Foreword

Foreward It goes without saying that the two basic pillars of the scholarly research into the philosophy and history of Buddhism are reliable editions of the original texts and their accurate reading. These may seem quite simple skills but do in fact require a great deal of professional expertise. Compared to such approaches as hermeneutical or comparative studies, which may appear rather fancy and far more attractive, the philological research, concerned primarily with the production of critically edited texts and/or annotated translations, is indeed less flashy. Without a solid base in this sober philological approach, however, it would be nigh on impossible to produce serious hermeneutical or comparative studies. The access to (as well as the correct reading of) the original texts which serve as reliable evidence for any research does remain the starting line of scholarly Buddhist studies as well as one of its ultimate objectives. The tireless efforts of the research team led by Professor Toshinori Ochiai, one of world leading experts in Buddhist philology, has brought major contributions to the field of Buddhist studies, first and foremost by making available rare Buddhist texts as well as facsimile, diplomatic, and critical editions of previously unknown versions of primary sources. The publication of the Bibliotheca Codicologica Nipponica series is, no doubt, one of its important results as well as part of these intense research efforts. The current volume, representing the eleventh instalment of the Bibliotheca Cod- icologica Nipponica, is dedicated to the Jīngāng cháng tuóluóní jīng 金 剛 場 陀 羅 尼 経 (*Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī) (for the hypothetical reconstruction of the title as well as its meaning, see Tenshō Miyazaki and Anju Nagao, ‘An Introduction of the Tibetan Version of the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī’ and ‘A Study on the Background to the Compilation of the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī’ included in this volume). Apart from editions of the Chinese and Tibetan translations, the volume also contains relevant studies (for more on this, see below). The *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī does not seem to have been a major sūtra in the history of Indian Buddhism, and consequently has not received much attention from modern researchers. Neither has the text become a key Buddhist scripture with a great following or range of influence in East Asia. Traditionally, the doctrines of the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī belong to the category of zámì/zōmitsu 雑密 ‘mixed/impure Esotericism’ or early/proto-Tantric Buddhism. The two extant Chinese translations of the text are indeed included in the ‘Tantric Section’ 密教 部 of the Taishō Canon 大正大蔵経 (see volume XXI, nos. 1344 and 1345). A careful study of the doctrinal framework and historical background of the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī provides us with important clues in understanding the birth of the Tantric current in Buddhism and its relationship to Mahāyāna Buddhism. Tantric Buddhism did not make a sudden appearance on the centre scene of Indian history. Like most other religious movements, it is the result of a slow, gradual process of development which involved both strong opposition to Hinduism, on one hand, and borrowing as well as (creative) assimilation of part of this very tradition, on the other. At the same time, Tantric Buddhism is part and parcel of the Buddhist tradition and did inherit (as well as re-interpret) much of its philosophy and praxis. In this respect, Tantric Buddhism, mainly in its early stages of development, is particularly indebted to the Prajñāpāramitā literature and its doctrines. Proto-Tantric texts like the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī are especially important as they reflect this transitional stage from (earlier) Mahāyāna Buddhism to the full-fledged Tantric movement. The Chinese compound 陀羅尼 , in Modern Mandarin transliteration tuóluóní (Early Middle Chinese pronunciation [following Edwin Pulleyblank, Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation, s.vv.]: /da-la-nri/; cf. Japanese pronunciation: /da-ra-ni/), is a phonetical transcription of the Sanskrit noun dhāraṇī. The basic meaning of the latter, at least in re- lation to Buddhist praxis, appears to be ‘holding/keeping’ (from the root √dhṛ) [in mind], i.e. committing to memory a special phrase or string of words. Or to put it more precisely and succinctly, a dhāraṇī is a ‘mnemonic formula’. The semantic range of dhāraṇī in Buddhist literature is extremely wide, but one common feature which stands out is that their sound was believed to possess a special power in itself. This explains why they have often been employed as magical spells, although the latter concept is larger and covered by other terms as well. (For details regarding the taxonomy and historical background of dhāraṇīs, see, first and foremost, Ronald M. Davidson. ‘Studies in Dhāraṇī Literature I: Revisiting the Meaning of the Term Dhāraṇī’. Journal of Indian Philosophy (Springer Nature) 37, 2 (2009), pp. 97–147; Ron- ald M. Davidson. ‘Studies in dhāraṇī literature II: Pragmatics of dhāraṇīs’. Bulletin of SOAS 77, 1 (2014), pp. 5–61; cf. also Jens Braarvig. ‘Dhāraṇī and Pratibhāna: Memory and Eloquence of the Bodhisattvas’. