some considerations on the relationship between hindu and buddhist tantras by francesco sferra

8/13/2019 Some Considerations on the Relationship Between Hindu and Buddhist Tantras by Francesco Sferra

1/16


2/16

Buddhst, ~ a i va r Vaisnava Tantrism, and we can only have recourse tothe hypothesis of a religious substratum when no other possibleexplanation exists; the second, implicitly: that we must first do our utmostto attempt to determine possible relations of dependence between thevarious forms of Tantr ism. Sanderson writes:

The problem with this concept of a 'religious substratum' o r 'common culticstock' is that they are by their very nature entities inferred but never perceived.Whatever we perceive is always ~ai va r Buddhist, or Vai ~~ av a,r somethingelse specific. Derivation from this hidden source cannot therefore be thepreferred explanation for similarities between these specific traditions unlessthose similarities cannot be explained in any other way.'Sanderson has studied a group of still unpublished Saivite works

belonging to the Vidyiipifha of the Bhairava section of the Saiva canon,including the Siddhayogeharimata, the Tantrasadbhiva, the Jayadratbayri-mala (also known as Tantrarqabbattliraka) and the Brabmayimala (alsolmown as Picumata). He has provided enough examples to establish that,with regard to the ritual framework, these texts preceded and served as amodel for the higher class of Buddhist Tantras, the Yoginitantras, amongwhich the Hevajraddkinijalasamvara commonly known as Hevayatan~a,and the Cakrasa~vara re notable. Numerous passages in the aforesaid~a iv it e orks recur, for instance, in the Sa~varoahyatanwa, he Hemkibbi-dbina, the Vajradka, the Dakamava and the Abbidb~inottara.~ ne case inparticular, we find an anomaly, the imprecise adaptation of a list thatinequivocably betrays the ~a i va rigin of the text. Evidently the redactorwas not paying attention when he included this.'

A. Sanderson, Vajrayaa: Origin and Function , 1994, pp. 92-93.Id., pp. 94-95.This anomaly is the occurrence of Grhadevam after Pretapuri and before Sauriispa in

the series of the Samvarodaya. This Grhad evam is the only place name that does no toccur in the Tantrasadbhava's list; and it is the only name that is puzzling. It is puzzlingbecause the m eaning of th e word is 'household deity', hardly a likely name for a place.Now, in the version in the Tantrasadbh iiva we are told no t only th e names of the pl:thasbut also classes of deities associated with each. T he class associated with SaurHspa is thatof the G rhadevaas, the household deities. Evidently, while intending to extract only theplace names from a list pairing names and deities, the redactor's mind has driftedwithout h s being aware of it from the name-list to that of the deity-list and back again

Sanderson7sessay is important regardmg both the method of researchmgTa nt ri s~n nd the results, and marks a turning point in this field of studies.Recently, he published another important paper in which he gives furtherexamples of inter-dependence between different scriptural sources andestablishes a relative chronology for some of these.6 W e hope that the pathhe has taken will soon produce further interesting results.

In turn, certain aspects of Sanderson's viewpoint have been criticallyanalyzed by David Seyfort Ruegg. In his paper, A Note on the Relation-s h p between Buddhist and ' Nn du 7Divinities in B u d h s t Literature andIconology: The Laukika/Lokottara Contrast and the Notion of an Indian'Religious Substratum ', published in 2001, he speaks of a bowuwing model(BM) and a submaturn model (SM), maintaining that Sanderson embracesthe former and rejects the latter.' He observes that:

the notion of a common 'religious substratum' does not automaticallyexclude all possibility of borrowing between Hinduism/Brahmanism andBuddhism in cases where this assumption is clearly appropriate. Quite to thecontrary, it can be argued that cultural borrowing would regularly take placeprecisely against a background of shared categories and concepts.'With regard to thls matter, I have developed a line of reasoning that

expounded in a previous version of this paper presented at the 12th Con-ference of the International Association of Buddhst Studies in Lausanne inAugust 1999.My point of departure was a question not directly examinedby Sanderson (but likely implicit in his discourse), that is, a reflection onwhat made it possible for the redactors of Buddhist Tantras to includepassages fi-om advaita Saivite texts, such as the Bhairavatanuas, in theirworks. This question was reflected on independently by David SeyfortRuegg in the above-mentioned paper, and I would refer readers to h s workfor a more detailed discussion. Seyfort Ruegg convincingly points out that

(id., p. 95). Cf. also A. Sanderson, ~a ivi sm nd the Tantric Traditions , 1988, pp. 678-79; id., Purity and Power among the Brahmans of Kashmir , 199 0, p. 2 14 note 106.A. Sanderson, His tory through Textua l Cr it ic ism in the S tudy of ~a i v is m, h ePaiicariitra and the Buddhist Yoginitan tras , 200 1, pp. 1-47.D. Seyfort Ruegg, A Note on the Relationship between Buddhist and 'Hindu'Divinities in Buddhist Literanire and Iconology: Th e nzrkikd okottllra Contrast andthe Notio n of an Lndian 'Religious Substratum ', 2001, p. 737.

d., p. 738.


3/16

60 Francesco Sfmaa rejection of the SM would imply the existence of different self-containedreligous systems without clarifying the conditions under wluch the hy-pothesized dependence of Buddhism on ~aivismrose and developed .9

Seyfort Ruegg must be given the credit for having outlined, with greatclarity, a hermeneutic model for the study of the laukika/lokottara contrastand the notion of an Indian religous substratum, and for having stressedthe risks connected with one of the other possible approaches. However, itseems to me tha t he is probably mistaken when, concerning h s differenceof opinion with Sanderson, he identifies the viewpoint of the latter with arigid BM. Although there is no clear evidence that Sanderson does notactually deny the concept of substratum that Seyfort Ruegg sustains-theconciseness of Sanderson's words may have contributed to their beingmisinterpreted-there is reason to suppose that Sanderson wanted todiscourage an acritical approach to the SM (perhaps in the sense of itsidentification with the folk religion of India) and intended to stress theneed to examine the concrete examples we have at our disposal and todetermine their possible relationshps, rather than actually rejecting theidea of a substratum in the sense in which it is spoken of in Seyfort Rueggworks and in the following pages.

2. T he present article, originally delivered as a speech, deliberatelyretains that characteristic whle offering some general considerations onthe relationshp between Buddhst and Hindu Tantric systems, and somereflections on the ways in whc h Tant ric scriptures were edited .I would like to start by saylng that there is a need, as Seyfort Ruegg

~nent ions t the end of h s article,1 to integrate the SM and the M in asingle hermeneutic model; in fact a rigid BM can be criticized essentiallyfor not acknowledgng that a substratum (in the sense of a shared body ofsoteriologcal beliefs) always exists even when there is undeniable evidenceof borrowings. In order to explain the transposition and adaptation of partsof a text, not so much widun the same tradition-which is most frequent-but rather among different traditions, we must make a supposition: theauthors of these adaptations were aware that they were using works thatnot only belonged to the same cultural milieu, but whch, more specifically,

Id., p. 740.O Id., p. 741.

shared what could be defined as a common way of interpreting reality andof relating to it, whc h is expressed in a common soteriological strategy7'.T h s common substratum of beliefs and soteric practices is the presuppo-sition that allowed Buddhist authors to include passages or verses h-omnon-dualist m nd u Tantras in their scriptures, and that permitted Hinduredactors to act in a similar way. Seen from such a perspective, thissubstratum , unlike the supposed substratum of the folk religion, isneither radically inaccessible nor hidden.

On the other hand, it is important to bear in mind that a set ofsoteriological beliefs does not exist in itself, but only insofar as it isexpressed through concrete forms that usually include rituals, variousmeditative techniques, ethical behaviour, oral teachings, scriptures,institutions, artistic, literary (and sometimes even archtectonic) represen-tations, etc. Therefore, in order to arrive at a more global and accurateevaluation of Tan trism, i s origin and development, it is also necessary toanalyze not only written sources, but also archaeological, historical andartistic evidence. Important contributions in thls direction have alreadybeen published by G. Buhnemann, who has studied the incorporation ofBuddhist siidbanas, deities and mantras in late Hindu texts.

W e can therefore hypothesize, as an essential pre-requisite, the existenceof a common Weltanschauung, which has necessarily resulted in thedevelopment of a massive literary output and conceptual re-elaboration, ascan be seen in other areas of Indian (and not only Indian) culture. Thisliterary output, of course, has involved the composition of new scripturalsources but also the reworking and adaptation of existing materials, whch,as in other not necessarily Tantric contexts, can be classified in variouscategories. These are wide-rangng and include the simple reformulation ofan idea, the tacit inclusion of passages, the quotation or modified quotationof existing materials.

3. Several examples are g ven in two articles published in Dbib. Journal oRare Buddhist Texts Research Project in 1986 and 1987 by Vrajavallabha

Th e Goddess Mahiicinak rama-Tiirii (Ugra-Tiirii) in Buddhist and Hindu Tanmsrn ,1996, pp. 472-93; id., Buddhist deities and mantras in the Hindu Tan tras: I T h eTamiasirasamg ahn and the ~inaii~n~~rzldeunpaddhati ,999, pp. 303-34; id., Buddhistdeities and rnantras in the Hindu Tantras: 11T h e ~ r i v i d ~ i i ~ a v a t a n t r and the Tanm-sHraV,2000, pp. 7-48.


