REFRAMING SAHAJA: GENRE, REPRESENTATION, RITUAL AND LINEAGE
One of the consequences of the paucity of critical investigations into the early medieval Indian movement known as esoteric Buddhism (Mantray¯na, Vajray¯na, Mantranaya, etc.) is that we maintain a relaa a tively superﬁcial understanding of its fundamental nomenclature and technical terminology. Despite the plethora of available resources, and even though we enjoy much greater access to living Tibetan, Japanese and Newar representatives of the movement than ever before, the situation has only slightly improved in recent decades. This essay will attempt to address questions about the semantic value and ritual history of a term that, for a while, was central to the modern understanding of later Indian Mantray¯na, but which unfortunately has been bypassed in a more contemporary discussions. This term is sahaja, which Tibetans have translated as “simultaneously born” (lhan cig skyes pa), and whose treatment in Indological literature has not fully engaged central questions concerning Buddhist intellectual and ritual history. One important reason for this state of affairs has been the totalizing response of modern scholarship to issues of Buddhist ritual and its hermeneutics, so that the differentiation into speciﬁc traditions has been under emphasized. While scholarship on the Indian Vinaya systems and the early Mahayana has rectiﬁed this tendency to some degree – and though great strides in scholarship on East Asian Buddhist traditions have been taken – Indian esoteric systems have not been so thoroughly explored. Sometimes this results from a method that takes cues from the surviving Sanskrit archive without consideration of the traditional Indian historical materials preserved in Tibetan or Chinese. Consequently, scholars have tended to amalgamate esoteric ritual theory and practice into a collective statement about Tantric Buddhism as a whole. Certainly, a broad overview is appropriate in certain venues, and it has yielded especially good results when focused on general attitudes or social groupings. However, technical vocabulary is often traditiondependent and demonstrates a great variation across systems and over time. Thus, the doctrinal and philosophical architecture developed in a single or small number of esoteric Buddhist traditions during the early
Journal of Indian Philosophy 30: 45–83, 2002. c 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
RONALD M. DAVIDSON
medieval period of India has been sometimes taken as applicable to a much broader spectrum of literature and ritual. As a consequence of this response, the topography of Vajray¯na has been obscured, so a that our understanding of idiomatic constructions, local usage, lineal importance, and a host of other concerns has not been facilitated. In some ways this is understandable in the case of Indian Mantray¯na: a the bewildering varieties of nomenclature, the extraordinary number of personalities, the social and political backgrounds, are often depicted by hagiographical literature as ﬂuid and all encompassing. Its literature represents the personalities of esoteric saints in an extreme and ﬁctive manner, so there has been little sense of historical security about the siddhas who are said to live for centuries, ﬂy through the air, and live on essences. Our uncertainty is particularly true for personalities found in the problematic collection that has been strongly emphasized, the ´ı Hagiographies of the Eighty-four Siddhas (Caturas¯tisiddhapravrtti) . attributed to Abhayadatta´r¯, and almost equally true for data from the sı 1608 CE annals of T¯ran¯tha. Other and in many ways better sources a a exist, however, especially those dedicated to single lineages addressing a speciﬁc series of practices.1 Indeed, the convergence of terminology and lineal hagiographies may in some instances provide us with a focused representation of how their practices and its nomenclature came into being. Sahaja is, in fact, a good test case for the manner in which esoteric Buddhist technical terminology, developed in one environment, moved into others, and was sometimes held at bay and sometimes surreptitiously appropriated in disparate venues. However, our study is probematized by instances of individuals receiving multiple lineages. Yet their observed tendency in many cases is to respect the discourse speciﬁc to a system while working in that ideological arena. We must be wary, though, for such discipline is not universally observed, especially as terminology drifts from its temporal and spatial origins. Thus, ﬁliation and synthesis can be better mapped if we also pay attention to how a term is employed in speciﬁc environments and apparently excluded from others. It is my proposal that sahaja was a preclassical word that became employed in scholastic, particularly Yog¯c¯ra, literature as an adjective a a describing conditions natural or, less frequently, essential with respect to circumstances encountered in an embodied state. It appears as a ˜a technical term with Buddhajn¯nap¯da, who used it in his explanation a ¯ of the Guhyasamaja Tanta ritual system, probably in the ﬁrst quarter of the ninth century CE. Sahaja became most deﬁnitively discussed as a member of four “joys” in the Hevajra Tantra – in the late ninth or early
tenth century – its allied works and their commentarial literature, ritual manuals, and related exegesis. It became employed in the songs of certain ¯ ¯ ı doha and Caryag¯ti poets, and serves to localize their contributions into the ninth century or later, so that the study of esoteric Buddhist ritual nomenclature can make an important contribution to historical linguistics when, as in this case, the authors were Buddhists. While sahaja eventually was articulated as a technical term to identify the culminating experience of sexual practice – an activity preceding the use of sahaja as a descriptive by approximately a century for Buddhists – the term took on increasing philosophical importance in the Hevajra environment. At the same time, many other lineages, especially the ¯ ¯ Arya tradition of the Guhyasamaja and several Samvara systems, . remained relatively immune to its augmented status. Later, perhaps in the tenth century, the term becomes appropriated by one of several ¯ persons using the name Indrabhuti. His system and interpretation served further to increase sahaja’s importance to speciﬁc representatives of the esoteric persuasion. By the late tenth or early eleventh century, ¯ sahaja became incorporated into the Kalacakra Tantra, and further promoted the development of new doctrines, especially the doctrine of ¯ a sahajakaya. Finally, the polysemy of sahaja and its application in different environments means that it might be mapped according to its semantic registers. Because of the complexity of these issues, only a fraction of the material can be presented, and for that I beg the reader’s indulgence.
I. MODERN SCHOLARSHIP
To my knowledge, the issue of sahaja was ﬁrst broached by Cecil ¯. Bendall in his 1903–1904 edition of the Subhasita-samgraha. This . quite late work is a compilation of later Indian esoteric materials and is actually an excellent marker of important sources for the work classiﬁed ¯ ¯ as yogin¯-tantra or mahamudra related texts. Yet the anonymous author ı ¯. of the Subhasita-samgraha contributed to the synthetic or totalizing . direction of scholarship by his version of a Collection of Good Sayings, a genre that does not observe the lineal constraints evident in most other materials.2 Because of the early publication of this collection – it was one of the earliest complete Buddhist Sanskrit works published in any venue – scholars conceived of the work as a paradigmatic, rather than exceptional, statement of the traditional method of esoteric discourse. In editing the Apabhram´a verses in his appendix, Bendall lamented the .s lack of terminological deﬁnition, for “sahaja is a technical term of later
an afﬁrmation of regional identity that has not gone unchallenged. ni a a. attitudes of this sort obviously complicated the critical examination of the material. La v´rit´ est l’Inn´ (sahaja). who in 1916 published the Bauddha Gan ¯ ¯ ı ´ O Doha. 83). but next to nothing about the its (sic) decay. also commentary on this extraordinary phase of soi-disant Buddhism. 60. where extant. for many subsequent scholars have discussed sahaja in the context of the surviving Prakrit and Apabhram´a poetry . To me it all reads like an obscene caricature of the teachings both of earlier Buddhism and of legitimate Yoga. the ﬁrst of many examinations of the Caryag¯tikosa and the ¯ ´ dohakosas attributed to Tillop¯da.48
RONALD M. ni abh¯va “le non-ˆtre”. Comme chez les philosophes a. Bengali scholars embraced it as the validation of their own tantric heritage. Shahidullah was concerned as to whether these two were theists or not. an edition and French translation of the verses attributed to Saraha and K¯nha. Bendall responded to the content of the compendium with predictable horror at its erotically charged statements. and in the process offered a deﬁnition of sahaja:
˜ D’abord on a l’impression qu’ils sont d´istes.4 I have printed text. Or. parce que K¯nha parle de Niranjana e a. m¯dhyamikas. 1) explique niranjana par e sahajak¯ya. (str. on the Sanskrit commentaries published by Shastri. given the parameters of his Victorian age. DAVIDSON
Buddhist literature. Basing himself a. 1) et Saraha de Parame´vara (str. Bendall established something of a movement. (K. thinking it well that scholars at least should know the worst. . c’est-`-dire l’´tat de vacuit´.s written by speciﬁc siddhas. le corps de l’Inn´. as shown in the Tantra-literature. and K¯nha. and even. However. in 1928 by Shahidullah’s Les Chants Mystiques. e bh¯va “l’ˆtre”. akin to discussing the physical disabilities of the aged:
Much (perhaps too much. Whereas those in service to the Crown found esoteric Buddhism repulsive. He seemed to feel he had embarked on a distasteful public service. It was followed a a. a e a e e a e En fait K¯nha et Saraha sont tous les deux nihilistes.6
While Shahidullah was relatively careful in his understanding of the context for these compendia. which has not been as yet explained. .5
While I have no intention of providing yet another example of the curiosities of colonial literature. Mais le comm. and quickly afﬁrmed that the language of some of the poems was the earliest surviving material in the Bengali language. the same cannot be said of all Bengali
. c’est-`-dire la a e a e e e e a e vacuit´. on emploie partout ces deux mots s ˜ dans l’Inde moderne pour d´signer Dieu. la vacuit´ . The interest in esoteric material was particularly true of the great pioneering ¯ scholar Hara Prasad Shastri. ni bhava “l’existence” ni nirv¯na “l’an´antissement”. decrepitude and dotage. Saraha. in proportion to the published material) has been written about the glorious and vigorous youth of Indian Buddhism. c’est-`-dire.”3 At the same time. sometimes about its middle age of scholasticism and philosophy. rien n’existe.
in Sahajiy¯ Buddhism Sunyat¯ (void) and a a a ˜a Karun¯ (compassion).. New vehicles were manufactured on the pages of scholars’ tomes – Tantray¯na. straight or plain.REFRAMING SAHAJA
scholars.”9 Dasgupta understood sahaja as the basis of the “school.” and engaged in the quaint identiﬁcation ´ of Buddhist and Saiva conceptual ﬁelds. the Vaisnava Sahajiy¯ cult. i. it is Sahaja-y¯na because. and recent work by various Indian scholars still repeats the bland declaration that such terms have vertical referents in history. a nascent nationalism in India. and it is Sahaja-y¯na also because of the fact that instead of suppressing a and thereby inﬂicting undue strain on the human nature it makes man realize the truth in the most natural way. in his 1950 An Introduction to Tantric Buddhism. It is curious that these ﬁctional categories continue to hold ..10
Again. the attention of researchers. and the period between the late nineteenth century and the middle of the twentieth saw the manufacture of a whole series of questionable categories for esoteric Buddhism. from its primary meaning of being natural acquires the secondary meaning of being easy.7 Most likely. are held to be the a a . a process in which some Europeans participated as well. Now. and thus Sahaja. this development was the combination of an immature understanding of the literature.” as well as others “to be found a a . What is natural is easiest. etc. K¯lacakray¯na. in Bengali literature of different periods. a a its aim is to realize the ultimate innate nature (sahaja) of the self as well as of the dharmas.
The Absolute is the Sahaja – it is the ultimate reality behind the self and the not-self.8 Such an overwhelming afﬁrmation of sahaja was brought to its culmination in Shashi Bhushan Dasgupta’s 1946 Obscure Religious Cults. and the desire to afﬁrm such subsequent phenomena as Sahajiy¯ a Vaisnavism. by adopting the path through which the human nature itself leads him. As two aspects of ˜a the ultimate reality Prajn¯ and Up¯ya are conceived in the Buddhist Tantras and in a ´ ´ a Sahajiy¯ Buddhism just as Sakti and Siva of the Hindu Tantric school. and Snellgrove’s 1954 translation of the poems or songs of Saraha followed closely that of Shahidullah. He also rendered sahaja
. Dasgupta indicated the signiﬁcance of sahaja.11
¯ The emphasis on the doha literature of the medieval siddhas continued to be paramount. two primary attributes of the ultimate reality which is Sahaja. which was concerned with a “thorough study of the Buddhist Sahajiy¯ cult. which he continued to ascribe to a Sahajiy¯ or Sahajay¯na Buddhism: a a
The name Sahaja-y¯na seems to be doubly signiﬁcant. The realization of this Sahaja in and through the self and the not-self is ´¯ the ultimate aim of the Sahajiy¯s. – and a a a Sahajay¯na or Sahajiy¯y¯na was not excepted in this rush to coin new a a a terms that to this day remain without an apparent source in medieval Buddhist literature.. transformed as the Prajn¯ and the Up¯ya.e.
was extraordinary in some ways.13
While it is gratifying that Buddhist authors are being taken as serious thinkers. many have questioned Guenther’s technical renditions and the manner in which he presents them. He showed that sahaja was employed in the ˜¯ third consecration. Essentially it refers to the spontaneity and totality of the experience in which the opposites such as transcendence and immanence.” eventually meeting with protests by others.” and as such it is explained by Padma dkar-po . despite a wealth of ancient Tibetan translation materials and the presence of surviving Apabhram´a verses. with comments from an indigenous Tibetan commentary. . Snellgrove) is wrong. The translation of the term by “l’Inn´” (M. the disciple is supposed to practices a sexual yoga. . subject and object. Guenther. an odd combination:
Literally.s Guenther elected to expend his energy at defending ﬁfteenth-sixteenth century Tibetan interpretations of the term in a strong attack on his predecessors:
The literal translation of the Tibetan term lhan-cig skyes-pa (Sanskrit sahaja) would be “coemergence.L. a a . which he called prajnaseka. in which the disciple 14 In the process. His attentiveness to the Tibetan legacy both afﬁrmed lineal concerns for a positive contribution and reversed the normative historical perspective by privileging Tibetan over Indian interpretations. coemergence entails a feeling of “togetherness” (saha) whose numinosity erases all sense of separation. a probably based on the colophon to the Tibetan translation.
. but in the process we might wonder if there can be any authentic commonality between the modern phenomenological terminology that Guenther favors and these Buddhist poets.” a translation which I have adopted throughout. The most signiﬁcant change in scholars’ perceptions of sahaja. ¯ This text is concerned with consecration into the Kalacakra system and is attributed to Nadap¯da. . However. Guenther’s 1969 translation of Saraha’s verses from their Tibetan translation. sahaja means “co-emergent” (it can be read as a noun or adjective) where emergence (ja) is a spontaneous and uncaused manifestation of what we might call the principle of “complementarity” (saha). came with Carelli’s publication of the Sekoddesat¯ka in 1941. he attempts to rectify statements like those of Bendall’s by bringing in vocabulary and concerns that are current. A precise rendering of the term sahaja would therefore have to be something like “complementarity-in-spontaneity.50
RONALD M. As an immediate experience. Shahidullah) and “the e Innate” (D. ´ . especially H. whom Carelli identiﬁes with N¯rop¯. Carelli’s lengthy introduction to the text indicated two directions sahaja was to ¯ take in Kalacakra exegesis. his translation was more scholarly and his position more extreme. the noumenal and the phenomenal indivisibly blend. DAVIDSON
as “the Innate.ı ¯ however. To his credit.V.12
In Guenther’s 1992 reconsideration of these texts.
