RONALD M.DAVIDSON REFRAMING SAHAJA: GENRE, REPRESENTATION, RITUAL AND LINEAGE One of the consequences of the paucity of critical investigations into the early medieval Indian movement known as esoteric Buddhism (Mantray¯na, Vajray¯na, Mantranaya, etc.) is that we maintain a relaa a tively superficial understanding of its fundamental nomenclature and technical terminology. Despite the plethora of available resources, and even though we enjoy much greater access to living Tibetan, Japanese and Newar representatives of the movement than ever before, the situation has only slightly improved in recent decades. This essay will attempt to address questions about the semantic value and ritual history of a term that, for a while, was central to the modern understanding of later Indian Mantray¯na, but which unfortunately has been bypassed in a more contemporary discussions. This term is sahaja, which Tibetans have translated as “simultaneously born” (lhan cig skyes pa), and whose treatment in Indological literature has not fully engaged central questions concerning Buddhist intellectual and ritual history. One important reason for this state of affairs has been the totalizing response of modern scholarship to issues of Buddhist ritual and its hermeneutics, so that the differentiation into specific traditions has been under emphasized. While scholarship on the Indian Vinaya systems and the early Mahayana has rectified this tendency to some degree – and though great strides in scholarship on East Asian Buddhist traditions have been taken – Indian esoteric systems have not been so thoroughly explored. Sometimes this results from a method that takes cues from the surviving Sanskrit archive without consideration of the traditional Indian historical materials preserved in Tibetan or Chinese. Consequently, scholars have tended to amalgamate esoteric ritual theory and practice into a collective statement about Tantric Buddhism as a whole. Certainly, a broad overview is appropriate in certain venues, and it has yielded especially good results when focused on general attitudes or social groupings. However, technical vocabulary is often traditiondependent and demonstrates a great variation across systems and over time. Thus, the doctrinal and philosophical architecture developed in a single or small number of esoteric Buddhist traditions during the early Journal of Indian Philosophy 30: 45–83, 2002. c 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. 46 RONALD M. DAVIDSON medieval period of India has been sometimes taken as applicable to a much broader spectrum of literature and ritual. As a consequence of this response, the topography of Vajray¯na has been obscured, so a that our understanding of idiomatic constructions, local usage, lineal importance, and a host of other concerns has not been facilitated. In some ways this is understandable in the case of Indian Mantray¯na: a the bewildering varieties of nomenclature, the extraordinary number of personalities, the social and political backgrounds, are often depicted by hagiographical literature as fluid and all encompassing. Its literature represents the personalities of esoteric saints in an extreme and fictive manner, so there has been little sense of historical security about the siddhas who are said to live for centuries, fly through the air, and live on essences. Our uncertainty is particularly true for personalities found in the problematic collection that has been strongly emphasized, the ´ı Hagiographies of the Eighty-four Siddhas (Caturas¯tisiddhapravrtti) . attributed to Abhayadatta´r¯, and almost equally true for data from the sı 1608 CE annals of T¯ran¯tha. Other and in many ways better sources a a exist, however, especially those dedicated to single lineages addressing a specific series of practices.1 Indeed, the convergence of terminology and lineal hagiographies may in some instances provide us with a focused representation of how their practices and its nomenclature came into being. Sahaja is, in fact, a good test case for the manner in which esoteric Buddhist technical terminology, developed in one environment, moved into others, and was sometimes held at bay and sometimes surreptitiously appropriated in disparate venues. However, our study is probematized by instances of individuals receiving multiple lineages. Yet their observed tendency in many cases is to respect the discourse specific to a system while working in that ideological arena. We must be wary, though, for such discipline is not universally observed, especially as terminology drifts from its temporal and spatial origins. Thus, filiation and synthesis can be better mapped if we also pay attention to how a term is employed in specific environments and apparently excluded from others. It is my proposal that sahaja was a preclassical word that became employed in scholastic, particularly Yog¯c¯ra, literature as an adjective a a describing conditions natural or, less frequently, essential with respect to circumstances encountered in an embodied state. It appears as a ˜a technical term with Buddhajn¯nap¯da, who used it in his explanation a ¯ of the Guhyasamaja Tanta ritual system, probably in the first quarter of the ninth century CE. Sahaja became most definitively discussed as a member of four “joys” in the Hevajra Tantra – in the late ninth or early REFRAMING SAHAJA 47 tenth century – its allied works and their commentarial literature, ritual manuals, and related exegesis. It became employed in the songs of certain ¯ ¯ ı doha and Caryag¯ti poets, and serves to localize their contributions into the ninth century or later, so that the study of esoteric Buddhist ritual nomenclature can make an important contribution to historical linguistics when, as in this case, the authors were Buddhists. While sahaja eventually was articulated as a technical term to identify the culminating experience of sexual practice – an activity preceding the use of sahaja as a descriptive by approximately a century for Buddhists – the term took on increasing philosophical importance in the Hevajra environment. At the same time, many other lineages, especially the ¯ ¯ Arya tradition of the Guhyasamaja and several Samvara systems, . remained relatively immune to its augmented status. Later, perhaps in the tenth century, the term becomes appropriated by one of several ¯ persons using the name Indrabhuti. His system and interpretation served further to increase sahaja’s importance to specific representatives of the esoteric persuasion. By the late tenth or early eleventh century, ¯ sahaja became incorporated into the Kalacakra Tantra, and further promoted the development of new doctrines, especially the doctrine of ¯ a sahajakaya. Finally, the polysemy of sahaja and its application in different environments means that it might be mapped according to its semantic registers. Because of the complexity of these issues, only a fraction of the material can be presented, and for that I beg the reader’s indulgence. I. MODERN SCHOLARSHIP To my knowledge, the issue of sahaja was first broached by Cecil ¯. Bendall in his 1903–1904 edition of the Subhasita-samgraha. This . quite late work is a compilation of later Indian esoteric materials and is actually an excellent marker of important sources for the work classified ¯ ¯ as yogin¯-tantra or mahamudra related texts. Yet the anonymous author ı ¯. of the Subhasita-samgraha contributed to the synthetic or totalizing . direction of scholarship by his version of a Collection of Good Sayings, a genre that does not observe the lineal constraints evident in most other materials.2 Because of the early publication of this collection – it was one of the earliest complete Buddhist Sanskrit works published in any venue – scholars conceived of the work as a paradigmatic, rather than exceptional, statement of the traditional method of esoteric discourse. In editing the Apabhram´a verses in his appendix, Bendall lamented the .s lack of terminological definition, for “sahaja is a technical term of later a e a e e a e En fait K¯nha et Saraha sont tous les deux nihilistes. e bh¯va “l’ˆtre”. Basing himself a. ni bhava “l’existence” ni nirv¯na “l’an´antissement”. However. ni abh¯va “le non-ˆtre”.5 While I have no intention of providing yet another example of the curiosities of colonial literature. and even. c’est-`-dire la a e a e e e e a e vacuit´. m¯dhyamikas. and in the process offered a definition of sahaja: ˜ D’abord on a l’impression qu’ils sont d´istes. sometimes about its middle age of scholasticism and philosophy. c’est-`-dire l’´tat de vacuit´. who in 1916 published the Bauddha Gan ¯ ¯ ı ´ O Doha.4 I have printed text. attitudes of this sort obviously complicated the critical examination of the material. . 83). 1) explique niranjana par e sahajak¯ya. but next to nothing about the its (sic) decay. Bengali scholars embraced it as the validation of their own tantric heritage.”3 At the same time. 1) et Saraha de Parame´vara (str. ni a a. the first of many examinations of the Caryag¯tikosa and the ¯ ´ dohakosas attributed to Tillop¯da. 60. Bendall responded to the content of the compendium with predictable horror at its erotically charged statements. Or. Whereas those in service to the Crown found esoteric Buddhism repulsive. the same cannot be said of all Bengali . Shahidullah was concerned as to whether these two were theists or not. He seemed to feel he had embarked on a distasteful public service. (K. Comme chez les philosophes a. parce que K¯nha parle de Niranjana e a. The interest in esoteric material was particularly true of the great pioneering ¯ scholar Hara Prasad Shastri. thinking it well that scholars at least should know the worst. rien n’existe. in 1928 by Shahidullah’s Les Chants Mystiques. Bendall established something of a movement. Mais le comm. and quickly affirmed that the language of some of the poems was the earliest surviving material in the Bengali language. and K¯nha. on emploie partout ces deux mots s ˜ dans l’Inde moderne pour d´signer Dieu. for many subsequent scholars have discussed sahaja in the context of the surviving Prakrit and Apabhram´a poetry . given the parameters of his Victorian age. in proportion to the published material) has been written about the glorious and vigorous youth of Indian Buddhism. also commentary on this extraordinary phase of soi-disant Buddhism. It was followed a a. where extant. an edition and French translation of the verses attributed to Saraha and K¯nha. on the Sanskrit commentaries published by Shastri.48 RONALD M. To me it all reads like an obscene caricature of the teachings both of earlier Buddhism and of legitimate Yoga. le corps de l’Inn´. la vacuit´ . La v´rit´ est l’Inn´ (sahaja). as shown in the Tantra-literature. an affirmation of regional identity that has not gone unchallenged. Saraha. decrepitude and dotage. (str.s written by specific siddhas. . c’est-`-dire. DAVIDSON Buddhist literature. which has not been as yet explained. akin to discussing the physical disabilities of the aged: Much (perhaps too much.6 While Shahidullah was relatively careful in his understanding of the context for these compendia. in Bengali literature of different periods. it is Sahaja-y¯na because. transformed as the Prajn¯ and the Up¯ya.REFRAMING SAHAJA 49 scholars. which was concerned with a “thorough study of the Buddhist Sahajiy¯ cult. What is natural is easiest.11 ¯ The emphasis on the doha literature of the medieval siddhas continued to be paramount. a a its aim is to realize the ultimate innate nature (sahaja) of the self as well as of the dharmas. He also rendered sahaja . i. and Snellgrove’s 1954 translation of the poems or songs of Saraha followed closely that of Shahidullah. a process in which some Europeans participated as well. and recent work by various Indian scholars still repeats the bland declaration that such terms have vertical referents in history.8 Such an overwhelming affirmation of sahaja was brought to its culmination in Shashi Bhushan Dasgupta’s 1946 Obscure Religious Cults.e.” as well as others “to be found a a .10 Again. by adopting the path through which the human nature itself leads him. – and a a a Sahajay¯na or Sahajiy¯y¯na was not excepted in this rush to coin new a a a terms that to this day remain without an apparent source in medieval Buddhist literature. and thus Sahaja.” and engaged in the quaint identification ´ of Buddhist and Saiva conceptual fields.. a nascent nationalism in India. from its primary meaning of being natural acquires the secondary meaning of being easy. etc.7 Most likely. Now. It is curious that these fictional categories continue to hold . the attention of researchers. and the desire to affirm such subsequent phenomena as Sahajiy¯ a Vaisnavism. are held to be the a a . straight or plain.. New vehicles were manufactured on the pages of scholars’ tomes – Tantray¯na. this development was the combination of an immature understanding of the literature.”9 Dasgupta understood sahaja as the basis of the “school. K¯lacakray¯na. the Vaisnava Sahajiy¯ cult. two primary attributes of the ultimate reality which is Sahaja. and the period between the late nineteenth century and the middle of the twentieth saw the manufacture of a whole series of questionable categories for esoteric Buddhism. and it is Sahaja-y¯na also because of the fact that instead of suppressing a and thereby inflicting undue strain on the human nature it makes man realize the truth in the most natural way. which he continued to ascribe to a Sahajiy¯ or Sahajay¯na Buddhism: a a The name Sahaja-y¯na seems to be doubly significant. in Sahajiy¯ Buddhism Sunyat¯ (void) and a a a ˜a Karun¯ (compassion). The Absolute is the Sahaja – it is the ultimate reality behind the self and the not-self. The realization of this Sahaja in and through the self and the not-self is ´¯ the ultimate aim of the Sahajiy¯s. Dasgupta indicated the significance of sahaja. As two aspects of ˜a the ultimate reality Prajn¯ and Up¯ya are conceived in the Buddhist Tantras and in a ´ ´ a Sahajiy¯ Buddhism just as Sakti and Siva of the Hindu Tantric school. in his 1950 An Introduction to Tantric Buddhism.. many have questioned Guenther’s technical renditions and the manner in which he presents them. a probably based on the colophon to the Tibetan translation.V. He showed that sahaja was employed in the ˜¯ third consecration. despite a wealth of ancient Tibetan translation materials and the presence of surviving Apabhram´a verses.12 In Guenther’s 1992 reconsideration of these texts. The translation of the term by “l’Inn´” (M. whom Carelli identifies with N¯rop¯. A precise rendering of the term sahaja would therefore have to be something like “complementarity-in-spontaneity. in which the disciple 14 In the process. a a . ¯ This text is concerned with consecration into the Kalacakra system and is attributed to Nadap¯da. The most significant change in scholars’ perceptions of sahaja. To his credit. the disciple is supposed to practices a sexual yoga. which he called prajnaseka.” and as such it is explained by Padma dkar-po . Snellgrove) is wrong. However. an odd combination: Literally. Shahidullah) and “the e Innate” (D. Carelli’s lengthy introduction to the text indicated two directions sahaja was to ¯ take in Kalacakra exegesis.