’Bro Lotsa ba Shes rab Gragsand his Translation Endeavors.
(Materials for the Study of the FemaleTantric Master Lak
˙smı of U
˙d˙diyana, part )1
Ulrich Timme KraghGeumgang Center for Buddhist Studies
Abstract
$e medieval Tantric literature entails many uncertainties about authorship anddating. $e line between authentic and pseudepigraphical in this genre has tra-ditionally been very fluid, and every Tantric text needs to be treated with duecaution. In the case of the *Sahajasiddhipaddhati, the Tibetan tradition main-tains its author to be the th–th century female master Lak
˙smı from U
˙d˙diyana.
Given this work’s significance, its possible female authorship and its inclusion ofhitherto unresearched hagiographies of twelve U
˙d˙diyana Tantric teachers includ-
ing four women, it is most crucial to examine its provenance. If its authentic-ity can be established, the text would become one of the earliest hagiographicalcollections of the Indian Tantric tradition, predating by two to three centuriesAbhayadattasrı’s standard anthology, *Caturasıtisiddhaprav
˙rtti, which differs con-
siderably from Lak˙smı’s work.
$e *Sahajasiddhipaddhati is only extant in a Tibetan translation by the Kash-mirian scholar Somanatha and the Tibetan translator ’Bro Lotsa ba Shes rab Grags.Since the translated work is undated, the investigation of its provenance mustbegin with ascertaining the date of its Tibetan witness. $rough a wide-rangingreading of medieval Tibetan historical sources and colophons of th-centuryTantric works, it will be concluded that the translation was produced in Nepal
1) $e research presented here was supported by a Korea Research Foundation grant(MEST, KRF-–-AM). $e author wishes to thank his colleagues at Geum-gang Center for Buddhist Studies (GCBS) as well as Drs. Sanjay Kumar, Will Tuladhar-Douglas, Christian K. Wedemeyer, Elliot M. Stern, Iain Sinclair, Dmitriy N. Lielukhine,David B. Gray, Hartmut Buescher, Luke$ompson, and Min Bahadur Shakya.
natha; ’Bro Lotsa ba Shes rab Grags; Sahajasiddhipaddhati; Tibetan literaturehistory of the th century
Introduction
When researching the lives of the Tantric Buddhist masters of the th–th centuries, the source that most readily comes to mind is the familiar*Caturasıti-siddha-prav
˙rtti, “Stories of the Mahasiddhas,” written by
the th-century Bengali scholar Abhayadattasrı.2 $ere exists, however,what appears to be a much earlier collection of stories found within alittle-known text entitled *Sahajasiddhipaddhati (lhan cig skyes grub kyigzhung ’grel, henceforth SSP), meaning “Guide to the Accomplishmentof the Inborn.”3 $is text contains a lineage-history which provides briefhagiographies of twelvemasters4 thought to have lived inU
˙d˙diyana, i.e., the
Swat valley in NW Pakistan, possibly in the th to the th centuries. Its
2) *Caturasıti-siddha-prav˙rtti (grub thob brgyad cu rtsa bzhi’i lo rgyus; Q, N,
G., omitted DC), composed by Abhayadattasrı (c. th century, from Campa ≈Bengal), and translated into Tibetan by the Tangut scholar mi nyag lo tsa ba smon grubshes rab (th century). German translation by Grünwedel (), English translations byRobinson (), and Dowman (). For my system of sigla and citations, see the list of“Primary Sources” at the end of this article.3) $e existence of these stories has formerly been noted by Shaw (:–), whosummarized the story of Vajravatı Brahma
˙nı.
4) $e twelve masters, whose stories are given in SSP, are: (. the hermit *˙R˙si Jagadasvasa),
˙nı, . *Siddhavajra, . guru ‘sleeping-monk’ (*Suptabhik
˙su), a.k.a. Kambala, here
identified as King Indrabuddhi (dbang po’i blo), . Sarvajagannatha, . Cittavajra, and .Lak
˙smı (a.k.a. Lak
˙smı
˙mkara). Among these, the names Vıravajra, Samayavajra, Padmavajra,
Anandavajra, Vajravatı Brahma˙nı, Indrabuddhi (≈ Indrabhuti?), Kambala, and Lak
˙smı or
Lak˙smı
˙mkara correspond to the names of well-known Buddhist Tantric authors, although
their identity in some instances is a matter of uncertainty. Moreover, the stories of Kambala,Indrabhuti, and Lak
˙smı
˙mkara are also found in Abhayadattasrı’s *Caturasıti-siddha-prav
˙rtti,
albeit in very different versions.
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
author is said to have been the female master Lak˙smı (a.k.a. Lak
˙smı
˙mkara),
who lived in U˙d˙diyana in the th–th centuries.5
If Lak˙smı’s authorship is authentic, SSP would provide a set of very
early Tantric biographical narratives, predating Abhayadattasrı’s text bytwo or three centuries, and it would closely link Lak
˙smı’s account both
geographically and chronologically with the lives of the masters it claimsto depict. Yet, before SSP can be relied on as a historical witness for theIndian Tantric tradition, the authenticity of the text must first be evaluatedon the basis of all the available external and internal evidence. In thisarticle, I begin this evaluation-process by considering the history of theonly surviving version of the text, namely its Tibetan translation found inthe Tibetan canon.
"e Translation of the Root-Text Sahajasiddhi
Lak˙smı’s SSP is a commentary on a root-text entitled *Sahajasiddhi (hence-
forth SS), meaning “Accomplishment of the Inborn,” an anonymous textwhose author is said in the commentary to be a king of U
˙d˙diyana named
Indrabuddhi.6 Both the root-text and its commentary seem originally tohave been written in Sanskrit,7 but their Sanskrit versions seem unfortu-
5) For a survey of the various Buddhist texts authored by the different female and malepersons named Lak
˙smı, Lak
˙smı
˙mkara, or Lak
˙smı
˙mkara, and a brief discussion of each
authorship, see Dimitrov ().6) SSP provides the forms Indrabuddhi as well as Indrabhuti in the various versions of itsTibetan colophon (indrabuddhi D: indrabhuti NG: indrabhuni Q), but internally the textgives the Tibetan translation of the name as dbang po’i blo (D.a1, a2, a3, a7, a2,a4, a1, a3, b2), corresponding to Skt. *Indrabuddhi, which therefore must havebeen the primary reading of the Sanskrit manuscript upon which the Tibetan translationwas based. $e commentary (D.a1) also gives the name *Mahasukhavajra (bde bachen po’i rdo rje) as another name for the King. In two passages of SSP, he is indicatedas being Lak
˙smı’s elder brother (D.b2 ming po = ‘elder brother’; D.b4 sring
mo = ‘little sister’). Whether this Indrabuddhi corresponds to the U˙d˙diyana-king(s) known
as Indrabhuti and/or Indrabodhi remains an open question. For a parallel problem innaming the Guhyasamaja-author(s) *Nagabodhi and/or Nagabuddhi, see van der Kuijp(:–, –, –).7) From the various extant Indian Buddhist works written in U
˙d˙diyana in the th–th
centuries, it is known that the literary language of that region and period was Sanskrit. Forexample, the only text by Lak
˙smı from U
˙d˙diyana preserved in its original language, namely
her Advayasiddhi, is written in Sanskrit (for its Sanskrit mss and editions, see Tsukamoto,Matsunaga & Isoda, :). Dimitrov (:–) considers SSP and Advayasiddhias belonging to the authorship of the same Lak
˙smı
˙mkara. Sanskrit is also the language of
the three extant Indian texts by Indrabhuti of U˙d˙diyana, namely his Vajravarahı-sadhana,
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
nately not to have been preserved. Instead, the texts are only preserved inthe form of Tibetan translations, and it is these translations that shall beconsidered in the present article. First, the history of the Tibetan translationof the root-text, Indrabuddhi’s SS, will be presented.
SS is extant in the five xylograph and manuscript versions containedwithin the five th-century compilations of the Tibetan canon of IndianBuddhist commentaries called the bstan ’gyur.8 Its colophon, which proba-bly was written at the time of the text’s translation into Tibetan,9 providesthe names of the translators:
$e *Sahajasiddhi is completed. [It] was translated by the Indian scholarSomanatha and the Tibetan translator Shes rab Grags.10
Besides this colophon, the text offers no other clues about the circum-stances of the making of its Tibetan translation. $e colophon mentionstwo names: the Indian scholar Somanatha11 and the Tibetan translator Shesrab Grags.
the Paramagambhıra-srı-vajrayoginı-mantrartha-tattva-nirdesa, and his Jñanasiddhi (for theSanskrit mss and editions, see Tsukamoto, Matsunaga & Isoda, :, , ).8) $e title of the Tibetan translation is lhan cig skyes grub ( folios). Its versions are: Q,N, D, G-, and C rgyud ’grel vol. zhi, folios – (C was not available tome). For a comparative edition, see bstan ’gyur dpe bsdur ma, vol. (rgyud wi-zhi), pp. –.9) While this particular colophon does not offer any evidence that it was written at thetime of the text’s translation and not at a later time, there are other examples of suchcolophons that provide a level of detailed information which could only have been writtenat the actual time of the given text’s translation. For example, see the discussion of Shesrab Grags’s translation of Vajragarbha’s *Hevajra-pi
˙n˙dartha-
˙tıka (Q /D) below (p.
). Hence, there is no strong reason to doubt the composition of such colophons as havingbeen written by the actual translators themselves, unless there is other evidence speakingclearly against such an assumption.10) N.a6–7, D.a2–3, G-.a6, bstan ’gyur dpe bsdur ma vol. p. :lhan cig skyes grub rdzogs so// rgya gar gyi mkhan po chen po zla ba mgon po dang/ bod kyi lotsa ba shes rab grags kyis bsgyur ba’o//. Variants: chen po]: omitted G. mgon po]: mgon NG.lo tsa ba]: lotstsha ba NG.11) $e Tibetan text gives Somanatha’s name in the form of its Tibetan translation zla bamgon po, literally meaning “Moon-Protector.” It is evident that zla ba mgon po correspondsto the Sanskrit name Somanatha when the story of Somanatha and the colophons of thevarious translations he produced are considered in combination. $us, when the BlueAnnals (henceforth BA) tell the story of how Pa
˙n˙dita Somanatha spread the Kalacakra-
teachings in Tibet, BA (tha.b7, p. ; Roerich, :) first cites the Sanskrit nameSomanatha, and thereafter refers to him by the Tibetanized name zla mgon, which isthe abbreviation of zla ba mgon po (see, e.g., BA tha.a1, p. ; Roerich, :).Bu ston Rin chen Grub’s History of Kalacakra (henceforth HK) only uses the Tibetan
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
Somanatha was a well-known Kashmirian scholar who visited Tibettwice in the second half of the th century and who, in collaborationwith the Tibetan translator ’Bro Lotsa ba Shes rab Grags, was responsiblefor translating nine major and minor works of the Kalacakra-system intoTibetan. His Kalacakra-transmission subsequently became known in Tibetas the ’Bro-tradition (Tib. ’bro lugs) or—more rarely—as the Somanatha-tradition (Tib. zla mgon lugs).12 Given the close collaboration betweenSomanatha and ’Bro Lotsa ba Shes rab Grags on the texts of the Kalacakra-tradition, the Tibetan translator Shes rab Grags mentioned in the colophonof SS can also be identified as the same ’Bro Lotsa ba Shes rab Grags.
$e exact dates of both Somanatha and Shes rab Grags are unknown,but by analyzing the Tibetan historical sources on the Kalacakra-traditionas well as the colophons of the various translations made by Shes rab Gragsit is possible to narrow down considerably when the collaboration betweenSomanatha and Shes rab Grags took place.
Somanatha was Kashmirian from a Brahmin-family, born in the first halfof the th century.13 When studying under a Kashmirian pa
˙n˙dita named
form zla mgon (see, e.g., HKa b6, p. ; HKb b4ff., p. ). From these stories,it is evident that zla mgon was the Kashmirian pa
˙n˙dita engaged in translating several
major Kalacakra-texts into Tibetan in collaboration with ’Bro Lotsa ba Shes rab Grags.Several of the colophons of those translations (viz., Q /D, Q /D, Q /D,Q /D, Q /D, Q /D, and Q /omitted D) provide thenames of the translators as Somanatha (in its Sanskrit form) and Shes rab Grags. Hence,zla ba mgon po can be established as being identical with the Sanskrit name Somanatha.12) See, for example, Taranatha’s (–) Kalacakra-history dpal dus kyi ’khor lo chosskor gyi ’byung khung nyer mkho bsdus pa (henceforth DCB), where Taranatha says: “InTibet, there are quite many [Kalacakra]-traditions, such as those of Gyi co Lotsa ba Zla ba’i’Od zer, Rma Dge ba’i Blo gros, ’A zha Rgya gar Brtsegs, Khyung po Chos brtson, RwaChos rab, Rtsa mi Sangs rgyas Grags, etc., but if I should [here] explain [the history of theKalacakra-tradition] in accordance with the highest of them all, namely the tradition of’Bro, or the tradition of Somanatha, then …” DCB a6–7 (p. ): bod du yang/ gyi co lo tsaba zla ba’i ’od zer/ rma dge ba’i blo gros/ ’a zha rgya gar brtsegs/ khyung po chos brtson/ rwa chosrab/ rtsa mi sangs rgyas grags sogs kyi lugs shin tu mang yang/ mchog tu gyur pa ’bro lugs sam/zla mgon lugs ltar bshad na/ …13) HK (HKa b6; HKb b4, p. ). His birth-year must be estimated relatively to hisdeparture for Tibet in the late s or s (see below). Before he went to Tibet, hehad completed twelve years of Brahmanical studies (HK ibid.). $ereupon, he took upBuddhist studies, at which point he was a handsome young man, given the love-affairhe had with the daughter of his Buddhist teacher (see below). Having studied for someyears under his Kashmirian Buddhist teacher, he traveled to Magadha to learn the novelKalacakra-teachings, a study which it must also have take some years to complete. Havingreturned to Kashmir, he displeased a local senior scholar (see below), and was told to leave,which indicates that he still was a junior scholar at the time of his departure for Tibet.
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
*Brahma˙napada Bhadra, a.k.a. Suryaketu,14 he one day read a manuscript
of the Kalacakra-text Sekoddesa,15 and wishing to learn more of this system,Somanatha went to Magadha,16 where he learnt the Kalacakra-teachingsfrom Kalacakrapada.17 $ereafter, he returned to Kashmir.