Cakras svabh¯vikak¯ya a a sambhogak¯ya a dharmak¯ya a nirm¯nak¯ya a. and (anticipating my conclusions) that the term sahaja is basically connected with the tantric ritual of consecration where it refers to the relation between the ultimate and the preliminary Joys. OM . I doubt whether sahaja is ever used – as far as Buddhist tantric texts are concerned ˜a – as a noun. or was it the third. .15 The culmination of this process brings in the other ¯ direction sahaja adopted in the Kalacakra system. dharmamudra. in his 1987 Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. a
Body Head Throat Heart Navel
HAM . With the publication of Snellgrove’s 1959 edition and translation of the Hevajra Tantra. . though. in an article “On the Concept of Sahaja in Indian Buddhist Tantric Literature. four psycho-physical wheels ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ (cakra). and that it applies strictly to the ritual of consecration and nothing else:
.ı ¯ now its representation in the Sekoddesat¯ka – and the translation of sahaja as innate. though.21 In the meanwhile. and reiterated both his understanding of the practice – including ´ . sahajajn¯na. viramananda.22
.16 Building on this material. which Carelli identiﬁed with the older Mahayanist ¯ ¯ ¯ svabhavikakaya.” There Kværne articulated the idea that the term is solely an adjective. ¯ and sahajananda. with sahajananda as the fourth joy. Dasgupta worked with multiple manuscripts of various tantras and discussed the association of the four joys with four speciﬁc moments. . as some authorities like Advayavajra and the Hevajra Tantra itself twice declared?20 Snellgrove concluded that the ¯ normative arrangement was the former. the deﬁnition of a new ¯ body. except as short-hand for sahaj¯nanda. buddha bodies. the sahajakaya.18 Snellgrove schematized the most important aspects of sahaja as it was associated with joy or ¯ bliss (ananda) – the location of the joys. .
guhya praj˜¯j˜¯na n a na caturtha
param¯nanda a viram¯nanda a sahaj¯nanda a
¯ ¯ ¯ experience four discrete joys – ananda. For the a moment I shall limit myself to saying that I believe that “simultaneously-arisen” or the like is the most suitable translation. and the four seals – karmamudra. one of the more original contributions was put forward by Per Kværne in 1975. HUM
Snellgrove also showed that there were controversies on the order of ¯ the joys: was sahajananda the fourth joy. as it was most frequently represented. and syllables in the various psycho-physical wheels during the ritual practice:19
¯c¯rya a a
Moments vicitra vip¯ka a vimarda vilaksana . . mahamudra 17 ¯ and samayamudra. etc. both the nature of sexual yoga and its controversies came into greater focus. paramananda. moments. .
I would argue that the frames of reference – both historical and ritual – are in need of reexamination. it is the luminosity of one’s own mind. This discourse facilitated the reinterpretation of sexual yoga as an internal mediation rather than an external sacramental ritual. sahaja became a term that took on certain associations. 4. on whether it is a vehicle or a body of the Buddha. or is at least a marker of an alteration in the conceptual architecture. 3. DAVIDSON
Kværne then discussed the tantric consecrations. Moreover. and 9. we might also acknowledge that the application of certain terminology to a rite changes its understanding. It is apparently a pre-classical a word. abstracted from the ritual context. as I have argued elsewhere. In the process of proposing terminological development.48. restricting himself to material from the limited archive of published Sanskrit (and one Tibetan) texts. especially as many have indulged in a favorite form of hermeneutics: reading the terms’ application in later texts into the lines of earlier works. it is timeless. and modern scholars have generally privileged the latest and most recently written materials. sahaja has a history in the natural and literary language that is unfortunately neglected in scholarly literature on the Mantray¯na. 6. in the section on “mysticism and the experience of Sahaja. yet there is more that might be said.” articulated that there are nine descriptives that apply to this experience: 1. the question of variation of terminology and understanding must be reasserted. or on whether it is an experience in the ritual life of a neophyte or a cipher for the absolute nature of the Buddha. 7. We should also consider lineal differentiation in light of the historical model that. it is sacred. Most particularly. it is an abolition of the duality of subject and object. All of these scholars have furthered our understanding. ıta
. it is blissful. and the earliest usage I have seen is in Bhagavadg¯ 18. 5. 8. it transcends the universe. precipitated by the Buddhist support of a discourse ˘ on naturalness as the sin qua non of correct realization.23 It is instructive that Kværne’s references for most of these attributes were taken from the Hevajra Tantra. as we will see. it is a state of omniscience. the rise of esoteric Buddhism is in large part a consequence of socio-political fragmentation in early medieval India. Variation would recommend itself initially. 2. as we have seen that scholars have disagreed on whether sahaja indicates a noun or an adjective. Kværne.
¯ ¯ II. it is cosmic. NATURAL LANGUAGE. it is ineffable.24 Concerning ritual venues.52
RONALD M. LITERATURE AND YOGACARA TEXTS
Like most words employed in the esoteric system.
where giving (dana) is deﬁned in the context of the perfections to be fulﬁlled by a bodhisattva.. which are perceived as framed in the environment of ritual impressions (samskara) and personal obligations. ¯ ¯ ¯.ı ¯ ¯ ¯ ´¯ ´ by meditative cultivation (bhavanaheyaklesanusaya). ¯ Classical Buddhist literature also employed sahaja in the nontechnical capacity of “accompanying” or “conjoined. the Madhyantavibhagabhasya uses the term in combination with negative elements. for Aja burst into tears despite his ı ¯ fortitude. . . The cause of giving is an act of mental will accompanied by or equipped ¯ ¯ ¯ with non-desire and other positive elements (alobhadisahaja cetana 26 hetuh). Raghuvamsa . a straightforward appeal by Krsna for Arjuna not . The simile is compelling.56 . ¯ ¯. to retreat to the forest. abandoning ı a ¯ ¯ his courageous nature. natural contamination (sahajam daus. while all others are understood to be opportunitistic. indicates that. K¯mandaka’s 7th–8th century treatise on polity. faced with the sudden death of his wife Indumat¯. In a somewhat different. ¯ . . really gained currency in the a a classical world. the word occurs in the ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ . ¯ Mahayanasutralamkarabhasya to XVI. Sahaja. sahabhu. just as iron might experience weakness when overheated in a a furnace.thulyam). ¯ . the N¯tisara.17-18. less essentialist vein. . specifying that one of the three cognitive ¯ obscurations (avarana) to the positive element of non-obscuration is . In distinction.REFRAMING SAHAJA
where caste-speciﬁc behavior (karma) is described as inborn (sahaja) and not to be abandoned in spite of its faults (sahajam karma kaunteya . R¯ma’s grandfather Aja released a torrent of sobs. . for example. etc. ¯ ¯ sahotpatti/utpanna.
Apparent in these descriptions is the importance of both familial lineage and individual character. .25 In a favorable sense of association. . deﬁnes enemies of two ı ¯ varieties:
Enemies are said to be of two kinds: natural and opportunistic. Natural enemies are those born into one’s own family. and is observed in the work of K¯lid¯sa. even though it was innate (sahajam apy apahaya dh¯ratam). is glossed in Sthiramati’s T¯ka as the deﬁled latency to be removed . those great contributors to a a ¯ Buddhist terminology.” especially noticeable in works related to the Yog¯c¯ras. and they are ¨ often given the same or similar Chinese translations (such as chu ¨ sheng or chu chi) when Gupta period works were rendered in that language.
´ sahajah karyajas caiva dvividhah satrur ucyate | . the natural contamination consisting of such views as the existence of a self.43.´ 8. Alternatively. ´ sahajah svakulotpanna itarah karyajah smrtah || 8. is a natural seed of undeﬁled ignorance that
.. or sahagata. This peculiar phrase . . Sahaja is used in a manner similar to sahajata. sadosam api na tyajet). sahacarin. however.
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ evam eva mahamate manomayakayasahapratilambhena mayopamasamena samadhina ´ ¯ ˜¯ ¯ ¯ balavasitabhijnanalaksanakusumita aryagatinikayasahajo mana iva pravartate . ¯ .33
. by means of a concentration that is like magic and has attained a this mental body. . caught up in the Vaibh¯sika presentaa.54
RONALD M. posessing a nature in common with those in the realm of saints.32 . the text turns to the mental body of the bodhisattva:
Even so.27 The Lankavatara Sutra further speciﬁes . ¯ ¯ their previously acquired merit (purvam mahapunyasambharopacayad . ¯ . So.. present and future. . Thus. and characteristics. which applies to bodhisattvas who have entered into the levels and is glossed as “naturally” in place (prakrtya) because of their other purities.tab¯jam). as it is acquired on the eighth level of the bodhisattva and therefore has the activity of karmic formations natural to each of those ¯ ¯ groups of saints (nikayasahajasamskarakriyamanomayah kayah). Mah¯mati. among the ﬁfteen types of ¯ ‘parah prabhavo veditavyah). ¯ ´ ¯. masteries. there is one that is natural (sahajadhyasaya).30 . ¯. 31 Moreover. ¯ ¯. just as by thought. ¯ .28 ˙ ¯ ¯ The Lankavatara also uses the term in conjunction with its description ¯ of the “mental body” (manomayakaya). tion of the substantial existence of the past. This is possible. ¯
This same mental body of the bodhisattva or buddha is further speciﬁed ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ elsewhere in the Lankavatara Sutra. . arise simultaneously (sahaja). ¯ ¯ ¯ ‘pratihatagatih purvapranidhanavisayan anusmaran sattvaparipakartham |29 . ¯ ¯´ resolute intention. ¯ ı ¯. ¯ ¯´ ¯ ¯ buddhanam bodhisattvanam ca sahaja ascaryadhbhutadharmata). super knowledges. . where it is described as a body that can enter into every assembly circle in all the buddha ﬁelds. . ¯ The Bodhisattvabhumi indicates that there are two varieties of super¯ natural power (prabhava). his path unhindered for the maturation of living beings. DAVIDSON
restricts penetration into objects of contact and so forth within the realm of reality. this latter was considered the lesser of the two (ayam api tesam sahajo . while relying on past elements. existing as a seed nurtured and established in the ¯ underlying consciousness (sahajam vatmadrs. provides a speciﬁcally temporal value to sahaja.tyad¯nam dharmadhatu. the sense faculty and the sense consciousness. ¯ that it is the “stream-entrant” (srotaapanna) whose perverse view of self-unity is natural because it has been collected from ignorance for a very long time. the bodhisattva is ornamented by the powers. ¯ ¯. ¯ ´arthadiprativedha-vibandhakasyaklistasyajnanasyalayavijnanas ¯ ¯ ˆ ˆ ˜¯ ˆ ˜¯ spars ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ı annivis. recollecting the circumstances of his prior aspiration he operates as does the mind. . The Abhidharmakosa-bhasya. with the faculty as the support of the consciousness. one that is attained by virtue of concentration in this life and another that is the miraculous reality congenital (sahaja) to buddhas and bodhisattvas because of the power of ¯ ¯ . After explaining that the mental body is one that may penetrate anywhere.
What do these tell us of the normative manner in which sahaja is used prior to the development of Buddhist esoterism? First. ¯ ¯ . prayogavisesanispatteh purvam pascat sahaja praptih). there are illuminated the two conditions in the entire realm of beings: they possess the accidental condition of deﬁled elements in their beginningless minds. a text noted for its postulation of inherent properties. whose acquisition (prapti) is simultaneous . ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ´ ¯ samasato ‘anena tathagatagarbhasutrodaharananirdesena krtsnasya sattvadhator . to their occurrence. the . in brief.REFRAMING SAHAJA
Here. subsequent or simultaneous (tesam hi balavattvat . Clearly. After a lengthy discussion of the relationship between the ¯ a varieties of the embryo of the Tath¯gata (tathagatagarbha) as expressed in the scripture expounding that doctrine. the commentary sums up its position:
¯ Then. with this teaching employing the images taught in the Tathagatagarbha ¯ Sutra. ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ . In its interpretation. this being an indicator of their weakness and relatively inconsequential nature. ¯ (nivrtavyakrta) elements. 35 ´. ´ ¯ ¯ ´ samklisyante cittavyavadanat visudhyanta iti). indicating a birth defect or some other falling away from the norm. ¯. Perhaps the only classical Buddhist text I have found that approaches the essentialism apparent in Brahmanical Sanskrit is in the commentary ¯ to the Ratnagotravibhaga. ¯ ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ anadicittasamklesadharmagantukatvam anadicittavyavadanadharmasahajavinirbhagata ı ¯ ca parid¯pita |36
However. the majority of its
. it is apparent that sahaja applies to that which is congenital. A similar value is placed on sahaja in the discussion of “nondeﬁled indeterminate” (anivrtavyakrta) and “deﬁled indeterminate” . . The statement from ¯ ¯ the Tathagatagarabha Sutra simply indicates that both pollution and ´¯ ¯. while bondage a is the accidental element.34 The exceptions to this rule are the forms of super knowledge and creative cognitions – they are powerful and acquired by a speciﬁc application of mind. ¯ Ratnagotravibhaga instead articulates the idea that there is inherent agency towards awakening in the embryo of the Tath¯gata. ¯ . . although this term is almost exclusively negative in American usage. it is indicative of the soteriological hermeneutics of the ¯ Ratnagotravibhaga that its explanation is in distinction to the ostensibly supporting quotation from the scripture. so their elements of acquisi¯ tion may be prior. here. a faculty that is sahaja is contrasted with prior bases that are in the past (at¯ta) so that sahaja becomes a term employed to discuss ı temporal relations (prior-simultaneous-subsequent) while avoiding the potential confusion that would occur with the term “present” (pratyutpanna). ¯ ¯ . and they posses the natural (sahaja) inalienableness of purifying elements in their beginningless minds. . puriﬁcation derive from conditions of mind (cittasamklesat sattvah .