ı ¯ however. sahaja means “co-emergent” (it can be read as a noun or adjective) where emergence (ja) is a spontaneous and uncaused manifestation of what we might call the principle of “complementarity” (saha). coemergence entails a feeling of “togetherness” (saha) whose numinosity erases all sense of separation. the noumenal and the phenomenal indivisibly blend. Guenther’s 1969 translation of Saraha’s verses from their Tibetan translation. but in the process we might wonder if there can be any authentic commonality between the modern phenomenological terminology that Guenther favors and these Buddhist poets.13 While it is gratifying that Buddhist authors are being taken as serious thinkers. with comments from an indigenous Tibetan commentary. . Guenther. . was extraordinary in some ways. he attempts to rectify statements like those of Bendall’s by bringing in vocabulary and concerns that are current. came with Carelli’s publication of the Sekoddesat¯ka in 1941.L. .50 RONALD M. his translation was more scholarly and his position more extreme. subject and object. As an immediate experience. DAVIDSON as “the Innate. His attentiveness to the Tibetan legacy both affirmed lineal concerns for a positive contribution and reversed the normative historical perspective by privileging Tibetan over Indian interpretations.” eventually meeting with protests by others. . Essentially it refers to the spontaneity and totality of the experience in which the opposites such as transcendence and immanence.” a translation which I have adopted throughout.s Guenther elected to expend his energy at defending fifteenth-sixteenth century Tibetan interpretations of the term in a strong attack on his predecessors: The literal translation of the Tibetan term lhan-cig skyes-pa (Sanskrit sahaja) would be “coemergence. ´ . especially H. For the a moment I shall limit myself to saying that I believe that “simultaneously-arisen” or the like is the most suitable translation. and the four seals – karmamudra. one of the more original contributions was put forward by Per Kværne in 1975.15 The culmination of this process brings in the other ¯ direction sahaja adopted in the Kalacakra system. paramananda. and that it applies strictly to the ritual of consecration and nothing else: . a Body Head Throat Heart Navel Syllable HAM . and (anticipating my conclusions) that the term sahaja is basically connected with the tantric ritual of consecration where it refers to the relation between the ultimate and the preliminary Joys.” There Kværne articulated the idea that the term is solely an adjective. and reiterated both his understanding of the practice – including ´ . viramananda. dharmamudra. as it was most frequently represented. or was it the third. though.REFRAMING SAHAJA 51 ¯ ¯ ¯ experience four discrete joys – ananda. though. . With the publication of Snellgrove’s 1959 edition and translation of the Hevajra Tantra. HUM A Snellgrove also showed that there were controversies on the order of ¯ the joys: was sahajananda the fourth joy. . four psycho-physical wheels ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ (cakra). buddha bodies. etc. the definition of a new ¯ body.18 Snellgrove schematized the most important aspects of sahaja as it was associated with joy or ¯ bliss (ananda) – the location of the joys. Cakras svabh¯vikak¯ya a a sambhogak¯ya a dharmak¯ya a nirm¯nak¯ya a. . in his 1987 Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. . and syllables in the various psycho-physical wheels during the ritual practice:19 Consecrations ¯c¯rya a a Joys ¯nanda a Moments vicitra vip¯ka a vimarda vilaksana . . mahamudra 17 ¯ and samayamudra.22 . in an article “On the Concept of Sahaja in Indian Buddhist Tantric Literature. I doubt whether sahaja is ever used – as far as Buddhist tantric texts are concerned ˜a – as a noun.16 Building on this material. .ı ¯ now its representation in the Sekoddesat¯ka – and the translation of sahaja as innate.21 In the meanwhile. with sahajananda as the fourth joy. except as short-hand for sahaj¯nanda. Dasgupta worked with multiple manuscripts of various tantras and discussed the association of the four joys with four specific moments. the sahajakaya. ¯ and sahajananda. which Carelli identified with the older Mahayanist ¯ ¯ ¯ svabhavikakaya. moments. guhya praj˜¯j˜¯na n a na caturtha param¯nanda a viram¯nanda a sahaj¯nanda a ¯. OM . sahajajn¯na. both the nature of sexual yoga and its controversies came into greater focus. as some authorities like Advayavajra and the Hevajra Tantra itself twice declared?20 Snellgrove concluded that the ¯ normative arrangement was the former. We should also consider lineal differentiation in light of the historical model that. it is a state of omniscience. sahaja became a term that took on certain associations. or is at least a marker of an alteration in the conceptual architecture. on whether it is a vehicle or a body of the Buddha. ıta . 2.” articulated that there are nine descriptives that apply to this experience: 1. 6. it is sacred. Kværne. LITERATURE AND YOGACARA TEXTS Like most words employed in the esoteric system. This discourse facilitated the reinterpretation of sexual yoga as an internal mediation rather than an external sacramental ritual. and 9. In the process of proposing terminological development. it is cosmic. ¯ ¯ II. we might also acknowledge that the application of certain terminology to a rite changes its understanding. 8. NATURAL LANGUAGE. 5. especially as many have indulged in a favorite form of hermeneutics: reading the terms’ application in later texts into the lines of earlier works.52 RONALD M.48. 3. it is ineffable. or on whether it is an experience in the ritual life of a neophyte or a cipher for the absolute nature of the Buddha. it is timeless. as I have argued elsewhere. the rise of esoteric Buddhism is in large part a consequence of socio-political fragmentation in early medieval India. and modern scholars have generally privileged the latest and most recently written materials. the question of variation of terminology and understanding must be reasserted. I would argue that the frames of reference – both historical and ritual – are in need of reexamination. It is apparently a pre-classical a word. DAVIDSON Kværne then discussed the tantric consecrations. abstracted from the ritual context. Most particularly. 4. as we will see. in the section on “mysticism and the experience of Sahaja. 7. precipitated by the Buddhist support of a discourse ˘ on naturalness as the sin qua non of correct realization. it is an abolition of the duality of subject and object. it is blissful.24 Concerning ritual venues. and the earliest usage I have seen is in Bhagavadg¯ 18. sahaja has a history in the natural and literary language that is unfortunately neglected in scholarly literature on the Mantray¯na.23 It is instructive that Kværne’s references for most of these attributes were taken from the Hevajra Tantra. Moreover. it is the luminosity of one’s own mind. Variation would recommend itself initially. yet there is more that might be said. restricting himself to material from the limited archive of published Sanskrit (and one Tibetan) texts. All of these scholars have furthered our understanding. as we have seen that scholars have disagreed on whether sahaja indicates a noun or an adjective. it transcends the universe. the word occurs in the ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ . . and is observed in the work of K¯lid¯sa. where giving (dana) is defined in the context of the perfections to be fulfilled by a bodhisattva. . sadosam api na tyajet).. the N¯tisara.´ 8. natural contamination (sahajam daus. abandoning ı a ¯ ¯ his courageous nature.17-18. sahabhu. ¯ Mahayanasutralamkarabhasya to XVI.REFRAMING SAHAJA 53 where caste-specific behavior (karma) is described as inborn (sahaja) and not to be abandoned in spite of its faults (sahajam karma kaunteya . ´ sahajah karyajas caiva dvividhah satrur ucyate | . those great contributors to a a ¯ Buddhist terminology. The cause of giving is an act of mental will accompanied by or equipped ¯ ¯ ¯ with non-desire and other positive elements (alobhadisahaja cetana 26 hetuh). defines enemies of two ı ¯ varieties: Enemies are said to be of two kinds: natural and opportunistic. ¯ . even though it was innate (sahajam apy apahaya dh¯ratam). specifying that one of the three cognitive ¯ obscurations (avarana) to the positive element of non-obscuration is . ¯ ¯ ¯. is a natural seed of undefiled ignorance that .ı ¯ ¯ ¯ ´¯ ´ by meditative cultivation (bhavanaheyaklesanusaya).56 . The simile is compelling. the natural contamination consisting of such views as the existence of a self. . In distinction. K¯mandaka’s 7th–8th century treatise on polity. .. R¯ma’s grandfather Aja released a torrent of sobs. the Madhyantavibhagabhasya uses the term in combination with negative elements. Natural enemies are those born into one’s own family. ¯ ¯ sahotpatti/utpanna. sahacarin. . This peculiar phrase . Raghuvamsa . to retreat to the forest. really gained currency in the a a classical world.43. less essentialist vein. .25 In a favorable sense of association. . indicates that. Apparent in these descriptions is the importance of both familial lineage and individual character. Sahaja is used in a manner similar to sahajata. for example. which are perceived as framed in the environment of ritual impressions (samskara) and personal obligations. and they are ¨ often given the same or similar Chinese translations (such as chu ¨ sheng or chu chi) when Gupta period works were rendered in that language. a straightforward appeal by Krsna for Arjuna not . however. ´ sahajah svakulotpanna itarah karyajah smrtah || 8. Sahaja.thulyam). or sahagata.” especially noticeable in works related to the Yog¯c¯ras. is glossed in Sthiramati’s T¯ka as the defiled latency to be removed . for Aja burst into tears despite his ı ¯ fortitude. Alternatively. while all others are understood to be opportunitistic. faced with the sudden death of his wife Indumat¯. ¯ ¯. . ¯ . In a somewhat different. just as iron might experience weakness when overheated in a a furnace. ¯ Classical Buddhist literature also employed sahaja in the nontechnical capacity of “accompanying” or “conjoined. etc. ¯ ¯. The Abhidharmakosa-bhasya. ¯ ı ¯. among the fifteen types of ¯ ‘parah prabhavo veditavyah). the bodhisattva is ornamented by the powers. ¯ that it is the “stream-entrant” (srotaapanna) whose perverse view of self-unity is natural because it has been collected from ignorance for a very long time. this latter was considered the lesser of the two (ayam api tesam sahajo .tyad¯nam dharmadhatu. .tab¯jam). ¯ . provides a specifically temporal value to sahaja. where it is described as a body that can enter into every assembly circle in all the buddha fields. ¯ The Bodhisattvabhumi indicates that there are two varieties of super¯ natural power (prabhava). ¯ .tam paripus.32 . super knowledges. as it is acquired on the eighth level of the bodhisattva and therefore has the activity of karmic formations natural to each of those ¯ ¯ groups of saints (nikayasahajasamskarakriyamanomayah kayah). ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ evam eva mahamate manomayakayasahapratilambhena mayopamasamena samadhina ´ ¯ ˜¯ ¯ ¯ balavasitabhijnanalaksanakusumita aryagatinikayasahajo mana iva pravartate . After explaining that the mental body is one that may penetrate anywhere. posessing a nature in common with those in the realm of saints.. caught up in the Vaibh¯sika presentaa. existing as a seed nurtured and established in the ¯ underlying consciousness (sahajam vatmadrs. ¯ This same mental body of the bodhisattva or buddha is further specified ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ elsewhere in the Lankavatara Sutra. ¯ ¯´ ¯ ¯ buddhanam bodhisattvanam ca sahaja ascaryadhbhutadharmata). Thus. with the faculty as the support of the consciousness.28 ˙ ¯ ¯ The Lankavatara also uses the term in conjunction with its description ¯ of the “mental body” (manomayakaya). there is one that is natural (sahajadhyasaya). ¯ ¯´ resolute intention. DAVIDSON restricts penetration into objects of contact and so forth within the realm of reality.54 RONALD M. which applies to bodhisattvas who have entered into the levels and is glossed as “naturally” in place (prakrtya) because of their other purities. the sense faculty and the sense consciousness. So. by means of a concentration that is like magic and has attained a this mental body. ¯ ¯. . arise simultaneously (sahaja). ¯ ¯ their previously acquired merit (purvam mahapunyasambharopacayad . ¯ . masteries.30 . ¯. Mah¯mati. This is possible. . . ¯ ´arthadiprativedha-vibandhakasyaklistasyajnanasyalayavijnanas ¯ ¯ ˆ ˆ ˜¯ ˆ ˜¯ spars ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ı annivis. one that is attained by virtue of concentration in this life and another that is the miraculous reality congenital (sahaja) to buddhas and bodhisattvas because of the power of ¯ ¯ . . ¯ ¯ ¯ ‘pratihatagatih purvapranidhanavisayan anusmaran sattvaparipakartham |29 . 31 Moreover. his path unhindered for the maturation of living beings. while relying on past elements. .33 . recollecting the circumstances of his prior aspiration he operates as does the mind. just as by thought. ¯ ´ ¯. and characteristics. the text turns to the mental body of the bodhisattva: Even so.27 The Lankavatara Sutra further specifies . tion of the substantial existence of the past. present and future. ¯ ¯ . . In its interpretation. The statement from ¯ ¯ the Tathagatagarabha Sutra simply indicates that both pollution and ´¯ ¯. prayogavisesanispatteh purvam pascat sahaja praptih). it is apparent that sahaja applies to that which is congenital. After a lengthy discussion of the relationship between the ¯ a varieties of the embryo of the Tath¯gata (tathagatagarbha) as expressed in the scripture expounding that doctrine. ´ ¯ ¯ ´ samklisyante cittavyavadanat visudhyanta iti). Perhaps the only classical Buddhist text I have found that approaches the essentialism apparent in Brahmanical Sanskrit is in the commentary ¯ to the Ratnagotravibhaga. the . What do these tell us of the normative manner in which sahaja is used prior to the development of Buddhist esoterism? First. ¯ (nivrtavyakrta) elements. a faculty that is sahaja is contrasted with prior bases that are in the past (at¯ta) so that sahaja becomes a term employed to discuss ı temporal relations (prior-simultaneous-subsequent) while avoiding the potential confusion that would occur with the term “present” (pratyutpanna). it is indicative of the soteriological hermeneutics of the ¯ Ratnagotravibhaga that its explanation is in distinction to the ostensibly supporting quotation from the scripture. so their elements of acquisi¯ tion may be prior. a text noted for its postulation of inherent properties. while bondage a is the accidental element. and they posses the natural (sahaja) inalienableness of purifying elements in their beginningless minds. with this teaching employing the images taught in the Tathagatagarbha ¯ Sutra. ¯ Ratnagotravibhaga instead articulates the idea that there is inherent agency towards awakening in the embryo of the Tath¯gata. subsequent or simultaneous (tesam hi balavattvat . ¯. 