At this point, two early sources for Somanatha’s story differ slightly,which is of some consequence to the analysis of SS’s translation. Both thesources are written by the same author, namely the Tibetan Kalacakra-
Consequently, he must have been at around thirty-forty years of age when he left for Tibetin the late s or s, and his birth-year is therefore likely to have been in the sor early s. For information on Somanatha, see also Naudou (:–).14) HK (HKa b6; HKb b5, p. ) gives the name of Somanatha’s Kashmirian teacheras *Brahma
˙napada (bram ze zhabs), while BA (tha.b6, p. ; Roerich, :) gives it as
*Brahma˙napada Bhadra (bram ze zhabs bzang po) as well as Suryaketu. Taranatha (DCB a2,
p. ) has it as *Brahma˙na Bhadra (bram ze bzang po). HK (ibid.) also narrates the story of
how Somanatha was first educated for twelve years in Brahmanical learning, but that he thentook up Buddhist studies at the behest of his mother. Yet, it was first when the daughter of hisBuddhist teacher fell in love with him that he seriously became involved in Buddhist studies.Moreover, in terms of the authorship of SSP by Lak
˙smı, it may be noteworthy that BA (ibid.)
in this passage mentions another student of Suryaketa named Lak˙smı
˙mkara (lak
˙smı
˙m ka ra),
probably being a male pa˙n˙dita, who later needs to be considered as a possibly candidate for
the authorship of SSP.15) HK (HKa b7; HKb b5, p. ) and BA (tha.a7–a1, pp. –; Roerich,:). BA (ibid.) adds the Kalacakra-text *Sekaprakriya to the manuscripts that Soma-natha saw in Kashmir. BA (ibid.) also adds that the manuscripts were sent to Kashmirby a pa
˙n˙dita named Vinayakaramati, and that these novel texts caused quite a stir in the
intellectual millieu of Kashmir, pointing to the circumstance that the Kalacakra-teachingsstill must have been unknown in Kashmir till this point in time. Newman (:) hasestablished the final composition or redaction of the Kalacakra-Tantra and its major com-mentary Vimalaprabha to have been completed in the period –. It is noteworthythat Somanatha had to go to Magadha to study these texts with Nalandapada (perhaps atNalanda?) (see fn. ), which may point to the texts’ dissemination up till then. It is also tobe noted that Somanatha must have studied the commentary Vimalaprabha in Magadha,because it is—among other Kalacakra-works—this text that he shortly thereafter broughtto Tibet and translated there in the late s or early s (see the discussion of thesedates below).16) HK (HKa b7; HKb b6, p. ). On the other hand, BA (tha.a1, p. ; Roerich,:) gives the less specific Madhyadesa (yul dbus).17) HK (HKa a1; HKb b6, p. ) says that he met both Kalacakrapada Senior andJunior: ma ga dhar byon pa dang/ dus ’khor ba yab sras dang mjal/ byang chub sems dpa’ichos skor rnams zhus so/. “He went to Magadhar, met Kalacakrapada Senior and Junior, andrequested the cycle of the bodhisattva-teachings.” BA (tha.a2, p. ; Roerich, :)just mentions Acarya Kalacakrapada (slob dpon dus zhabs pa) without specifying whichone. Taranatha (DCB a2–3, p. ) makes Somanatha a student of Bodhibhadra (a.k.a.Nalandapada), i.e., Kalacakrapada Junior, who in turn is presented as a student of Kalaca-krapada Senior.
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
savant and historian Bu ston Rin chenGrub (–). Bu ston’sHistoryof Buddhism,18 written in , where Somanatha only is mentioned inpassing, says:
Having gone to Kashmir and invited the pa˙n˙dita Somanatha, ’Bro Shes rab
Grags translated the Kalacakra with its extensive auxiliaries, Vajragarbha’s[Hevajra]-commentary, the commentary on the Praise to Vajrapa
˙ni, and so
forth.19
$is passage primarily concerns the Tibetan translator Shes rab Grags. Shesrab Grags (dates unknown) hailed from an area called la stod,20 locatedin southern Tibet in the Ding ri county (Zhang, :). Bu ston’sstatement that Shes rab Grags went to Kashmir and invited Somanathato Tibet suggests that Shes rab Grags in his youth traveled to Kashmir,perhaps learnt Sanskrit there, and then invited Somanatha to Tibet. If thatis so, it is possible that their translation of SS was made in Kashmir priorto Somanatha’s arrival in Tibet.
Nevertheless, in Bu ston’s History of Kalacakra (HK), which was writtenin ,21 seven years after he wrote the History of Buddhism, and which
18) bde bar gshegs pa’i bstan pa’i gsal byed chos kyi ’byung gnas gsung rab rin po che’i mdzodchos ’byung, included in Bu ston’s Collected Works (bu ston thams cad mkhyen pa’i bka’ ’bum,Zhol edition, volume ). For a critical edition, see Szerb (); English translation byObermiller ().19) Szerb (:): ’bro shes rab grags kyis kha cher byon te/ pa
˙n˙di ta zla ba mgon po spyan
drangs te/ dus ’khor cha lag rgyas pa dang/ rdo rje snying ’grel/ phyag rdor stod ’grel la sogs pabsgyur ro/.20) Shes rab Grags’s association with la stod is evident in Szerb’s dbu med manuscript B ofBu ston’s History of Buddhism, which at the name ’Bro Shes rab Grags adds the gloss “ofLa stod” (la stod kyi); see Szerb (:, fn. ), where the line ’bro shes rab grags dangthus is changed into la stod kyi ’bro shes rab grags dang in ms B. Shes rab Grags is regularlyreferred to as ’Bro Lotsa ba, i.e., “the translator from ’Bro.” Although I have still not foundany clear evidence, the ’bro element of Shes rab Grags’s name seems to be a clan-name andnot a toponym of La stod.$e very detailed map of Tibet bod rang skyong ljongs srid ’dzin sakhul gyi sa bkra published in in China by rgyal srid spyi khyab khang does not mentionany toponym called ’bro in the Ding ri county or elsewhere (see the index by Verhufen,).21) HK’s colophon gives the year and date for the completion of its composition as “thefirst day of the Vaisakha-month of the Sukla-year” (HKa a6–7, p. ; HKb a7–8, p. :dkar po’i lo sa ga can zla ba’i dkar po’i tshes gcig la yongs su rdzogs par sbyar ba’i …). In theKalacakra sexagenary-cycle, the Sukla-year (dkar po’i lo) is the third year (see the table inNewman, :–), which is equivalent to the earth-snake year (sa sbrul) of theTibetan elementary-animal calendar (see the table in Zhang, :). In Bu ston’s life-time (–), that must correspond to the sa-brul year of the sixth prabhava-cycle(rab byung drug pa). $e Vaisakha-month (sa ga can zla ba) is the fourth month of the
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
provides much more detail on Somanatha, Bu ston describes the circum-stance for Somanatha’s travel to Tibet in completely different terms. Hesays:
In a debate with the Kashmirian pa˙n˙dita Ratnavajra, [Ratnavajra] could not
withstand Somanatha. Ratnavajra then said: “My students will lose their con-fidence in me—go someplace else!” Hence, Somanatha thought of dissemi-nating this teaching [of Kalacakra] in Tibet, and thus went to Tibet.22
According to this story, Somanatha was a junior-scholar who was so unfor-tunate as to be victorious in a scholarly debate with his superior, the famoussenior-scholar of the Kashmirian Jana-family, Ratnavajra. Since Ratnavajradid not want to lose face, he commanded the young Somanatha to leaveKashmir, and Somanatha then went to Tibet with the intention of spread-ing there the new Kalacakra-teachings that he had earlier obtained in Ma-gadha.
In this version, there is no mention of Shes rab Grags’s coming toKashmir and inviting Somanatha to Tibet, and hence it does not suggestthat Somanatha and Shes rab Grags could have translated SS in Kashmirprior to Somanatha’s travel to Tibet. $e version that Somanatha was notinvited to Tibet by Shes rab Grags is corroborated by the various storiesconcerning the early period of Somanatha’s first stay in Tibet, where hehad some difficulties in finding a suitable sponsor and translator for hisdissemination of the Kalacakra-teachings,23 and also by the fact that he
calendar (hor zla bzhi pa; Zhang, :). According to the calendar-tables of Schuh(:*), the first day of the fourth month of the third year of the sixth sexagenary cyclecorresponds to April , .$e same calculation of its date is confirmed by Buescher &Tarab (:).22) HKa a1–2, p. ; HKb b6–7, p. : /mkhas pa kha che rin chen rdo rje dang rtsodpas zla mgon ma thub/ rin chen rdo rje na re/ nga la slob ma mi dad par ’ong gzhan du byongsung/ de nas chos ’di bod du spel dgongs nas bod du byon no/. It is unclear whether HKbhas thub or ma thub, since this word appears at the beginning of a line and only part ofthe ma-negation is written, which could also be read as a tsheg-stroke; in any event, thecourse of the narrative is clear regardless, and with a missing negation, the sentence wouldhave to be translated “Somanatha withstood [Ratnavajra].” Ratnavajra was a major pa
˙n˙dita
in Kashmir in the mid-th century, patriarch of the famous Jana-family of pa˙n˙ditas (see
Naudou, :–).23) In HK (HKa a2–3, p. ; HKb b7–8, p. ), Bu ston explains that Somanatha afterarriving in Tibet first met Kha rag Gnyos, i.e., a person from the Gnyos-clan in Kha rag, andbegan to translate the large Kalacakra-commentary Vimalaprabha, but that the payment hehad been promised was short of one hundred srang-measures of gold. It is not entirely clearwhether Bu ston with the name Kha rag Gnyos implies Gnyos Lotsa ba, who was a Tibetan
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
first encountered ’Bro Lotsa ba Shes rab Grags some time after arrivingin Tibet, having already had to abandon his first attempt to translate thelarge Kalacakra-commentary Vimalaprabha. Hence, it can be concludedthat the possibility that Somanatha and Shes rab Grags met in Kashmirand translated SS there can be rejected as quite unlikely.24
When did Somanatha first travel to Tibet?$e Tibetan historical text'eBlue Annals (BA) provides a terminus post quem by saying that Somanatha’svisit took place some time after the death of Atisa in .25 Hence, theearliest possible date for Somanatha’s arrival in Tibet is .
translator who went to Nepal and India at the same time as Mar pa Lotsa ba Chos kyi Blogros, and whose travel to Nepal-India is difficult to date (see Davidson, :–). Inany event, Somanatha must have collaborated with some Tibetan translator during his stayin Kha rag. HK (ibid.) also mentions the name Gnyos Ye shes Mchog, being a person fromthe Gnyos clan, who later paid part of the promised payment to Somanatha to settle thematter.$e chronicle of the Gnyos-clan entitled kha rag gnyos kyi brgyud pa byon tshul mdorbsdus (see Martin, :) might clarify this matter, but this text is unfortunately currentlynot available to me. Davidson (:) mentions that the chronicle of the Gnyos-clanstates that Gnyos Lotsa ba translated the whole Vimalaprabha with Somanatha, but I couldnot verify this information. Moreover, the exact locality of Kha rag, where Somanatha firstworked on his translation of Vimalaprabha, remains unidentified; Gyatso (:–)writes in a different context that “Kharag (usually spelled Kha-rag) is an area south of theTsangpo river and east of Gampala and includes the Kharag Gangtse mountains.”
Bu ston further narrates (HK ibid.) that Somanatha due to the problem with thepayment abandoned the translation-project after having completed the first three chaptersof Vimalaprabha, and then traveled to Grab in ’Phen yul (north of Lha sa). $ere, Zhangpho chung (unidentified) became his student (and sponsor), and it was at this time that ’BroLotsa ba Shes rab Grags became Somanatha’s new translator, and together they completedthe translation of the Vimalaprabha.
HK’s version of Somanatha’s early stay in Tibet differs somewhat from the story inBA (tha.a3–b2, pp. –; Roerich, :). According to BA, Somanatha firstencountered a translator from the Gnyos-clan namedGnyos ’Byung po (i.e., Lotsa ba Gnyos’Byung po; cf. BA ja.a5–7, p. ; Roerich, :), who was unable to assist in thetranslation-work, but who helped Somanatha obtain Dge-bshes Lce pa from Bzang yul inG-yor po as his sponsor, and Somanatha first worked with A zha Rgya gar Brtsegs as histranslator. BA makes no mention at all of ’Bro Lotsa ba, which is strange given how well-known Somanatha’s and ’Bro Lotsa ba’s collaboration is, and which is also amply attestedby the colophons of the texts they translated.24) Admittedly, it remains uncertain where and how Shes rab Grags learnt Sanskrit, butthere is a sentence in HK that appears to indicate that Shes rab Grags learnt Sanskrit inTibet after meeting Somanatha; see fn. .25) See BA (kha.a7–b2, pp. –; Roerich, :): jo bo bod la byon pa’i nyer gsum pala ’brom gshegs/ de dang nye bar bla chen po ’brog mi yang gshegs/ ’brog mi gshegs rjes su rgyagar phyag na bod du byon/ gtsang stong du ston chen nyi shu rtsa gcig la sogs pa ’grub snyinggi chos rnams rgya cher gsungs/ jo bo rje gshegs ’phral tsam la dam pa sangs rgyas bod du byon/gra pa dang lce dwags sgang pa rnams la zhi byed brgyud pa snga ma’i chos rnams gsungs/ kha
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
According to Bu ston’s History of Kalacakra (HK), after Somanatha’sarrival in Tibet he stayed for some years giving teachings to various studentsand translating the Kalacakra-texts. It is clear from the narrative that itwas during Somanatha’s first stay in Tibet that his collaboration with Shesrab Grags took place,26 and further that it was during this period thatSomanatha gave teachings to the Tibetan scholar Gra pa Mngon shes.27
che zla mgon yang bod du phebs nas/ de gnyis kyi bla ma mdzad de dus kyi ’khor lo gsungs/.“ ’Brom ston died years after Jo bo rje [Atisa] came to Tibet [in ; i.e., ’Brom stonRgyal ba’i ’Byung gnas died in ].$e great Lama ’Brog mi died around this time, too.After the death of ’Brog-mi, the Indian Vajrapa
˙ni came to Tibet and taught extensively the
Grub-Snying cycles (i.e., grub pa sde bdun and snying po skor drug ; see Kragh, :–)to twenty-one major teachers in Stong in Gtsang. Right after the death of Jo bo rje [Atisa],Dam pa Sangs rgyas came to Tibet and taught the earlier Zhi-byed transmission to Gra pa[Mngon shes] and Lce Dwags Sgang pa. $e Kashmirian Somanatha also came to Tibet,became the guru of the same two persons (i.e., Gra pa and Lce Dwags Sgang pa), and taughtthem the Kalacakra.”
$ere has been some confusion about the dates that can be calculated based on thispassage. $e passage states that ’Brom ston died in , that ’Brog mi died around thesame time, and that Vajrapa
˙ni came to Tibet thereafter. It then mentions the death of Atisa,
which, it must be underlined, was ten years earlier in . It then states that Pha Dam paSangs rgyas came to Tibet immediately thereafter and gave teachings to Gra pa Mngon Shesand Lce Dwags Sgang pa, and that some time thereafter Somanatha came to Tibet and gaveKalacakra teachings to the same two Tibetans. It is to be noted that the passage does notsay that Pha Dam pa Sangs rgyas and Somanatha came to Tibet after . Nevertheless, itseems that it was such a misunderstanding that caused the authors of Tshig mdzod Chen mo(Zhang, :) to state in their survey-table of Tibetan history that Somanatha cameto Tibet in : kha che zla ba mgon po bod du byon. It has not been possible to verify thatdate based on any other source available to me. $e information that Somanatha came toTibet in was then disseminated in a number of secondary sources, but it appears tobe unfounded. Newman (:) has also expressed his scepticism of this precise datinggiven in Zhang (op.cit.), and instead dated Somanatha’s visits as having taken place in thethird quarter of the th century, which must however, be considered slightly too late, atleast with regard to Somanatha’s first visit.26) HKa a3, p. ; HKb b9, p. : zhang pho chung bas bla mar bzung/ ’bros lotstshaba byas nas yongs su rdzogs par bsgyur/. “Zhang Pho Chung ba took [Somanatha] as hisguru. When ’Bro had become a translator (lotsa ba), they completed the translation [ofVimalaprabha].” $is passage may indicate that ’Bro Shes rab Grags learnt the craft oftranslating Sanskrit in Tibet under Somanatha at this time, if the expression “had become atranslator” (lotstsha byas) can be taken as carrying this implication and if it does not simplymean “hired as a translator.”$e basic meaning of the Tibetan verb byas is “made” and it isnoteworthy that the syntactical agent of the verb is ’Bro as marked by the ergative particle,thus implying an effort by ’Bro, and that ’Bro is not a grammatical object in the sentence,as would be the case in “[they] made ’Bro the translator, i.e., they hired ’Bro.”27) HKa a5, p. ; HKb a1, p. : gra pa mngon shes kyis lo gsum chos ston drangs/ nammjal dus phyag rten ma chad par byas/. “Gra pa Mngon shes invited [Somanatha] to comeand teach for three years, and when they met, he gave him unending financial support.”Somanatha’s teaching to Gra pa Mngon shes is also narrated in BA (kha.a2–7, page ;
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
Ending his first stay in Tibet, Somanatha went to India for six years to bringofferings to his Indian gurus and to obtain more teachings.28 $ereupon,Somanatha returned to Tibet for a second stay, during which there isno mention of any collaboration with Shes rab Grags. It is not reportedwhether or when Somanatha finally left Tibet for good, but at least thereexists no record of his eventual death in Tibet.
