tantric Buddhism’s early focus on the key concept of samaya. Samaya served as the developmental bridge, samaya as the horizon of the buddha’s jñāna, a sacramental bindu resting at the practitioner’s heart.
Madhyamakahṛdayavṛttitarkajvāla (Derge Tōhoku no. 3856), in bsTan ’gyur (sde dge), 213 vols., ed. Shuchen Tsultrim Rinchen (Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey Gyalwae Sungrab Partun Khang, 1982–1985), 184a.7–b.1: gzungs sngags kyis kyang sdig pa zhi bar byed pa ma yin te/ de’i rgyu dang mi ’gal ba nyid kyi phyir. For an English translation of the entire section, see Malcolm David Eckel, Bhāvaviveka and his Buddhist Opponents (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008), 179–182. On Kamalaśīla, see Luis O. Gomez, “Indian Materials on the Doctrine of Sudden Enlightenment,” in Early Ch’an in China and Tibet, ed. Whalen Lai and Lewis R. Lancaster (Berkeley: Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series, 1983). Other Indian examples are may be cited, and it is worth noting that related debates continued well into the 11th century, as seen in the Abhiṣekhanirukti, which warns against taking the realisation gained through initiation as the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice. “This is wrong,” it explains, “because it would mean that [complete] liberation would follow immediately from initiation” (tan na yuktaṃ tu sekānantaramuktitaḥ); as translated in Isabella Onians, “Tantric Buddhist Apologetics or Antinomianism as a Norm” (PhD diss., Oxford University, 2001), 351.
Pramāṇavārttikasvavṛtti 124.14–15: na mantro nāmānyad eva kiñcit satyādimatāṃ vacanasamayād iti. As cited and translated by Vincent Eltschinger, Buddhist Epistemology as Apologetics: Studies on the History, Self-understanding and Dogmatic Foundations of Late Indian Buddhist Philosophy (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften, 2014), 129, except that I leave samaya untranslated.
On the emergence of the fourth initiation in the early 9th century, see Catherine Dalton, “Enacting Perfection: Buddhajñānapāda’s Vision of a Tantric Buddhist World” (PhD diss., UC Berkeley, 2019).
In the area of East Asian Buddhist Studies, some recent work has been done on the centrality of precepts (Chin. jie
Kosalālaṁkāra, Derge Tōhoku no. 2503, 108a.4–6. sems tsam du bzhag la sems tsam de yang zla ba’i dkyil ’khor lta bur bshad de/ de brtan par bya ba’i phyir yang de ye shes kyi rdo rje rtse lnga pa gzhag pa ’di ni dam tshig yin te/ theg pa chen po thams cad du sangs rgyas dang byang chub sems dpa’ rnams kyi ye shes kyi skur bsgrubs pa yin no/ gang gi phyir rdo rje bsdams pas ni zla ba’i dkyil ’khor ston pa yin la/ so mo gnyis bsgreng bas ni rdo rjer bstan te.
Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha, vv. 221–223: tatas tathaiva samaya-mudrayodakaṃ śapathā- hṛdayena sakṛt parijāpya tasmai śiṣyāya pāyayed iti/ tatredaṃ śapathā-hṛdayaṃ bhavati/ vajra-satvaḥ svayaṃ te ’dya hṛdaye samavasthitaḥ/ nirbhidya tat-kṣaṇaṃ yāyād yadi brūyād imaṃ nayam// vajrodaka ṭhaḥ. For the Tibetan corresponding to these and the next few lines, see Derge Tōhoku no. 479, 27b.2–6.
Kosalālaṁkāra, Derge Tōhoku no. 2503, 99a.1: ye shes dbab pa’i phyir sems dpa’ rdo rje ma’i phyag rgya rdo rje slob ma’i snying gar bzhag la snying po brjod par bya’o.
Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha, v. 223: sarva-tathāgatāḥ adhitiṣṭhantāṃ vajra-satvo ma āviśatu.
Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha, v. 224: āveśayatu te ’dyaiva vajra-jñānam anuttaram/ vajrāveśa aḥ.
Throughout our sources, the masculine and feminine forms of sattvavajra/ī are used more-or-less indiscriminately. This is probably due to the identity of, on the one hand, the sattvavajra in the opening narrative and, on the other, the sattvavajrī pāramitā goddess who performs the consecration in a ritual setting. Thus, Amoghavajra’s ritual manual for the worship of Uṣṇīṣavijayā (Foding zunsheng tuoluoni niansong yigui fa
Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha, 30: sarva-tathāgatāḥ vajra-dhātos tathāgatasya tasmin sattva-vajre praviṣṭāḥ.