35 ´. in brief. indicating a birth defect or some other falling away from the norm. ¯ ¯ .34 The exceptions to this rule are the forms of super knowledge and creative cognitions – they are powerful and acquired by a specific application of mind. the majority of its . ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ . ¯ . here. ¯ ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ anadicittasamklesadharmagantukatvam anadicittavyavadanadharmasahajavinirbhagata ı ¯ ca parid¯pita |36 However. this being an indicator of their weakness and relatively inconsequential nature. the commentary sums up its position: ¯ Then. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ´ ¯ samasato ‘anena tathagatagarbhasutrodaharananirdesena krtsnasya sattvadhator . although this term is almost exclusively negative in American usage. whose acquisition (prapti) is simultaneous . . . there are illuminated the two conditions in the entire realm of beings: they possess the accidental condition of defiled elements in their beginningless minds.REFRAMING SAHAJA 55 Here. to their occurrence. Clearly. A similar value is placed on sahaja in the discussion of “nondefiled indeterminate” (anivrtavyakrta) and “defiled indeterminate” . purification derive from conditions of mind (cittasamklesat sattvah . As such. in the Ratnagotravibhaga instance. As such. This state of affairs is all the more curious. certainly. although it was also an option in the fortnightly tantric feasts (ganacakra). as all of these works articulate an involvement with sexual rites as part of the broader theory of release: awakening is best achieved by engaging in the behaviors that would normally lead to bondage. ¯ ı at virtuous conduct in prior lives (samudan¯ta). speak of an irresistible force moving all beings towards universal awakening. As employed by the end of the tenth century. sahaja apparently did not enjoy the central position in Mahayanist or related literature that it was to occupy in selected areas of esoteric ritual. but under the correct circumstances lead instead to liberation. and the practice of sexual yoga itself. sexual practice was generally confined to two major venues: the initiatory rituals authorizing advanced stages of yogic engagement. If sahaja became one of the favorite designations for ritual nomenclature in the systems stemming from the Hevajra ¯ Tantra. NINTH CENTURY SYSTEMS Whatever the precise significance of its use as a non-technical term. designation “perfecting stage”. Sexual practices were normatively included in the . the value of sahaja is similar ¯ to the ideology of “lineage” (gotra) found in the Bodhisattvabhumi. a ritual where .56 RONALD M. and we must begin by setting aside some surprisingly important texts and their ritual manuals. and thus. krama and their synonyms might be translated. Even in a a the reduced soteriological profile of sahaja in the mainstream Yog¯c¯ra ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ texts and the Lankavatara Sutra. However. that was certainly not the case for earlier Mahayoga and Yogin¯ ı Tantras. the overall semantic value indicates elements of reality that are obtained at birth or secured through previous lives and frequently contrasted with those obtained through efforts in the specific lifetime under discussion. In its ambivalence as to whether such soteriological elements are inherent. it is specifically differentiated from the “generation stage” (utpattikrama). EIGHTH CENTURY TANTRAS. DAVIDSON employment is with positive qualities that are specific to an individual’s embodiment in the present station of life and as a result of extensive effort in the previous lives. this is not to say that it found a home in all ritual venues. Typically. where two kinds are identified: that which is inherent and natural to the bodhisattva (prakrtistha) and that which is secured through effort . or however utpanna/sampanna/nispanna. it indicates elements that are acquired as time goes on. but these elements are taken as factors in the larger domain of Dharma.37 III. they exist whether Buddhas proclaim ¯ them or not. virtually all sexual practice was associated with yogic visualizations. Generally there is some form of internal yogic practice. With this latter consecration. which is often the third of the four fundamental consecrations conferred. Broadly speaking. Even then. While terminology varies from tradition to tradition. the disciple is authorized to perform this practice as an independent ritual. and the disciple is authorized to engage in this behavior with the second of the four ¯ . The “generation stage” authorization was by the end of . certainly. .thana). Here. Here the disciple. breathing exercises. the first of four consecrations. internal mandalas. the ganacakra. There. the eighth century understood to be conferred on the disciple by a ´¯ . in communal celebration. consorts come together for a gathering of adepts. By the tenth century. master during the jar consecration (kalasabhiseka). and is expected to develop the experience of bliss or pleasure beyond that first experienced in the ritual enclosure... The problem with the above description. even if we can see that the standards espoused were not always actually practiced. The other level in the “perfecting stage” is that of sexual practice. “perfecting stage” involves two or sometimes three levels of ritual.. and the disciple is introduced to this via ˜¯ ˜¯ ¯ . ¯ is designated “self-consecration” (svadhis. often involving the visualization of an internal fire burning up an internal mandala located in the psycho-physical centers (cakra) of spirituality. one measure of the conflict is the observation that all sexual activities became increasingly interpreted as . consecrations – in this instance the “secret” consecration (guhyabhiseka). letters of the Sanskrit alphabet. Over and above the two major venues. etc. the “gnosis of the insight” consecration (prajnajnanabhiseka). so that it involved the manipulation of a very large spectrum of psycho-physical entities. copulates with the consort. and ¯ obtains an understanding of great ecstasy (mahasukha) or some form of ¯ joy (ananda) in the process. Few activities could be more in conflict with the fundamental values displayed in the prior history of Buddhist monasticism. an event that surely must constitute one of the more extraordinary developments in the history of Indian Buddhism.REFRAMING SAHAJA 57 the yogin visualizes himself as his chosen divinity at the center of a mandala. the master copulates with a consort and the ejaculate is taken in by the disciple as a sacrament. under the master’s guidance.. a ritualized sexual practice would also be consummated. in which yogins and their . the . we find the employment of sexual yoga in the tenth century in the fortnightly meetings. is that it presents a tidy well-packaged and after-the-fact organization of the advent of sexual meditative behaviors in Buddhism. unfortunately. often this mediation ¯ . ¯ spot. Yet even this statement is somewhat misleading. and it is probable that this disclaimer . and their copulation yields worldly benefits. when identified the ¯ name of this rite is variously given – sometimes “seal rite” (mudravidhi). and other works that became . in association with other sacraments (samaya) and in a secluded site. and internal yoga is seldom to be found. but without the yogic associations of . eventually understood as proposing the path of “highest yoga” (anuttarayoga)..38 a Our eighth century documents. appears in the . tribal or Saiva contexts. so that the actual physical enactment of sexual rituals seems to have become increasingly rare as time passes. later mandalacakra descriptions.40 The tantra indicates that any girl attracted by mantras cannot be human but must be a yaks¯. with references to them by well-known eighth and early ninth century figures ´a ˜a like Amoghavajra. the seed of divinity.) in the ritualist by reenactment . Vil¯savajra. These materials are unassailably from the eighth century. quite literally. with political fragmentation and other socio-political events of the era. then. of the divine behavior. DAVIDSON either symbolic or visualized ritual forms. which specifies that the monk or yogin will attract a “non-human” (generally a yaksı) in the forest or other secluded . like Heruka. the ¯ Sarvabuddhasamayoga. moksa. had their iconology taken ´ from rural. especially magical flight. the purpose of the ritual was for the adept to experience sexuality while in relationship to a divinity. ¯ ¯ Subahupariprccha Tantra. S¯kyamitra and others. specifically in the Guhyasamaja. sometimes mandalacakra-rite. Although not always separately entitled. the point was the recreation of divine ˜¯ attributes (siddhi.ı reveals the social reality that Buddhists began to encounter tribal and semi-nomadic peoples extensively in the early medieval period. Jn¯namitra. Instead. so that it was. we find specified a sexual rite (given a number of designations) whereby magical powers or liberation may be obtained. The consequent ejaculate was taken. for we are uncertain how frequent was their actual use in Indian Buddhist communities at any time and what degree of regional variation was exhibited. etc. to have the mystical properties of the divinity. however.58 RONALD M. do not associate them necessarily with either initiation. Thus the goal was the ritual experience of . jnana.41 We can understand this ritual and its eventual use in the consecratory and yogic contexts by understanding it as specifically sacramental in character. where they mention sexual events.. Our earliest solid evidence for the Buddhist espousal of erotic soteri¯ ology is in the eighth century. Laghusamvara. That is.39 The earliest. Since the divinities most frequently represented. most often visualizing himself and his partner as the divinity and its consort. ” rather ¯ than “accomplished in the practice yielding sahajananda. Indeed.46 Be that ¯ as it may. Not ¯ only does the Guhyasamaja Tantra ignore the terminology and rhetoric of sahaja in its allusions to sexual practices. the later vocabulary of an innate or ¯ natural ecstasy (sahajananda). the language of sahaja was not initially employed. ¯ the simple terms of “highest ecstasy” (paramananda) or “great bliss” ¯ (mahasukha). but equally seen in the first development of yogic systems set as the internal process in counterpoint to the external sexual ritual. Instead. Certain feminine messengers ¯ . of levels of joy experienced by the yogin through the extraordinary manipulations of breath and visualization.”48 Even much of the later Samvara literature on the consecrations or yogic practice . would have had little point here. the Laghusamvara Tantra only uses sahaja once. apparently indicating a that they are “naturally accomplished” or “naturally present. just so long as the sacramental structure of the event was maintained. ¯ does not appear to employ the four moments and the four ananda. Likewise. . not the four or more moments of the later literature. were utterly superfluous to the early history of the rite. with partners either human or non human equally acceptable. Jnanasiddhi and Pancakrama is still obscure.REFRAMING SAHAJA 59 sanctified copulation. and was an event that took place in a single instant. particularly as a member of a series of ecstasies. in line with the 42 Accordingly. and the like.47 In a like manner. the specifically sexual rite is encompassed under the heading of “non-conceptual activity” ˜ ¯ (nisprapancacarya). although also employ the language and vocabulary seen in Na a the intertextuality exhibited between the approximately contemporary ˜¯ ˜ Guhyasiddhi. In every one of these.43 This history is not only visible in the surviving eighth century literature. wind. Padmavajra’s Guhyasiddhi ¯ ¯ ¯ ignores the word. and Aryadeva’s Caryamelapakaprad¯ maintains ıpa ˜¯ his predecessors’ vocabulary. the same terms we have already seen – highest ecstasy and . so far as I have been able to determine. The Jnanasiddhi and the Prad¯podyotana ı ¯g¯rjuna. the architecture of ascent and descent along a central channel. was simply unnecessary.45 Similarly. the internal visualizations of psychic centers. as found in the later ritual system. but the term also does ¯ not appear in the ninth century Arya-lineage manuals of the system. the exploration pan-Indian mythology of such figures. in some of the Arya system works. This entire experience had as its purpose the literal or figural ¯ transformation of the adept into a magus (vidyadhara).44 ˜ N¯g¯rjuna’s Pancakrama – a work dedicated to the perfecting process – a a makes no mention of the term. and the defining experience is explained with .¯ ı ¯ (dutadakin¯) are referred to as *Dutasahajasiddh¯. He simply states that “by means of these instructions (on nispannakrama) one will experience the self-aware nondual gnosis . a of ways and is a further development of language and terminology observable in other works associated with his name. be differentiated. Therein is also the only mention . Buddhajn¯nap¯da has been acknowledged a ¯ as the founder of the other major system of Guhyasamaja practice. though. orgasm. and . rather than as an explicit member of the path. similar designations. though. . and it is likely that the name was an extension of essential form as a valorization of an iconographical representation. ¯ not defined in any of the sadhanas I have seen. sahaja is used in a terminological environment with non artificial ¯ ¯ (akrtrima). in the work of Ghantap¯da (evidently written after the technical affirmation of . his most extensive statement of the Samvara practice is in .54 Instead.52 The curious. the Dvikramatattvabhavana¯ mukhagama trifurcates the experience. of great bliss which is like the flower of explanatory sahaja. While his other writings do not provide such a differen¯ ¯ tial of ecstasy in the sexual practice. Here it comes in three flavors: . DAVIDSON great bliss – are consistently represented. of sahaja as a ritual term I have located in his surviving meditation manuals. That does not mean. proper nature (svabhava). but not as a member of a schema of joy or ecstasy.50 For the most part. essential form (svarupa). ¯ and the absolute nondual gnosis realized through absolute sahaja ¯ ¯ (paramarthikasahaja). . more properly. in practices associated with the Laghusamvara. For example. his own autocommentary to his version of a five-step program: the ´ı ˜ Sr¯cakrasamvarapancakramavrtti.”49 The allusion here refers to a distinction between the gnostic experience through the sahaja demonstrated in the consecration (drstantasahaja) .60 RONALD M.51 Elsewhere. whose Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama shows a ˜a an evolution in this direction. that the text is silent on the question of bliss. a special iconographic form of the deity Samvara is identified as Sahaja-samvara. but the designation is . the latter being the flower of the former. Not the least of its ˜¯ innovations is the earliest solid references to sahajajnana that I have seen. . called 53 This work is exceptional in a number ˜a the Jn¯nap¯da school after him. convergence of the esoteric affirmation of physical pleasure with the terminology of essential nature required that the phases of ecstasy or.