$e information that Somanatha gave teachings to Gra pa Mngon shes(–) provides a terminus ante quem for Somanatha’s first stay inTibet and his collaboration with Shes rab Grags. In the Blue Annals’ (BA)narrative, Somanatha’s meeting with Gra pa Mngon shes takes place quite
Roerich, :–). Concerning the fact that this meeting took place during Somanatha’sfirst visit to Tibet, see BA (tha.b2, p. ; Roerich, :).28) Somanatha stayed several years in Tibet during his first visit and taught various Tibetanstudents, including Jo Btsun Tshul khrims Rin chen, G-yo ru ’Gar ston, Mang yul StonMa Sri Dar, Smon ’Gro’i ’Jam Sgom, and especially Sgom pa Dkon mchog from Grab in’Phen yul Grab as well as Sgro Gnam la Brtsegs from Spras pa also in ’Phen yul. Taranatha(DCB b1–4, p. ) clarifies that Sgom pa Dkon mchog hailed from Grab in ’Phen yul,while Gnam la Brtsegs, whose clan-name was Sgro, was born in Spras pa in ’Phen yul.
After mentioning all these students and that Somanatha taught them, HK states thatSomanatha withheld teachings from Sgro Gnam la Brtsegs. Sgro then offered a bit of goldto Sgom pa Dkon mchog, but the latter refused to give him Somanatha’s instructions.$ereupon, HK says (HKa b4, p. ; HKb a7–8, p. ): pa˙
ndi ta rgya gar gshegs padang shul du lo gsum dang yer par lo gsum go bteg mdzad de zhus pas man ngag ma lus pagnang/ pa
˙n˙di ta phyis bod du byon pa la slob ma kun gyis/ sgom pas sgro la gdams ngag ma
lus pa byin byas te … Variant: $e xylograph in Bu ston’s gsung ’bum (HKa) omits dang yerpar lo gsum, which is evidently attested by the dbu med manuscript found in Bo dong pa’sgsung ’bum (HKb). $e omission seems to be a clear case of saut du même au même, i.e.,skipping text due to an occurrence of two identical words or phrases, here lo gsum. Hence,the reading of HKb should be adopted, and thereby Somanatha’s stay in India was six years(acc. to HKb) and not just three years (acc. to HKa). “When the pa
˙n˙dita [Somanatha] had
gone to India, [Sgro] held his head high for three years in Shul and for three years in Yerpa, but since he then [again] requested [the instructions from Sgom pa Dkon mchog, Sgompa] imparted all the instructions [to him]. When the pa
˙n˙dita [Somanatha] returned again
to Tibet, all the students said [to him]: ‘Sgom pa has imparted all the instructions to Sgro…’”
$is information regarding Somanatha’s stay in India can be supplemented by BA (tha.b2–3, p. ; Roerich, :–), which explains that Somanatha went to India tobring offerings to his teachers and Vajrasana, and to obtain clarifications about the teachings:/de nas kha che zla mgon rgya gar du bla ma la ’bul ba dang rdo rje gdan du mchod pa la gshegsnas gser mang po phul ba’i dus su/ snga ma’i mched po ’dul ba’i ’byung gnas blo gros dang/ sengge rgyal mtshan la yang sgro ’dogs bcad nas slar bod du byon pa… “$ereafter, the KashmirianSomanatha went to India in order to give presents to his gurus and offerings to Vajrasana.When he had offered much gold, he clarified misinterpretations with his former brothers[-in-study], Vinayakaramati and Si
˙mhadhvaja.”
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
some time before Gra pa built the Gra thang temple in ,29 and is therefore the terminus ante quem for Somanatha’s arrival in Tibet andhis subsequent collaboration with Shes rab Grags, which began before theywere invited to visit Gra pa Mngon shes for three years.30
$ere is no doubt that Somanatha’s first stay in Tibet lasted manyyears, for he stayed several years individually with various students andsponsors,31 and his translation-work with Shes rab Grags must also haveextended over five to eight years, since Shes rab Grags not only first neededto learn sufficient Sanskrit to be able to translate the complicated workson Kalacakra,32 but also since Somanatha and Shes rab Grags togethertranslated ten works with a total of double-sided folios of Tibetan text.
$ese works include nine on the Kalacakra-system and the SS root-textas the only non-Kalacakra-work.33 It is here important to note that Shes
29) See BA (kha.a2–7, p. ; Roerich, :–).30) See fnn. and , keeping in mind that the HK-passage mentioned in fn. occursearlier in the text than the HK-passage quoted in fn. .31) See fn. .32) See fnn. and .33) $e translations made by Somanatha and ’Bro Lotsa ba Shes rab Grags include:
Works on Kalacakra:
i. Q /D, Sekoddesa (dbang mdor bstan pa, folios), transl. by the Kashmirian Pa˙n˙dita
Somanatha (ka che’i pa˙n˙di ta so ma na tha) and the Tibetan translator, the monk from
’Bro, Shes rab grags pa (bod kyi lotsa ba ’bro dge slong shes rab grags pa). Later revisedby Sgra tshad pa Rin chen Rgyal mtshan (b. th century) on the basis of Naropa’scommentary. Cf. Tsukamoto et al. (:).
ii. Q /D, Srimad-adibuddhoddh˙rta-srı-kalacakra-nama-tantraraja (mchog gi dang po’i
sangs rgyas las phyung ba rgyud kyi rgyal po dpal dus kyi ’khor lo, folios), transl. bythe Kashmirian Pa
˙n˙dita Somanatha and the Tibetan translator, the monk from ’Bro,
Shes rab grags. Later revised by Zhang ston Mdo sde Dpal, Tshul khrims dar, and themonk Shong ston in the temple of Dpal Sa skya on the basis of two manuscripts fromMadhyadesa. Cf. Tsukamoto et al. (:–).
iii. Q /D,Mulatantranusari˙nı-dvadasasahasrika Laghu-kalacakra-tantraraja-
˙tıka
Vimala-prabha (bsdus pa’i rgyud kyi rgyal po dus kyi ’khor lo’i ’grel bshad rtsa ba’i rgyud kyirjes su ’jug pa stong phrag bcu pa bcu gnyis pa dri ma med pa’i ’od, folios), transl. bythe Kashmirian Pa
˙n˙dita Somanatha and the Tibetan translator, the monk from ’Bro,
Shes rab grags. Later revised by Zhang ston Mdo sde Dpal, Tshul khrims dar, andthe monk Shong ston in the temple of Dpal Sa skya on the basis of two manuscriptsfrom Madhyadesa. Later, revised again by Dharmakırti Srıbhadra, the great pa
˙n˙dita
Sthiramati, and the translators Blo gros Rgyal mtshan and Blo gros Dpal bzang po onthe basis of several Indian manuscripts. Cf. Tsukamoto et al. (:).
iv. Q /D, Kalacakrapada’s Sekoddesa-˙tıka (dbang mdor bstan pa’i rgya cher ’grel
pa, folios), transl. by the Kashmirian Pa˙n˙dita Somanatha (zla ba mgon po) and the
translator, the monk from ’Bro, Shes rab grags. Tsukamoto et al. (:) gives theauthor’s name as Srı Na
˙dapada, whom they identify with Naropa.
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
rab Grags in the colophons of all the translations he produced in Tibetwith Somanatha always referred to himself 34 by his Tibetan name Shes rabGrags,35 to which various epithets then were added.36
v. Q /D,˙Darikapa’s *Srı-kalacakra-tantrarajasya Sekaprakriya-v
˙rtti-vajrapadod-
gha˙ti (rgyud kyi rgyal po dpal dus kyi ’khor lo’i dbang gi rab tu byed pa’i ’grel pa rdo rje’i
tshig ’byed pa, folios), transl. by the Tibetan translator-monk Shes rab grags pa bylistening to the guru (i.e., probably Somanatha).
vi. Q /D, Kalacakrapada’s *Srımad-nak˙satra-ma
˙n˙dala-sadhana-ekadasanga (dpal
ldan rgyu skar gyi dkyil ’khor gyi sgrub thabs yan lag bcu gcig pa, folios), transl. by theKashmirian Pa
˙n˙dita Somanatha and the Tibetan translator-monk Shes rab Grags.
vii. Q /D, Mañjusrırajakırti’s *Tri-yoga-h˙rdaya-vyakara
˙na (rnal ’byor gsum gyi
snying po gsal ba, folios), transl. by Pa˙n˙dita Somanatha and the translator ’Bro Shes
gopadesa (sbyor ba yan lag drug gi man ngag rje dus ’khor zhabs kyis mdzad pa’i snyanrgyud zhal gyi gdams, folios), transl. by Pa
˙n˙dita Somanatha and the translator ’Bro
Shes rab Grags.ix. Q /omitted D, *Sekaprakriya (dbang gi rab tu byed pa, folios), transl. by the great
Indian scholar Somanatha and the Tibetan translator Shes rab grags.
Non-Kalacakra Translations:
x. Q /D, Indrabuddhi’s *Sahajasiddhi (lhan cig skyes grub, folios), transl.by the Indian scholar Somanatha and the Tibetan translator Shes rab Grags.
34) See my remark in fn. regarding why I see these colophons as having been written bythe Tibetan translators themselves and in most cases not simply added by later copyists orcanon-compilers.35) In two cases (Q /D; Q /D), the name Shes rab Grags pa also appears.36) $e epithets of Shes rab Grags vary, and might in a loose way be understood asdeveloping over time, thereby perhaps implying the order in which the different textswere translated. $e simplest epithet, occuring in two texts, including the translation ofour root-text SS, simply says “the Tibetan translator Shes rab Grags” (bod kyi lotsa bashes rab grags). A minimal variant thereof, occuring in two other texts, says “the translator’Bro Shes rab Grags” (lotsa ba ’bro shes rab grags), thus adding his clan-name ’Bro. In aslightly more elaborate epithet, also occurring in two texts, Shes rab Grags has become amonk (dge slong), since it is said, “the Tibetan translator-monk Shes rab Grags” (bod kyilotsa ba dge slong Shes rab Grags). To this may be added his clan-name, as seen in onetext, “the translator, the monk from ’Bro, Shes rab grags” (lotsa ba ’bro dge slong shes rabgrags). Finally, as appearing in three colophons, Shes rab Grags calls himself by his mostelaborate epithet “the Tibetan translator, the monk from ’Bro, Shes rab grags” (bod kyilotsa ba ’bro dge slong shes rab grags). It may also be noted that the most elaborate epithetsoccur in the translations of the longest texts, which on the contrary might indicate that thevariants of these epithets might not reflect a chronology but rather show a concern with theamount of work involved in the given translation. Nevertheless, if a chronology might bederived from the development of these epithets, then an approximate order of Somanatha’sand Shes rab Grags’s translation-work can be posited as follows (for full citations, see fn.):
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
At some point, the collaboration between Somanatha and Shes rabGragsseems to have come to an end. Shes rab Grags left Tibet for Nepal, by thistime knowing Sanskrit very well. Either before going to Nepal or perhapsafter returning to Tibet, Shes rab Grags also worked briefly with two otherscholars, including a Kashmirian pa
˙n˙dita named Jñanavajra with whom he
translated a brief ritual text,37 and an Indian pa˙n˙dita, Mañjugho
˙sa, with
i. *Sahajasiddhi (the Tibetan translator Shes rab Grags).ii. *Sekaprakriya (the Tibetan translator Shes rab grags).iii. *Tri-yoga-h
˙rdaya-vyakara
˙na (the translator ’Bro Shes rab Grags).
iv. *Arya-kalacakrapada-sampradaya-nama-˙sa˙d-anga-yogopadesa (the translator ’Bro Shes
rab Grags).v. *Srımad-nak
˙satra-ma
˙n˙dala-sadhana-ekadasanga (the Tibetan translator-monk Shes rab
˙tıka (the translator, the monk from ’Bro, Shes rab grags).
viii. Sekoddesa (the Tibetan translator, the monk from ’Bro, Shes rab grags pa).ix. Srimad-adibuddhoddh
˙rta-srı-kalacakra-nama-tantraraja (the Tibetan translator, the
monk from ’Bro, Shes rab grags).x. Mulatantranusari
˙nı-dvadasasahasrika Laghu-kalacakra-tantraraja-
˙tıka Vimala-prabha
(the Tibetan translator, the monk from ’Bro, Shes rab grags).37) $e text that Shes rab Grags translated with Jñanavajra is Q /D *Suprati
˙s˙tha-
tantra-sa˙mgraha (rab tu gnas pa mdor bsdus pa’i rgyud, folios), translated by the Kashmirian
pa˙n˙dita Jñanavajra (kha che’i pa
˙n˙di ta jñana badzra) and Lotsa ba ’Bro dge slong Shes rab
Grags pa. $is Kashmirian pa˙n˙dita Jñanavajra of the th century seems to have been
the same Kashmirian Jñanavajra who lived in Tibet, learnt Tibetan, and produced at leastone translation by himself, namely Q /D, *Srı-sa
˙mbara-khasama-tantraraja (dpal bde
mchog nam mkha’ dang mnyam pa’i rgyud kyi rgyal po, folios), translated alone by theKashmirian scholar Jñanavajra (kha che’i mkhan po dznya na badzras rang ’gyur du mdzadpa).
$e designation Kashmirian is here significant, because there also seems to have beena Nepalese Jñanavajrapada in the second half of the th century (see fn. ). $ereare, indeed, several Jñanavajras and several translators named Ye shes Rdo rje (i.e., theTibetan equivalent of Skt. Jñanavajra), and the task still remains to sort out who is whoand who was responsible for which translation work. One translator named Dpal Ye shesRdo rje produced translations of four texts composed by Jayasena, viz. Q /D;Q /D; Q /D; Q /D. Another (?) Lotsa ba Ye shes Rdo rjetranslated a text by Indrabhuti (Q /D).$en there is the learned Ye shes Rdo rje,who worked with the Tibetan translator (skad bsgyur) Gnyan Ban Bsod [nams] (perhaps≈ Gnyan Chung Lotsa ba, b. th century?) to produce a translation of a ritual textcomposed by the Kashmirian pa
˙n˙dita Ratnavajra (th century) (Q /D). $ere
is a pa˙n˙dita named Jñanavajra (ye shes rdo rje) who worked with Lotsa ba Nag tsho Chen
po (perhaps Nag Tsho Lotsa ba Tshul khrims Rgyal ba, –) to translate a stotra(Q /D).$ere is an Indian scholar named Jñanavajra who collaborated with Lotsaba Rngog Buddhapala (unidentified) in the “Lha khang Vihara” (≈ Rgyal Lha khang?) totranslate Jñanavajra’s own *Tattva-marga-darsana (de nyid mthong ba’i lam, Q /D)
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
whom Shes rab—again using his Tibetan name—made a translation ofa short work on Tantric hermeneutics by pseudo-Nagarjuna. $e lattertranslation was made in the retreat-place of [Brag] Yer pa, located milesNE of Lha sa.38
Shes rab Grags’s travel to Nepal and India might have coincided withSomanatha’s six-year journey to India after his first visit to Tibet. Soma-natha later returned to Tibet,39 but it does not seem that he continued hiswork with Shes rab Grags in Tibet, and aside from the translations donewith Shes rab Grags, Somanatha did not produce any Tibetan translationwith other Tibetan collaborators, or at least none that have been preservedin the Tibetan canon. Instead, Somanatha had meanwhile mastered theTibetan language himself,40 and ventured to produce his own Tibetantranslations of four additional works, including two Kalacakra-texts andtwo other Tantric works.41
after having been requested in dpal shing kun du tshogs ’khor sar (?). Finally, there is an thcentury author Jñanavajra who composed a great many texts onmantra practice, for exampleone text (Q /D) that was translated by Ka ba Dpal brtsegs (th–th century)and revised by Sraddhakaravarman and Rin chen Bzang po (–), and another(Q /D) that was translated by Sraddhakaravarman and Rin chen Bzang po.38) SeeQ /D, pseudo-Nagarjuna’s *Sandhi-bha
˙sa-˙tıka (dgongs pa’i skad kyi ’grel pa,
folios), transl. the Indian scholar Mañjugho˙sa and the Tibetan translator ’Bro dge slong
Shes rab Grags (bod kyi lotsa ba Shes rab Grags), in the retreat-place of Yer pa (yer pa’i dbengnas). Yer pa is also called Yer pa Lha ri or Brag Yer pa. Pa
˙n˙dita Mañjugho
˙sa is also known
to have collaborated with Lce Dga ba’i Dpal (Q /).To the list of texts translated by Shes rab Grags under his Tibetan name, and therefore
perhaps produced in Tibet, must be added two works: () a short purificatory text enti-tled *Guru-ma
(rim pa bzhi’i rnam par ’byed pa, folios), transl. by the Tibetan translator ’Bro Shes rabGrags. Given that neither text mentions any collaborating pa
˙n˙dita, it seems that ’Bro Lotsa
ba worked on these texts by himself.39) While the other sources only speak of two Tibetan visits by Somanatha, Taranatha(DCB a4, p. ) says that he visited Tibet thrice. Bu ston’s HK (HKa a5, p. ; HKbb7, p. ) says that Somanatha later lived in a place called dkar chung (unidentified).40) See BA ($a.b6, p. ; Roerich, :) and the colophons of his four translationsparaphrased in fn. .41) Somanatha’s own Tibetan translations include:
Kalacakra-works:
i. Q /D, Pu˙n˙darıka’s Paramartha-seva (dpal don dam pa’i bsnyen pa, folios),
transl. by the Kashmirian Pa˙n˙dita Somanatha (kha che’i pa
˙n˙di ta zla ba mgon po). Cf.