Even in a a the reduced soteriological proﬁle of sahaja in the mainstream Yog¯c¯ra ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ texts and the Lankavatara Sutra. although it was also an option in the fortnightly tantric feasts (ganacakra). a ritual where
. and thus. certainly. In its ambivalence as to whether such soteriological elements are inherent. NINTH CENTURY SYSTEMS
Whatever the precise signiﬁcance of its use as a non-technical term. where two kinds are identiﬁed: that which is inherent and natural to the bodhisattva (prakrtistha) and that which is secured through effort . If sahaja became one of the favorite designations for ritual nomenclature in the systems stemming from the Hevajra ¯ Tantra. Typically. and we must begin by setting aside some surprisingly important texts and their ritual manuals. Sexual practices were normatively included in the . ¯ ı at virtuous conduct in prior lives (samudan¯ta). it is speciﬁcally differentiated from the “generation stage” (utpattikrama). in the Ratnagotravibhaga instance. as all of these works articulate an involvement with sexual rites as part of the broader theory of release: awakening is best achieved by engaging in the behaviors that would normally lead to bondage. this is not to say that it found a home in all ritual venues. it indicates elements that are acquired as time goes on. As such. but under the correct circumstances lead instead to liberation. krama and their synonyms might be translated. DAVIDSON
employment is with positive qualities that are speciﬁc to an individual’s embodiment in the present station of life and as a result of extensive effort in the previous lives. EIGHTH CENTURY TANTRAS. sahaja apparently did not enjoy the central position in Mahayanist or related literature that it was to occupy in selected areas of esoteric ritual. the overall semantic value indicates elements of reality that are obtained at birth or secured through previous lives and frequently contrasted with those obtained through efforts in the speciﬁc lifetime under discussion. and the practice of sexual yoga itself. However. sexual practice was generally conﬁned to two major venues: the initiatory rituals authorizing advanced stages of yogic engagement. but these elements are taken as factors in the larger domain of Dharma.37
III. As employed by the end of the tenth century. the value of sahaja is similar ¯ to the ideology of “lineage” (gotra) found in the Bodhisattvabhumi. or however utpanna/sampanna/nispanna. that was certainly not the case for earlier Mahayoga and Yogin¯ ı Tantras. they exist whether Buddhas proclaim ¯ them or not. As such. speak of an irresistible force moving all beings towards universal awakening. designation “perfecting stage”.56
RONALD M. This state of affairs is all the more curious.
Generally there is some form of internal yogic practice.thana). Here. the ganacakra. often involving the visualization of an internal ﬁre burning up an internal mandala located in the psycho-physical centers (cakra) of spirituality. ¯ is designated “self-consecration” (svadhis. the disciple is authorized to perform this practice as an independent ritual. one measure of the conﬂict is the observation that all sexual activities became increasingly interpreted as
. With this latter consecration. the . The “generation stage” authorization was by the end of . By the tenth century. in which yogins and their .. copulates with the consort. There. “perfecting stage” involves two or sometimes three levels of ritual.. consorts come together for a gathering of adepts. in communal celebration. Here the disciple. Broadly speaking. virtually all sexual practice was associated with yogic visualizations. is that it presents a tidy well-packaged and after-the-fact organization of the advent of sexual meditative behaviors in Buddhism. The other level in the “perfecting stage” is that of sexual practice. an event that surely must constitute one of the more extraordinary developments in the history of Indian Buddhism. the eighth century understood to be conferred on the disciple by a ´¯ . a ritualized sexual practice would also be consummated. which is often the third of the four fundamental consecrations conferred. master during the jar consecration (kalasabhiseka). Even then. and ¯ obtains an understanding of great ecstasy (mahasukha) or some form of ¯ joy (ananda) in the process. unfortunately. etc. often this mediation ¯ .. even if we can see that the standards espoused were not always actually practiced. and the disciple is introduced to this via ˜¯ ˜¯ ¯ .. letters of the Sanskrit alphabet. internal mandalas. we ﬁnd the employment of sexual yoga in the tenth century in the fortnightly meetings. While terminology varies from tradition to tradition. so that it involved the manipulation of a very large spectrum of psycho-physical entities. Over and above the two major venues. the master copulates with a consort and the ejaculate is taken in by the disciple as a sacrament. breathing exercises. consecrations – in this instance the “secret” consecration (guhyabhiseka). and is expected to develop the experience of bliss or pleasure beyond that ﬁrst experienced in the ritual enclosure. under the master’s guidance. certainly. the ﬁrst of four consecrations. The problem with the above description. Few activities could be more in conﬂict with the fundamental values displayed in the prior history of Buddhist monasticism. . and the disciple is authorized to engage in this behavior with the second of the four ¯ .REFRAMING SAHAJA
the yogin visualizes himself as his chosen divinity at the center of a mandala. the “gnosis of the insight” consecration (prajnajnanabhiseka).
with references to them by well-known eighth and early ninth century ﬁgures ´a ˜a like Amoghavajra. to have the mystical properties of the divinity. Yet even this statement is somewhat misleading. Vil¯savajra. quite literally. especially magical ﬂight. and other works that became . the seed of divinity. where they mention sexual events.58
RONALD M. the ¯ Sarvabuddhasamayoga. in association with other sacraments (samaya) and in a secluded site. The consequent ejaculate was taken. had their iconology taken ´ from rural. which speciﬁes that the monk or yogin will attract a “non-human” (generally a yaksı) in the forest or other secluded . and their copulation yields worldly beneﬁts. Since the divinities most frequently represented... tribal or Saiva contexts. so that it was. and it is probable that this disclaimer . appears in the . we ﬁnd speciﬁed a sexual rite (given a number of designations) whereby magical powers or liberation may be obtained. jnana. when identiﬁed the ¯ name of this rite is variously given – sometimes “seal rite” (mudravidhi).¯ spot. etc. do not associate them necessarily with either initiation. eventually understood as proposing the path of “highest yoga” (anuttarayoga). with political fragmentation and other socio-political events of the era. ¯ ¯ Subahupariprccha Tantra. the purpose of the ritual was for the adept to experience sexuality while in relationship to a divinity. then.41 We can understand this ritual and its eventual use in the consecratory and yogic contexts by understanding it as speciﬁcally sacramental in character. like Heruka. Instead.38 a Our eighth century documents. Jn¯namitra. speciﬁcally in the Guhyasamaja. later mandalacakra descriptions. S¯kyamitra and others. and internal yoga is seldom to be found. so that the actual physical enactment of sexual rituals seems to have become increasingly rare as time passes. however. These materials are unassailably from the eighth century. of the divine behavior. but without the yogic associations of . most often visualizing himself and his partner as the divinity and its consort. Our earliest solid evidence for the Buddhist espousal of erotic soteri¯ ology is in the eighth century. Laghusamvara. the point was the recreation of divine ˜¯ attributes (siddhi.) in the ritualist by reenactment . for we are uncertain how frequent was their actual use in Indian Buddhist communities at any time and what degree of regional variation was exhibited.39 The earliest. moksa. sometimes mandalacakra-rite.ı reveals the social reality that Buddhists began to encounter tribal and semi-nomadic peoples extensively in the early medieval period.40 The tantra indicates that any girl attracted by mantras cannot be human but must be a yaks¯. DAVIDSON
either symbolic or visualized ritual forms. That is. Although not always separately entitled. Thus the goal was the ritual experience of
Padmavajra’s Guhyasiddhi ¯ ¯ ¯ ignores the word. The Jnanasiddhi and the Prad¯podyotana ı ¯g¯rjuna. . the language of sahaja was not initially employed. Likewise. ¯ the simple terms of “highest ecstasy” (paramananda) or “great bliss” ¯ (mahasukha). would have had little point here. ¯ does not appear to employ the four moments and the four ananda.46 Be that ¯ as it may.47 In a like manner. just so long as the sacramental structure of the event was maintained. were utterly superﬂuous to the early history of the rite. as found in the later ritual system. This entire experience had as its purpose the literal or ﬁgural ¯ transformation of the adept into a magus (vidyadhara). Certain feminine messengers ¯ . although also employ the language and vocabulary seen in Na a the intertextuality exhibited between the approximately contemporary ˜¯ ˜ Guhyasiddhi.44 ˜ N¯g¯rjuna’s Pancakrama – a work dedicated to the perfecting process – a a makes no mention of the term. was simply unnecessary. the same terms we have already seen – highest ecstasy and
. but the term also does ¯ not appear in the ninth century Arya-lineage manuals of the system. Not ¯ only does the Guhyasamaja Tantra ignore the terminology and rhetoric of sahaja in its allusions to sexual practices. the later vocabulary of an innate or ¯ natural ecstasy (sahajananda). in some of the Arya system works. wind. particularly as a member of a series of ecstasies. Indeed.45 Similarly.REFRAMING SAHAJA
sanctiﬁed copulation. In every one of these. apparently indicating a that they are “naturally accomplished” or “naturally present. the architecture of ascent and descent along a central channel. Instead. the speciﬁcally sexual rite is encompassed under the heading of “non-conceptual activity” ˜ ¯ (nisprapancacarya). not the four or more moments of the later literature. the Laghusamvara Tantra only uses sahaja once.¯ ı ¯ (dutadakin¯) are referred to as *Dutasahajasiddh¯. but equally seen in the ﬁrst development of yogic systems set as the internal process in counterpoint to the external sexual ritual. in line with the 42 Accordingly. Jnanasiddhi and Pancakrama is still obscure. and the deﬁning experience is explained with .”48 Even much of the later Samvara literature on the consecrations or yogic practice . of levels of joy experienced by the yogin through the extraordinary manipulations of breath and visualization. and was an event that took place in a single instant.43 This history is not only visible in the surviving eighth century literature. with partners either human or non human equally acceptable. and the like. the exploration pan-Indian mythology of such ﬁgures. and Aryadeva’s Caryamelapakaprad¯ maintains ıpa ˜¯ his predecessors’ vocabulary. so far as I have been able to determine. the internal visualizations of psychic centers.” rather ¯ than “accomplished in the practice yielding sahajananda.
of sahaja as a ritual term I have located in his surviving meditation manuals. sahaja is used in a terminological environment with non artiﬁcial ¯ ¯ (akrtrima). Buddhajn¯nap¯da has been acknowledged a ¯ as the founder of the other major system of Guhyasamaja practice. be differentiated. in practices associated with the Laghusamvara. I believe the process of ecstatic differentiation and its eventual association with sahaja ﬁrst emerges in the later writing of ˜a ¯ ¯ ¯ Buddhajn¯nap¯da. the Dvikramatattvabhavana¯ mukhagama trifurcates the experience. his most extensive statement of the Samvara practice is in . of great bliss which is like the ﬂower of explanatory sahaja. similar designations. ¯ not deﬁned in any of the sadhanas I have seen. though. more properly. in the work of Ghantap¯da (evidently written after the technical afﬁrmation of . but not as a member of a schema of joy or ecstasy. .50 For the most part. though.60
RONALD M. called 53 This work is exceptional in a number ˜a the Jn¯nap¯da school after him. and it is likely that the name was an extension of essential form as a valorization of an iconographical representation. That does not mean. Therein is also the only mention . Not the least of its ˜¯ innovations is the earliest solid references to sahajajnana that I have seen. proper nature (svabhava). The term is represented as the outcome of both the developing and the perfecting practices. Here it comes in three ﬂavors:
.”49 The allusion here refers to a distinction between the gnostic experience through the sahaja demonstrated in the consecration (drstantasahaja) . and in some ways conﬂicted. and . his own autocommentary to his version of a ﬁve-step program: the ´ı ˜ Sr¯cakrasamvarapancakramavrtti. He simply states that “by means of these instructions (on nispannakrama) one will experience the self-aware nondual gnosis . it occurs with other designations of the ultimate goal. . a of ways and is a further development of language and terminology observable in other works associated with his name.51 Elsewhere.52 The curious. .54 Instead. that the text is silent on the question of bliss. orgasm. DAVIDSON
great bliss – are consistently represented. For example. a special iconographic form of the deity Samvara is identiﬁed as Sahaja-samvara.¯ a sahaja). rather than as an explicit member of the path. essential form (svarupa). convergence of the esoteric afﬁrmation of physical pleasure with the terminology of essential nature required that the phases of ecstasy or. whose Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama shows a ˜a an evolution in this direction. the latter being the ﬂower of the former. but the designation is . . ¯ and the absolute nondual gnosis realized through absolute sahaja ¯ ¯ (paramarthikasahaja). While his other writings do not provide such a differen¯ ¯ tial of ecstasy in the sexual practice.
viramananda) – similar to the terms we will encounter later in the Hevajra Tantra and related systems. ı a ´ a a to receive ofﬁcial largesse at least as late as 877/8 CE under Sil¯h¯ra Kapardin II and still exhibited signs of life as late as the 12th century. ¯ ¯ madhyamananda.. it was undoubtedly his nine years of study of the ¯ ˙ Guhyasamaja with Balip¯da in Kanauj and Konkana. but only came to his realization while mediating in a forest close to ˜ Vajr¯sana. . in Central India (Bihar and Kanauj). when he was granted a vision of the deity Manjughosa. and the hagiography of Kukur¯ja a ˜a by Jn¯namitra. However.58 a . He certainly is concerned with his lineage. Buddhajn¯nap¯da states that he did not entirely comprehend a ¯ ˙ the teaching of the Guhyasamaja when he received it in Konkana. in his discussion of the a ıs ı ˜a consecrations according to the Jn¯nap¯da school. middling ecstasy. it is not precisely clear where or by whom it was explained. ı of Krsnagiri – Dark Mountain – apparently both Vitap¯da and the a . a . that was most a ˜a inﬂuential.57 was completed during the reign of Dharmapa He also worked with Vil¯savajra and others in Odiy¯na and elsea .. and the ecstasy of cessation (ananda. almost the same terminology was still being used in the early eleventh century by V¯g¯´varak¯rti. 775–812 CE). in the sky (kha). In conjunction with a similar training pilgrimage ´a reported for himself by S¯kyamitra. a ¯ .REFRAMING SAHAJA
¯ ecstasy. we can see that the early ninth century understood the primary esoteric centers to be along the western Coast. ¯ ¯ beginning with the famous Haribhadra whose Abhisamayalamkaraloka ¯la (ca. Tibetan translation team interpreted it from Sanskrit as a tree (amhri) . ˙ He eventually returned to Balip¯da in Konkana at the monastery of a *Sudrdhavih¯ra to visit the teacher again.55 Although the ¯ ¯ ¯ Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama describes these in terms of the perfecting practice. though.60 While the epigraphs are clear that K¯nher¯ is from the Prakrit rendering a. ˜a and Buddhajn¯nap¯da starts his treatise with an account of his teachers. a where. and in the Swat valley.56 a ˜ Where did Buddhajnanap¯da get this arrangement and what is the a ¯ relationship between the two major schools of Guhyasamaja practice? ¯ ¯ ¯ While the Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama mentions that the three are obtained in the manner that they have been explained (ji skad gsungs pa thob par ‘gyur). but we know that the ˙ Mah¯r¯ja-mah¯vih¯ra at K¯nher¯ of North Konkan (Apar¯nta) continued aa a a a.61
. and Vitap¯da’s commentary indicates that it was a given this name since the site was like a rootless vine that climbs high on other trees. ˙ Where was this site in Konkana? The Tibetan translation of Balip¯da’s a center on the Western shore translates the name Nam-mkha’ shing-ldan (Having sky-trees?).59 This does not help much.
kramadvayam sam¯´ritya vajrin¯ dharmade´an¯ | as s a . a .63
IV. . the precise placement or relationship of sahaja to these groupings became a contentious issue. that the use of the designation “essential gnosis” and various forms of ecstasy were brought together for the ﬁrst time in the most mature work of ˜a Buddhajn¯nap¯da. . principally through the literate work of his disciple. Thus. . However. it would reveal this otherwise a unknown master as a personality with overwhelming inﬂuence in later esoteric doctrine and practice. second. . a . . and. . . bh¯vaneti sam¯pattis tatsukham cakram ucyate || 26 a a . although the problems encountered by its authors are obvious enough when the text is examined in detail. we will peruse the core statements to see if textual criticism can lend support to the proposal that sahaja was not fundamental to an arrangement of varieties of sexual bliss. ˜a yosit t¯vad bhavet prajn¯ up¯yah purusah smrtah | a .62 If true.a utpattibh¯gam kathitam utpannam kathay¯my aham || 25 a . yathodayam bhavec chukram dvaividhyam sahajam tatah || 27 . nondual gnosis. ˜a . yath¯ny¯yam svasamvedyam bodhicittam tu devat¯ | a a . it appears from the documents known to me. and most particularly Balip¯da. that since each ¯ ananda series evolved separately. source – and this is entirely possible – it is probable that he encountered the phrases not in texts but in oral instructions from this array of teachers. Most important will be two points: ﬁrst. . . ˜ pumsi t¯vad dhi dvaividhyam ´ukram tasya sukhan ca v¯ | a a . . he did not synthesize them into the speciﬁc a schematism found in the later materials from the time of the hevajra Tantra forward. ˜ prajn¯y¯m ca yath¯ pumsi ´ukram tasya sukhan ca v¯ || 29 a a . . that the Hevajra exhibits three ¯ different series of a threefold ananda. aa khadh¯t¯v iti padmesu jn¯nam bhagam iti smrtam | . especially those denoting an absolute level of reality or its cognitive component. ˜a a . there was a continual tendency for sahaja to be separated from terms for ecstasy and to ﬁnd application in other technical ﬁelds. . a . . . The core text most frequently selected by representative authorities is Hevajra Tantra I.62
RONALD M. . . Accordingly.