¯ a sahaja). . it occurs with other designations of the ultimate goal. and in some ways conflicted. I believe the process of ecstatic differentiation and its eventual association with sahaja first emerges in the later writing of ˜a ¯ ¯ ¯ Buddhajn¯nap¯da. The term is represented as the outcome of both the developing and the perfecting practices. . ı a ´ a a to receive official largesse at least as late as 877/8 CE under Sil¯h¯ra Kapardin II and still exhibited signs of life as late as the 12th century. 775–812 CE). ˜a and Buddhajn¯nap¯da starts his treatise with an account of his teachers. it is not precisely clear where or by whom it was explained.60 While the epigraphs are clear that K¯nher¯ is from the Prakrit rendering a. and in the Swat valley.REFRAMING SAHAJA 61 ¯ ecstasy.58 a . and the ecstasy of cessation (ananda. In conjunction with a similar training pilgrimage ´a reported for himself by S¯kyamitra. but we know that the ˙ Mah¯r¯ja-mah¯vih¯ra at K¯nher¯ of North Konkan (Apar¯nta) continued aa a a a. ¯ ¯ beginning with the famous Haribhadra whose Abhisamayalamkaraloka ¯la (ca.61 . it was undoubtedly his nine years of study of the ¯ ˙ Guhyasamaja with Balip¯da in Kanauj and Konkana. . in his discussion of the a ıs ı ˜a consecrations according to the Jn¯nap¯da school. in the sky (kha).57 was completed during the reign of Dharmapa He also worked with Vil¯savajra and others in Odiy¯na and elsea . He certainly is concerned with his lineage. in Central India (Bihar and Kanauj). middling ecstasy.59 This does not help much. viramananda) – similar to the terms we will encounter later in the Hevajra Tantra and related systems. a ¯ .. a where. ¯ ¯ madhyamananda.55 Although the ¯ ¯ ¯ Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama describes these in terms of the perfecting practice. but only came to his realization while mediating in a forest close to ˜ Vajr¯sana. we can see that the early ninth century understood the primary esoteric centers to be along the western Coast. a . Tibetan translation team interpreted it from Sanskrit as a tree (amhri) . ı of Krsnagiri – Dark Mountain – apparently both Vitap¯da and the a . ˙ He eventually returned to Balip¯da in Konkana at the monastery of a *Sudrdhavih¯ra to visit the teacher again. almost the same terminology was still being used in the early eleventh century by V¯g¯´varak¯rti. and Vitap¯da’s commentary indicates that it was a given this name since the site was like a rootless vine that climbs high on other trees.56 a ˜ Where did Buddhajnanap¯da get this arrangement and what is the a ¯ relationship between the two major schools of Guhyasamaja practice? ¯ ¯ ¯ While the Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama mentions that the three are obtained in the manner that they have been explained (ji skad gsungs pa thob par ‘gyur). though. that was most a ˜a influential. However. when he was granted a vision of the deity Manjughosa. Buddhajn¯nap¯da states that he did not entirely comprehend a ¯ ˙ the teaching of the Guhyasamaja when he received it in Konkana. and the hagiography of Kukur¯ja a ˜a by Jn¯namitra. ˙ Where was this site in Konkana? The Tibetan translation of Balip¯da’s a center on the Western shore translates the name Nam-mkha’ shing-ldan (Having sky-trees?). a . . that the Hevajra exhibits three ¯ different series of a threefold ananda.viii. . . Thus. . that the use of the designation “essential gnosis” and various forms of ecstasy were brought together for the first time in the most mature work of ˜a Buddhajn¯nap¯da. it would reveal this otherwise a unknown master as a personality with overwhelming influence in later esoteric doctrine and practice. . source – and this is entirely possible – it is probable that he encountered the phrases not in texts but in oral instructions from this array of teachers. s . yathodayam bhavec chukram dvaividhyam sahajam tatah || 27 . ˜a a .62 RONALD M. However. aa khadh¯t¯v iti padmesu jn¯nam bhagam iti smrtam | . the precise placement or relationship of sahaja to these groupings became a contentious issue. .62 If true. .63 IV. since the association between these terms did not occur at their advent. DAVIDSON ˜a Even if the phrases Buddhajn¯nap¯da employs for ecstasy and a ˜¯ sahajajnana are found to have a prior. . . ˜ prajn¯y¯m ca yath¯ pumsi ´ukram tasya sukhan ca v¯ || 29 a a . . second. although the problems encountered by its authors are obvious enough when the text is examined in detail. and. The core text most frequently selected by representative authorities is Hevajra Tantra I. Most important will be two points: first. . . it appears from the documents known to me. . principally through the literate work of his disciple. nondual gnosis. he did not synthesize them into the specific a schematism found in the later materials from the time of the hevajra Tantra forward. ˜ pumsi t¯vad dhi dvaividhyam ´ukram tasya sukhan ca v¯ | a a . . yath¯ny¯yam svasamvedyam bodhicittam tu devat¯ | a a . Accordingly. As we will see. . we will peruse the core statements to see if textual criticism can lend support to the proposal that sahaja was not fundamental to an arrangement of varieties of sexual bliss. a . a . s . Let us begin with the statements of the Hevajra Tantra and see how these were later employed. . ˜a . . perhaps late eighth century. pa´c¯d anayor dvaividhyam vivrtisamvrtibhedatah || 28 s a . there was a continual tendency for sahaja to be separated from terms for ecstasy and to find application in other technical fields.25–36:64 kramadvayam sam¯´ritya vajrin¯ dharmade´an¯ | as s a . especially those denoting an absolute level of reality or its cognitive component. and most particularly Balip¯da. that since each ¯ ananda series evolved separately. . HEVAJRA TANTRA AND RELATED WORKS The Hevajra Tantra is the earliest work known to me to unify three forms of ecstasy with the ideology of a natural ecstasy.a utpattibh¯gam kathitam utpannam kathay¯my aham || 25 a . ˜a yosit t¯vad bhavet prajn¯ up¯yah purusah smrtah | a . . . bh¯vaneti sam¯pattis tatsukham cakram ucyate || 26 a a . sahaja is dialectical. . Many other authors – including Tillipa. param¯nandam yogin¯ | a a ı .” while the man is “skillful means. and “as it arises” indicates it comes as semen. [34] Highest ecstasy is explained as existence. [36] Sahaja cannot be explained by something else. and the fourth is thus cultivated. [30] What’s more. n¯nyena kathyate sahajam na kasminn api labhyate | a . series of verses that comes from the Hevajra Tantra. Then there is a mere middle ecstasy (between the two). madhyam¯nandam¯tram tu sahajam ebhir vivarjitam || 34 a a . sahajam caturvidham yasm¯d utpannakramapaks atah || 30 a . the yogin¯ is highest ecstasy. ¯nandam prathamam v¯ . . [26] (in I. . the third is from the destruction of desire. [33] The first is through longing for touch. a . nor a middle to be obtained. there is a further division into four forms of ecstasy. Ecstasy of sahaja is otherwise. [32] By means of ecstasy there is some bliss. param¯ndandam bhavam proktam nirv¯nam ca vir¯gatah | a a. ¯nandena sukham kincit param¯nandam tato ‘dhikam | ˜ a a . the chapter on the “circle of yogin¯s” has ı . “Majesty” is understood as gnosis. a [25] The teaching of truth by the vajrin is based on the two meditative processes. [28] The woman is to be considered “insight. s .a . na r¯go na vir¯ga´ ca madhyamam nopalabhyate | a a s . Here the divinity is bodhicitta. First we must establish the importance of this section. . . Shendge has shown that Domb¯heruka’s Sahajasiddhi. . 1) “in the sky” means within the lotuses.REFRAMING SAHAJA 63 atraiv¯pi hi ¯nand¯n¯m catasrn¯m prabhedanam | a a a a. I will now explain the perfecting process. for example. . ıram . highest ecstasy is greater than that. . . there are the complementary semen (relative) and bliss (absolute). lustful ecstasy is their ı aggregation. is almost completely a ı . a ıyam a˜ a . .viii. [29] Thus within the man. Within the insight (woman) as well. [35] For there is neither desire nor dispassion. . nor is it found in anything. Thagana a sa – make reference to this chapter and these verses when discussing questions of sahaja. r¯gan¯´atv¯c caturtham tena bh¯vyate || 33 as a a .66 Thus. surat¯nandam samastam tatsukhop¯yah sarvavit || 31 a a . . Sahaja is devoid of them all. the second by desire for bliss. there are both seminal fluid and bliss. It is to be cognized by oneself. a . . [27] “By the rule” means it is to be personally experienced. ˜a n¯tra prajn¯ na cop¯yah samyaktattv¯vabodhatah || 35 a a . . prathamam spar´¯k¯nksay¯ dvit¯ . . since sahaja is already fourfold in the perfecting process (as we have seen above). Ratn¯kara´¯nti. sukhav¯ncchay¯ | sa a ˙ .” These in turn are each further bifurcated into absolute and relative. In sahaja there is neither insight nor skillful means. “Cultivation” means contemplation and “wheel” is its bliss. Thus. . ıyam a . since so many subsequent materials are either based on its statements or simply appropriate its verses for their own use. viramena vir¯gah sy¯t sahaj¯nandam ´esetah || 32 a . The developing process has been explained. compared to the realization of correct reality. ¯tman¯ jn¯yate puny¯d guruparvopasevay¯ || 36 a a ˜a a . Dispassion would be by cessation. and the Omniscient has his skillful means in that bliss. a a . Nirvana is from dispassion. the above lines constitute the major part of the first third of that work. . [31] The hero is ecstasy. through merit and through service and attendance on the teacher. trt¯ .65 More to the point. the same as. Following up on this ¯ ¯ direction. 29] semen sahaja = + (absolute) bliss woman [v. This theme is eventually followed up as ¯ well by the division of sahajananda into that which is demonstrated ¯ during the third consecration (dr.64 RONALD M. the division of bodhicitta into relative and absolute forms in esoteric Buddhist systems. 29] semen (absolute) bliss Sahaja here is the source of gender. Furthermore. for this chapter in the Hevajra Tantra brings together several different strategies and attempts to wed them with sahaja. DAVIDSON been taken by several exegetical authors as the locus classicus for the development of the sahaja practices and doctrines.ii.40] a param¯nanda a sahaj¯nanda a viram¯nanda a Little wonder that the crazy quilt of schemes should precipitate such discussions as to where sahaja comes or its precise nature. sahaja is placed in relation to hierarchies of value and they are subordinated to it: man [v. the nature of the world is represented dialectically. 28] (relative) [v. both as a curious overarching concept as well as a member of these schemes: sahaja [v. as we have seen above. 28] (relative) [v. sahaja is identified in this section of the Hevajra Tantra with several different schemes of ecstasy.000 verses. through ı a ¯ ¯ his proper nature (sahajavasthaya) himself as the forms of male and 67 The relative and absolute cateogries are similar to. while others indicate it is the moment following passion and beyond the process of sexual ritual.s ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ absolute (paramarthika-sahajananda). an evaluation only somewhat mitigated by references to the “lost” Hevajra in 500. Here.tanta-sahajananda) and that which is . . In this arrangement. with some ¯ authors representing sahajananda as equivalent to orgasm and the apex of experience. the theistically-oriented Vyaktabhavanugatatattva-siddhi of Yogin¯ Cint¯ begins with a statement that the Lord emanates. However. and is divided into both relative and absolute categories within each gender. part of the referential problem experienced by these good commentators is the hermeneutic difficulty in making this material consistent. Contributing to the tension within the series of embedded discourses is the disclaimer at the end of . but not female.30] = ¯nanda [31] a a param¯nanda ¯nanda [32] a param¯nanda a surat¯nanda a a sahaj¯nanda viram¯nanda a sahaj¯nanda a param¯nanda [34] a madhyam¯nanda a vir¯ga a sahaj¯nanda a ¯nanda [II. much as we see this process in other Buddhist terms: buddha. we might observe the desire for two incommensurate directions in the hermeneutics of a term. Second. We have seen in the case of Buddhajn¯nap¯da that he a ¯ ¯ ¯ employed a schema of ananda. a few things are clear. after all. Instead. with the aegis category of sahaja applied ¯ to all the various levels included therein. so that sahajajnana was kept outside of the series altogether and instead discussed in relation to absolute awakening. some of which we cannot resolve with the materials yet investigated. madhyamananda. .34.69 On the other hand. so that at the hands of some ¯ ¯ ¯ authors sahajananda is replaced with svabhavananda in the continuing 68 reiteration of forms of ecstasy.viii. we also see an entirely different hermeneutic direction.viii. There are many questions here. Elsewhere. viramananda. we see here its nominalization. First. Kværne’s proposal that sahaja is exclusively adjectival cannot be accepted as proposed. The integration of these different series is one of the arguments to place its origin in the late ninth or early tenth century. his was exclusively ˜¯ a threefold hierarchy. it was the desire on the part of its authors to amalgamate several of these arrangements that led to their formulation of this material in the Hevajra Tantra. It is described as part of the ritual of aspiration. bodhicitta was formulated in Mahayanist terms to describe the conception of awakening conceived by a bodhisattva to differentiate him from the Arhat. certainly. In this. etc. However. and ritual terminology became one of the great sources for philosophical directions. ˜a ¯ ¯ after the composition of Buddhajn¯nap¯da’s Dvikramatattvabhavanaa ¯ mukhagama. we see the easy movement from an adjective to a noun.34–36] that sahaja has in fact nothing to do with any of this. above. However. which is arguably the system in I. Having articulated a term as the locus of synthesis. Nonetheless. which was probably from the first quarter of the ninth century. the term is suddenly wrenched from its web of relations and cast as a cipher for