See Jacob P. Dalton, “On the Significance of the Ārya-tattvasaṃgraha-sādhanopāyikā and Its Commentary,” in Chinese and Tibetan Esoteric Buddhism, ed. Yael Bentor and Meir Shahar (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2017), 321–327.
Jacob P. Dalton, “Mahāmudrā and Samayamudrā in the Dunhuang Documents and Beyond,” in Mahāmudrā in India and Tibet, ed. Roger R. Jackson and Klaus-Dieter Mathes (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2020), 126–128.
IOL Tib J 447, r16.4–6, “aligns the heart with the mind, the forehead with the body, the throat with the speech, and the crown of the head with the activities”.
IOL Tib J 417, 42v.4–41r.1: yang dag par gshegs pa’i rigsu sad twa ba dzra’i phyag rgya bchings la/ sa ma ya stwam/ ’dis rgyab du ’od gyi ’kord du gyurd pa’i/ zla ba’i dkyil ’khor zhog shig/ sad twa ba dzra’i bchings la/ gung mo bsgreng ste/ rtse mo bsnyams la ’dis snying ka dang smyin mtshams dang/ lkog ma dang spyi bo dang gnas bzhir sngags ’di dang bcas te byin gyis brlab pa bya’o/ sad twa ba dzri a dhi ti sta swa mān/ de nas bdag ni ma ha sa ma ya yin no zhes/ nga rgyal skyed chig/ de nas bdagi phyag rgya’i/ sad twa bdag yin no snyam du/ snying po ’di rjod de soms shig/ sa ma yo ham. Here, the folio marked by the British Library as fol. 42 should come immediately before (not after) fol. 41. That the ‘mudrā for one’s family’ named in the first line is indeed the samayamudrā is clarified by Śākyamitra’s Kosalālaṁkāra, vol. yi, 107b.7–108a.1.
Tattvāloka, Derge Tōhoku no. 2510, 150a.6–7: bsgom pa’i rab kyi mthar thug pa las byung ba phyag rgya chen po grub pa yin zhes bya ba ’di yang ston pa yin.
Jacob P. Dalton, “The Development of Perfection: The Interiorization of Buddhist Ritual in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 32.1 (2004): 1–30.
They are: vajra, crown (Tib. dbu rgyan), vase, rosary, crown pendants (Tib. cod pan), mudrā, name, four activities, dharmarāja, dhāraṇī, and secret (discussed in IOL Tib J 579, 16r.4–18r.5).
See IOL Tib J 579, 18r.5–7.
IOL Tib J 439/712, 14r.5–14v.4: mdor na/ phyogs skyong dang/ bskal pa bzang po’i byang cub sems dpa’ dang/ dus kyi lha mo la bstsogs pa ni/ phyi byang cub kyi sems kyis dbang bskur te/ sems can thams cad kyi phyi’i spyod yul du snang ba thams cad kyang/ phyi byang cub kyi sems kyis dbang bskur te/ longs spyod rdzogs pa’i tshul du ’byung ba dang/ gtsug tor chen po brgyad ni nang byang cub kyi sems kyis̶ ̶d̶b̶a̶n̶g̶ rang bzhin te/ ’dir phyin pa tsam na/ nang byang cub kyi sems kyi dbang thob ste/ sprul pa’i skus dbang bskur ba dang/ dbus zlum ba ni/ chos kyi sku zhi ba chen po gsang ba byang cub kyi sems zhes bya ste/ de ltar deng gi yon bdag dang/ mtha’ yas pa’i sems can thams cad chos kyi sku/ gsang ba byang cub kyi sems kyi dbang dam pa/ slobs pon gis dbang bskur ba bzhin du thob nas/ mngon bar rdzogs par sangs rgyas te/ sems can thams cad kyi don rgya cher mdzad pa’i dngos grub sku gsum lhun kyis grub pa’i rang bzhin du bstan pa lags. The saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya are probably reversed. Note too that the Vajravarman-attributed commentary to the Sarvadurgatipariśodhanatantra references both the more standard secret initiation, as well as the third, wisdom-jñāna initiation (Tib. shes rab ye shes dbang; Skt. prajñājñānābhiṣeka), though no fourth initiation, which may well date the work to the 9th century; see Tadeusz Skorupski, The Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra: Elimination of All Evil Destinies: Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts with Introduction, English Translation and Notes (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983), 47.