4/16

62 Francesco SfeervaDvivedi, who listed various quotations similar in form or content fromBuddhist, ~a iv it e nd Siikta Tantric texts. Rather than commenting onthese quotations, he confined hmself simply to recording them. In somecases, the quotations actually correspond: words literally match, except fora few unimportant variants. In other cases, we meet with notable formaldifferences, while the content is basically identical. Only rarely is areference to the original source made in the texts; in the main, thequotations are introduced by words such as tad z~ktam r tad du b . Some-times we find reference to an unspecified tradition, made with suchexpressions as tathi igamab. Dvivedi classified the quotations in twenty-eight groups. Other groups can be added to these, each of whch can, ofcourse, be extended further.

A number of these classifications, formulations and common concep-tions derive from ancient Indian culture and emerge in Tan tric traditionsof every kind. I refer in particular to mystic physiology (ndril, cakr-a, etc.),the micro-macrocosm relationship, the importance of mantras, yoga andritual, the technical terminology used in these contexts (it is sufficient toconsider the migamantvas, the Vedic ji ti s, such as vau at, phat, etc., theoblation on fire [honza], etc.), and also linguistic speculations (i.e., theimportance of the phoneme a, the association of semivowels with specificelements, etc.). If we exclude these, though, then we realize that there arevarious groups of quotations and formulations that express a common sote-riology that we could qualify as "non-dualist (advaya, advaita) Tantric".I will not examine here the familiar characteristics of Tantrism ingeneral and of Buddhist or Hindu Tantric systems in particular, but Iwould like to explore, if in a non-systematic way, some of those elementsthat best illustrate the aforementioned common "substratum of beliefs andsoteric practices", by partially using some of the quotations listed byDvivedi and by narrowing the field to non-dualist Tantric literature. Indoing thls, we will see how Buddhist and Kindu Tantric traditions onlyappear to be distant from each other at the theoretical level when thecommon practices and "substratum" are imbued with a doctrinal content.

4. In many cases there is no evidence of actual borrowing from othertexts or sources, but merely of the reformulation of ideas. Let us consider,for instance, what is certainly one of the most essential and well-knownelements of Tantrism (dualist and non-dualist): the belief that the practiceof and access to esoteric teachmgs require, not only initiation-or a series

of initiations (abbiseka, diks4, but also a direct relationshp with a qualifiedmaster. Knowledge is not transmitted through the written word, butinstead through direct contact with its living embodiment. Ultimately, alltraditions identify the master with the deity, or with one of his mani-festations. The master is Siva hmse lf or, as we read in a verse quoted byRavigrijfi~na l l th-12th cent.), "he is the Buddha, the Dharma and theSangha".'* The Gurupaiiciiiki, one of the fundamental Indo-TibetanBuddhist texts on devotion to the master, states that to offend the master isto offend all Buddhas (st. 10). We can also consider what is perhaps themost typical characteristic of this set of beliefs, that is, conceiving ofliberation as a transformation into the deity (or the Buddha) or one of h smanifestations, and conceiving of the emancipated living beingeanmukta) as that same deity. Every manifestation of his existence is amanifestation of the deity, as we read, for instance, in the Sivaszitras(iani~av.mir- atam kathgjapab; 3.2 6-2 7) and in the Hevajratantm bivantoby arigavikrepa vacasab prasar-ini ca tivan o mantramudnib yub h-hemkapadesthite 17.26).13A similar concept appears in the ParatrimiikZ and in theSpandakir-iki.In this regard we can explain this belief in modem terms as akind of "twofold process": the de-identification from the mundanepersonality @rdkkrtihavk8r-a) nd the identification or 'union7 (yoga) withthe deity. This twofold process has been described as the 'recognition'@ratyabh@ia)of one's "divine" or, in Buddhist terms, "adamantine" nature.Ou r Self is the deity. Th e Adamantine Being, as stated in the Cakra-saFvaratantra, "resides continuously in the supreme and delightful secretthat is the essence of everything".14 In the P~ajn opiyaviniicayasiddhiyAn~gavajra,we read: sa ma bhagavin vajn tarna d dmniva devata (5.33cd,ed. p. 84 . Similar words can be found in ~aiviteexts: mlinnaiva devatiproktg lali ti viivavigrahd (quoted in th e Mabdrthamalijar$arimala byMahehar2nanda, ed. p. 123).

* urur h d h o gumr d b a m o gumb sanghas tathaiva m (Gzeabbara?ri,ed. p. 7 6 ) .This verseis also quoted in the Abbisamayamaijari by subhakaragupta (ed. p. 154) and in theMa7mtlkalikripaiijika by ViryaSrimih-a (ad TattvaflZ?zasa~z.siddhi4.6, ed. p 3). It is verysimilar to Lndrabhuti's j5iZnasiddhi 1.24ab (gzlnlr h~ db o baved dhnrmnb smigbas' cripi saeva hl].See also V. Dvivedi, Bauddha-Saiva-Sh t ntrommem tulanii tmaka s-gri (2) ' 1987, p. 96.

l rnhmye pn~anze amye sa?vitnmni adi sthitab (1.2cd).


5/16

64 Francesco SfewaThe above examples show that in many cases we are not able to detect

the origin of a certain conception, either because it is a fundamentalexpression of this substratum or because, even if we can envisage itsoriginal source, there is no concrete evidence of intermediate passages andwe will have to content ourselves with a hypothesis. For instance, in h srecent new edition of the translation of Abhinavagupta's Tantrdoka,Raniero Gnoli points out that some elements of the Tanmc Saiva doctrineseem more consonant with a Buddhist vision. He considers the numberthirty-six, corresponding to the thirty-six principles in whch reality issubdivided in the Buddhlst tradition. He suspects that ~ai vit esmight haveaccepted its logic and been tempted to reformulate it in their doctrinalcontext, even though, in this case, their discourse would become extremelyc~m~l ica ted . '~o the twenty-five principles of Samkhya, others must beadded that sometimes may appear amficial. It is also worth noting that inthe Buddhist Tant ric texts there is a precise correspondence betweendeities, feelings, bodily functions, etc., which does no t pervade to the sameextent in the Saiva scriptures, although it does appear in the Krama school,which may have been influenced by Buddhst ideas. Of course, these aresimply hypotheses that must be corroborated by other examples andconsiderations, but I quote them here because they seem an interestingpoint of departure for further research.

5. Where different passages are concerned, sometimes the origin isperfectly clear, but it is nevertheless interesting to study the modificationsmade by the author. For example, Advayavajra (alias Maitripiida) respect-fully quotes numerous stanzas from Hindu works, and it is worth men-tioning that some verses, which in one instance he claims belong to theVedgntaviidins, actually come, with some variants, from one of the mostcelebrated and important ~a iv a antras, the Vijiiinabbairava. Here we findthe following stanza (bold face has been used to indicate where and how hemodified the original):

a n i g a t zy i m n i d r i y i p pranage bzbyagocaresavasthii m a m a gamyrZpar evi rakaateVijZznabhairava 75, ed. p. 65)

If [the yogin] succeeds in reaching with his mind that state where sleep has not

R. Gnoli, Abhilzavappta. Luce delle same scrimre, 1999, p LXVI.

yet descended but external objects have nevertheless disappeared, then theSupreme Goddess shines.I6tad uktanz -anLigntLiyLim rr id ni yi p pra nag e brihyagocnre Iyri bhaven manaso 'vastbii bhavayet tr v payatnat

T a m m -a ~ u i va l i ,d. p. 16, lines 15 6)It has been said:[The yogin] should care hlly meditate on that mental state th at is manifestedwhen sleep has not yet descended but external objects have neverthelessdisappeared.This reveals how in the Buddhst context the reference to the unfolding

of the supreme reality in its active, female principle has been concealed by amore neutral reference to the commianent of the yogin.17

6. Where a concept or practice has been taken fiom one context andadapted to another, there are also cases in whch, although S has beendone very carefully, it is possible to determine the source. Max Nihom, forinstance, demonstrates that text number 256 of the SZdbanamiIa reflects aconscious and successful effort on the part of the unknown author toamalgamate features of both the DharmadhiituviigiSvaramandala systemand Piigupatasiitra terrnin~logy .'~anderson, in h s turn, shows how theprocess of the evocation of Sarpvara, the reabsorption of the mwdala intothe syllable hz ip and the Great Bliss that is reached at the end ofmeditation, re-express in Budcllust terms the structure of a ritual that wefind in Saiva Tantras, such as the Svacchanda tan~a.'~

7. Apart from possible considerations on the origin of Tantr ic tradtionsand on the precedence that one tradition takes over another, we cansuppose that the redactors of the Tantras had at their disposal a whole col-lection of rituals and, sometimes, even docmnes, classifications, etc. These

d This stanza is also quoted in the Spaadmi~naya y Ksemaraja ad 3.1-2 (ed. p. 56). ForFurther references see V. Dvivedi, Bauddha-9aiva-5~ktaantrom mem tulan~trnakasiimagri (2) , 1987,p. 91.The other quotations from the fijfiinabbairava are: st. 69 in Sekani~aya p. 29, lines 7-8) and st. 116 in Tattuaramivali p. 18, lines 20-2 1).Siidhanam~la 56 A PiiSupata-Bauddha Tantristic S~dhan a , 994,p. 227. ,

l Vajraysna: Origin and Function , 1994,pp. 96-97.