absolute being. So. siddha. On one hand. including sahajananda. the specific nominal properties of sahaja are revealed when it is occasionally replaced with the terminology of “inherent nature” ¯ ¯ (svabhava) or “proper form” (svarupa). Buddhists had done this for quite some time. the term becomes a locus of synthesis for any number of various separately conceived ˜a strategies.REFRAMING SAHAJA 65 the above Hevajra section [I. even though we must acknowledge that he is correct in affirming that many instances of the use of sahaja in the ¯ ˜¯ literature do stand as shorthand for sahajananda or sahajajnana. it was a designation of the goal rather than a member of the path. ¯ both sahaja and ananda continued to be discussed apart from their ¯ association in the physical practice. ever existed). but once it became part of ritual nomenclature. In their system. there became an association of the experience of various levels of ecstasy with the specific psychophysical centers (cakra). DAVIDSON and articulated as a conceptual field based on its great longevity and ¯ durability. fueled in part by the rapidly expanding rhetoric of “nature” (prakrti). as Snellgrove has already demonstrated. . alternatively. In the esoteric literature of the Mahayoga-tantras. “non artificial” (akrtrima) and other rough synonyms. ¯ ¯ ˜¯ speech. various directions were taken in the literature. it becomes a specific designation of absolute reality. the Sa-skya-pa order of Tibetan Buddhism was even¯ tually to move the sahajananda ritual exegesis one further stage. and accordingly disagreement as to which direction the process followed (up or down) and in which centers each level of ecstasy was felt. the series of four ecstasies was to be divided each into four again. so that different ¯ forms of a complex arrangement of sixteen forms of ananda were to be specified.70 Similarly. First and foremost. with the articulation of two different and complementary ways of engaging in sexual yoga. ı ¯ ¯ mahamudra in some early esoteric literature appears to describe a specific symbol (a seal). entitled the Lam-‘bras (*M¯rga-phala).73 Given these disagreements. As we have seen. if such a term . system) or ascending in the opposite direction in a system called the “adamantine wave” (rdo-rje rba-labs = ? vajrataramga. especially in the later ¯ commentarial tantras and the Kalacakra. We will briefly examine Indrabhuti’s . yielding ¯ twenty-four or twelve (or even one) varieties of ananda.72 Other authors divided each ˜ ecstasy into six kinds (via six vijnana) or. since the relationship of ecstasy to sahaja was formal and historical rather than an essential part of the meditative system. mind and gnosis (kayavakcittajnana). Accordingly. the relationship of sahaja to interior yogic practice – not strong in the Hevajra – was strengthened in the commentarial literature and in technical treatises associated with the tantra..71 I believe that this was the same process to which sahaja became subject. and this was no doubt related to its initial genesis. Eventually. then exegetes began to explore its possibilities. a the relationship of the fourfold ecstasy to the cakras was given both descending from the fontanel to the navel (the normative mandalacakra .74 Moreover. . and each part identified with an ecstasy. the four cakras were trifurcated. They were sometimes arranged according to body. bifurcated into relative and absolute terms and developed further in the yogin¯ tantras.66 RONALD M. the term was around for quite some time. After the Hevajra Tantra’s synthesis. where a sa the good monk discusses a practice only marginally out of place in the secluded halls of the monastery. is attributed a soteriological hagiography of perfect awakening upon receiving the consecrations. a complete catalogue of texts and attributions associated with this popular name would fill an archive almost as large as that of N¯g¯rjuna. as we saw above. but the most interesting example I have seen is the relatively late work ¯ attributed to an Indrabhuti. ¯ since Indrabhuti appears frequently in Indian esoteric literature. INDRABHUTI’S SAHAJASIDDHI AND THE SIDDHA CULTURAL CRITIQUE Following the lead of the Hevajra Tantra. and Shendge has ı . which is surely an underestimate. so that no ¯ longer any physical partner (karmamudra) would be needed or even desirable. however. but we ˜a should also note Prajn¯gupta’s mid-eleventh century explorations of these topics. ¯ V. there came about the development of a genre of texts that set out specifically to teach sahaja in different ways. and even the Sa-skya tradition of Tibetan Buddhism maintains that there were ¯ ¯ three Indrabhutis. the real goddess – whose form is gnosis – will be ˜¯ ¯ invited as a gnostic partner (jnanamudra). which articulates an absolutist sahaja. which is probably the source for the further hypostatization of sahaja into a full-fledged body of the ¯ Buddha (sahajakaya). both in terms of the widespread popularity of the name and in the tendency for traditional apologists and modern scholars to amalgamate the various personalities into one grand persona. The one following most closely the text of the Hevajra was doubtlessly that of Domb¯heruka. Both the physical and gnostic directions were also to be taken by the authors and authorities of the ¯ early eleventh century Kalacakra Tantra.REFRAMING SAHAJA 67 Sahajasiddhi below.75 Another consequence of sahaja’s dissociation from the physical would be found with the complete interiority of the practice. with ¯ ¯ ¯ svabhavananda sometimes found where we would expect sahajananda. Instead. Indeed. while the Sarnath edition has provided a more complete series of readings.76 Each of these various directions is deserving of a separate treatment.77 “Indrabhuti” in fact is associated with one of the most enduring myths of the preaching of the tantras. made this work accessible. . in which numerous varieties of ecstasy are mentioned. as well as any number of other legendary activities. An excellent example of this direction is found in Ratn¯kara´¯nti’s Sahajayogakrama. We need to be circumspect with this identity. and these two may be profitably a a compared. Other members of this genre survive. for it posits a series of attributes accorded to sahaja. Indrabhuti was the receptor of a ´ ı a teaching on sahaja that began in Odiy¯na with a princess *Sr¯-Mah¯. children. presents the text in twenty-six sections. ¯ gods. and then spends a portion of the text denying the validity of others’ interpretations. low caste. Beyond the important hagiographical material. began the text with a lineage and identity that fits virtually none of the other persons of that appellation. and the statement describing its essential nature is revealing of its suppositions: The peace of sahaja is all pervasive. each of which either articulates a position on sahaja or provides a refutation of others’ position. According to the short lineage list and the ¯ lengthy commentarial hagiography. DAVIDSON ¯ This Indrabhuti. The category ¯ of synthesis (yuganaddhapadartha). yaksas. but this is not called . and so we should start there. The moment there is a cause.78 Upon being blessed by him. none of these will understand sahaja. mlecchas. the Sahajasiddhipaddhati. by this you will not achieve sahaja. and is the rejection of conceptual evaluation. the commentary..81 The refutations are more interesting. However. through its presence in all that is moving and ¯ stable (caracara). they . It is continuously inexhaustible. Some practitioners continually meditate on the resplendent form in its midst. is truly present in all the times. . but even if you are young and apply yourself for a long time until aged. women. Some [quote] the texts about the enjoyment [body: sambhogak¯ya]. and her encounter with an unnamed black-headed Rsi in the ıa ı .80 Present both internally and externally. It is the highest indestructible (paramaksara). aquatic life. It is not attained except through this text. however. who wrote it down. a forest monastery of *Ratn¯lamk¯ra. That is exactly the life of living ¯ . With their rejection Is of both conceptual attributes of self and non-self.82 Some claim that accomplishment comes from the joining of sexual organs. the text is unequivocally absolutist. the jinas have declared sahaja to be the condition of nonduality (yuganaddhapada). is identified as the patron divinity of Odiy¯na – and she and her five a .68 RONALD M. In its analysis. interspersed with its own qualitative positions. . and deluded fools make it ¯´vara. but this is a not called sahaja. it is error or something very similar. a . Instead. The teaching on this was then passed down in a lineage until ¯ the time of Indrabhuti. all pervasive and present in ¯ all bodies. In the middle of the navel is the highest cakra. cowherds. as it became increasingly influenced by other traditions: Some claim the self is sahaja. a L¯l¯dev¯. along with nagas. in terms of the intellectual and ritual distance attempted between the author and other authorities. .79 In terms of affirmations. In these we see some of the directions that continue to challenge esoteric Buddhism. it is not born from either the internal or the external. hundred ladies in waiting all received awakening into the nature of sahaja. she realized that she was an emanation of the bodhisattva Vajrap¯ni – who a. will wander in the cities of the world. beings. the representation of sahaja in the text is quite interesting. always arising and self-existent. though. The great wheel present at the fontanel – touching it and having bliss drip from it – these are attained by application to the ritual requirement. as much as anyone else. Tillopa. spirituality not the least.84 Included therein are many of these same items: purification rituals. We find included in Indrabhuti’s Sahajasiddhi. meditation on mandalas. real or imagined. well known through the various translations of the Saraha corpus. making sounds. They are not ¯. He finally expresses the affirmative context again. is that some of the siddhas employing the rhetoric of sahaja clearly had the monks ¯ in mind. restraining of vital breath. It would be easy to dismiss these critical figures as disgruntled curmudgeons. a castigation of M¯dhyamikas as addicted a . as well as others.. For example. but equally observable in other literature ´ı ¯ attributed to Virupa. And there might be something to that analysis.83 In a similar manner. largely in a negative relation to practice current at his time. so as to reside (in concentration) at the tip of the nose. ¯ that called sahaja. yogic positions while restraining various “winds” (physical functions). this Sahajasiddhi resembles nothing so much as the genre ¯ of critical doha literature. the author articulates or implies a relatively comprehensive list of yogic practices. Others ¯ ¯. ¯ afflict the body by restricting the wind that evacuates the waste (apanavayu). Some make effort in restricting the “life breath” (pranavayu : breathing through the nose). for example. The apparent intersection of each of the practices is that they may be considered excessive in their artificiality and harmful in wresting the mind from its natural condition. employing religious literature and personal stature to engage in a broadside against foes and follies. for such personalities are still encountered in India. deriding their society as having lost in the true path in every sort of area.REFRAMING SAHAJA 69 sahaja. meditating on cakras. In reality. They both appeal to a critical faculty coupled and later doha with a distaste for the excessive yogic activities and sometimes lethal ingredients proposed by the tantras. maintaining . the Sr¯¯ ¯ presents an analogous series of practices that it indicates Birua-caurasi are the abnegation of sahaja. and many others. and visionary experiences – none of these is sahaja. again and again cultivating this practice – but that is not called sahaja. Whatever is obtained by this breath restriction – that is not called sahaja. It appears to me that we find in this kind of material a curious convergence between the direction towards interiority found in esoteric literature associated with its monastic domestication – as in the instances ´a of Ratn¯kara´¯nti or S¯kyamitra – and the statements in ninth century a sa ¯ literature. The difference between the sahaja-centered critique and the interiorcentered meditative activity of the monks. such as the use of the drug dattura or the ingestion of human waste. in their own way. for the theoretical difficulty with the rhetoric of naturalness is already foreshadowed in the older Mahayanist conundrum. as the problem is framed in some areas of the Mahayana. the iconoclasm of vernacular literature expressions. clear . normatively for sexual behavior at odds with the life ¯ and survival of monastic decorum. we have seen Dasgupta lauding the sahaja path as other than “suppressing and thereby inflicting undue strain on the human nature. So both Maitr¯p¯da and Virupa. Thus. the siddhas derided the monastic estate as a new form of bondage.) are. as if the affirmation of naturalness itself caused some to perceive the foibles of the accelerated ritualism and claims to authority with which esoteric institutions were rife. ¯ Indeed. is that so many figures within the larger field of Buddhist esoterism chose the rhetoric and nomenclature of sahaja. It would therefore appear that sahaja operated as a point of intersection between the caustic disapprobation of excessive ritualism ever in the background of the Buddhist subculture. though. eating after noon. There appears to be a social component to this as well. then is there nothing that actually needs to be done? However this question is formulated – whether all ¯ beings have tathagatagarbha or if consciousness is inherently pure.85 The curiosity. authority superior to all of these domains – secular of sacred – with their pedantry and legalistic wrangling. Many of the siddhas sought. Monks’ ordination and restraint from physical functions (sex. if we are to believe the a a 86 While the monks wielded authority as representatives of these story.70 RONALD M. for ı a example. etc. and clearly felt they had. DAVIDSON to disputation. substituting the law of the monastery for the law of the king. the latter dramatically demoted from his position as the monastic head of N¯land¯. and the peripatetic behavior of wandering siddhas. That is not to say that the problematic of a natural condition was new.” so that at least one modern Indian understood the term to apply to the path of least resistance. as artificial as the rites of passage (samskara) denoting status in Brahmanical society. but discharged from their monasteries. for whom physical yoga was a waste of time. centers of virtue and learning. for we occasionally read of siddhas as having been monks. are described in their hagiographic legacies as having been removed from the monasteries. . we may expect that part of the tension exhibited in the sahaja-related works was between monastic institutions and the newly evolved path of siddhas in the esoteric Buddhist world. and it is clear that the monastic world with its ritualized intellectual combat was a no-man’s land for those siddhas desiring to live in the “natural” state of awareness. all humans are already possessed of inherent awakening. If. according to this verification of rules and a a decorum. the residence in monasteries. neophytes only come to this realization through the practice of a relative level of ritual sahaja as a metaphor for the absolute sahaja. as an adjective. Thus. so that any predicate may be identified with (or negated from) sahaja. on strata of society. Throughout the period of its use. the issue arises. this is part of the larger problem of ¯ putative synonymy (paryaya) in Indian technical writing. Sahaja articulates a category of limitations or a range of restricted activities that are accidental and accrued at birth through inheritance. the consecrations. . In our understanding of the term. but did not do so in a manner that arrested the question from being continuously reframed. 