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 8, 1 (1985), pp. 17-29; Safarali Kh. Shomakhmadov. ‘O znachenii terminov dha- ranii i mantra buddiyskoy lis”mennoy traditsii’ [in Russian; English title, with abstract, ‘On the meanings of the terms dhāraṇī and mantra in the Buddhist written tradition’]. Orientalistica 4, 4 (2021), pp. 842-857; for general introductions, see David Snellgrove. Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and Their Tibetan Successors. Bangkok: Or- chid Press, 2004, especially pp. 141-144: ‘Magical Formulas’; Matsunaga Yūkei 松長有 慶 . Mikkyō no rekishi 密教の歴史 , Kyoto: Heiraku-ji shoten, 1969, especially pp. 27- 38: ‘Mahāyāna Buddhism and Dhāraṇīs’; Sakauchi Tatsuo 坂内龍雄 . Shingon darani 真 言陀羅尼 . Tokyo: Hirakwa shuppansha, 1981; etc.) The Buddhist literature confronts us with a vast repertoire of dhāraṇīs, some per- fectly intelligible and typically summing up key Buddhist doctrines or ideals, others hardly meaningful at all (at least in the conventional sense of the word). As a rule, the Chinese translators chose to leave these strings of words untranslated and simply transcribe them phonetically 音寫 . In India, the dhāraṇī practice, i.e. involving the single-minded, devot- ed incantation/repetition of the phrase, was by no means restricted to Tantric Buddhism. We find it endorsed and recommended in numerous other sources, Mahāyānika as well as Śrāvakayānika. In China, too, the use/incantation of dhāraṇīs seems to have been regard- ed as a general, wide-spread Buddhist practice rather than something typically Tantric (see Richard D. McBride, II. ‘Dhāraṇī and spells in medieval Sinitic Buddhism. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 28, 1 (2005), pp. 85-114). In spite of the wide recognition and usually high regard for dhāraṇīs in tradition- al Buddhism, these magico-mnemonical formulae came to be seen as a ‘lowly’ practice compared to the lofty Buddhist philosophy or deep meditative states (often described as defining features of the early – and pure! – forms of Buddhism, going back to Gotama Buddha), especially when judged from a rigidly rationalist viewpoint prevalent in modern times. Actually, magical spells like dhāraṇīs are already found in early Buddhist texts, and not necessarily in a pejorative context. The origin of the practice appears to be linked to the wide-spread use of mantras in the Vedas, the most authoritative and sacred corpus of the orthodox Brahmanical tradition. (See Frits Staal. ‘Vedic Mantras’. In Harvey P. Alper ed. Understanding Mantras. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1991, pp. 59-66 や Alex Wayman. ‘The Significance of Mantras, Veda and Buddhist Tantric Practice’. In G. Elder ed. Buddhist Insight: Essays by Alex Wayman. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, [1984] 1990, pp. 413-430.) In the Vedas, mantra basically refers to a ‘hymn’ or ‘ritual word(s)’, ‘magical formula(e)’, etc. As we shall see below, the term of mantra will also be adopted by later Buddhists. (The Chinese Esoteric tradition, followed throughout East Asia, preferred to render the Sanskrit mantra as zhēn yán (Jp. shin gon) 眞言 , i.e. ‘true word(s)’ or ‘word(s) of the Truth’, which is also the origin of the Japanese Buddhist school name of ‘Shingon’ 真言宗 ). The difference between mantra and dhāraṇī in Buddhist literature is not always clear. Different texts, genres, and historical periods may make use of various criteria and thus come up with their own distinctions. We, therefore, see occurrences where a more or less clear distinction is made between the two terms as well as occurrences where there is a good deal of semantic overlapping. And we actually even find such compounds as man- tra-dhāraṇī or dhāraṇī-mantra which combine together both words (e.g. Saddharma- puṇḍarīka Kern ed. 397.3: mantradhāraṇī; Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Kern ed. 396.3, 398.3, 399.9, 400.1, 401.1: dhāraṇīmantra). The Bodhisattvabhūmi sets up a general category of dhāraṇī, which is further divided into four subcategories. One of them is called mantradhāraṇī (Xuánzàng 玄 奘 renders it as 呪陀羅尼 or ‘spell-dhāraṇī’) (see