6/16

66 F~ancesco fewawere ready-made materials, so to speak, that they could incorporatewithout great difficulty by making a few changes within their own system,in perfectly good faith and in harmony with the exegetical and didacticIndian tradition, for wh ch the concept of plagarism does not exist In kthis is the reason that the phenomenon has sometimes been defined aspious plagarism ). Th ey perceived that the underlylng beliefs were the

same, even when the doctrines that justified them were far removed h-omtheir own, and therefore open to criticism.I would like to explore this last point further by briefly examining the

function of theoretic thought in the process of re-elaboration. Theoreticalthought is normally used to express the set of beliefs we are discussing here,and at times it is also used for justifying those beliefs. T he doctrine suppliesthe underlylng structure to which every external contribution or newmanifestation w i h n the tradition adapts; it would appear that the doctrinehas the function of absorbing the new expressions of the said beliefs (on thevarious levels at whch they manifest: rite, conduct, etc.) and of reconcilingthem with the previous tradition. O ne or two examples will suffice.

8. First, would like to consider an essential concept of this non-dualistset of soteriologcal beliefs. Although not born with Tantrism, h s onceptwas accorded particular emphasis, both in its application on an e tl ca l planeand in the conception of the ultimate reality: the idea that at any momentand in any reality it is possible to immerse oneself in the Absolute.

Buddhist and Hindu texts describe transgressive practices and permitcontact with the impure worlds of sexuality and, sometimes, of death, andthe use of inebriating and repellent substances-all because pure andC impure are creations of the mind. Several Hind u and Buddhist textsstress that the pain of samsira and the beatitude of nirvi?za are created bythe same mind;*' the refore, a1 thoug h ritual practices are usually notabandoned in Tantric traditions, pureness is not primarily attained through

O Several different sources are quoted in th e Spa?za ap~ndipika y B hagavatotpala, ed. p. 88.It is worth notin g that the au thor of this text, Bhagavatotpala, is sometinles referred to-but only in secon dary literature-as Utpalavaisnava and Utpaliicarya. How ever,Sanderson has pointed out that the name Bhagavatotpala, which appears in thecolophon of his work, is confirmed by the existence of several similar names, forinstance, in the Szibhz~itava/li f Vallabhadeva, where we find the names of the follow ing

such practices. On the contrary, with a pure mind, it is ~reciselyhroughritualized contact with the impure that practitioners may accomplish the

alchemical transmutation resulting in the acquisition of powers and, forthose who desire it, liberation. Naturally, h s ransmutation does not occurthrough the mere performance of the ritual but requires an elixir (compar-isons with alchemy are often found in both Budd hst and Hindu texts), thatis, awareness or knowledge that allows us to establish direct contact withour most profound nature (mamabhiva). Thi s contact marks the transitionto a more profound and inexpressible land of knowledge. When it comesto defining one's own nature and the noetic, liberating experience,traditions are known to differ. On the one hand, they may speak of thedeflagration of the self and, on the other, of its expansion . T h s nature

is not inaccessible; it lies behind adventitious maculations; it is the divinelight behind darkness, the ever-shming mind beyond suffering.

Although the concepts relating to the true nature of the self are verydifferent, the underlying belief is the same. That is to say, there is lighthdden even in the dark aspects of reality. On a phenomenological level,h s belief can express itself by referring to the possibility of experiencingthat which is negative in a positive way. A passage from the S i v a d ~ ~ iySomiiinanda (9th-10th cent.) is very clear in b s egard:

If someone were to object that suffering, etc., is different horn Siva, we wouldreply that Sivahood is also present in suffering, because Siva also manifests insuffering and we ourselvescan feel content while experiencing it.*'Hence we have seen that a characteristic element of the non-dualist

poets: Bh~gav atiim tadatta nos. 608, 609), Bhsgavaarcitadeva (nos. 142, 143, 3Sol),Bhiigavatajayavardhana (nos. 425, 678, 76 1, 766, etc.), Bhiigav ataaivikrama (nos. 866,1029), Bhagavatavinka (no. 164), Bh~gavatavinitadeva no. 1242), BhiigavataSarikha (nos.1876, 35 14) and BhiigavataStira (nos. 927, 2276). See A Sanderson, "Xstory throughTextual Criticism in the Study of ~a ivi sm , he Paficariitra and the Buddhist Yogini-tantras", 2001, p. 35 note 38.duhk hgding viSe:c.as' cet tatriipy afiv atn na ca dubk he 'pi pravik iisena du hk hir th e&rtisn~ zgamit (st. 5.9); see also 7.88cd-89. In another passage of the same work weread: mkhe duhkhe vimohe ca sthito 'ham pal-amnb Sivab "In pleasure, in suffering andconfusion, in all three, I, the Supreme ~ i va ,m [always] present" (7.lOSab). Both stanzasare quoted in the Pal-Ztrr mSikritattuaviva~a y Abhinavagupta (ed. pp. 200, 203; seealso p. 33 note 92).


7/16

68 Francesco Sfen-aTantric set of soteriological beliefs is the conviction that access to theabsolute reality is essentially through knowledge. In a stanza quoted byMaitrip~da e read:

Wh en the yo gn who, satisfied by the ambrosia of knowledge, has done what hehad to do, no thing else must be done; if something should still be done, hewould not be a true knower (or, a knower of truth ) tanumit).22A well-known passage of the MdZiniv~ayottaratantnz 1.2 3cd-24ab), oneof the most celebrated Saivite tantras, explicitly states that maculation, that

is, what prevents us from obtaining liberation and constitutes the bond totransmigration (sal(tsdra) is nothing but nescience, or ignorance (ajlirina),which has exactly the same negative function as the av2jlj.a or avidyddescribed in Buddhist and also non-Buddhist texts. The same conceptoccurs in the Sivasiitra.

According to all non-dualist traditions, overcoming ignorance or ap-plying true knowledge involves at least two factors: first, a knowledge of thetoxicity of ignorance (and of its products, starting with attachment and

aversion); and second, a knowledge of the true nature of thlngs. Traditionshlly agree on the first point, a concept that is expressed with the metaphorof the poison-knower in numerous texts, including the Hevajratan~a, heCittaviiuddhiprakampa by b ad e v a and the Mklinivijayottaraatantra Onlythe poison-knower is able to eliminate the toxic element without damaginghimself or others.23However, while in Buddhist terms knowing the truenature of things means knowing emptiness (SZlnyat4, in ~aiviteerms itmeans knowing that everything consists of everything else (sarwamsamritmakam) or consists of Siva (s'iv8tmakam) , a formula that oftenrecurs in the S ivadmi and in the texts of the Pratyabhjiis. Doctrines differon this point, because the Saiva texts do not question the substantiality ofthings. But what does substantiality really mean in this context? Wecannot but note how in the Saiva texts the interrelation of entities is em-phasized and the idea of an autonomous and self-contained I-mine ( a h a pmama) is no longer justifiable. Although a theistic language is adopted,

jfiinim.,tora hptarya k ak rt yq a yoginab I naivrini kiGcit kartazyam a.sti cet na sa ta m i t(quoted from the Yogridhy* in the Sekani~~zaya,d. p. 29, lmes 2-3).ym iv a vcakhgzdena m~-iymte a~vajantavab tenaiva v&tattv@fio vce?za sphotayed v~ a m(Iievnj7-atannu 2.2 -46); v~ipahi~ ivmnrrridisa~znaddhohakrayann api v* na mzrhyate

ONTHE RELATIONSHP EWEN HWDU ND BUDDHISTTANTRAS 69these two concepts would also be acceptable to a Buddhst. Sornsnanda

T he pot knows through me; I know through the pot. I know through Sadaiivaand he knows through me. Yajiiadatta knows through Siva and Siva throughYajiiadatta. Th e pot knows through Sadsiiva and Sadsgiva through the pot.Everything consists of everything else, because the nature of each thing is thenature of all the other things. Th us, it has been said that everything, whlchconsists of Siva, is in eve rythin g else.14It is no mere coincidence that a stanza probably of Jaina origin, accord-

ing to whc h he who sees the nature of even one being in its essence sees allbeings in their essence, recurs in Buddhist, Saiva and Vai~gavaworks2' (ekob hdv as ta ttw ato y en a dy stah sa me bhgviris t at tv at as te na d ~ seko bhdvahsarvabhirivamabhavah same bhava ekabhkvasuabhiriv$ I 26

Notwithstanding the agreement on such significant points, we must not

tena tadvad yogi mahnmntib (Milinivijayottal-atantra 18.8 1). See also Cittavihlddhi-prakarapz, stt. 17-18 and 45-46.

4 maditman& ghap vetti vedmy aham v i ghat itman2 sadaaCivimana vedmi sa v2 vettimadamadatmaruiSivitmani yajiiadatto yajfindattitmani fivab sadrTSivimnii vetti ghahntahaca ghatitman2 same sarvi tmakd bhivih sa?vasamama?-ipatab [. ] tena sarvagatanzsarvaTz iivanipanz ninipitawz I (giu adgi 5.1 05 cd- 107, 1 Ocd).This stanza is quoted in the Anr ~aka?zikoddyotanibmrdhay Vibhuticandra (12th-13thcent.), ed. p. 212, without mentioning the source, in the Ca~ igiti koiav yikhy i yMunidatta (ed. Bagchi, p. 158), where i t is stated that it is iigama[vacana], in theSekoddeatippapiby Sedhupum ~ridhari inanda l l th. cent.) (ad st. 106b, prihs ab, ed. p.13 7) and also in Hindu works, such as the Pal-amirthast~mtiki y Yogargja (ad st. 26, ed.p. 59) and the Spandap-adijiki (ad st. 39, ed. p. 12 l), where pridas ab and cd are inverted,and the commentary by La k s mi r~ ~ an the Pani~pSi ki@Z&sd d. p. 13, line 8).The second part of this stanza (padas cd) is quoted in ~linivijayavrirttikaayavika 1.641 (ed. p.59) by Abhmavagupta, who specifies that the concept expressed therein belongs to theVenerables (ayhat), i.e. the Jainas, and is also present in the S~%iraT?-ikasi?-a), lostwork Yogar3ja states that this stanza is by ~a mbh ubh amra ka. he same stanza is quotedin the Tattvopaplavasi~ha y Jayar%ibhat~a, d. p. 79, and in the Tmkar-ahagad$iki byG ~ a r a t n aad Sa&arsiznasamzucaya, Jainamatam, st. 5 5; ed. pp. 222 -23). For furtherreferences see V. Dvivedi, Bauddha-Saiva-S~kta anuom mem tu lan~ tmaka knagri ,1986, p. 101.