˜a Even if the phrases Buddhajn¯nap¯da employs for ecstasy and a ˜¯ sahajajnana are found to have a prior. . s . since the association between these terms did not occur at their advent. HEVAJRA TANTRA AND RELATED WORKS
The Hevajra Tantra is the earliest work known to me to unify three forms of ecstasy with the ideology of a natural ecstasy. s . perhaps late eighth century. . Let us begin with the statements of the Hevajra Tantra and see how these were later employed. pa´c¯d anayor dvaividhyam vivrtisamvrtibhedatah || 28 s a . . As we will see.
highest ecstasy is greater than that. there are the complementary semen (relative) and bliss (absolute). Then there is a mere middle ecstasy (between the two).  What’s more.66 Thus. Thagana a sa – make reference to this chapter and these verses when discussing questions of sahaja.viii. . In sahaja there is neither insight nor skillful means. .  Sahaja cannot be explained by something else. Many other authors – including Tillipa. r¯gan¯´atv¯c caturtham tena bh¯vyate || 33 as a a .  The ﬁrst is through longing for touch.” while the man is “skillful means. . surat¯nandam samastam tatsukhop¯yah sarvavit || 31 a a . the chapter on the “circle of yogin¯s” has ı
.  By means of ecstasy there is some bliss. The developing process has been explained. param¯nandam yogin¯ | a a ı .a . param¯ndandam bhavam proktam nirv¯nam ca vir¯gatah | a a. . . Here the divinity is bodhicitta. . ıyam a . a  The teaching of truth by the vajrin is based on the two meditative processes. a a . and “as it arises” indicates it comes as semen. lustful ecstasy is their ı aggregation. . . sahajam caturvidham yasm¯d utpannakramapaks atah || 30 a . ¯nandena sukham kincit param¯nandam tato ‘dhikam | ˜ a a . . is almost completely a ı . a .
First we must establish the importance of this section.  Highest ecstasy is explained as existence. prathamam spar´¯k¯nksay¯ dvit¯ . na r¯go na vir¯ga´ ca madhyamam nopalabhyate | a a s . a . through merit and through service and attendance on the teacher. sukhav¯ncchay¯ | sa a ˙ . viramena vir¯gah sy¯t sahaj¯nandam ´esetah || 32 a .  (in I. nor is it found in anything. . the yogin¯ is highest ecstasy. “Cultivation” means contemplation and “wheel” is its bliss. nor a middle to be obtained. Ecstasy of sahaja is otherwise. a ıyam a˜ a . .  Thus within the man. since so many subsequent materials are either based on its statements or simply appropriate its verses for their own use. madhyam¯nandam¯tram tu sahajam ebhir vivarjitam || 34 a a . ıram . It is to be cognized by oneself. there are both seminal ﬂuid and bliss. n¯nyena kathyate sahajam na kasminn api labhyate | a .  The hero is ecstasy. for example. series of verses that comes from the Hevajra Tantra. . since sahaja is already fourfold in the perfecting process (as we have seen above). ˜a n¯tra prajn¯ na cop¯yah samyaktattv¯vabodhatah || 35 a a . and the fourth is thus cultivated. Nirvana is from dispassion. Shendge has shown that Domb¯heruka’s Sahajasiddhi. the third is from the destruction of desire. Within the insight (woman) as well. there is a further division into four forms of ecstasy. 1) “in the sky” means within the lotuses. the second by desire for bliss.  “By the rule” means it is to be personally experienced. ¯tman¯ jn¯yate puny¯d guruparvopasevay¯ || 36 a a ˜a a .  For there is neither desire nor dispassion. Ratn¯kara´¯nti. I will now explain the perfecting process. and the Omniscient has his skillful means in that bliss. s . Dispassion would be by cessation. trt¯ .  The woman is to be considered “insight. ¯nandam prathamam v¯ . “Majesty” is understood as gnosis. the above lines constitute the major part of the ﬁrst third of that work. .65 More to the point. . sahaja is dialectical. .REFRAMING SAHAJA
atraiv¯pi hi ¯nand¯n¯m catasrn¯m prabhedanam | a a a a. . Thus.” These in turn are each further bifurcated into absolute and relative. . Sahaja is devoid of them all. compared to the realization of correct reality.
for this chapter in the Hevajra Tantra brings together several different strategies and attempts to wed them with sahaja. the same as. This theme is eventually followed up as ¯ well by the division of sahajananda into that which is demonstrated ¯ during the third consecration (dr. 28] (relative) [v.ii. while others indicate it is the moment following passion and beyond the process of sexual ritual. Furthermore. Following up on this ¯ ¯ direction. as we have seen above. .64
RONALD M. and is divided into both relative and absolute categories within each gender.40] a param¯nanda a
sahaj¯nanda a viram¯nanda a
Little wonder that the crazy quilt of schemes should precipitate such discussions as to where sahaja comes or its precise nature. with some ¯ authors representing sahajananda as equivalent to orgasm and the apex of experience. sahaja is identiﬁed in this section of the Hevajra Tantra with several different schemes of ecstasy. sahaja is placed in relation to hierarchies of value and they are subordinated to it:
man [v. However. both as a curious overarching concept as well as a member of these schemes:
sahaja [v.tanta-sahajananda) and that which is . but not female. the theistically-oriented Vyaktabhavanugatatattva-siddhi of Yogin¯ Cint¯ begins with a statement that the Lord emanates. 29] semen sahaja = + (absolute) bliss woman [v.s ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ absolute (paramarthika-sahajananda).30] =
¯nanda  a a param¯nanda ¯nanda  a param¯nanda a
surat¯nanda a a sahaj¯nanda
viram¯nanda a sahaj¯nanda a
param¯nanda  a madhyam¯nanda a vir¯ga a sahaj¯nanda a
¯nanda [II. through ı a ¯ ¯ his proper nature (sahajavasthaya) himself as the forms of male and 67 The relative and absolute cateogries are similar to. DAVIDSON
been taken by several exegetical authors as the locus classicus for the development of the sahaja practices and doctrines. 28] (relative) [v. an evaluation only somewhat mitigated by references to the “lost” Hevajra in 500. Here. 29] semen (absolute) bliss
Sahaja here is the source of gender. the division of bodhicitta into relative and absolute forms in esoteric Buddhist systems.000 verses. part of the referential problem experienced by these good commentators is the hermeneutic difﬁculty in making this material consistent. Contributing to the tension within the series of embedded discourses is the disclaimer at the end of
. In this arrangement. the nature of the world is represented dialectically.
some of which we cannot resolve with the materials yet investigated. In this. including sahajananda. Having articulated a term as the locus of synthesis. so that sahajajnana was kept outside of the series altogether and instead discussed in relation to absolute awakening.69 On the other hand. viramananda. the speciﬁc nominal properties of sahaja are revealed when it is occasionally replaced with the terminology of “inherent nature” ¯ ¯ (svabhava) or “proper form” (svarupa). So. the term is suddenly wrenched from its web of relations and cast as a cipher for absolute being. it was a designation of the goal rather than a member of the path. However. after all. we see the easy movement from an adjective to a noun.34–36] that sahaja has in fact nothing to do with any of this. Kværne’s proposal that sahaja is exclusively adjectival cannot be accepted as proposed. certainly. On one hand. his was exclusively ˜¯ a threefold hierarchy. etc. the term becomes a locus of synthesis for any number of various separately conceived ˜a strategies. we also see an entirely different hermeneutic direction. Elsewhere. with the aegis category of sahaja applied ¯ to all the various levels included therein. we might observe the desire for two incommensurate directions in the hermeneutics of a term. madhyamananda. The integration of these different series is one of the arguments to place its origin in the late ninth or early tenth century. and ritual terminology became one of the great sources for philosophical directions. It is described as part of the ritual of aspiration. We have seen in the case of Buddhajn¯nap¯da that he a ¯ ¯ ¯ employed a schema of ananda. a few things are clear.REFRAMING SAHAJA
the above Hevajra section [I. siddha. However. First. Buddhists had done this for quite some time. There are many questions here. which is arguably the system in I. Nonetheless.34. above. which was probably from the ﬁrst quarter of the ninth century. so that at the hands of some ¯ ¯ ¯ authors sahajananda is replaced with svabhavananda in the continuing 68 reiteration of forms of ecstasy.
. it was the desire on the part of its authors to amalgamate several of these arrangements that led to their formulation of this material in the Hevajra Tantra. even though we must acknowledge that he is correct in afﬁrming that many instances of the use of sahaja in the ¯ ˜¯ literature do stand as shorthand for sahajananda or sahajajnana.viii. ˜a ¯ ¯ after the composition of Buddhajn¯nap¯da’s Dvikramatattvabhavanaa ¯ mukhagama.viii. much as we see this process in other Buddhist terms: buddha. bodhicitta was formulated in Mahayanist terms to describe the conception of awakening conceived by a bodhisattva to differentiate him from the Arhat. we see here its nominalization. Instead. Second.
fueled in part by the rapidly expanding rhetoric of “nature” (prakrti). the four cakras were trifurcated. it becomes a speciﬁc designation of absolute reality. the Sa-skya-pa order of Tibetan Buddhism was even¯ tually to move the sahajananda ritual exegesis one further stage.72 Other authors divided each ˜ ecstasy into six kinds (via six vijnana) or.66
RONALD M. Eventually. the series of four ecstasies was to be divided each into four again. In their system. In the esoteric literature of the Mahayoga-tantras. Accordingly. ¯ both sahaja and ananda continued to be discussed apart from their ¯ association in the physical practice. a the relationship of the fourfold ecstasy to the cakras was given both descending from the fontanel to the navel (the normative mandalacakra . First and foremost.73 Given these disagreements. “non artiﬁcial” (akrtrima) and other rough synonyms. there became an association of the experience of various levels of ecstasy with the speciﬁc psychophysical centers (cakra).. As we have seen. but once it became part of ritual nomenclature. ı ¯ ¯ mahamudra in some early esoteric literature appears to describe a speciﬁc symbol (a seal). alternatively. the relationship of sahaja to interior yogic practice – not strong in the Hevajra – was strengthened in the commentarial literature and in technical treatises associated with the tantra. if such a term . various directions were taken in the literature. mind and gnosis (kayavakcittajnana). ¯ ¯ ˜¯ speech. DAVIDSON
and articulated as a conceptual ﬁeld based on its great longevity and ¯ durability. . . so that different ¯ forms of a complex arrangement of sixteen forms of ananda were to be speciﬁed. with the articulation of two different and complementary ways of engaging in sexual yoga. entitled the Lam-‘bras (*M¯rga-phala). and this was no doubt related to its initial genesis. especially in the later ¯ commentarial tantras and the Kalacakra. since the relationship of ecstasy to sahaja was formal and historical rather than an essential part of the meditative system.70 Similarly. then exegetes began to explore its possibilities. yielding ¯ twenty-four or twelve (or even one) varieties of ananda. and accordingly disagreement as to which direction the process followed (up or down) and in which centers each level of ecstasy was felt. ever existed). and each part identiﬁed with an ecstasy. the term was around for quite some time. system) or ascending in the opposite direction in a system called the “adamantine wave” (rdo-rje rba-labs = ? vajrataramga. They were sometimes arranged according to body. as Snellgrove has already demonstrated. After the Hevajra Tantra’s synthesis. bifurcated into relative and absolute terms and developed further in the yogin¯ tantras. We will brieﬂy examine Indrabhuti’s
.74 Moreover.71 I believe that this was the same process to which sahaja became subject.
and these two may be proﬁtably a a compared. made this work accessible. as we saw above. where a sa the good monk discusses a practice only marginally out of place in the secluded halls of the monastery. INDRABHUTI’S SAHAJASIDDHI AND THE SIDDHA CULTURAL CRITIQUE
Following the lead of the Hevajra Tantra. and Shendge has ı . which articulates an absolutist sahaja.
¯ V. in which numerous varieties of ecstasy are mentioned. both in terms of the widespread popularity of the name and in the tendency for traditional apologists and modern scholars to amalgamate the various personalities into one grand persona. so that no ¯ longer any physical partner (karmamudra) would be needed or even desirable. An excellent example of this direction is found in Ratn¯kara´¯nti’s Sahajayogakrama. Instead. Both the physical and gnostic directions were also to be taken by the authors and authorities of the ¯ early eleventh century Kalacakra Tantra. is attributed a soteriological hagiography of perfect awakening upon receiving the consecrations. a complete catalogue of texts and attributions associated with this popular name would ﬁll an archive almost as large as that of N¯g¯rjuna.