Bodhisattvabhūmi Wogihara ed. 272.23- 273.3). The later Buddhist tradition, especially the full-fledged Tantric Buddhism (or at least part of it), alters this usage and mantra becomes the general category while dhāraṇī is regarded as one of its subtypes. For instance, according to the Mi ṭa dang rdo rje ’phren ba’i dbang chen skabs kyi sngon ’gro’i chos bshad (cited in Alex Wayman. The Buddhist Tantras: Light on Indo-Tibetan Esotericism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, [1973] 1993, pp. 64-65), gsang sngags (*mantra) is a general category which includes three subcategories, to wit, (1) gsang sngags or mantras proper, i.e. ‘magical spells’; (2) rigs sngags (*vidyā) or ‘knowledge’ [bestowing formulae]; and gzung sngags (*dhāraṇī) or ‘mnemonic formulae’. Whatever the name (and there are other technical terms as well!), it must be em- phasised again that the use and practice of magical formulae have not been limited to Tantric Buddhism. We find them in a wide variety of texts including not only Mahāyāna sources (some of them going back to the earliest strata of the tradition as the Saddharma- puṇḍarīka cited above) but also the Pāli Canon. The latter tradition of setting a certain importance to magically protective formulae appears to have been continued in Theravāda Buddhism, (roughly!) the most faithful inheritor of the early tradition. The Theravādins have a peculiar corpus of texts named paritta, mainly used and daily chanted for magical protection, a liturgical practice which probably goes back to before the dawn of the modern era. In Mahāyāna sources, more often than not, dhāraṇīs can serve (1) to protect and/ or deliver an individual, community, country, etc. from natural disasters and/or social suffering (e.g, Bhaiṣajyavastu, Mahāmāyūrī, etc., to name only a few of the relevant texts); and (2) to bring benefits/welfare to the multitude of people (bahujanahitāya), especially to those who preach (dharmabhāṇakānām) or believe in and preserve the particular sūtra (sūtrāntadhārakāṇām) revealing the dhāraṇī (see Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Kern ed. 399.7- 9; ibid. 396.2-3). However, the most typical use as well as role of a dhāraṇī in Mahāyāna literature remains (3) to help the practitioner commit to memory a certain key teaching (with or without magical effects). The use of dhāraṇīs is far from ‘lowly’ stooping to magical formulae in order to selfishly protect oneself from suffering. It also seems to be related to a ‘higher’ spiritual praxis. In this sense, it is, I believe, worth thinking of the dhāraṇī practice, especially in a contemplative setting, as a continuation of such old, canonically attested meditative techniques as dhammānussati ‘recollection of [key] teachings [/factors]’ and dhammānu- passanā ‘observation of [key] teachings [/factors]’. Dhāraṇīs actually appear to also be associated with the practice of samādhi ‘concentration’ or ‘contemplation’ (see Davidson 2009, pp. 103-105; also cf. the Tibetan translation of our text, the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī § 2.4, whose edition is included in the present volume; references here and below are to the section numbers used in this edition). At the beginning of the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī, the World-Honoured Buddha as well as leading bodhisattvas like Mañjuśrī, Avalokiteśvara, etc. (see ibid. §§ 1.1., 1.4., 1.5., 1.6., 1.7.) enter a deep meditative concentration/contem- plation (ting nge ’dzin; *samādhi) named ‘abiding in the sameness of all phenomena’ (chos thams cad la mnyam pa nyid du gnas pa; *sarvadharmasamatāsthāna). This narrative detail cannot be separated from the general Mahāyānist trend of connecting the practice of dhāraṇīs to samādhi. This spiritual dimension of the dhāraṇī praxis appears to be mainly emphasised in the Prajñāpāramitā literature as well as in those texts attempting to refine and re-interpret the doctrine of emptiness (śūnyatāvāda) like the Bodhisattvabhūmi (which will later become a foundational scripture in the Yogācāra school). To give only a few examples, in the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāparamitā (see Mitra ed. 510=Wogihara ed. 959.2-3), for instance, Bodhisattva Dharmodgata begins his sermon on the profound meaning of prajñā only af- ter having ‘dwelt in those contemplations born out of the perfection of wisdom’ ([…] ete samādhayaḥ prajñāpāramitānirjātā yatra sthitair […]). Amongst the numerous qualities with which Dharmodgatabodhisattva is endowed, the first one mentioned by the text is his mastery of dhāraṇīs (dhāraṇīpratilabdhaḥ) (see Mitra ed. 510-511=Wogihara ed. 959.89). In a similar vein, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāparamitā sets forth the path of spiritual cultivation