26 The same stanza is also paraphrased in the Catubfataka by Aryadeva (3rd cent.) (8.16, ed.p. 82f; cf. p. 83 note 16, where there are other references). See also Mndhjarrcakak&iki-


8/16

70 Francesco Sfvabe surprised if the idea of emptiness is criticised in f i n d u texts, and theidea of iha ra in Buddhlst texts. We cannot go into detail here, instead wesimply note that the confrontation between traditions, or between differentsystems within a tradition, pivots on the main doctrinal issues and onwhat could be defined as clichb ; for the most part, opponents resort tostandard criticism.

We h o w , for instance, that Puqdarika ( l lt h cent.) knew the Kula andthe Siddhbta, which he mentions in the fifth chapter of the Vimalaprabb8(ad Lnghuk~Zacakliltantlil5.49cd), ut we have to admit that when in thesecond chapter he criticizes the Saiva positions, his analysis is quite genericand could apply to both ~aivitetradition^ ^ Th e criticism is not directed atspecific elements of the opposing systems (whose tenets are in some casesclose to hls own), but at the more general and well-known doctrines; in thecase of Saivism he attempts, as does the entire Buddhist tradition, to denythe logcal admissibility of a Lord (ihara) , considered as an independentcreator (cf. Lagbukdacakratan~a .168- 169 .

In the Vzjganabhairava there is a stanza in which the absolute state, theplane of ~iva,s defined by the term izinya (st. 127). Sivop3dhyaya, a latercommentator (18th cent.), tries to show to what degree we can speak ofemptiness with reference to ~ i v a . e explains the difference betweenemptiness according to the Buddhists (sugatasuta) and emptiness for thosewho worship the Goddess (devinayopasin). In thls regard he quotes a famousstanza from the AZokamd~ y the Buddhist Kambala, which we find inseveral Saiva and Vaisnava works.29This stanza states that emptiness must

v?-t t i ad 4 .9 , where s tanzas from ot he r sources a re quoted (Sam idhi~ i ja su t ra ,Avagagaagk?jasadhi~tra) which repeat, with different words and slight differences,the same concept. Cf. S. McClintock, "Knowing All through Knowing One: MysticalCommunion or Logcal Trick in the Tattvasamgrahapaiijiki7 , 000. In another quota-tion that Bhagavatotpala attributes to the PaiicarBtra, we read: ya&tmni sarvabhzitinipa$aty atm n-na p ca t e p p@ak ca tebhyas taa mrty or mzlcyatejanmanaf ca (SpandupradIpikdad st. 2 l, ed . p. 106). See also Bhagav adgii 6.29f (v. 30f Kashrnirian version).Cf. J.R. Newman, "Buddhist Siddhiinta in the Kiilacakra Tantra", 1992, pp. 227-34.Cf. G. Gro nbold, "Heterodoxe Lehren und Ihre Widerlegung im Kiilacakra-Tanwa",1992, pp. 273-97.Th e stanza by Kambala is quoted, for instance, in the SpandupradIpiki(ad st. 1.5, ed. p.97), in the Spandanir?zaya (ad st. 1.12 1 ed. p. 2 8) and in the Viji-i& abhairn vavi~ i adst. 127, ed. p. 110).

not be conhsed with nihilism." Hence, there is agreement on &S point.Immediately afterwards, Sivopiidhy~ya uotes five stanzas from theVimarfad$ika (pp. 110-11) in which it is declared that, according to theSaivites, emptiness must be identified with the freedom of the Lord,whereas emptiness for the Buddhists is only non-perception (agraba?za).

9. Sometimes, there can be agreement also with respect to doctrines.Authors and texts of other Tanmc and non-Tannic traditions are quotedor incorporated in works when there is convergence on specific points. Inthe VimaZaprabbz, for instance, Pundarika quotes three padas of a stanza ofthe Krilottardgama to explain the ariga, or de at h- ~i ~n .~ 'n the fifth chapter

sivasthg ki m a vq iiq i mamadrSaihrinyatocyate ?m punar lokanidhyaiva n ~ ~ i~ ir th i? n rp it i? z I (Ahkmnd-, st 142, ed. p. 168). This stanza is qu oted in the DohikoSnvyikhya (ed. p. 1 00)and is paraphrased by Vajrapani in his L@uta?ztmtiki: manipato dvindriyajam kram-sukham kotiraha.watamim api kalim n21-ghati param-ka7-m~k hasyeti ihik ~arm ~kh iiva sthay i sahaj~na~zdunipi~zisivasthiipy avijlieyi bilayogin im bodhisativaih hiny atisam idhir iiyncyate na punar lokarudhyi ndstikyi ?~hihup itinitied. p. 143): h eality, the movedpleasure, born from the two organs, does not equal even an infinitesimal part of thesupreme unchanging pleasure (jaramribraranrkha). Here, inexperienced yogins do notknow this condition of unchanging pleasure, the nature of which is innate pleasure,whatever this may be. The Bodhisattvas call it 'the concentration of voidness7; voidness]that one must not understand in a nihlistic sense according to the w orldly conventionalmeaning". T h e same passage by Vajrapiini has b een q uoted in th e Sadnlignyoga byAnuparnaraksita (ed. p. 135) and in the Sekoddeiatiki by Naropa (ed. p. 42).See also the Tantriloknviveka by Jayaratha ad 1.33 (ed. vol. 1, pp. 66-67) and thePI-atyabh$i-idh&ya by Ksem araja ad slctra 8 (ed. p. 66).

3 Th e three pidus quoted by Pwd arika are: yathi vi m- tathgvm ti madhyami ca tatbaiva catr ivar~intemakhidi [ ] (Vimalaprabhi ad 2.64, ed. vol. 1, p. 196). The first two padas

occur with a slight variation in st. 18.5 of the printed edition of the Sii?-dhatl-iiati-kiIotta?-igama-the only published recension of the Kdona rigam -whc h reads: yathicid yi ta th i vi md ma dby am- ca tathni va ca kila cakra m samakhy dtam p'11t-r-asneh2d i e;atab

I (ed. p. 129). But, as Alexis Sanderson has kindly informed me, "they are almostidentical to those in the text of the Sirdhatri'sati recension as it is transmitted in theNepalese manuscript wadition (cf. NG MP P, Mf. B1 18/7 fol. 1 r2-3). T he same is seenin the DviSatika recension (ibid. fol. 7r3-4: yathi V ~ V Z ~athivanta nzadhyama ca tathgbhavet) and, with oth er corruptions, in th e Saptahtika recension (ibid. fol. 19c8-9: yat hiylimi tathz cimd madbyam2 ca tat hi bhavet). Th ey d o no t occur in th e Trayodainatik arecension."


9/16

72 Francesco Sfeerraof the Vimalaprabha the name of Kubjika recurs (vol. 3, p. 147), whilestanza 3.104 of the ~aiva uLjik&vzatatanwaappears in a slightly differentform in the Sekoddeia (st. 134) and in Vajragarbha's commentary on theHevajratantra, in a long quotation from the PaficaZak:ahevajra (section 9, st.34).33Bhiigavatotpala, the author of the Spandaprad$ikri, quotes numerous

33 T his s tanza appears in the Ku ls l i kh ~ y aecension of the Hid&ikiimatntant7n, criticallyedited by T. Goudriaan and J.A. Schoterman, p. 175: rasaviddham yathi t i m mm nabhziyas ti mm ti vz vrajet 4n'ividdhas tathzpy evam na sar?tsaram anzdkramet (3.1 04). nthe Hevajratmn~api?z&r~hatFkti e read: rasaviddham ya thi tarnram na punas tiimratimwajet I i~ilaviddh as ath i kdyo na punab pa h~ ti m rajet I (Kathmandu, Kaiser Library,MS 128, NG MP P, M f. C14/66, fol. 5Or; my forthcom ing edition, p. 96). In the printededition of the Sanskrit text of the Sekoddeia (st. 134) it appears as: rasaviddho yathti loho napunar lobattip vrajet I mkhaviddh am tathti cittam na prrnar dz khat&n w 4e t I, which is,in fact, a retranslation by Raniero Gnoli from the Tibetan on the basis of the parallelstanza in the Hmajratan@api?zhrtha.t2i.