. Other members of this genre survive. Indeed. while the Sarnath edition has provided a more complete series of readings. but we ˜a should also note Prajn¯gupta’s mid-eleventh century explorations of these topics.76 Each of these various directions is deserving of a separate treatment.77 “Indrabhuti” in fact is associated with one of the most enduring myths of the preaching of the tantras. as well as any number of other legendary activities. and even the Sa-skya tradition of Tibetan Buddhism maintains that there were ¯ ¯ three Indrabhutis.REFRAMING SAHAJA
Sahajasiddhi below. which is surely an underestimate.75 Another consequence of sahaja’s dissociation from the physical would be found with the complete interiority of the practice. which is probably the source for the further hypostatization of sahaja into a full-ﬂedged body of the ¯ Buddha (sahajakaya). there came about the development of a genre of texts that set out speciﬁcally to teach sahaja in different ways. however. We need to be circumspect with this identity. but the most interesting example I have seen is the relatively late work ¯ attributed to an Indrabhuti. the real goddess – whose form is gnosis – will be ˜¯ ¯ invited as a gnostic partner (jnanamudra). with ¯ ¯ ¯ svabhavananda sometimes found where we would expect sahajananda. ¯ since Indrabhuti appears frequently in Indian esoteric literature. The one following most closely the text of the Hevajra was doubtlessly that of Domb¯heruka.
as it became increasingly inﬂuenced by other traditions:
Some claim the self is sahaja. none of these will understand sahaja. cowherds. Beyond the important hagiographical material. In its analysis. for it posits a series of attributes accorded to sahaja.78 Upon being blessed by him. With their rejection Is of both conceptual attributes of self and non-self. interspersed with its own qualitative positions. presents the text in twenty-six sections. That is exactly the life of living ¯ . yaksas. In the middle of the navel is the highest cakra. a L¯l¯dev¯. she realized that she was an emanation of the bodhisattva Vajrap¯ni – who a. along with nagas. is identiﬁed as the patron divinity of Odiy¯na – and she and her ﬁve a . In these we see some of the directions that continue to challenge esoteric Buddhism. and so we should start there. Indrabhuti was the receptor of a ´ ı a teaching on sahaja that began in Odiy¯na with a princess *Sr¯-Mah¯. women. mlecchas.68
RONALD M. and is the rejection of conceptual evaluation. Some [quote] the texts about the enjoyment [body: sambhogak¯ya]. it is not born from either the internal or the external. it is error or something very similar. The teaching on this was then passed down in a lineage until ¯ the time of Indrabhuti. always arising and self-existent. and then spends a portion of the text denying the validity of others’ interpretations. began the text with a lineage and identity that ﬁts virtually none of the other persons of that appellation. It is continuously inexhaustible. each of which either articulates a position on sahaja or provides a refutation of others’ position. . DAVIDSON
¯ This Indrabhuti. all pervasive and present in ¯ all bodies. children. and her encounter with an unnamed black-headed Rsi in the ıa ı . However. the commentary. hundred ladies in waiting all received awakening into the nature of sahaja. ¯ gods. will wander in the cities of the world. low caste.80 Present both internally and externally. in terms of the intellectual and ritual distance attempted between the author and other authorities. the representation of sahaja in the text is quite interesting. a forest monastery of *Ratn¯lamk¯ra. the text is unequivocally absolutist. beings. by this you will not achieve sahaja. It is not attained except through this text. aquatic life. Instead. but even if you are young and apply yourself for a long time until aged.82 Some claim that accomplishment comes from the joining of sexual organs. and deluded fools make it ¯´vara. a .79 In terms of afﬁrmations. through its presence in all that is moving and ¯ stable (caracara). but this is a not called sahaja. however. is truly present in all the times. Some practitioners continually meditate on the resplendent form in its midst. The category ¯ of synthesis (yuganaddhapadartha). The moment there is a cause. and the statement describing its essential nature is revealing of its suppositions:
The peace of sahaja is all pervasive. According to the short lineage list and the ¯ lengthy commentarial hagiography. the jinas have declared sahaja to be the condition of nonduality (yuganaddhapada). they . who wrote it down. the Sahajasiddhipaddhati. but this is not called
The refutations are more interesting. . It is the highest indestructible (paramaksara).
84 Included therein are many of these same items: puriﬁcation rituals. making sounds. and many others. again and again cultivating this practice – but that is not called sahaja. as much as anyone else. real or imagined. ¯ afﬂict the body by restricting the wind that evacuates the waste (apanavayu). deriding their society as having lost in the true path in every sort of area. restraining of vital breath. so as to reside (in concentration) at the tip of the nose. spirituality not the least.83
In a similar manner. In reality. It would be easy to dismiss these critical ﬁgures as disgruntled curmudgeons.REFRAMING SAHAJA
sahaja. They are not ¯. Tillopa. a castigation of M¯dhyamikas as addicted a
. The apparent intersection of each of the practices is that they may be considered excessive in their artiﬁciality and harmful in wresting the mind from its natural condition. maintaining . He ﬁnally expresses the afﬁrmative context again. And there might be something to that analysis. largely in a negative relation to practice current at his time. Whatever is obtained by this breath restriction – that is not called sahaja. For example. for example. well known through the various translations of the Saraha corpus. The great wheel present at the fontanel – touching it and having bliss drip from it – these are attained by application to the ritual requirement. for such personalities are still encountered in India. is that some of the siddhas employing the rhetoric of sahaja clearly had the monks ¯ in mind. employing religious literature and personal stature to engage in a broadside against foes and follies. meditating on cakras. We ﬁnd included in Indrabhuti’s Sahajasiddhi. Some make effort in restricting the “life breath” (pranavayu : breathing through the nose). this Sahajasiddhi resembles nothing so much as the genre ¯ of critical doha literature. ¯ that called sahaja. Others ¯ ¯. and visionary experiences – none of these is sahaja. but equally observable in other literature ´ı ¯ attributed to Virupa. such as the use of the drug dattura or the ingestion of human waste. It appears to me that we ﬁnd in this kind of material a curious convergence between the direction towards interiority found in esoteric literature associated with its monastic domestication – as in the instances ´a of Ratn¯kara´¯nti or S¯kyamitra – and the statements in ninth century a sa ¯ literature. though. yogic positions while restraining various “winds” (physical functions). the author articulates or implies a relatively comprehensive list of yogic practices. They both appeal to a critical faculty coupled and later doha with a distaste for the excessive yogic activities and sometimes lethal ingredients proposed by the tantras. the Sr¯¯ ¯ presents an analogous series of practices that it indicates Birua-caurasi are the abnegation of sahaja. meditation on mandalas. The difference between the sahaja-centered critique and the interiorcentered meditative activity of the monks. as well as others..
for we occasionally read of siddhas as having been monks. all humans are already possessed of inherent awakening. Thus.” so that at least one modern Indian understood the term to apply to the path of least resistance. the siddhas derided the monastic estate as a new form of bondage. as if the afﬁrmation of naturalness itself caused some to perceive the foibles of the accelerated ritualism and claims to authority with which esoteric institutions were rife.) are. It would therefore appear that sahaja operated as a point of intersection between the caustic disapprobation of excessive ritualism ever in the background of the Buddhist subculture.85 The curiosity. etc. authority superior to all of these domains – secular of sacred – with their pedantry and legalistic wrangling. as the problem is framed in some areas of the Mahayana. DAVIDSON
to disputation. and it is clear that the monastic world with its ritualized intellectual combat was a no-man’s land for those siddhas desiring to live in the “natural” state of awareness. If. So both Maitr¯p¯da and Virupa. clear
. we have seen Dasgupta lauding the sahaja path as other than “suppressing and thereby inﬂicting undue strain on the human nature. for ı a example. There appears to be a social component to this as well. in their own way. as artiﬁcial as the rites of passage (samskara) denoting status in Brahmanical society. ¯ Indeed. centers of virtue and learning. Monks’ ordination and restraint from physical functions (sex. That is not to say that the problematic of a natural condition was new. and clearly felt they had. though. but discharged from their monasteries. substituting the law of the monastery for the law of the king. eating after noon. the iconoclasm of vernacular literature expressions. Many of the siddhas sought. is that so many ﬁgures within the larger ﬁeld of Buddhist esoterism chose the rhetoric and nomenclature of sahaja. and the peripatetic behavior of wandering siddhas. then is there nothing that actually needs to be done? However this question is formulated – whether all ¯ beings have tathagatagarbha or if consciousness is inherently pure.70
RONALD M. are described in their hagiographic legacies as having been removed from the monasteries. we may expect that part of the tension exhibited in the sahaja-related works was between monastic institutions and the newly evolved path of siddhas in the esoteric Buddhist world. for the theoretical difﬁculty with the rhetoric of naturalness is already foreshadowed in the older Mahayanist conundrum. for whom physical yoga was a waste of time. if we are to believe the a a 86 While the monks wielded authority as representatives of these story. the latter dramatically demoted from his position as the monastic head of N¯land¯. . normatively for sexual behavior at odds with the life ¯ and survival of monastic decorum.
we should be sensitive to the difference between how sahaja is used in sentences as a carrier of speciﬁc information. Sahaja articulates a category of limitations or a range of restricted activities that are accidental and accrued at birth through inheritance. It describes a condition that applies to all.
Sahaja proved to be an extraordinary fertile term. then why observe the various vows of the Vajray¯na.87 So. and it often leaves us with a sense that the exercise is a temporary reverie of modest utility. His answer was to invoke the two-tiered truth response that became the staple of Mahayanist analysis since N¯g¯rjuna. In our understanding of the term. In the case of sahaja as well. the residence in monasteries.25–36). and so forth? The formulation of two truths sets about to solve the dilemma. on gender or other social/physical factors that were supposed to be covered by questions
. on strata of society. the ritual and meditative systems. interdependence. so that any predicate may be identiﬁed with (or negated from) sahaja. . Unfortunately. and how some authors use it as a broader subject. Sahaja means natural. Throughout the period of its use. I believe the term is most frequently employed by Indian Buddhist authors in one of seven related and overlapping semantic values: 1. the issue arises.? a Even Ratn¯kara´¯nti felt moved to discuss the issue in his commentary a sa to the Hevajra verses examined above (I. according to this veriﬁcation of rules and a a decorum. and the term is important or not. etc. for if sahaja is natural and the basis for all reality. and they provide a relatively good measure of its register. The semantics of its use are the most important. as an adjective. the consecrations. etc. representatives explain the rationale for the grand ediﬁce of the Buddhist tradition. some authorities equate sahaja with almost every important Buddhist term – emptiness.viii. roughly equivalent to akrtrima. How do institutional .REFRAMING SAHAJA
¯ light (prakrtiprabhasvara) – the difﬁculty remains. 2. depending on the value attached to nature. These conditions are not exclusive to any group. They may be based on caste. neophytes only come to this realization through the practice of a relative level of ritual sahaja as a metaphor for the absolute sahaja. but did not do so in a manner that arrested the question from being continuously reframed. while absolute sahaja may be innate or inherent. and its application from the classical period through the latest documents of Indian esoteric Buddhism demonstrates continual development. this is part of the larger problem of ¯ putative synonymy (paryaya) in Indian technical writing. Thus. such as the basics of existence.
6. 88 having the relationship of sahaja. sahotpanna or ¯ sahacarin.72
RONALD M. sahajananda.
of karma but are often treated by Buddhist authors as possessing something of an element of chance. a. and is used to described the inherent and inalienable attributes that exist ¯ irrespective of accidental circumstances. when the two items were not associated. irreducible condition. whether physically enacted or visualized. and we see that later authors sometimes ¯ ¯ replace it with svabhavananda. very speciﬁc to an individual. since sahaja is sometimes allied with the aesthetic perception of the incomparable
. Sahajananda is often identiﬁed in this sense.
No doubt this list could be improved and reﬁned. Sahaja indicates a fundamental. rather than accompanying. Thus. and culminating in. Sahaja applies to certain behaviors or tendencies that are obtained from previous lives or innate personal characteristics. and we see that titles like the Sahajayogakrama of Ratn¯kara´¯nti a sa ¯ indicate the process leading up to. decidedly ¯ ¯ a noun. such as the relation of sahaja to aesthetics.
5. Ratn¯kara´¯nti provides the example of “great bliss” a sa ¯ ˜ ˜¯ (mahasukha) and non conceptual gnosis (nisprapancajnana) as . etc. but which are always necessarily present when the other is manifest. It therefore indicates simultaneous. Sahaja indicates the present moment when one thing occurs with another. neither of which is subordinate or superordinate to the other. “stream entrants” have certain characteristics (mental body. This application is especially noted in the systems deriving from the Hevajra Tantra. Sahaja connotes the ritual of sexual yoga. Through synecdoche. sahaja implies not ¯ only sahajananda but the entire practice as well. Sahaja speciﬁes a relationship of inherent simultaneity between two elements. DAVIDSON
3. It is roughly equivalent to svabhava or svarupa. It describes ´ ¯ ¯ something like anusaya. The association of an individual and a limiting element is thus occasional or adventitious rather than necessary or essential. The term in this and the previous application is used in a manner similar to sahagata. vasana or pratisamdhikarma. but the simultaneity is weak and adventitious. a temporal value differentiated from the prior and subsequent moments. These are . deﬁcit of knowledge.) that are sahaja. for many of the issues implicated in the study of esoteric literature have not even been touched.
7. even if they denote functional limitations applying to all individuals within that category. as in the case of the “acquisition” of “nondeﬁled indeterminant” elements in Vaibh¯sika Abhidharma.
perhaps grounded in the ¯ new Kalacakra vision.