Tsukamoto et al. (:).ii. Q /D, *Padminı-nama-pañjika (padma can zhes bya ba’i dka’ ’grel, folios),
transl. by the Kashmirian Pa˙n˙dita Somanatha.
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
Ending this discussion of the Tibetan translation of the root-text SS,it can be concluded that Indrabuddhi’s SS probably was brought to Tibetby the Kashmirian scholar Somanatha and translated there by the Tibetantranslator ’Bro Lotsa ba Shes rab Grags at some point in the period –. $e text of SS may either have come out of the Kashmirian Tantrictradition, in which Somanatha had grown up, or he may have obtained itstransmission during his studies in Magadha during his youth.
"e Translation of the Commentary *Sahajasiddhipaddhati
To analyze the history of the Tibetan translation of Lak˙smı’s SSP,42 the
translation’s colophon must first be presented. It says:
[$e *Sahajasiddhapaddhati] was translated by the great Indian scholar (rgyagar gyi mkhan po chen po) of *Manavihara and the Tibetan translator-monk(bod kyi lotstsha ba dge slong) Prajñakırti, after having listened well [to itsexplanation].43
$is colophon mentions two persons: an Indian scholar and the Tibetantranslator Prajñakırti. Since the translator is Tibetan, it is clear that hisIndian name Prajñakırti is a Sanskritized form of his Tibetan name. Infact, Prajñakırti is Sanskrit for Tibetan Shes rab Grags, and this Prajñakırtiis indeed identical to our Tibetan translator ’Bro Lotsa ba Shes rab Grags.Prajñakırti is simply the pen-name that Shes rab Grags used during his timeof working in Nepal and India.
Non-Kalacakra-works:
iii. Q /D, Vajrapa˙ni’s *Tattva-garbha-sadhana (de kho na nyid kyi snying po sgrub
pa, folios), transl. by the great Indian scholar Somanatha for the sake of Gnyal miShes rab Mchog.
iv. Q /D, Lokanatha’s *Tattvaloka (de kho na nyid kyi snang ba, folios), transl.by the Kashmirian Pa
˙n˙dita Somanatha at the earnest request of Le’u ston Rgya nag.
42) $e Tibetan translation is entitled lhan cig skyes grub kyi gzhung ’grel ( folios). It is onlypreserved in the manuscripts and xylographs found in the five mid-th-century editions ofthe Tibetan bstan ’gyur: Q, N, D, G-, and C (not available to me).For a comparative edition, see bstan ’gyur dpe bsdur ma, vol. (rgyud wi-zhi), pp. –.43) N.a1, D.b7–a1, G-.a2–3, bstan ’gyur dpe bsdur ma vol. ,p. : //rgya gar gyi mkhan po chen po ma na bi ha ra la dang/ bod kyi lotstsha ba dge slongpradznya kırtis legs par mnyan nas bsgyur pa lags so//. Variants: ma na bi ha ra la] Q: ma n’abhi ha la la NDG.$e Q-edition is currently not available to me, but its readings have been
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
After Shes rab Grags ended his work with Somanatha in Tibet he trav-eled to Patan (a.k.a. Lalitpur) in present-day Kathmandu, Nepal, where hebegan working with several local pa
˙n˙ditas and produced Tibetan transla-
tions of sixteen Sanskrit works. $e Kalacakra-system that Shes rab Gragshad worked on earlier was also transmitted in Nepal, for example by theNewar pa
˙n˙dita Samantasrı from Patan, whom Rwa Chos rab (the nephew
of Rwa Lotsa ba Rdo rje Grags) invited to Tibet to teach the Kalacakra-teachings there (Lo Bue, :). Nevertheless, Shes rab Grags did notwork any further on Kalacakra-materials in Nepal, but instead turned hisattention to the translation of Tantric works belonging to various othercycles.
Shes rab Grags seems to have continued using his Tibetan name forsome time after arriving in Nepal before he began to write under the namePrajñakırti. If this observation may be taken as a guiding principle for achronology of his work in Nepal, then one of his first collaborations waswith the Nepalese master Kanakasrımitra, together with whom Shes rabGrags produced a translation of Jetari’s *Sugata-mata-vibhanga-bha
˙sya.44 At
this stage, Shes rab Grags still wrote under his Tibetan name, but in thiscolophon he changed his Tibetan epithet dge slong, meaning ‘monk’, to thecorresponding Nepalese word bande.
Shes rab Grags also worked under the guidance of several other Nepalesescholars. With the Nepalese pa
˙n˙dita Jayakara, he translated Visakhadeva’s
Vinayakarika,45 at which point Shes rab Grags already worked under the
obtained from bstan ’gyur dpe bsdur ma. $e readings of C, which likewise is not availableto me, are not included in bstan ’gyur dpe bsdur ma, and have not been considered here.44) Namely, Q /D, Jetari’s *Sugata-mata-vibhanga-bha
˙sya (bde bar gshegs pa’i
gzhung rnam par ’byed pa’i bshad pa, folios), transl. by the great Indian scholar Kanakasrı-mitra (rgya gar gyi mkhan po chen po ka na ka shrı mi tra) and the Tibetan translator-monkShes rabGrags (bod kyi lotsa ba ban de shes rab grags). AlthoughKanakasrımitra (≈Kanakasrı)in this colophon is designated as an Indian scholar, Kanakasrı is explicitly called a Nepalesescholar (bal po’i mkhan po) in the colophon of his and Shel dkar Lotsa ba Chos kyi Shesrab’s (b. th century) translation of Mañjusrımitra’s *Srı-sarva-guhya-vidhi-garbhala
˙mkara
(dpal gsang ba thams cad kyi spyi’i cho ga’i snying po rgyan, Q /D). In Kanaka[srı]’sand [Rma ban] Lotsa ba Chos ’Bar’s (–) translation of Udgatasıla’s *Cittaparık
˙sa
(sems brtags pa, Q /D), Kanaka’s origin is not stated and he is only designated apa˙n˙dita. BA (ja.b1, p. ; Roerich, :) clearly describes Kanakasrı as a Nepalese
(bal po ka na ka shrı) and says that he was the teacher of the Nepalese master Mahakaru˙na
(bal po thugs rje chen po); similarly elsewhere in BA (cf. ja.a4, p. ; Roerich, :).Lo Bue (:) explains that Kanakasrı was a Newar scholar educated in India at theVikramasıla monastery in Magadha.45) I.e., Q /D *Visakhadeva’s (Sa ga’i lha) Vinayakarika (’dul ba’i tshig le’ur byaspa), transl. by the Nepalese scholar (bal po’i pa
˙n˙di ta) Jayakara and the Tibetan translator-
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
name Prajñakırti. With the Nepalese Acarya Varendraruci,46 Shes rab Gragsmade two translations of ritual texts composed by Bhanucandra,47 also
monk (bod kyi lots’a ba dge slong) Prajñakırti. $e colophon goes on to state that theirtranslation later was slightly revised by the learned (sgra’i don mkhas pa) Rong ston Shesbya Kun rig (–), after he had met the Indian scholar Vanaratna Mahasthavira(–) hailing from [the town] Sadnagara in East India, [who visited Tibet severaltimes in the mid-th century] (see D.a). Besides that Jayakara was Nepalese,little else is known about him. BA (kha.b3, p. ) comments on this translation in itsquotation of a series of unidentified verses describing the Vinaya transmission-history inTibet, saying: /dge slong gi ni ka ri ka/ /ne pa la yi pa
˙n˙di ta/ /lung dang rtogs pa’i bdag nyid
can/ /mkhas pa dza ya ka ra las/ /dge slong pradznya kırtis bsgyur/. “$e Karika for the bhik˙sus
was translated by the monk Prajñakırti [having obtained it] from the scholar Jayakara, aNepalese pa
˙n˙dita, a master of scripture and realization.” For a different English translation,
see Roerich (:). Since Jayakara did not engage in many other collaborations withTibetans and thus does not seem to have been active in Tibet itself, it may be assumed thatthe collaboration took place in Nepal. Lo Bue (:) states that Jayakara flourished inthe mid-th century.
$e only other Tibetan collaboration that Jayakara was involved in was the translationof three short Vajrapa
˙ni-sadhanas translated by a Tibetan called Mar pa Lotsa ba, probably
referring to the second Mar pa Lotsa ba, viz. Mar pa Do ba Chos kyi Dbang phyug(–). $ese three texts are: Q /D Meghavegin’s *Vajrapa
˙ny-analajihva-
v˙rtti-muktavalı (phyag na rdo rje lce dbab kyi ’grel pa mu tig gi phreng ba), transl. byPa˙n˙dita Jayakara and Lotsa ba Mar pa; Q /DMeghavegin’s *Bhagavad-vajrapa
˙ny-
analajihva-guhyasa˙mvesa-sadhana (bcom ldan ’das phyag na rdo rje lce dbab kyi gsang ba’i yang
bkol gyi sgrub pa’i thabs), transl. by Guru Jayakara and Mar pa Lotsa; and Q /D,Meghavegin’s *Vajrapa
˙ny-analajihva-pura
˙hsarakalpa-yogacaryamarga
˙s˙taka (phyag na rdo rje
lce dbab kyi sngon du ’gro ba’i yan lag rnal ’byor gyi spyod lam brgyad pa), transl. by Jayakaraand Mar pa Lotsa ba. Mar pa Do ba is known to have worked in Nepal in the s and’s. Aside from visiting Nepal at the beginning of his travel to India, BA (ja.b5–a3,pp. –; Roerich, :–) mentions that Mar pa Do ba later returned to Nepaland studied with several masters there. For more information onMar pa Do ba, see Roberts(:, ).46) $e colophons of Prajñakırti’s two translations refer to the collaborating pa
˙n˙dita as Srı
Varendra. Such a name does not appear with any other translation in the Tibetan canon,and so appears to be unidentifiable, but it is highly likely that the famous Nepalese scholarVarendraruci is intended.47) Namely, Q /D Bhanucandra’s *Arghavidhi (argha’i cho ga, folios), transl. bythe Indian scholar Srı Varendra and the translator-monk (lots’a ba dge slong) Prajñakırti (seeD.b4); and Q /D Bhanucandra’s *Prati
˙s˙thavidhi (rab tu gnas pa’i cho ga,
folios), transl. by the Indian scholar Varendra and the translator-monk (lots’a ba dge slong)Prajñakırti (see D.b3–4); cf. Tsukamoto et al. (:) for an unidentified Sanskritmanuscript by this title.
Varendraruci was a well-known Nepalese scholar active in the second half of the thcentury, particularly in the s–s. BA (ja.a4–5, p. ; Roerich, :) statesthat he also was known Ca-Handu (ha mu dkar po), meaning “the white mantrika” (Roberts,:); for the Sanskrit form ca-handu signified by the Tibetan translation ha mudkar po, see its attestation in the colophon of Q /D. Besides teaming up withPrajñakırti, Varendraruci also worked with several other Tibetan translators, the most
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
using the name Prajñakırti. With the pa˙n˙dita named Sumatikırti,48 Shes
famous of whom is Rngog Lotsa ba Blo ldan Shes rab (–), who translated fiveTantric texts with Varendraruci, when Rngog visited Nepal in the s (see passage fromBA in fn. ).
$e texts translated by Varendraruci and Rngog Lotsa ba include: Q /D Sun-yatasamadhi’sTattva-jñanasiddhi nama svadhi
˙s˙thana(-krama) (dpal de kho na nyid ye shes grub
pa [zhes bya ba bdag byin gyis brlab pa’i rim pa]; cf. Tsukamoto et al, :), transl. by theNepalese Acarya Varendraruci (bal po’i atsarya bharendrarutsi) and Lotsa ba Blo ldan Shesrab (see D.a3); Q /D Avadhuta-Advayavajra’s Sarvartha-siddhi-sadhana(don thams cad grub pa zhes bya ba’i sgrub thabs; cf. Tsukamoto et al, :, ), transl.by the Nepalese Acarya Varendraruci and Rngog Blo ldan Shes rab (see D.b7);Q /D Sunyatasamadhi’s *Jñanavesa (ye shes dbab pa), transl. by the NepaleseAcarya Varendraruci and Lotsa ba Blo ldan Shes rab (see D.b7); Q /DSrımatideva’s *Chinnamu
˙n˙da-vajravarahı-sadhana (rdo rje phag mo dbu bcad ma’i sgrub
thabs), transl. by the Nepalese Acarya Varendraruci and Lotsa ba Blo ldan Shes rab (seeD.a1); and Q /D Buddhadatta’s *Srı-vajrayoginı-homa-vidhi (dpal rdo rjernal ’byor ma’i sbyin sreg gi cho ga), transl. by the Nepalese Pa
˙n˙dita Varendraruci and the
Tibetan Lotsa ba Blo ldan Shes rab (see D.b6). In these colophons, Varendraruciis always described as “the Nepalese Acarya” (bal po’i atsarya) or “the Nepalese Pa
˙n˙dita” (bal
po’i pa˙n˙di ta), and there can thus be little doubt that Varendraruci was Nepalese.
Varendraruci is further known to have been involved in producing two translationswith the Tibetan translator Rma ban Chos ’Bar (a.k.a. Rma Lotsa ba, –), whois also known to have worked for some time in Nepal. $ese works are: Q /DVirupa’s Chinnamu
˙n˙da-sadhana (dbu bcad ma’i sgrub thabs; see Nihom, ), transl. by
the Nepalese Pa˙n˙dita Varendraruci and the Tibetan translator (bod kyi lotsa ba) Rma Chos
’Bar (see D.a4); and Q /D Sahajavilasa’s *Srı-heruka-sadhana (he ru ka’isgrub thabs; cf. Tsukamoto et al, :, for an unidentified Sanskrit manuscript withthis title), transl. by the Indian scholar Varendraruci (rgya gar gyi mkhan po bhalendrarutsi)and the Tibetan translator Rma ban Chos ’Bar (see D.a3). For information on Rmaban Chos ’Bar, see BA (nga.b5–a, pp. –; Roerich, :–) and Roberts(:–, , ).