Several verses on the transmutation of cop per into gold c n be traced in Saiva tan tricliterature. I would like to thank Alexis Sanderson for providing the references quotedbelow with some personal comments: 1) (Nih aia kir ik iyip ) Dibsottara 5.90-92ab: 90idam tat pal-amam b iin am ] + + + aitaviddhavt ynth2 t imm ? + + >I 91 nrvayzena sabaikatvam gacchate n& -a a~ziay ab jidnaviddhas tatha h i a.hdr yzti

param padmn 92 fivena ca sahaikatvam gacchate [ nit ra sa~day &] I (MSS: IFI T. 17,pp. 855-8 56 [A]; IF1T. 150, p. 60 (B]). Variant readings: 90c n r v a - m A, m u d b u v a ~ e n aB; 91aFzinaviddhas conj.:j2inasiddhas A,Finafakt is B. I have conjectured that a furthertwo ptidas are lacking in the common source of MSS A and B because I see no other wayto accommodate the evidently missing part of the comparison. Most of the substance ofthe omitted text is obvious from the context and the paraphrase of the whole passagethat has been given in Tantr i loka 5.15 1 (with attribution in 5.148b): mayambhi -s i tmantinena tz di tm yam yi ty ananyadh* I fivena hematrim yadvat t2mram rzitenavedhitam I I. 90c is a conjectural reconstlucaon. 2) Matasira, NAK 3 3 79 NGMPP,Mf.B28/16), fol. 3 8r4-5: raaqn sp .m i yithd tZmram na bhziyo tinrrat@zw e t I iiryo likabpam (38 r5 ) tat tve na bhziyah paiut t im vrajet I I vimuktab sarvapripebhyabsarvadvandvaviva~ji tab I dharmidbarmak:ayiitr ma nt ri diksito bhavate fivab I 1. 3)Tanh-asadbhka,NAK 5-1 985 (NG MPP , Mf A1 88/22), f ol. 33v6 (9.145cd-146ab): yatha~ m 7 n < v >asas pn? n ndvanzatwm zrpigatam I I y u w are tatme na bhGyab parirtivzvrajet l . 4) Tantrasa dbhiva , cod. cit. fol. 12 8r 4 (26.5): tzmravad dhentam ripannampuna~-bhivo a yiti h i I I si2hakicirya deuefnpurrakk samayajn'nkib . 5) Tantrz'loka 14.10-1 ab: 14.10 ye y a z w k e iisanamdrge k?tadiKrih samgncchanto mohava fid vipratipattim Inzinam tesim nist i bhavadbhinzdniyogab sa~zkocah i ~ z iTyaka?-ais t&wa~asn?zrim 1 .1 1

jn'Ztaj7;ieyri dh ri ~a dn st hi pi santo ye tvan mamarg Ztiipathagis te pr na samyak I p~liy as eriim

ONTHE RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN HINDUND BUDDHISTTANI'RASpassages f?om Vaisnava, Saiva and Buddhst works. Many more examplescould, of course, be @ven.14

We could also mention cases of doctrinal contributions in the ambit ofHindu systems belongng to different traditions; for instance, the doctrineof the six paths (adbvan), which was probably first formulated in ~aivacircles and was later adopted and modified by Piificariitrins, as we can see inthe Satvatasavhita (chap. 19). Then there is the attribution of the termdblira~dlit. support ) to the semivowels (ya, ra, la, va)-related to thecuirasses (kafkzdka), which, as far as we know, appears for the first time in

a ~a iv a ork, the Pardtrimiikd (st. 7), and whch is to be found in laterVaisnava texts, such as the AhirbudhnyasaphitZ (16.83-87) and the Laksmi-tantra (19.12-19ab).~'

In Buddhst terms, we could say that sometimes the differences betweenthe various traditions are more evident in the s av vp i rather than the vivpi(or paramriltha) perspective. Pundarika twice quotes a verse from theBuddhst Yoginfsa~aratantmo confirm that all the philosophcal doctrinesare equivalent from the relative point of view (sapvpisatya) and that theBuddhist doctrines are superior only with respect to emptiness, and thusfrom the point of view of the absolute truth (vivytiratya). In the Vimala-prabba he writes:

T h e theories of all dartanas, examined From the point of view of the relativem t h of the world, are the same for realizing mundane perfections. In other

l ingik hrddhyddir muttho mithyibodhah sa'pavasid~a jakalpab 14.12 yamid v iddha~zni takamz r kbym nu t zn tr am tad yad bhzgah N Z ~rak.rtim no samupeydt I.

4 More generally, it is evident that Buddhist doctrines constituted an imp ortant standardof comparison for many exponents of Hindu Tanuism, at least in exegetical TantricLiterature; one only has to t ink how heavily authors such as Utpaladeva (10th cent.) andAbhinavagupta (10th-l lt h cent.) depended on B uddhist logicians just to develop theirtechmcal terminology. See R. Torella, The P ratyabhijfie and the Logical-Epistemolo-gical School of Buddhism , 1992, pp. 327-45. Riimak qtha 11(second half of 10th cent.),in his commentary on the MataGgapirameivar-atan~a, uotes and attributes authoriq tonumerous stanzas of the Prtcmri?zavrirttika by Dhann akirti (8th cent.).

j Cf. R. Torella, The Knlinrkas in the Saiva and Vaisgava Tantric Tradition: A FewConsiderations Between Theology and G ramma r , 1998, pp. 55-86. More generally, onthe relationship between the Saiva texts and the Paficari i trika scriptures, see A.Sanderson, H~storyhrough Textual Criticism in the Study of ~aivism,he P aficariiuaand the Buddhist Yoginitanuas , 2001, pp. 35-41.


10/16

74 Fmcesco Sfervawords: Th e human mind becomes identical to the reality with which it isunited, just as a wishfulfilling jewel . T he idea of a being an d the ideas ofelements, senses, etc., are equal; the m undane [ideas] of an agent, instrument ofaction, etc., are similar. [Fro m this point of view] there is n o difference betweenthe Buddhists and the heretics. T h e only difference concerns the reality ofemptiness, and this is the absence of a self, etc.3610. I would like to conclude by briefly elaborating on the theme of de-

identification that I touched on before. De-identification is crucial not onlybecause of its obvious importance in relation to overcoming suffering(dubkha), which is the goal of all spiritual teachngs, but also because itrepresents a viewpoint that can shed light on other aspects of the non-dualist Tanm c set of beliefs; I am referring specifically to the integration ofllyper-ritualism and anti-ritualism, wh ch is contemplated by both Buddhstand Nn du Tantric traditions.

One of the ways in which the ancient sapiential language speaks of de-identification (a modern term) is as being in the present . Maitripiidamentions thls and Abhinavagupta refers to it extensively. The concept isalso known in other Indian and Western religious traditions. In both theP a r ~ t r i ~ z i i k d t a t t v a v i v a ~ aed. p. 198) and in the MiiZi~zivijayav&-ttika(1.156), Abhnavagupta quotes the following stanza:

Once the yogn has arrested the wheel of the rays and drunk his unsurpassedambrosia, being free from the two times [i.e. , the future and the past] andhappy, he reposes in the present.37

j iba lokasa?pvrtyli vicri?yamli?zab sam adm ian asi ~h lin tah amli7zo iaukikasiddhaye; tadyatbiyaza yena hi bblivma munab samyqj ate n-ql im tm a tanmuyatlim yzt i vi.ha~ po unir yat bi

I [ YogjniiamcZratant~a11.2; also quoted in VP ad 5.47, ed. vol. 3, p. 341 iti bbiva-samkalpob samu-nab; tatha db2tvindnylidivic Zro )i tuly h I yivabinikap ka~p-karanridkapca tnly m I batuYbatirthika yor viiqro nist i; finyatlitattuam prati vi/e;ab, sa ca nairl itny eyi di

(ad 2.16 1, ed. vol. l , p. 256, lines -8). Harunaga Isaacson has lundly pointed out to methat the above-mentioned stanza of the Yoginmcli7-atann-o also occurs in other BuddhistTantras, such as the Dikinivajrpaijara (1.29) and the Savvarodaya (31.3 l), and thatsimilar stanzas appear in ~ a i v aexts; see, for instance, Ngr~yagaka gtha's ommentary onthe Myrzd ra ta n tm (k i7 j r ip d ~ .41-42) and the Nea-atana-a 3.16.nimdbya rahnicakram m a p pimim mrtam nz m am m kiZobbny~pa?lccbi~z7zeartnmmane k bibbavet I. As Raniero Gno li points o ut, Abhinavagupta states in the Parlim'm\likgtattua-viva?u?za hat it belongs to the Vidyatannn, whereas in the MiZi~zivijayavirttika, eattributes it to the DZma?-atantm (ed. p. 24). Concern ing the word Vadyatantra ,