. in whose unitary vision “natural ecstasy” became an important component. Because of the various sources for the gradations of ecstasy. so that it operates as one proﬁtable marker of both history and lineage. sahaja is one of those terms not employed by all esoteric Buddhists. century. ¯ The further development of a new body. and their respective intensions and metaphors. Sahaja’s synthesis with forms of ananda probably occurred in the ninth. as a methodological tool. with twelve. sixteen and twenty-four kinds ¯ of ananda eventually speciﬁed by various authors. the sahajakaya.89 Other issues would have to include an examination of the difference of semantic value of sahaja when articulated in the different descriptions of rituals either physically enacted or simply visualized. which is often carefully considered by the traditions themselves. with a division on the placement of the transcendental form of bliss in the system. We must ask the simple question if these latter – despite the formal and verbal similarities to physical rites – can even be termed rituals in any signiﬁcant sense of the term. sahaja eventually became a reference point for the siddhas’ criticism of Buddhist ritualism. and seems to have been precipitated by the authors of the Hevajra Tantra. so that the totalizing response of modern scholarship to Mantray¯na a materials may be set aside for a more critical awareness of variation and nuance. or at latest tenth. A nonperformative ritual yielding a certain cognitive state might be accepted ¯ ¯ by Buddhist monks as just more meditative cultivation (bhavana). Attention to these kinds of nomenclature. Beyond the question of semantic values. moral high ground excluding the artiﬁcial. will assist in differentiating the esoteric Buddhist sources. but it would suggest that the semantic load of the prime variables has changed in the process. though. seems a late tenth or early eleventh century phenomenon. eventually various offshoots emerged. For its part. and excessive yogic obsession. so that it occupied a soteriological. As a result. It seems that eighth century tantras and their derivative lineages ¯ – particularly many of those in the Guhyasamaja and Samvara praxis . or only invoked it as a selective response to the emerging power of naturalism’s rhetorical ¯ stance. there was no unanimity in the initial formulation.REFRAMING SAHAJA
¯ ¯ taste of liberation (anupamarasasvadana). traditions and history. scholastic involvement. – either ignored the new terminology altogether. Thus. sahaja commands our consideration.
where the esoteric employment of svabhavikakaya is brieﬂy mentioned. see Makransky (1997). 2. pp.g. 670.” pp. 16 ´ . 22 Kværne (1975). Abhidharmakosabhasya p. 12. ed. 10 Dasgupta (1946). ´ Subhasita-samgraha. . the translations of sahagata and sahaja are the same in many sections of ˙ ¯ ¯ Gunabhadra’s and Bodhiruci’s Lankavatra translations.16.16. 34. 17 Dasgupta (1950). p. . 13–14. 26 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ . 284–285. 18. Le Museon n. Introduction. 7 E. . On this genre. 5 (1904): 5. p. DAVIDSON
NOTES For studies of this variety.ı ¯ Sekoddes at¯ka. ed. 19 This table is actually an amalgamation of two tables found in Hevajra Tantra. n. xxxvi of the 1962 rev. as we will see. 126. pp. n. 264. Matsunaga (1973) for a critique of this problem. 671. 124–128. and ¯ ¯ ¯ especially pp. 24 Davidson (forthcoming a). 34 and 38. cf. 21 Snellgrove (1987). 4 (1903): 376. n.15. ¯ ¯ 670. “Introduction. T.. “Introduction. 233–234.ı ¯ Sekoddes at¯ka. 81. 12 Guenther (1969). reading with the Tib.74
RONALD M. ´ ¯. 12 of the text.. Dvivedi.537a16. 1.209–219. Sankarnarayan and Yoritomi.s. and Banerjee. 29 ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ Lankavatara Sutra. 9. 3 ¯. Dasgupta (1950).10–11 (reading hetuh for hatuh). pp.4032. Jana. 69. 15 ´ .g. pp. the verses that opperate as a commentary on ˙ ¯ ¯ the model invoked here.16. 9 Dasgupta (1946). pp.ı ¯ ¯ Sekoddes at¯ka. 4 ¯.s.4–8.671. 5 ¯. 23 Kværne (1975). nikayasabhaga. Introduction. . pp. ¯ Mahayanasutralamkara. pp.
. . for a recent discussion of the kaya theory in early medieval scholasticism. 227b7: chos kyi dbyings mchog gi don ¯ la sogs pa . p. cf. 292–293. Lankavatara X. 14 ´ . ´ Subhasita-samgraha. 149. T. More unfortunately. 28 ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ Lankavatara Sutra. see Tatz (1987) and Schaeffer (2000). 14). p. 85–286. 18 Snellgrove’s 1957 Buddhist Himalaya. 232. p. 89. . 13 Guenther (1992). ed. 8 Evident in essays by Saroja. Le Museon n. ´ Subhasita-samgraha.14–16. 10. 11 Dasgupta (1950). the “noun or adjective” certainly refers to Kværne’s 1975 article. 20 Hevajra Tantra. 14. see Sternbach (1973). 18–19. Chakravarti and Charkrvarti. despite a lack of reference. p. p. pp.. and indicate group characteristics (nikaya) found within a speciﬁc realm of existence (gati). T. 5 (1904): 263. 174–178. xxv of the 1962 rev. 18. pp. 501c13. cf. (1999).s. T. Gatinikaya and nikayagati are almost interchange˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ able in the Lankavatara. 27 ¯ ¯ ¯ ´¯ Madhyantavibhaga.489c23–5. whose contributions are well acknowledged and in many ways central to this study. 540c23. 167. . p. Introduction. To. 64–70. 243–267. 22. 35. the Tibetan replaces dharmadhatusparsartha¯ ¯ ¯ with dharmadhatvagrarthadi-. . 104. 118.530a14. p. 62. as n.16.” p. 25 E. 134. 498a2–20. p. fol. Le Museon n. This use is related ¯ ¯ to the form of causation providing continuity between births. in Bhattacharyya. and Chin.489c23. had already discussed the Tibetan employment of this material. Guenther felt moved to engage in an unnecessary ad hominem attack on Snellgrove (p. p. 6 Shahidullah (1928). 257. vol. pp. indicating that the dharmadhatu is the highest object. pp.
I have discussed the Vil¯savajra references in Davidson (1981).18–67. .15–18. included within differing chapters.14. .5–6. 35 ´ ¯. 66. fols. I would also argue that if the term were important ¯ system. pp. p.1–10. 39–48 being particularly interesting. 412–419. fols. ¯ ¯´ ˜ ˜¯ ¯ ¯ ¯´ ¯. is completely different. We might also note that the Laghusamvara Tantra. 152b6. these dharmas are deﬁned in ´ ¯.. 39 ¯ ¯ E.¯ 41 Some of these issues are discussed in Davidson (forthcoming a). 34 ´ ¯. T. fols. all these issues need further examination. and the Vajrabhairava Tantra. 36 ¯ Ratnagotravibhaga. ˜¯ Abhidharmakos a-bhasya. pp. to the Guhyasamaja ¯ The most complete traditional discussion of the Guhyasamaja systems I have seen is the 1634 discussion by A-mes-zhabs. no.” the . dPal gsang ba ’dus pa’i dam pa’i chos
. 44 I must alert the reader that these comments apply only to the literature cited. Lalou (1953). I ¯ ¯ ¯ have yet to systematically peruse the vyakhya tantras. Sarvabuddhasamayoga. 523. Abhidharmakosa-bhasya II. Yet this may not be so great a chronological liability.4–9. the later meditation manuals would certainly cite it. 33 ´ ¯. . 40 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Subahupariprccha. for a discussion of its importance. ¯ Bodhisattvabhumi. . p. where To. However. that indicate a common basis for the Tibetan translations of those verses or sections.” see Siklos (1996). . pp.30.65 (S¯kyamitra’s section): Chin kang ting ching yu ch’ieh shih ˜¯ ¯ ¯ ´ ˜ ¯´ pa hui chich kuei. Abhidharmakos a-bhasya. etc. fol. Prajnaparamita-nayasatapancasatkat¯ka. see also Davidson a (forthcoming a).286c. p. 43 The exception to these statements is the curious non canonical recension of ¯ ¯ ¯ the Sarvabuddhasamayoga. 224a4–b5. 7b4–12a7. fols. The chapter order and naming. germane to our discussion.. 366. Pancakrama II. 65.21–27. pancavijnanakaya indriyadvaya srayah |. and it appears to me an eleventh century or later reworking of the longer text in one of the older tantric centers of Central Tibet. 34. 214. and we might suspect an earlier version that had no chapter divisions in the manner of the received versions. For a recent translation of ﬁve tantras designated as ´ “Vajrabhairava. 138b6–139a4.12–24. see Granoff (2000). 37 ¯ Bodhisattvabhumi. the “Guhyatantra. tantrapindartha.. 237a4–7. The prima facie supposition that the shorter text is earlier may be called into question by the presence of the four kinds of bliss. ¯´ ¯ ¯ ˜¯ ¯ . 32 ¯ Bodhisattvabhumi. see Kanaoka (1966). fol. fol. esp. Laghusamvara. 232a5–6. XI. Dutt (1966). A comparison of the texts shows many sections. fols. Abhidharmakos a-bhasya. 137. 366 has ten.. The shorter text. p. 65. 239b1–4. This latter is the most intriguing. while one third to one half the size of the longer version. as Matsunaga (1964) has proposed that at least some of these ancillary scriptures were composed by ¯ the members of the Arya-lineage. ¯ Paramadya. 3a6. X. the mandala arrangement and . especially.12. 214. Guhyasamaja VII. such as the Sandhivyakarana.18. which is much shorter than the canonical version. cf.869.ı ¯ ˜a Jn¯namitra’s work is included in the early ninth century dKar chag ldan dkar ma. Neither of the two canonical commentaries pertain to the shorter version. 42 For an introduction to this issue. etc. for the term. 216a4.44: tatra caksurvijnanasya caksuh sahaja . Dutt (1966).6–22. 40. p.1. references several other works: the Tattvasamgraha. . p. 58.REFRAMING SAHAJA
˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ Lankavatara Sutra.7 to I. 38 ´a ˜ ¨ E. the Sarvabuddhasamayoga-tantraraja. 155b3–159a4. p.18–19.g. 7–8. against virtually the same material found in Chapter ﬁve of To.3. asrayo yavat kayavijnanasya kayah | at¯tah punar esam asrayo mana ity apy ete ı . . 273a3. 52b6–53a2. Dutt (1966). . 130b5–131a4 and Subahupariprccha. 2. fols. though. justiﬁcation found in the second chapter of the shorter non canonical recension. with XV. cf.g.. yet is not as clear as we might like. fols. has eleven cahpters (kalpa). pp.
225. etc. even if the term has not been used in the scripture. n. . ı 47 ¯ ¯ E. p. 59. 25–9. 83b7). the general usage of sahaja observed in the ¯ text. 1436.. the Caryamelapakaprad¯pa. that Buddhaguhya was the ˜a disciple of Buddhajn¯nap¯da. 101. ¯ ¯ appears to reinforce this analysis: mulatantre ‘pi yoginyah sahajah siddha iti vacanat. a ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Sukusuma-nama-dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama-vrtti 127a4. p.76
RONALD M. 42. fol. 77 83–9. 62–71 ı ı ¯ uses the term in the context of the highly erotic seventh chapter of the Guhyasamaja.3. ¯ ı ¯ . represented in Davidson (1981). .1–37. and I would a ıs ırti tentatively identify the two individuals bearing this name. cols. pp. Ruegg (1981). To. We also may notice . 15. Rahasyad¯pika. p. 52 Cf. 213a5. 23. as noted by Snellgrove (1987). 9.g. fol. p. 10–11. dpe’i lhan cig skyes pa’i me tog lta bu’i bde ba chen po’i rang rig gnyis su med pa’i ye shes nyams su myong bar ‘gyur ro |. the Sukusumaa ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ nama-dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama-vrtti. ı ˜ ¯ 51 ¯ See the various discussions in the Vasantatilaka commentary. While the Vasantatilaka is not directly concerned . see the bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba. this is not a sensible translation in any semantic value for the term sahaja. 15. with the question of sexual practice. 53 See dPal gsang ba ’dus pa’i dam pa’i chos byung ba’i tshul legs par bshad pa gsang ’dus chos kun gsal pa’i nyin byed. fol. 121a7). 1457. 9. see also fols. but does not use the term when explaining sexual practice. fols. vol. and a reference in Ananga’s Dakin¯jalasamvarahrasya. DAVIDSON
byung ba’i tshul legs par bshad pa gsang ’dus chos kun gsal pa’i nyin byed. 15.. 89a6–94b1. quotes from the Guhyasiddhi (fols. For the complicated relationship between the Pancakrama and other texts. I no longer believe the tradition. p. although this is apparently not ˜ ˜ from the Pancakrama. For the ‘Phags-lugs syllabus. 3. Vitap¯da identiﬁes the three forms of ecstasy with the three bodies of the Buddha. see the Mimaki and Tomabechi edition. 103b4) and Nagarjuna (fol. . a 54 ¯ ¯ ¯ Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama. have rendered ¯ sahasa (ferocity) with the Tibtan rendering of sahaja. 56 Samksiptabhisekavidhi. Prad¯podyotana. 50 For this terminology and discussion. 40–41) ¯ ¯. 1471. fol. 301. fols. 10–11. . pp. ¯ As in the case of the Guhyasamaja literature. 1. lhan cig skyes pa. 55 ¯ ¯ ¯ Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama. and one quote from the “Mulatantra” inVanaratna’s commentary (pp. for example. 231a2–3: man ngag de rnams kyi stobs kyis ı . 57 ¯ ¯ ¯ Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama. fol. “Introductory Remarks. 12a5–6: ’di ni lhan cig skyes pa yi | ye shes ‘ba’ zhig dbang byas nas | rim pa gnyis pa bsgom pa’i thabs | mi shigs thig le bsgom pa’o |. pp. n. p. ‘Brog-mi Sh¯kya ye-shes is reputed a . pp. I wish to thank Christian Wedemeyer for calling my attention to the ¯ ¯ importance of the Caryamelapakaprad¯pa. ¯ indicates his interpretation of part of the Abhidhanottara with the hermeneutics of sahaja. xvi-xvii. p. see Alakakala´a’s commentary to the s Yogin¯sancara Tantra. ı 91b4–5. 17. 45 ˜ It may be observed that the Tibetan translators of Pancakrama II. 13a2.3. cf. . 418.4–40. 100b4–103a4. to have worked with a V¯g¯´varak¯ in the early eleventh century. 58 ¯ ¯ ¯ This section of the Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama. 46 ¯ ¯ The Caryamelapakaprad¯pa. . 8. vv. 1b4–2b5 would be much more obscure without the much later commentary of Vitap¯da. 49 ´ ˜ Sr¯cakrasamvarapancakramavrtti. I have not perused the explanatory ˙ tantras for references. 24.
. 68. 37.18. ı ¯ ¯ Vasantatilaka pp. and we must wonder about the manuscript transmission. 11a2–3 and 13b1. ¯ .3. 1b4.” x. fol. but employs mandalacakra elsewhere. 48 ¯ Laghusamvara Tantra. 94b1–2. 7b2: gsal zhing rab dga’ nam mkha’ ‘dra | rang byung lhag pa’i lha chen po | lhan cig skye pa’i ye shes kyis | bla ma’i kha las rtogs par bya |. 11. ¯ that he employs sahajananda at least once (fol.