Finally, Varendraruci produced one translation with someone named Ye shes Rdo rje,who remains unidentified: Q /D Varendraruci’s own *Si
˙syanugraha-vidhi (gzhan
don slob ma rjes su gzung ba’i cho ga; cf. Tsukamoto et al, :, for an unidentifiedSanskrit manuscript with a reminiscient title), transl. by the Nepalese Guru translator (blama bal po lotsa ba, = Varendraruci) and the highly compassionate Ye Shes Rdo rje (ye shesrdo rje thugs rje chen po dang ldan pa, perhaps ≈ Jñanavajra Mahakaru
˙na?; cf. Mahakaru
˙na
in fn. ); for this colophon, see D.b1–2. Lo Bue (:) identifies this Ye shesRdo rje as the Nepalese Acarya Jñanavajrapada (bal po a tsa rya dznya na badzra’i zhabs),who produced the Tibetan translation of Advayavajra’s *Trayodasatmaka-srı-cakrasa
˙mvarasya
abhi˙seka-vidhi (dpal ’khor lo sdom pa’i bcu gsum ma’i bdag nyid kyi dbang bskur ba’i cho
ga, Q /D, folios) in collaboration with the Tibetan translator Zhang zhung(perhaps ≈ Zhang zhung Lotsa ba Byang chub Shes rab?). For other persons named Ye shesRdo rje, cf. fn. .
For more information on Varendraruci, see Lo Bue (:–), Roberts (:–), and BA (ja.b6–a, pp. –; Roerich, :–).48) In the colophons, Shes rab Grags always refers to him as Sumatikırti, with the exceptionof one colophon (Q /D) where the pa
˙n˙dita is only named Sumati, although it still
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
rab Grags, again always using the name Prajñakırti, translated six minorTantric works, mostly sadhanas and various blessing-rituals.49
$e pa˙n˙dita Sumatikırti was, in fact, a well-known scholar, active in
Nepal50 during the second half of the th century. Collaborating with at
seems that the name “Sumatikırti” is intended, since no other pa˙n˙dita merely called Sumati
is known in the colophons of the Tibetan canonical texts.49) $e five works that Shes rab Grags translated in collaboration with Sumatikırti are:
i. Q /D: *Pi˙n˙dapatika’s *Srı-mahakala-sadhana (dpal mgon po nag po sgrub
thabs, folios; cf. Tsukamoto et al, :), transl. by the Indian scholar Sumatikırtiand the translator-monk Prajñakırti.
ii. Q /D: Jetari’s *Mahapratisara-cakra-lekhana-vidhi (so sor ’brang ma chen mo’i’khor lo bri ba’i cho ga, folios), transl. by the monk Prajñakırti in the presence of theIndian scholar Sumatikırti.
iii. Q /D: Sumatikırti’s *Prati˙s˙tha-vidhi (rab tu gnas pa’i cho ga, folios; cf.
Tsukamoto et al, :), transl. by the Pa˙n˙dita Srı Sumatikırti and the translator
sdom pa’i rab tu gnas pa’i cho ga, folios), transl. by the Indian scholar Sumatikırti andthe Tibetan translator-monk Prajñakırti.
v. Q /D: Manakasrı’s *Srı-cakra-sa˙mvaraikavıra-sadhana (dpal ’khor lo sdom pa
dpa’ bo gcig bu’i sgrub thabs, folios), transl. by the Indian Scholar Sumati (≈Sumati-kırti) and the monk Prajñakırti.
50) While it is certain that Sumatikırti lived and worked in Nepal, perhaps in Patan (?),during the second half of the th century, it remains uncertain whether he was of Nepaleseorigin. Many of the colophons of the Tibetan translations he helped to produce simplycharacterize him as an “Indian scholar” (rgya gar gyi mkhan po).$is designation is, however,the most general of the designations used in such colophons, and need not indicate actual“Indian” origin, because it is often used of scholars hailing from Kashmir or Nepal, eventhough more specific designations for scholars from those places exist. Yet, there are alsocolophons that specify Sumatikırti as a “Nepalese pa
˙n˙dita” (bal po’i pa
˙n˙di ta sumatikırti); e.g.,
Q /omitted D, Q /D, Q /D, all of which are translations madewith Mar pa Do ba Chos kyi Dbang phyug (the list is not exhaustive). Roberts (:)reports that the Tibetan author Si tu Padma Nyin byed (–) described Sumatikırtias a Newar student of the Indian master Vajrapa
˙ni (rgya gar gyi phyag na), but Si tu’s writings
are currently not available to me, and I have thus not been able to verify this information.$ere is also other evidence pointing to a Sumatikırti who taught at the North Indian
Buddhist monastery Nalanda. Consequently, van der Kuijp (:) has described theSumatikırti with whom Rngog Blo ldan Shes rab worked in Nepal as being formerlyfrom Nalanda. $is evidence occurs in BA’s (ta.a3–4, p. ) account of the travels ofKhyung po Rnal ’byor ( /–), which says: nalandar na ro pa’i slob ma da chenpo/ sumatikırti/ ramapala/ natekara/ ka
˙mkata’i rje btsun ma rin chen lha mo/ kukuripa’i
slob ma grub thob nyi ma’i snying po rnams la chos mang du zhus/. “At Nalanda, [Khyungpo Rnal ’byor] requested many teachings from Naropa’s student the great Da[nasıla],Sumatikırti, Ramapala, Na
˙tegara, Lady Ratnadevı of Ka
˙mkata, and Kukuripa’s student Sid-
dha Suryagarbha.” For another English translation, see Roerich (:). It is notewor-thy that the list of Khyung po’s teachers in Nalanda includes two well-known students
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
least six known Tibetan translators, he was involved in the translation of texts into Tibetan, and thus seems to have run a veritable workshop forTibetan translation and to have had very close bonds with his Tibetan dis-ciples. Aside from the transmissions he gave to Shes rab Grags, Sumatikırtialso worked with: Mar pa Do ba Chos kyi Dbang phyug (–),51Lo chung Grags mchog Shes rab (dates unknown),52 Gnyan Darma Grags
of Maitrıpada, namely Ramapala and Na˙tegara (a.k.a. Sahajavajra); see Tatz (:). It
must, however, be underlined that Sumatikırti’s association with Nalanda has still only beenconfirmed in this late Tibetan source of the th century. It has not yet been attempted totrace it to any earlier biography of Khyung po Rnal ’byor, or other sources.51) Sumatikırti and Mar pa Do ba translated the following works into Tibetan: Q /D Vajragha
˙seka-vidhi-samasika (’dus pa’i dbang bskur ba’i cho ga mdor bsdus pa, in col-
laboration with the Tibetan translator Klog skya Gzhon nu ’Bar); Q /D Srıdhara’s*Vajra-sarasvatı-stotra (rdo rje dbyangs can ma’i bstod pa); Q /D *Bhagavad-arya-mañjusrı-sadhi
˙s˙thana-stuti (bcom ldan ’das ’phags pa ’jam dpal gyi bstod pa byin brlabs dang
bcas pa) attributed to Candragomin (in collaboration with Rngog Lotsa ba Blo ldan Shesrab); Q /D Jetari’s Vajras
˙rnkhala-sadhana (rdo rje lu gu rgyud kyi sgrub thabs, cf.
Tsukamoto et al, :–); Q /omit D,˙Dakasrı’s *
˙Sa˙dyoginı-sadhana (rnal ’byor
ma drug gi sgrub pa’i thabs); and Q /D Vairocanarak˙sita’s *sik
˙sa-kusuma-mañjarı
(bslab pa me tog snye ma, revision only). Additionally, there is Sumatikırti’s and Mar pado ba’s extra-canonical translation of the Cakrasa
˙mvaratantra entitled Srıherukabhidhana,
which is currently not available to me. For general information on this translation, seeGray (a:; b:). For a modern edition of the latter text based on two extra-canonical manuscripts, see Gray (forthcoming). For information on Mar pa Do ba, see LoBue (:).52) Sumatikırti and Lo chung Grags mchog Shes rab produced two translations: Q /D Sumatikırti’s own *Laghu-sa
˙mvara-tantra-pa
˙talabhisandhi (sdom pa’i rgyud chung
ngu’i mtshams sbyor); and Q /D, K˙r˙s˙na’s *Krama-catu
˙s˙taya (rim pa bzhi po). In
the latter text, the translator’s name is given as Grags pa Shes rab, which seems to referto Grags mchog Shes rab. $e commentary to K
˙r˙s˙na’s *Krama-catu
˙s˙taya (Q /D
*Krama-catu˙s˙taya-vibhaga, rim pa bzhi’i rnam par ’byed pa) was translated by ’Bro Lotsa ba
Shes rab Grags.
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
(th–th century),53 Zha ma Seng ge Rgyal mtshan (second half of thcentury),54 Glog skya Gzhon nu ’Bar (dates unknown),55 Mal gyo Blo grosGrags (th century),56 and Rngog Lotsa ba Blo ldan Shes rab (–).57 Shes rab Grags also worked on revising the Tibetan translation
53) Gnyan Darma Grags also wrote under the Sanskritized name Dharmakırti. He wasactive in the second half of the th century. He left Tibet for Kashmir, India, and Nepalin . His collaboration with Sumatikırti includes two translations: Q /DBuddhajñana’s *Mahapratisara-rak
˙sa (so sor ’brang ma chen mo’i bsrung ba); and Q /
D Prajñakaramati’s Bodhicaryavatara-pañjika (byang chub kyi spyod pa la ’jug pa’i dka’’grel, see de La Vallée Poussin, –).54) Sumatikırti and Zha ma Seng ge Rgyal mtshan made the following two translations:Q /omit D, Sundarınanda’s *Srı-cakrasa
˙mvara-homa-vidhi (dpal ’khor lo sdom pa’i sbyin
sreg gi cho ga); and Q /D, Vairocanarak˙sita’s *sik
˙sa-kusuma-mañjarı (bslab pa me
tog snye ma, in collaboration with Glog skya Gzhon nu ’Bar).55) Working under the supervision of Pa
˙n˙dita Sumatikırti, Glog skya Gzhon nu ’Bar
seems only to have worked in collaboration with other Tibetan translators, namely onthe following two texts: Q /DVagısvarakırti’s *Sa
˙mk˙sipta-abhi
˙seka-vidhi-samasika
(’dus pa’i dbang bskur ba’i cho ga mdor bsdus pa, in collaboration with Mar pa [Do ba] Lotsaba Chos kyi Dbang phyug); and Q /D Vairocanarak
˙sita’s *Sik
˙sa-kusuma-mañjarı
(bslab pa me tog snye ma, in collaboration with Zha ma Seng ge Rgyal mtshan).56) Mal gyo Blo gros Grags produced a revised translation of the Cakrasa
˙mvara-tantra
in collaboration with Sumatikırti (Gray, a:–; b:), which has beenpreserved in the Phug brag manuscript bka’ ’gyur. For a diplomatic edition of this text,see Gray (forthcoming).57) Sumatikırti and Rngog Blo ldan Shes rab made the following Tibetan translations:Q /D Vajragha
mngon par rtogs pa zhes bya ba’i dka’ ’grel); Q /D Prajñarak˙sita’s *Srı-cakrasa
˙mvara-
puja-meghamañjarı (dpal ’khor lo sdom pa’i phyi rol gyi mchod pa’i cho ga); Q /DPrajñarak
˙sita’s *Srı-cakrasa
˙mvara-bali-mañjarı (dpal ’khor lo sdom pa’i gtor ma’i cho ga);
Q /D Prajñarak˙sita’s *Srı-cakrasa
˙mvara-hastapuja-vidhi (dpal ’khor lo sdom pa’i lag
mchod kyi cho ga); Q /D *Bhagavad-arya-mañjusrı-sadhi˙s˙thana-stuti attributed to
Candragomin (bcom ldan ’das ’phags pa ’jam dpal gyi bstod pa byin brlabs dang bcas pa,in collaboration with Mar pa Do ba); Q /D Vajragha
˙n˙ta’s *Srı-cakrasambara-
pañcakrama (dpal ’khor lo bde mchog gi rim pa lnga pa, revision only); Q /DPrajñakaramati’s Abhisamayala
˙mkara-v
˙rtti-pi
˙n˙dartha (mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan gyi ’grel
pa’i bsdus don); Q /D Santideva’s Bodhisattvacaryavatara /Bodhicaryavatara (byangchub sems dpa’i spyod pa la ’jug pa, revision only); Q /D Jetari’s *Bodhicittotpada-samadana-vidhi (byang chub kyi sems bskyed pa dang yi dam blang ba’i cho ga); Q /DJetari’s *Bodhicittotpada-samadana-vidhi (byang chub kyi sems bskyed pa dang yi dam blangba’i cho ga); and Q /D Dharmottara’s Nyayabindu
˙tıka (rigs pa’i thigs pa’i rgya cher
’grel pa, revision only, on the basis of a North Indian manuscript (*Madhyadesa, yul dbuskyi dpe)).
It is notable that Rngog Blo ldan Shes rab, after he returned to Tibet from Kashmirin (return-date according to Zhang, :), is said in BA to have worked withSumatikırti in Tibet and not in Nepal. BA (ca.b4–5, p. ) says: slar bod du byon/ boddu yang pa
˙n˙di ta ’bum phrag gsum pa dang/ su ma ti kırti
˙h gnyis la chos gsan zhing bal por
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
of the Cakrasa˙mvara-tantra together with another of Sumatikırti’s Tibetan
students, namely Mar pa Do ba Chos kyi Dbang phyug.58 $e colophonof this revision makes no mention of Sumatikırti, but given that Shes rab
yug cig byon nas atulyavajra dang/ varendraruci la sogs pa la sngags kyi gsan pa yang mdzad/.“Having returned to Tibet [from Kashmir], [Rngog Blo ldan Shes rab] again listened tothe Dharma in Tibet from the two Pa
˙n˙ditas Trilak
˙sa [Sthirapala] and Sumatikırti, and
having then gone to Nepal for some time, he received teachings onmantra fromAtulyavajra,Varendraruci, and others.” For another English translation, see Roerich (:). Van derKuijp’s (:) remark that Rngog worked with Sumatikırti in Tibet after his return fromKashmir is presumably based on the above passage fromBA, although he did not indicate hissource for that information. My cursory reading of Rngog Blo ldan Shes rab’s hagiographywritten by [Gro lung pa] Blo gros ’Byung gnas (b. th century) in (lcags po’i rta’ilo), entitled gro lung pa blo gros ’byung gnas kyis mdzad pa’i blo ldan shes rab kyi rnam thar(modern title given to the text in bka’ gdams gsung ’bum), which truly is more hagiographythan biography, did not reveal any information on Sumatikırti, although a more thoroughstudy may be needed.