More often, ancient texts simply speak of releasing conceptualconstructions (vikalpa) or, more precisely, of not identifylng oneself withone's representations of the past and the future, and being in the presentmoment; numerous passages of the Pdi canon also deal with us concept.The Bhnddekarattasutta n pamcular, while prescribing the right way to bein the present, i.e., not identifylng with material form, feelings, percep-tions, formations and consciousness, suggests, contrary to other Buddhisttexts, that the real problem is not primady the vikalpas (conceptual con-structions). Thls would seem to be in line with the importance attributed tovikalpas, when correctly used, in the (ancient and modern) BuddhistTheraviida tradition and in Buddhist Tantric systems; it is enough tomention all the practices of visualization that are part of the generation-process (utpattikrama) and are actually based on vikalpas. It is also evidentin the Hindu Tantric traditions, where, in the Mdinivijayottaratantra inparticular and in those texts based on it, a fundamental role is attributed totarka, correct reasoning. By using statements such as I am not insentient ,I am not bound by my actions , I am not endowed with maculation , andI am not impelled [to act by others] it is possible to uproo t falseconvictions (niicaya) based on the opposite kind of vikalpas (cf. Tantroccaya,

chap. 4). Therefore, we may declare that the real problem is, in fact, theattachment to vikalpas, namely the identification with vikalpas (whichrepresent the raw material used to construct the idea of a self-contained I-mine), and the tendency to create dichotomies (vikalpa primarily meansoption ) between what is pure or impure, and thus pleasant or unpleasant,

etc., in lieu of surrendering oneself completely to the present moment.Buddhst and Hindu non-dualist Tantric texts unanimously proclaim

that for the true yogin, it does not make sense to speak of what can or

Sanderson, again, has supplied me with some interesting information, taking it asmeaning VTan tra in the sense of Viimatantra, i.e. a Tant ra of the V%masrotas: Thecompound viditantmm occurs in this sense in Ksemar2ja7s ommentary on Sivastotnivali2.19: daksinicaro bhairavatan tram avip arit inz~ &in am ca... vZmZciram viditan ramvipanntabamam ..T h s nterpretadon is supported by the fact that the title DZmara givento the source of t h~ s itation in Milinivijnyottam 1.155 is that of one of a number ofw o r k s g r o u p e d a s t h e 8 ~ i k h a t a n t r a s n t h e S r ika n th iya sa mh i t i1 s l i s t o f 64Bhairavatantras. Nearly all those 64 are Tantras of the Daksinasrotas. The exception isthese 8 ~ikh;dtantras, hich include a number of tides known to be of Tantras of theVarnasrotas canon, namely ECyR[iik hi] Sammo ha and Siraicbeda.


11/16

76 Francesco S ' n acannot be eaten, drunk, and so Th e present moment already containseverythng. As Abhlnavagupta states in a verse of the Anuttarigiki, there isnothing to abandon, nothing to obtain. It is interesting that this samestanza is quoted by the Buddhist Munidana in the CalyrigitikoSavy8kby~without a precise reference to the source.39The same concept is expressedin similar words in other Buddhist texts, such as the Hevajratantra, and inHindu works, such as t he Sivadrsti (3.68cd). I n the Gzc~abha7-ani yRaviSrijfiHna we find the following stanza of the Paramirthasevg byPundarika:

In the mind, there is nothing that you should add, nothing that you shouldremove, there is neither increase no r decrease. Th e three worlds are only areflection of our mind in the mind, similar to the sun in water.40If what we need is already present in the here and now, then we can also

bhaksyibhaksyavicira~z r peyipeyam tathaiva ca gamyigamyam ta th i nza?zm- vikalpamnaiva kirayet (HPuojatantra 1.6.2 1 ; bhakgibhahyavinimzrktab peyipeyaviva?jitab Igamyiganlymiinimmzrkto bhaved yogi samihitah @-&siddhi 1.1 8); bhak&t]a? v2 yadivibhakslyjam samathaiva na kalpayet kiivika'ryam tath i gamyam agamyam caiva yogavitna pu?zyam za ca v i pipam margav mo&v na kalpayet sahajinandnikamzirtljtu t*hedyogiram-hitab (Ca?z&mhiro$anaatonwa 7.8cd- l Oab, ed. p. 32, he s 18-2 1); ki~; ii iai rya mq-ti hddhib s i 'hddhih iambhudariane na hcir by aiurs tasmin nimikalpab mkhibbavet (Vijiinabhairava, st. 123). For further references see V. Dvivedi, "Bauddha-iaiva-i&ta tantrom Inem tulan8tmaka sw ag ri (Z)", 1987, pp. 94-95.

9 samiv-o 'sti na tattvatas tanzrbhhta-mbandhasya vitaiva ka bandho yaya najim taya vitathimuktaya muktiknyi mithyimohak?-de?a m~ubhz~agacch~ipG~abhramo- kiicit tyajamg-hi?za vilasa manho yathivacthitab (Anuttarqiki, st 2 quoted as igam[vaca?za] andwith a few differencesin CagrZgitikofazyikbya', ed. Bagchi, p. 74, ed. Kvxme, p. 166).citte na kaicid bhavatipanQo na ksepa?zjo na ca hznivrddhi citte macittapratibhi amrZt?-amwidhitukam toyagato yathirkab (Gunabha-i, ed. p. 85; in the Tibetan translation ofthe Paramirtbasmi, Peking ed. vol. 47, p. 7, fol. 13 b1.3). The concept that our mind doesnot need anythmg, and so on, is well known in several Buddh~stworks. Cf., for example,Abhi samayila~k ira .2 1, Ratnagotravibhiga 1.54, the last verse of the Pratitymamutpda-hrdayakinki (ed. p. 124) and the Pa~z ~k yar 4i inm idd hiVimaluprabhi, ed. vol. 3, p. 9 1,lines 2 1-4). Harunaga Isaacson has pointed out to me that the stanza of theRanzagohavibhiga is quoted by Jayaratha ad TantriIoka 4.9 (see also d 4.260cd-261ab)and by Mandana Mi5ra in h s Brahmasiddhi (Br ah ma hd a, p. 8). See also Yogavisr$ba,Utpattipraka7-ana, arga 89, stanzas 39cd-41ab, and (Alberto Pelissero personalcommunication) Gau&pdakiriki 2.3 2.

reach liberation without initiation, rituals, yoga, etc.4' Some texts go as faras saylng that the true homa ritual is the offering of oneself to the deity, them e itual bath is the immersion in Consciousness, and so on." n the firststanza of the Anuttaragiki we read:

Here there is no need for transference of realization, creative meditation, cleverspeech, philosophical research, contemplation, concentration or repetitions ofmantras. 'Tell me, what is the ultimate reality, the reality that is absolutelycertain?' Listen Do not leave anything nor take anything Enjoy everythingthat is pleasant, in whatever conditi on you find yourself 43Notwithstanding the anti-ritualist and anti-gradualist ideologies, ritual

has not lost its importance: anti-ritualism and hyper-ritualism, anti-gradualism and gradualism are integrated in non-dualist Tantrism; in fact,&S integration is one of its most interesting and characteristic elements. In~a ivaexts, for instance, the salvific means are divided into three groups:rinava, iakta and ig~ bh av a, ccording to the prevalence of liturgical actionand yoga, or knowledge. However, it is worth noting that in the Para-m~k~ara jfianas iddhi, section of the fifth chapter of the Vimalaprabhli,P ~ d a r i k a ctually criticises th s ~ a i v a onception of salvific means? Hebases his criticism on some verses taken from the m zih tan~a , hat is, theAdibuddha. However, these verses show a partial and biased understandingof the Saiva doctrine (which could be compared with the Buddhist kramas);the Saivites, in their turn, make an analogous simplification when, as wehave seen, they try to explain and distance themselves from Buddhistdoctrines such as emptiness.

This concept is to be found in Buddhst works: ama?z&lapravz$riS ca d? wa tyi bhavanti hi(Samvaratmrtra, quoted in the?iinasiddhi, ed. p. 144);in ~ai vit e orks: ad~ama?2dalo

'py evam yab kdcid vetti tattvatab sa stddhibhig bhaven nitymn sa yogisa ca d i k b(Paritrimfiki, 18cd-19ab); evam yo vetti tattvena t a p nirvinagimini dik@ bhavatyasamdigdhi ti l~yihu tiva rj ii (ibid. st. 25); and in Vaisnava writings: cf. Samvitpakiiaby Viimanadatta, stt. 6.3-4. See also Parim~&iki tammivarana (ed. pp. 24-25), Tanh i-loka 3.289-290ab, Sivad.mi 7.5-6 and Cittavihddhiprakaraqa 79-8 1.Cf. Tannwcaya chapter 8 (ed. p. 176). See also Sivadrgi 7.84 ff

4 ramkrimo 'ha na bhivani 7za ca kathrijruktir na carci na ca dhyham vi na ca dhZra?zina cajapibhyisap-ayiso na ca tat kim n i m nmGcita?.n vada param s a w a tac chniyatw natyiginapari@-ahibhajamkhav ramam yathivasthitab I I Cf. also Parami ~~hasi ra,t. 60.Ed. vol. 3 pp. 89-92.


