New History Of Tantric Lieterature In India

SR No.: 269595
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong
Total Pages: 23
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 3 MB

Page 21

A NEW HISTORY OF TANTRIC LITERATURE IN INDIA
111 plains why this text is not quoted in the Pradipoddyotana as a scriptural authority.
The Śrijñanavajrasamuccaya (Tohoku no. 450) is similar to V. but much more detailed. It contains many teachings which are not found in V. It must therefore have been composed after V. M. summarises the results of his studies in the texts of the 'Phags-lugs by indicating the order in which the texts are composed : 1. Vajramālātantra chapters 1-67; 2. Pindikštasadhana and the Pancakrama in its original form; 3. Vajramalatantra chapter 68; 4. The Pañcakrama in its present form ; 5. The first half of the Vajrajñānasamuccayatantra ; 6. Pradipoddyotana ; 7. The second half of the Vajrajñanasamuccaya ; 8. Srijñanavajrasamuccaya.
The Mūlatantra and the Uttaratantra of the Guhyasamaja were composed around 800 A. D. The 'Phags-lugs flourished around 1000 A. D. Between 800 and 1000 many new doctrines and practices arose in the 'Phags-lugs, and in order to legitimise them it was necessary to fabricate Ākhyānatantra-s or to make additions to existing Akhyanatantra-s.
In the last section of Chapter IV (IV. 4) M. studies the Mañ juśtimülakalpa (Ma.), the Sanskrit text of which was published in three volumes by Ganapati Sâstrî (Trivandrum, 1920, 1922 and 1925). Ma. was characterised by Jean Przyluski in the following way: "C'est une sorte d'encyclopédie qui traite, sous forme de sermons, des sujets les plus variés : iconographie, rituel, astrologie, etc....” The Sanskrit text contains 55 chapters, the Tibetan translation 37 and T'ien-hsi-tsai's Chinese translation (T. 1191) 28. Moreover, there are Chinese translations of several other chapters (41, 50, 51 and 55). M. compares the different texts in Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese.
Ma. has been studied by Indian and Western scholars. M. relates briefly the opinions of Bhattacharya, Snellgrove and Dutt on the date of Ma. before discussing in greater detail the opinion expressed by Przyluski. Przyluski compared three Chinese translations of a text relating to the mantra of Mañjuśri (T. nos. 1181, 1182 and 956) with chapter 14 of Ma. However, chapter 9 is much closer to T. 1181 and 1182, which were translated in 702 and 703. This chapter must therefore already have been in existence at the end of the seventh century. The 41st chapter of Ma. (Garuda patalaparivarta) was translated into Chinese by Amoghavajra. However, the second half of Amoghavajra's trans
8 "Les Vidyārā ja. Contribution à l'histoire de la magie dans les sectes Mahāyānistes', BEFEO 23
(1923), p. 301. Przyluski's study is based on the first volume only of Ganapati Sastri's edition (cf. pp. 302—303). This has been overlooked by Matsunaga, who reproaches him for not having studied the relations between the Sanskrit text of chapter 41 and the corresponding Chinese translation