Besides BA, I have still not found other evidence to corroborate that Sumatikırti visitedTibet. Trilak
˙sa worked with Gnyan Darma Grags on the translation of a short Mahakala-
sadhana (Q /D), which could likewise have taken place in Tibet and which wouldthus support the above passage form BA, but since GnyanDarma Grags also stayed in Nepalfor twelve years (see Bu ston’s History of Dharma; Szerb, :; Obermiller, :),this is not evidence in itself. Bu ston’s History of Dharma (Szerb, :–; Obermiller,:) further mentions Sumatikırti as one of the several collaborators of the Tibetantranslator Khri Bkra shis Dbang phyug Nam mkha’ Btsan (dates unknown), who is said(ibid.) to have stayed years in Kashmir and two periods of years in Tibet. It may benoteworthy that Nepal is not mentioned as a residence of Khri Bkra shis, but to use thisas evidence would be highly circumstantial. Given that Sumatikırti lived in Nepal and alsovisited Tibet in the s, it is equally possible that Shes rab Grags made (some of ) histranslations with Sumatikırti in Tibet in the s (perhaps those using his Tibetan nameinstead of the pen-name Prajñakırti?).58) $e revision made by Shes rab Grags and Mar pa Do ba is: Q /D, Laghu-Cakrasa
et al, :–), originally translated by Padmakara and Rin chen Bzang po (–) on the basis of a Kashmirian manuscript (kha che’i dpe), and later revised by thetranslator-monk (sgra sgyur dge slong) Prajñakırti and Mar pa Do ba Chos kyi Dbangphyug on the basis of a North Indian manuscript (*Madhyadesa, yul dbus dpe). For generalinformation on this revision, see Gray (a:; b:), and for a modern editionof the text, see Gray (forthcoming). It is noteworthy that this is not the only collaborationthat Mar pa Do ba Chos kyi Dbang phyug had with other Tibetan students of Sumatikırti.Other such collaborations include: Q /D Vagısvarakırti’s *Sa
˙mk˙sipta-abhi
˙seka-
vidhi-samasika (’dus pa’i dbang bskur ba’i cho ga mdor bsdus pa) translated by Sumatikırtiand Mar pa Do ba Chos kyi Dbang phyug in collaboration with the Tibetan translatorKlog skya Gzhon nu ’Bar; and Q /D *Bhagavad-arya-mañjusrı-sadhi
˙s˙thana-stuti
(bcom ldan ’das ’phags pa ’jam dpal gyi bstod pa byin brlabs dang bcas pa) attributed toCandragomin, translated by Sumatikırti and Mar pa Do ba Chos kyi Dbang phyug incollaboration with Rngog Lotsa ba Blo ldan Shes rab. For more information on Sumatikırti,see Roberts (:).
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
Grags here went by Prajñakırti, it it very possible that the revision was madeduring his stay in Nepal.
One of the most significant59 transmissions that Shes rab Grags receivedin Nepal was the text and explanation of Vajragarbha’s Hevajra-commen-tary entitled *Hevajra-pi
˙n˙dartha-
˙tıka (kye’i rdo rje bsdus pa’i don gyi rgya
cher ’grel pa). $e first five chapters of this commentary had formerlybeen translated into Tibetan60 by the ’Bro Seng dkar Sakya ’Od,61 work-ing with the Indian scholar Danasıla.62 $eir translation was later revisedby Subhutisrısanti and Lotsa ba Cog gru Ting nge ’dzin Bzang po, andthis revised translation was then revised again by Shes rab Grags, writingas Prajñakırti, working with the Indian scholar Prince Srı Abhayadeva,63
59) Certainly significant enough for Bu ston to single out this particular translation amongShes rab Grags’s translations that he mentions in his History of Buddhism (see fn. ).60) For all the following information on this partial translation, see the internal colophonof the text, found inside the Tibetan translation at the end of the fifth chapter on Tattva(D.a4–6).61) ’Bro Seng dkar Sakya ’Od (born in the first quarter of the th century) was a Tibetantranslator, who traveled to Nepal and India. He was of the ’Bro-family (in the colophonsalso spelled ’Gro), i.e., the same clan as ’Bro Lotsa ba Shes rab Grags. Besides his partialHevajra-commentary translation made with Danasıla, Sakya ’Od also worked with theNepalese scholar Jeta Ca-Ha
˙mdu Santibhadra to translate Vimuktisena’s varttika on the
Abhisamayala˙mkara (’phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag nyi shu lnga pa’i
man ngag gi bstan bcos mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan gyi tshig le’ur byas pa’i rnam par ’grel pa,Q /D), Haribhadra’s pañjika on the Ratnagu
˙nasa
˙mcayagatha (bcom ldan ’das yon
tan rin po che sdud pa’i tshigs su bcad pa’i dka’ ’grel, Q /D), Prajñakaragupta’s*Sahavalamba-nir
˙naya-siddhi (lhan cig dmigs pa nges par grub pa, Q /D), and
Ratnakarasanti’s *Vijñaptimatrata-siddhi (rnam par rig pa tsam nyid du grub pa, Q /D). For information on Santibhadra, see Lo Bue (:–).With Ajitasrıbhadra,Sakya ’Od translated the *Sardulakar
˙na-avadana (stag rna’i rtogs pa brjod pa, Q /D),
and with Dhirisrıjñana, he translated Advayavajra’s Tattva-vi˙msika (de kho na nyid theg pa
chen po nyi shu pa, Q /D, cf. Tsukamoto et al, :–). ’Bro Seng dkarSakya ’Od should not be confused with the translator Sakya ’Od (Sakyaprabha) of the th–th century.62) According to Roerich’s translation of BA (:), Danasıla is the pa
˙n˙dita sometimes
referred to as “the great Da” (da chen po) from Nalanda monastery. For a translation of thisBA-passage, see fn. , where Roerich addsDanasıla in parenthesis after the name “the greatDa.” If that is so, then the passage in question identifies Danasıla as a student of Naropawho resided inNalanda.$ere are several translations by this Danasıla in the Tibetan canon,but his works must be distinguished from the numerous translations made by the th–thcentury translator Danasıla, collaborating mostly with Jinamitra and Ye shes Sde.63) Prince Srı Abhayadeva (rgyal po’i sras dpal ’jigs med lha) is difficult to identify. He doesnot seem to have collaborated with any other Tibetan translator under that name, buthe did translate two other works together with Shes rab Grags, namely: Q /D*Si
˙mhamukha Vi
˙s˙nugupta’s *Srıvajravarahısadhana (dpal rdo rje phag mo sgrub pa’i thabs,
folios), transl. by the venerable Sakya-monk (sh’akya’i dge slong btsun pa) Prajñakırti in
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
relying on a manuscript fromMadhyadesa. Yet, Shes rab Grags went muchfurther in his work on this text than any of his predecessors had done.
the presence of the Indian Scholar *Srı Mahavadhutipa Prince Abhayadeva (dpal a wadh’u t’i pa chen po/ /rgyal po’i sras ’jigs med lha) (for this colophon, see D.a7);and Q /D Sanku’s *Siddha-garu
˙da-sastra (mkha’ lding grub pa’i bstan bcos,
folios), transl. by the Indian scholar, the glorious Brahman, the matchless Mahavadhuti(Abhayadeva?) and the translator monk Prajñakırti … copied from a manuscript belongingto Gtsang pa Lo tsa ba (see D.a2–3–b3: //rgya gar gyi mkhan po dpal bram ze a badhu tı chen po dpe med kyi zhal sngar/ lo tsa ba bande prajnya kırtis bsgyur ba’o// … gtsang palo tsa ba’i phyag dpe las bris so). It is noticeable that Shes rab Grags in all his collaborationswith Abhayadeva worked under the name Prajñakırti, and the translations therefore mighthave been produced in India or Nepal.
On one hand, in the two latter colophons, Abhayadeva’s name is prefixed with thetitle Mahavadhuti, but this title does not lead to any clear conclusion because it was arelatively frequent epithet of Indian and Nepalese masters of the th century. Among theAvadhutipas appearing in colophons of texts contained in the Tibetan canon, at least thefollowing five Avadhutipas can be distinguished:
i. Avadhutipa Advayavajra = Maitrıpa, who under that name was the author of severalworks, including Q /D; Q /D; Q /D; Q /D;Q /D; Q /D; Q /D; Q /D; and Q /D.
ii. Avadhutipa Kumaracandra, the author of Q /D.iii. unspecified Avadhutipa(s), who is / are the author(s) of Q /D; Q /
iv. the Indian scholar Avadhutipa Suryagupta, who worked with Sakya Brtson ’grus (thcentury) on the following Tibetan translations: Q /D, Q /D, andQ /D. $e latter text was according to its colophon translated in a temple(gtsug lag khang) in the Tibetan district of ru lag rgyang (in Southern Tibet, gtsangprovince), and Avadhutipa Suryagupta must therefore have visited Tibet.
v. an unspecified Avadhutipa, who collaborated with Ba ri Lotsa ba Rin chen Grags(–) to produce the translation of Q /D (stated in the moderncatalog of Q compiled by Suzuki, –, although D contains no such colophon).
On the other hand, the name Abhayadeva is reminiscent of at least two other well-knownscholars belonging to the second half of the th–th century having the word Abhaya°in their names. One such pa
˙n˙dita is the famous Abhayakaragupta (c. –) of the
north-Indian monasteries Vikramasıla and Nalanda, who was involved in the translationof ca. works into Tibetan working with various Tibetan translators. For informationon this scholar, see Erb (:–) and English (: with fn. ). Another Abhaya°is the Nepalese scholar Abhayakırti, who was the elder of the two Pham thing pa brothers(Lo Bue, :–), and who perhaps also went under the name Dharmamati (LoBue, ibid.). However, neither Abhayakaragupta nor Abhayakırti ever seem to be referredto by the epithet Avadhutipa, and it is therefore unlikely that our Abhayadeva is eitherof these. Hence, it is not possible on the basis of the currently considered sources toidentify Mahavadhutipa Abhayadeva any further than by the general information given inthe colophons of Prajñakırti’s translations that he was an Indian scholar.
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
According to the final colophon of the text, Shes rab Grags obtained arare manuscript of and explanation on this commentary,64 and after hehad returned from Nepal to Tibet he produced an auto-translation65 ofthe remainder of the text.66 $e final colophon of his translation explains:
Translated by the Tibetan lotsa ba, the monk from ’Bro, Shes rab Grags,67 afterhavingmade repeated requests to the Indianmaster, the great guruMaitrıpada,and having then listened well [to its explanation].$is extensive commentaryon the condensed Hevajratantra composed by the bodhisattva Vajragarbha,which is hard to obtain, had hitherto not been translated further than thecommentary up to and including theTattva-chapter.$erefore, the translator-monk from ’Bro now obtained it in *Lalitapa
˙t˙tana (i.e., Lalitpur, Patan)68 in
Nepal from the Pa˙n˙dita Maitrıpada. Having brought the manuscript to Tibet,
[he] translated it, after having been requested [to do so] by the monk andYoga-practitioner Dbang phyug Grags pa.69
64) *Hevajra-pi˙n˙dartha-
˙tıka consists of explanations on the two basic sections (kalpa, brtag
pa) of the Hevajratantra, having eleven and twelve chapters respectively. $e earlier, partialTibetan translation (D, folios a–a) covered only chapters – of the first Section(prathama-kalpa), i.e., up to theTattva-chapter (Tattva-pa
˙tala). Regarding theHevajratantra
itself and its structure, see Snellgrove ().65) An auto-translation (rang ’gyur) is a translation produced by a Tibetan translator work-ing on his own without directly collaborating with an Indian or Nepalese pa
˙n˙dita. It may
also refer to a translation produced alone by an Indian or Nepalese pa˙n˙dita who has learnt
Tibetan and who does not collaborate with any Tibetan lotsa ba; see, e.g., fn. .66) $us, Shes rab Grags’s new translation added chapters – of the First Section (pra-thama-kalpa, brtag pa dang po) and of all of the twelve chapters of the Second Section(dvitıya-kalpa, brtag pa gnyis pa). $is addendum to the old, partial translation is foundin D, folios b–a.67) As this translation explicitly was made in Tibet, it may again be observed that Shesrab Grags here used his Tibetan name, i.e., bod kyi lotsa ba ’bro dge slong shes rab grags, asseems to be the case with all his translations produced in Tibet. Given that he obtained themanuscript and its explanation during his trip to Nepal, it is clear that this translation musthave been made after his return to Tibet. It thus seems that Shes rab Grags worked under hisTibetan name both before and after his Nepal-travel, whereas the name Prajñakırti seemsonly to appear in colophons of the texts he translated while staying in Nepal (and perhapsalso in India).68) *Lalitapa
˙t˙tana has in this colophon been translated into Tibetan as “the great city (grong
khyer chen po ≈ Skt. *pa˙t˙tana or *pura) Playful (rol pa ≈ Skt. *lalita) in the land of Nepal”
(bal po’i yul gyi grong khyer chen po rol pa). Lalitapa˙t˙tana or Lalitapura (modern-day Lalitpur)
is also called Ye rang in Tibetan (see Lo Bue, :), which is probably related to itsmodern-day Nepalese name Yala. On Lalitpur, (see Roberts :).69) D.a5–7, G-.b1–5: //rgya gar gyi mkhan po bla ma chen po mai trizhabs la/ bod kyi lotsa ba ’bro dge slong shes rab grags pas mang du gsol ba btab nas/ legs parmnyan te bsgyur ba’o// //kye’i rdo rje’i bsdus pa’i rgyud kyi rgya cher bshad pa/ byang chub semsdpa’ rdo rje snying pos mdzad pa/ rnyed par dka’ ba ’di sngon de kho na nyid kyi le’u yan chad kyi’grel pa las ma bsgyur ba las/ da kyi bal po’i yul gyi grong khyer chen po rol pa zhes bya ba nas/
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
$is colophon provides a detailed explanation for the circumstancesin which Shes rab Grags obtained the rare Sanskrit manuscript of the*Hevajra-pi
˙n˙dartha-
˙tıka. It is significant as it suggests that Shes rab Grags
personally met the famous Indian masterMaitrıpada70 in Nepal in the townof Lalitpur, also called Patan, to whom he repeatedly made his request forthe manuscript. $is is unique information, because there seems to be noother evidence dating from this early period that Maitrıpada ever visitedPatan,71 but it is not unthinkable that Maitripada did so late in his life, ashe had several direct disciples living there.
If Shes rab Grags really met Maitrıpada during his visit to Nepal, thisis significant for establishing the period of his visit, although the exactdates of Maitrıpada are somewhat uncertain: the earliest possible date forMaitrıpada’s death is , whereas the latest possible is .72 Shes rab
’bro dge slong lotsa bas/ pa˙n˙di ta mai tri zhabs las rnyed de/ bod yul du dpe spyan drangs nas/
dge slong rnal ’byor pa spyod pa dbang phyug grags pas gsol ba btab ste bsgyur ba’o// //. QNGfurther adds the following lines at the end of this colophon, which are omitted in DC: /rgyagar yul du dka’ las cher mdzad/ dge bshes lo tsa ba la/ yul dbus su byon nas/ bdag gis gsol ba btabnas/ dka’ las bgyis te byang chub sems dpa’i ’grel pa bsgyur/ zhal ngo tsha nas nyid brdzangs palags te dgyes par dgongs// //. $e added lines run: “When I had requested the Kalya
˙namitra
Lotsa ba, who had accomplished difficult things in the land of India and who had come toCentral [Tibet] (yul dbus, or is the Indian Madhyadesa meant?), [the Lotsa ba] did what isdifficult to do and translated [this] commentary by the bodhisattva [Vajragarbha]. Lettinggo of my bashfulness, I think [of it] with joy.”$ere is a pun in the final line dgyes par dgongs(“I think [of it] with joy”), because the word dgyes par “with joy” is also part of the Tibetanname for Hevajra, dgyes pa rdo rje. Hence, the final line could also be translated, “Lettinggo of my bashfulness, I intend it for He[vajra],” which may explain why the honorific noundgongs, “to think, intend,” was used by the composer of these lines, who otherwise explicitlyrefers to himself by the humble first person pronoun bdag, “I”.70) A.k.a. Maitrıpa, Advayavajra, and Maitrıgupta (Tatz, :). It is notable that theTibetan formulation of the colophon uses the expression gsol ba btab for “requested,” whichliterally means “prayed,” and the sentence may thus also be interpreted as meaning that Shesrab Grags only prayed toMaitrıpada, without meeting him in person. Later in the colophon,it is said that Shes rab Grags “obtained” (rnyed ) the manuscript from Pa
˙n˙dita Maitrıpada,
which seems to imply a direct encounter, but which also could be understood indirectly inthe sense that Shes rab Grags (through someone else) got hold of a manuscript that earlierhad belonged toMaitrıpada. Such interpretations are, however, not themost straightforwardway of reading the colophon, which rather seems to suggest an actual encounter. Further,the possibility must also be kept in mind that there may have been more than one personnamed Maitrıpada (and the various variants of that name).71) $e Sham Sher manuscript, which Tatz (:) believes to have been written shortlyafter the life of Maitrıpada, makes Maitrıpada a native of Kapilavastu (Tatz, ibid.), locatednear Lumbini some kilometers west of Kathmandu, thereby indicating at least somebond between Maitrıpada and present-day Nepal, but it mentions no visit to Patan. $elater Tibetan hagiographies and religious histories likewise mention no visit to Patan.72) $e Tibetan traditions suggest two death-years and life-spans for Maitrıpada: they
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
Grags’s encounter with Maitrıpada may thus provide a terminus ante quem,namely the year as the date before which his arrival from Tibet toNepal must have taken place.