first describing the old meditative techniques of the four applications of mindfulness (catvāri smṛtyupasthānāni), etc. (see Dutt ed. 203.22ff.) – so far pretty much a standard description of the path as also found in Abhidharma literature – and then expounds the ‘Dhāraṇī Gate’ (dhāraṇīmukha) (see ibid. 212.8-214.5). This is identified as being no other than the ‘Great Vehicle of the bodhisattva, the great being’ (bodhisat- tvasya mahāsattvasya mahāyānam (ibid. 212.8). The actual praxis of the Dhāraṇī Gate consists in the realisation of the ‘sameness of all syllables/letters’ (akṣarayanasamatā) [i.e. linguistic expressions/conventions]. This is further described by means of the mysti- cal arapacana syllabary, which confers special meaning(s), related to key Prajñāpāramitā teachings, to each letter of the Indic alphabet. The first teaching introduced in this context is the ‘non-arising of the entire [range of] phenomena from the [very] beginning’ (sarvadharmāṇām ādyanutpannatvāt) (ibid. 212.9-10). It is, I hope, not too far-fetched to surmise that the Dhāraṇī Gate praxis, or similar teachings and practices closely related to the Prajñāpāramitā system, may have had an im- pact on the formulation of the Buddha’s contemplation, i.e. chod thams cad la mnyan pa nyid du gnas pa = *sarvadharmasamatāsthāna (see above), as described at the beginning of the Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī (Tib. ed. § 1.1.). Whether this derives directly from the Pañ- caviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāparamitā passage cited above is difficult to say, but on the other hand, a strong Prajñāpāramitā influence on the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī is hard to deny. A hypothesis which postulates (and actually traces in written sources) the historical process of gradual transition from the Prajñāpāramitā to (what would later be called) ear- ly or proto-Tantric Buddhism allows us to understand better the major influence played by the doctrine of emptiness, etc. in the formation of the doctrinal framework and praxis system of the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī. I surmise that the authors and editors behind the socalled early or proto-Tantric Buddhist works did not probably perceive themselves as the creators/bearers of a new religious movement. They may have rather seen themselves as part of and continuators of the Mahāyāna tradition, especially of the Prajñāpāramitā cur- rent, in spite of their stress on dhāraṇīs and similar practices. (The major role played by the Prajñāpāramitā in the formation of the Tantric Buddhism has been also pointed out by some of the leading specialists in this field; see Matsunaga, op. cit., pp. 73ff.) Furthermore, the influence of the Prajñāpāramitā literature, albeit in a largely esoterically re-interpreted fashion, can also be seen in the later Tantric tradition. Let us only note here the link between the Prajñāpāramitā and the late Tantric corpus called ‘Prajñā/Mother Tantras’ (in spite of the latter’s heavily borrowing from the Hindu Tantric tradition, too). By paying more attention to a pattern of gradual growth in Indian history, which is supported by a closer look at the extant documents and facts known to us, rather than stressing a dotted line of discontinuity and sudden developments, we can better understand why a text like the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī makes frequent reference to such doctrines as emptiness (e.g. *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī Tib. ed. § 2.4.) and non-duality (ibid. §§ 2.2., 2.3.). Furthermore, as pointed out by Tenshō Miyazaki and Anju Nagao (see ‘A Study on the Background to the Compilation of the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī’ included in this volume), the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī is cited by Candrakīrti in his famous Prasannapadā (Tib. Tshig gsal; Ch. 淨明句論 ). Again, a historical perspective emphasising continuity allows a bet- ter understanding of the context as to why (what to many modern readers may a appear as a mere proto-Tantric work like) the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī is quoted by one of the greatest Mādhyamika writers. Candrakīrti may have actually had quite a different perception of the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī placing the text in the wider context of śūnyavāda teachings. The *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī does not, however, merely re-iterate Prajñāpāramitā doc- trines in an automatic fashion. The philosophical ‘fingerprints’ left by the author(s) of the text also show an attempt to develop such doctrines as emptiness, etc. We can adduce here the passage dealing with the topic of the three poisons (Skt. triviṣa; Tib. dug gsum; Ch. 