Dalton, “Enacting Perfection,” 248. The later tradition often points to the eighth chapter of the Guhyasamāja as a locus classicus for this secret initiation, but read free of later commentaries, the chapter was clearly originally intended as a discussion of a rite of sexual worship (Skt. pūjā), as indicated already in Dalton, “The Development of Perfection,” 16 fn. 41. Another possible early reference might be chapter three of the Cakrasaṃvara (Śrīherukābhidhāna), which probably reached its received form around the early 9th century. On dating the Cakrasaṃvara, see David Gray, The Cakrasamvara Tantra: Editions of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts (New York: The American Institute of Buddhist Studies [Columbia University Press], 2012), 6–8. There we read, “The master, well equipoised, should worship the consort (mudrā). On the second day he should make the drop for the disciples with blood thrice enchanted. Having unveiled his [blindfolded] face, he should then show the maṇḍala to the disciple” (as translated in David Gray, The Cakrasamvara Tantra (The Discourse of Śrī Heruka) (Śrīherukābhidhāna): A Study and Annotated Translation (New York: The American Institute of Buddhist Studies [Columbia University Press], 2007), 174), with the Sanskrit edited in Gray, Cakrasamvara Tantra: Editions of the Sanskrit and Tibetan, 63: tato hi pūjayen mudrām ācāryaḥ susamāhitaḥ/ śiṣyāṇāṃ tu dvitīye ahani raktena trijaptena tilakaṃ tasya kārayet. The verse appears within a larger discussion of an initiation, though the bestowal of the sacrament (Skt. tilaka; Tib. thig le) itself is somewhat veiled. Nonetheless, the passage remains a significant.
P. T. 321, 5v.5–6r.3: ’chi myed bdud rtsi sman sbyor ba/ ra sa ya na las bstsogs sman/ rang bzhin gsang ba’i sman rnams ’di/ de bzhin gshegs pa kun gi gsang/ kun du bzang mo mkha’ dbyings su/ byang cub sems ni mu tig ’phro/ kun du bzang mo ’i dbyings dkyil du/ kun du bzang po ’i sku bskyod pas/ rnal ’byor dam tshIg mchog lags kyIs/ dgyes par dgongs te bzhes su gsol/ bcom ldan ’bu ta he ru dang/ ’bu ta gro ti swa rI la/ bla myed dam rdzas bdud rtsI ’I mchog/ dam tshIg mchod pa ’di ’bul gis/ bzhes nas kun dgyes mdzod la/ ’phrul gi dngos sgrub stsal du gsol.
P. T. 283, R1, ll. 15–16 clarifies that this refers to the vajrācārya (Tib. slobs dpon rdo rje rgyal po).
Byin here and throughout the manuscript (e.g., P. T. 321, 7v.5 and 9v.3) is used to mean something like ‘all’. Thus, already on the manuscript’s opening line, we read: da ni rgyal po man cad mched byIn dgongs pa mthun par […], which might be translated as, “Now, all the [dharma] brethren, from the king on down, being in general agreement […].” Such phrases may be compared with the parallel construction seen at ibid., 10v.4, mched lcam dral ma lus pa’i rnams, where ma lus pa appears to serve a similar purpose to byin. The same term, in a similar context, also appears in P. T. 283, R1, l. 28 (rdo rje rgyal po man cad mched lcam dral byin), and in that same manuscript, we find another parallel alternative, with tshogs replacing byin, as on ibid., l. 18: slobs dpon man cad mched lam dral tshogs. Finally, we may suggest that the term comes from the Chinese character jin (
P. T. 321, 9v.3–10r.3: mched byin dam bsre/ srin lag dang mthe bo rtse sprad de/ bdud rtsI ’i rang bzhIn/ sku gsung thugs kyI dngos grub thob par dmyIgs nas/ lce ’I thog du lan gsum bzhag cIng/ tshIg ’dI skad brjod do/ sangs rgyas kun dang mnyam sbyor ba’I/ sdom ba las nI gang ’das pa/ ci snyed sangs rgyas thams cad dang/ byang cub sems dang rdo rje ’dzin/ lha rnams dang ni myi rnams dang/ grub pa po dang rnal ’byor rnams/ de dag khros nas khrag chen po/ nyams pa’i snying nas drangs te ’thung/ sha chen dang ni bsang gci dang/ khu ba khrag dang sbyar pa’i sman/ brtul bzhugs can gis btung bar bya/ ’di ni dam tshIg mchog yin te/ rdo rje can gIs bsrung bar bya’/ sku dang gsung dang thugs gsang ba/ dam tshIg ’dI nI smad po che/ dam tshIg ’dI las khyed ma ’da’/ dam tshIg ’di las khyed ’das na/ lce dang snying yang rkog mar ’dren/ ’di ni dmyal ba’i chu yin te/ snying la rab du gnas pa ’o.