2. representatives explain the rationale for the grand edifice of the Buddhist tradition. CONCLUSIONS Sahaja proved to be an extraordinary fertile term. Sahaja means natural. and how some authors use it as a broader subject. the ritual and meditative systems. while absolute sahaja may be innate or inherent. some authorities equate sahaja with almost every important Buddhist term – emptiness. we should be sensitive to the difference between how sahaja is used in sentences as a carrier of specific information. I believe the term is most frequently employed by Indian Buddhist authors in one of seven related and overlapping semantic values: 1.25–36). and so forth? The formulation of two truths sets about to solve the dilemma. etc. and it often leaves us with a sense that the exercise is a temporary reverie of modest utility. and the term is important or not. interdependence. roughly equivalent to akrtrima. His answer was to invoke the two-tiered truth response that became the staple of Mahayanist analysis since N¯g¯rjuna. then why observe the various vows of the Vajray¯na. and its application from the classical period through the latest documents of Indian esoteric Buddhism demonstrates continual development. and they provide a relatively good measure of its register. etc.87 So. In the case of sahaja as well. How do institutional . It describes a condition that applies to all. They may be based on caste. depending on the value attached to nature. on gender or other social/physical factors that were supposed to be covered by questions .? a Even Ratn¯kara´¯nti felt moved to discuss the issue in his commentary a sa to the Hevajra verses examined above (I. for if sahaja is natural and the basis for all reality. such as the basics of existence. Unfortunately.REFRAMING SAHAJA 71 ¯ light (prakrtiprabhasvara) – the difficulty remains. The semantics of its use are the most important.viii. These conditions are not exclusive to any group. Sahajananda is often identified in this sense. very specific to an individual. Through synecdoche. sahotpanna or ¯ sahacarin.) that are sahaja. 7. Sahaja indicates a fundamental. It is roughly equivalent to svabhava or svarupa. DAVIDSON 3. such as the relation of sahaja to aesthetics. etc. irreducible condition. decidedly ¯ ¯ a noun. The term in this and the previous application is used in a manner similar to sahagata. 6. a temporal value differentiated from the prior and subsequent moments. Sahaja connotes the ritual of sexual yoga. since sahaja is sometimes allied with the aesthetic perception of the incomparable . whether physically enacted or visualized. sahajananda. neither of which is subordinate or superordinate to the other. It therefore indicates simultaneous. 88 having the relationship of sahaja. of karma but are often treated by Buddhist authors as possessing something of an element of chance. and we see that later authors sometimes ¯ ¯ replace it with svabhavananda. and culminating in. and we see that titles like the Sahajayogakrama of Ratn¯kara´¯nti a sa ¯ indicate the process leading up to. deficit of knowledge.72 RONALD M. Sahaja specifies a relationship of inherent simultaneity between two elements. Ratn¯kara´¯nti provides the example of “great bliss” a sa ¯ ˜ ˜¯ (mahasukha) and non conceptual gnosis (nisprapancajnana) as . “stream entrants” have certain characteristics (mental body. Sahaja indicates the present moment when one thing occurs with another. when the two items were not associated. vasana or pratisamdhikarma. 4. and is used to described the inherent and inalienable attributes that exist ¯ irrespective of accidental circumstances. for many of the issues implicated in the study of esoteric literature have not even been touched. sahaja implies not ¯ only sahajananda but the entire practice as well. 5. even if they denote functional limitations applying to all individuals within that category. but which are always necessarily present when the other is manifest. Thus. The association of an individual and a limiting element is thus occasional or adventitious rather than necessary or essential. It describes ´ ¯ ¯ something like anusaya. but the simultaneity is weak and adventitious. Sahaja applies to certain behaviors or tendencies that are obtained from previous lives or innate personal characteristics. This application is especially noted in the systems deriving from the Hevajra Tantra. No doubt this list could be improved and refined. These are . a. rather than accompanying. as in the case of the “acquisition” of “nondefiled indeterminant” elements in Vaibh¯sika Abhidharma. will assist in differentiating the esoteric Buddhist sources. We must ask the simple question if these latter – despite the formal and verbal similarities to physical rites – can even be termed rituals in any significant sense of the term. Because of the various sources for the gradations of ecstasy. so that it occupied a soteriological. and seems to have been precipitated by the authors of the Hevajra Tantra. sahaja is one of those terms not employed by all esoteric Buddhists. It seems that eighth century tantras and their derivative lineages ¯ – particularly many of those in the Guhyasamaja and Samvara praxis . or at latest tenth. with a division on the placement of the transcendental form of bliss in the system. moral high ground excluding the artificial. as a methodological tool. – either ignored the new terminology altogether. though. A nonperformative ritual yielding a certain cognitive state might be accepted ¯ ¯ by Buddhist monks as just more meditative cultivation (bhavana). eventually various offshoots emerged.REFRAMING SAHAJA 73 ¯ ¯ taste of liberation (anupamarasasvadana). Sahaja’s synthesis with forms of ananda probably occurred in the ninth. with twelve. which is often carefully considered by the traditions themselves. Thus. scholastic involvement. there was no unanimity in the initial formulation. seems a late tenth or early eleventh century phenomenon. century. and excessive yogic obsession. sixteen and twenty-four kinds ¯ of ananda eventually specified by various authors.89 Other issues would have to include an examination of the difference of semantic value of sahaja when articulated in the different descriptions of rituals either physically enacted or simply visualized. Beyond the question of semantic values. . and their respective intensions and metaphors. the sahajakaya. in whose unitary vision “natural ecstasy” became an important component. For its part. or only invoked it as a selective response to the emerging power of naturalism’s rhetorical ¯ stance. but it would suggest that the semantic load of the prime variables has changed in the process. perhaps grounded in the ¯ new Kalacakra vision. so that it operates as one profitable marker of both history and lineage. so that the totalizing response of modern scholarship to Mantray¯na a materials may be set aside for a more critical awareness of variation and nuance. sahaja commands our consideration. ¯ The further development of a new body. As a result. sahaja eventually became a reference point for the siddhas’ criticism of Buddhist ritualism. Attention to these kinds of nomenclature. traditions and history. g. p. pp.537a16. the Tibetan replaces dharmadhatusparsartha¯ ¯ ¯ with dharmadhatvagrarthadi-. pp. cf.15.. 34. p.” pp. 670. p. nikayasabhaga. p. Guenther felt moved to engage in an unnecessary ad hominem attack on Snellgrove (p.16. 257. 118. p. 81. Introduction. . 19 This table is actually an amalgamation of two tables found in Hevajra Tantra.ı ¯ Sekoddes at¯ka.4032. 18–19. 18 Snellgrove’s 1957 Buddhist Himalaya. (1999). Dvivedi. On this genre. 12. n. 89. 1.ı ¯ ¯ Sekoddes at¯ka. 671. 15 ´ . “Introduction. 6 Shahidullah (1928).ı ¯ Sekoddes at¯ka. Lankavatara X. cf. had already discussed the Tibetan employment of this material. 85–286. 126. see Tatz (1987) and Schaeffer (2000). n. ed. indicating that the dharmadhatu is the highest object. 540c23. Chakravarti and Charkrvarti. Dasgupta (1950). xxv of the 1962 rev. pp. 35. Introduction. 5 ¯. in Bhattacharyya. 18. pp. . 4 ¯. ¯ ¯ 670. Le Museon n. p. 14. 124–128. 11 Dasgupta (1950). 292–293.530a14. 174–178. 233–234. reading with the Tib. cf. . vol. 264. 149. the “noun or adjective” certainly refers to Kværne’s 1975 article.74 RONALD M. 167. 62.14–16. p.489c23–5. Le Museon n. Matsunaga (1973) for a critique of this problem. and indicate group characteristics (nikaya) found within a specific realm of existence (gati). 498a2–20. 4 (1903): 376. To. 29 ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ Lankavatara Sutra. where the esoteric employment of svabhavikakaya is briefly mentioned. T. Jana. 20 Hevajra Tantra. p. Sankarnarayan and Yoritomi. 227b7: chos kyi dbyings mchog gi don ¯ la sogs pa . as n. for a recent discussion of the kaya theory in early medieval scholasticism. pp. 104. pp. “Introduction. ¯ Mahayanasutralamkara. 9. 69.671. and Banerjee.16. 21 Snellgrove (1987). 14 ´ . 23 Kværne (1975). ´ Subhasita-samgraha. . p. ed. 134. pp. 22 Kværne (1975).” p. 7 E. 2 1 . see Makransky (1997). xxxvi of the 1962 rev. 9 Dasgupta (1946). despite a lack of reference.. 243–267.s. Gatinikaya and nikayagati are almost interchange˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ able in the Lankavatara. see Sternbach (1973). as we will see.16.. 284–285. . This use is related ¯ ¯ to the form of causation providing continuity between births. 28 ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ Lankavatara Sutra. Abhidharmakosabhasya p. 5 (1904): 5. the translations of sahagata and sahaja are the same in many sections of ˙ ¯ ¯ Gunabhadra’s and Bodhiruci’s Lankavatra translations. Introduction. whose contributions are well acknowledged and in many ways central to this study. . the verses that opperate as a commentary on ˙ ¯ ¯ the model invoked here. n. 16 ´ .s.s. 3 ¯.4–8. ´ ¯. 64–70.g.489c23. T. 26 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ . fol. . pp. 12 of the text. 17 Dasgupta (1950). 2. 24 Davidson (forthcoming a). 5 (1904): 263. 14). pp.209–219. 10 Dasgupta (1946). p. ´ Subhasita-samgraha. ed. 10. Le Museon n. . 8 Evident in essays by Saroja. 232.16. p. 13–14. 22. ´ Subhasita-samgraha. 34 and 38. pp. and Chin. and ¯ ¯ ¯ especially pp. T. 25 E. More unfortunately.10–11 (reading hetuh for hatuh). DAVIDSON NOTES For studies of this variety. 12 Guenther (1969). 27 ¯ ¯ ¯ ´¯ Madhyantavibhaga. 501c13. 18. 13 Guenther (1992). T. pp. though. has eleven cahpters (kalpa).” the .12. esp. justification found in the second chapter of the shorter non canonical recension. dPal gsang ba ’dus pa’i dam pa’i chos . asrayo yavat kayavijnanasya kayah | at¯tah punar esam asrayo mana ity apy ete ı . 65. for the term. 224a4–b5. 43 The exception to these statements is the curious non canonical recension of ¯ ¯ ¯ the Sarvabuddhasamayoga.3.g. Abhidharmakos a-bhasya. 66.5–6. ¯ Bodhisattvabhumi. etc. ¯´ ¯ ¯ ˜¯ ¯ . ¯ Paramadya. 138b6–139a4. 32 ¯ Bodhisattvabhumi. p. Dutt (1966).. references several other works: the Tattvasamgraha. 155b3–159a4. the mandala arrangement and . I ¯ ¯ ¯ have yet to systematically peruse the vyakhya tantras. fols. The shorter text. p.7 to I. where To. ¯ ¯´ ˜ ˜¯ ¯ ¯ ¯´ ¯. 52b6–53a2. 152b6. 58. . see Granoff (2000). The chapter order and naming. The prima facie supposition that the shorter text is earlier may be called into question by the presence of the four kinds of bliss.18–67.¯ 41 Some of these issues are discussed in Davidson (forthcoming a). 42 For an introduction to this issue. Abhidharmakosa-bhasya II. for a discussion of its importance. 130b5–131a4 and Subahupariprccha.” see Siklos (1996). that indicate a common basis for the Tibetan translations of those verses or sections. This latter is the most intriguing. 40 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Subahupariprccha. 35 ´ ¯.65 (S¯kyamitra’s section): Chin kang ting ching yu ch’ieh shih ˜¯ ¯ ¯ ´ ˜ ¯´ pa hui chich kuei. . 40. 44 I must alert the reader that these comments apply only to the literature cited. 34 ´ ¯. 412–419. A comparison of the texts shows many sections. 214. Dutt (1966). . the later meditation manuals would certainly cite it. especially. Laghusamvara. 65. germane to our discussion. fol. 7b4–12a7.44: tatra caksurvijnanasya caksuh sahaja . fols. 523. 216a4. 36 ¯ Ratnagotravibhaga. I would also argue that if the term were important ¯ system.6–22. fol. fols. such as the Sandhivyakarana. no.. yet is not as clear as we might like. cf. 2. 38 ´a ˜ ¨ E. XI. 273a3. 37 ¯ Bodhisattvabhumi. 7–8. see also Davidson a (forthcoming a). pp. fol. pp. 39–48 being particularly interesting. included within differing chapters. 366 has ten.ı ¯ ˜a Jn¯namitra’s work is included in the early ninth century dKar chag ldan dkar ma.4–9.1–10. and the Vajrabhairava Tantra. p. Yet this may not be so great a chronological liability. and we might suspect an earlier version that had no chapter divisions in the manner of the received versions.. p. .. I have discussed the Vil¯savajra references in Davidson (1981). Prajnaparamita-nayasatapancasatkat¯ka.14. all these issues need further examination. fols. as Matsunaga (1964) has proposed that at least some of these ancillary scriptures were composed by ¯ the members of the Arya-lineage. p.. 366.869. 39 ¯ ¯ E. pp. fols. p.18–19. 33 ´ ¯. the “Guhyatantra.15–18. We might also note that the Laghusamvara Tantra. and it appears to me an eleventh century or later reworking of the longer text in one of the older tantric centers of Central Tibet. 137. see Kanaoka (1966). Guhyasamaja VII. However. For a recent translation of five tantras designated as ´ “Vajrabhairava. 34. to the Guhyasamaja ¯ The most complete traditional discussion of the Guhyasamaja systems I have seen is the 1634 discussion by A-mes-zhabs. Abhidharmakos a-bhasya. 214. 