Besides possibly encountering Maitrıpada, Shes rab Grags certainly metat least two of Maitrıpada’s students in Nepal.73 $e first and most signifi-cant was the Indian master Vajrapa
˙ni (rgya gar phyag na), with whom Shes
rab Grags translated a short initiation-ritual.74 Having formerly lived innorthern India, Vajrapa
˙ni (–c. )75 moved to Nepal in , set-
maintain that Maitrıpada died in a sheep-year or in a dog-year; one tradition also holdsthat Maitrıpada died at the age of , while another says that he died at the age of (Indo-Tibetan age-calculation, counting the year of birth as ; i.e., = Western age and respectively).
For the year of death, see BA (da.a6–7, p. ): /de yang phyag rgya chen po stod lugs parnams kyis mai tri pa lug gi lo par bzhed la/ rjes nas chung pa’i lugs kyis khyi’i lo par bzhed cingbdun bcu rtsa brgyad pa la mya ngan las ’das par bzhed do/. “Again, those who follow theWest-[Tibetan] Mahamudra-tradition maintain that Maitrıpa [was] someone of a sheep-year (lug gi lo pa), whereas, later on, the tradition of [Ras] chung pa maintained that [hewas] someone of a dog-year (khyi’i lo pa) and that he passed into nirva
˙na at the age of .”
For a different translation, see Roerich (:–). Further, in bka’ babs bdun ldan gyibrgyud pa’i rnam thar ngo mtshar rmad du byung ba rin po che’i khungs lta bu’i gtam, Taranatha(–) states that Maitrıpa died at the age of (TBRC W-, folio b1,p. ): dgung lo bdun cu tsam na sku ’das te/. / . Templeman (:) translates: “At years of age he died …” $e sheep- or dog-year for his birth may be (sheep-year) and (dog-year) according to Roberts (), who though does not provide any argumentfor this choice, or they may be (sheep-year) and (dog-year) according to Tatz(:–). With a life-span of or , the resulting possible years of his death are: / / / or / / /.
Neither dates nor age for Maitrıpa are provided by Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag Phreng ba in hisBuddhist history entitled dam pa’i chos kyi ’khor lo bsgyur ba rnams kyi byung ba gsal barbyed pa mkhas pa’i dga’ ston (p. 8–12), nor by Si tu Pa˙
n chen Chos kyi ’Byung gnas inhis biographies of the Bka’ brgyud lineage entitled karma ka
˙m tshang brgyud pa’ rin po che’i
rnam thar rab ’byams nor bu zla ba chu shel gyi phreng ba’i kha skong (TBRCW-vol. ,folio b2ff., p. ). For a discussion of Maitrıpa’s dates, see Tatz (:–).73) For lists of Maitrıpada’s students, arranged according to their significance, see Roberts(:) and BA (da.b4, p. ; Roerich, :).74) Namely, Q /D Jala
˙mdhara’s *Srımahakaru
˙nikabhi
˙sekaprakara
˙nopadesa (dpal
thugs rje chen po’i dbang bskur ba’i man ngag rab tu byed pa, folios), transl. by the IndianVajrapa
˙ni (rgya gar phyag na) and the Tibetan translator (bod kyi lots’a ba) Prajñakırti on
the basis of a manuscript belonging to the master Maitrıpa (mnga’ bdag mai tri pa’i phyagdpe las); for this colophon, see D.a2. It is notable that another personal manuscriptbelonging to Maitrıpada is mentioned here.75) Year of birth according to BA (da.b6, p. ; Roerich, :): phyag na ’di ni me mosbrul gyi lo la ’khrungs/. “$is Vajrapa
˙ni was born in the female-fire-snake year.”$e female-
fire-snake year corresponds to (Zhang, :).$e approximate year of death ishere adopted in accordance with Roberts (:). For information on Vajrapa
˙ni, see BA
(da.b4ff., p. ff.; Roerich, :ff.), and Roberts (:–).
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
tling in Patan.76 In Nepal, Vajrapa˙ni came into contact with several Tibetan
students, and also visited Tibet for a short period, possibly in the late sor the s.77 He seems to have died no later than .78 Since Vajrapa
˙ni’s
interactions with various Tibetans all seem to have taken place after hismove to Nepal, it appears that Prajñakırti’s collaboration with Vajrapa
˙ni
first took place thereafter, namely in the late s or the s. Giventhat Shes rab Grags translated the text with Vajrapa
˙ni under his name
Prajñakırti, it is likely that the translation was produced in Nepal. Shesrab Grags’s collaboration with Vajrapa
˙ni provides an earlier terminus ante
quem for Shes rab Grags’s visit to Nepal, because he would have had to gothere prior to Vajrapa
˙ni’s death before .
Besides his work with Maitrıpada’s student Vajrapa˙ni, Shes rab Grags
also worked with a minor student of Maitrıpada called Nalandapada,79with whom he translated a short Vajrayoginı-sadhana.80 He also collabo-rated with a little-known master named *Digısanandana,81 together withwhom he produced a translation of a ritual written by the Nepalese master
76) See BA (da.b4, p. ; Roerich, :): phyis lo lnga bcu bzhes pa’i tshe ye rang dubyon nas bzhugs/. “When he had reached the age of , he went to Patan (ye rang) and settledthere.”$e same information is also given by Lo Bue (:).$e Indo-Tibetan age of is equivalent to the Western age of , and thus if he was born in , the year whenhe turned would be .77) See fn. , where BA says that Vajrapa
˙ni came to Tibet some time after , which
may thus indicate that Vajrapa˙ni visited Tibet already in the late s.
78) See argument by Roberts (:).79) Judging from the name Nalandapada (na landa pa or na lendra pa), this pa
˙n˙dita seems
somehow to have been associated with Nalanda monastery in Northern India. BA (da.b7,page ; Roerich, :) lists him as one of the ten minor students of Maitrıpada, andhe can thus be dated as having lived in the middle into the second half of the th century.He also seems to have been involved in the transmission of the Kalacakratantra, becauseBA (tha.a5, p. ; Roerich, :) says in another passage that Nalandapada also wasa student of Kalacakrapada the younger (dus zhabs pa chung ba), and mentions the hearsaythat Nalandapada appears to have visited Tibet for some time. Cf. fn. , which points tothere having been more than one Nalandapada.80) Namely, Q /D Indrabhuti’s *Siddhivajrayoginısadhana (grub pa’i rdo rje rnal’byor ma’i sgrub pa’i thabs, folios), transl. by the Indian scholar Srı Nalandapada (na lendrapa) and the translator-monk (lots’a ba dge slong) Prajñakırti (see D.a7-b1).81) Little is known of *Digısanandana (phyogs dbang dga’ byed ). He did not participate inany other translation with Tibetan scholars, and no further information is available abouthim. Given that the text that Prajñakırti translated under *Digısanandana’s instruction wascomposed by the Nepalese master Devakaracandra, who was a contemporary of Vajrapa
˙ni,
*Digısanandana must have been active no earlier than the middle of the th century. Hepossibly also lived in Nepal, as did Devakaracandra.
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
[Sunyata-]Samadhivajra (a.k.a. Devakaracandra),82 who was another majorstudent of Maitrıpada.
To sum up, the following conclusions have been reached so far aboutShes rab Grags’s travel to Nepal. Based on his encounters with Maitrıpadaand Vajrapa
˙ni, his travel could not have begun later than . During
his trip, Shes rab Grags worked primarily in Nepal with Nepalese teachersor with Indian teachers living in Nepal. $ere is hardly any evidence thathe went on to India and worked extensively with Indian teachers there.$e majority of the translations he produced during his stay abroad weremade under the name Prajñakırti, with only few works written under hisTibetan name; the only translation made in Nepal using his Tibetan name,namely the *Sugata-mata-vibhanga-bha
˙sya translation done together with
Kanakasrımitra, was possibly created during the early phase of his stay.$ere is little or no evidence that he ever used the name Prajñakırti forthe translations he made while residing in Tibet, whereas there is evidencethat he went back to using his Tibetan name Shes rab Grags after havingreturned from Nepal to Tibet, as evidenced by the colophon of his auto-translation of Vajragarbha’s *Hevajra-pi
˙n˙dartha-
˙tıka.
With these conclusions in mind, it is now time to return to our starting-point, namely Shes rab Grags’s translation of Lak
˙smı’s commentary SSP,
which was the text containing the possibly early hagiographies of sev-eral Tantric masters of U
˙d˙diyana. As shown in the Tibetan translation’s
colophon quoted above, the Tibetan translation was made by Shes rabGrags under his Sanskritized name Prajñakırti. In accordance with the pat-tern created by the other translations made under this Indian name, the useof the form Prajñakırti indicates that Shes rabGrags probably produced thistranslation during his travel to Nepal. Hence, Lak
˙smı’s SSP was probably
transmitted to Tibet from a north Indian or Nepalese tradition.Moreover, the colophon also stated that Shes rab Grags made his trans-
lation in collaboration with “the great Indian scholar of *Manavihara”(rgya gar gyi mkhan po chen po ma na bi ha ra la).83 $e first part of
mchod pa’i cho ga), transl. by the Indian scholar *Digısanandana (phyogs dbang dga’ byed )and the translator-monk (lo ts’a ba dge slong) Prajñakırti (see D.a6).83) $e latter part of the name, i.e., “of *Manavihara,” occurs with several variants in theTibetan editions, all of which are slightly corrupt.$e best reading appears in Q, where it isrendered as ma na bi ha ra la. As is the usual custom for Tibetan Sanskrit transcription, theTibetan letter b may represent either Sanskrit b or v, and as will be argued below, it shouldhere be read as v. $e two closest variants of Q’s reading are found in the two bstan ’gyur
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
the name, viz. ma na bi ha ra, is in all likelihood to be identified asthe name of the ancient Nepalese monastery Manavihara founded by thefifth-sixth-century Licchavi-king Manadeva,84 which Lévi (:) iden-tified with the present-day Cakravihara in Patan.85 $e last syllable of thename, viz. la in Tibetan, seems to be corrupt,86 and might be emended topa, thus yielding the name *Manaviharapa,87 meaning “of *Manavihara.”Less likely, it might also be emended to lala, thus resulting in the name*Manaviharalala.88 $ere is, however, no further information available ofany person with a name starting with *Manavihara (or similar), since theTibetan historical sources and the colophons of the Tibetan canons do notattest any other occurrences of such a name. Nevertheless, on the basis ofthe information provided by the present colophon, it could be concluded
catalogs by Bu ston Rin chen Grub (–) written in and by Zhu chen Tshulkhrims Rin chen (–) written in the th century.$ese catalogs respectively attestthe formsma na bi ha la la andma na bi ha ra la. See the Lha sa Zhol xylograph of Bu ston’sCollected Works, TBRC W, vol. La, bstan ’gyur gyi dkar chag yid bzhin nor bu dbanggi rgyal po’i phreng ba, folio b5, and the sde dge bstan ’gyur dkar chags by Zhu chen Tshulkhrims Rin chen, folio a6, ACIP electronic edition. Aside of Q, the other bstan ’gyureditions (NGD) all attest the highly corrupted form ma na bhi ha la la. $e Co ne bstan’gyur was currently not available to me. As will be argued below, the first part of the nameseems to correspond to the name of the Nepalese monastery Manavihara, and the Tibetantext must therefore be emended to *ma na bi ha ra pa or *ma na bi ha ra la la.84) For information on Manavihara, see Sanderson (:–).85) Dmitriy N. Lielukhine (private communication) has instead suggested that Manaviharamight have been somewhere near Gumvihara, located outside the town of Sankhu, kmnortheast of present-day Kathmandu, and today a temple devoted to Bajrayoginı.86) It may be tempting to interpret the syllable la as a Tibetan locative particle, but thatis impossible given its placement in the sentence and the fact that the la is immediatelyfollowed by the nominal conjunction dang. If intended as a locative phrase, the grammat-ically correct placement would have been at the beginning of the sentence, i.e., *ma na biha ra la rgya gar gyi mkhan po chen po dang/ bod kyi lotstsha ba …, because a locative clausemust precede the words it refers to, viz. the Indian scholar and Prajñakırti. Furthermore,there seem to be no examples in the Tibetan canon of a locative particle la followed by theconjunction dang, which renders such an interpretation highly unlikely.87) If the la is interpreted as a corrupt form of pa, then the name *Manaviharapa, corre-sponding loosely to Sanskrit *Manaviharapada, “the venerable one of Manavihara,” wouldbe parallel to the construction of the name Nalandapa or Nalendrapa (Skt. Nalandapada)mentioned above (see fn. ), i.e., a monastery-name followed by the Tibetan nominalizingparticle pa.88) Male names ending in °Lala are common in Nepal and Northern India, at least in laterperiods, but it is not sure that such a name ever occurs as a Buddhist monastic name, or incombination with a toponym such as Manavihara, and I cannot furnish any examples fromthe th century.$erefore, the emendation *Manaviharalala must be considered less likelythan the simpler emendation *Manaviharapa.
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
that Shes rab Grags collaborated with an Indian scholar who resided in theNepalese monastery Manavihara for the production of his Tibetan transla-tion of Lak
˙smı’s SSP.
Concerning Shes rab Grags’s cooperation with *Manaviharapa, Bu stonRin chen Grub claimed in his bstan ’gyur catalog of that Shes rabGrags’s translation of SSP was an auto-translation (rang ’gyur), here prob-ably meaning a translation made by Shes rab Grags by himself after he hadstudied the text with *Manaviharapa.89 $is interpretation may have arisendue to the fact that the colophon contains the spurious phrase “… wastranslated… after having listened well [to its explanation]” (legs par mnyannas bsgyur pa lags so). A similar expression occurs in Shes rab Grags’s trans-lation of Vajragarbha’s *Hevajra-pi
˙n˙dartha-
˙tıka, which is explicitly stated
first to have been translated after Shes rab Grags had returned from Nepalto Tibet.90 Nevertheless, even if Bu ston may be right that the phrase “afterhaving listened well” perhaps signals that Shes rab Grags produced histranslation of SSP by himself at some point after having studied the textwith *Manaviharapa, the fact that he still used his pen-name Prajñakırti
89) See the Lha sa Zhol xylograph of Bu ston’s Collected Works, TBRC W, vol. La,bstan ’gyur gyi dkar chag yid bzhin nor bu dbang gi rgyal po’i phreng ba, folio b5, where itsays: lhan cig skyes grub kyi gzhung ’grel lha lcam btsun ma dpal mos mdzad pa/ pa
˙n˙di ta ma n’a
bi ha la la dang/ lo tsa ba pradznya kırti’i rang ’gyur. “$e Sahajasiddhipaddhati composedby Lak
˙smı Bha
˙t˙tarika Devı [is] an auto-translation of the pa
˙n˙dita ma na bi ha la la and
the Lotsa ba Prajñakırti.” It should be noted that other early bstan ’gyur catalogs of theth century do not designate this text as an auto-translation. $us, in his two catalogs,Karma pa Rang byung rdo rje (–) merely states that the translation was madeby Prajñakırti without mentioning *Manaviharapa, but in general the collaborating Indianpa˙n˙ditas are not always named in these catalogs. See thugs dam bstan ’gyur gyi dkar chag
(TBRC W), vol. nga, folio b2–3 (p. ): lhan cig skyes grub slob dpon in tra bo tismdzad pa dang/ de nyid kyi gzhung ’grel lha lcam dpal mos mdzad pa dang/ pradznya ghir te’i’gyur/. “$e *Sahajasiddhi composed by Acarya Indrabodhi and its commentary composedby princess Lak
˙smı and translated by Prajñakırti.” Further, see bstan bcos ’gyur ro ’tshal gyi
dkar chag (TBRC W), vol. nga, folio a1–2 (p. ): lhan cig skyes grub shes rabgrags kyis ’gyur mdzad pa/ de’i ’grel pa dpal mos mdzad pa ’gyur gong ltar/. “*Sahajasiddhitranslated by Shes rab Grags and its commentary composed by Lak
˙smı and translated
by the aforesaid.” SS and SSP are not listed among ’Bro Shes rab Grags’s translations inBcom ldan rig pa’i ral gri’s (–) catalog entitled Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od(Schaeffer & van der Kuijp, :), but the list provided there also omits many other ofhis known translations, and should therefore not be taken as evidence that these texts werenot translated by Shes rab Grags.90) $e colophon of that text says, “Translated … after … having then listen well [toits explanation]” (legs par mnyan te bsgyur ba’o). For the complete colophon with Englishtranslation, see fn. .