12/16

Frnncesco Sfeva

AbbreviationsIF1 Institut franqais d'hdolo gieNAK Nepal Archives of KathmanduNGMPP Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project

SourcesAbhinavagupta, A nu tt ar i~ ik i, d. in K.Ch . Pandey, Abhinavag-upta. An Historicaland Philosophical Stzuiy, Varanasi, 1963*,pp. 404-5 (Chowkhamba SansluitStudies, 1).Abhinavagupta, Mili?ziuijayav i~ika, d. by M .K. Shastri, Srinagar, 192 1 (KashmirSeries of Texts and S tudies, 3 1).Ab hinavagu p a, Param Zrthasira The Paramirtbasril-a by Abhinavagupta with thecommentary o Yogarqa, ed. by J.Ch. Chatterji, Srinagar, 1916 (KashmirSeries of Texts and Studies, 7).Abhinavagupta, Parit~imiikitattvauiuara za l comment0 di Abhinavagupta allaPar ihw 'iki, traduzione e testo, a cura di R. Gnoli, Istituto Italiano per ilMedio ed Estremo Oriente, Rome, 1985 (Serie Orientale Roma, LVIII).Abhinavagupta, Tantrihka, ed. with Jayaratha's Tantrahkauiveka by M.R. ShastriM.K. Shastri, 12 vols., Srinagar, 1918-1938 (Kashmir Series of Textsand Studies, 23, 28, 29, 30, 35, 36,41,47, 52, 57, 58, 59).Abhinavagupta, Tantroccaya, ed. by R. Gnol i and R. Torella , Th e Tantroc caya ofAbhinavagupta , in Indo Sino Tibetica. Studi in onore di Lzrciano Petech, ed.by P. Daf fini, Rom e, 1990, pp. 153-89 ( Studi Orientali pubblicati dalDipam mento di Studi Orientali, 9).Advayavajra (M aiuip2da), Aduayavajl-asapgraha ed. by H .P. Shastri, Baroda, 1927(Gaekwad's Orienta l Series, 40).Ahirbudbnyasa~hiti, d. by M.D. Ramanujacharya under the supervision of F.Otto Schrader, revised by V. Krishnamacharya, 2 vols., Adyar, 1966 (TheAdyar Library Series, 4).Anarigavaj ra , Pr ~f iop iym in~ cq ~d dh ied. in Guhydi- siddhi-Sarigraha ,pp. 6 3 8 7.Anupamar aksi a, The Sadaligayoga by Anupamaraksita with Rau ihij iina S Guna-bhara~i~rrm: rigayogatippani, text and annotated transl., e d. by F. Sferra,Istituto Italiano per 1'Africa e 190rien te ,Rome, 2000 (Serie OrientaleRoma, LXXXV).ky ad ev a, Catubiataka Aryadeva Catubia taka. On the Bodhisattza Czdtivation oM n it a nd Kizowledge, ed. by K. Lang, Copenhag en, 1986 (Indiske S udier, 7).

ky ad ev a, CittaviSzddhipmkarana, ed. by P.B. Patel, Sanuniketan, 1949 (Visva-Bharati Studies, 8).A ~ ~ a m a i i j u ~ n i z h z a x a m ~ i t iith Am. rtaka?z ikd-tipp ani by Bhiksu RaviSrijiiirina andAm.rtakanikoddyota-nibandha o Vibhiiticandra, ed. by B. Lal, CentralInsti tut of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, 1994 (Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica, 30).Mvaghosa, GrwzqaZciSiki, Sanskrit text partially retransl. from Tibetan; ed. by J.

Pandeya in Durlabha grantha paricaya , Dhib. Jozwnal o Rare BuddhistTexts Research Project, l 3, pp. 16-20. Tibeta n transl. The Tibetan Tripitaka.Peking Edition, text No . 4544, vol. 8 1, Tokyo- Kyoto, 1957, pp. 205-6.Bhsgavatotpala, Spand apradqiki, ed. by G . Kavirsja Varanasi, 1992, pp. 83-1 28(Tantramiigahah, vol. 1).B h de ka ra tt ar z ~t ta M a jh im a N q a 13 , ed. by R. Chalmers, London, 1899, pp.187-89 (Pali Tex t Society, Te xt Series 62, vol. 3). Repr. 1 987.C ah a~ ua ra ta nt ra , hapter 1, ed. and transl. in C. Cicuzza and F. Sferra, BriefNotes on the Beginning of Kslacaha Literature , Dbih. Jozwnal o RareBuddhist Texts Research Project, 23, pp. 113-26, 3 (pp. 118-2 1).Candum ah&ro;apztam a The Candamahiro:a?za Tan tra. Chapters I-VII I, A CriticalEdition and English Translation by Chr.S. George, New Haven, 1974

(American Oriental S eries, 56).Dohiko Sayikh ya: Dohiko:a (Ap abh rada Texts o the Saha jayina School). P a n (Textsand Commentarier), ed. by P.C. Bagchi, Calcutta, 1938 (Calcutta SanshitSeries , 2 Sc).Gkhyridi-Agasiddhi-Sangraha anskrit and Tibetan text, ed. by S. Rinpoche andV.V. Dwivedi, Central Insti tute of Highe r Tibeta n Studies, Sarnath,Varanasi, 1987 (Rare Buddhist Tex t Series, 1).Haribhadra, S~rimasamurcaya:SaddarSanasamzucaya W ith Gu?zaratnas Commen-tary Tarkarahasyadqiki, ed. L. Suali, The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1 905-1914 (Bibliotheca Indica Series).Hevajratantra: The Hevajra Tantra. A Critical Study, Part I, Introduction andTranslation; Part 11,Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts, ed. by D.L. Snellgrove,London, 1959 (London O riental Series, 6).Indrabhuti, j'iZrzasiddhi, ed. in Guhyidi-Awddhi-Sarigraha,pp. 89- 157.Jayaratha, Tantrilakauiueka, ee Tantrilaka.JayarsSibha~a,Tattvopaplavasimha, ed. with an intr oductio n and indexes by S.Sanghavi and R.C. P arikh, Varanasi, 1987 (Bauddha Bharati Series, 20).Kambala, Alakamik, ed. by Chr. Lindtner in Miscellanea Buddhica, Copenhagen,1985 (Indiske Studier, 5).Ksemariija, Pratyabhij iihydaya Pratyabhijiiihydayam The Secret o Self-recognition,Sanskrit Text with English Translation, Notes and Introduction by J .Sing, Delhi, 1991'. Or. ed n. 1963.


13/16

80 Francesco S w aKsemariija, Spanduniqaya Spa ~zd uni~ ayaith Englih Translation, ed. by M. Kaul,Srinagar, 192 5 (Kashmir Se ries of Texts and Studies, 42).Kub jikim tatan na The Ku ljikim tatan wa. K ulilikimmiya Vmion, Cri ical edi donby T . G oudriaan and J.A. Schoterman, Leiden, 1988 (Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina, 30).Laghukrilaakratatanna, reprinted in Vimalapabhi.tiki from A Critical i3iition o Sri&-1acakratantra-&3a (Collated with the Tibetan version), ed . by B. Banerjee ,

Th e Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1985 (Bibliotheca Indica, 3 11).Laksm-riima, Pari tdik iviv? ti, ed. by J.Z. Shastri, Bombay, 1947 (Ka shmir Seriesof Texts and Studies, 69).Lak.mitanwa: Lak mita ntra. A Piiicarritra Agama, ed. with San skrit Gloss andIntroduction by V. Krishnamach arya, Adyar, 1959 (The Adyar LibrarySeries, 87).MaheSvar~nanda,Mahirthamaiijar@arimala Maheivariinanda, The Mahartha-manjari with the Commentary Parimala o Mahesvarananda, ed. byMahimahopidhyiya T. Gwapati Sh a ? , Trivandrum, 1919 (TrivandrumSanskrit Series, 66).Milinivijayottaratantra, ed. by M.K. Shastri, Bombay, 1922 (Kashmir Series ofTexts and Studies, 37).Matangapiramehraratantra Mataitgapiramehiaratantra (Vidyipida), avec lecornmentaire de Ramakantha, edition critique par N.R. Bhatt, IFI,Pondichery, 1977.Munid atta, Cayigitikoiavyikh yi 1) Ca?yrgiti-ko~a Buddhist Sidd ha, edited andannotated by P.Ch. Bagchi in collaboration with S. Bhiksu Siistri, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, 1956; 2) An Anthology o Buddbirt Tan hic Songs. Atzldy ofthe Cayigiti, ed. by P. Kvzme , Oslo, 1986*.Or. edn. 1977.N H iirjuna, Mzilamadh yamk akiriki Mzilamadhyam akakiriki (MidhyamikasGtras)avec la Prasannapadi Commentaire de Candrakirri, publiee par L. de laVallee Poussin, Imprimerie de 17Academie mperiale des Sciences, St.-Petersbourg, 1913 (B ibliotheca Buddhica, 4).Niijiirjuna, Pnrtityasamutpdizh~dayakririkri d. by L. de la Vallee Poussin, Thiorie

des douze causes, Londres, 1913.NBropii, Sekoddeiatiki: Sekoddeiatiki o Nadapida (N6ropi), The Sanskrit Textedited for the first time with an introduction in English by M Carelli,Baroda, 194 1 (Gaekwad's O riental Series, 90).Padmavajra, Guhyasiddi, ed. in Guhyidi-Agasiddhi-Sangraha ,pp. 1 62.Parr ihM iki, see Abhinavagupta,ParitrrtrrmCikitattvavivara~Pund arika, dPal don dam pa'i bmyen pa (ParaMrthasarri), bsT an 'gy ur, Pek ing ed.,vol. 47, 2065, fols. 1-25 a.Pundarika, Vimalapabhi, see Vim zapabhitika.Rav iirijfiaa , Gh?zabharani,see Anupamaraksita.