P. T. 321, 10r.5: rgyal po dgongs pa myi g.yel bar bzhugs.
IOL Tib J 321, 30r.5–30v.4: khong du ’thungs na dngos ’grub mchog thob bo/ […] de ltar dbyings nyid dang rig pa’i gnyis su ’byor pa’i byin brlabs las/ don ma nor bar rtogs pa’i rig pa ’byung ba ni/ byang chub kyi sems te/ rdo rje sems dpa’yin/ des gzungs ’dzin las ’das nas/ gnyis su myed pa mUM gi sa la snyoms par ’jug go/ de ’i phyir rdo rje sems dpa’ ni/ rdo rje ’dzin kyi sa la gnas te/ sa bcu gsum pa zhes kyang bya ’o/ ’di ni dngos grub mchog yin te.
Translation based on Catherine Dalton’s recent edition of Jñānapāda’s Dvitīyakramatattvabhāvanāmukhāgama; see Dalton, “Enacting Perfection,” 312: ltung bas snying gi padma zhugs/ de yis zhing ni dag byas te/ chos kun sgyu ma la sogs pa’i/ bcu gnyis don du rtogs par ’gyur.
As observed by C. Dalton, “Enacting Perfection,” 380, fn. 174.
IOL Tib J 464, 4v.3–5r.1: de ltar shin du bsgoms nas su/ phyI dang nang gi bstod ra dang/ sha da ba las stogs pa’i glu/ mchog du gdung ba’i tshul gyis su/ bdag nyid chen po rab du bstod/ mchod pa dbul zhing grub pa blang/ gtong ba’i du ni shes pa na/ se gol snol mar gtogs. For a canonical reference to the ṣāḍava (hexatonic) melody, see the Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālasaṃvara, 157a.1. In his ’Od gsal snying po, Mipham offers a later Tibetan description of it: “With this approach, the tone is intense and forceful like thunder. The syllables are recited slightly fast and intensely, like water rushing off the face of the cliff” (Jamgön Mipham, Luminous Essence: A Guide to the Guhyagarbhatantra, trans. Dharmacakra Translation Committee (New York: Snow Lion Publications, 2009), 156–157). I am indebted to Douglas Duckworth for first bringing this reference to my attention. It has to be said that Dalton, “The Development of Perfection,” 11, was way off in his interpretation of the term.
On the siddhi being the drop, see IOL Tib J 464, 4r.4–5, where the reader is instructed to hold the drop of bodhicitta at the tip of the vajra for as long as possible: bsrung ba’i sbyor ba s ci nus pas/ grub pa’i bdag nyid brtan bar bsrung.
Guhyagarbhatantra, Derge Tōhoku no. 832, 120a.1–2: gsal ldan ma’am byin brlabs la/ stong gsum yungs ’brur ’jug tshul du/ dbyings nas dkyil ’khor spyan drangs mchod/ mnyes nas grub pa’i dam tshig mchog.
Guhyagarbhatantra, Derge Tōhoku no. 832, 60a.1.
Tantrārthāvatāra, Derge Tōhoku no. 2501, 6a.1–3: bdag nyid chen po rnams kyi thugs gsang ba ni dam tshig ces bya ba’i sgrar brjod de/ rgyud nas bshad pa ni yang dag par ’thob pa ’am / rtogs par bya ba’i phyir ram/ mi ’da’ ba’i don du dam tshig ces bya’o/ gang gi phyir zhe na/ de rang gi yul gyi de kho na nyid ni dam tshig gi phyag rgya ste/ […] de lta bas na lha’i thugs gsang ba’i mtshan ma ni dam tshig ces bshad pa’i don te.
Guhyagarbhatantra, Derge Tōhoku no. 832, 129b.5: de nas bcom ldan ’das dgyes pa chen pos/ sngags ’chang rnams don yod par bya ba’i phyir/ dam tshig chen po ’di ched du brjod do. Note that the ‘great samaya’ is also discussed at the end of Vilāsavajra’s Dam tshig gsal bkra, 1202, ll. 12–13, where he too writes, “In this, there is absolutely nothing to protect; there exists no even a particle of diminishment.”
On such enumerations in Tantric Buddhist writings, see Sam van Schaik, “The Limits of Transgression: The Samaya Vows of Mahāyoga,” in Esoteric Buddhism at Dunhuang: Rites and Teachings for this Life and Beyond, ed. Matthew T. Kapstein and Sam van Schaik (Leiden: Brill Publications, 2010), 61–83.
Note that in Dalton, “Mahāmudrā and Samayamudrā,” 129, I highlight the centrality of samaya and ‘the great samaya’ in certain Chinese Tantric texts from Dunhuang. Here we may be approaching a point of contact between tantric initiation and the precept ordination of Chan, rites that other scholars too have suggested may have been equated by some early Chinese authors; see, for example, Robert Sharf, “Buddhist Veda and the Rise of Chan,” in Chinese and Tibetan Esoteric Buddhism, ed. Yael Bentor and Meir Shahar (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 85–120.