. ı ¯ ¯ ¯ etc. 90a6: rnam mkha’i . Prajnaparamita-nayasatapancasatkataka. 167a1. Other arguments for the a later date of the Hevajra Tantra are based on an argumentum ex silencio. Even as late as the tenth century list of tantras by Devaputra. 13a2. Haribhadra. 63 ¯ This straightforward equation is provided by Vitap¯da. Kuwayama (1991) forever settled the question with the publication of a rereading of the Gardez inscription. Sukusuma-namaa ¯ ¯ ¯ dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama-vrtti. but we have no reason to do so other than the chronology may be approximately correct.1. etc. . However.ı ¯ . fol. 28. which is the weakest of historical arguments. p. 158b2. fol. 66 ´ E. 221a2. we are . We must recall that Tibetans continued to make translations into the third quarter of the ninth century. 92–99. 129–130. 273a3–274a2. 25. fol. . pp. see Hevajra Tantra. the Laghusamvara. faced with an enormous volume of Hevajra commentaries and related material by the early eleventh century.. Vanaratna in his late Rahasyad¯pika. .g.6–18. had been written during the reign of Dharmap¯la (ca. These two were the conclusion of the Early Translation Period.” . vol. However.¯ ¯ ¯ karatattvasamgrahat¯ka fols. 195a1. a . a with Swat could still have been questioned. 169. fol. shing ldan zhes bya ste | ci’i phyir zhe na | rtsa ba med par shing rnams la ’khris shing steng du dris pa (sic for dril pa) lta bur gnas pa’o |. This deﬁning moment was unfortunately obscured by Kuwayama’s bland . the date of Buddhajn¯nap¯da is predicated on his a ¯ teacher. 12b5. pp. who indicated that his long commentary. However.ı ¯ ¯ ˜ ¯ Sahajanandaprad¯papanjika. 16b6. 1. even though it is the only one we have in this case. etc. or on translation into Tibetan or Chinese – that speciﬁes the Hevajra. glosses sahajasiddha as svabhavasiddha. fols. 75–6. 169b6 (we also ﬁnd He! Samvara!. . Kosalalam. This ﬁnal translation effort probably would have occurred in the third quarter of the ninth century (ca. cf. fol. While I have no doubt (as opposed to others who have
.a 62 ˜a ¯ ¯ Buddhajn¯nap¯da emphasizes his teachers as his sources in Dvikramatattvabhavanaa ¯ ¯ mukhagama. fol. s . pp. fol. 170a1). ¯ Vajra!) in various texts. p. 166a1. I have uncovered no author or text from the eighth and early ninth centuries – as indicated in internal afﬁrmation (like Haribhadra’s). see Chos ’byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud. Until 1991. 850–875 CE). 64 The text is Hevajra Tantra.7–9: “‘O-bran bLo-gros dbang-phyug received the Thumbseal of Yamari. 168a3–7. vol. For Snellgrove’s somewhat obscure translation. fol. “L’inscription du Gane´a de Gardez et la chronologie des Turki-S¯hi. the identiﬁcation of Odiy¯na . fol.a title. 60 Mirashi (1976). 65 Shendge (1967). Sahajayogakrama. 68 ¯ For example. 67 ¯ ¯ Vyaktabhavanugatatattvasiddhi. ı 69 ˜a As has already been noted. p. 124a7–b1. after the collapse of the Royal Dynasty in the 840s. Tattvacaturupades aprasannad¯pa. 6–8. who have numbered the verses differently. pp.” ‘on bran blo gros dbang phyug la rgya gar tsan dra gir tis gsin rje gshed ‘theb rgya can la sogs pa gnangs ste bsgyur ro | de gnyis gsangs sngags snga ‘gyur gyi gzhug mar song ste |. 448. a Ody¯nas¯hi. indicated the dedication of a Gane´a statue by Khimg¯la of . Farrow and Menon (1992). 160b2. xlvii. 775–812 CE). 14a7. pp. from the Indian Candrak¯ ırti and translated it. fols. cf. 61 ˜¯ ¯ ¯ ´ ˜ ¯´ ¯ . s . dated by Kuwayama to either 753 or 765 CE. translation is mine. etc. 1b5–2a5. ı ¯´ Sahajasadyogavr ttigarbhaprakasa. he also indicates other Mahayoga Tantras. such as the Sarvabuddhasamayoga. 5–8.. fol. The inscription. 27. . fols. Vasantatilaka pp. albeit for increasingly obscure reasons. 2. . the Aloka. the Hevajra is not mentioned.REFRAMING SAHAJA
59 ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Sukusuma-nama-dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama-vrtti. etc. 197a2. Anandacaks u-t¯ka. Hackin (1924). It would be tempting to identify this Candrak¯ with ırti ¯ the Arya school master. The name “Hevajra” undoubtedly comes from the eighth century employment of this expostulation (Hey. on mutual reference.
but am uncertain as to the ultimate source of the doctrine. ı 73 ¯ Vanaratna’s commentary to the Vasantatilaka. 224. .ı ¯ 168a3–7. 78 This material is from the Sahajasiddhi-paddhati. These varieties of yoga will be explained in some detail in a work under preparation by the author on the esoteric Lam-bras practices. 89. 74 For the most extensive early discussion of this practice. 76 ¯ I have seen occasional mention of a sahajakaya in late authors concerned with the Samvara system. 174. pp.16–19. V. 167a1. 70. 199–200. see also the discussion on ¯ ˜¯ ¯ ¯ sahajananda in the Jnanatilakayogin¯tantraraja-paramamahadbhuta fols. 1b4–2a1: kun ‘gro’i lhan cig skyes zhi ba | rtag tu ‘byung zhing rang la gnas | dus kun du ni mi zad pa | rtog pas brtags pa spangs pa nyid | rang dang phyi rol nang na gnas | phyi dang nang las ma skyes pa | zung ’jug tshig gi don de ni | rgyu dang mi rgyu gnas pa las | dus kun du ni yang dag gnas | gzhung las ma gtogs rnyed mi ‘gyur | 82 Sahajasiddhi. 120a4–b5. 128. 166a1. see Oroﬁno (1997) for a survey of the issues. and given the remarkable religious imagination of Indians. 29ff. fols. fols. 161. 76. I prefer a date in the last quarter of the ninth or ﬁrst quarter of the tenth centuries. develops the themes of sahaja in the following verses. fols. 7–8.27. there is no evidence for an earlier date than the late ninth century and none in support of Snellgrove’s eighth century date. 77 ¯ Pod ser. IV. this could be achieved in a few decades. ¯ 190. Sahajanandaprad¯papanjika. 461–479 constitutes a text (Phyag rgya’i lam skor) and Indrabhutirelated traditions. 73. Kalacakra scholars have led on principles of dating esoteric scriptures. etc. 214. pp. 80 Davidson (1999) discusses the attitudes of esoteric authors towards the questions of epistemological validity.2260. Nonetheless. 123. Snellgrove’s “Introduction. ¯ Kalacakra Tantra. I discuss this text and its information in Davidson (forthcoming b). 27. 2260. Sekoddesat¯ka. 2. For the Indic basis of the two different practices. To.98. 57–8. 75 ¯ ¯ ˜ ¯ Anandacaks u-t¯ka.78
RONALD M. ı . pp. which I list for those who would desire to pursue the matter. 228. 62. fols. now that the ¯ Vimalaprabha is accessible: II. 118. 233. To. 158b2. III. Banerjee (1985). 6a6–7b2. 3a1–4: kha cig dngos grub dbang gnyis skyes | byis pa yun ring rgan sogs kyis | ‘bad pa yis ni thob mi ‘gyur | rgyu dang bcas pa’i skad cig ma | ‘khrul dang rnam par ‘khrul ‘dra ma | kha cig longs spyod rdzogs
. 120. for its importance has been obscured by Tibetan historians. Be that as it may. 123. 70 An excellent examination of bodhicitta in important esoteric systems in Namai (1997). 2260. 69. 38. Davidson (forthcoming b) summarizes what we know of this enigmatic ﬁgure. 71 ¯ ¯ ˜ ´ı ¯ This description of mahamudra is found in the Manjusr¯mulakalpa.5–168. DAVIDSON
voiced reservations) that in the culture of scriptural proliferation that marked Indian Buddhism.53. To.” p. pp.123–124. 164. 72 ˜¯ ´ ı ¯ Jnanodaya Tantra. 81 Sahajasiddhi. I plan to bring out all of this hagiographical material in the near future. 178. to which this refers. The . fol. 135. fols. p. fols.4. 4a5–6a5. 79 This summary is found Sahajasiddhi-paddhati. see the twelfth century Sras don ma. 114. Hevajra Tantra. 2a4–2b2: la la bdag ni lhan cig skyes | kha cig rmongs pas dbang phyug ste | bdag bcas ma yin bdag med pa | rtog pa gnyis ni spangs pa nyid | de ni zung ‘jug go ‘phang du | rgyal bas lhan cig skyes par gsungs | de nyid srog chags rnams kyi srog | de nyid mchog tu mi ‘gyur ba | de nyid kun la khyab pa yi | lus kun la ni rnam par gnas | bud med byis pa ba lang rdzi | kla klo dang ni rigs ngan dang | chu yi nang gnas sems can dang | lha dang gnod sbyin klur bcas pa’i | de rnams lhan cig skyes mis shes | ‘gro ba’i grong khyer dag tu ‘khyam | 83 Sahajasiddhi. p.
13a3. Bla ma rgya gar ba’i lo rgyus.1–173. ´ sufﬁciently representative to be included in Subhasita-samgraha. Asc. Translation ascribed to Amoghavajra between 746–774 CE. The Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama. fols. To. Prajn¯gupta. (1975).
. Asc. ed. Abhidharmakosabhasya. who. (1990). (1966). completed in the 23rd day of the 4th month of 1344. fol. Rare Buddhist Text Series – 8. ı 88 ¯ ¯ Mahamaya Tantra. 5 .6. there attributed to Sarahap¯da. ja.P. probably in the printing process. 3129. even though it is reported in good sources. Primary Sources
´ ¯. Asc. ¯ ¯ ¯ Caryamelapakaprad¯pa Asc. T.3. SKB III. ¯ ı ¯ . 23. 15. vol. Ascribed to bLa-ma Dam-pa bSod-nams rgyal-mtshan (1312–1375). ´ ¯. ed. Anangayogin.18. rgyud ‘grel. Rinpoche. (1977). fols. 149a1.2. Asc. Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi. . Lhasa: Bod ljongs mi dmangs dpe skrun khang. rev. bLa ma brgyud pa’i rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba. Hist. 154b2– . 87 ´ ˜ ¯ ¯ ı Sr¯ Hevajrapanjika Muktikaval¯. bsTan-‘gyur. 176-177. LL XVI.1. To. n. 5.–Filos.869. bsTan-‘gyur.284c–287c. Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan. Dutt. although the chronology is confused. but the sDe-dge edition has been artiﬁcially Sanskritized. Abhidharmakosabhasyam of Vasubandhu. 700–701) does not believe the expulsion story.P. Skrifter Ny Serie No. ¯ ˜a Anandacaks u-t¯ka. Pe. ˙ Dakin¯jalasamvarahrasya. Samdhong and Dwivedi.s.170. bsTan-‘gyur.5–4. SKB III. Pralhad. 28 lists the present date of 1335 as 326 years from the founding of Sa-skya in 1073 CE. and trans. 138b3.18. Jayaswal Research Institute. II. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series Vol.REFRAMING SAHAJA
pa’i gzhung | de ni lhan cig skyes brjod min | lte ba’i dbus su ‘khor lo mchog | de dbus gzi brjid gzugs can ni | sgrub pa po yis rtag bsgoms pa | de ni lhan cig skyes brjod min | spyi bor gnas pa’i ‘khor lo che | de la reg dang bde ba ‘bab | bya ba’i rab tu sbyor bas ‘thob | de ni lhan cig skyes brjod min | srog gi rlung ni ‘gog pa ru | ‘bad pa yis ni gang zhig byed | sna yi rtse mor rab gzhug bya | de ‘gog pa yis gang thob pa | de ni lhan cig skys brjod min | thur sel rlung ni ‘gog pa yis | lus ni gdung ba byas nas su | yang nas yang du goms par byed | de ni lhan cig skyes mi brjod | 84 ´ ¯ ¯ Sr¯-Birua-caurasi. 257a4–b4. eds.”
A. p. a fol. however (pp. Pradhan. Vrajvallabh. 86 Bla ma rgya gar ba’i lo rgyus. Nalinaksha. ngi. vol. also ties the aesthetic elements to “great bliss. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series. p. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Kværne. p. rgyud. 2nd. cf. 1803. the correct title for this work is provided ı in the Peking edition. VIII. Nyang nyi-ma ‘od-zer (1988). Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. ed. Patna: K. ı 57a2–106b7. Le Museon. ¯ ı Caryag¯ti. ¯ Bodhisattvabhumi. Klasse. Gangs can rig mdzod. 1201. 89 ¯ ¯ Vyaktabhavanutagatattvasiddhi. Maitr¯ ¯da’ hagiography has ıpa been discussed in Tatz (1987). fols. 2b5: dbu ma’i ‘dod lugs gzhung gi tshul | de ni rtsod kun la mos |. 7. 14. An Anthology of Buddhist Tantric Songs. p. Aryadeva.15. fols. this latter discussion was ¯. ¨ Chin kang ting ching yu ch’ieh shih pa hui chih kuei. rgyud.2–121. Patna: K. fol. 169.1. Jayaswal Research Institute. edn. Per. 138a6. 85 Sahajasiddhi. ¯ ¯ ¯ (1904).170. p. ı ¯ 159b7. tshi. Chos ‘byung me tog snying po sbrang rtsi’i bcud.
˜¯ ¯ ¯ ´ ˜ ¯´ ˜a Prajnaparamita-nayasatapancasatkat¯ka. ¯ ` Mahayanasutralamkara. s ıj˜a rgyud. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series. (1971). Rajpur. Pho brang stod thang ldan dkar gyi chos ‘gyur ro cog gi dka’ chag. Jn¯namitra. pp. ¯ ¯ ¯ Mahamaya Tantra. 25. 1853. (1994). ‘Les Textes bouddhiques au temps ˙ du Roi Khri-sron-lde-bcan’. eds. (1988). 6. 213b1–246b7. (1956).