Siidhuputra Sridhariinanda, Sekoddeiatippani, ed. by R. Gnoli: La SekoddeSa-hppag di Sadhupuaa Sridharananda. l testo sanscrito , Rivina degli StzrdiOrientali 70, (1 997), pp. 115-46.Sirdhahiiatikilottarigama Sirdbaniintikiilottarigam. Avec le commmtaire de BhanaRima kantha, edition critique par N.R.Bhatt, IFI, Pondichery, 1979.Sitvata samh iti: Sitvatasamhitd. W ith Commentary by Alaiinga Bhatta, ed. byVrajavallabha Dwivedi, Sampurnana nd Sanskrit University, Varanasi,

1982. (Library Rare T exts Publication Series, 6).S e k a n i~ y a , d. in Advayavajra, Admyavajrasa?pgraha ,pp. 8-3 1.Sekoddeia, ed. by R. Gnoli: SekoddeSah. Edition of the San skrit Text , Dhib.3ournal o Rare Buddhirt Textr Research Projct 28 pp. 143-66.Sivanirra, ed. by J.Ch. Chatterji in Ksemarsja, Sivaszitravimarfini, Srinagar, 191 1(Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, l).sivop~ dhyay a, /5@6nabhairavaviv~i,ee v2jiiinabhairavaSom iinand a, Sivad-ysti, ed. w ith the mi by Utpaladeva by M.K. Shasti, Srinagar,1934 ( K a s h r Series of Texts and Studies. 54).~ u b h a k a r a g u ~ t a ,Abhisamayarnaiijari , ed. in Dhih. Journal o Rare uddhist TertsResearch Prgect 13, pp. 123- 154.Svacchanh tan~a ,with commentary by Ksemariija, ed. by M.K. Shastri, 7 vols.,Bomb ay, 192 1- 1935 (Kashrmr Series of Tex ts and S tudies, 31, 38,#, 48,51, 53, 56).Tattvaratmtnaval


14/16

82 Francesco S f w a(Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica Series, 11); vols. 11-III, Critically EditedAnnotated with Notes by V.V. Dwivedi and S.S. Bahulkar, CentralInstitute of Highe r Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, 1994 (Rare Buddhs t TextSeries, 12- 13).

ViryaSrimi ra, Ma mk alikrip aqik ii: Tattvajiiuinasamiddhi o grinyasamidbipiida withMamakalikipaiijikri o Vi?yaSrmmio-a, ed. by J. Shastri Pandey, CentralInstitute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, 2000 (Rare Buddhist TextSeries, 23).Yogariija, Paramidasiratiki, see Abhin avagu pta, Param irthasriraYopni iawatantra , NAK MS 4-20, NGMPP Mf. 48/5.

Books and articlesBhattacharyya, Beno ytosh193 1 An Introduction to Buddhist fiote rism , Baroda, 193 1. Repr. D elhi,1980.Biihnemann, Gudrun1996 The Goddess Mahicinakrama-=ii (Ugra-Tari) in Buddhist andHindu Tantrism . Bulletin o the School o Oriental and Afiican

Stlldies ,59 (1996), pp. 472-93.1999 Buddhist deities and mantras in the Hindu T antras: I The Tattva-sirasamg-raha and the iiinaiivaPrudevapaddhatin. Indo-IranianJournal, 42 (1999), pp. 303-34.2000 Buddhist deities and mantras in the Hin du Tan tras: I1 Th eS r i ~ i d ~ i i r ~ a v a t a n t r and the Tantrasiira . Indo-Iranian 30urna1, 43(2000), pp. 27-48.Dasgupta, Shashibhusan1 693 Obscul-e Religiozls Cults, C alc utt a, 1969. Or. edn. 1946.Dvivedi, Vrajavallabha1986 Bauddha-Saiva-Siikta tantrom mem tulanitmaka sHmagri . Dbih.3oumal o Rare Buddhist Texts Research Project, 1 (1986), pp. 99 - OS.1987 Bauddha-4aiva-Siikta tantrom mem tulanitmaka s2magri (2) .Dhib. Journal o Rare Buddhist Texts Research Prqect, 3 (1987), pp.88-96.Gnoli, Raniero1994 Introduzione to R. Gnoli and G. Orofino, Niropi. Iniziazione,M lan o, 1994, pp. 13- 103 (Adelphi, Biblioteca Orientale, l).1 992 Abhinavagupta. Luce delle sacre switture, Milano, 1999 (Adelphi,Biblioteca Orientale, 4). Or. edn. Torino, 1972.Gronbold, Giinter1992 Heterodoxe Lehren und Ihre Widerlegung im Glacakra-Tan tra .Indo-Iranian Journal, 7 (1 992), pp. 273 -97.

McClintock, Sara2000 Knowing All through Knowing One: Mystical Communion orLogical Trick in the Tattvasamgrahapaiijiki . Journal of theInternationalAssociation o Buddhist Studies, 3 (2 OOO) pp. 25 44.Newrnan, John R onald1992 Buddhist Siddhiinta in the Kilacakra Tantra . Wiener Zeitschrzftf ir die Kunde Sudasiens, 36 (1 992), pp. 2 27-34.Nihom, Max1994 Sadhanamiili 256 A PiiSupata-Bauddha Tantris tic Sidhana .Wiener Zeitschrz$fir die Kunde Siid asim , 38 (1 994), pp . 2 13 29.San ders on, Alexis,1988 Saivism and the Tantric Traditions , in The World's Religions: TheReligions ofAsia, ed. by F. Hardy, Lon don, 1988, pp. 660-704.1990 Purity and Power among the Brahmans of Kashmir , in TheCategory o the Person, ed. by M . Carrithers et al., Cam bridge, 19 90,pp. 190-2 16.1994 Vajrayiina: Origin and Function , in Buddhimr into the Year ZOO(Confmce Proceeding$, Dharnm akaya Foundation , Bangkok, 1994,pp. 87-102.2001 History through Textual Criticism in the Study of ~aivism,hePaiicarHtra and the Buddhist Yoginitantras , in Les sources et letemps. Sources and Time. A Colloquium. Pondichkry 11-13 January

1997 ed by F. Grimal, Institut franqais de Pondichkry, Ecolefranqaise d'Extr2me-Orie nt, Pondic hkry, 200l pp. 1-47.Seyfort Ruegg, David1964 Sur les rapports entre le bouddhisme et le 'substrat religieux'indien et tibittain .~ournalAsiatique, 52 (1964), pp. 77-95.1989 Review of Dav id Sne llgro ve, Indo- Tibetan Buddbimt: Indian Bud-dhists and their Tibetan successors. Journal o the Rqal Asiatic Society(1989), pp. 172-78.1995 Ordre spirituel et ordre tmporel d nr l p d e bouddbique de 171nde tdu Tibet, Paris, 1995.200 1 A Note on the Relationship between Buddhist and 'Hindu' Di-

vinities inBuddh~st iterature and Iconology: The hkika/-LokotiaContrast and the Notion of an Indian 'Religious Substratum ', in Lepamk e i ma mi . Studi in di Raniwo Gnoli nelruo 70 compleanno,ed by R. Torella, Istituto Italiano per 1'Afi-ica e 170riente,Rome,200 1, pp. 735-42 (Serie Orientale Roma,XCII 1-2).Torella, Raffaele1992 The Pratyabhijiiii and the Logical-Epistemological School ofBuddhism , in Ritual and Speculation in Early Tantrim. Studies inHonour o AndrP Padow, ed by T . Goud riaan, Albany, New York,1992, pp. 327-45.


15/16

Francesco Sfen-aThe k c u k a s in the Saiva and Vaiynava Tan tric Tra dition: A FewConsiderations Between Theology and Gram mar , in Studies inHinduism II Mixcellanea to the Phenomenon o Tantras, ed. by G.Oberham mer, Wien, 1998, pp. 55-86.

Tucci, Giuseppe1949 Tibetan Painted Scrolls, 2 vols. and a portfolio, Rome, 1949.CANONICALUOTATIONS W THE KHOTANESEBOOK OFVWIALAKTRTI*

The Late Khotanese text currently known under the conventional titleof Book o Virmlakirti = Vlm) is a compendium of Mahiiyiinist doctrines. Itis possibly an or i p a l Khotanese composition, though it relies heavily onIndian sources. Th e extant portion of the text is contained in two miscel-laneous manuscripts from Dunhuang: lines 224-386 of manuscript Ch00266 of the British Library = Vim C) and h e s 1-60 of manuscript P 2026of the Bibliotheque nationale de France = Vzm P). Vlm C was first editedby Harold Walter Bailey in 195 1in his Khotanese Buddhist Tern ILBT 104-113), whereas was edited but not identified by him in 1956 in thethird volume of his Khotanese Texts (KT 3.48-50). The overlap betweenlines 1-22 of Vim P and the last lines of Vim C lines 368-386) wasrecognised by Ronald Eric Ernmerick Srudies 2.118 S.V. mya-). While thisarticle was in the press, a new edition and a provisional translation of VzmC and the overlapping lines of J4m P have been provided by Prods 0Skjzrv SDTV 6.489-499).

T he text is metrical, as is revealed by the almost complete versenumbering that is found in Em P. In im C, verse numbering is absent,and even punctuation marks dividing verses or padas are quite rare.Though some two hundred manuscript h e s are extant, the beginrung andthe end of the text, which might have contained the title, were not copied.The text was assigned the title of Book o KmaZakirti by Bailey on accountof the fact that the name of Vimalakirti occurs five times in it (Vim C 3 16-317, 328, 337-338, 342 and 344;K T 109-1 11). In the present article threepassages preserved only in Vim C are offered in a revised, metrically* I am grateful to my late teacher and friend Ronald E. Emmerick, to Francesco Sferraand to Fabrizio Torricelli for useful comments on a preliminary draft of this article, and

to Hisao Inag ah for presenting me with a copy of his recent book (Amidz Dh&a?ziSzitraand i~zaga7-bha's ommentary, 1999) that I needed for this article.


16/16

Univers i t i degli Studi d i Napoli L'OrientaleCen tro d i Studi sul Buddhism0

Buddhist AsiaPapers from the Firs t Conferenceof Buddhist Studies Held in Naples

Edited byGiovanni Vera rdi and Silvio Vita

some considerations on the relationship between hindu and buddhist tantras by francesco sferra

Documents