237a4–7. Lalou (1953). p. against virtually the same material found in Chapter five of To. T. tantrapindartha. X. the Sarvabuddhasamayoga-tantraraja. .18.286c. cf. pp. Dutt (1966). 232a5–6. etc.1. 3a6.12–24. ˜¯ Abhidharmakos a-bhasya. fols.g. Neither of the two canonical commentaries pertain to the shorter version. is completely different. 239b1–4. fols. Pancakrama II. while one third to one half the size of the longer version. . these dharmas are defined in ´ ¯. which is much shorter than the canonical version. .REFRAMING SAHAJA 30 31 75 ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ Lankavatara Sutra. . Sarvabuddhasamayoga. pancavijnanakaya indriyadvaya srayah |.30.21–27. with XV. 77 83–9. “Introductory Remarks. pp. 7b2: gsal zhing rab dga’ nam mkha’ ‘dra | rang byung lhag pa’i lha chen po | lhan cig skye pa’i ye shes kyis | bla ma’i kha las rtogs par bya |. 37. for example. and we must wonder about the manuscript transmission.1–37. but employs mandalacakra elsewhere. 10–11. ı ˜ ¯ 51 ¯ See the various discussions in the Vasantatilaka commentary. the general usage of sahaja observed in the ¯ text. 83b7). 15. Prad¯podyotana. 94b1–2. 50 For this terminology and discussion. and a reference in Ananga’s Dakin¯jalasamvarahrasya. 55 ¯ ¯ ¯ Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama. dpe’i lhan cig skyes pa’i me tog lta bu’i bde ba chen po’i rang rig gnyis su med pa’i ye shes nyams su myong bar ‘gyur ro |.g. the Sukusumaa ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ nama-dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama-vrtti.76 RONALD M. 1. and one quote from the “Mulatantra” inVanaratna’s commentary (pp. ¯ ¯ appears to reinforce this analysis: mulatantre ‘pi yoginyah sahajah siddha iti vacanat. We also may notice . 418. 53 See dPal gsang ba ’dus pa’i dam pa’i chos byung ba’i tshul legs par bshad pa gsang ’dus chos kun gsal pa’i nyin byed. 24. p. . p. fol. To. . fol. ¯ ı ¯ . fols. see Alakakala´a’s commentary to the s Yogin¯sancara Tantra.” x. Rahasyad¯pika. ı 91b4–5. 213a5. I have not perused the explanatory ˙ tantras for references. 13a2. vv. 15. the Caryamelapakaprad¯pa. .18. a 54 ¯ ¯ ¯ Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama. p. . although this is apparently not ˜ ˜ from the Pancakrama. represented in Davidson (1981).. I wish to thank Christian Wedemeyer for calling my attention to the ¯ ¯ importance of the Caryamelapakaprad¯pa. I no longer believe the tradition. 1b4–2b5 would be much more obscure without the much later commentary of Vitap¯da. see the Mimaki and Tomabechi edition. fols. a ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Sukusuma-nama-dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama-vrtti 127a4. etc. While the Vasantatilaka is not directly concerned . 46 ¯ ¯ The Caryamelapakaprad¯pa. 48 ¯ Laghusamvara Tantra. Ruegg (1981). 101.3. but does not use the term when explaining sexual practice. pp. ı 47 ¯ ¯ E. ¯ As in the case of the Guhyasamaja literature. 68. have rendered ¯ sahasa (ferocity) with the Tibtan rendering of sahaja. p. even if the term has not been used in the scripture. n. 121a7). ¯ . and I would a ıs ırti tentatively identify the two individuals bearing this name. DAVIDSON byung ba’i tshul legs par bshad pa gsang ’dus chos kun gsal pa’i nyin byed. p. see also fols. ‘Brog-mi Sh¯kya ye-shes is reputed a . fol. 9.. ¯ that he employs sahajananda at least once (fol. ¯ indicates his interpretation of part of the Abhidhanottara with the hermeneutics of sahaja. 225. For the ‘Phags-lugs syllabus. 100b4–103a4. lhan cig skyes pa. For the complicated relationship between the Pancakrama and other texts. 8. as noted by Snellgrove (1987). 1457. 23. 49 ´ ˜ Sr¯cakrasamvarapancakramavrtti.3. 17. 3. fol. 42. xvi-xvii. p. that Buddhaguhya was the ˜a disciple of Buddhajn¯nap¯da. 15. . cols. with the question of sexual practice. 231a2–3: man ngag de rnams kyi stobs kyis ı . this is not a sensible translation in any semantic value for the term sahaja. 1b4. pp. quotes from the Guhyasiddhi (fols. 1436. fol. vol. 10–11. to have worked with a V¯g¯´varak¯ in the early eleventh century. 9. 40–41) ¯ ¯. 57 ¯ ¯ ¯ Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama. 11. ı ¯ ¯ Vasantatilaka pp.4–40. cf. 59. Vitap¯da identifies the three forms of ecstasy with the three bodies of the Buddha. 12a5–6: ’di ni lhan cig skyes pa yi | ye shes ‘ba’ zhig dbang byas nas | rim pa gnyis pa bsgom pa’i thabs | mi shigs thig le bsgom pa’o |. 11a2–3 and 13b1. 89a6–94b1. p. see the bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba. 52 Cf. fol. 58 ¯ ¯ ¯ This section of the Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama. 25–9. 62–71 ı ı ¯ uses the term in the context of the highly erotic seventh chapter of the Guhyasamaja. . . pp. 56 Samksiptabhisekavidhi.3. 45 ˜ It may be observed that the Tibetan translators of Pancakrama II. n. 301. 103b4) and Nagarjuna (fol. 1471. However. on mutual reference.ı ¯ . 158b2. While I have no doubt (as opposed to others who have . 166a1. 64 The text is Hevajra Tantra. 14a7. s . 90a6: rnam mkha’i . . 13a2. . shing ldan zhes bya ste | ci’i phyir zhe na | rtsa ba med par shing rnams la ’khris shing steng du dris pa (sic for dril pa) lta bur gnas pa’o |. 221a2.1. from the Indian Candrak¯ ırti and translated it. ı ¯ ¯ ¯ etc. Hackin (1924).a 62 ˜a ¯ ¯ Buddhajn¯nap¯da emphasizes his teachers as his sources in Dvikramatattvabhavanaa ¯ ¯ mukhagama. However.. 68 ¯ For example. It would be tempting to identify this Candrak¯ with ırti ¯ the Arya school master. faced with an enormous volume of Hevajra commentaries and related material by the early eleventh century. fol. 273a3–274a2. even though it is the only one we have in this case. 61 ˜¯ ¯ ¯ ´ ˜ ¯´ ¯ . fol. 195a1. cf. a with Swat could still have been questioned. we are . pp.” . fols. etc. Kuwayama (1991) forever settled the question with the publication of a rereading of the Gardez inscription. pp. . p. 170a1).7–9: “‘O-bran bLo-gros dbang-phyug received the Thumbseal of Yamari. or on translation into Tibetan or Chinese – that specifies the Hevajra. but we have no reason to do so other than the chronology may be approximately correct.. 25. For Snellgrove’s somewhat obscure translation. etc. dated by Kuwayama to either 753 or 765 CE. etc. vol. The inscription. he also indicates other Mahayoga Tantras. 168a3–7. 124a7–b1.ı ¯ ¯ ˜ ¯ Sahajanandaprad¯papanjika. xlvii. a Ody¯nas¯hi. 75–6. after the collapse of the Royal Dynasty in the 840s. Sukusuma-namaa ¯ ¯ ¯ dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama-vrtti. 63 ¯ This straightforward equation is provided by Vitap¯da. who have numbered the verses differently. which is the weakest of historical arguments. 2.REFRAMING SAHAJA 77 59 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Sukusuma-nama-dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama-vrtti. fols. This defining moment was unfortunately obscured by Kuwayama’s bland . Anandacaks u-t¯ka. . glosses sahajasiddha as svabhavasiddha. 169b6 (we also find He! Samvara!. ¯ Vajra!) in various texts. s . 167a1.¯ ¯ ¯ karatattvasamgrahat¯ka fols. cf. who indicated that his long commentary. see Hevajra Tantra. 1b5–2a5. 16b6. Kosalalam. fol. p. fol. vol. 775–812 CE). fols.” ‘on bran blo gros dbang phyug la rgya gar tsan dra gir tis gsin rje gshed ‘theb rgya can la sogs pa gnangs ste bsgyur ro | de gnyis gsangs sngags snga ‘gyur gyi gzhug mar song ste |. Tattvacaturupades aprasannad¯pa. fol. the Hevajra is not mentioned.g. 28. pp. the Aloka. 1. translation is mine. albeit for increasingly obscure reasons. 169. Other arguments for the a later date of the Hevajra Tantra are based on an argumentum ex silencio.6–18. 5–8. 12b5. the identification of Odiy¯na . fol. Prajnaparamita-nayasatapancasatkataka. such as the Sarvabuddhasamayoga. ı 69 ˜a As has already been noted. 197a2. indicated the dedication of a Gane´a statue by Khimg¯la of . the Laghusamvara. had been written during the reign of Dharmap¯la (ca. Vasantatilaka pp. fol. Until 1991. 6–8. 850–875 CE). fol. These two were the conclusion of the Early Translation Period. . the date of Buddhajn¯nap¯da is predicated on his a ¯ teacher. The name “Hevajra” undoubtedly comes from the eighth century employment of this expostulation (Hey. 448. Sahajayogakrama. I have uncovered no author or text from the eighth and early ninth centuries – as indicated in internal affirmation (like Haribhadra’s). pp. 60 Mirashi (1976).a title. This final translation effort probably would have occurred in the third quarter of the ninth century (ca. 65 Shendge (1967). . However. p. 92–99. 66 ´ E. 160b2. “L’inscription du Gane´a de Gardez et la chronologie des Turki-S¯hi. see Chos ’byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud.. 27. Haribhadra. ı ¯´ Sahajasadyogavr ttigarbhaprakasa. fol. fol. 67 ¯ ¯ Vyaktabhavanugatatattvasiddhi. a . We must recall that Tibetans continued to make translations into the third quarter of the ninth century. 129–130. pp. Vanaratna in his late Rahasyad¯pika. etc. Farrow and Menon (1992). Even as late as the tenth century list of tantras by Devaputra. 76. 161. 166a1.53. 461–479 constitutes a text (Phyag rgya’i lam skor) and Indrabhutirelated traditions. Snellgrove’s “Introduction. To.16–19. Be that as it may. For the Indic basis of the two different practices. pp. see Orofino (1997) for a survey of the issues.123–124. 69. I discuss this text and its information in Davidson (forthcoming b). 2a4–2b2: la la bdag ni lhan cig skyes | kha cig rmongs pas dbang phyug ste | bdag bcas ma yin bdag med pa | rtog pa gnyis ni spangs pa nyid | de ni zung ‘jug go ‘phang du | rgyal bas lhan cig skyes par gsungs | de nyid srog chags rnams kyi srog | de nyid mchog tu mi ‘gyur ba | de nyid kun la khyab pa yi | lus kun la ni rnam par gnas | bud med byis pa ba lang rdzi | kla klo dang ni rigs ngan dang | chu yi nang gnas sems can dang | lha dang gnod sbyin klur bcas pa’i | de rnams lhan cig skyes mis shes | ‘gro ba’i grong khyer dag tu ‘khyam | 83 Sahajasiddhi. now that the ¯ Vimalaprabha is accessible: II. Hevajra Tantra. 4a5–6a5. this could be achieved in a few decades. 71 ¯ ¯ ˜ ´ı ¯ This description of mahamudra is found in the Manjusr¯mulakalpa. IV. 158b2. but am uncertain as to the ultimate source of the doctrine. To. p. 228. 70. Kalacakra scholars have led on principles of dating esoteric scriptures. 174. V. 164. 3a1–4: kha cig dngos grub dbang gnyis skyes | byis pa yun ring rgan sogs kyis | ‘bad pa yis ni thob mi ‘gyur | rgyu dang bcas pa’i skad cig ma | ‘khrul dang rnam par ‘khrul ‘dra ma | kha cig longs spyod rdzogs . 27. ı 73 ¯ Vanaratna’s commentary to the Vasantatilaka. 73. 123. there is no evidence for an earlier date than the late ninth century and none in support of Snellgrove’s eighth century date.2260. fols. III. Davidson (forthcoming b) summarizes what we know of this enigmatic figure. p.” p. and given the remarkable religious imagination of Indians. 78 This material is from the Sahajasiddhi-paddhati. fol. for its importance has been obscured by Tibetan historians.98. To.27. I prefer a date in the last quarter of the ninth or first quarter of the tenth centuries. 6a6–7b2. Banerjee (1985). 120. 89. etc. ¯ Kalacakra Tantra. DAVIDSON voiced reservations) that in the culture of scriptural proliferation that marked Indian Buddhism. 2. Nonetheless. fols. fols. The . 70 An excellent examination of bodhicitta in important esoteric systems in Namai (1997). 2260. to which this refers.4. 81 Sahajasiddhi. 62.ı ¯ 168a3–7.5–168. 199–200. 224. 135. fols. 74 For the most extensive early discussion of this practice. 76 ¯ I have seen occasional mention of a sahajakaya in late authors concerned with the Samvara system. 77 ¯ Pod ser. 214. 128. 29ff. 38. I plan to bring out all of this hagiographical material in the near future. 120a4–b5. 178. fols. 80 Davidson (1999) discusses the attitudes of esoteric authors towards the questions of epistemological validity. pp. 167a1. 2260. Sekoddesat¯ka. fols. These varieties of yoga will be explained in some detail in a work under preparation by the author on the esoteric Lam-bras practices. 123. 57–8. . ¯ 190. 114. 7–8. 75 ¯ ¯ ˜ ¯ Anandacaks u-t¯ka. pp. see also the discussion on ¯ ˜¯ ¯ ¯ sahajananda in the Jnanatilakayogin¯tantraraja-paramamahadbhuta fols.78 RONALD M. 72 ˜¯ ´ ı ¯ Jnanodaya Tantra. Sahajanandaprad¯papanjika. 79 This summary is found Sahajasiddhi-paddhati. pp. 1b4–2a1: kun ‘gro’i lhan cig skyes zhi ba | rtag tu ‘byung zhing rang la gnas | dus kun du ni mi zad pa | rtog pas brtags pa spangs pa nyid | rang dang phyi rol nang na gnas | phyi dang nang las ma skyes pa | zung ’jug tshig gi don de ni | rgyu dang mi rgyu gnas pa las | dus kun du ni yang dag gnas | gzhung las ma gtogs rnyed mi ‘gyur | 82 Sahajasiddhi. ı . develops the themes of sahaja in the following verses. which I list for those who would desire to pursue the matter. see the twelfth century Sras don ma. 233. 118. Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud.s. Maitr¯ ¯da’ hagiography has ıpa been discussed in Tatz (1987). 87 ´ ˜ ¯ ¯ ı Sr¯ Hevajrapanjika Muktikaval¯. ed. fols. 3129.3. Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi. T. fols. ¯ ¯ ¯ (1904). Pradhan. Per. 2nd. ´ sufficiently representative to be included in Subhasita-samgraha. Ascribed to bLa-ma Dam-pa bSod-nams rgyal-mtshan (1312–1375). ¯ ı Caryag¯ti. Asc. fols. but the sDe-dge edition has been artificially Sanskritized. ´ ¯. Primary Sources ´ ¯.P. 7.284c–287c. rgyud. ed. Skrifter Ny Serie No. 23. Prajn¯gupta. Gangs can rig mdzod. Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan. Jayaswal Research Institute. To. To. Patna: K. p. Asc. .P. p. although the chronology is confused. 15.–Filos. 1201. Pralhad. Anangayogin. Rinpoche.” REFERENCES A.2–121. p. bsTan-‘gyur. rgyud ‘grel. Klasse. Nalinaksha. 5 . 5. (1966). Kværne. ¯ ˜a Anandacaks u-t¯ka. 138b3. 176-177. ed. 154b2– . Vrajvallabh.5–4. cf.18. Samdhong and Dwivedi. Asc. 86 Bla ma rgya gar ba’i lo rgyus. II. ¯ Bodhisattvabhumi. . The Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series Vol. 14. rgyud. (1977). 13a3. 1803. ngi. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies.2. Asc. bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba. this latter discussion was ¯. ı 57a2–106b7. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series. Abhidharmakosabhasya. ¯ ı ¯ . tshi. 257a4–b4. LL XVI. 700–701) does not believe the expulsion story. there attributed to Sarahap¯da. a fol. n. SKB III.18. 89 ¯ ¯ Vyaktabhavanutagatattvasiddhi. also ties the aesthetic elements to “great bliss. vol. 28 lists the present date of 1335 as 326 years from the founding of Sa-skya in 1073 CE. fols. Rare Buddhist Text Series – 8. rev. Hist. Translation ascribed to Amoghavajra between 746–774 CE. the correct title for this work is provided ı in the Peking edition. fol. SKB III. ja. 169.REFRAMING SAHAJA 79 pa’i gzhung | de ni lhan cig skyes brjod min | lte ba’i dbus su ‘khor lo mchog | de dbus gzi brjid gzugs can ni | sgrub pa po yis rtag bsgoms pa | de ni lhan cig skyes brjod min | spyi bor gnas pa’i ‘khor lo che | de la reg dang bde ba ‘bab | bya ba’i rab tu sbyor bas ‘thob | de ni lhan cig skyes brjod min | srog gi rlung ni ‘gog pa ru | ‘bad pa yis ni gang zhig byed | sna yi rtse mor rab gzhug bya | de ‘gog pa yis gang thob pa | de ni lhan cig skys brjod min | thur sel rlung ni ‘gog pa yis | lus ni gdung ba byas nas su | yang nas yang du goms par byed | de ni lhan cig skyes mi brjod | 84 ´ ¯ ¯ Sr¯-Birua-caurasi.170. 