. ´ı ¯ Kalacakra Tantra. Bibliotheque de l’Ecole des Hautes e ´ Etudes. ˜¯ ¯ ¯ Jnanatilakayogin¯tantraraja-paramamahadbhuta. 309. ri. above. 10. Rinpoche. ı ¯ Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute. a a ˜ Pancakrama: Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts Critically Edited with Verse Index and Facsimile Edition of the Sanskrit Manuscripts. Journal Asiatique 241(3): 313–353. Patna: ı . fols. Nanjio. . 368. Rajendralal. Indrabhuti. Pandeya. fols. ed. London: Oxford University Press. Asc. Mitra. Asc. London Oriental Series. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society. Vrajvallabh. Inc. Guhyadi-As. ed. Mahayanasutrasamgraha. Asc. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies.80
RONALD M. 1b1–245a7. Mimaki. N¯tisara. Biswanath. bKa’-‘gyur. ju. ed. . To. Vrajvallabh. dPal gsang ba ‘dus pa’i dam pa’i chos byung ba’i tshul legs par bshad pa gsang ’dus chos kun gsal pa’i nyin byed. Samdhong and Dwivedi. 272b7–294a5. Toru.. Bunyiu. fols. (1978). Rare Buddhist Text Series – ı . A-mes-zhabs Ngag-dbang kun-dga’ bsod-nams (1597–1662). Calcutta: The Asiatic Society. ed. . fols. ed. . A Critical Edition of Sr¯ ¯ ¯ Kalacakratantra-Raja (Collated with the Tibetan Version). 18. vol. Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. No. Tokyo: The Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies for Unesco. Buddhist Sankrit Texts No. ed. 5–62. To.ı ¯ yi.P. Banerjee. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Darbhanga: Mithila Institute. vol. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Guhyasamaja Mahaguhyatantraraja. Bibliotheca Otaniensis. . ˜¯ ¯ ¯ Jnanasiddhi. Rare Buddhist Text Series – 2. rgyud-‘bum. bsTan-‘gyur. (1907). Buddha´r¯ n¯na. . 31 Vols. (1992). The Hevajra Tantra: A Critical Study. Vrajvallabh. Asc. . ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ . (1985). ka. Paris: Libairie Honor´ Champion. ı ¯. Marcelle (1953). ´a ¯ . To. written 1634 (1985). bsTan-’gyur. bKa’-‘gyur. Yukei. 1b1–202a5. 159e fascicule. L. e ˜ ´ı ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ Manjusr¯mulakalpa. Part II. To. Dehra Dun: Sakya Centre. fols. Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan (1147–1216). ed. The N¯tisara or the Elements of Polity by Kamandaki. (1964). ¯ ¯ ¯ Dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama. 96b6–136b4. David L. Osaka: Toho Shuppan. eds. Lam ‘bras slob bshad (1983–1984). 422. 2503. N¯g¯rjuna. bsTan-‘gyur. eds. rgyud. U. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ´¯ Mahamayatantra with Gunavat¯ by Ratnakarasanti. Bibliotheca Codicum Asiaticorum 8. Rare Buddhist Text Series – 1. pp. C.ı ¯ rgyud. ˜ ¯ Pancakrama. with many additions..: Sakya Centre. Padmavajra. S¯kyamitra. ¯ ´ı Laghusamvara. . (1987). Sarnath. Snellgrove. Vaidya. Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. (Tantraraja-Sr¯-Laghusamvara) To. Pod ser. R. Kyoto: Otani University Press. Guhyasiddhi. ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ Lankavatara Sutra. DAVIDSON
dKar chag ldan dkar ma. 4364.tasiddhi. 2 Vols. In Rinpoche. 1b1–17b2. Matsunaga. Samdhong and Dwivedi. ˜¯ Jnanodaya Tantra. Samdhong and Dwivedi. Sylvain L´vi. rgyud-‘bum. Lalou. and trans.. ¯ Kosalalamkaratattvasamgrahat¯ka. Bibliotheca ı ¯ Indica No.tasiddhi-Sangraha. ı nga. 93–157. Asc. di. 1. Hevajra Tantra. Edited with Guhyasiddhi. Rinpoche. ´¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Madhyantavibhaga. ¯ Prad¯podyotanat¯kasatkot¯vyakhyana. Asc. LL XI. P. ˙ Sangraha. To. ¯ ˙ eds. fols. 2647. Guhyasamaja Tantra. Madhyanta-Vibhaga-Sastra. Sarnath. Katsumi and Tomabechi. Guhyadi-As. Revised with English Translation by Sisir Kumar ı ¯ ¯ Mitra (1982). ed.
bsTan-‘gyur. bKa’-‘gyur. rgyud-’bum. Buddhaguhya. zhi. fols. Pe. bKa’-‘gyur. fols. To. Asc. Vol. Yogin¯sancaratantram ı ˜ ¯ ı ˜ ¯ ¯ ´¯ ¯ ı ¯ ¯ ´ with Nibandha of Tathagataraksita and Upadesanusarin¯vyakhya of Alakakalasa. or Sarvabuddhasamayoga-dakin¯jala-sambara-nama-uttara. In Sakurai. T. rgyud. bsTan-‘gyur. tshi. 160a1– ı 208b1. zhi. rgyud-‘bum. bsTan-‘gyur. ¯ Vasantatilaka. The Complete Works of the Great Masters of The Sa Skya Sect of The Tibetan Buddhism. . rgyud. rgyud. 407–421. 185–191. ´ı ´ı ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ´ Sr¯-Birua-caurasi. . To.¯ thu. fols. Mario E. ¯ Gaekwad’s Oriental Series. Ghant¯p¯da. Sa-chen Kun-dga’ snying-po. ¯ ¯ Vyaktabhavanutagatattvasiddhi. Buddhaguhya. 151b1–193a6. bsTan-‘gyur. 895. Asc. Sekoddesat¯ka of Nadapada (Naropa). 2662.a a wa. Cecil. . Asc. LL XII. ´ı ˜ ¯ ¯ ı Sr¯-Hevajrapanjika Muktikaval¯. rgyud ‘grel. . ja.¯ rgyud. ¯ Vairocanabhisambodhitantrapin dartha. below. bsTan-‘gyur. Ratn¯kara´¯nti. 14 Vols. rgyud. 1189.. ed. 245–274.t¯rik¯´r¯ ıbhat.719a–746b. bsTan-‘gyur. To. n. tsha. fols. To. 169–179. a sa ga. Asc. ¯ ˜ ¯ ˜a Sahajananda-prad¯pa-panjika. . Sra don ma. nya. Virupa. 1242. ´ ´ Subhasita-samgraha. (1950). ¯ . ¯ Sahajasiddhi. Asc. 38a3–54b7. 3129.
. nya. Bendall. 138a4–139a6. Asc. a sa 194b6–196a3. Asc. rgyud. ¯ ¯ ¯ Sarvabuddhasamayoga. . fols. di. Yogin¯sancara Tantra. Asc. fol. s. ed. zhi. ¯ ¯ Sarvabuddhasamayoga-tantraraja (non canonical recension) (1981). Vitap¯da. Asc. Patna: Bihar Research Society. H. bsTan-‘gyur. Asc. Asc. 1247.a as ı). Ed. Bsod Nams Rgya Mstho. 1866. . fols. Ratnagotravibhaga Mahayanot´¯ taratantrasastra. 805. ı a pp. nacarya with Commentary: Rahasyad¯pika by Vanaratna. Ratn¯kara´¯nti. (1990) ¯ ¯ ı ´ ı . and trans. Johnston. Thagana. Le Museon . Tokyo: Toyo Bunko. ¯. 1435. translated by Shan-wu-wei in 726 CE. (1998). . bsTan-‘gyur. To. Janardan Shastri.REFRAMING SAHAJA
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Ratnagotravibhaga. To. Sa skya bka’ ‘bum. fols. 227b3–233a4. a . fols. Indo Mikkyogirei Kyenkyu. Domb¯ ıheruka.. rgyud. . Tillipa. ed.ı cf. wa. . Sahajayogakrama. To. Sahajasiddhi-paddhati. fols. ı fols. Bhutan: National Library. No. Indrabhuti. 4a3–25a1. 87a3–139b3. rgyud. Asc. 1–65a. . le Museon n. ed.ı ¯ tantra (canonical recension) To. Lha-lcam rje-btsun-ma dpal-mo (?*Dev¯ . fols. Munenobu (1996). rgyud. The mTshamsBrag Manuscript of the rNying-ma rgyud ‘bum. (1968). Asc. (1941).ı ¯ ´ . Pandey. ¯ Sahajasiddhi. 366. ´ . Vrajvallabh. ¯ ¯ Samksiptabhisekavidhi. eds.ı ¯ ¯ ¯ Sekoddesat¯ka. Rinpoche. 196a3–201a4. . bsTan-‘gyur. Included in Guhyasiddhi. 149a1. ¯ ¯ Subahupariprccha.11-446. ´ Tattvacaturupadesaprasannad¯pa. To.. Prajn¯gupta. Rare Buddhist Text Series – 7. 155b1–162a3. 118a–140b. ka. 1b1–4a3. fols. nyu. Edited with Guhyasiddhi. . Carelli. pp.18. above. . ¯ ¯ Subahupariprccha-tantrapindartha.s. ¯´ Sahajasadyogavr ttigarbhaprakasa. 1b1–26a7. ed. To. rgyud. To. fols. bsTan-‘gyur. 90. rgyud nya. ¯ ¯ ı ¯ Vasantatilkaa of Caryavrat¯ Sr¯kr. Shendge (1967). ¯ . 221a1–297a7.s. 1246. Baroda: Oriental Institute. 5 (1904): 5–46. bsTan-‘gyur. Asc.tasiddhi. 2261. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Sukusuma-nama-dvikramatattvabhavana-mukhagama-vrtti. To. Thimphu. Asc.. fols. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. E. Yogin¯ Cint¯. 2671. fols. ¯ ¯ Kyoto: Hozogan. bsTan-‘gyur. Guhyadi-As. 2260. Artiﬁcally Sanskritized to Sr¯-Virupapada-caturas ¯ti. rgyud. Samdhong and Dwivedi. To. pp. bsTan-‘gyur. above. ´ı ˜ Sr¯cakrasamvarapancakramavrtti. ˙ Sangraha. 4 (1903): 375–402. 2283.
VI. Shuyu (1966). (forthcoming b). Melanges chinois et bouddhiques. Sarnatha: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. Davidson. Yukei (1973). Indogoku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 15: 467–458. in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies. Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul e Geuthner. Yukei (1964). ed. vol. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Kanaoka. Shoshin (1991). (forthcoming a). Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum. ¯ ¯ ¯ Namai. ´ ¯ ¯ Mirashi. Vienna: ¨ Verlag der Osterreichischen Academie der Wissenschaften. . Inscriptions of the Silaharas. Calcutta: University of Calcutta Press. ¯ Guenther. vol. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Makransky. (1999). in The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association of Tibetan Studies. ‘A Doubt to Authority of the Guhyasam¯ja-Akhy¯na-tantras’. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press. 2. Tome II. Mission Pelliot en Asie Centrale. New Delhi: Archeological Survey of India. pp. Temenos 11: 88–135. Davidson. V. Hervert V. ‘Other People’s Rituals: Ritual Eclecticism in Early Medieval Indian Religious’. a Kuwayama. Ronald M. Davidson. John J. An Introduction to Tantric Buddhism. 1962. Dehli: Manohar. . in Dharma¯krti’s Thought and Its Impact on Indian ı and Tibetan Philosophy – Proceedings of the Third International Conference on ¨ ¯. N. Graz 1995. (1992). DAVIDSON
Rare Buddhist Texts Series – 21. I. Indogoku Bukkyogaku ¯ Kenkyu 21(2): 1013–1009. a ¯ a ¯ ¯ Indogoku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu 12: 844–835.a Kværne. Gray Texts. ‘The Litany of Names of Manjusr¯: Text and Translation ˜ ´ı ¯ of the Manjusr¯-namasamg¯ti’. JA 279: 267–287. XX. Buddhahood Embodied: Sources of Controversy in India and Tibet. Farrow. Jospeh (1924). pp. Secondary Sources
Bhattacharyya. (1993). Ronald M. Obscure Religous Cults As Background of Bengali Literature. ˜ ´ı Davidson. ed. Hervert V. and Menon. (1981). eds. Guenther. Shashi Bhushan (1950). Chishoo Mamoru (1997). V.. ı ´ Stein. ‘On the Concept of Sahaja in Indian Buddhist Tantric Literature’. ´ ` Hackin. Albany. (1997). (1976). Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History. W. Katsura Shoryu.
B. Dasgupta. ‘On bodhicittabhavana in the Esoteric Buddhist Tradition’.A. Ronald M. and the New Revelation’. Benoytsoch Bhattacharyya. ‘Gsar ma Apocrypha: The Creation of Orthodoxy. S´rie Petit in Octavo. pp. Per (1975). Matsunaga. ‘Mantray¯na. 1–69. edn. (1999). Helmut Krasser et al. ed. NY: State University of New York Press. Formulaire Sanscrit-Tibetain du Xe Siecle. ¯ a a Matsunaga. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. The Royal Song of Saraha.. ‘Kukur¯ja’. N. s des Turki-S¯hi’.
RONALD M. (1969). vol. Granoff. Mantranaya. Ecstatic Spontaneity: Saraha’s Three Cycles of Doha. Epistemological Nomenclature’. Vajray¯na’. ‘Masquerading as Pram¯na: Esoteric Buddhism and a. Shashi Bhushan (1946). in Tantric and Taoist Studies in Honour of R. Calcutta: University of Calcutta Press. Dasgupta. Dharmak¯rti and Pramana. Michael Strickmann. Journal of Indian Philosophy 28(4): 399–424. ed. Phyllis (2000). 657–668. ‘L’inscription du Gane´a de Gardez et la chronologie . Tantric Buddhism: Centennial Tribute to Dr. Vienna: Osterreichischen Akademie ı der Wissenschaaften. Ronald M. Rev. G. The Concealed Essence of the Hevajra Tantra. 25–35. David Germano.
. ¯ ¯ Shastri. Sa skya bka’ ‘bum. Shahidullah. Indo-Iranian Journal X: 126–149. Ui. . David Seyfort (1981). 1. Tring. (1957). (2000).
LL SKB To. ´ı Shendge.: Institute of Buddhist Studies. Shaeffer. in Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies. Ruegg. (1954). Sternbach. eds. of Sanskrit Literature’. T. eds. Tokyo: Daizokyokai
Department of Religious Studies Fairﬁeld University North Benson Road Fairﬁeld. Giacomella (1997). Les Chants Mystiques de Kanha et de Saraha: Les ¯ ¯ Doha-Kosa et Les Carya. Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and Their Tibetan Successors. Sendai: Tohoku Imperial University. Snellgrove. . A History of Indian Literature. eds. Indologica Taurinensia 1: 169–255. Journal of Indian Philosophy s . Oxford: Bruno Cassier. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. Vienna: ¨ Verlag der Osterreichischen Academie der Wissenschaften. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Helmut Krasser et al. Buddhist Himalaya: Travels and Studies in Quest of the Origins and Nature of Tibetan Religion. Journal of the American Oriental Society 107: 695–711. Hakuju et al. David L. A Forgotten Chapter in the Histories a. David L. 2. pp. ‘Subh¯sita-samgraha-s. Edward Conze.
Lam ‘bras slob bshad. Snellgrove. U. Ludwik (1973). fasc. ‘The Religious Career of Vairocanavajra – A TwelfthCentury Indian Buddhist Master from Daksina Ko´ala’.. 2 Vols. Oxford: Bruno Cassierer. ‘Apropos of Some Foreign Elements in the K¯lacakraa tantra’. vol. . (1934). Boston: Shambhala. Tatz.K. (1924–1935) Taisho ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ shinshu daizokyo. . (1967). Mohammed (1928). David L. Kurtis R. . ed. The Vajrabhairava Tantras: Tibetan and Mongolian Versions. ‘The Life of the Siddha-Philosopher Maitr¯ ıgupta’. Malati J. Snellgrove. ´ Siklos. Mark (1987). Graz 1995. . Hara Prasad (1916). 221–268. ¯˙ ¯ ¯ ¯. ¯. VII. 717–724. The Literature of the Madhyamaka School of Philosophy in India. Buddhica Britannica Series Continua VII. English Translation and Annotations. ¯¯ ¯.REFRAMING SAHAJA
Oroﬁno. Hajar Bacharer Purana Bangala Bhasay Bauddha Gan ¯ ˙ ıya a O Doha. (1987). Sde dge canon numbers found in Tohoku catalogue of Ui (1934). in Buddhist Texts Through the Ages. Calcutta: Bang¯ S¯hitya Parisat. ¯ Takakusu Junjiro and Watanabe Kaikyoku. 28: 361–384. A Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons ˆ (BKah-hgyur and Bstan-hgyur). ‘The Tantras’. vol. ‘Sr¯sahajasiddhi’. pp. Bulcsu (1996). .