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
probably indicates that the translation was made during his stay in Nepal.$is may be contrasted with the colophon of the *Hevajra-pi
˙n˙dartha-
˙tıka, which was made after Shes rab Grags’s return to Tibet, wherein heconsequently used his Tibetan name.
Conclusion
$e root-text of Indrabuddhi’s SS was translated in Tibet by the Kashmirianpa˙n˙dita Somanatha and the Tibetan translator ’Bro Lotsa ba Shes rab Grags
some time in the period –. $at the root-text was translated inTibet is supported by Shes rab Grags’s use of his Tibetan name. $e textand its explanation are likely to have been brought to Tibet from Kashmirby Somanatha. It is possible that Somanatha obtained this text and itstransmission during his years of study in Magadha.
Secondly, Lak˙smı’s commentary SSP was translated by Shes rab Grags
working with an Indian scholar residing in or associated with the Manavi-hara temple in or near Kathmandu. $at the translation was produced inNepal is supported by Shes rab Grags’s use of his Sanskritized pen-namePrajñakırti. $e latest possible date for Shes rab Grags’s journey to Nepalis in the late s, prior to the death of Vajrapa
˙ni, and for this reason the
translation was probably made in the s or, but perhaps less likely, ins.
A general estimate of the transmission-history of these texts to Tibetmust therefore be that the collaboration between Somanatha and Shes rabGrags took place in the s, lasting around – years if judged from theamount of text they translated together, and that Shes rab Grags’s journeyto Nepal occurred in the s, possibly lasting around – years, again ifjudged from the amount of translated text.
I have here attempted to clarify the history of the extant witnesses ofLak
˙smı’s SSP, since this commentary may turn out to be a significant
source for understanding the history of the Tantric traditions of India andPakistan, particularly the traditions of the Swat valley known in our sourcesas U
˙d˙diyana.$e next step in the process of evaluating the authenticity of
SSP and its value as a historical witness will be to analyze the questionof whether its authorship really can be ascribed to Lak
˙smı from U
˙d˙diyana,
which is an analysis thatmust be based on the available internal and externalevidence of the text itself. $at analysis will be taken up in my next paperon this topic.
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
Abbreviations and Primary Sources
BA 'e Blue Annals, Deb ther sngon po, completed in by ’Gos Lotsa baGzhon nu Dpal and his students. Yangs pa can xylograph. Published byLokesh Chandra, Sata-Pi
˙taka Series vol. , TBRC W–.
bstan ’gyur dpe bsdur ma, modern edition of the bstan ’gyur in volumes, mainlybased on D but including critical apparatus noting variant readings fromQ, N, and D. Edited by Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig zhib ’jug lte gnas kyibka’ bstan dpe sdur khang, , Beijing: Krung go’i bod kyi shes rig dpeskrun khang.
Bu ston Rin chen Grub’s “History of Buddhism” (short title chos ’byung chen mo)entitled bde bar gshegs pa’i bstan pa’i gsal byed chos kyi ’byung gnas gsung rabrin po che’i mdzod chos ’byung, folios, contained in bu ston thams cadmkhyen pa’i bka’ ’bum, Lha sa Zhol xylograph, vol. Ya (), text , pp. –, TBRC W–. For a critical edition, see Szerb (), andEnglish translation by Obermiller ().
C $e Co ne xylograph of the Tibetan canon.D $e Sde dge xylograph of the Tibetan canon, catalogued by Ui ().DCB Taranatha’s (b. ) dpal dus kyi ’khor lo’i chos skor gyi ’byung khungs nyer
mkho bsdus pa, folios, contained in rje btsun ta ra na tha’i gsung ’bum,’Dzam thang edition, vol. Kha, text , pp. –, TBRCW-.
Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag Phreng ba, dam pa’i chos kyi ’khor lo bsgyur ba rnams kyi byungba gsal bar byed pa mkhas pa’i dga’ ston, Beijing: mi rigs dpe skrun khang,, pp.
G Golden Manuscript Tengyur. Catalogued by Ngag dbang Norbu ().Gro lung pa Blo gros ’Byung gnas (th–th century), gro lung pa blo gros ’byung
gnas kyis mdzad pa’i blo ldan shes rab kyi rnam thar, written in (lcags po’irta’i lo), contained bka’ gdams gsung ’bum phyogs bsgrigs, vol. , pp. –,Sichuan: Dpal brtsegs Bod yig Dpe rnying Zhib ’jug khang, .
HKa Bu ston Rin chen Grub’s (–) “History of Kalacakra” (short titledus ’khor chos ’byung) entitled rgyud sde zab don sgo ’byed rin chen gces pa’ilde mig, folios, written in , contained in bu ston thams cad mkhyenpa’i bka’ ’bum, Lha sa Zhol xylograph, vol. Nga (), text , pp. –, TBRCW–.
HKb Bu ston Rin chen Grub’s “History of Kalacakra” entitled dpal dus kyi’khor lo’i chos ’byung bu rin po ches mdzad pa’o (same text as KHa), folios, dbu med manuscript contained Bo dong Pa
˙n chen Phyogs las Rnam
rgyal’s (–) collected works published as Encyclopedia Tibetica:the Collected Works of Bo-dong Pa
˙n-chen Phogs-las-rnam-rgyal, edited by
S.T. Kazi, New Delhi: Tibet House, –, vol. Zha˙m, text ,
TBRC W-, pp. –.N $e Snar thang xylograph of the Tibetan canon, catalogued by Mibu
().Q $e Peking xylograph of the Tibetan canon, catalogued by Suzuki (–
).
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
Si tu Pa˙n chen Chos kyi ’Byung gnas, karma ka
˙m tshang brgyud pa’ rin po che’i
rnam thar rab ’byams nor bu zla ba chu shel gyi phreng ba’i kha skong (TBRCW-vol. ).
SS Indrabuddhi’s root-text Sahajasiddhi.SSP Lak
˙smı’s commentary Sahajasiddhipaddhati.
Taranatha Sgrol ba’i Mgon po (–), bka’ babs bdun ldan gyi brgyud pa’irnam thar ngo mtshar rmad du byung ba rin po che’i khungs lta bu’i gtamcontained in the ’Dzam thang edition of rje btsun ta ra na tha’i gsung ’bum,vol. Tsa, TBRC W-.
References
Buescher, Hartmut & Tarab Tulku (): Catalogue of Tibetan Manuscripts andXylographs, vol. –, Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Bibliotek, and Richmond:Curzon Press.
Davidson, Ronald M. (): Tibetan Rennaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Re-birth of Tibetan Culture, New York: Columbia University Press.
Dimitrov, Dragomir (): “Lak˙smı°—On the Identity of Some Indo-Tibetan
Scholars of the th–th Centuries” in Zentralasiatische Studien , pp. –.Corrigenda in Zentralasiatische Studien (), p. .
Dowman, Keith ():Masters of Mahamudra—Songs and Histories of the Eighty-Four Buddhist Siddhas, SUNY series in Buddhist Studies, Albany: State Univer-sity of New York Press.
English, Elizabeth (): Vajrayoginı: Her Visualizations, Rituals, & Forms—A Study of the Cult of Vajrayoginı in India, Studies in Indian and TibetanBuddhism, Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Erb, Felix (): Sunyatasaptativ˙rtti: Candrakırtis Kommentar zu den “Siebzig
Versen über die Leerheit” des Nagarjuna [Karikas –]: Einleitung, Übersetzung,textkritische Ausgabe des Tibetischen und Indizes, Tibetan and Indo-Tibetan Stud-ies , Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Gray, David B. (a): 'e Cakrasamvara Tantra (Discourse of Srı Heruka)—AStudy and Annotated Translation, Tengyur Translation Initiative, Treasury of theBuddhist Sciences Series, ed. Robert A.F. $urman, New York: $e AmericanInstitute of Buddhist Studies at Columbia University in New York, ColumbiaUniversity’s Center for Buddhist Studies, and Tibet House US [ColumbiaUniversity Press].
———, (b): “$e Cakrasamvara Tantra: Its History, Interpretation, and Prac-tice in India and Tibet” in Religion Compass ., pp. –.
———, (forthcoming):Cakrasamvara Tantra: Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts, New York:$e American Institute of Buddhist Studies at Columbia University in NewYork, Columbia University’s Center for Buddhist Studies, and Tibet House US[Columbia University Press].
Grünwedel, Albert (): Die Geschichten der vierundachtzig Zauberer (Mahasid-dhas) aus dem tibetischen übersetzt, Baessler-Archiv . /, Leipzig: B.G. Teub-ner, pp. –.
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
Gyatso, Janet (): Apparitions of the Self:'e Secret Autobiographies of a TibetanVisionary: a translation and study of Jigme Lingpa’s Dancing Moon in the Waterand
˙Dakki’s Grand Secret-Talk, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kragh, Ulrich Timme (): Culture and Subculture—A Study of the MahamudraTeachings of Sgam po pa, unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Copenhagen.
van der Kuijp, Leonard W.J. (): Contributions to the Development of TibetanBuddhist Epistemology—from the eleventh to the thirteenth century, Alt und Neu-Indische Studien, Seminar für Kultur undGeschichte Indiens an der UniversitätHamburg, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag
———, (): “*Nagabodhi /Nagabuddhi: Notes on theGuhyasamaja Literature”in Prama
˙nakırti
˙h: Papers dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the occasion of his th
birthday, edited by B. Kellner, H. Krasser, H. Lasic, M.T. Much &H. Tauscher,part II, Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde ., Vienna:Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, pp. –.
de La Vallée Poussin, Louis (–): Bodhicaryavatarapañjika—Prajñakara-mati’s Commentary to the Bodhicaryavatara of Çantideva, Bibliotheca Indica:Collection of Oriental Works, Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal.
Lévi, Sylvain (): Le Nèpal, étude historique d’un royaume hindou, Paris: ErnestLeroux. Partial English translation by $eodore Riccardi, Jr., in Ancient Nepal() , pp. –.
Lo Bue, Erberto F. (): “$e Role of Newar Scholars in transmitting the IndianBuddhist Heritage to Tibet (c. –c. )” in Les Habitants du Toit duMonde:Etudes du recueillies en hommage à AlexanderW.Macdonald, eds. Samten Karmayand Philippe Sagant, Nanterre: Société d’ethnologie, pp. –.
Martin, Dan (): Tibetan Histories: A Bibliography of Tibetan-Language His-torical Works, in collaboration with Yael Bentor, London: Serindia Publica-tions.
Mibu, Taishun (): A Comparative List of the Tibetan Tripi˙taka of the Narthang
Edition (bstan-˙hgyur division) with the Sde-dge edition, unpublished handlist.
Naudou, Jean (): Buddhists of Kasmır, Eng. trans. () by Brereton andPicron, Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan.
Newman, John ():'e Outer Wheel of Time: Vajrayana Buddhist Cosmology inthe Kalacakra Tantra, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
———, (): “$e Epoch of the Kalacakra Tantra” in Indo-Iranian Journal ,pp. –.
Nihom, M. (): “$e Goddess with the Severed Head: a recension of Sadhana-mala , and attributed to the Siddhacarya Virupa” in Ritual, Stateand History in South Asia: Essays in Honour of J.C. Heesterman, ed. A.W. van denHoek, D.H.A. Kolff &M.S. Oort, Leiden: E.J. Brill, pp. –.
Ngag dbang Nor bu (): gser bris bstan ’gyur gyi dkar chag (mi dbang pho lhaba’i gser bris bstan ’byur srid zhi’i rgyan gcig gi dkar chag), Beijing: Mi rigs dpeskrun khang.
Obermiller, E. (): 'e History of Buddhism in India and Tibet by Bu-ston,translated from the Tibetan, Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica , Heidelberg, reprint, Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
Ratia, Alpo (): “Contributions on the Tibetan Buddhist Canon: Part II:Editions of the bstan ’gyur Division”, unpublished research-paper.
Regmi, D.R. (): Inscriptions of Ancient Nepal, New Delhi: Abhinav Publica-tions.
Roberts, Peter Alan ():'e Biographies of Rechungpa:'e Evolution of a TibetanHagiography, Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism, eds. Charles S. Prebish& Damien Keown, London: Routledge.
Robinson, James B. (): Buddha’s lions: 'e lives of the eighty-four siddhas,Berkeley: Dharma Publishing.
Roerich, GeorgeN. ():'e Blue Annals, Calcutta, reprint , Delhi:MotilalBanarsidass Publishers.
Sanderson, Alexis (): “$e Saiva Age—$e Rise and Dominance of Saivismduring the Early Medieval Period” in Genesis and Development of Tantrism, ed.Shingo Einoo, Institute of Oriental Culture Special Series , Tokyo: Instituteof Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, pp. –.
Schaeffer, Kurtis R. & LeonardW.J. van der Kuijp (): An Early Tibetan Surveyof Buddhist Literature: 'e Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od of Bcom ldan ralgri, Harvard Oriental Series , Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UniversityAsia Center.
Schuh, Dieter (): Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der tibetischen Kalenderre-chung, Wiesbaden: F. Steiner Verlag.
Shaw, Miranda (): Passionate Enlightenment: Women in Tantric Buddhism,Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Snellgrove, David L. (): 'e Hevajra Tantra—A Critical Study, London Ori-ental Series , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Suzuki, Daisetz T. (–): 'e Tibetan Tripitaka: Peking Edition, Reprintedunder the Supervision of Otani University, Kyoto. Tokyo, Kyoto: Suzuki ResearchFoundation.
Szerb, János (): Bu ston’s History of Buddhism in Tibet: Critically edited witha comprehensive index, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften philoso-phisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, , Beiträge zur Kultur- undGeis-tesgeschichte Asiens , Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wis-senschaften.
Tatz, Mark (): “$e Life of the Siddha-Philosopher Maitrıgupta” in Journalof the American Oriental Society, ., pp. –.
Templeman, David (): Taranatha’s Bka’ babs Bdun ldan:'e Seven InstructionLineages, Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works & Archives.
Tsukamoto, Keisho (塚本啓祥), YukeiMatsunaga (松長有慶) andHirofumi Isoda(磯田熙文) (): ADescriptive Bibliography of the Sanskrit Buddhist Literature,vol. IV: 'e Buddhist Tantra, Kyoto: Heirakuji-Shoten (平楽寺書店).
Ui, Hakuju (宇井伯壽) et al. (): Chibetto Daizokyo Somokuroku (西藏大藏經總目錄) / A Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons (Bka
kura & Tokan Tada, Sendai: Tohoku Imperial University, reprinted Tokyo.
Ulrich Timme Kragh / Indo-Iranian Journal () –
Verhufen, Gregor (): Tibet und seine Nachbarn—Der Index zur neuen Karte(Bod rang skyong ljongs srid ’dzin sa khul gyi sa bkra), Bonn, available fromwww.jamyang.de
Zhang, Yísun (张怡荪) et al. (): bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo: Zàng Hàn dàcídian (藏漢大辭典), reprint , Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang /MínzúChubanshè (民族出版社).