138a6. fol. ˙ Dakin¯jalasamvarahrasya. who. vol. Patna: K. Jayaswal Research Institute. p. Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang. ¨ Chin kang ting ching yu ch’ieh shih pa hui chih kuei. (1990). completed in the 23rd day of the 4th month of 1344. Le Museon. bsTan-‘gyur. ı 88 ¯ ¯ Mahamaya Tantra. even though it is reported in good sources. An Anthology of Buddhist Tantric Songs. VIII. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. p. ı ¯ 159b7.1–173. however (pp. Nyang nyi-ma ‘od-zer (1988).6. 2b5: dbu ma’i ‘dod lugs gzhung gi tshul | de ni rtsod kun la mos |. probably in the printing process. and trans. Abhidharmakosabhasyam of Vasubandhu. (1975).1. eds.15. Pe. bsTan-‘gyur.170. ¯ ¯ ¯ Caryamelapakaprad¯pa Asc.869. Dutt.1. Bla ma rgya gar ba’i lo rgyus. 149a1. Aryadeva. edn. 85 Sahajasiddhi. vol. LL XI. . . 2 Vols. 6. S¯kyamitra. Bibliotheca ı ¯ Indica No. . Calcutta: The Asiatic Society. The Hevajra Tantra: A Critical Study. rgyud-‘bum. A-mes-zhabs Ngag-dbang kun-dga’ bsod-nams (1597–1662). Tokyo: The Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies for Unesco. with many additions. (1992).. 2503. Samdhong and Dwivedi. fols. ˜¯ ¯ ¯ Jnanasiddhi.80 RONALD M. (1988). 10.ı ¯ yi.ı ¯ rgyud. Asc. ˜ ¯ Pancakrama.P. Mahayanasutrasamgraha. bsTan-’gyur. Guhyadi-As. N¯g¯rjuna. Asc. Guhyasiddhi. ¯ ` Mahayanasutralamkara. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series. (1964). 93–157. fols. London: Oxford University Press. ed.. Asc. Biswanath. Revised with English Translation by Sisir Kumar ı ¯ ¯ Mitra (1982). DAVIDSON dKar chag ldan dkar ma. a a ˜ Pancakrama: Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts Critically Edited with Verse Index and Facsimile Edition of the Sanskrit Manuscripts. ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ . (1907). Sarnath. David L. e ˜ ´ı ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ Manjusr¯mulakalpa. 25. 1. Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre. 159e fascicule. . Lam ‘bras slob bshad (1983–1984). (1956). Toru. Asc. ´ı ¯ Kalacakra Tantra. Asc. ed. Hevajra Tantra. ı nga. ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ Lankavatara Sutra. No. Marcelle (1953). Rare Buddhist Text Series – 1. 1b1–17b2. The N¯tisara or the Elements of Polity by Kamandaki. bKa’-‘gyur. Vrajvallabh. Buddhist Sankrit Texts No. 1b1–245a7. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society.. London Oriental Series. s ıj˜a rgyud. Sarnath. Kyoto: Otani University Press. Part II. ¯ ˙ eds. 1853. To. fols. R. ¯ ´ı Laghusamvara. L. To. 368. 18. . ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Guhyasamaja Mahaguhyatantraraja. Buddha´r¯ n¯na. dPal gsang ba ‘dus pa’i dam pa’i chos byung ba’i tshul legs par bshad pa gsang ’dus chos kun gsal pa’i nyin byed. Snellgrove. Rare Buddhist Text Series – ı . ¯ ¯ ¯ Mahamaya Tantra. . In Rinpoche. Mimaki. Matsunaga. P. Banerjee.: Sakya Centre. Guhyadi-As. ¯ ¯ ¯ Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama. Rinpoche. bsTan-‘gyur. pp. Yukei. vol. N¯tisara. To. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. Sylvain L´vi. 1b1–202a5. 213b1–246b7. Rinpoche. Vrajvallabh. ed. di. Lalou. Mitra. fols. 272b7–294a5. ed. (1978). ju. written 1634 (1985). 96b6–136b4. ı ¯ Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute. Rajpur. 422. (1987). Vaidya. 5–62. Asc. 4364. eds.tasiddhi. Paris: Libairie Honor´ Champion. ´¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Madhyantavibhaga. (1994). eds. Osaka: Toho Shuppan. ed. U. ˜¯ ¯ ¯ Jnanatilakayogin¯tantraraja-paramamahadbhuta. Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. 31 Vols. eds. Jn¯namitra. ı ¯. ¯ Prad¯podyotanat¯kasatkot¯vyakhyana. Inc. Patna: ı . A Critical Edition of Sr¯ ¯ ¯ Kalacakratantra-Raja (Collated with the Tibetan Version). ‘Les Textes bouddhiques au temps ˙ du Roi Khri-sron-lde-bcan’. ri. Bibliotheque de l’Ecole des Hautes e ´ Etudes. ˙ Sangraha. ´a ¯ . rgyud. C. ˜¯ Jnanodaya Tantra. Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. Journal Asiatique 241(3): 313–353. Vrajvallabh. and trans. ¯ Kosalalamkaratattvasamgrahat¯ka. Bibliotheca Codicum Asiaticorum 8. To. ka. Nanjio. . To. (Tantraraja-Sr¯-Laghusamvara) To. Padmavajra. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Indrabhuti. (1985). above. 309. Bunyiu. rgyud-‘bum. ˜¯ ¯ ¯ ´ ˜ ¯´ ˜a Prajnaparamita-nayasatapancasatkat¯ka. bKa’-‘gyur. bsTan-‘gyur. fols. . (1971). Madhyanta-Vibhaga-Sastra.tasiddhi-Sangraha. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ´¯ Mahamayatantra with Gunavat¯ by Ratnakarasanti. Bibliotheca Otaniensis. . Pod ser. Edited with Guhyasiddhi. Pho brang stod thang ldan dkar gyi chos ‘gyur ro cog gi dka’ chag. Katsumi and Tomabechi. Samdhong and Dwivedi. ed. ed. Pandeya. Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan (1147–1216). Rajendralal. pp. Samdhong and Dwivedi. Darbhanga: Mithila Institute. ed. 2647. Rare Buddhist Text Series – 2. fols. Guhyasamaja Tantra. eds. ´ı ´ı ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ´ Sr¯-Birua-caurasi. Sahajayogakrama. fols. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Sukusuma-nama-dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama-vrtti. ¯. bsTan-‘gyur. E. ¯ .¯ thu. zhi. fol. 2671. Asc. bsTan-‘gyur. Ed. rgyud. ed. Shendge (1967). ¯ ¯ Subahupariprccha. 118a–140b. . below. 227b3–233a4. fols.s. rgyud-’bum. Samdhong and Dwivedi. Yogin¯ Cint¯. Yogin¯sancara Tantra. 38a3–54b7. ja. bsTan-‘gyur. above. . To. rgyud. bsTan-‘gyur. Edited with Guhyasiddhi.11-446. bsTan-‘gyur. Cecil. The Complete Works of the Great Masters of The Sa Skya Sect of The Tibetan Buddhism. translated by Shan-wu-wei in 726 CE. tshi. Le Museon . Carelli. 1435. . 149a1. H. Sa-chen Kun-dga’ snying-po. . ¯ ¯ ¯ Sarvabuddhasamayoga. ka. Asc. above. To. Asc. T. 366. To. 1247. Asc. 2261. Asc. 1246. 151b1–193a6. pp. Guhyadi-As. Buddhaguhya. ¯ ¯ Kyoto: Hozogan. fols. Rinpoche. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko. Pandey. 87a3–139b3. 1189. Sekoddesat¯ka of Nadapada (Naropa). ¯ ˜ ¯ ˜a Sahajananda-prad¯pa-panjika. Domb¯ ıheruka.¯ rgyud.a as ı). ¯ ¯ Samksiptabhisekavidhi. rgyud. . ¯ Vairocanabhisambodhitantrapin dartha. 1866. ¯ Vasantatilaka. fols. Asc. fols.tasiddhi.719a–746b. or Sarvabuddhasamayoga-dakin¯jala-sambara-nama-uttara. ¯ Sahajasiddhi. Asc. The mTshamsBrag Manuscript of the rNying-ma rgyud ‘bum. Sa skya bka’ ‘bum. tsha.REFRAMING SAHAJA 81 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Ratnagotravibhaga.ı cf. In Sakurai. rgyud. bsTan-‘gyur. . pp.. le Museon n. a . No. 138a4–139a6. a sa 194b6–196a3. Asc. ¯ ¯ Vyaktabhavanutagatattvasiddhi. (1990) ¯ ¯ ı ´ ı . ´ Tattvacaturupadesaprasannad¯pa. bsTan-‘gyur. LL XII. ed. ed. Prajn¯gupta. Ratn¯kara´¯nti. Thimphu. Vrajvallabh. Included in Guhyasiddhi. To. 4 (1903): 375–402. ¯ ¯ Sarvabuddhasamayoga-tantraraja (non canonical recension) (1981). rgyud-‘bum. ¯ Gaekwad’s Oriental Series. Pe. 407–421. Yogin¯sancaratantram ı ˜ ¯ ı ˜ ¯ ¯ ´¯ ¯ ı ¯ ¯ ´ with Nibandha of Tathagataraksita and Upadesanusarin¯vyakhya of Alakakalasa. ¯ ¯ ı ¯ Vasantatilkaa of Caryavrat¯ Sr¯kr. bsTan-‘gyur. nya. 1b1–4a3. Tillipa. . Asc. 5 (1904): 5–46. fols. . fols. Asc. Bendall. rgyud. rgyud. Mario E. . To. Sra don ma. 14 Vols. Vol. 1–65a. To. wa. Ghant¯p¯da. ı fols. 245–274. Sahajasiddhi-paddhati. bKa’-‘gyur. To. zhi. . fols. 160a1– ı 208b1. ´ı ˜ ¯ ¯ ı Sr¯-Hevajrapanjika Muktikaval¯. (1968).. Buddhaguhya. bsTan-‘gyur. Asc. rgyud. (1941). ı a pp. bsTan-‘gyur. Asc. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. ´ı ˜ Sr¯cakrasamvarapancakramavrtti. Artifically Sanskritized to Sr¯-Virupapada-caturas ¯ti. To. Munenobu (1996). To. Indrabhuti. ¯ ¯ Subahupariprccha-tantrapindartha. ´ ´ Subhasita-samgraha. ¯ Sahajasiddhi. To. Johnston. . 196a3–201a4. fols. nya. Bsod Nams Rgya Mstho. Asc. 1242. . Baroda: Oriental Institute.s. fols.ı ¯ tantra (canonical recension) To. 185–191.t¯rik¯´r¯ ıbhat. rgyud ‘grel. and trans. 2283.ı ¯ ¯ ¯ Sekoddesat¯ka. 90. nacarya with Commentary: Rahasyad¯pika by Vanaratna. n. 155b1–162a3. Indo Mikkyogirei Kyenkyu. 895. ´ . To. Patna: Bihar Research Society. ¯´ Sahajasadyogavr ttigarbhaprakasa. rgyud. 1b1–26a7. di. 2260. Asc. 221a1–297a7. Ratn¯kara´¯nti. 3129. Vitap¯da. fols. Thagana. zhi.. bKa’-‘gyur. Virupa. Asc. . To. . . 4a3–25a1.18. 169–179. bsTan-‘gyur.ı ¯ ´ .. rgyud. ˙ Sangraha. fols.a a wa. fols. nyu. (1950). (1998). ed. 805. 2662. rgyud nya. s. Rare Buddhist Text Series – 7. a sa ga. bsTan-‘gyur. Ratnagotravibhaga Mahayanot´¯ taratantrasastra. fols. Bhutan: National Library. Lha-lcam rje-btsun-ma dpal-mo (?*Dev¯ . bsTan-‘gyur. Janardan Shastri. ¯ . rgyud. ed. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum. Ronald M. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press. (1997). Yukei (1964). David Germano. (1999). Albany. Shashi Bhushan (1950). (1993).a Kværne. Davidson. ı ´ Stein. Dasgupta. (forthcoming b). Davidson. in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies. Matsunaga. Shashi Bhushan (1946). Michael Strickmann. eds. ˜ ´ı Davidson. 2. Hervert V. Dharmak¯rti and Pramana. ¯ Guenther. An Introduction to Tantric Buddhism. Indogoku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 15: 467–458. Per (1975). Guenther. XX. Shuyu (1966). V. New Delhi: Archeological Survey of India. and the New Revelation’. The Concealed Essence of the Hevajra Tantra. Obscure Religous Cults As Background of Bengali Literature.A. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. vol. in Dharma¯krti’s Thought and Its Impact on Indian ı and Tibetan Philosophy – Proceedings of the Third International Conference on ¨ ¯. a Kuwayama. Phyllis (2000). (1981). Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul e Geuthner. Farrow. Dehli: Manohar. ‘Kukur¯ja’. ed. vol. Calcutta: University of Calcutta Press. ‘On bodhicittabhavana in the Esoteric Buddhist Tradition’. Epistemological Nomenclature’. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Benoytsoch Bhattacharyya. ´ ¯ ¯ Mirashi. Ecstatic Spontaneity: Saraha’s Three Cycles of Doha. edn. John J.82 RONALD M. Dasgupta. ‘L’inscription du Gane´a de Gardez et la chronologie . ´ ` Hackin. ed. 25–35. . S´rie Petit in Octavo. 1–69. Gray Texts. Formulaire Sanscrit-Tibetain du Xe Siecle. N. Secondary Sources Bhattacharyya. ed. ‘The Litany of Names of Manjusr¯: Text and Translation ˜ ´ı ¯ of the Manjusr¯-namasamg¯ti’. Shoshin (1991). ‘Masquerading as Pram¯na: Esoteric Buddhism and a. Vajray¯na’. ‘Other People’s Rituals: Ritual Eclecticism in Early Medieval Indian Religious’. Granoff. Yukei (1973). 657–668. ed. in Tantric and Taoist Studies in Honour of R. Journal of Indian Philosophy 28(4): 399–424. (forthcoming a). VI. G. in The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association of Tibetan Studies. Rev. Graz 1995. (1969). DAVIDSON Rare Buddhist Texts Series – 21. Makransky. Tome II. NY: State University of New York Press. The Royal Song of Saraha. Tantric Buddhism: Centennial Tribute to Dr. Ronald M. Hervert V. Indogoku Bukkyogaku ¯ Kenkyu 21(2): 1013–1009. Chishoo Mamoru (1997). (1992). Sarnatha: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. Buddhahood Embodied: Sources of Controversy in India and Tibet. Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History. s des Turki-S¯hi’. Melanges chinois et bouddhiques. vol. Jospeh (1924). Ronald M. Temenos 11: 88–135. Mantranaya. ‘Gsar ma Apocrypha: The Creation of Orthodoxy. and Menon. V. Davidson.. (1976). . Vienna: Osterreichischen Akademie ı der Wissenschaaften. Inscriptions of the Silaharas. Katsura Shoryu. (1999). 1962. ‘A Doubt to Authority of the Guhyasam¯ja-Akhy¯na-tantras’. pp. ¯ a a Matsunaga. JA 279: 267–287. B. W. Helmut Krasser et al. ‘On the Concept of Sahaja in Indian Buddhist Tantric Literature’. ‘Mantray¯na. a ¯ a ¯ ¯ Indogoku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 12: 844–835. Calcutta: University of Calcutta Press. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Kanaoka. . N. pp. pp. Ronald M. ¯ ¯ ¯ Namai. I. Mission Pelliot en Asie Centrale. Vienna: ¨ Verlag der Osterreichischen Academie der Wissenschaften.. (1967). eds. . . . Connecticut 06430-5195 . in Buddhist Texts Through the Ages. Ruegg. Calcutta: Bang¯ S¯hitya Parisat. Vienna: ¨ Verlag der Osterreichischen Academie der Wissenschaften. David Seyfort (1981). pp. T. Tring. ‘Sr¯sahajasiddhi’. Ludwik (1973). ‘The Life of the Siddha-Philosopher Maitr¯ ıgupta’. in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies. A History of Indian Literature. Snellgrove. Buddhica Britannica Series Continua VII. Snellgrove. (1934). . vol. Indo-Iranian Journal X: 126–149. Bulcsu (1996).. VII. .: Institute of Buddhist Studies. of Sanskrit Literature’. (2000). Sternbach. The Vajrabhairava Tantras: Tibetan and Mongolian Versions. Oxford: Bruno Cassierer. 2. Helmut Krasser et al. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. pp. . A Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons ˆ (BKah-hgyur and Bstan-hgyur). English Translation and Annotations. Hara Prasad (1916). 2 Vols. ‘The Religious Career of Vairocanavajra – A TwelfthCentury Indian Buddhist Master from Daksina Ko´ala’. Tatz. Hajar Bacharer Purana Bangala Bhasay Bauddha Gan ¯ ˙ ıya a O Doha. Journal of the American Oriental Society 107: 695–711. ‘Subh¯sita-samgraha-s. ¯. David L. (1924–1935) Taisho ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ shinshu daizokyo. 28: 361–384. Sendai: Tohoku Imperial University. ´ı Shendge. Mohammed (1928). 221–268. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Shahidullah. fasc. Shaeffer. Hakuju et al. Tokyo: Daizokyokai Department of Religious Studies Fairfield University North Benson Road Fairfield. The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India. Les Chants Mystiques de Kanha et de Saraha: Les ¯ ¯ Doha-Kosa et Les Carya. ¯˙ ¯ ¯ ¯. Sa skya bka’ ‘bum. ¯ ¯ Shastri. Kurtis R. eds. Sde dge canon numbers found in Tohoku catalogue of Ui (1934). vol.REFRAMING SAHAJA 83 Orofino. 1. Mark (1987). ‘Apropos of Some Foreign Elements in the K¯lacakraa tantra’. ¯ Takakusu Junjiro and Watanabe Kaikyoku. ABBREVIATIONS LL SKB To. Edward Conze. Indologica Taurinensia 1: 169–255. 717–724.K. Snellgrove. Ui. David L. Oxford: Bruno Cassier. ‘The Tantras’. A Forgotten Chapter in the Histories a. Buddhist Himalaya: Travels and Studies in Quest of the Origins and Nature of Tibetan Religion. Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and Their Tibetan Successors. ¯¯ ¯. ´ Siklos. Boston: Shambhala. (1954). (1987). Graz 1995. Giacomella (1997). Malati J. David L. eds. U. ed. Journal of Indian Philosophy s . Lam ‘bras slob bshad. (1957). .
Report "DAVIDSON, RONALD M. REFRAMING SAHAJA_ GENRE, REPRESENTATION, RITUAL AND LINEAGE"