三毒 ), i.e. passion (*rāga), aversion (*dveṣa), and bewilderment (*moha). Each of these poisons is declared by our text to be the very foundation of the dhāraṇī (*dhāraṇīpada) (see *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī § 2.5: ’dod chags ni gzungs kyi gzhi zhes bya’o ||; § 2.6: zhe sdang ni gzungs kyi gzhi’o ||; § 2.7: gti mug ni gzungs kyi gzhi’o ||). Of course, one can also discern here the influence of the pan-Mahāyānist theme of the ultimate identity of Nirvāṇa and the cycle of rebirths (saṃsāra), which encapsulates the bodhisattvic ideal of continuing the messianic activity of saving all sentient beings while remaining in this world (for a formulation of this motif, see, for instance, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā Ch. 25, ver. 19: Skt. na saṁsārasya nirvāṇāt kiṁcid asti viśeṣaṇam| na nirvāṇasya saṁsārāt kiṁcid asti viśeṣaṇam|| Kumārajīva’s Ch. translation: 涅槃與世間 無有少分別 世間與 涅槃 亦無少分別 ). Nonetheless, the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī position appears to take this a little further. Though not exactly a radical re-interpretation, it contains hints of what would become a defining doctrine of the late Tantric philosophy, i.e. the concept of fusion or integration (Skt. yuganaddha; Tib. zung ’jug; Ch. 雙 入 ). The latter was interpreted in various ways, the most typical being the fusion of the masculine principle represented by the great compassion (mahākaruṇā) and/or skilful means (upāya), on one hand, and the feminine principle, standing for the transcendental wisdom (prajñā), on the other. In the context of the citation from our sūtra, I should like, however, to focus on yet another interpretation of the concept, to wit, the fusion between the (trans-)intellectual principle of the highest gnosis which awakens to the truth of the emptiness (śūnyatā) and the (trans-) emotional or sensual principle of the great bliss (mahāsukha). (For a relevant example of the latter interpretation, see Indrabhūti, Jñānasiddhi VII.3, Gaekwad’s Oriental Series ed.: sarvatathāgataṃ jñānaṃ svasaṃvedyasvabhāvakaṃ | savasaukhyāgrabhūtatvāt mahāsukham iti smṛtam ||). The current volume of the Bibliotheca Codicologica Nipponica series makes widely accessible the text of the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī in two extant Chinese versions as well as an edition of the Tibetan translation. (Unfortunately, the Sanskrit original has not survived, which makes reliance on the Tibetan and Chinese versions unavoidable.) Part One of the volume includes a facsimile reproduction of the old manuscript containing Jñānagupta’s 闍那崛多 Chinese translation of the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī, i.e. the Jīngāng cháng tuóluóní jīng 金剛場陀羅尼経 (actually a famous calligraphical mas- terpiece recognised as a Japanese National Treasure), so far hardly accessible even to specialists, as well as a diplomatic edition cum collation and Japanese kundoku render- ing of the same text in its Gogatsu tsuitachi 五月一日 manuscript version (dating back to Nara period). It further contains a diplomatic edition cum collation of the Jīngāng shàng wèi tuóluóní jīng 金剛上味陀羅尼経 , the other Chinese translation of the *Va- jramaṇḍadhāraṇī by Buddhaśānta 佛陀扇多 . The introductory studies penned by such leading scholars in the field like Professor Toshinori Ochiai, Eikei Akao, and Kazuki Sugimoto provide detailed information on the philological features and historical background related to these versions. A unique characteristic of this volume, reflected in Part Two, is the inclusion of an excellent edition of the Tibetan translation of the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī, i.e. the rDo rje’i snying po’i gzungs, which takes the sDge dge edition as its basic text 底本 , and collates it with five other manuscript and xylographic textual witnesses. This is also tentatively rendered 試訳 into Japanese and annotated. Part Two also contains detailed introductory studies on the Chinese and Tibetan textual witnesses as well as an analysis of the original title and historical background of the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī. We owe the Tibetan edition and its Japanese rendering as well as all the studies included in Part Two to Tenshō Miyazaki and Anju Nagao. The publication of Volume XI of the Bibliotheca Codicologica Nipponica series represents an important contribution to the study of Buddhism as well as a source of great joy for our college. It gives all readers the opportunity to revisit and re-assess the importance of the *Vajramaṇḍadhāraṇī, a text abounding in fascinating philological, historical, and doctrinal details. International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies, President Florin Deleanu